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

The Right to Rise

'Think about it. We talk about the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to assembly. The right to rise doesn't seem like something we should have to protect.

But we do. We have to make it easier for people to do the things that allow them to rise. We have to let them compete. We need to let people fight for business. We need to let people take risks. We need to let people fail. We need to let people suffer the consequences of bad decisions. And we need to let people enjoy the fruits of good decisions, even good luck.

That is what economic freedom looks like. Freedom to succeed as well as to fail, freedom to do something or nothing. People understand this. Freedom of speech, for example, means that we put up with a lot of verbal and visual garbage in order to make sure that individuals have the right to say what needs to be said, even when it is inconvenient or unpopular. We forgive the sacrifices of free speech because we value its blessings.

But when it comes to economic freedom, we are less forgiving of the cycles of growth and loss, of trial and error, and of failure and success that are part of the realities of the marketplace and life itself.

Increasingly, we have let our elected officials abridge our own economic freedoms through the annual passage of thousands of laws and their associated regulations. We see human tragedy and we demand a regulation to prevent it. We see a criminal fraud and we demand more laws. We see an industry dying and we demand it be saved. Each time, we demand "Do something . . . anything."...

Have we lost faith in the free-market system of entrepreneurial capitalism? Are we no longer willing to place our trust in the creative chaos unleashed by millions of people pursuing their own best economic interests?

The right to rise does not require a libertarian utopia to exist. Rather, it requires fewer, simpler and more outcome-oriented rules. Rules for which an honest cost-benefit analysis is done before their imposition. Rules that sunset so they can be eliminated or adjusted as conditions change. Rules that have disputes resolved faster and less expensively through arbitration than litigation...

We either can go down the road we are on, a road where the individual is allowed to succeed only so much before being punished with ruinous taxation, where commerce ignores government action at its own peril, and where the state decides how a massive share of the economy's resources should be spent.

Or we can return to the road we once knew and which has served us well: a road where individuals acting freely and with little restraint are able to pursue fortune and prosperity as they see fit, a road where the government's role is not to shape the marketplace but to help prepare its citizens to prosper from it.

In short, we must choose between the straight line promised by the statists and the jagged line of economic freedom. The straight line of gradual and controlled growth is what the statists promise but can never deliver. The jagged line offers no guarantees but has a powerful record of delivering the most prosperity and the most opportunity to the most people. We cannot possibly know in advance what freedom promises for 312 million individuals. But unless we are willing to explore the jagged line of freedom, we will be stuck with the straight line. And the straight line, it turns out, is a flat line.'

- Jeb Bush, 'Capitalism and the Right to Rise.'

Sphere: Related Content

The Moral Man & Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens is dead.

RIP.

But wait a minute. That means dwindling opportunities to demonstrate the work of grace, the handiwork of God. Hitchens was a celebrity who through his vitriol put God on center stage. Such Hitchenesque hatred allowed the likes of Dinesh D'Souza (among others) to comprehensively prove the existence of a loving God (video above), whilst demonstrating how we've benefitted as a race via the Judeo-Christian principles.

Hitchens and his ilk need to be around for us to be reminded and proven to, of the grace of god. Its much like needing liberal socialists, so we never take the goodness of liberty and free markets for granted.

The work of grace and of free markets is pretty much the same. They liberate us. As people, and as consumers.

CH, you'll be missed. Now you know why.

Sphere: Related Content

Curtailing Consumer Liberty

I have always bemoaned the lack of free market thought in India. Let me continue on that road. Its a pity that socialist ramblings guide policy decisions in India. Its one sure way of ensuring we remain a 'third world' country.

The latest in the line of lousy policy decisoins comes from a Planning Commission working group that's seeks to impose what could be a green cess of 3% of the annual insured value of all private vehicles and a steep urban transport tax to be collected at the time of purchase of private vehicles.

Welcome to what is the socialist liberal nightmare. One of the two key players to a country's prosperity, namely consumers (the other being producers) get penalised in such nightmares. Consumers are asked to pay more and more, so government can continue on with its hair brained schemes. Consider this. Should somebody like Mr. Sreedharan, the metro man who built a public transportation service be at the helm of a group that tries to curtail my use of my private vehicle? And again, if its private vehicles and their use that's being taxed, why not other products and services? Why shouldn't such planning groups recommend more taxes on everything we use? The way I see it, this global warming nonsense can be caused by every possible product and service we use, not just cars and mo'bikes!

Tell you what, the planning commission group can start leading the way through setting an example. Let them first give up their cars, their microwave ovens, refrigerators, mobile phones, washing machines, LCD TVs, iPads, laptops, and their like, to exhibit their commitment to saving the planet.

We'll then follow.

Better still, why don't we just ban cars and bikes, and go back to the bullocks and carts so we can keep everything 'green'! Or even better still, don't we just abandon our urban lives and retreat into caves!

Its time Sreedharan and his group took some lessons in free market economics. It wouldn't also hurt if they read up evidence that shows global warming is hoax that suits the Gores and railway engineers of the world. I know that's wishful thinking, but it could probably save us from hare brained ideas that seek to curtail consumer liberty. And liberty of that kind is what keeps a nation on a path to prosperity. 'Green cesses' do nothing other than fill government coffers, which in other words can be called hoarding money with zilch accountability.

Your guess is as good as mine on what happens to zero accountability money.

Sphere: Related Content

Hail the People, Hail Consumers!

Make no mistake about it. The constant reference to parliamentary sovereignty by the political class in India isn't so we prevent a descent into anarchy, its so we stay the way we are, subject as people to the whims and fancies of parliamentarians.

Its important at this time to take a few lessons from the principles of freedom enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America.

(Quoting from 'The 5000 Year Leap: Principles of Freedom 101')

10th Principle: The God-given right to Govern is Vested in the Sovereign Authority of the Whole People

... (Madison) declared: The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the PEOPLE altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and ton have viewed these different establishments not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. The must be told that the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, wherever the derivative may be found, RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE ALONE. (Federalist Papers, No. 46, p. 294; emphasis added)

11th Principle: The Majority of the People may Alter or Abolish a Government Which has become Tyrannical.

...Virginia Declaration of Rights: The government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people.... And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, A MAJORITY of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefensible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal. (Annals of America, 2:432; emphasis added)

I agree our constitutional democracy has been designed differently from the US., but the principles of freedom and sovereignty of the 'whole people' is a universal.

Just like in the world of commerce.

It must not be government that decides who can sell, and who people can buy from. Its must be CONSUMERS! Its consumers who must decide that with the power of their purses. Its the money from their purses that must keep businesses alive. And if they choose not to patronise a particular seller, so be it! The seller must shut and go!

Sphere: Related Content

Why consumers will suffer in India

As Calcutta and the rest of India grieves, TV channels tom-tom the same question all over again. Times Now asks, 'Is India a zero public safety nation?'

Now isn't that easily answered? But then it really doesn't matter because as a nation we still won't the take the road that leads to better products and services. When I say better, I also mean safer. For the moment, Mamtadi, anti-FDI crusader has gotten the hospital in question's license cancelled. I wonder what good is it to those who have lost loved ones?

The truth is, its the license raj that ensures consumers get the rotten end of the barrel. Licenses that are supposed to protect us consumers from unscrupulous service providers are the real reason why the latter thrive. Fixing a system that depends on regulations ensuring quality is easy. Bribe the regulator and you can get away with near murder. Which is why for ages past, and for ages to come, the Indian system was, and will be 'fixed'.

And guess who'll suffer? Consumers! Sometimes with the kind of disastrous consequences like the one we witnessed today at the AMRI hospital.

The answer to better quality products and services for consumers isn't greater regulation. As I said, regulators can be fixed. Its been happening for donkey's years in India. The only way out ironically is to eliminate regulation and bring in competition. That will have quality zoom, and consumers benefit. For god's sake, bring the MNCs in!

But then again, that's something Indians can't mouth or even understand. The socialist nonsense that passes off as government regulating because they 'care' for us, is not easy to shrug off. The latest example is one that's the handiwork of Mamtadi herself. After all, didn't she stand steadfast and save us from big bad Wal-Mart?

Though tragic, don't be surprised at what happened today. Regulation and government control can't save us consumers. Only competition in the market place can! It'll take a while before we Indians get around to understanding that. In the meanwhile brace yourself for more tragedies!

The only thing that can save us are prayers. Here's praying for all of us!

Sphere: Related Content

Hooray to the nation of shopkeepers!

I am thrilled at the Finance Minister's assurance on our economy. He says the economy may be facing difficulties, “but that does not mean that we shall have to start eating lizard!”.

You bet.

I think it would do us Indians a world of good if we make the right comparisons, akin to the kind Pranab da is referring to. Thank god we have Bangladesh for a neighbour. As Mathew once said, 'A trip to Bangladesh is highly recommended. It will make you more appreciative of India.'

India remains a nation of shopkeepers. Three cheers to that!

The socialist nightmare plods on. Hooray! Let's stay poor!

Sphere: Related Content

Why do you wanna be someone else?

Managing peer pressure isn't easy. But I bet you'll survive if you've cultivated a strong sense of self-worth much before you are subject to the pressures of a peer circle. And I bet again, this would have happened the right way if your parents built in you an understanding and acceptance of worth based on character, not pretenses.

Let me explain. If you probably are trying to match up to what the world wants you to be, that's because you don't value yourself on character. Instead you are in a mad rush to conform to the the 'shallow' ways of the world. And pray, what does the 'world' want of you? If you are college goer for example, and then 'cool' is what they're hammering you into becoming. Which probably explains why you've changed so much from who you were. Now your clothes are different, your hair's done differently, you talk funny, the list goes on.

Pity.

You're forcing change on yourself so you are accepted by your peers. Explains why you are so susceptible to the lure of brands. You need brands to make you what others want you to be. Which of course is good news to marketers. For they lie in wait round the corner with a promise of the 'social persona' you so badly seek.

Well, this time I ain't sayin' pity. In fact, hooray to brands for helping you 'fit' in.

Sphere: Related Content

Show me the way

Sphere: Related Content

A boy and a girl

I always thought Jaden was the cool customer. No overt displays of affection, no happy yells at seeing me back from work. Brooklyn, all of a year old seems markedly different. She's the one who runs up, and gets picked. She doesn't hold back on resting on my shoulder or sitting on my knee.

Tell you what, I was cautioned on this marked difference in behaviour. Its been fascinating to see it unfold. As a father I am called to alter the way I respond to Jaden and Brooklyn. As the years go by, I guess it'll get tougher, but I'd like to believe I will be up to it.

Fluid changes in response depending on who the consumer is, or what he's turned into, is what marketers are called to do. Simply because consumers aren't alike. Also because they're going to evolve and so won't be like the way they were earlier. Segmenting to a certain extent helps marketers fashion customised responses. But the future will belong to those than can micro-market. That is, customise to the farthest extent possible. Of course, it won't be easy. But it will have to be done.

Just like I will have to deal 'differently' with Jaden and Brooklyn.

Sphere: Related Content

Liberty & Free Society

Sphere: Related Content

I am why businesses exist!

As a consumer I need to be worried about the Kirana store down the road that would go out of business if FDI is allowed in multi-branded retail?

As a consumer I need to be worried about the trader who will be squeezed out of the retail chain if Wal- Mart came in ?

Why?

The way I see it, every trade and traders within exist because I decide to spend my money on products and services! By that count, shouldn't I be the one who's protected? Shouldn't I be given the freedom to buy from whoever and wherever? If Wal-Mart's where I wanna buy from, who should have a problem? After all, the last I heard, its my hard-earned money I am spending, am I not?

Sphere: Related Content

The Caveman & The Vampire

Show me a girl who doesn't want to be swept off her feet, and I'll get you a mutt who can wink. Kinda explains why romancing vampires can be such a hit. Its the fantasy that's working. For all those women currently swooning over Edward, its their heads playing tricks on them. Its them living the fantasy romance in their heads.

Why?

Isn't that simple? How many women do you know who are being swept off their feet by their better halves? I know girls, its such a pity romance is dead and buried. That all you get is cavemen lookin' for meat.

Our fantasies are our escape from drudgery. And the only way we can live that fantasy is by turning consumers. Which is why we watch romancing vampires goggle-eyed on screen. Why we down good money on flashy gizmos that do nothing other than make us go yakety yak.

Thank heavens we live bored lives. Else marketers would be scraping the barrel. But for the moment its the marketers who are laughing their way to the bank. And women getting over a vampire-hangover are letting the reality of cavemen sink in.

Sphere: Related Content