'Or, just possibly, this urge to stockpile incandescents is the product of simmering outrage. For decades, I have written about America as the world’s beacon of freedom, which it has been. Yet here we are, wards of the nanny state, with politicians dictating that even that prime symbol of American ingenuity, Thomas Edison’s incandescent light bulb, shall be regulated into oblivion. All this has been ably exposed as an act of crony capitalism, designed to enrich manufacturers who prefer to sell pricier light bulbs that a lot of Americans, if free to choose, prefer not to buy. And the actual mechanics of this ban have been greatly blurred, Washington-style, by framing this fix not as an outright prohibition, but merely as a phase-out of light bulbs that do not meet standards set by Washington in the name of “energy efficiency.” First the 100-watt incandescents vanish from the shelves. Then the 75-watt, the 60-watt and 40-watt. It is, in its way, a bipartisan dimming of choice, tacked onto an energy bill signed into law in 2007 by President George W. Bush, and –despite an attempt at repeal this past July — upheld by Democrats in Congress under President Barack Obama.'
- Claudia Rossett, 'Confessions of a light buld addict.'
Wednesday 30 November 2011
Light bulb addiction
Surprised at Moral Policing?
Surprised at Alka Pandeyji's moral policing act?
I am not.
After all Alkaji's antics must mirror what's socially sanctioned behaviour (read, slapping people around) in the badlands of UP. So I say let the freak show continue on. And let's enjoy the spectacle, though our stomachs may churn.
Even in purchase scenarios I am not surprised if I encounter behaviour that I consider rude. Hey, welcome to rude country where queuing may probably be quite the alien act. Okay, maybe that's an exaggeration, maybe people do queue up. Yeah, I've been in quite a few polite queues here in Bangalore.
But then there's the odd uncivil act that always crops up. And I ain't surprised.
Don't be.
Sphere: Related ContentTuesday 29 November 2011
Nonsense makes sense
Kolaveri di is an out and out case of stimulus response. Zero information processing, pure stimulus response.
Let me explain. As a stimulus Kolaveri di presents content that arrests our attention. Technically that means we select the stimuli because we hear and see something that is distinctly different. The lyrics, the tune, and the visuals that don't mean much are why it isn't ordinary. Surely, nonsense must stand out in sea of sense. Especially to a particular demographic that then takes to it lock stock and barrel. Add to this, the herd mentality kicking in. If Kolaveri di's cool, who am I to differ?
What follows our selection of this stimuli is an instantaneous act of organization and interpretation. Now this comes easy because it taxes none of the cognitive abilities. We aren't called to process any information, only respond to stimuli. And that's easy. After all, the lyrics mean nothing, the tune's arresting, and the scene compelling. Born out of impulse and instinct (which is why it is what it is), not careful design, Kolaveri di presents a body of work that connects at multiple levels.
But remember, Kolaveri di isn't a phenomenon. It's a fad that's having its time under the sun. What will soon follow will be wannabe Kolaveris trying to engineer what the original's pulled off. They will fail. By then, Kolaveri di will be dead.
But don't fret much, 'cos nonsense will again find its way in. For a certain demographic at times, nonsense is what will make complete sense.
P.S. - Why has the north of the Vindhyas taken to Kolaveri di? Simple. Taking to nonsense at times is a universal. Language's never a barrier.
Monday 28 November 2011
Why this Kolaveri di? Here's why da!
Why this Kolaveri di?
Simple, da! It fall over the tipping point, da! Because it fulfilling the three general principles, da!
One, da, Kolaveri getting the 'law of the few right'!
'The law of the few says that success of any kind of social epidemic is “…heavily dependent on the involvement of people with a particular and rare set of social gifts.” These people are mavens – experts in a particular field, and connecters, known to and trusted by others, and who have wider connections to influential groups.'
Two, da, Kolaveri getting the 'stickiness factor' right!
'The second principle, the stickiness factor – is the message that makes an impact. Stickiness is more important than the medium. It can be an advertising device that forces people to read or listen to the ad’s message, and to actually absorb that message. It’s best done with a message that resonates with the reader, particularly in a way that offers a personal benefit. Or it could be a simple action or device that’s particularly user friendly.'
Three, da, Kolaveri lucky in getting the right 'context'!
'The third principle is context, the environment and circumstances that breed and foster an idea’s epidemic effect.'
Get it, da?
No, da?
Read 'Tipping Point', da!
The Retail 'nationalist' debate
The discussion on Indian TV (CNN-IBN) tonight?
Is FDI in Retail anti-national?
Well, don't bother watching. I'll tell you what the answer is.
YES, it is anti-national, if 'national' represents certain politicians (read, the communists and the pseudo-nationalists), the kirana store guys, traders (read, retail middlemen), and current big format retail players who can't stomach competition.
NO, it isn't anti-national, if 'national' means consumers in India!
So I guess the question that must be debated on TV needs to be 'What is NATIONAL?'
Sunday 27 November 2011
Fulfilling the Female Ego
'What makes Twilight “brain porn”? It fulfills the female ego in the same way pornography appeals to men.
Pornography exaggerates the most cathartic aspect of romantic encounters while dismissing real-life baggage. It elevates an irrational self-indulgence while ignoring any sense of responsibility, particularly to the other. For men, this translates to reckless sexual satisfaction. For women, it’s more complicated.
Sure, women like sex too. However, their enjoyment typically requires stimulation of the mind as much as the body. Women hope to be loved, desired above all others, and valued more than life itself. The Twilight Saga embodies this fantasy.
Pornography imagines that women exist for the sole purpose of satisfying men. The women in porn are not only willing, but eager. They are depicted as if satisfying a man is the means by which their own life is sustained. This is without the slightest pretense, explanation, or justification. The unconditional nature of the attraction is essential to the fantasy.
So it is in Twilight, only with the roles reversed. Edward Cullen and Jacob Black adore Bella, not due to any apparent merit, but simply because she is there. Indeed, they indulge her whims and endure her moods without conditions of any kind. Any objection they do offer is complimentary. I’ll only turn you into a vampire if you marry me. Every conflict between the three leads only serves to demonstrate how thoroughly both males are devoted to Bella.
The most objectionable example of this porn-like dynamic is the frequently shirtless Jacob. Watching his unrequited obsession with Bella play out on-screen evokes the same eye rolling disgust that women have endured for years while watching two-dimensional bimbos fawn over undeserving men. The relationship begins with him filling in for the absent Edward, serving as a platonic scratching post to tide Bella over until her main squeeze returns. From there, Jacob engages in progressively more demeaning exercises in fruitless devotion.
In the third entry of the series Jacob manages the lackluster achievement of badgering Bella into admitting some love for him, albeit not as much as she holds for Edward. Her ideal scenario is to be with Edward while having Jacob around to dote on her within the boundaries she sets. She treats Jacob like some kind of pervert for not being satisfied with this arrangement. In this way, the dynamic between Bella, Edward, and Jacob is not unlike that between a husband, wife, and mistress. Bella wants to marry Edward but have Jacob as a kept man. The only difference is that Jacob satisfies her emotionally rather than sexually.
Stephenie Meyer deserves a tip of the hat for a truly unique cultural achievement. She has managed to distill the essence of an addictive, illicit entertainment and bring it to a new audience without carrying over any of the taboo. It’s a masterful accomplishment. Men’s primal tastes are too brute to pull off such a trick.'
- Walter Hudson, 'Porn for Women: The Twilight Saga.'
Saturday 26 November 2011
Wal-Mart evil, or you stupid?
John Stossel on Wal-Mart:
"They have taken the values, the morals, the ethics, fairness that are the fabric of our society and put them aside and . . . put their profits before their people," said Blank.
That's foolish economics, and not very good morality. He is as wrong as the tycoon Michael Douglas played in the movie "Wall Street," who said: "It's a zero-sum game. Somebody wins. Somebody loses. Money itself isn't lost or made, it's simply transferred."
That's a myth. Businesses create wealth.
Take the simplest example. I buy a quart of milk. I hand the storekeeper money; she gives me the milk. We both benefit, because she wanted the money more than the milk, and I wanted the milk more than the money. This is why often both of us say "thank you." Because it's voluntary, business is win/win. A transaction won't happen unless both parties benefit. Each party ends up better off than he was before. And when you have millions of successful transactions, you end up very well off -- like the owners of Wal-Mart.
Their becoming rich doesn't mean there's less for the rest of us. Sam Walton's innovations created thousands of new jobs and allowed millions of Americans to save money.
In earlier eras, John D. Rockefeller and Cornelius Vanderbilt were depicted as evil. But the condemnation rarely came from consumers. It was competing businessmen who complained. And newspapers lapped it up, calling them "robber barons."
Vanderbilt got rich by making travel and shipping cheaper. Lots of people liked that.
No one was forced to buy the oil on which Rockefeller got rich. He had to persuade people by offering it to them for less. He offered it so cheaply that poorer people, who used to go to bed when it got dark, could now afford fuel for their lanterns.
These are "robber barons"?
"You could not find a more inaccurate term for these men than 'robber barons,'" said philosopher David Kelley. "They weren't barons. All of them started penniless. And they weren't robbers, because they didn't take it from anyone else."
Wal-Mart's critics act as if economic competition were a "zero-sum game" -- if one person gets richer, someone else must be getting poorer. If Wal-Mart's owners profit, we lose. But the reality is exactly what our ordinary language tells us: We make money. We produce wealth.
Wal-Mart created wealth. It started with just one discount store. Then, its owner, Sam Walton, invented new ways to streamline the supply chain, so he was able to sell things for less and still make a profit. By keeping prices low, Wal-Mart effectively gives everyone who shops there a raise, its own employees included.
Q & A
Better late than never. So here's my answer to questions posed. Also thanks guys, for the Qs.
Rachana asks, 'Is it possible that the same theory of ideal self be true for the concern for some strands of grey hair?'
I don't think so. When one bothers about an uncontrollable (in this case its greying) I'd suspect it to be the prompting of the ideal social self. A focus on a controllable (the bulge) could probably be a push to get to ideal self. Though I must admit, burning fat to look good can also mean its the ideal social self that's the prompter.
Aritra asks, 'But don't you think the influence a parent has on his kid lasts only to a certain age? According to me, by the time a kid hits puberty, his locus of influence(for lack of a better term) shifts more to external sources and the decisions made are also based on these factors. Your views?'
Sure, influences change over time, but the one that leaves an everlasting effect (thus cementing our personality) is the parental one. Our parents are most probably the reason why we are who we are. Even if our circumstances change, our response is fashioned by what's been embedded far earlier (read via parental influence) within us.
Agreed, the reference groups we take to and get influenced by change over time. But do the groups that come later have as much an effect on us as our family? I doubt it.
Vineeth asks, 'Hypothetical question: If Jaden were to be in a similar spot of bother, would your advice be on similar lines? :)'
Absolutely. For now I'll make sure he's prepared. Meaning, there's martial arts on the list of things to learn for Jaden. Now please don't think I am advocating violence. But I sure am advocating a kick in the nuts to get the bully to back off. It's that or a lifetime of trying to get over lousy self esteem caused by bullying louts!
Friday 25 November 2011
The contradictions we live
Getting Jaden to wear what we thought was a lovely checked shirt with a hood wasn't easy. The more we tried, the more he balked. For some time we couldn't get it. Why would he not wear something that looked so good on him?
And then it dawned.
There wasn't any other kid the in the neighbourhood donning the shirt with the hood. Jaden, we guessed didn't want to be the first one. Getting him to wear would mean showing him people wearing shirts with hoods. We figured we could start that at home. So last Sunday, Brooklyn and I got into the act by wearing jackets with hoods. Voila, Jaden acquiesces. He wears, and even starts to like the shirt. In the process we learn a lesson that's relevant to the world of marketing.
As consumers we live out contradictory desires. Our craving for a distinct identity is tempered by our need to stay within norms that guarantee acceptance. Brands that seek our patronage need to know this. They must construct for us our desired selves whilst keeping it all within what is socially acceptable. The envelope must be pushed, but not too further away.
Getting this balance right won't be easy for brands. The ones that can will be the ones we'll buy.
We NEED Wal-Mart!
So there's some people in India who think Wal-Mart shouldn't be allowed to set shop here. Pray why? Because it seems the farmers and the kirana people will go under.
Now lets for a moment think they'll go under, what's the remedy? Keep Wal-Mart out and have me, the consumer suffer higher prices! Well, pray why isn't that a concern of anyone? Oh, I get it, I am prosperous enough to not buckle under higher prices! But then think about it. Isn't everyone a consumer? Shouldn't our maid for example, have access to lower prices? If that access comes via FDI driven organised format retail, I say bring it on! Now if you think our maid can't access the superstore location, its good news for the kirana. It can stay and cater to her.
The truth is, the anti Wal-Mart tirade is familiar nonsense from bleeding heart liberals and political opportunists who don't care to understand the power of free markets. Ditto for socialists, communists, and environmentalists.
What a pity.
For those who want to flee economic ignorance and understand the value of free market competition, this article titled, 'Has Wal-Mart buried Mom and Pop?' is a must read.
Tuesday 15 November 2011
Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
This case of 'ragging' at the Sainik School in Jharkand is downright disgusting. Before we get to why some students resort to such disgusting behaviour, here's John Hawkins on how bullies need to be confronted.
John Hawkin's piece is a must read!
'You know why I was bullied? I was a quiet, meek, non-confrontational kid who liked to read and had zero interest in getting in fights. In other words, I was an easy mark. There was really nothing more to it than that. As I look back at it now, I can’t think of a single thing I ever did to merit being bullied. I didn’t mouth off, I didn’t pick on people, I didn’t want any conflict (as opposed to the present, where I’ve learned to revel in political warfare). This is one of the many reasons that to this day I roll my eyes when people say, “Why do they hate us?” I damn well know from personal experience that there are a lot of evil people who will try to hurt you for no other reason than because they think they can get away with it.
Let me also note that the tactics most people advocate to combat bullying are laughably ineffective. If you get bullied, go tell your teacher! Call a bullying hotline!
Yeah, right.
The reality is that if the teachers were really keeping a close eye on everything that’s going on around the school there wouldn’t be any bullying going on in the first place. The biggest reason bullies can exist is because teachers don’t pay attention to what’s happening most of the time.
Moreover, what does occur if you tell a teacher? The bully gets called into the principal’s office and he’s told not to bully you. Then you’re in exactly the same situation you were in before, but now the bully is really angry at you because you ratted him out. Now he’s really interested in getting a piece of you and there are dozens of little ways he can intimidate you. He can threaten you, he can pretend like he’s going to hit you, he can say mean things about you on Facebook, he can stare at you with a menacing glare — and keep in mind that this is someone you’re already afraid to deal with. What are you going to do? Go back to the principal and tell him the bully was looking at you funny? Give me a break. Additionally, you have to keep in mind that schools are extremely reluctant to expel students. So unless a bully goes completely over the top and brings a gun to school or knifes somebody, he’s probably not going to get kicked out. That means you’re going to see him almost every day, all year long.
So, what do you do? Call Lady Gaga? Lobby Harry Reid to make bullying illegal? No, of course not. There’s actually a time-tested, extremely effective way to deal with bullies that has worked for thousands of years.
It’s called punching them in the mouth.
It’s what I learned to do. I had to learn it because much to my dismay at the time, my father insisted on it. He took great pride in telling me a story about my brother who was pushed around by a bully at our local low-end country club. My father told my brother that the next time that bully started something, he had better hit him back. My brother was apparently more scared of my father than the bully because the next time my father took him to the country club and he ran into the bully, he fought back. My brother and the bully went at it man to man for a good five minutes. My father wouldn’t let anyone break them up. When it was over, the two of them went their separate ways and the bully never laid another hand on my brother.
Incidentally, that’s how it almost always worked with me, too. Inevitably, since bullies like to pick on people who are weaker than they are, they were always bigger than I was. So, when I fought back — and that happened several times over a two-year period — I won some and I lost some. But in every case, the bullying stopped right there.
There was one thug, for example, who picked on a lot of people. Most of the kids were a little afraid of him. We happened to both be at the Boys Club. (How much good would telling a teacher have done there?) He tried pushing me around. I decided I’d had enough and told him so. He ran at me to try to punch me and somehow or another, I bent down and actually managed to flip him over my back. He landed weirdly on the floor and didn’t get up for a few minutes. His arm was in a cast the next day. And that was the last time I ever had a problem with him.
Another time, there was a kid who was probably two years older than I was, 3-4 inches taller, and he outweighed me by 100 pounds. He had been picking on me. We were both on the basketball court at school. He walked up behind me and then out of the blue, he just put me into a headlock. The moment he let go, I turned around and slugged him in the face three times. He was so surprised and stunned by the punches, he didn’t even get off a single shot. Both of us were then sent to the principal’s office and we were both paddled (Again, this is what happens when the school gets involved. They didn’t see and hear every second of it; so the bully and the victim are treated as though they are equally at fault.) After that, bizarrely enough, that kid bent over backwards to be nice to me.
Eventually, I got to the point where I didn’t want to fight, but I didn’t walk away from any fights either. I can still remember a guy running his mouth to me. I responded, “F*** you, let’s fight!” He then said, “Uh, I was just kidding.” My response to that was to look him straight in the eye and say, “I wasn’t kidding at all.” He then found reason to make himself scarce. You want to talk about “building self-esteem”? Having a moment like that will do more to build a teenage boy’s self-esteem than any class he can ever take. Starting high school as a kid who’s bullied and ending it as someone that bullies are afraid to lay a hand on will change how you view yourself for the better, too.
Now, I’m not going to tell you that this is easy advice to give to a kid, especially one who’s intimidated, scared, and conflict-averse. What I will tell you is that it’s the right advice to give to kids, especially to kids who are being bullied.
There’s an old line from a Kenny Rogers song called “Coward of the County” and it goes, “Sometimes you gotta fight when you’re a man.” Some people will deny that, but it’s true, and no matter what they may tell you, boys who are being bullied know it’s true. That’s a big part of the reason that the bullying bothers them so much.
The good news for kids in that situation is that it doesn’t matter where you start; it matters where you finish. As timid as I was at the beginning of high school, by the time I was in college, I was taking Southern Long Fist Kung Fu and engaging in raucous sparring sessions. I came away from more than one of them with a black eye. Another time, my instructor kicked me in the chest so hard that the next day — and this is not an exaggeration — there was a bruise in the shape of his shoe imprinted on my body. Sound scary? I came to love it. There was just something exhilarating about taking a huge shot and continuing to move forward or delivering a crushing punch into another human being’s body. I got into it so much that to this day, I still have a heavy bag in my bedroom so I can get a little exercise driving it across the floor with punches, kicks, and knees.
Now, that doesn’t mean you should look for fights. To the contrary, you should avoid fighting if you can. You could get hurt, which is bad. You could hurt the other guy, which isn’t bad at all if he deserves it, but there could be legal ramifications. So, if possible, it’s always best to walk away from a fight. But, you should walk away with your pride intact. No one is allowed to put his hands on you. No one gets to threaten to beat you up. No one gets to physically abuse a friend, family member, or someone who’s under your protection. If you can dissuade people from doing that verbally, that’s for the best, but there is a time and a place to use violence against other human beings. That’s why, when kids are being bullied, you don’t tell them to call Lady Gaga; you tell them to use their fists.'
The 'Linger Effect' in Behaviour
At times you wonder why someone seems so angry. After all there wasn't anything that could be termed a provocation. Then why the outburst? Well, such anger is easy to decipher if you can unearth what I call the 'linger effect'.
Its hard for us to let go, more so if we've been hurt. Most hurt never finds closure. Which means it lingers. The outcome to such a 'linger effect' is its exhibition in another form, namely anger. So when people seem to be angry without reason, what they are actually doing is making an effort at getting over a past hurt. The pity is, it leaves the recipient of such anger bewildered.
Service providers too at times are at the receiving end of unexplainable consumer anger. The answer to such behaviour of course, lies in the 'linger effect'. Agreed, that's no consolation to the poor marketer at the receiving end. Though knowing why people behave they way do, should be of some solace.
I guess.
Thursday 10 November 2011
Coming & Going
Rajini on coming home:
'There is a sense among all of us displaced Indians, if you can call us that, that this is the best place for us to be in the world. The fact we have cultural ties adds to the idea that we can be more productive, and make more of a difference here.
Coming to live here is in some way attending to unfinished business. You can meet a person a few times, speak to them on the phone, or online, but only when you live with them do you really know them. My flirtation with India is now real. I'm about to make this place my home for the next few years. My dad left India in May 1966 and landed at Heathrow as a bright-eyed student. My mother followed a decade later. They both live in the UK, are integral members of the local community, and have raised three successful daughters.
Forty-five years on, and I'm doing the reverse. I share the same fears as my father did as he stepped off the plane with only £75 in his pocket, but just as he found new success and a home in England, I hope to in India.'
Sumedh on going away:
'Why do I feel better in the U.S.? Maybe it’s not because I’m at home here, but because I’m an alien. Perhaps three thousand years of history have made us Indians a little too familiar with one another for our own good. We’ve perfected Malcolm Gladwell’s “blink” — the reflexive, addictive and tragically accurate placement of other Indians into bullock carts, scooters, airplanes and who knows what else. These issues exist in all countries, but in India, I could see the bigotry in high fidelity and hear the stereotypes in surround-sound — partly because it is worse in India, mostly because I am Indian.
India’s wealth and lifestyle disparity is still impossibly great; I probably spent more on pizza than on my maid. She knew this too, because she was often the one who handed the pizza delivery guy his money. Everyone in India has to deal with this, but I coped in the worst possible way: by dehumanizing her and other people like her, ever so slightly, ever so subtly — chronic amoebiasis of the soul.
Though my return to India failed, I came back feeling more optimistic than ever about India’s long-term success. India is regaining her leadership position — the position she held ever since humans were civilized, a position she lost only because of a few uncivilized humans (at least give us back our Koh-i-noor!). I know India will rule the future. It’s just that I’ve realized — I’ve resigned myself to the fact — that I won’t be a part of that future.
I’m glad I went back to India, and I’m glad to be back in the U.S. Life has come full circle but the center has shifted. I didn’t go to India to find home, but I did find it; I now know where I belong. As Laozi might have said, sometimes the journey of a single step starts with a thousand miles in the opposite direction.'
Lapse and Lunacy
Unlike what most believe, Rick Perry's 'brain freeze' moment doesn't have to numb his campiagn. Latest reports seem to suggest the Perry camp's getting its response to gaffe right. They have decided to 'embrace' the memory lapse moment and have dispatched an email to their supporters stating, "Write us to let us know what federal agency you would most like to forget. "Is it the EPA and its job-killing zealots? The NLRB and its czar-like dictates? The edu-crats at the Department of Education who aim to control your local curriculum?"
Plus they've encouraged supporters to add a $5 as donation with every suggestion!
I say, cheeky, and brilliant!
Gaffes are good if they can elicit empathy. Who amongst us hasn't had a memory lapse moment? In fact tell you what, at times my mind blanks up mid sentence while in a class! So I quite understand what happened to Rick. My guess is, so can you. Its up to the Perry camp to play this story right, and up to Perry to not do this often.
Its a thin line between lapse and lunacy.
Recovering from a lapse can be easy if you manage its aftermath well. Ditto when it comes to lapses whilst crafting value propositions for consumers. Breakdowns are to be expected. What's important is how the marketer salvages post lapse. Negative publicity, can for example be capitalised on if the brand spins and humanises the reported lapse, and then corrects it quickly.
The Perry campaign is far from dead. It can still bounce back with vigor. But it'll take more than just spin. Its time Perry delivers on substance.
Friday 4 November 2011
Building Steve, Breaking Qaddafi
Giving up the ghost with famous last words at times makes news. Especially if the people in question are newsmakers. Steve went with a few wows and Qaddafi tried 'don't shoot' to avoid kicking the bucket.
Now its important we know they went that way. More so for their intended audience. The 'wow' story tops up nicely the legend that Steve is. For those swooning, this story is only a reaffirmation to what they have always believed, that Steve is God. The Qaddafi story though similar, is quite a contrast. His pathetic plea firmly unseats him from the pedestal of a revolutionary. So all those who believe in the revolution can now know their leader is a miserable coward who pled for mercy, something he didn't ever consider during his tyranny.
Last words are important. They are stimuli that build perceptions. In the case of Steve, the legend must go on. The Steve stories I dismiss as near nonsense is lapped up by the Apple horde. Which is good, 'cause in the end its about the cash registers ringing. I surely don't have a problem with that. I also don't have a problem with last minute pleas if they can usher in people's rule.
Much of the Steve and Qaddafi story, I guess isn't true. But these stories are important, for they build brands, for the good and bad. Which is helpful. The good enables us to buy in, the bad aids rejection.
The Leftist tomorrow
'Leftism is bad for people. It makes them awful. The unwashed, ill-mannered, anti-Semitic, entitled, and now violent mobs littering various parts of the nation under the banner “Occupy” believe their ideas will lead to a better society — but they actually are the society their ideas lead to. Their behavior when compared to the polite, law-abiding, non-racist demonstrations of so-called tea partiers tells you everything you need to know about the end results of statism on the one hand and constitutional liberty on the other...
Why wait to see such results come home? Leftism is an ignoble creed on the surface of it. Its followers display their awareness of its shamefulness by projecting its evils onto their opposition. Leftists accuse conservatives of avarice, but which is greedier in a person: to seek to hold on to what is his own, or to seek, as the leftists do, to plunder what belongs to others? Leftists call conservatives racist and sexist, but who is it who wants race and gender enshrined in law? Who penalizes white or male babies for sins they never committed on the long-exploded theory that evil can undo evil?Leftists call conservatives hateful… I would answer “Read the papers!” but the papers lie because our journalists are leftists and they know down deep what they’re like, who they are. Compare instead the rhetoric and honesty — not of those selected by the media, or those quotes they’ve selected — but of those in equivalent positions at equivalent times. The gracious and open-hearted George W. Bush versus the divisive, self-serving, and dishonest Barack Obama, just to take one example.
Every one who sympathizes with the Occupy movement should take a good look at them — not as they will be in the paradise of their aspirations but as they truly are this minute. Look at them, and understand that that’s what tomorrow will look like if they have their way today.'
- Andrew Klavan, 'What Leftism Does to People.'
Posts
