I guess Boulder's social engineers never heard the old adage about leading horses to water.
Gang Granola is trying to force healthier eating habits on area school kids, but the effort is faltering and losing money, according to this report in today's Daily Camera, indicating that the kids can't be force-fed jicama and beets and spaghetti squash (yum, yum!). The story doesn't say so, but the effort has probably spawned a booming black market in contraband Twinkies and Honey Buns at Sanchez Elementary School.
"If the adults are enthusiastic about it, the kids will try it," Sanchez Principal Doris Candelarie told the newspaper. "We're getting them to try different things. They've tried jicama, beets, apricots, plums. Many of them haven't had a lot of the fresher food. They've had to change their palates."
What planet is Candelarie living on? On the Earth I'm familiar with, there's a reverse correlation between the enthusiasms of adults and the tastes of their children. My mother's enthusiasm for liver and Castor oil never won me over, and I'm sure Candelarie's fondness for spaghetti squash is driving her young charges in the opposite direction.
Not to be deterred, the healthy food fanatics are collecting private donations in order to keep the food torture going. If curtailing options and subsidies won't work, the next step will probably turn coercive -- strapping members of the Healthy Food Resistance into modified dentist chairs, perhaps, and force-feeding them tofu burgers.
That's the Boulder way, after all -- better living through government intervention.
Showing posts with label Boulder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Boulder. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
Voluntary . . . For Now
The social engineers who run Boulder have come up with a clever new way to encourage environmentally-correct lifestyle choices: residents are being asked to leave their cars at home and find alternative means of transport on certain days, based on the color of their vehicles:
Boulder to use car colors to discourage driving
Got a blue car? The city of Boulder wants you to consider commuting sans car on Mondays.
Red car? Take a break from driving on Wednesdays. White? Thursday is your designated day of the week to leave your vehicle at home.
On Labor Day weekend, the city plans to launch a campaign to encourage residents to "do their 14.3 percent" to cut down on the number of cars on the road -- reducing air pollution, cutting carbon and road rage -- by making a commitment to go car-free on the day of the week that's correlated to your vehicle's color. Those that stick to their car-less commitments can win prizes from the campaign's sponsors.
"We want to attract people to something other than driving for one day a week or more in a fun easy way," said Cris Jones, a transportation planner with the city's GO Boulder program.
Participation in the program -- called Driven to Drive Less -- will be voluntary, and so is the day that participants choose to take a break from being behind the wheel. (There's no penalty for red-car-owning participants who commit to being car fee on the white-car day.)
The connection to car colors -- and the program's whimsical Web site, driventodriveless.com -- is part of an intentional drive by the campaign's designer, Sukle Advertising, to give a light-hearted feel to the car-cutting movement."
But the problem with such "voluntary" efforts is that they have a troubling tendency to become mandatory if the public refuses to respond to the initial, milder attempt at conditioning. "Light-hearted" can turn heavy-handed if the social engineers don't get the results they want, using good-natured cajoling or peer group pressure. And even this purely "voluntary" approach is creepily coercive in a politically-correct bastion like Boulder.
Just imagine the social stigma that you would suffer, and the shame you would feel, and the looks of opprobrium you would get, for driving your blue SUV to the office on a Monday, or pulling into Starbucks on Wednesday in your red sports car (unless it's a Tesla Roadster, of course.). This city-sponsored bifurcation of drivers into two camps -- those who supposedly care about saving the planet and those who don't -- might even encourage episodes of road rage, as those who decline to conform become targets of verbal abuse, shaming or worse from the eco-authoritarians in their midst. Sounds like a way not of uniting people, around a common goal, but of dividing them, based on nothing more than the color of the car they drive.
Most such attempts at social conditioning have a darker side. If the social engineers can't get the results they want using a carrot, sooner or later they reach for the stick.
Boulder to use car colors to discourage driving
Got a blue car? The city of Boulder wants you to consider commuting sans car on Mondays.
Red car? Take a break from driving on Wednesdays. White? Thursday is your designated day of the week to leave your vehicle at home.
On Labor Day weekend, the city plans to launch a campaign to encourage residents to "do their 14.3 percent" to cut down on the number of cars on the road -- reducing air pollution, cutting carbon and road rage -- by making a commitment to go car-free on the day of the week that's correlated to your vehicle's color. Those that stick to their car-less commitments can win prizes from the campaign's sponsors.
"We want to attract people to something other than driving for one day a week or more in a fun easy way," said Cris Jones, a transportation planner with the city's GO Boulder program.
Participation in the program -- called Driven to Drive Less -- will be voluntary, and so is the day that participants choose to take a break from being behind the wheel. (There's no penalty for red-car-owning participants who commit to being car fee on the white-car day.)
The connection to car colors -- and the program's whimsical Web site, driventodriveless.com -- is part of an intentional drive by the campaign's designer, Sukle Advertising, to give a light-hearted feel to the car-cutting movement."
But the problem with such "voluntary" efforts is that they have a troubling tendency to become mandatory if the public refuses to respond to the initial, milder attempt at conditioning. "Light-hearted" can turn heavy-handed if the social engineers don't get the results they want, using good-natured cajoling or peer group pressure. And even this purely "voluntary" approach is creepily coercive in a politically-correct bastion like Boulder.
Just imagine the social stigma that you would suffer, and the shame you would feel, and the looks of opprobrium you would get, for driving your blue SUV to the office on a Monday, or pulling into Starbucks on Wednesday in your red sports car (unless it's a Tesla Roadster, of course.). This city-sponsored bifurcation of drivers into two camps -- those who supposedly care about saving the planet and those who don't -- might even encourage episodes of road rage, as those who decline to conform become targets of verbal abuse, shaming or worse from the eco-authoritarians in their midst. Sounds like a way not of uniting people, around a common goal, but of dividing them, based on nothing more than the color of the car they drive.
Most such attempts at social conditioning have a darker side. If the social engineers can't get the results they want using a carrot, sooner or later they reach for the stick.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Yeah, But Do They Have Any Common Sense?
“Forbes: Boulder is country's smartest town,” reads the rather triumphant headline in today’s Boulder Daily Camera. But all that concentrated gray matter didn’t trickle down to the copy desk.
What Forbes actually rated was the country’s “most educated" places, which is something different, since anyone who studies the top ten list, and is aware of how these “smart towns” operate, can see that the two don’t correlate. Any plodding dolt with perseverance, ambition and patient parents can get a masters or doctorate degree. And while some of these people certainly qualify as smart, in one sense, many are sorely lacking in common sense – and in many qualities that are far more important in making a well-rounded person and solid citizen, including the humility to know they don't know it all. But some among them actually believe that a PhD in biology or English lit or gender studies also makes them worldly and wise, when they’re frequently quite narrow, almost myopic, as a result of the ivory tower naval-gazing.
These are the "smart" places:
No. 1 Boulder
No. 2 Ann Arbor, Mich.
No. 3 Washington, D.C.
No. 4 San Jose, Calif.
No. 5 San Francisco
No. 6 Southern Connecticut
No. 7 Charlottesville, Va.
No. 8 Durham, N.C.
No. 9 Boston
No. 10 Fort Collins
These are the stupid zones
No. 1 Lake Havasu, Ariz.
No. 2 Vineland, N.J.
No. 3 Merced, Calif.
No. 4 Visalia, Calif.
No. 5 Houma, La.
No. 6 Yuma, Ariz.
No. 7 Bakersfield, Calif.
No. 8 Ottawa, Ill.
No. 9 Fort Smith, Ark.
No. 10 McAllen, Texas
But most of the places on the top list, from what I know, are common sense-free zones, where residents live and work in a bubble (or ivory tower, in the case of the college towns on the list). Academia has as tenuous a link to the real world as Washington does – which explains why so many of the policies that originate in these "smart" places, and are imposed on the dolts, turn out to be stupid in practice. Has all that education also made these people virtuous (an old-fashioned question, I know)? Not necessarily. They look out (or is it down?) on the rest of the country with hubris, rather than humility, and that's what makes them dangerous to the rest of us.
If Washingtonians are so smart, why's the country so screwed up?
For smart people, they’re also strangely (and stubbornly) susceptible to crackpot ideas that don’t work – socialism and Marxism, for example – and which, when put into action in their local government, turn some of these towns into hotbeds of elitism, central planning, political correctness, small-scale socialism and petty tyranny.
Tyranny in Boulder? Oppression in Ann Arbor? Yes and yes. Ask property owners. Ask business owners. Ask conservatives and libertarians who must live in the closet, afraid to contradict the hard left dogma that prevails, for fear of running afoul of the thought police. These towns may suit some people. But most freedom-loving Americans would suffocate there, or be driven mad, so they flee.
What Forbes actually rated was the country’s “most educated" places, which is something different, since anyone who studies the top ten list, and is aware of how these “smart towns” operate, can see that the two don’t correlate. Any plodding dolt with perseverance, ambition and patient parents can get a masters or doctorate degree. And while some of these people certainly qualify as smart, in one sense, many are sorely lacking in common sense – and in many qualities that are far more important in making a well-rounded person and solid citizen, including the humility to know they don't know it all. But some among them actually believe that a PhD in biology or English lit or gender studies also makes them worldly and wise, when they’re frequently quite narrow, almost myopic, as a result of the ivory tower naval-gazing.
These are the "smart" places:
No. 1 Boulder
No. 2 Ann Arbor, Mich.
No. 3 Washington, D.C.
No. 4 San Jose, Calif.
No. 5 San Francisco
No. 6 Southern Connecticut
No. 7 Charlottesville, Va.
No. 8 Durham, N.C.
No. 9 Boston
No. 10 Fort Collins
These are the stupid zones
No. 1 Lake Havasu, Ariz.
No. 2 Vineland, N.J.
No. 3 Merced, Calif.
No. 4 Visalia, Calif.
No. 5 Houma, La.
No. 6 Yuma, Ariz.
No. 7 Bakersfield, Calif.
No. 8 Ottawa, Ill.
No. 9 Fort Smith, Ark.
No. 10 McAllen, Texas
But most of the places on the top list, from what I know, are common sense-free zones, where residents live and work in a bubble (or ivory tower, in the case of the college towns on the list). Academia has as tenuous a link to the real world as Washington does – which explains why so many of the policies that originate in these "smart" places, and are imposed on the dolts, turn out to be stupid in practice. Has all that education also made these people virtuous (an old-fashioned question, I know)? Not necessarily. They look out (or is it down?) on the rest of the country with hubris, rather than humility, and that's what makes them dangerous to the rest of us.
If Washingtonians are so smart, why's the country so screwed up?
For smart people, they’re also strangely (and stubbornly) susceptible to crackpot ideas that don’t work – socialism and Marxism, for example – and which, when put into action in their local government, turn some of these towns into hotbeds of elitism, central planning, political correctness, small-scale socialism and petty tyranny.
Tyranny in Boulder? Oppression in Ann Arbor? Yes and yes. Ask property owners. Ask business owners. Ask conservatives and libertarians who must live in the closet, afraid to contradict the hard left dogma that prevails, for fear of running afoul of the thought police. These towns may suit some people. But most freedom-loving Americans would suffocate there, or be driven mad, so they flee.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Runaway Boulder Crushes Residents
It's bad enough when a city or town declares an entire neighborhood "historic," over the objections of property owners who (quite understandably) fear that their freedom to renovate or demolish a home or business will be usurped by some historic preservation committee. But even more alarming is the possibility that such designations could be made piecemeal, targeting individual properties that the city, or busy-body neighbors, don't want changed.
Simply by declaring a property "historic," the city acquires veto power over what that property owner can do with it. The individual's rights are thereby trampled in order to satisfy the aesthetic whims of the collective.
That's exactly what occurred Tuesday evening in the collectivist commune called Boulder, where the owners of an old cottage found themselves separated from their property rights on a 5-3 vote by City Council. Just like that, Boulder's Planning Board "will gain veto power over any plans they submit, and the proposed expansion will fall under more stringent standards" according to the Boulder Daily Camera. (Read the entire story here.) Even the city's historic preservation planner recommended against the action, arguing that designating the house a landmark didn't balance public and private interests. But the city went ahead anyway, depriving Michael and Michelle Clements of the ability to renovate the cottage as they see fit.
"The couple says they’ve already spent more than $100,000 fighting to build their dream home on the property, while maintaining all but a wooden addition to the cottage that was built in 1952," The Daily Camera reports.
Michelle Clements said at the meeting that the process she and her husband have had to endure so far has been “468 days of emotional and financial devastation.”
She told the council she’s had enough of the city’s process.
“We should have the comfort of knowing we can build without the heavy hand of government hanging over our heads,” she said."
But Americans can no longer enjoy that comfort -- which serves as the foundation for all the other rights and freedoms they hold dear -- when elected officials and appointed planning boards can use coercive historic preservation in this way. If such abuses of power can't be overturned in the courts, they should at least be condemned in the court of public opinion.
But where are the pickets? Where are the protests? Where are Boulder's indignant human rights activists now, when the most fundamental of civil rights -- the right to be secure in your person and possessions -- is being trampled by their elected officials, in their backyard? The silence is deafening -- and reveals a dark and disturbing blind spot in the collectivist mindset.
Given the way this city rolls over its residents, and crushes their rights, they don't call it Boulder for nothing.
Simply by declaring a property "historic," the city acquires veto power over what that property owner can do with it. The individual's rights are thereby trampled in order to satisfy the aesthetic whims of the collective.
That's exactly what occurred Tuesday evening in the collectivist commune called Boulder, where the owners of an old cottage found themselves separated from their property rights on a 5-3 vote by City Council. Just like that, Boulder's Planning Board "will gain veto power over any plans they submit, and the proposed expansion will fall under more stringent standards" according to the Boulder Daily Camera. (Read the entire story here.) Even the city's historic preservation planner recommended against the action, arguing that designating the house a landmark didn't balance public and private interests. But the city went ahead anyway, depriving Michael and Michelle Clements of the ability to renovate the cottage as they see fit.
"The couple says they’ve already spent more than $100,000 fighting to build their dream home on the property, while maintaining all but a wooden addition to the cottage that was built in 1952," The Daily Camera reports.
Michelle Clements said at the meeting that the process she and her husband have had to endure so far has been “468 days of emotional and financial devastation.”
She told the council she’s had enough of the city’s process.
“We should have the comfort of knowing we can build without the heavy hand of government hanging over our heads,” she said."
But Americans can no longer enjoy that comfort -- which serves as the foundation for all the other rights and freedoms they hold dear -- when elected officials and appointed planning boards can use coercive historic preservation in this way. If such abuses of power can't be overturned in the courts, they should at least be condemned in the court of public opinion.
But where are the pickets? Where are the protests? Where are Boulder's indignant human rights activists now, when the most fundamental of civil rights -- the right to be secure in your person and possessions -- is being trampled by their elected officials, in their backyard? The silence is deafening -- and reveals a dark and disturbing blind spot in the collectivist mindset.
Given the way this city rolls over its residents, and crushes their rights, they don't call it Boulder for nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)