NC State, that is.
We in North Carolina are blessed to have several Division I colleges who have enjoyed a great deal of success on the field and in the arena, for many years. One does not have to look far for a school to pull for any given Saturday afternoon, or winter evening when roundball season is underway.
When I was a kid, NC State was enjoying a great deal of success, and me and several of my friends became fans of players like Thompson, Towe, Burleson, and a coach named Sloan. Later when I was in high school, a crazy Italian coach with more ties to New York than Tobacco Road led a bunch of role players all the way to victory in the NCAA tournament, over a team from Houston that included two future NBA hall of famers. It was the stuff dreams are made of.
The last several years have been lean for State's big time sports programs, that is until today. The Chancellor, of all people, hit the equivalent of a three point shot when the chips were down, to score a victory for all of us!
In case you are not from North Carolina, and or do not follow politics like it was sport, let me fill you in: Several months ago the First Lady of North Carolina, Mary Easley, was awarded a $170,000 a year job a NC State. Her husband, the governor, was on his way out, having enjoyed his two terms as NC governor with such perks as tax payer paid trips to Italy and Europe, and, a personal real estate deal on the coast, in which he paid a price for a water front lot which was well below tax value, and well below what the people on either side of him paid for theirs. The posting, search, and hiring process for the job the First Lady filled was not handled exactly the way policy requires. The First Lady's job appeared to be a clear case of political pandering.
Fortunately for us the tax payers and other fans of doing the right thing, several newspapers have not let go of this story. Helping fuel their fire has been rumors, now confirmed, that the ex-governor is now under a Federal grand jury probe for multiple irregularities. My hunch is he will be ultimately convicted of tax evasion for the benefit of free travel, but that is a long way out.
Anyway, the newspapers are actually doing their job on this one, and last week two people, not one but two people close to this situation resigned from their taxpayer supported positions as a result of the Mary Easley hiring. The individual who hired Mary Easley resigned, and, the chairman of the NCSU Board of Trustees also resigned.
Those are two resignations that should proably have happened, but we are at least one resignation short: Mary Easley's. In a move that I and I'm sure others cheer today, the Chancellor of the university, James Oblinger, called for Mary Easley to resign, "in the best interest of the University". Way to go James, score one for State, and those of us who are paying the bills!
Look, I do not have a thing against Mary Easley. Maybe she was the best candidate for that job (she actually was the best candidate, since they didn't post it which made her the ONLY candidate!). Seriously, she should resign. If the position is actually necessary, and is going to be filled, let her post along with everyone else who might want a $170k a year state job with benefits.
If you think the Chancellor did the right thing today, do a favor and let him know with an email, or a call to his office. I'm sure the information to do that is on NC State's web site. When people in politics do the right thing, and the Chancellor's position at a major university is certainly a political position, we need to let them know we appreciate it.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Saturday, May 9, 2009
The Scam of the Century, which you probably won't read about in your newspaper
Scam: "a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, esp. for making a quick profit; swindle" (dictionary.com).
To understand a scam, you have to be willing to connect the dots. You know, you have to be willing to trust your judgment, and add 2 and 2 and 2 and 2 and 2 to get 10, without someone telling you ahead of time 10 is the answer. YOU have to come up with the answer, and trust what you see, not what you are told. By the time conventional wisdom has come to the conclusion the answer is 10, the scam is long since over, and conventional wisdom lost.
OK here comes the first "2" in the Scam of the Century. The term 'bailout' has become synonymous with the TARP program in the media lately. That is really not the correct term, but it sells copy. TARP stands for Troubled Asset Repurchase Program, and simply put, it was designed, in the final days of the Bush administration, to purchase bad loans from banks. Why do that? Because when banks have a bad loans, it becomes more difficult from a regulatory as well as functional standpoint to lend money. Our economy is fueled by credit. So if banks can not or will not lend, that is potentially very bad for our economy.
As the Bush's were packing boxes, and the Obama's were pulling in with the Mayflower truck behind them, someone, I do not know who, decided rather than buy bad loans, which sounds fairly unappealing, to use TARP money to buy preferred stock in the banks who are hurting for capital. And that is what they did. The federal government has purchased billions of dollars worth of stock in mostly the largest US banks. Those of us in the audience who do not blindly trust an organization as large as the US government, were OK with this program, because the stock the government purchased is of a class that does not vote. Bush went on TV before he left to describe this. The government's money was in, but it was silent.
Here's the next "2". Several weeks ago the Feds (read, the current presidential administration) announced new "stress" tests for the banks which have taken TARP money. These were announced under the guise of protecting the American people. This seemed odd to everyone in the banking industry, because banks are already heavily regulated and tested for soundness. Considered on its own, the stress tests made no sense.
The next "2" is the feds alone decided what the components of the stress test would be. No industry input. This allowed the feds to in essence decide which banks need new capital, and how much. Keep in mind, the feds make the rules for the banks. If a bank does not meet those rules, it can be shut down overnight, with no warning.
The next "2" is results were announced recently for the stress tests, and all the biggest banks were deemed to have inadequate capital for a hypothetically created extended recession. Imagine that. All these banks were told to add capital, or else Uncle Sam is going to take over.
Ok here is the final "2", which gets us to 10. One of the ways the feds said the banks could add capital, is by converting the Preferred Stock the feds recently purchased with TARP money, in to Common Stock. This is significant because Preferred Stock does not vote, Common Stock does. If the fed's shares are converted to Common, they immediately become the largest shareholder; they own that bank. This is what Obama and many in Washington want. This makes government bigger, much bigger.
Not convinced this is a Scam yet? Well here is the dead giveaway: If you convert Preferred Stock to Common Stock, how much money does that add to the balance sheet of a bank? I mean, the government is going through all these steps for the sole purpose of making sure banks are sound and have enough capital, right? Wrong. The answer is zero. Converting Preferred to Common is like converting green dollars in to silver dollars. It adds zero new capital, zero new money to a bank's balance sheet. For accounting purposes only, Common Stock counts as capital, Preferred does not. This game has been in the works since Obama was elected. Its only now become visible, and unfortunately, to only a few who are awake and love liberty.
The feds now own Chrysler, they took it over in a similar Scam to this, and gave it to their best friends forever the unions. They now own Citibank, because Citi agreed to convert the fed's preferred shared to common. Is your company next? Is your industry next? Wake up. Trust what you see not what you are told. Contact your local Totalitarian in Washington, and tell him or her enough is enough, before it is too late.
To understand a scam, you have to be willing to connect the dots. You know, you have to be willing to trust your judgment, and add 2 and 2 and 2 and 2 and 2 to get 10, without someone telling you ahead of time 10 is the answer. YOU have to come up with the answer, and trust what you see, not what you are told. By the time conventional wisdom has come to the conclusion the answer is 10, the scam is long since over, and conventional wisdom lost.
OK here comes the first "2" in the Scam of the Century. The term 'bailout' has become synonymous with the TARP program in the media lately. That is really not the correct term, but it sells copy. TARP stands for Troubled Asset Repurchase Program, and simply put, it was designed, in the final days of the Bush administration, to purchase bad loans from banks. Why do that? Because when banks have a bad loans, it becomes more difficult from a regulatory as well as functional standpoint to lend money. Our economy is fueled by credit. So if banks can not or will not lend, that is potentially very bad for our economy.
As the Bush's were packing boxes, and the Obama's were pulling in with the Mayflower truck behind them, someone, I do not know who, decided rather than buy bad loans, which sounds fairly unappealing, to use TARP money to buy preferred stock in the banks who are hurting for capital. And that is what they did. The federal government has purchased billions of dollars worth of stock in mostly the largest US banks. Those of us in the audience who do not blindly trust an organization as large as the US government, were OK with this program, because the stock the government purchased is of a class that does not vote. Bush went on TV before he left to describe this. The government's money was in, but it was silent.
Here's the next "2". Several weeks ago the Feds (read, the current presidential administration) announced new "stress" tests for the banks which have taken TARP money. These were announced under the guise of protecting the American people. This seemed odd to everyone in the banking industry, because banks are already heavily regulated and tested for soundness. Considered on its own, the stress tests made no sense.
The next "2" is the feds alone decided what the components of the stress test would be. No industry input. This allowed the feds to in essence decide which banks need new capital, and how much. Keep in mind, the feds make the rules for the banks. If a bank does not meet those rules, it can be shut down overnight, with no warning.
The next "2" is results were announced recently for the stress tests, and all the biggest banks were deemed to have inadequate capital for a hypothetically created extended recession. Imagine that. All these banks were told to add capital, or else Uncle Sam is going to take over.
Ok here is the final "2", which gets us to 10. One of the ways the feds said the banks could add capital, is by converting the Preferred Stock the feds recently purchased with TARP money, in to Common Stock. This is significant because Preferred Stock does not vote, Common Stock does. If the fed's shares are converted to Common, they immediately become the largest shareholder; they own that bank. This is what Obama and many in Washington want. This makes government bigger, much bigger.
Not convinced this is a Scam yet? Well here is the dead giveaway: If you convert Preferred Stock to Common Stock, how much money does that add to the balance sheet of a bank? I mean, the government is going through all these steps for the sole purpose of making sure banks are sound and have enough capital, right? Wrong. The answer is zero. Converting Preferred to Common is like converting green dollars in to silver dollars. It adds zero new capital, zero new money to a bank's balance sheet. For accounting purposes only, Common Stock counts as capital, Preferred does not. This game has been in the works since Obama was elected. Its only now become visible, and unfortunately, to only a few who are awake and love liberty.
The feds now own Chrysler, they took it over in a similar Scam to this, and gave it to their best friends forever the unions. They now own Citibank, because Citi agreed to convert the fed's preferred shared to common. Is your company next? Is your industry next? Wake up. Trust what you see not what you are told. Contact your local Totalitarian in Washington, and tell him or her enough is enough, before it is too late.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Who is naïve, you or Obama?
Yesterday Sir Taxalot (aka B Hussein Obama) announced a plan to "save" you and me, the American tax payer, over $200 billion over the course of the next 10 years, by raising taxes on certain companies who are participating in legally avoiding taxes. $200 billion over 10 years is $20 billion a year according to my public education math. Let's all be thankful our President, who in the past 100 days has spent trillions more dollars than his predecessors ever thought about, wants to save us $20 billion a year. Be still my beating heart.
By the way, $20 billion a year will almost, almost, cover the interest expense on his $750 billion porkulus, err stimulus plan. The annual interest bill for that, assuming 4% interest, is $30 billion. A year. Every year. For a long time.
$20 billion a year is the approximate amount of my state's, North Carolina's, annual budget. It is hard to believe that the interest expense on only a portion of this president's deficit spending is larger than my state's budget. I hope that helps you understand the size of some of these numbers, and how hard it is going to be to pay all this debt off.
Maybe you are OK with this. Possibly you like seeing large companies having their tax loopholes closed. Its very popular in Washington and with the press to attack big companies and tax loopholes. By the way, do you deduct home mortgage interest on YOUR tax return? Do you deduct for charitable donations, for medical expenses, for education expenses? If you do, then you are engaging in the same kind of "loophole" participation these big companies are. Does that change the way you look at this?
What Sir Taxalot either does not know, or thinks you do not know, is that those companies he is raising taxes on are not going to just sit there an say OK, we're glad to pay more taxes. No, they will either cut jobs, or raise the price of their products, or both, in order to help fund as much of those tax increases as they can, without hurting their bottom line. Either he is naive, or he is playing you for a sucker, thinking he can continue to divide us in to groups who hate, or at least don't much like, each other. He is not "saving" you anything, he is costing you something.
This is a very calculating, but misguided, man. He knows exactly what he is doing. He is increasing the size of government by raising taxes. That is his #1 objective, make no doubt about that. He is attempting to punish companies who move jobs oversees. He is doing that to potentionally help his best friends, the unions. If that is not his #2 objective, its close. Finally, he is continuing to attempt to exploit what he sees as a naive US population, by hoping you do not realize tax increases on companies eventually cost you, the customer, in the form of higher prices. Don't be a sucker. And don't forget.
By the way, $20 billion a year will almost, almost, cover the interest expense on his $750 billion porkulus, err stimulus plan. The annual interest bill for that, assuming 4% interest, is $30 billion. A year. Every year. For a long time.
$20 billion a year is the approximate amount of my state's, North Carolina's, annual budget. It is hard to believe that the interest expense on only a portion of this president's deficit spending is larger than my state's budget. I hope that helps you understand the size of some of these numbers, and how hard it is going to be to pay all this debt off.
Maybe you are OK with this. Possibly you like seeing large companies having their tax loopholes closed. Its very popular in Washington and with the press to attack big companies and tax loopholes. By the way, do you deduct home mortgage interest on YOUR tax return? Do you deduct for charitable donations, for medical expenses, for education expenses? If you do, then you are engaging in the same kind of "loophole" participation these big companies are. Does that change the way you look at this?
What Sir Taxalot either does not know, or thinks you do not know, is that those companies he is raising taxes on are not going to just sit there an say OK, we're glad to pay more taxes. No, they will either cut jobs, or raise the price of their products, or both, in order to help fund as much of those tax increases as they can, without hurting their bottom line. Either he is naive, or he is playing you for a sucker, thinking he can continue to divide us in to groups who hate, or at least don't much like, each other. He is not "saving" you anything, he is costing you something.
This is a very calculating, but misguided, man. He knows exactly what he is doing. He is increasing the size of government by raising taxes. That is his #1 objective, make no doubt about that. He is attempting to punish companies who move jobs oversees. He is doing that to potentionally help his best friends, the unions. If that is not his #2 objective, its close. Finally, he is continuing to attempt to exploit what he sees as a naive US population, by hoping you do not realize tax increases on companies eventually cost you, the customer, in the form of higher prices. Don't be a sucker. And don't forget.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Trust what you see, not what you hear.
People in politics (and business, and life, and school, and etc) can I think be lumped in to two groups. One group wants to be evaluated or judged on the basis of what they say. These people tend to have wonderful ideas. Unfortunately, many times somewhere between idea generation, and implementation, it just does not work out right, and the results are just not there. Other people want, and expect, to be judged on outcomes. They realize a good idea is a really good thing, but the proof is in the pudding. Talk is cheap, results are priceless.
One of the things this blog is dedicated to doing, is helping point out that many times our government, particularly at the state and federal levels, is more about saying what they think you want to hear, rather than actually doing something, accomplishing something, that actually makes a positive difference or makes progress. And I really might not care whether they accomplished something or not, except part of those $3.5 trillion dollars that will be spent by the federal government this year are mine. And, part of those dollars will be borrowed, and my children's children will pay for those.
A great example of this great idea/lack of execution happened last week. A friend of mine attended a meeting in which a US House Representative spoke. It was a lunch meeting, and the sole purpose of the meeting was to allow the people who pay the bills for the US government, to hear the US Representative talk.
I was not able to attend, so I asked my friend what she thought of the meeting. The two themes that stuck with her most about the meeting were the need for us to all get healthier, in order to help keep insurance costs down, and, the need to go Green with our energy consumption, lives, etc.
Lunch, by the way, was pizza. Beverages were primarily soda pop, in cans. So much for going healthy. There were no recycling receptacles for the aluminum cans, only trash cans. Ditto for the card board boxes. So much for going green. Talk really is cheap. Except it really isn't, because you and I are paying for the talk. Ouch!
My fellow citizens, this is a microcosm of how ridiculously irrelevant our government has become. You and I are being scammed. And we will continue to be scammed until enough of us say no more. You and I are paying the bills for a government that is so big, so intrusive, that it has far since passed the point of being effective. Read the writings of our founding fathers, which are the blueprint for our system of governance. They never in their wildness nightmares would have imagined a federal government this big. We must make a change.
One of the things this blog is dedicated to doing, is helping point out that many times our government, particularly at the state and federal levels, is more about saying what they think you want to hear, rather than actually doing something, accomplishing something, that actually makes a positive difference or makes progress. And I really might not care whether they accomplished something or not, except part of those $3.5 trillion dollars that will be spent by the federal government this year are mine. And, part of those dollars will be borrowed, and my children's children will pay for those.
A great example of this great idea/lack of execution happened last week. A friend of mine attended a meeting in which a US House Representative spoke. It was a lunch meeting, and the sole purpose of the meeting was to allow the people who pay the bills for the US government, to hear the US Representative talk.
I was not able to attend, so I asked my friend what she thought of the meeting. The two themes that stuck with her most about the meeting were the need for us to all get healthier, in order to help keep insurance costs down, and, the need to go Green with our energy consumption, lives, etc.
Lunch, by the way, was pizza. Beverages were primarily soda pop, in cans. So much for going healthy. There were no recycling receptacles for the aluminum cans, only trash cans. Ditto for the card board boxes. So much for going green. Talk really is cheap. Except it really isn't, because you and I are paying for the talk. Ouch!
My fellow citizens, this is a microcosm of how ridiculously irrelevant our government has become. You and I are being scammed. And we will continue to be scammed until enough of us say no more. You and I are paying the bills for a government that is so big, so intrusive, that it has far since passed the point of being effective. Read the writings of our founding fathers, which are the blueprint for our system of governance. They never in their wildness nightmares would have imagined a federal government this big. We must make a change.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
When did you find out you are a fill in the blank?
For me it was when I was driving home one day. I was minding my own business, driving home from work, listenin to the radio. I was in my mid 20's, almost 20 years ago, and the person on the radio began identifying personal values and using adjectives which described how I think and how I live. The person on the radio used one word to describe me and then BAM it happened, I had been labelled a fill in the blank.
Looking back its easy to see. But at the time I really did not realize what had happened. My parents never told me I was a fill in the blank. My teachers never told me, my friends never told me. My pastor never told me. But someone I've never met and will never meet, was able to label me with one word. Amazing.
Labels allow people we've never met to, well, label us. It allows someone you've never met to categorize you in such a way that may be 180 degrees off base. Maybe they know someone who is a fill in the blank, and they do not like that person, or something they stand for. Well, then they hear someone call you a fill in the blank, and BAM, they do not like you either. They have never met you, they have never heard your voice or your views, but because you are a fill in the blank, they have categorized you in such a way that fits their world view. Laziness is really what it is.
I suppose people have always used labels to put other people in a box. I suspect though, that the use of labels as a weapon has increased in the past 25 years or so. Two reasons why I think this. During the past 25 year period 'the media' has become more homogenized. By that I mean, if you turn on any of the 6:30 national media broadcasts, chances are regardless of the station you choose, the news you see will be the same. If you do not believe that, test it out. You'll see.
One other phenomenon of the past 25 years or so has been the rise of the audience of talk radio. Most of talk radio is labelled as conservative. The rise of talk radio has coincided with the homogenization of the major media outlets in to what many conservatives believe is simply a house organ for one political party and one ideology. If you make your living making sure your 6:30 news cast, or your news paper, is profitable, and this talk radio phenomenon starts taking market share from you, and you can label it as conservative, then demonize the term and people who subscribe to it, well then you just might start using that label as a club to beat up people with in order to protect your franchise.
Both sides do it, all sides do it. Its easy. To repeat myself, its lazy.
We are in a critical time in our country's history. Our federal government is behaving in unprecedented ways. It is of an unprecedented size, wielding $3.5 trillion dollars worth of power. I believe the debate has shifted. It has moved past liberal versus conservative, beyond Republican and Democrat. The debate has moved to right and wrong, smart and dumb, America loving or America trashing. Live your principles, and evaluate others' priciples based on what they do, not what they say. And limit your use of labels. If you use them too much you may come across as dumbing yourself down the same way the media has.
Looking back its easy to see. But at the time I really did not realize what had happened. My parents never told me I was a fill in the blank. My teachers never told me, my friends never told me. My pastor never told me. But someone I've never met and will never meet, was able to label me with one word. Amazing.
Labels allow people we've never met to, well, label us. It allows someone you've never met to categorize you in such a way that may be 180 degrees off base. Maybe they know someone who is a fill in the blank, and they do not like that person, or something they stand for. Well, then they hear someone call you a fill in the blank, and BAM, they do not like you either. They have never met you, they have never heard your voice or your views, but because you are a fill in the blank, they have categorized you in such a way that fits their world view. Laziness is really what it is.
I suppose people have always used labels to put other people in a box. I suspect though, that the use of labels as a weapon has increased in the past 25 years or so. Two reasons why I think this. During the past 25 year period 'the media' has become more homogenized. By that I mean, if you turn on any of the 6:30 national media broadcasts, chances are regardless of the station you choose, the news you see will be the same. If you do not believe that, test it out. You'll see.
One other phenomenon of the past 25 years or so has been the rise of the audience of talk radio. Most of talk radio is labelled as conservative. The rise of talk radio has coincided with the homogenization of the major media outlets in to what many conservatives believe is simply a house organ for one political party and one ideology. If you make your living making sure your 6:30 news cast, or your news paper, is profitable, and this talk radio phenomenon starts taking market share from you, and you can label it as conservative, then demonize the term and people who subscribe to it, well then you just might start using that label as a club to beat up people with in order to protect your franchise.
Both sides do it, all sides do it. Its easy. To repeat myself, its lazy.
We are in a critical time in our country's history. Our federal government is behaving in unprecedented ways. It is of an unprecedented size, wielding $3.5 trillion dollars worth of power. I believe the debate has shifted. It has moved past liberal versus conservative, beyond Republican and Democrat. The debate has moved to right and wrong, smart and dumb, America loving or America trashing. Live your principles, and evaluate others' priciples based on what they do, not what they say. And limit your use of labels. If you use them too much you may come across as dumbing yourself down the same way the media has.
Friday, April 10, 2009
How many pirates does it take to embarrass the world's strongest military?
How many pirates does it take to embarrass the world's strongest military? Apparently, only four.
Does it bother you, that apparently we, and we have to conclude the decision maker here is the president, do not have the will to deal with four thugs in a manner that might prevent a larger crisis? I mean, armed thugs boarded an American flagged vessel, have taken the captain of the ship hostage, and we are apparently unwilling to respond in kind. And not only that, they shot at the captain when he tried to escape! All within view of the sailors on the USS Bainbraidge, an $800 million dollar USN destroyer. I wonder what the life boat the thugs, and the US citizen are in, cost?
At one level this is silly. The Captain of a United States warship, and presumably, the Admiral of the Navy, the Secretary of State, and the President of the United States have all been involved in the decision to do--nothing!
But at another level this is scary. If we will not deal with four thugs in a lifeboat holding a gun to the head of a US Citizen, what will we deal with? Do you think for a second that the Chinese, the Russians, and the North Koreans are not taking notes? There will be a price to pay for our lack of resolve. And unfortunately, the people to pay that price will probably be our military.
I live in an area in which you would not be terribly surprised to encounter a bear, or a wolf. If you turn your back and run when encountering either of these types of animals, you are inviting them to chase you down and attack you from the back. We are doing exactly the same thing by how we are handling this stupid, silly situation. Our enemies, and make no mistake we do have enemies, are taking note of our lack of resolve, and will no doubt test us in some meaningful way in the future. God bless those citizens and our military, who will be at the forefront of that test, brought on by our bungled handling of four bungling pirates.
Does it bother you, that apparently we, and we have to conclude the decision maker here is the president, do not have the will to deal with four thugs in a manner that might prevent a larger crisis? I mean, armed thugs boarded an American flagged vessel, have taken the captain of the ship hostage, and we are apparently unwilling to respond in kind. And not only that, they shot at the captain when he tried to escape! All within view of the sailors on the USS Bainbraidge, an $800 million dollar USN destroyer. I wonder what the life boat the thugs, and the US citizen are in, cost?
At one level this is silly. The Captain of a United States warship, and presumably, the Admiral of the Navy, the Secretary of State, and the President of the United States have all been involved in the decision to do--nothing!
But at another level this is scary. If we will not deal with four thugs in a lifeboat holding a gun to the head of a US Citizen, what will we deal with? Do you think for a second that the Chinese, the Russians, and the North Koreans are not taking notes? There will be a price to pay for our lack of resolve. And unfortunately, the people to pay that price will probably be our military.
I live in an area in which you would not be terribly surprised to encounter a bear, or a wolf. If you turn your back and run when encountering either of these types of animals, you are inviting them to chase you down and attack you from the back. We are doing exactly the same thing by how we are handling this stupid, silly situation. Our enemies, and make no mistake we do have enemies, are taking note of our lack of resolve, and will no doubt test us in some meaningful way in the future. God bless those citizens and our military, who will be at the forefront of that test, brought on by our bungled handling of four bungling pirates.
Bumper Stickers, and why most politicians do not like speaking to small groups
My hometown, and the town where I currently work, is Asheville, NC. Due to its natural beauty, its place in American history, and its role as a center of commerce and arts for western North Carolina, Asheville is a special place.
One of the things that makes Asheville unique is the high percentage of its vehicles which sport bumper stickers. I believe that if a scientific study were to be done, Asheville would lead the nation in vehicles sporting multiple bumber stickers. Another unique feature of Asheville motorists is many of them have expanded the term bumper, to include any flat portion of the car that adhesive can stick to, up to and occasionally including glass. There is one pick up truck in Asheville that I believe has 0% of its paint showing. The vehicle is completely covered in bumper stickers.
Most bumper stickers in Asheville and elsewhere contain some form of political or social commentary. Most of these stickers make it clear which end of the political spectrum the vehicle owner agrees with. Messages like "I visited Rock City" seems to have almost all been replaced with messages that tend to cause you to want to reply with one of your fingers: either your thumb, or a different one.
There is one sticker though, that I have only seen once, that I really like. I like it because I believe it. I like it because I think it contains tremendous amounts of truth. And what is even better, BOTH, or should I even say all, sides of the political debate think this saying was invented for their side, to be used against the other side.
Here it is: "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups". (Now, I realize the term "stupid people" is not politically correct, and its kind of not nice. But we are trying to have a big boy/big girl convesation, so stay with me.)
Does that resonate with you? I think it is brilliant. Simple, and brilliant. If you think Bush was an idiot, this statement probably appeals to you. If you believe Slick Willie succeeded via wit and charm, and checked his brain and judment somewhere in Arkansas, this statement may appeal to you as well. There are literally thousand of applications of the statement in the political realm, regarless of your ideology or political affiliation.
I have never studied psychology, but I do study people. I do not understand why this statement is true, but I believe it is. You put a stupid person in a small group, and if they have a stupid idea, usually that idea is not going to go anywhere. People are more direct in small groups. But you put a stupid person in big group and they shout out a stupid idea, many times the rest of the group is silent. They think if the person has the guts to shout out the idea, in front of all the people, it must be a good idea. They think if I stand up and say its not, and I'm wrong, then I might embarrass myself in front of this big group. Sound familiar? I'll bet you have seen that in action some time. If you are paying attention to the news right now, you might be witnessing it.
One of the things that makes Asheville unique is the high percentage of its vehicles which sport bumper stickers. I believe that if a scientific study were to be done, Asheville would lead the nation in vehicles sporting multiple bumber stickers. Another unique feature of Asheville motorists is many of them have expanded the term bumper, to include any flat portion of the car that adhesive can stick to, up to and occasionally including glass. There is one pick up truck in Asheville that I believe has 0% of its paint showing. The vehicle is completely covered in bumper stickers.
Most bumper stickers in Asheville and elsewhere contain some form of political or social commentary. Most of these stickers make it clear which end of the political spectrum the vehicle owner agrees with. Messages like "I visited Rock City" seems to have almost all been replaced with messages that tend to cause you to want to reply with one of your fingers: either your thumb, or a different one.
There is one sticker though, that I have only seen once, that I really like. I like it because I believe it. I like it because I think it contains tremendous amounts of truth. And what is even better, BOTH, or should I even say all, sides of the political debate think this saying was invented for their side, to be used against the other side.
Here it is: "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups". (Now, I realize the term "stupid people" is not politically correct, and its kind of not nice. But we are trying to have a big boy/big girl convesation, so stay with me.)
Does that resonate with you? I think it is brilliant. Simple, and brilliant. If you think Bush was an idiot, this statement probably appeals to you. If you believe Slick Willie succeeded via wit and charm, and checked his brain and judment somewhere in Arkansas, this statement may appeal to you as well. There are literally thousand of applications of the statement in the political realm, regarless of your ideology or political affiliation.
I have never studied psychology, but I do study people. I do not understand why this statement is true, but I believe it is. You put a stupid person in a small group, and if they have a stupid idea, usually that idea is not going to go anywhere. People are more direct in small groups. But you put a stupid person in big group and they shout out a stupid idea, many times the rest of the group is silent. They think if the person has the guts to shout out the idea, in front of all the people, it must be a good idea. They think if I stand up and say its not, and I'm wrong, then I might embarrass myself in front of this big group. Sound familiar? I'll bet you have seen that in action some time. If you are paying attention to the news right now, you might be witnessing it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)