CBC Radio’s Laugh Out Loud recorded my performance on the No Foul Language Comedy Tour at the Showplace Theater in Peterborough.
If you missed it when it originally aired you can listen here
Also on this episode is the very funny Denis Grignon, the man who organized the show!
The debate over public transportation, what form it should take, who should pay for it and where it should go seems to be a perennial issue. Because of this I have leveraged my considerable expertise to devise a remarkable new system which solves many of the problems with current public transportation strategies.
The system is based on an interconnected network of transportation infrastructure that provide passages to almost every conceivable location. Construction would require large tracts of land to be appropriated and fully dedicated to their use, but the entire system could be built and maintained at a cost of mere billions of dollars annually. This is a cost that would be shared by all levels of government.
Access to the transportation network would be provided by a specialized device. This device requires no development and is built on tried and tested technology which is widely available today. This would allow the devices to be manufactured and then sold to commuters for a price of $20 to $100 thousand dollars. Eventually used devices may be available at a cheaper price. Once the commuter is in possession of the device they can access the transportation network at any time from anywhere and only pay for the distance travelled. Though the cost would depend on a number of factors I estimate the cost at about 12 cents per kilometer.
With current public transportation systems there are those who seek to cheat the system. They will not pay the appropriate fare or will jump turnstiles, robbing the system of revenue and passing those costs on to other commuters. With the new proposed system this will not be a problem as anyone who tries to access the network without the specialized device would move at a severely reduced speed and would be at risk of serious injury or death.
To make sure everything ran smoothly some government oversight would be required. In order to cover the costs of this oversight, additional fees would be paid by commuters to ensure their devices were in safe operating condition and that they are capable of using it correctly. An additional fee would also be paid monthly to a private company who would then protect the commuter financially in the event that their device is damaged, stolen or kills someone who is trying to access the network incorrectly. A certain portion of the law enforcement community would have to divert their efforts to make sure that the above rules were being followed.
Unlike other transportation systems the one being proposed would not suffer from capacity issues. Because the system is so widespread geographically even if certain high-density areas become congested there is always excessive capacity elsewhere in the system. In fact by their very design the networks in lower density areas will always be able to carry more commuters than will ever use it. In this way the system as a whole is much more efficient.
While I have been intentionally vague on the technical details of the device and the network as a whole I trust that you all agree that this is the optimal solution that is in the best interest of every person and business. Please write to your local politician, tell them about this plan and that you support fair, accessible, and affordable transportation!
I’ll be hosting this fantastic burlesque show.
hears the problem with grammer and spelling “nazi’s”. Its not that your wrong, its not that people shouldn’t know how to spell, reed and right or just generally communicate good. The prolbem is that What you are doing is a symptom of a much larger and more sinister problem: that is we are choosing style over substance. we pay more attention to how things are said rather than what is being said. We here but do not listen.
When you criticize someone for using your instead of you’re or their instead of there what you are doing is completly glossing over the intent or message of that communication. your basicaly saying that tThe opinion of this person need not be considered because they have violated some simple rule that is a prerequisite for you’re attnetion and understanding.
It matters not that the person was attempting to express some thought, opinion or experience different them you or That they were reaching out to others to attempt mutual understanding.
Communication is hard. Understanding is harder.Often people do not or can not express what they mean by what they say. But you can tell what they mean of you listen, if you pay attention to what they are trying to say rather than how they are saying, if you pay attention to what they want rather than what they are asking for. believe me the signs are all their for you to read if you just lookj for them.
There are a lot of people in the world who dont feel like they have a voice. many who are struggling to be heard. The Internet has given so many a voice but it’s a voice we quickly dismiss over a typo or misplaced comma.
Look past that. Look at what the person is trying to say. Understand their perspective.
That is the point of all communication to connect and understand. So stop criticizing and start listening