Slashdot Mirror


Bicycles As a Gateway To Government Control

somaTh writes "Dan Maes, a candidate for governor of Colorado, thinks he's found an international conspiracy that starts with bike sharing. The article describes his current complaints with the incumbent's policies. 'The bike program in it of itself, if that's all it is, I wouldn't be opposed to it,' Maes told 9NEWS. 'What I am opposed to is if it's part of a bigger program that the mayor has signed on to as part of a UN program. That I would be opposed to.' He goes on to argue that the bicycle program is only a gateway into bigger policies including, but not limited to, forced abortions and population control. I understand that bike seats are uncomfortable, but I had no idea it was on purpose."

66 of 634 comments (clear)

  1. Commie Bikes !!! by Worchaa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OMG !!! ...what a jackass.

    --
    - Marching Band: It's not just for breakfast anymore
    1. Re:Commie Bikes !!! by node+3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The political spectrum in America has shifted so far to the right that pre-80s Republicans and modern-day Democrats are very similar. Eisenhower, Nixon, Theodore Roosevelt, would all be drummed out of the Republican party today for being extreme liberal socialists.

    2. Re:Commie Bikes !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      aye... maybe one has to be actually paying attention over the decades to notice that. Compared with OURSELVES just a few decades ago - the Democrats are screaming corporatists and the Republicans are so far across the spectrum you have to have special goggles to see them.

    3. Re:Commie Bikes !!! by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And you think that killing people before they have demonstrated they are a blight on society is somehow better? I mean forget morals and family values as it's typically tossed around to make some people feel good, but can you seriously sit there and say that killing people before the do something wrong is preferred?

      Or were you just making a joke and I missed it?

  2. I didn't know by compucomp2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that the UN would be coordinated enough with all of its corruption and ineffectiveness (especially if you listen to guys like Maes) to execute such a nefarious plot.

    1. Re:I didn't know by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The UN can be, like Obama, both corrupt and ineffective, and diabolically genius at the same time. The rich can be corrupt plutocrats who purchase government wholesale, and an oppressed minority who desperately need tax cuts, all at the same time. Conservative thinking requires no logical connection between its premises.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:I didn't know by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unlike Slashdot where everyone agrees 100% with everyone else, the republican party is made up of many individuals with differing opinions, and those opinions sometimes conflict with each other.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    3. Re:I didn't know by spun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wish Democrats were that organized and good at staying on message. The Democrats' problem is that they fight amongst themselves all the time because they can't all agree on the right way forward. Exactly the opposite of Republicans.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    4. Re:I didn't know by Americano · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This would be an awesome point, if only "corrupt," "ineffective," and "diabolical genius" were traits that were mutually exclusive of one another!

      Just as calling for tax cuts on the wealthy need not conflict with the assertion that there are corrupt plutocrats who are purchasing the government wholesale, unless you're claiming that the only reason we have taxes are to keep people from getting too rich to corrupt the political process? Or are you suggesting that once someone gets some money, they will always turn to corrupting the political process?

      Pairing a couple claims you disagree with doesn't mean that the positions are incompatible with one another. It is entirely possible to be a diabolical genius who is both corrupt, and ineffective. It is also possible to hold the economic policy that tax cuts on the wealthy are a good thing while decrying the fact that some wealthy people who happen to be corrupt are purchasing the government wholesale. The positions are not logically inconsistent with one another, you just happen to disagree with them.

    5. Re:I didn't know by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wish Democrats were that organized and good at staying on message. The Democrats' problem is that they fight amongst themselves all the time because they can't all agree on the right way forward. Exactly the opposite of Republicans.

      What, they all agree completely on the wrong way forward?

      Yes, as I said, Republicans all agree on the wrong way forward.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    6. Re:I didn't know by konohitowa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The UN can be, like Obama, both corrupt and ineffective, and diabolically genius at the same time.

      Conservatives really need to fix that problem. Liberals dealt with their equivalent insanity regarding Bush by creating puppet masters. Karl Rove seemed to be their favorite.

    7. Re:I didn't know by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps you could point me to an example of a serious Republican debate over policy, where Republicans differ, and their differences are not stifled immediately as they are forced to tow the party line.

      So you're not familiar with the Tea Party? Look specifically into the issues they avoid, and you'll find what you're claiming doesn't exist. A big one is defense spending. Many Red Team players insist on writing a blank check and killing everyone who isn't an American. Others want to see the MIC reduced to a mere National Guard. Religion is also a wedge issue. Racism, too.

      On the Blue Team, you'll find similar woes. Note how every Amendment that Liberals like is a natural right given to 'all people', except the Second.

      Partisanship is a disease of the mind, and should be purged.

    8. Re:I didn't know by node+3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, but this insane Tea Party bullshit is being embraced by the Republican party. The most recent Republican party candidate for Vice President claimed that the Democrats are trying to put into place "death panels". Quit trying to pretend this is some sort of outlier.

    9. Re:I didn't know by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would offer up as counter evidence, FDR, Lincoln, even Eisenhower. Programs like Social Security and medicaid have helped millions and ensured a stable society. Without government, we would have no workplace safety laws, no child labor laws, we would still have segregation in the south, hell, we would still have slavery. Government is only a problem when the rich are allowed to corrupt the democratic process. Good government does not end up as evil without help, and that is what we need to stop, not government itself.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    10. Re:I didn't know by magus_melchior · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The point is, you're not much of a genius if you're ineffective at what you're doing. Conservatives and libertarians love to point out that national government (and exclusively national government) is both a bumbling bureaucracy that can't do anything right, and, simultaneously, this amazing Machiavellian mastermind that will crush the 5% of this country who control over 80% of this country's wealth. The problem is, reality doesn't fit with the latter (especially considering that Democrats and Republicans both want a cut of that 80%), and the former is at best an exaggeration. Worst of all, the entire political Right (many libertarians included) has bought into Grover Norquist's ideal size of government, when even this country's founders found that an effective government, complete with all those onerous taxes, tariffs, and regulatory oversight, is crucial to stave off the kind of stuff we see in Somalia. Or perhaps that's precisely what Norquist wants?

      I have to say that I'm rather sick and tired of the Right putting out crazy statements as if they were true and all but bludgeoning anyone who dares call them on it with the "liberal bias" bullshit canard. Another sick example of this is the Right's consistent referral of the President to a king and/or some liberal messiah, as if Obama's supporters all believe he's this demigod out to destroy conservatism. Imagine if The Nation or Kos referred to Bush like that in 2004? They would be bombarded by the corporate (no, not liberal) media.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    11. Re:I didn't know by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unlike Slashdot where everyone agrees 100% with everyone else

      You do notice that you're arguing with someone here, which means there are at least two people disagreeing, right? Also, you're both being modded up, which means that some people agree with you and some people agree with him.

      It often seems to me that when someone complains here about Slashdot groupthink, it's because they say dumb things and have no ability to process intelligent disagreement.

    12. Re:I didn't know by cduffy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anti-taxation. Pro-Constitution. Gosh. The insanity.

      If that was the extent of the positions that the vocal mouthpieces of the Tea Party movement tended to take, I daresay they'd be substantially less controversial.

  3. And this is the problem with America by davmoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No matter how way out these whack-jobs are, there are people who believe them and will vote for them.

    --
    I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
    1. Re:And this is the problem with America by HangingChad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      there are people who believe them and will vote for them.

      Too many people spending too much time watching the Fox Propaganda Network.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    2. Re:And this is the problem with America by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... the MSNBC lefty spin vortex ... the NPR Intelligensia Superiore Ruling Class network ... the ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN all-Obama-pats-on-the-back-all-the-time networks ...

      Thank you for demonstrating so thoroughly what GPP was talking about.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:And this is the problem with America by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One explanation for what you perceive could be that there's a vast conspiracy controlling most of the news media.

      Another, much simpler, explanation could be that you're wrong.

      Occam's Razor FTW?

    4. Re:And this is the problem with America by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One explanation for what you perceive could be that there's a vast conspiracy controlling most of the news media

      Who said anything about a conspiracy? I'm pointing out that most "news" outlets have an editorial orientation, and that the majority of those very demonstrably lean noticeably to the left. To pretent otherwise is absurd. That's what makes the shrill, foot-stamping, name-calling stuff aimed at one cable channel ring so particularly hollow.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    5. Re:And this is the problem with America by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh, no.

      MSNBC, sure. If you think most of the news outlets are liberal, that says something about you, not about most news outlets: basically, that you think the center or a lack of bias is somewhere much more right of where it actually is.

    6. Re:And this is the problem with America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think there is definitely a left of center bias, I suspect it simply has to do with where the networks expect viewers, where they are based, and the educational background of journalists (usually attending journalism schools with professors that are pretty left leaning compared to you're average blue collar worker in one of the flyover states). I don't think it's a conspiracy. I think talk radio and fox news have tapped into a market that the other major "news" providers have skipped, however. It's about money and market pressures, you might not like that, but nothing makes msnbc or newsweek more authoritative or unbiased, and having a state run official press is a bad idea, since it only is reliable as long as the government stays honest, which is when you need a free press the least anyway.

  4. South Park by bsDaemon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's like the Dances With Smurfs episode of South Park where butters says to Cartman, "Like what you have to say, like how the President never does anything and how she's changing everything!". Pretty much just like that. I think its a form of cognitive dissonance or something.

  5. Gov Conspiracy by alphatel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Also brought to you by the Folks Who Is Convinced That Mr. Obama is one of them Muzlams

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    1. Re:Gov Conspiracy by blair1q · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hey, if you could install a brain fungus in 20% of the people that would make them vote for your plutocratic ideal without knowing about it, you would.

    2. Re:Gov Conspiracy by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey, if you could install a brain fungus in 20% of the people that would make them vote for your plutocratic ideal without knowing about it, you would.

      No I wouldn't, neither would you, neither would most people. We haven't been brainwashed into thinking that oppressive control is a central tenant of civilization like the rich have. Those raised rich, as a general rule, are taught that civilization needs the stick, and you can either be the one wielding it, or the one getting hit by it.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:Gov Conspiracy by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I dunno, but I'd hate to have to drag my yak to the grocery store to trade for supplies. Money is a whole lot more convenient, and doesn't shit the rug, which also is a plus.

    4. Re:Gov Conspiracy by blair1q · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's because you're standing on the sidelines watching the chaos and thinking it's not your fight when you should be in the middle of it holding ground.

      Politics is like the inverse of the Heisenberg principle. If all you do is observe it, you know exactly what is going to happen.

  6. Republican by siriuskase · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In case you care, he's a Republican. I wonder how closely he follows the party line? Or maybe party is irrelevant on /.

    --
    If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    1. Re:Republican by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As far as I can tell, the Republican Party Line seems to be just a little bit of bad cocaine cut with a walloping dose of PCP.

      It does explain things. Really.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  7. It is what we want... by laughing+rabbit · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...we keep electing them.

    Bless their pointy little heads.

    --
    No incumbents, not no where, not no how.
    Vote them out every term.
    1. Re:It is what we want... by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course you keep electing them. What choice do you have? It's not like there's a "none of the above" option on the ballots, to leave the position vacant for a term.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  8. It seems... by golden+age+villain · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It seems that there is no lower bound in politics.

  9. FTFA: by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "It's all part of this population control mentality that we as humans are the disease," Strauch said.

    Yes, from the point of the view of the planet and every other living thing, we are the disease. There's somewhere around 6+ billion people, happily eating, consuming, polluting, and destroying to our hearts' content. Installing higher efficiency light bulbs or buying Prius' or switching to riding a bike aren't going to avert a collapse in our global ecology/economy. We have to stop destroying our food and ecosystems on which we rely and undo the damage we've done. In short, stop charging to our children's credit cards, start paying them off, then start saving. Switching to riding a bike is like spending just a little less on their credit cards. We have to do so much more.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    1. Re:FTFA: by batquux · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes if everybody on the planet each got a knife made out of recycled glass and used it carefully to murder a neighbour, then the whole problem would be halved over night.

      More than halved. Actually, that would about take care of it.

    2. Re:FTFA: by Smauler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      World overpopulation is a temporary problem. Nearly every indigineous Western population is experiencing population decline, and many western populations have been seeing this for 100 years or so. The richer people get, the better educated people get, the less they have children. The number one best way to decrease population growth currently is to make sure people have more money, and make sure they're decently educated.

      That being said, world population is forecast to continue growing until about 2060, when it'll hit about 9 billion, then start declining. We've the technology _now_ to feed 9 billion people (note - very very few people die of starvation now - malnutrition is often caused by diseases)... the trouble is the impact on other species.

      I'd love the world population to be reduced drastically now, if there weren't people that would be culled in the process. As much as having a lower population is beneficial IMO, there is no way to achieve it without unacceptable cost.

    3. Re:FTFA: by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow, I thought the guy was utterly insane when I clicked on the story, now I realize he's talking about guys like you. Not to say I agree or disagree with your viewpoint, but you just verified he's ranting against a real group, not a vague strawman like I thought originally. So disappointing when I thought I was going to be able to laugh at him.

      --
      Qxe4
    4. Re:FTFA: by CraftyJack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If everybody went next door to murder a neighbor, no one would be next door to be a victim.

      There's a 50% chance you'll have a fight to the death with the guy from two houses down.
      (Assuming everyone flips a coin to go right or left, assuming 1 person per house, assuming you don't tangle with anyone on the way, etc.)

    5. Re:FTFA: by Americano · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Once again, you're identifying the problem as "too many people". If that's the case, then why aren't you simply saying "Let the ones who can't fend for themselves die off?"

      The problem is one of technology. Technology is not, in and of itself, "bad." Compare lifestyles today with lifestyles 200 years ago, and see how much it has improved things. If we can agree that technology is the solution, and it simply needs to get better / more sustainable / less damaging to the environment, then we have a basis for discussion.

      If you insist on saying that the only way to live on this planet is for us to cull the population until we reach some sort of "golden number" which you've decided is sustainable, then all I can say to that is: "Sure, you go right ahead and suicide first. I'll keep working on a technological solution."

    6. Re:FTFA: by oodaloop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      he problem is one of technology. Technology is not, in and of itself, "bad." Compare lifestyles today with lifestyles 200 years ago, and see how much it has improved things.

      At severe cost to the environment and the long-term sustainability of the planet, that being my point. Technology is the cause of our predicament, not the solution. Agriculture let more people per acre live. Mass production, medicine, the steam engine all enabled our population to blossom. The problem has never been a lack of technology, but a lack of will to limit our growth. Any new development in more efficient energy or less damaging production will only allow more people to live. It's Malthus' problem; it always has been. Every new innovation lets us forestall the inevitable. Every time we are about to die off in mass numbers, something saves us and allows us to grow even more, and on and on. Desmond Morris thoroughly debunks the myth that technology will save us in Collapse. But you keep working on that technological solution, while ignoring all of history. Let me know it works out.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  10. Not so fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Judging by history, nearly every single expansion of government power is later used as precedent for yet even more expansion of government power. Every year we are subject to more laws, more spending, and increasingly larger attacks on our freedom (from our own government that is, not the enemy du jour). It's obvious that if expanding the business of government isn't the #1 priority, it's damn near close.

    There's a reason why the US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 50, let alone 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people -- and it's not because the elite at the top don't know exactly how to expand their business.

    1. Re:Not so fast by 1984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know, you may well have a point in there. But thinking that opt-in bicycle sharing schemes are a great example of the thin end of that wedge is just, you know... fucking bonkers.

    2. Re:Not so fast by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In principle, you have a point that's worth examining in reasoned discussion. But in fact, this argument by Maes is one of the nuttiest misapplications of the slippery-slope argument I've heard in months.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    3. Re:Not so fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Judging by history, nearly every single expansion of government power is later used as precedent for yet even more expansion of government power. Every year we are subject to more laws, more spending, and increasingly larger attacks on our freedom .

      It troubles me that some people have such a distorted sense of values, that state torture and indefinite detention without trial aren't a problem but state bicycles are. I don't know whether governor Maes is one of them, and I certainly don't wish to imply that you are.

  11. So, intelligent use of resources = socialism by jbeach · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Therefore, the only way to be free is to be stupid and waste resources.

    --
    The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    1. Re:So, intelligent use of resources = socialism by bkpark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, but forced "intelligent" use of resources is, perhaps not equivalent to but a convenient excuse for socialism.

      I'm not entirely sure if biking leads to socialistic New World Order (although those Chinese do like bikes, don't they?), but if something were really intelligent and prudent use of resources, it shouldn't need government programs for promotion. This is the same logic under which I avoid all "organic" foods—if it were good food, it wouldn't need the "organic" label to sell itself to me.

    2. Re:So, intelligent use of resources = socialism by jbeach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually the opposite can be true - if something is truly intelligent and prudent, it can be difficult for private companies to make money on it.

      This would be one of the main reasons why car companies bought and destroyed streetcars -

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal

      And also we don't have mass-produced solar power - no one's figured out yet how to put a meter on the Sun.

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
  12. How to get elected. by AnonymousClown · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "What I am opposed to is if it's part of a bigger program that the mayor has signed on to as part of a UN program.

    Use people's fears and suck them in.

    • Deadbeats sponging off of the Government at taxpayer expense.
    • UN taking our sovereignty away
    • [Fill in right] will be taken away by other party.
    • Other party will tax us more
    • Other party will open the flood gates for illegals
    • Other party kills babies
    • Other party will allow people to marry sheep
    • Other party hates God
    • Others are against the troops
    • Others hate America
    • Other isn't tough on [crime, terrorism, drugs, child pornography]

    I don't find the politicians as disgusting as the morons who buy into the rhetoric; which unfortunately, they have enough sway to set the tone of politics in this country.

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

  13. we are in a new era of mccarthyism by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    mccarthyism was an era of fear of "secret communists" everywhere, and joe mccarthy successfully inserted himself as demagogue in chief of the wave of fear and hysteria sweeping the land in the time of sputnik and soviets with an atom bomb. strangely, it was also an era when 3D movies were all the rage... spin that observation into your own paranoid schizophrenic conspiracy theory

    one of the up and coming tea party types will be the next joe mccarthy. they will use this sort of paranoid schizophrenic break with reality to describe "secret muslims" (that's what obama is, ya know), "secret socialists", "secret fascists", etc. taken on their own, theses hysterical creative inventions are like a farcical hollywood movie. but so many actually and truly believe this crap

    there's just a certain panicky low iq kind of human, in the usa and other countries, who is apparently about as gullible as a toddler in a carnival haunted house ride, and for whatever reason, they only believe the most fantastical fearful propaganda they encounter. i guess reality is too mundane and boring? i don't know what to do about these people, they have these coordinated waves of fear throughout history, and i don't know if there is an effective way to defuse their delusional problems before they damage our societies

    its the same as the salem witch trials: she dresses funny, and floats, so she's a witch, so kill her before she hurts us. in the era of joe mccarthy, it was fluoridated water (fluoridated water was not to strengthen teeth, but to turn you into a communist). later there were "chemtrails": jet airplanes contrails were seeding the atmosphere with mind control chemicals. people really and truly believed and believe this nonsense. its alternatively hilarious and frightening. it tells you the mentality of how lynch mobs form, its a sad phenomenon of human sociology

    and this manipulated fearmongered hysteria is the mentality that is sweeping the land right now. sad

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:we are in a new era of mccarthyism by The+Shootist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      mccarthyism was an era of fear of "secret communists" everywhere,

      There were many Communists, and fellow travelers, who were outed and expelled from government. McCarthy was a drunk but they did good work, nonetheless.

    2. Re:we are in a new era of mccarthyism by circletimessquare · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Yep. And if you dislike Obama's policies, you must be a racist."

      If you dislike obama's policies because he's a "secret muslim", yes you are a racist

      "And if you subscribe to the views of the "Tea Party", you must be an ignorant redneck."

      If you subscribe to the tea party because the govt is going to set up death panels and take away your guns, yes, you are an ignorant redneck

      "Yep. Lots of fear-mongering going on."

      With the qualifications to your statements I just made, its not fearmongering, its accurate and realistic description

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  14. Re:Salient and stupid by GiveBenADollar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It doesn't matter if his point is legitimate, or if he clearly makes the statement that he wants time to study what the mayor has signed onto. He's a republican and he doesn't like bikes. This has nothing to do with an environmental initiative that is being spearheaded without review. Remember if you want bills to be read by congress before they are voted on then you are a racist who doesn't like the children or the poor. It's funny who people who opposed the Patriot Act for all the right reasons turn a blind eye to this new wave of legislation that is going through without checks or balances of any kind, and without even the time for everyone to know what it's all about. Remember Ted Stevens said the Internet is made of tubes, not that he did anything good or bad. Move along folks, nothing to see here other than a Republican who doesn't like bikes.

  15. Re:Salient and stupid by raddan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's the whole point about programs for the greater good, though-- it need not turn a profit because it's FOR THE GREATER GOOD. Yeah, sometimes small businesses get wiped out. If that's your most important criteria, you will never make a change for the better, because it will always have some bad.

    People complain all the time that Amtrak doesn't make a profit, but... nobody seems to notice or care that our roads don't either.

  16. Re:Lower Sperm Counts! by yagu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    need citation!, I know of no study where the cause of lower count is from seat... there are a couple where lower count is theorized to be caused by excess heat from physical exertion of bicycling.

  17. Re:Lower Sperm Counts! by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I understand that bike seats are uncomfortable, but I had no idea it was on purpose.

    RTFA, that's not in it anywhere.

    He goes on to argue that the bicycle program is only a gateway into bigger policies including, but not limited to, forced abortions and population control.

    Someone else said that, not Crazy Maes.

    I don't think the summary summarizes the story very well ...

  18. And this is why... by JasoninKS · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And this is why there should be mandatory drug testing for political candidates. If I have to have a drug screening to get a job, they should too.

  19. WHY is this is the problem with America? by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems like the crazy theories are getting more traction (at least, they're getting more people talking about them as if they were real).

    I blame the media - Glenn Beck, FOX, CNN. It's apparently cheaper to yammer on about random stuff than to pay real journalists to gather real news. And it seems to get better ratings. Of course, this increase in ratings means that the old line news organizations see they are losing out and feel the need to climb onto the bandwagon. And, of course, we all enjoy a bit of gossip and a good conspiracy theory.

    It's all fun and games until a majority of people in your town start thinking of the National Enquirer as a reliable source of news. Seriously, people, some of this stuff is from WAY out in left field. {joke alert} Even I'm starting to believe Obama's "long form" (because the "short form" and a legal affadavit from the Hawaiian secretary of state aren't good enough) birth certificate is being hidden at the UN to keep us from learning the truth!

    So...how do we reverse this and encourage more critical thinking? I fear for our democracy if this silliness continues much longer.

    1. Re:WHY is this is the problem with America? by DrgnDancer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I once watched Glenn Beck argue, in all seriousness (I was in an airport and could neither change the channel nor leave) that national health care was a slippery slope to Fascism. Not, mind you, because of some convoluted arguments involving nanny state politics and people being weaned of off saying "no" to government policies. That might almost have made sense in some kind of twisted way. No, his argument was that national health care was socialistic, and the Nazi party had "socialist" in its name. He spent like twenty minutes on this point. Essentially repeating, in about 10 different ways that health care is socialist and Nazi's were "National Socialist" and so it was clear that the jackboots would be coming out within a couple years of the bill's passage.

      I'll admit that the Sharrod thing was extremely reasonable. I don't know how it happened to be honest. The guy is normally a master of taking things out of context to make them sound as awful as possible, but in this one case he chose to consider context and change his tune. I'm glad he did it, but he'd have to do it a lot more before I took him seriously day to day.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
  20. Why is this on Slashdot? by tomhath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yea, the guy's talking nonsense - trying to link his opponent to the UN through some international tree hugger organization. But I don't read Slashdot to find articles about Tea Partiers that were scraped from an AOL website founded by a former NY Times editor. Sheesh.

  21. Re:Overconsumption by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Worst case scenario on the over consumption is that we all go back to using animals for labor and transportation (granted with a less beautiful earth after all the strip mining and mountain destroying). Who says we need to have our current energy based society for ever?

  22. Re:The problem I have with B-cycle. by SirWhoopass · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The bicycles used in these rental programs have a unique look and would be quickly spotted if somebody tried to sell them.

    Can/does theft and vandalism occur? Sure. A loss rate is built into the cost of operations. If someone is looking to make money, however, they'd be much better off by either stealing conventional bikes or simply using the fake credit card directly. If somebody can easily get fake credit cards and drivers licenses then they can find far more lucrative crime options than trying to sell easily traceable rental bikes.

  23. Re:What a fucking retard. by magus_melchior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In other words, he's using the Sarah Palin playbook that both Sharron Angle and Rand Paul bought: Say something completely stupid and/or insane in the presence of national media or bloggers, and later blame them for publishing the stupid/insane thing you said.

    I can't imagine why the idiot right-wing candidates would adopt this strategy, considering that Palin was a major factor in her party's loss in 2008. Oh, wait...

    --
    "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
  24. Department of Massive Verisimilitude? Er... by hamiltondaniel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I swear, all these government-conspiracy/takeover/whatever folks must never have been to the DMV in their lives...

    Is it the same government I see, the one that is completely incapable of winning wars, balancing budgets, reforming social security, reforming health care, building proper infrastructure, saving the economy, upholding its own constitution, or of doing even the most basic paperwork properly, that is also supposedly the executor of countless nefarious schemes for total domination that, despite constituting the most perfect and massive conspiracy in the history of the world, leave no trace whatsoever of their existence?

    Unless the DMV is just a cover operation run badly ON PURPOSE to convince everyone how incompetent they are!!!

    Oh man.

    They're good.

  25. About media bias... by DesScorp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... the MSNBC lefty spin vortex ... the NPR Intelligensia Superiore Ruling Class network ... the ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN all-Obama-pats-on-the-back-all-the-time networks ...

    Thank you for demonstrating so thoroughly what GPP was talking about.

    So there's no leftward lean to traditional MSM outlets?

    "An academic study cited frequently showing a liberal media bias in American journalism is The Media Elite,* a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s.
    The authors concluded that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality."

    You know why Fox exists? Why it has dominating ratings? Because there was such a vacuum in the TV media when it came to anything but left-leaning views that a huge chunk of the public absolutely distrusted what they saw on TV, and a great deal of what they read in papers. And that distrust was warranted considering what we now know... Dan Rather's firing over the faked memos, the New York Times getting pulitzers for guys that basically worked for Joseph Stalin... it's said that nature abhors a vacuum. That's why Fox is so successful. Not because people are suckers, or because of any right-wing conspiracy. If a large part of the public likes beef, but all you'll sell them is chicken, they're going to go elsewhere.

    Guys like you seem to think that if you could ban Fox... and Limbaugh and talk radio for that matter.... then suddenly, the scales would fall from people's eyes, and they'd suddenly become liberal. That's part of your problem right there. Fox exists because more Americans are conservative than liberal. The tail isn't wagging the dog here. Ban Fox today, and that same huge portion of American voters aren't going to just submit and watch left-leaning outlets. They're going to go elsewhere and make their own. Blaming Fox for American's conservative views is kind of silly. Fox simply exists because there's a market for them. A large and profitable one.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel