hile Colorado has more breweries than any state except California, it can be quite a trek to visit some of them when traveling from gateway cities like
Denver, Boulder, and Fort Collins. In truth Colorado probably isn’t the first state you think of as an easy place to do a bar and brewery crawl. Outside of Denver, Boulder, and Fort Collins, bar crawls aren’t really viable in Colorado due to distances between venues and lack of public transportation. That said, those three urban hubs are fantastic places to explore the great beer on offer.
Denver is the easiest of Colorado’s larger cities to do a bar crawl because you can easily walk between every venue. There are 11 best bars and taprooms that can be strung together in downtown to fit a crawl of whatever size or duration you and your party desire.
If you want to hit all 11 stops, begin on the west side of downtown at Euclid Hall
Bar & Kitchen, 1317 14th St., Denver, CO 80202; (303) 534-4255. Euclid serves some of the finest beer-centric food in the city and offers up a fresh and carefully curated selection of craft taps and a long list of craft beer in bottles and cans. There are few better places to begin a bar crawl in Denver.
I said earlier that the intentional core of the self is able to turn against this object that I have named the lifegfver. It is able to repudiate it, to turn its back upon it. In terms of psychoanalytic theorists, we are probably closer here to Fairbaim (1976) than to any other. He said that the ego can say, “I am going to have nothing to do with this object”, yet because of the survival instinct it is impossible for the self to repudiate it entirely. If one accepts the idea of the lifegiver being the source of emotional life and also the source of biological survival—that the two are linked—then the self can never effect a total repudiation, and so a split takes place, with one part of the self turning against the lifegiver. As the Itfegiver is incorporated into the self, a division and a repudiation of the selfs own nature occurs, resulting in an anti-relational position being taken. It is somewhat like a prisoner saying, “I am going to have nothing to do with these prison warders”, but having to have something to do with them in order to receive meals and so on, or he will die.
The first component for developing a positive learning environment where the majority of students are in the green zone (or moving toward the green zone) is common expectations. Common expectations are positively phrased school rules, codes of conduct, and mission statements that link behavior expectations to academic expectations. Students, staff, and parents know what the expectations are, everyone in the school uses a common language to describe the expectations, and adults in the school model the expectations.
In A Basic School: A Community for Learning, Ernest Boyer (1995) writes of the difficulty we face when all stakeholders do not share expectations:
School is, above all else, a community for learning, a place where staff and students, along with parents, have a shared vision of what the institution is seeking to accomplish. There is simply no way to achieve educational excellence in a school where purposes are blurred, where teachers and students fail to communicate thoughtfully with each other, and where parents are uninvolved in the education of their children. (p. 15)
It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory.
W. EDWARDS DEMING
Organizations that dont perpetually innovate and improve are on a course toward obsolescence. The speeds at which leading companies move forward into the future make status-quo-oriented competitors appear as if they are actually moving backward. But you already know this. You can feel it. Its a reality that has been keeping leaders awake at night for a long time.
In the early 1990s Synectics Corporation surveyed 750 executives at 150 companies in the United States and found 80 percent felt innovation was critical to their companys survival, yet only 4 percent believed they were good at it. Years later, the problem persists at alarmingly high levels.
In 2003, Boston Consulting Group conducted a similar survey with 236 senior executives in 30 countries and all major industries; 57 percent of respondents said they are dissatisfied with the return on the investments they have made in innovation.
In February 2004, Deloitte, another global professional services and consulting firm, surveyed 650 manufacturers worldwide. In six years, Deloitte projects, 70 percent of what manufacturers sell will be obsolete due to changing customer demands and new competition. No wonder the respondents said that launching new products and services is their number one concern for driving revenue growth.