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."
OMG !!! ...what a jackass.
- Marching Band: It's not just for breakfast anymore
They've been shown to reduce sperm counts..... At least the traditional hard 10 speed bike seats.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Next thing you know, he'll say skateboards are the Highway to Satanism, Goatse Worship, and the Global Domination of Barking Pumpkins and Douchebags.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
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
precious bodily fluids in any of this?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GeneralRipper
Bless their pointy little heads.
No incumbents, not no where, not no how.
Vote them out every term.
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.
One correction - The incumbent in this election for governor is Bill Ritter who is not running for re-election. Maes Democratic opponent is John Hickenlooper who is currently the mayor of Denver
...that the bike seats were designed to make you wear stupid pants.
It seems that there is no lower bound in politics.
"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.
I think that it's about time we fluoridate this guy's drinking water!
OMG! There's a socialist under every rock, and we need to protect ourselves from these anti-consumerist, anti-free trade, anti-American perpetrators of evil! Sharing bikes is a sign of socialism, and everyone needs to buy their own bike if we are to have a free and functioning democracy. If we let these socialist put bikes out there to share, it is inevitable they will hook our young children on their evil ideas of sharing. Once people start sharing, particularly government purchased stuffs, our young will grow into people who will want a bigger government which provides more stuffs to share. Where will it end? It won't end with bikes. It won't end with cars, RVs, boats or the like. No, soon the government will grow to offer all sorts of things. This bike program is really a back door route to medical health care. If we're getting free bikes to use, we'll want free health care. That's when the socialists have got us. Of course, free medical care will lead to limiting children, death panels, and LSD. Stop the socialists today, "Just say no to bicycles!".
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.
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.
"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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
Bike sharing is forced population control? Perhaps because when you have a bike accident, you slip from your seat and bust your nuts on the horizontal frame bar?
The government can have control of my bicycle when they pry it from my cold, dead cleats.
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.
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.
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 ...
The story itself doesn't summarize things well. The person it's quoting is Nate Strauch, but we're never told that he's the spokesperson for Maes's campaign.
===== will post for karma
Unicycles are not fair and balanced.
It's designed for people traveling to Urban areas that don't have good public transportation. You take a bus/train/etc to the transit hub for an urban area then use the bike to get where you need to go. Once you're done with your business return the bike to a rental station and hop back onto the bus. Heck, it's not a bad deal for congested cities where you could park on the outskirts of downtown and then use the bike for the rest of the trip.
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.
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...
The ironic thing is that the plan to have communal bicycles was initially broached by the Provos in the 1960s. The Provos were a group of Dutch anarchists. Damn big government anarchists!
As a person who does virtually all my personal transportation by bicycle, I am going to request that you read the goddamn book of traffic laws for your state. In every state in this country and in virtually the rest of the world, bicycles are vehicles and have exactly as much a right to the road as cars, motorcycles, scooters, or any other vehicle. In fact, most cities explicitly prohibit bicycles from riding on the sidewalks.
I have to have this same conversation with every damn person who honks at me for riding a bicycle on the road. Non-motorized pathways, including separate bike paths or sidewalks, are actually more dangerous than cycling on the road — various studies peg the number from anywhere between two to seven times as dangerous. And I can say from my own personal experience that of the 3,700 miles I have logged, fewer than 10 of them in aggregate have been on sidewalks, and I've been hit by a car while on the sidewalk.
To sum, cyclists are not required by law to ride in bike lanes, on bike paths, or on the sidewalks, and in fact that's usually the most dangerous place for them to possibly be. Sidewalks and bike paths are dangerous because drivers aren't looking for objects traveling 20mph off the road, and it's incredibly easy to be hit while crossing intersections, driveways, or parking lot entrances. Bike lanes are often more dangerous because they are commonly located in the "door zone" for parallel-parked cars, putting you right in the way of absent-minded drivers flinging their doors open directly in front of you. So share the damn road already, and be grateful that someone else in the world is making the roads safer for you at a greatly increased risk to their own bodies while reducing overall traffic congestion (cycling reduces usage of main thoroughfares and distributes the load to less-trafficked side streets)
You're welcome.
No comment.
Don't know about you guys, but I'm definitely putting tin foil on the seat before I sit on it.
Agree. The current population level of this planet is too damn high if we are going to have any sort of quality of life. Otherwise what is going on is completely unsustainable. I'd even say 1 billion is excessive. The Club of Rome seems to think maybe half that is about right.
If we continue down the current road there will be another form of population control - the earth's environment will degrade to the point where we will have a 'Great Die-Back'.
It is a truism that no life form can live in it's own waste products. We that's where we are heading and quite rapidly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5iFESMAU58
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?
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.
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.
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
... 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