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."
I am living here in US for last 10 years and I am getting sick of it because of people like this one. This country is going more and more backwards each and every day. Societies make progress by being socially liberal and progressive not being ass backwards social conservative. I for one am convinced that we are seeing real decline of the US American society as we know it.
"8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.
When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy."
You could argue that increasing bicycle usage was the opposite effect-- of decreasing governmental control and increasing freedom. Right now we're reliant on a massive government-controlled system of roads which we travel on via government-subsidized vehicles. Automobiles are big and regulated and subsidized and result in a sort of "central planning". Bicycles on the other hand-- anyone can build a bicycle. A bicycle doesn't need a road, and bike paths are much easier to build/move.
I suspect this comes more from the belief that if something is healthy and environmentally friendly and doesn't subsidize big businesses, then it must be some kind of nefarious socialist hippie plot.
I think the SubGenius concept of "The Conspiracy" is applicable here.
It kind of reminds of back in the 90s when the urban legend spread that markings on secondary highway signs were secret instructions for UN tanks during the inevitable invasion.
Reminds me, I shouldn't buy a light blue helmet. I wouldn't want some vigilant patriot capping me in the head.
News Corp (fox news) is not the propaganda arm of the republican party.
The republican party is the legislative arm of News Corp (fox news).
They just bought $1million worth of republican governors.
Or maybe party is irrelevant on /.
Oh, how I wish that were true. I really wish we could have rational discussions about policy without falling for the lines both parties set out to divide us.
Someday, slashdot will be rational. But not today.
Qxe4
Anybody who watches MSNBC will tell you that they're left-leaning, sometimes to the point of uselessness. They've become the mirror-image of fox, but even those on the left know this. We take it with a grain of salt. Fox's demographic rarely seems to do the same.
Also, I can't really speak for ABC, NBC or CBS (I don't get those where I live) but if you think CNN is in any way a left-leaning network you're totally insane. They're the closest thing to an impartial network left in the country, and they always criticize both sides fairly equally. As for NPR, it is what it is- the most intelligent source of news and commentary available. You might not like their bias, but they're always rigorous and transparent.
China used to have more bikes than cars, now they are buying more and more cars, while we on the other hand are wanting to push ourselves the other way. ebb and flow, ebb and flow......
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
From ICLEI's web site their "approach links local action to internationally agreed-upon goals and targets such as: (the UN''s) Agenda 21". Agenda 21 is environmentalism and redistribution of wealth all rolled up into one. One of the Agenda 21 section heads is "International cooperation to accelerate sustainable development in developing countries and related domestic policies". Agenda 21 further states that "the major cause of the continued deterioration of the global environment is the unsustainable pattern of consumption and production, particularly in industrialized countries" In EZ speak, we are to blame for poverty, and AGW. Their solution is to give our money to developing countries, and to change our domestic policies to accomplish this task.
It's not a conspiracy, it's their stated goals. So YES, this seemingly innocuous bike program IS the very foot in the door that Maes is worried about. If you are not worried that someone is using mild mannered programs, like bike sharing, to start the ball rolling for global redistribution of wealth, and succeeding sovereignty to the UN, then you have NOT RTFA'd.
I'm just "this guy", you know?
I am not disagreeing with your premise that there's a lot of wingnuts in the Republican party and conservative "movement". (Full disclosure: I think there's just as many nutters on the Democrat/liberal side of the fence as well). There's a lot of wordsmithing in order to garner support from a particular interest group on both sides.
But the stuff you're citing is not, on its face, contradictory: diabolical genius simply implies that the person is very *smart*, in a wicked way. I know lots of smart people who are complete incompetents in many ways. They're great at generating ideas, and they suck at implementation, and I would certainly call that ineffective.
As far as the rich/tax cuts issue, again, it is possible to be both:
1) For limiting the amount of the political landscape money will buy for reasons of being against corruption;
AND
2) For cutting taxes on the wealthy for economic reasons, based on the premise that this will stimulate economic growth because the money will be reinvested.
They are (or at least, CAN be) two separate, and completely compatible, positions. Cutting taxes on the wealthy doesn't imply that you also must support the purchase of politicians with the money that is not taxed away from the wealthy. The idiot republicans who assert "1, therefore 2" are drawing a logical relationship that doesn't exist, and I suspect there aren't a whole lot of them - maybe Sarah Palin.
The problem mostly seems to stem from the fact that our news cycle and attention span demand "quick" responses. So instead of a 3 page essay on why limiting the influence of money in politics is good, and a 3 page essay on why tax cuts for the wealthy makes economic sense, we get: "Our government is a corrupt plutocracy and we need tax cuts for the rich." Nobody ever bothers to dig deeper and understand the position and the reasoning for it, we simply knee-jerk a response to the outrageously over-simplified bumper sticker slogan we think we've just heard.
Now, in this particular case: Maes is way off base, laughably so. Bike programs are a cool thing, we have a few bikes on the campus of my company for going from building to building - it's awesome, and I can only imagine how much more convenient this sort of thing would be on a city-wide scale - 10/10, would ride again, I'd give it a thumbs up.
So even when they're being different, they're being the same?
Hardly.
You're taking the latter position, 'anyone on the Red Team is always lying.'
I mean... WTF?
I read the article and reread and reread it, and I cannot even begin to see how, from *ANY* perspective that I can conceive of some other even modestly intelligent person having, that one could come to the conclusions that he did.
Most conspiracy theories I've heard of have at least a shred of something to at least build the conspiracy on, but I just can't find any evidence of it in that article.
I really hate defending Maes since I think he's being an idiot. Disclaimer: back when he was just a used car salesman he worked for my girlfriend's father, so I know a bit about him.
What he's concerned by is, in part, treaties. Y'know how we on slashdot are all against ACTA and other such things, because we feel like a treaty comes sailing in with all sorts of draconian conditions, and Congress either confirms it, in which case we're stuck, or doesn't confirm it, in which case businesses yell that we're not in step with everyone else? That is, in essence, what Maes is on about: he thinks that since the City of Denver signed up to help promote and use an urban development planning methodology that has European roots, that's the equivalent of signing a binding treaty that we're going to become the next Copenhagen or whatever. He's arguing that from bikes to heroin junkies and free abortions on request, is a slippery slope. (Which it is, but then again, if you have a public library someone might read stuff that makes the person become the next Joe Stalin. That's not a good reason to close libraries.)
I'm sure that his background as a used-car salesman helps him hate bicycles (and be thoroughly untrustworthy) but there is an underlying theme in his ranting. It's not pure crazy, it's just lousy premises and complete exaggeration. And used-car salesman tactics.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
What's odd to me is it generally seems to be liberals who talk about how we're "overpopulated" and a "disease on the planet." And yet they're also the ones who are saying it's our duty as a society to feed the hungry... cure the sick... and put a roof over the head of the homeless.
If your view is that we're overpopulated and we need to reduce our population... why not just stop paying for food & medicine & housing for the people who can't get it themselves, and let the problem solve itself? Everybody saves a little coin, and the population becomes self-limiting: if you can't afford to care for yourself, you will die. So why not let AIDS in Africa & southeast asia run rampant? Why not let all the people in Pakistan die to the floods plaguing that country right now? Why bother sending aid to the victims of that tsunami in Indonesia a few years ago, or the Haitian earth quake victims?
This right here is the problem with the argument about the earth being overpopulated: You're arguing that SOME people who are living right now, deserve to die. And yet nobody's willing to actually propose a scale by which we choose who gets to live and who doesn't. You boldly assert what the solution IS NOT, but offer no concrete idea of what the solution IS.
The problem is not "overpopulation" - the problem is "technological innovation is not keeping up at the pace needed to support a large population." The solutions will include:
1) First, acknowledge & accept that "letting people die off" is not the fucking solution - a large population isn't the "problem". Population is population, and if you suggest that YOUR family gets to live while MY family should die, well, them's fighting words. And I think we can all agree that a 500 pound bomb and depleted uranium rounds will do a lot of environmental damage, too.
2) Develop sustainable energy sources that do not poison the environment - this means safe nuclear, efficient solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, hydro, cellulosic ethanol from waste, and I'm sure the list goes on; And yes, that solution did include nuclear, because it will not be cost-effective to use a lot of the other sources until economies of scale have helped drive down costs, or some additional technological advances come along.
3) Develop more effective & sustainable food sources - better fertilizers, better crop yields, better distribution methods; there is no reason for a single frigging person on earth today to go hungry - it's a problem of distribution & wealth, not a problem of yields.
4) Develop educational programs - how to care for yourself, how to prevent unwanted pregnancies (third world accounts for "most" of the population growth, thus sustaining the "overpopulation"), how to feed yourself, and create economic opportunities; vocational training programs, microloans, and other programs to leverage the productivity of billions of poor people around the world.
No, driving a prius or riding a bike isn't going to do it. But this is what's pitched to us as "saving the environment." Humans are technologists - tool makers. Telling us to solve a problem while robbing us of the single most useful trait we have which would allow us to solve a problem is no solution at all. None of this happens over night - it's a multi-generational shift; but starting today with driving a prius is still a step. Using fluorescent light bulbs tomorrow is another. It all helps, but let's stop talking about "overpopulation" as if it's a problem that we're going to "solve," unless you're willing to also suggest that we need to start culling our own species.
you're just saying that because you saw that guy say that on "The Daily Show"
Well, that and, you know, the fucking *Pulitzer nomination they got*.
An interesting effect of this is that your "left wing" president is in complete lock step with the UK Conservative party which has been accused of being the most right-wing mainstream political party in Europe.
I heard a rumour once that they have some advisers in common. Anyone know who?
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
So...how do we reverse this and encourage more critical thinking? I fear for our democracy if this silliness continues much longer.
I can't recall the exact quote, but in regards to the poor quality of news, Dan Rather said he remembers exactly when news began to go downhill. The turning point was when 60 minutes began to make money, and TV executives realized that news wasn't just a public service, but a major money maker.
In my opinion, the only way out is to remove money from the news. There are dozens of ways to accomplish that, but as most would require legislation, and politicians are just as bought and paid for by business as news is, I don't have high hopes.
And then of course you'd have the very vocal Fox News viewers screaming bloody murder about their right to speak being trampled. Which it wouldn't be of course. Just without a money incentive, big business would have far less control of news, and so those editorial reporters/spin doctors would slowly leave the system.
One slightly more possible step, instead of mandating that news be a public service without advertisement and/or owned only by non-profit companies, would be to at least breakup the media conglomerates.
"Five out of the six major U.S. motion picture studios in the Motion Picture Association of America control the five major U.S. television news outlets:"
http://www.pineight.com/mw/index.php?title=MPAA_news
Another thought I've had in the past, was to broaden the libel and slander laws to include not just people, but also ideas. For instance, if you could prove to a jury that some news anchor willfully ignored fact and mislead millions of viewers over, say, the global climate change issue, then that person could be found guilty of a crime. I haven't run that many test cases through by head though. That sort of expansion might have consequences that I haven't thought about yet.
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.
How so, and by what measure do you say this? During Ike's term, defense spending took up 50 percent of the total budget. It's been nowhere near that since then, even during Reagan's term. Ike had an anti-illegal immigration program... Operation Wetback... that actually rounded up illegal Mexicans by the shipfull, and then sailed them down to southern Mexico and dropped them off at their southern borders so they couldn't immediately re-cross our border. Not only was Bush II pro-amnesty, Reagan signed an amnesty that instantly legalized millions of illegals. Reagan made the VA... truly, a socialized medicine scheme... a freakin' cabinet position, and Dubya signed a prescription drug benefit program into law that would have given FDR a boner. Ike, meanwhile, told Americans that if they wanted new services, they'd have to pay for it upfront with new taxes, right now.
Tell me again how much farther to the right Republicans are today? Really? If anything, this is one of the things New Gingrich is actually right about, when he called guys like Bob Dole... who supported Obamacare, by the way... a "tax collector for the welfare state".
And Teddy Roosevelt? How do you think he would have responded to 9/11? I'll lay cash that it wouldn't have been with Dubya's soothing speeches about how "Islam is a religion of peace". The Rough Rider would have turned Mecca into a sea of glass. So enough with the "today's GOP is so extreme" nonsense. Compared to what?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
An interesting effect of this is that your "left wing" president is in complete lock step with the UK Conservative party which has been accused of being the most right-wing mainstream political party in Europe.
Really? Because Brits think that our President hates their guts. One of the first things he did was to diss the sitting Labour Prime Minister. So you're honestly going to argue that Barack Obama has warm feelings for the Tories?
And just who is it that's "accusing" the UK Conservative Party of being the most right-wing of the mainstream parties in Europe? Would that be, oh.... Labour? I mean, that would be a shock now, wouldn't it?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel