It isn't Humor, it's Insecurity

Most commentators seem to think the recent brouhaha over cartoons in textbooks has more to do with our political class not having a sense of humor than anything else.

I don't agree.

Humor has nothing to do with it. Insecurity, everything. Its insecure people who protest at 'seeming' insults. Secure people on the other hand laugh it off. Its a pity, though understandable how Dalit MPs reacted to a 'seeming' insult on their icon, Dr. Ambedkar. Though I would have wished otherwise I can quite understand the Dalits taking time to inculcate a sense of security after having faced centuries of discrimination.

But not so for others. But then again, there's another story there. Culturally, most of what we tend to believe in focuses on everything on the 'outside', Meaning, our sense of security comes not from within, but from 'out there'. And out there are all those symbols and icons that we hold dear and take to, so as to craft an identity for ourselves. Our 'outside' thus is populated by our dear deities, dead icons, and other such worshipful beings. Any notion of an insult on them isn't tolerated by us. Which explains perfectly why we go into an abnormal tizzy and ban movies, books, people, and so on.

Insecure people are welcome consumers to marketers. The purchases they make are inclined towards an attempt at masking their insecurity. So if its a car they're buying, it will be 'grand' enough to make a 'statement'. The houses they build and dwell in will reek in ostentation. So will their clothes and their lifestyle.

Now as a nation, we have miles to go before we turn secure. Until then there'll always be recurring 'insults' that offend us. So we'll keep up with our ludicrous demands to out cartoons. And we'll keep up with trying to score points with our purchases.

What can I say, other than amen to the latter.

Sphere: Related Content

Happy Mother's Day

Sphere: Related Content

Graduating Class

WSJ:

Dear Class of 2012:

Allow me to be the first one not to congratulate you. Through exertions that—let's be honest—were probably less than heroic, most of you have spent the last few years getting inflated grades in useless subjects in order to obtain a debased degree. Now you're entering a lousy economy, courtesy of the very president whom you, as freshmen, voted for with such enthusiasm. Please spare us the self-pity about how tough it is to look for a job while living with your parents. They're the ones who spent a fortune on your education only to get you back— return-to-sender, forwarding address unknown.

No doubt some of you have overcome real hardships or taken real degrees. A couple of years ago I hired a summer intern from West Point. She came to the office directly from weeks of field exercises in which she kept a bulletproof vest on at all times, even while sleeping. She writes brilliantly and is as self-effacing as she is accomplished. Now she's in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban.

If you're like that intern, please feel free to feel sorry for yourself. Just remember she doesn't.

Unfortunately, dear graduates, chances are you're nothing like her. And since you're no longer children, at least officially, it's time someone tells you the facts of life. The other facts...

... Fact Three: Your prospective employers can smell BS from miles away. And most of you don't even know how badly you stink. When did puffery become the American way? Probably around the time Norman Mailer came out with "Advertisements for Myself." But at least that was in the service of provoking an establishment that liked to cultivate an ideal of emotional restraint and public reserve.

To read through your CVs, dear graduates, is to be assaulted by endless Advertisements for Myself. Here you are, 21 or 22 years old, claiming to have accomplished feats in past summer internships or at your school newspaper that would be hard to credit in a biography of Walter Lippmann or Ernie Pyle.

If you're not too bright, you may think this kind of nonsense goes undetected; if you're a little brighter, you probably figure everyone does it so you must as well.

But the best of you don't do this kind of thing at all. You have an innate sense of modesty. You're confident that your résumé needs no embellishment. You understand that less is more.

In other words, you're probably capable of thinking for yourself. And here's Fact Four: There will always be a market for people who can do that.

In every generation there's a strong tendency for everyone to think like everyone else. But your generation has an especially bad case, because your mass conformism is masked by the appearance of mass nonconformism. It's a point I learned from my West Point intern, when I asked her what it was like to lead such a uniformed existence.

Her answer stayed with me: Wearing a uniform, she said, helped her figure out what it was that really distinguished her as an individual.

Now she's a second lieutenant, leading a life of meaning and honor, figuring out how to Think Different for the sake of a cause that counts. Not many of you will be able to follow in her precise footsteps, nor do you need to do so. But if you can just manage to tone down your egos, shape up your minds, and think unfashionable thoughts, you just might be able to do something worthy with your lives. And even get a job. Good luck!

- Bret Stephens, 'Stephens: To the Class of 2012.'

Sphere: Related Content

The curse of 'Empirical Logic'

It's easy to see through the idiocy at Spirit Airlines if you consider what I call the 'curse of empirical logic'. It takes two weeks of bad publicity and threats of boycott to get Spirit to refund a dying Vietnam veteran for the ticket he is too sick to use. The usual CEO apology too is thrown in, but the damage’s done.

What is the curse of empirical logic? It’s an affliction that sees businesses focusing myopically on costs, thus evaluating everything in terms of cost-numbers. Look at it from Spirit’s point of view. They do their business with wafer thin margins. Any rise in costs puts their business model under strain. So when they are faced with a refund (never mind it’s a dying veteran), all they are thinking is ‘rising’ costs. What makes the situation worse is Spirit people not being able to predict the bad publicity that may follow (it’s in the future and therefore invisible, you see). Plus they can’t easily put a money value to such lousy publicity.

I don’t know if there’s research to show the costs of preventing bad publicity to be less than what’s the fallout of bad publicity. Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest it. But beyond such evidence, businesses most learn to break out of their myopic business numbers perspective. They must learn to engage, keep consumers, and thus lower costs. Spirit on its hand should have refunded, incurred that extra cost, and built through the gesture, goodwill. Such goodwill may not see an immediate impact outcome in terms of increased sales, but in long run, it will.

Sphere: Related Content

God's not Dead

Sphere: Related Content

The 'norm' in wife-beating

Don't be shocked or even surprised at UNICEF's 'Global Report Card on Adolescents 2012' which says that 57% of adolescent boys in India think a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife. Also note that over half of the Indian adolescent girls surveyed, or around 53% think that a husband is justified in beating his wife.

To not be shocked you have to understand there's both normative beliefs and subjective norms at play that dictate attitudes, thus behaviour. Normative belief is an individual's perception about a particular behavior, which is influenced by the judgment of significant others (e.g., parents, spouse, friends, teachers). A subjective norm is an individual's perception of social normative pressures, or relevant others' beliefs that he or she should or should not perform such behavior.

Now consider what plays out as domestic violence almost on a daily basis in Indian families. Research on 'wife beating' suggests that while data on domestic violence against women is limited, two recent studies in India suggest its widespread prevalence. One study, conducted among women and men in Jullunder district, Punjab in north India reports that about 75 per cent of scheduled caste women reported being beaten frequently by their husbands; and likewise, about 75 per cent men reported beating their wives. Another research study showed that up to 45% of married men acknowledged physically abusing their wives (1996 survey of 6,902 men in the state of Uttar Pradesh). The point is, the beatings that happen almost day after day bring along a certain legitimacy that turns such attrocities into accepted norms, and more so because they are perpetrated by the 'head' of the family, the father. What also aids such norm formation is the witnesser's impressionable young age. At an aggregate level when this plays out across the board, there's a collective buy in that puts a social norm into place.

Consumer socialisation of children pretty much runs on the same lines. This is socialisation that sees adoption of consumer practices by children based on consumption witnessed at home. The child takes to a particular brand of coffee when he's old enough because that's what's drunk at home. Of course choices may alter over a period of time, but some purchase habits remain forever.

To get adolescent boys and girls in India to see wife beating as reprehensible requires that fathers first stop beating mothers. It also requires that fathers dissapprove of the usage of violence as a tool. More than anything else it requires that fathers love mothers, and that such love be practiced visibly when the children are around.

Sphere: Related Content

8

She walks in beauty, like the night
Of cloudless climes and starry skies;
And all that's best of dark and bright
Meet in her aspect and her eyes:
Thus mellow'd to that tender light
Which heaven to gaudy day denies.

One shade the more, one ray the less,
Had half impair'd the nameless grace
Which waves in every raven tress,
Or softly lightens o'er her face;
Where thoughts serenely sweet express
How pure, how dear their dwelling-place.

And on that cheek, and o'er that brow,
So soft, so calm, yet eloquent,
The smiles that win, the tints that glow,
But tell of days in goodness spent,
A mind at peace with all below,
A heart whose love is innocent!

- Lord Byron

Happy Anniversary, Angel. :)

Sphere: Related Content

Diminished

Baby Afreen is dead.

So is Baby Falak.

In their passing, we have been diminished. As a nation.

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

Sphere: Related Content

Freedom calls. Who'll take heed?

The 'lent' season is over. Which means many people I know can now go back to eating meat. As for me, meat is year round. I know PETA's gonna see red, but frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. When I probe about why people take to 'lent', the answer I get is always the same. 'Its been a practice for long, no point changing it now'.

I disagree. I think there's always a point to 'changing' when 'change' matters. I for one can't go into mourning knowing 'Good Friday' beckons. I don't need to. I don't need to go through elaborate 'practices' because its mandated by the religious group I subscribe to. If I did, I'd be defeating the very purpose for which the sacrifice was made on the Cross. 'He died to set us FREE!'

FREE means FREEDOM!

Freedom also means you can eat meat, year round!

Most people don't get that. In fact they don't want to. Truth is, they reject being free. They want to go through with what I believe are 'submissive' practices like the 'lent' to find meaning in their faith. They trade in freedom to be bonded to norms so they can 'belong'. As for me, I have to reject those very 'practices' to find meaning. I don't want to belong. I want to be free.

I'd like to think I am getting there.

Its the same reason as it is with 'lent practicing' people, why brands work. People want to belong. They want to trade in their free spirit and subscribe to marketer driven norms to belong. Of course, they say 'free spirit' used to be around in the past. The irony is, when the 'free spirit' movement happened, it still was one subjugated by norms. The flower children were, I believe, worse off in terms of being free as compared to capitalist bourgeoisie.

Truth is, unlike what's thought, most people aren't free, don't want to be free.

Ditto with consumers.

Sphere: Related Content

They are why we're slobs!

'We need to rein in our MNCs, for they seem to have little ethics in their advertising. When they are selling something that is harmful in the long term, they should disclose that to the buyer. Children and teenagers should be protected from the onslaught of unscrupulous MNCs who sell junk as aspirational. We need stringent labelling and advertising regulations.'

Just so you know, that's Chetan Bhagat railing against 'unscrupulous' MNCs who supposedly are part of the reason why we live unhealthy lives. Now for a moment let me go with the idiocy Chetan recommends. Extending his line of thought, what about having all of Chetan's books carry a warning on its covers? That buying and reading such lousy literature rife with poor usages of the Englishman's language can set one back a few years in one's quest to mastering it. In fact why stop, I think the whole country should have signage all over. Signs on roads stating that crossing them can probably have us taking a trip to meet our maker. Signs telling us that its mandatory that we pray before we hit the roads in India, and so on.

Chetan's right. Labels, regulated advertising, and signage are what we need.

Not introspective citizens and consumers who have the guts to admit they are responsible for who they are, and the state they are in. But then again, that may be too much to ask. After all, that means we have to go around pointing the finger at ourselves. We have to say, we're fat because we are slobs who eat like hogs. Our roads are because we drive like insensitive maniacs. Oh no, no way! We are fat because the MNCs don't tell us what's in the pack of chips! Our roads are because the big bad MNCs make cars with excessive horsepower! Shame on them!

Yeah right, Chetan, what we need is labels and regulations. So we can go back to being slobs and maniacs who rail against everything and everyone else for the condition we are in.

I love the idea! Chetan for President, people! And hooray to lousy English.

Sphere: Related Content

Better off as consumers, Worse off as humans

Baby Afreen and Falak are reasons why we have a billion years to go before we call ouyrselves civilized. Sure, in a few decades India may be the largest economy in the world, but will it really matter? For we still won't be a civilized nation.

We still won't treat the girl child, or for that matter women with dignity and respect. All the production and consumption that's coming to India won't matter for we may be better off as consumers, but worse off as humans!

I don't think there's any greater tragedy than that.

Sphere: Related Content

A hood in a hoodie?

What are the chances there's a hood in a hoodie? I can't say for sure. Okay, what do you think? Probably. Its probably a hood in a hoodie. Probably not.

Now what are the chances people are thinking the latter, if its a certain neighbourhood, a certain time of the day.......? Pretty low. Why? Blame it on perceptions. Perceptions are what are formed when our senses respond to stimuli. Its quick, almost instantaneous. See a person dressed a certain way and perceptual judgements are what are bound to follow. Conversely, dress in a certain manner and you can engineer the perceptions you seek!

Wearing a hoodie is no crime. But wearing it and not expecting people to make judgements based on perceptions is foolish.

In the world of consumers too, such parallels can be drawn. What are the chances consumers perceive better quality based on how the product is packaged? Here's evidence to prove packaging matters. In fact all marketing mix variables can drive perceptions. The smart marketer is the one who uses every possible stimuli at his disposal to craft perceptions that lead to the 'right' judgments, that then lead to the 'right' attitudes, finally engineering a sale.

Sphere: Related Content

If You Think You're Lonely Now

Sphere: Related Content

The sanctimonious nonsense of Earth Hour

Thank God for the likes of Prof. Ross McKitrick. Here's what he thinks of 'Earth Hour'. I agree a hundred percent!

'Earth Hour: A Dissent

In 2009 I was asked by a journalist for my thoughts on the importance of Earth Hour.

Here is my response.

I abhor Earth Hour. Abundant, cheap electricity has been the greatest source of human liberation in the 20th century. Every material social advance in the 20th century depended on the proliferation of inexpensive and reliable electricity.

Giving women the freedom to work outside the home depended on the availability of electrical appliances that free up time from domestic chores. Getting children out of menial labour and into schools depended on the same thing, as well as the ability to provide safe indoor lighting for reading.


Development and provision of modern health care without electricity is absolutely impossible. The expansion of our food supply, and the promotion of hygiene and nutrition, depended on being able to irrigate fields, cook and refrigerate foods, and have a steady indoor supply of hot water.

Many of the world’s poor suffer brutal environmental conditions in their own homes because of the necessity of cooking over indoor fires that burn twigs and dung. This causes local deforestation and the proliferation of smoke- and parasite-related lung diseases.

Anyone who wants to see local conditions improve in the third world should realize the importance of access to cheap electricity from fossil-fuel based power generating stations. After all, that’s how the west developed.

The whole mentality around Earth Hour demonizes electricity. I cannot do that, instead I celebrate it and all that it has provided for humanity.

Earth Hour celebrates ignorance, poverty and backwardness. By repudiating the greatest engine of liberation it becomes an hour devoted to anti-humanism. It encourages the sanctimonious gesture of turning off trivial appliances for a trivial amount of time, in deference to some ill-defined abstraction called “the Earth,” all the while hypocritically retaining the real benefits of continuous, reliable electricity.

People who see virtue in doing without electricity should shut off their fridge, stove, microwave, computer, water heater, lights, TV and all other appliances for a month, not an hour. And pop down to the cardiac unit at the hospital and shut the power off there too.

I don’t want to go back to nature. Travel to a zone hit by earthquakes, floods and hurricanes to see what it’s like to go back to nature. For humans, living in “nature” meant a short life span marked by violence, disease and ignorance. People who work for the end of poverty and relief from disease are fighting against nature. I hope they leave their lights on.

Here in Ontario, through the use of pollution control technology and advanced engineering, our air quality has dramatically improved since the 1960s, despite the expansion of industry and the power supply.

If, after all this, we are going to take the view that the remaining air emissions outweigh all the benefits of electricity, and that we ought to be shamed into sitting in darkness for an hour, like naughty children who have been caught doing something bad, then we are setting up unspoiled nature as an absolute, transcendent ideal that obliterates all other ethical and humane obligations.

No thanks.

I like visiting nature but I don’t want to live there, and I refuse to accept the idea that civilization with all its tradeoffs is something to be ashamed of.'

Ross McKitrick
Professor of Economics
University of Guelph

Sphere: Related Content

Dead Serious

“I hope people see that I’m dead serious about what I’m dead serious about, and besides that, it’s all about a good laugh.”

- Andrew Breitbart

Sphere: Related Content

Mr. President, the marketer.

If you think Barack Obama was expressing solidarity with the grieving when he said, 'If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon', think again.

The president's statement has more to do with his reelection campaign that anything else. His statement is his masterstroke at connecting at an emotional level with his loyal audience, the blacks in America. Is it working? You bet. The other day Chaka Khan gushed on TV, 'Obama's words were 'beautiful'.

When it comes to Obama, his audiences are all ears as they think he spews gospel. It works because such receptivity comes with a suspension of sense. Its much like what happens to socialists when they put their faith in government. Its also much like what happens to consumers when they buy into marketer promises of 'care'.

Suspension of sense precedes buy-ins into emotive issues. The former happens because the recipient is emotionally charged. The blacks in America currently are charged up on the Trayvon issue. Barack's done well to step in and connect. As a President what Barack's done is thoroughly irresponsible, but as a candidate needing to fight an upcoming election, the move is near brilliant.

Marketers, learn from Barack. With zero substance, and overwhelming rhetoric he's gotten into the White house. Imagine what that means to you in your quest to have consumers emotively buy-into the nonsense you spew!

Sphere: Related Content

The Decline of Literate Thought

'The tacit bond between teacher and student has now started to unravel. The covenant between the participants in the noble game of intellectual discourse must be predicated on the assumption of a possible mutual ideality, a striving to disengage the best self from the turmoil of appetitive claims and desires that obscure it. The teacher has to assume the role of committed intercessor, and the student needs to be willing to suspend an increasingly fashionable skepticism about the importance of humanistic scholarship and to struggle against the blandishments of a high-tech, instantaneous, digital milieu that will infallibly bankrupt him or her both materially and spiritually.

At the same time, many teachers have, by now, given up or become disablingly skeptical. Others teach not the curriculum but a politically correct travesty of what passes for genuine knowledge — Taqiyya for Kids, as Janet Tassel calls it in American Thinker, or Howard Zinn’s treasonably distorted history of the United States. A disturbing number of students have lapsed into a coma from which all too few seem likely to awaken. With a handful of redeeming exceptions, writers pander or traffic in technicalities. Like the students they once were, most readers wish to be stroked, not struck.

The decline of education, which means also the fading out of historical memory and the dimming of literate curiosity, has been the case for some considerable time now. The insistent question is: how does one go about trying to rescue a culture in the throes of custodial dissolution?'

- David Solway, 'The Decline of Literate Thought.'

Sphere: Related Content

Our obsession with us

There's no denying the decency and earthiness Sachin carries with him, both on and off the field. But when he says he doesn't play for records, I say, hmmm.

Does he?

Look at the statistics. The match which he got his hundredth hundred in, he scored at a pace of 4.6 runs per ever. Compare that with for example his teammates' scoring rate. Plus India lost. Now what does that say about Sachin and his comment on not playing for records?

You decide.

Don't for a moment be surprised at what Sachin did. That's what most of us would do. After all, decisions we take on and off the 'field' are meant to maximise on our payoffs. Take consumption decisions for example. All of them are engineered to ensure our needs are met in the best manner possible. When we purchase via comparisons, we are in effect trying to maximise on our value accrual from available alternatives. What we seek is the best product or service (read, solution to our need), for the money we pay.

When I hear people say, the team's above an individual, I think what nonsense. Its the other way round. For every player, its him above the team. Ditto for Sachin. Plus for everyone else. Don't be surprised for that's the way we are wired in our being. That's how we decide, consistently in our own favour. Its plain to see Sachin played for his hundredth hundred and not the team. We shouldn't fault him for that. As I said, most of us would do the same. And in many ways its good we are wired that way. At least it's perfect for marketers. For in consuming, we don roles of 'individualists' bent on maximising 'value' that accrues to us via our purchases. It sounds selfish but its good.

Reserve you admiration, not for the likes of Sachin, but for those who sacrifice so others benefit. Such people do so willingly asking for nothing in return. They are the true heroes amongst us. Not Sachin.

Here's hoping we celebrate them.

Sphere: Related Content

The road to ruin, Budget 2012

So now we know how the government intends to take more of our money and squander it.

What has Budget 2012 done?

Given consumers enough reasons to cut back on spending, and investors enough of reasons to park their money elsewhere. Well, I am not surprised. What else can you expect from a socialist who dons the role of Finance Minister of the country?

Sphere: Related Content

Getting to Guetta

David Guetta expressed surprise at the turnout to his live performance at Bangalore.

My response?

David, don't be. The demographic that turned up, would have, even if Mickey came to town. I know that's an exaggeration, but the truth is David, it wasn't about you, it was about what they wanted. What you did was gave them exactly what they wanted. Foot stomping, deafeningly loud music, profanity laden numbers, bright lights; you're the package man!

It was natural they come.

They came.

Its nice to know you were surprised. I am glad there were the crowds, plus in the process you also reminded us what marketing really is. Knowing what consumers want, and then giving it to them.

By the way, even I dig some of your stuff David. Here's hoping you're back, man.

Sphere: Related Content

Kony 2012?

Sphere: Related Content

Attachment Parenting, meet Biblical Training

I have to admit I’ve become hugely addicted to 19 Kids and Counting. Michelle Duggar is the sweetest mom on the planet. Who doesn’t wish they could keep that pleasant tone of voice with their children at all times? I’m afraid mine are going to hear the smoke alarm and think it’s just me screeching. Michelle has quite a few more mothering years under her belt so I’m hoping her enviable character traits like patience, mercy and grace come over time. I made the biggest strides as a mother after connecting with a church and finding women of faith to help along the way. The biggest problem with most popular parenting advice is that it is not rooted in Biblical principles.

The Bible has been a source of wisdom for thousands of years, first in the Torah and later with the books of the Apostles. Unlike any parenting book written two years ago based on random studies with dubious backgrounds, the Bible has produced amazing people for the entirety of its existence. Dr. David Livingstone spent most of his life in Africa saving lives with medicine and with the good news of the Gospels. George Muller saved over 10,000 orphans by giving them a home in his orphanage in England. William Wilberforce worked tirelessly to end the slave trade in England and saw its collapse before he died. Each of these people had someone in their lives who shared the transforming message of the Bible with them that lit a fire under them to act in amazing and world-changing ways. The Bible has influenced people who dedicated their lives to improve the lives of whole nations, curing diseases and feeding the hungry, not because their government ordered it but because their convictions and deep faith led them to do so at great personal cost.

I compare these tremendous people to the ideas we have today about what raising successful people means: keeping them from getting pregnant until they finish college and off drugs for about the same amount of time. It’s depressing. Most people are so busy just trying to survive without a calamity there is no time left for kids to reach their full potential. There are so many societal pressures, mean girls and dating horrors, who could thrive in that kind of environment?

Add to that the early over-sexualization of girls and the expectation that teen boys will be Lotharios by the age of 13 and you have a parent’s worst nightmare. Where is the joy? Where is the room for true achievement outside of test scores? I have noticed that in our church, many of our young people have passion for something other than a hot date. They have a burning desire to go into missions work. They get on waiting lists, they go to Africa, something I never would have had the courage to do at their age. It seems that each month we are saying goodbye to someone’s son or daughter who is off on the adventure of a lifetime to bring the word of God and much needed help to a dark place in the world.

I’ve asked myself, how do I get one of those? One of those bright-eyed teens with sweet dispositions and a heart for serving others? They spend their money on plane tickets to third world countries instead of designer shoes. They are simply precious, important people who will make a difference to someone in need. I want one of those and I believe the answer is to make the wisdom of the Bible a huge part of their lives and mine.

The Bible is the original manual for Attachment Parenting. It has a plan for raising children that includes being highly involved, loving and kind parents who find joy in their children. Instead of looking to new fads for parenting advice, try a time-tested method that won’t disappoint.

Deuteronomy 6:7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Proverbs 29:17 Discipline your son, and he will give you rest; he will give delight to your heart.

Psalm 127:3 Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.

Collossians 3:21 Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.

Proverbs 13:24 Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him. (Sidenote: Many of the Proverbs were written by King Solomon, known by all during his life as the wisest man to have ever lived. It’s interesting to note that a few thousand years later, our culture now calls him a fool.)

Proverbs 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother.

Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.

-Megan Fox, 'Five Problems with Gen-X Attachment Parenting.'

Sphere: Related Content

Kony 2012

Sphere: Related Content

Alphy Day

Today's Women's day?

In my book, today's Alphy day!
So is everyday!

Sphere: Related Content

Hooray to lousy Quality

'Sooner or later, people will figure out that in a capitalist system, information and transparency are as valuable, if not more valuable, than all the regulation of business that Washington can produce. There is a middle ground. You can have intelligent regulation and economic innovation by forcing bad players away from the table.'

The truth is, Adam, You can't! Intelligent regulation? What's that about? Protecting consumers? From who? Bad sellers, perhaps? Bad idea, Adam.

Here's why.

The first rule of quality says quality is as defined by the consumer. Not by you, or me, or a regulator. That means what may be bad quality to you, me, or an 'intelligent regulator', may be good quality to a particular consumer. And if our definitions of quality deny that c0nsumer the opportunity to buy, we deny him his right.

Consider this. Let say, in town A there's a seller X selling lousy chairs at dirt cheap prices. Lets say these chairs are known to break down in a month's time. Now that's probably lousy quality to you. But then lets assume I move in temporarily into town A, looking to stay a month. What would you have me do? Buy furniture from seller Y who sells teakwood chairs at premium prices, and then worry about what I do with the it once I wanna leave; or would you recommend I buy the lousy chair from seller X at the dirt cheap price, use it for a month and dump it in garbage?

You see Adam, sellers must be given the right to churn out bad quality. And buyers must be allowed to buy such bad quality, if the want to. If you really want bad sellers to be out of the way, leave it to consumers.

On the other hand, if you see lousy sellers eking a living out of 'third rate' products, know this for sure. Someone's buying. You, I, or a regulator don't need to do anything about that!

Sphere: Related Content

Modern Feminism

'Abortion, birth control, and promiscuous sex are the cornerstones of the modern feminist movement. Say that women shouldn’t sleep around with wild abandon, and you’re out of the club. Mention that you’re pro-life, and you aren’t allowed to call yourself a feminist. Do the unthinkable and suggest that women should pay for their own abortions and birth control, and you’re castigated as a woman-hating tool of the patriarchy. Feminists throw the word “choice” around and like to pretend that they fight so women can have different choices. The truth is, feminists will decide what kind of lifestyle is best for you, and if you have a problem with it, you better keep your mouth shut and your wallet open. Because not only do you have to approve of their whoredom, you’ve got to subsidize it also.

The worst part of the obsession with sluthood? The harm to women. For starters, one in five women currently have herpes. Rates of chlamydia among women have also skyrocketed, with almost three times as many women infected as men. HPV, a disease which can cause cancer, is so prevalent now that at least half of all sexually active adults have been diagnosed with it at some point. According to the CDC, of the 12,000 women who get cervical cancer each year, almost all of them are HPV-related. The effects are even worse on younger girls. Sixty-three percent of teens who have sex wish they didn’t. The Heritage Foundation did a study and found that 8,000 teenagers are infected with an STD daily.

As a woman, how is it better to close our eyes and bleat “empowerment!” about women being sluts? It’s harmful, degrading, and even the feminists advocating for sluthood admit to feeling used, cheap, and worthless. It may seem harsher to call someone a slut, but far better for us to stop glorifying sluthood as if it’s some kind of acceptable lifestyle than to praise women for it. What’s the better choice in the long run for women? To lie to them about the greatness of being a whore, or to be honest and call sluts what they are? Believe it or not, slut-shaming serves a purpose.

We can lie to women all day long about the excitement of the hook-up culture, but it’s far better to tell women the truth, even though the word “slut” stings.'

- Cassy Fiano, 'In Defense of Slut-Shaming.'

Sphere: Related Content

The NO FLUKE Agenda

'In her testimony, Ms. Fluke claimed that, "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school." That's $1,000 per year. But an employee at a Target pharmacy near the university told the Weekly Standard last week that one month's worth of generic oral contraceptives is $9 per month. "That's the price without insurance," the employee said. (It's also $9 per month at Wal-Mart.)

What about Rush Limbaugh? I won't defend his use of epithets (for which he's apologized), but I understand his larger point. At issue isn't inhalers for asthmatics or insulin for diabetics. Contraception isn't like other kinds of "health care." Yes, birth-control pills can be prescribed to address medical problems, though that's relatively rare and the Catholic Church has no quarrel with their use in this circumstance. And the university's insurance covers prescriptions in these cases.

Still, Ms. Fluke is not mollified. Why? Because at the end of the day this is not about coverage of a medical condition.

Ms. Fluke's crusade for reproductive justice is simply a demand that a Catholic institution pay for drugs that make it possible for her to have sex without getting pregnant. It's nothing grander or nobler than that. Georgetown's refusal to do so does not mean she has to have less sex, only that she has to take financial responsibility for it herself.

Should Ms. Fluke give up a cup or two of coffee at Starbucks each month to pay for her birth control, or should Georgetown give up its religion? Even a first-year law student should know where the Constitution comes down on that.'

- Cathy Ruse, 'Limbaugh and Our Phony Contraception Debate.'

Sphere: Related Content

Corporations are People

Andersen Cooper can do the puppy dog look all he wants and tell me that mandating companies to pay for contraception isn't the same as asking taxpayers to pay for contraception; it still won't cut any ice with me.

Why? Because I've got enough sense to know corporations are people. They aren't what they are, as characterised by the likes of Andersen. Corporations aren't brick and mortar. And so when government mandates that corporations pay for contraception, they are mandating that a group of people pay for contraception intended for a group that works for them.

Now, how fair is that? For the record, if a corporation willingly wants to pay for their employees' contraception, or their pigeon feed, I like others won't say a word. After all, if shareholders want to give away money so people can have sex, or keep pets, who am I to raise hell?

Its important we realise that corporations and taxpayers are alike. The former's a set of people, the latter's the same set disaggregated.

Sphere: Related Content

Maturing

'The word “mature” is defined as “complete in natural growth or development,” also “fully developed in mind and body.” Left undefined is the standard for development.

Without here delving into the full philosophical proof, let us accept for the sake of argument that human maturity is the capacity to deal rationally with the facts of reality and to act to sustain your life and pursue long-term happiness. Consider, the reason children remain in the care of parents until they reach adulthood is because they lack the knowledge and experience to act rationally in pursuit of their own lives. Otherwise, they would have no need of parenting.

An animal is mature at a certain age, having developed to the point where its instincts and physical abilities are sufficient for it to act according to its nature without the aid of its mother. Human beings are different. We alone must utilize reason in order to survive.

By this standard, it is apparent to the casual observer that maturity is a rare trait among men and women. Physical development is completely disconnected from the ability to deal rationally with the facts of reality. Indeed, many make it into middle and advanced age without maturing in this sense. Some go their entire lives without truly growing up...

It is bad enough when an individual refuses to mature. Consider the consequences of an entire nation intent on fantasy. Mark Steyn highlights the fact that President Obama’s currently proposed budget places the national debt on track to reach 900% of GDP by 2075. Are there any grown-ups among us prepared to deal with this reality?

The capacity of Americans to mature will determine whether or not we pull out of our cultural and economic nosedive and restore a republic governed by just laws which protect individual rights. It is the choice and capacity to acknowledge the requirements of life, to concede such axioms as “money doesn’t grow on trees,” which enable mature adults to act productively in pursuit of their own happiness. Absent that, misery is inevitable.'

- Helen Smith, 'American Immaturity: How We Grow Up After We Grow Old.'

Sphere: Related Content

Why Indian Americans vote Barack

That 80% Indian-Americans will vote Barack should not come as a surprise. After all, it isn't easy understanding or digesting Capitalism. Getting free markets into your blood, and government out of it requires that you abandon the 'taxpayer community is required to help me' mindset.

Capitalism thrusts the 'I am responsible for me' credo down everyones throats. That surely isn't palatable to those waiting for flesh and blood messiahs to give their lives direction. Barack's done a superlative job in plonking the 'I'll take care of you, cause you're an idiot' halo round his head, Plus, I am qualified he boasts, 'I've been a community organizer'. Indian Americans have taken to such talk lock, stock, and barrel and in doing so they have only reiterated what is in their blood. The belief in the 'collectivism' nonsense.

Remember, 'Yes We Can!'

There's enough evidence out there to show why it plays out this way. Take the Geert Hofstede's 'Individualism' dimension for example. India scores a lowly 48 to the US' score of 91. Indians look to the collective to save them. They may cross the seven seas and sail to alien shores, but they ain't dropping what's been blooded in them for ages.

Its no wonder then they are buying into the community organizer's promise of collective salvation.

Pity, is what I say.

Sphere: Related Content

Rush away from Rush?

Should advertisers be pulling out of the Rush Limbaugh radio show?

They should, if they think consumers based on their association with the show will skip buying their products and move to competitors. They shouldn't if they think such switches won't happen. In fact staying put may turn out be the better move because there's all chances that post the controversy Rush's show audience numbers may probably go north.

Rushing to abandon Rush's show may not such a smart idea. At least not his quickly. Its too early to judge. My gut tells me there's enough conservatives in America who agree with Rush's position while disagreeing with his choice of words.

Staying on the subject, think about it. Should the taxpayer be paying for someone else's contraception? Extend that to everything else. Should the taxpayer be paying for anything that another buys?

Sphere: Related Content

Who courage was

RIP., Andrew Breitbart.

Your courage, your passion, and your genius will be sorely missed.

Sphere: Related Content

Knowing Brooklyn is knowing her cries

Jaden brings home an animal mask he got at school. I put it on, only to hear Brooklyn shriek. I pull the mask off quickly as I can almost smell the fear in her shriek.

Its interesting how I've gotten to reading Brooklyn's cries right. I mean, I now almost know when she cries what its about.

At times she's faking it. She's actually trying to get us to pick her up. At other times, its a hungry cry. She needs to be fed. She's even woken up from her sleep with different cries. Disturbing dreams make her cry a certain way. The lack of her mother's comforting presence makes her wail. I can tell you, that sounds way different.

Its blown me away to know she cries in myriad ways.

Trying to understand human behaviour requires that we decipher the never-ending human cues we are exposed to, all around us. Parenting runs pretty much on the same lines too. Its about being receptive to the cues the kids give out.

Ditto in Marketing. The genesis to getting marketing right begins squarely with our understanding of consumer cues. Everything else that makes up marketing follows. The best of marketers we know are ones who've deciphered consumer behaviour well. I can tell you they got it right with consumers because they first got their reading of the cues right.

I guess for the moment I am getting it right too.

With Brooklyn.

Sphere: Related Content

The Potty Path

'Even if the Indian Railways does invest crores of rupees to install at least 1.6 lakh 'green' and, presumably, clean toilets in all the coaches of its vast network in the next 10 years, it is unlikely that the corrosion of tracks will stop entirely. For, it is not only passengers who leave something of themselves behind on the tracks as they take those interminable journeys.

One of the enduring sights of tracks in India are the number of people in the hinterland who seem to prefer to carry out their morning ablutions in the vicinity of the steel rails, though why this open-to-view option is so favoured has never been definitively ascertained.

This may be the key to resolving the issue, along with a parallel scheme of making conventional toilets a must-want in rural areas. Of course, rural development minister Jairam Ramesh has rued that women apparently covet mobile phones more than toilets; if true, that desire would probably not be gender-specific, and may be spurred by the fact that the former costs considerably less than the latter to buy and use.

The stopping of this practice, however, could have unforeseen ecological consequences of an entirely different nature, too. A researcher has posited this month, for instance, that wild elk could be saved from instant death along Norway's railway tracks if the coaches' toilet tanks are opened out on the remote stretches. As these animals abhor the stink of human excrement, they would be repelled from coming anywhere near the lines by this very cost-effective method.

Many animals in India could also be unwitting beneficiaries of our penchant for scatological dissemination, so any plans to put a stop to the practice should be preceded by in-depth studies of the impact it may have on other life, wild and otherwise.'

- Economic Times

Sphere: Related Content

Market is People

'At a human level, somebody else's vulnerability creates empathy when it is located in a fear about tomorrow, but diminishes us when it is rubbed into our faces as a fact about today. When a Yuvraj Singh, flush after the success of the World Cup talks about the vulnerabilities involved in professional sport, it humanises him, when he watch him do the same after he has been diagnosed of cancer, it de-humanises us. The belief that the market as a mechanism is somehow exempt from social and cultural conventions as it resides outside the bounds of society, makes it possible for it to act in this way. Like it is with human beings, sometimes the market can gain much more from not using an opportunity than by wringing it dry.'

The problem in Santosh Desai's commentary stems from his misunderstanding of what a market is. His delineating the market from the people (read, consumers) it carries, and associating it only with business firms it consists of, is a flawed representation of what a market truly stands for. It is this flaw that prompts Santosh to ask for business firms in a market to be more humane, whilst missing out on a similar call to consumers who populate that very same market.

If business firms in a market operate sans humanity, then know that people within in too live pretty much the same way. After all in a market firms do what consumers ask them to. The dumb business firm is the one that does contrary to what's expected of it by its consumers. You see, the first and only rule of marketing is to give consumers what they seek, or else prod them into recognizing what they desire, and then give it to them.

Santosh must know its no good asking business firms to be humane, when people aren't. In fact he can do better if he makes that call to the society he lives in. He can then save the 'turn humane' speech meant for business firms, for they will surely take the humanity road if people lead the way.

Sphere: Related Content

What's with Kingfisher?

The Kingfisher mess is actually a problem at three levels, cascading in a sequence.

Its first a regulated industry problem. Meaning the government as a regulator has made it virtually impossible for any private player to make any money out of aviation industry in India. I hope you know our national carrier has stayed afloat all these years on squandered taxpayer money.

Second, its a business model problem. Kingfisher dished out a business model that was neither a pursuit of cost leadership, nor an attempt at differentiation. it was somewhere in between, stuck in the 'middle of the road'. Surely it was bound to fail.

Third, and finally, its a perception problem. Despite the legitimacies in Vijay Mallya's requests on structural changes in the industry, there won't be too many out there lending sympathy because the man's lifestyle sticks out like a sore thumb. Crafting the right perceptions about a business (never mind reality) require that the promotion game be played with utmost tact. Ego is big reason for lack of tact. Ego could be why Mallya doesn't make the mark with the public.

Businesses in India, and everywhere else need public sympathies. They need great business models, and of course free markets ensure the best businesses stay to benefit consumers. Kingfisher I'm afraid hasn't had any of three going its way.

Its no wonder the bird's going down. Here's hoping it won't crash.

Sphere: Related Content

Change, and working at Change

'With the necessary will and the necessary help, demons can be conquered. What is needed is the determination that leads to intense, deeply motivated effort. Promises and resolutions to do better in the future will inevitably be broken without doing the work to connect the dots and to understand why a person does what he does.

Yes, it takes time, and yes, it takes money. The time will pass, anyway: it’s better spent in therapy than in bed with a lover. On balance, psychotherapy can be enormously worthwhile, far more so than any material object – from a closetful of shoes to a powerful, flashy vehicle or a humongous-sized television screen. Many therapists offer sliding scales of fees to enable all to benefit. If you believe that a new thing (or person) will make you feel better, it or she won’t — except fleetingly. The benefits of psychotherapy will outlast anything else you can buy.

Nothing in life is more costly than the errors we make because of woeful ignorance of ourselves...

Each of our lives involves trial by that which “is contrary.” To win those trials and emerge stronger and better human beings, we must subject ourselves to the arduous task of self-understanding. Without that, all the tearful and abject apologies, all the confessions of guilt to one’s spouse and endless promises of change are just so much hot air.

To change is to work at change, not to believe that absolution or forgiveness is all it takes. It wasn’t in 1644, it isn’t now, and it never will be. '

– Belladonna Rogers, 'The Chastened Adulterer: How an Affair Is Like a Heart Attack and The Case for Psychotherapy.'

Sphere: Related Content

Staying Ahead, Staying Dumb

I must admit the Hindu's broadcast media campaign taking potshots at the ToI arrests attention with its content. But is it good enough to sway consumers to make a change in their choice when it comes to their newspaper?

I doubt it.

For the campaign to work, two things must happen. One, people must admit they are dumb, and two, they must want to do something about it. Now getting either of that to happen is close to wishing the impossible. Plus what makes the Hindu think people are interested in knowing what an ATM stands for, and not who's size zero?

Agreed, the campaign will enhance Hindu's recall as a brand but then again, is that good enough?

For information sake know that I read the ToI. The way I see it, I ain't dumb. I'd be if I wanted to read socialist sermons the Hindu preaches. If the Hindu wants me to switch, they don't need to sink big bucks into a TVC campaign. All they have to do is get into bed with free market capitalism.

They won't. I know.

Sphere: Related Content

Thank God we're Free!

'As I understand the Catholic ban on contraception (after slogging through much of Pope John Paul II’s mind-wracking Theology of the Body), it’s based on the idea that people should act in the completeness of their spiritual humanity even in the moments of their most intimate physicality. Thus sex should only take place within a sacralized and lifelong commitment of love without being detached from its essential purpose of conception.

I don’t have to agree with this doctrine to understand that it’s an heroic attempt to defend the one most essential ingredient of freedom: the concept of the inviolable human soul. In taking this stand, the church of Rome is doing exactly what churches are supposed to do. It is institutionalizing the fact that man is spirit, that he cannot live by bread alone.

Kings have wanted to snuff out this idea forever. They want to convince us that we’re bodies only, collections of material needs — and that they can fill those needs in exchange for their power over us. Without our churches, without our religions, nothing would stop them from filling us with bread and stripping us of freedom. Obama offers us this exchange virtually every time he opens his mouth. He will give you your contraception, but he will command your conscience.

Whether we’re Catholic or not, whether we agree with the Catholics or not, every single one of us should stand up against the Obama administration’s assault on their church. The Jews of Caesarea will be standing with us. So, I believe, will the Christ.'

- Andrew Klavan, 'Like Your Freedom? Thank a Church.'

Sphere: Related Content

Why we cast stones

Its easy to see why in India we have books being banned, and artists hounded out. Of course, the threat of violence is real, and so stymieing such possibilities through a 'ban' may be a good idea. But the real reason for such asinine acts (read, bans) playing out is because the books and the people in question dare to take on precepts and symbols from which others in the country draw their own identity.

Our sense of identity either is nurtured from within, or is drawn from the outside. At times it may even be a combination of the two. The most dangerous of places in the world to live in are those that house people drawing their identities from the outside. Such people draw their identity constructs through deep connections they build with their country, their social class, their religion, ethnicity, and so on. If you knowingly or otherwise hurt the latter lot through for example published literature, pretty soon you'll be an author on the run. The zealots will come after you not because you've taken on the symbols, but because you've dared to play fiddle with a part of their identity.

Consumers who are marketer delights are those that draw their identity from products and services. The kid at college with an external locus of control, desperate to appear 'cool' will buy into a brand that promises him just that. The rare kid who stays aloof and sidesteps a marketer's snare will probably be the rare one who constructs whose identity from within, drawing more from fundamental principles of human character.

In some ways its good if people are the stone throwing kind. Managing them is easy as all you have to do is to pander to the symbols they hold sacred. Selling too could be a lark as long as you stick to the social norms they live by and identify with.

Sphere: Related Content

The Class warfare we need

'The point is this: If we’re going to have a war, let’s do it right. The battle lines should be drawn orthogonally to the oversimplified “rich versus the rest.” A virtuous war would be one that rewards society’s honest earners and productive contributors, while punishing society’s predators, pirates, and parasites—all without regard to anyone’s income level. It is a target-rich environment that includes anyone (of any income level) who is cheating to win, any business or union (of any size) with its snout in the public trough, any politician filling that trough and feeding those snouts for reciprocal gain, and any group using the political system (at any level) to maintain its monopoly, or its winning “edge” against less-well-connected competitors.

Among “the rich” are many entertainment superstars, artists, CEOs, inventors, and entrepreneurs. Are all of them villains because of their huge incomes? Of course not. Most of them get where they are because they produce things that entertain us, make us more productive, save us money, or save us time. Most are “rich” because they earned it—and because they earned it, they do not deserve to be targets in the class war...

The true heroes in our economy are the producers and earners; they can be found all the way up and down the income ladder, and class warfare should defend and reward them instead of targeting them. Conversely, the proper targets are the class that includes cheaters, predators, pirates, and parasites—who can also be found at all income levels.'

- Steve Conover, 'The Class Warfare We Need.'

Sphere: Related Content

How does owning spectrum help us?

I hope amidst all the license cancellation din in India, the real issue isn't swept under the carpet, or misunderstood.

The honourable Supreme court may have cancelled licenses, but don't for a moment assume the business scene will get better if regulations are 'tightened' to ensure fairplay. Regulations and their stern application isn't the answer to business fair play. Instead its the opposite that works. Do away with regulations (read, licenses). Let the market do its job in deciding who gets in, stays, or goes.

Saying spectrum belongs to the people of India and the state is the trustee sounds mushily appealing. But what licensing 'people-owned' spectrum really does is raise costs for those who want to get into the business of telecom services. Such increased costs will see license buyers legitimately pass it on as higher service prices to consumers.

So where is the tom-tommed benefit to people in being spectrum owners if they have to pay higher prices? Sure, government kitties will swell through licensing, but don't tell me you are willing to bet such money will be used for social upliftment.

Fat chance.

The best thing a government can do is to stay out of the business of business, making it easy for private parties to do business. Private parties doing business under market driven competition conditions is what will really benefit the citizenry.

Here's hoping people understand that.

Sphere: Related Content

Liberty & the menace of Dowry

Consider this latest move being proposed by the Indian Planning Commission's Working Group on Women's Agency and Empowerment. A high-powered government panel has recommended income-linked cap on marriage expenditure, including gifts and food served. The panel wants wants to improve implementation of the anti-dowry law by appointing sufficient number of dedicated, full time dowry prohibition officers to enforce the Dowry Prohibition Act. It has also recommended a relook at the existing definition of what constitutes "dowry", and penalties for violation.

Unbelievable.

But then again, its another classic example of government infringing on individual liberties under the garb of protecting them. I agree the problem of dowry in India is a depressing one. Latest statistics show there's a bride burnt every hour in India.

How tragic.

But if you think regulation and its enforcement is the answer to curbing this menace, you're wrong. As I have said umpteen times before, the presence of a regulator is good news for violators, for it helps them get away with murder (literally) by ensuring the regulator is 'bought' out. Which by the way has been happening for donkey's years in India, and will happen till kingdom come.

Social problems can't be tackled by government via regulations. It can only be mitigated through individuals exercising their god-given liberty. Women, with parental support must refuse marriage offers if its accompanied by dowry demands. If such demands start post marriage, women must walk out if they are subjected to any sort of abuse (psychological or physical). Finally, if doing the former means remaining single, they must welcome it, open arms. They may also take the Sushmita Sen (kudos to her) route, if that's acceptable.

Now I know this isn't easy in India. But tell you what, this is the only way out. Plus its better than hoping government will come to a woman's rescue (it won't and can't), or hoping her husband and his family won't burn her alive.

In the world of consumers too, it must be same story. Ensuring consumers buy into quality products and services must come out their exercising their individual liberty. That is, consumers must decide whether to buy, or not to. Their not buying is their best response to lousy quality. Depending on government to ensure quality is chasing a pipe dream. Plus history shows that when regulators in India were out in full force pre-liberalisation, we as consumers were at the mercy of the lousiest products and services imaginable.

The key to getting your choice of partner, or your product purchase right lies in you exercising your god-given liberty. One that allows you to say a no when you so desire, and proclaim a yes when you think the person or the product's right. God forbid, even if your choice turns out wrong, fret not. Respond, and exercise your liberty.

Stop your patronage of the brand.

Kick the guy out!

Sphere: Related Content

Apology

'When one friend hurts another, a caring friend apologizes at once. The Master or Mistress of the Universe doesn’t: it’s the difference between being empathic and being arrogant.

Some people have more trouble apologizing than others. As the gifted psychoanalyst Dr. Nancy McWilliams has written, narcissists have particular difficulty expressing remorse because to them it implies fallibility and personal error, admissions that are psychologically intolerable to such people.

Apologies can be difficult for everyone. An apology includes a clear statement of one’s error or offense, such as being disrespectful, underhanded, mean-spirited, deceitful, disloyal, unfair, hurtful, condescending, inconsiderate, insulting, heartless, cruel, abusive, as well as negligent, careless, feckless, and reckless.

Is it pleasant to acknowledge that you’ve been any of these? No. It takes self-awareness, backbone, and a strong desire to do right by another human being.

Apologies matter if you value a relationship.'

- Belladona Rogers, 'Why Apologies Matter.'

Sphere: Related Content

Sociopaths

'Normalcy does not make for a good story; the psychopathology of everyday life does. Similarly, there are many who cannot live with the equilibrium of every day existence. For them, life needs a step function or two, a qualitative change from time to time. And unlike the sociopath, they are incapable of moving to the edge and testing the boundaries of what they can get away with while being oblivious to the consequences; they live vicariously through the destructive sociopath who can do all that. This is the attraction. The sociopath provides the soundtrack for other people’s existence. Whether through the vicarious experience of watching the sociopath push life to limits that they could not imagine or periodically going along for the ride with him at the wheel, those who tie themselves to sociopaths find the narrative of their own existence in the relationship...

There are those that believe that they can be in a relationship with a sociopath and stay in control. Even some therapists will tell you that if you are going to be in such a relationship and can’t break it, then you must become like the sociopath. You must have an agenda for the relationship that you manipulate to your ends. You must see the relationship as an exploitive relationship and become the exploiter.

There is a major flaw in such advice. The sociopath neither loses sight of his ultimate goal nor of his self-interest. Ordinary people do. They succumb to the bonds of friendship or intimacy. Ordinary people have feelings. Sociopaths don’t. Ordinary people establish feelings of altruism, which the sociopaths do not, and which he ultimately manipulates when others are least ready to resist.

Sociopaths tell you how they are going to destroy you. They tell you stories of the relationships they have left in wreckage. It’s just subtle. You have to listen. I would bet that if people listened carefully to even a great exploiter like Madoff, there were hints of what he was really about. The sociopath can’t resist bragging. It is, next to lying, intrinsic to his very existence.

The most difficult relationship to extricate oneself from with a sociopath is a sexual relationship, for the sociopath uses sex as the ultimate form of manipulation and control, but feels little to no emotion in the process.'

- Abraham H. Miller, 'The Sociopath We All Know and Sometimes Love.'

Sphere: Related Content

Calm in Chaos?

I am glad Oprah was here. I have to thank her for making us feel good about the chaotic traffic in India. According to her it seems there's an underlying calm to everything that's witnessed in everyday India. Sadly, the heady feeling Oprah gave me went up in smoke as I travelled to work this morning. Maybe Oprah should travel back and forth from work everyday in India, and then wait and see if the 'calm' theory stays. My bet is, it won't.

Calm in chaos? You gotta be kidding me! Consider the statistics. According to the World Health Organisation's first ever Global Status Report on Road Safety (2010), road accidents have earned India a dubious distinction. With over 130,000 deaths annually, India has overtaken China and now has the worst road traffic accident rate worldwide.

But I guess Oprah will have none of the statistics. She will parrot what most other foreigners do about India. That's there's a spiritual calm to everything here. Now such 'blind' attitudes are easy to explain. Its akin to how consumers build zombie like attitudes towards premium lifestyle brands, never mind the products in question having zero differentiating features. The only feature that matters is the brand name. As for the differentials perceived, they live and last in consumer heads. Which is why consumers part with gobs of cash for labels.

Now I am not complaining. If perceptions can engineer and sustain premium sales, so be it. If perceptions can get Oprah to sing paeans to what is otherwise an unparalleled nightmare on Indian roads, probably I should sit back and let the heady feeling stay. And I mustn't worry too much about living such illusions long, for reality will hit.

Like it did this morning. On my way to work.

Sphere: Related Content

I'd Rather Go Blind

Etta James.

Diva.

RIP.

Sphere: Related Content

3 point Someone

When storywriter Chetan Bhagat tweets 'I have always believed that one can be good as well as enjoy the good life. So yes, got my own three-pointed star now!', he isn't crowing the purchase of a car, rather its him announcing his new-found status, proclaiming 'he's arrived'.

Has he?

Who cares.

But then his tweet is important for what it reveals. Something which most marketers miss seeing. That all buys at some level reek of needs that are psychogenic in nature. For Chetan, the 'three-pointed star' purchase was more an esteem buy than one aimed at fulfilling transportation needs. It wasn't functional value that was the pull, its what the car stood for that mattered.

The gravest mistake marketers make is in thinking that if consumers can't afford the price 'esteem' comes at, they don't harbour any. Take the Tata Nano for example. A superb functional value proposition from a car isn't all that middle/lower income consumers seek. They too (like Chetan) desire the 'status' a car can bring. A car brand that can't deliver 'status' may not sell, despite coming good on the 'value for money' proposition. Again, the challenge for the likes of Nano goes even further. Psychological value must come with minimal increase on the price tag.

As for Chetan, I'm glad he's got his pointed stars. He deserves every bit of it, for he's living testimony to what marketing can do, that talent can't.

Sell books.

Sphere: Related Content

Education, or something like it

'All too often I see too many young people trying to get into my field when they lack not only the personal qualifications but the needed willingness to make an effort. The university education they have received gets in the way of their understanding reality just as the proliferation of jargon makes them incapable of writing clearly, or — indeed — of having anything useful to say. At one point, we took on ten interns after making it clear that hard work could lead to employment. Nine of them did almost nothing despite the opportunity offered.

Masses of people with degrees decide that they should be writers, policy analysts, and academics (especially the kind who indoctrinate rather than teach anything truthful) far more than the numbers ever conceivably needed to fill these professions. And you can imagine what the political worldview of 90 percent of them is. Those who don’t find jobs are bitter that the capitalist economy has “failed.” Those who do find jobs will spend their career telling this to their students.

The governing idea of all this nonsense: Everyone who wants some elite, non-economically productive job should get one. This of course is a worldview that fits their “class interest.” That’s followed by the idea that any society which doesn’t perform this task is “unfair.” Massive deficits follow.

And after that comes the idea that the job of government is to take money from those who do something useful in order to pay not to those who cannot earn a living because of intense poverty, disease or other affliction, but rather to those who don’t want to do so because they have been crippled by miseducation and excessively high education.'

- Barry Rubin, 'The Graduate: Why Should Everyone Else Pay for Other People’s Dumb (and Hedonistic) Career Choices.'

Sphere: Related Content

Government isn't the solution to poverty, its the problem

The food bill in India isn't about how much its going to cost the Indian government. Its about how much money will be squandered in the name of feeding the poor. Years of socialist ramblings has ensured the authors and operators (read, intermediaries and some dealers of PDS outlets) of such schemes are the only ones who benefit. And yes, governments behind such hair-brained schemes mired in corruption too score brownie talking points.

Amidst all of this, the poor in Indian remain hopelessly poor!

Again, it isn't centralising or decentralising schemes of this kind. Its about fundamentally altering a mindset that believes Governments (whether Central or state) can alleviate poverty.

Governments can't!

Free Markets can!

To know better, watch the video above.

Sphere: Related Content

Cooing on a crimson tale

Lady Gaga leaving blood in the tub of the suite she was staying at has more to do with branding, than anything else. Perish the thought of any satanic rituals. Plus don't take reports of Gaga going gaga over paranormal investigators too seriously.

It's all part of the branding/positioning game.

One half of Lady Gaga is music, the other's pure performance. In fact, if asked to pick, I'd take the latter as being key to the Gaga story. Tell you what, the Gaga stories are far more important than what's real. A buy-in into the Gaga music is a buy-in into the complete story. Now there's a lesson there for for all those who are trying to sell.

Stories elicit better responses from consumers. More so in certain product categories. Of course, a story on its own can't engineer a sale. But the story could be reason why the brand's remembered, plus is differentiated from competition. The Gaga songs ain't any different or better than the rest of the stuff that gets sung.

But then which other crooner you know coos a tune that's carried by a crimson tale?

Sphere: Related Content

The only 'requisite' is Liberty!

'They are now paying for having built such an unrepresentative upper-crust leadership, deluded perhaps by the belief that this battle was theirs to win on Twitter, Facebook and television channels where their interlocutors were trumpeters or fellow travellers. They forgot that the battle for power and ideas is fought in a democracy’s parliament and within its institutions. They started to believe their own mythology of being apolitical. They did not realise that politics, in a democracy as diverse as ours, needs two essential pre-requisites: ideology and inclusiveness. Abhorrence of corruption is a universal virtue but not an ideology.'

Now that's the problem with a being a journalist in India (in this particular case it is Shekhar Gupta), more so if you belong to the gaggle of yesteryear journos who've been raised on what was socialist staple then, that government will engineer equitable prosperity. Tell you what, nothing of that sort happened for the last sixty years, and I bet it won't for the next sixty too, if we listen to the likes of Shekhar.

The 'battle for power and ideas' can't, and mustn't come out of political theatres. If they do, it means the ingenuity of private citizens has been consigned to dustbins. Plus, the ideas that do come out of political gatherings can't and won't benefit private tax paying citizens. It will only ensure the lot of the political class and bureaucracy is bettered. Worse, it will ensure the strangulation of 'private' ingenuity!

Note what Milton Friedman stated, 'The fundamental principal of the free society is voluntary cooperation. The economic market, buying and selling, is one example. But it's only one example. Voluntary cooperation is far broader than that. To take an example that at first sight seems about as far away as you can get, the language we speak; the words we use; the complex structure of our grammar; no government bureau designed that. It arose out of the voluntary interactions of people seeking to communicate with one another. Or consider some of the great scientific achievements of our time, the discoveries of an Einstein or Newton, the inventions of Thomas Alva Edison or an Alexander Graham Bell or even consider the great charitable activities of a Florence Nightingale or an Andrew Carnegie. These weren't done under orders from a government office. They were done by individuals deeply interested in what they were doing, pursing their own interests, and cooperating with one another.'

Based on the principles of free markets, looking after one's own interest is in fact most welcome. After all, the pursuit of self interest is what benefits society. It is self interest that turns the private citizen into a producer, or a participator in the business of production, so he can profit or earn wages. Again its self interest that makes consumers out of private citizens, so they can enjoy the fruits of their 'labour'. The two acts of production and consumption are the most legitimate acts that any society must foster and protect! For they are the only acts that matter!

Now when it comes to government and its regulatory diktats, self interest stands on shaky foundations, for such self interest plays out on taxpayer money. How moral or fair is that? In contrast, if private citizens were to use their money to pursue their own self-interest, who can fault that?

I hope and pray in the coming year, India riding on the wave Anna has started, realises liberty and its guarantee by government is the sole key to our betterment. I hope and pray we as nation understand the battle for power and ideas must play out in the market place sans regulation, among private citizens.

'Ideology' be damned, its done us no good, and won't! 'Inclusiveness' on its part is a mirage, played out the political class as a 'promise' that won't be fulfilled (at least not by them) for a zillion years to come!

Here's wishing us a better year ahead. Here's wishing we embrace liberty!

Sphere: Related Content

Deconstructing the State

'The State is not a god. It is not a supreme or “higher” or wiser or beatific or somehow omniscient authority. It is not a hypostatic substance. It is not a thing. Indeed, it is nothing. It is, in fact, a figment of iconolatric homage, a subtle and insinuating illusion which derives its power from a combination of its coercive function and the mystique of psychological projection on the part of those it controls. It is what the Greeks called an eidolon, a phantom or apparition, an image like Euripides’ Helen who was fashioned from cloud-stuff while the real Helen spent the Trojan War in Egypt. A moment’s reflection makes this species of necromancy glaringly obvious. Yet we are ruled by specters and chimeras, of which the State is a paramount instance.

There is, indeed, something ludicrous in the elevation of the State, as if it were not only an Idol of the Theater, but a production in the Theater of the Absurd behind which a stubborn and prosaic — and occasionally tumultuous — reality willy-nilly persists. This is the fact, like the poet Rimbaud’s “waterfall [that] echoes behind the comic-opera huts” in Illuminations. Regrettably, its theatrical, or even farcical, nature does not prevent it from being treated with undue respect or errant veneration. Despite its figuring as idol or comedy, the apotheosis of the State is no whimsical or laughing matter, since it disables critics from articulating — without seeming like heretics bent on sacrilege — reasonable ways to reduce its size and influence...

As Hegel pointed out in his Critique of the German Constitution, the chief purpose of the so-called State is self-preservation, which amounts in practice to a clique of self-interested individuals — with some exceptions — who labor chiefly to secure the enjoyment of their perquisites. Far too many of us are prone to give the State absolute ascendancy. We concede it a primacy it does not merit rather than perceive it as only an assembly of people in whom we have put our temporary and often disappointed trust.

In short, a great number of us do not regard the State in the proper sense of a governing body of representative officials elected to serve the people and ensure public order, and who can be dismissed or voted out should they prove venal or incompetent. Too often we regard it as a material entity, an idol, instinct with lustral properties and quasi-magical attributes. The State acts. The State disposes. The State governs. The State knows best. Or so we think. But the State, as such, neither acts nor disposes nor governs nor knows anything at all. Treated as a unitary object, when it actually conceals a multiplicity of discrete subjects, the State is a fungible hallucination to which we have accorded our political obeisance.

And it is precisely this form of laic credulity and intellectual conceit which unscrupulous or parasitical elites rely upon to work their will on those they are determined to dominate.'

- David Solway, 'Deconstructing the State'.

Sphere: Related Content

The Proper Role of Government

Sphere: Related Content

A Government of Laws, not of Men

If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.

This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.

The fundamental difference between private action and governmental action—a difference thoroughly ignored and evaded today—lies in the fact that a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. It has to hold such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of force; and for that very same reason, its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance; it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power. If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled.

Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.

This is the means of subordinating “might” to “right.” This is the American concept of “a government of laws and not of men.”

- Ayn Rand, “The Nature of Government,” from The Virtue of Selfishness.

Sphere: Related Content

The limits of Government

'In mankind’s history, the understanding of the government’s proper function is a very recent achievement: it is only two hundred years old and it dates from the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution. Not only did they identify the nature and the needs of a free society, but they devised the means to translate it into practice. A free society—like any other human product—cannot be achieved by random means, by mere wishing or by the leaders’ “good intentions.” A complex legal system, based on objectively valid principles, is required to make a society free and to keep it free-a system that does not depend on the motives, the moral character or the intentions of any given official, a system that leaves no opportunity, no legal loophole for the development of tyranny.

The American system of checks and balances was just such an achievement. And although certain contradictions in the Constitution did leave a loophole for the growth of statism, the incomparable achievement was the concept of a constitution as a means of limiting and restricting the power of the government.

Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals—that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government—that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens’ protection against the government.

Now consider the extent of the moral and political inversion in today’s prevalent view of government. Instead of being a protector of man’s rights, the government is becoming their most dangerous violator; instead of guarding freedom, the government is establishing slavery; instead of protecting men from the initiators of physical force, the government is initiating physical force and coercion in any manner and issue it pleases; instead of serving as the instrument of objectivity in human relationships, the government is creating a deadly, subterranean reign of uncertainty and fear, by means of nonobjective laws whose interpretation is left to the arbitrary decisions of random bureaucrats; instead of protecting men from injury by whim, the government is arrogating to itself the power of unlimited whim—so that we are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.

It has often been remarked that in spite of its material progress, mankind has not achieved any comparable degree of moral progress. That remark is usually followed by some pessimistic conclusion about human nature. It is true that the moral state of mankind is disgracefully low. But if one considers the monstrous moral inversions of the governments (made possible by the altruist-collectivist morality) under which mankind has had to live through most of its history, one begins to wonder how men have managed to preserve even a semblance of civilization, and what indestructible vestige of self-esteem has kept them walking upright on two feet.

One also begins to see more clearly the nature of the political principles that have to be accepted and advocated, as part of the battle for man’s intellectual Renaissance.'

- Ayn Rand, “The Nature of Government,” from The Virtue of Selfishness.

Sphere: Related Content

Beware, its the lull!

The talking heads on TV think the Anna movement is fizzling out. I'd recommend they be smarter than that.

The passing of the Lokpal bill in the Indian Parliament means zilch to people in India. It surely provided frenzied talking moments for TV heads yesterday, as it did for parliamentarians to put in a show on the floor. But when it comes to the tax paying citizens of this country, the bill means nada. What is bound to continue and frustrate people will be an entrenched bureaucracy and political class that can't, and won't do anything to better people's lives!

Guess what happens then?

The movement will be back. It will ride on the frustrations of taxpaying citizens to take center stage again. And all it will take for that to happen is time. Its the 'timing' that will be the key. The 'time' needed for now, is for the weather to change, the holiday season to get over, and of course for corruption to rear up again!

All of the above will happen. The talking heads better take note.

Ditto for marketers who think their place in sun will continue forever. Entrenched brands take note. There's danger from an upstart round the corner. And consumers like people, don't care much about who you are, or that they patronise you for now. In fact, consumers will drop you at the blink of an eye and switch to a competing brand, if they buy into the promise of a 'better' solution from a competitor.

For now, its a lull on the Lokpal front. But the storm's brewing.

Beware.

Sphere: Related Content

Is Anna a media creation? Is Coca Cola about advertising?

Asking if Anna is a media creation is like asking if Coca Cola owes everything to advertising. Of course, no point thrashing this out with media fat cats of yore running down Anna on TV in the name of parliamentary supremacy, because they are products of a system thus far that's ensured their place in the sun. So these TV commentators won't be the first ones complaining about the 'system'. Plus they don't have a clue on what marketing is, and how it plays out.

Media and messages on it can only engineer for a brand, recognition and recall. Anything beyond mustn't be attributed to the either the media or messages running on it. Instead the 'blame' should squarely be put at the doorstep of the consumer, who if he buys the brand, indicates he's bought into the marketer's value proposition (read, brand) at least the first time around.

Ditto for Anna.

The 'buy-in' into Anna is a result of people identifying with a cause they believe can probably help them ease what is otherwise a miserable life, caused much by government and the zero accountability system its fashioned for itself, and not the people. Its quite amusing to hear political commentators sing paeans to parliamentary debate of the past. Really, the debates were of superlative quality? Fat good it did to us citizens, other than illustrate some politicians as being good at public speaking!

People and consumers buy into something only if they believe the value proposition being presented is perceived as a solution to their needs. Sure, the medium and the message matter to the point of 'presenting' the value proposition to its target constituents. Beyond that, its zilch contribution by either the media, or the message.

Anna today stands as a 'perceived' solution. Probably, he isn't. But I surely wanna buy in. Simply because the alternative to Anna's bill is status quo that's ruined us citizens for decades. Though I am a firm believer in eliminating regulation and allowing for the free markets to do its job, I know its a regulatory climate we have to live with in India. If so, a legislation that can hold regulators accountable is welcome.

In fact, more than welcome.

Sphere: Related Content