An email I got...

...today from an insurance company. 

Dear Mr. xxxxx, 

.....

We request you to kindly ignore this email. 
.......

We value your trust in us and assure you the best of our service at all times.

Regards,

The tragic part: it's from an Indian company.

The party with the mean spirit

Congress is not only a feudal party, it also usually exhibits a nasty, and a very mean streak in its protestations. One shouldn't be surprised that the party's inherent dynastic structure condones if not assiduously promote such palatial intrigues for its own sustenance. 

A party spokesperson provided us a clear exhibit of this rancid trait. This followed opposition leader L K Advani's compliments to Pranab Mukherjee, a man-for-all-seasons for the UPA:

“Sometimes I think had Pranabji not been there, what could happen to this government? Whenever there is a crisis, he is there. Twenty-five years ago, he presented the budget and did so again yesterday as it was a crisis situation.”

Not able to see one of its own gaining stature the Congman(allegedly "close" to Mukherjee) wasted no time in giving Advani's compliment a nasty spin terming it "backhanded." Not to be outdone, another fellow supposedly from the inner-circle saw a conspiracy in it, a revisit of the media-blown sham tussle between Atal-Advani. Being gripped with paranoia is a characteristic systemic flaw of dynastic intrigues. So no surprises there. It will inevitably consume the party in the longer term-- and, need I say, I can't wait for that moment. :-)

That Advani found it suitable to complement Mukherjee is not surprising. Arun Shourie-- in one of his Youtube videos--is known to have said that the Congress was on the verge of giving away Siachen, and we almost lost it, had Army bosses alerted the BJP, and for one man in the UPA, Pranab Mukherjee. 

But then let's not forget that Pranab Mukherjee was also behind the disgraceful surrender to Islamists in Taslima Nasreen's forced flight outside India. 

Politics 101

Let's not forget...

..to ask why now? 

..that now is not the right time to raise divisive cultural issues. 

...that Aam admi needs bijli, sadak, paani, and money, more than ever. Especially since the global recession is upon us.

...that not too long ago we decided not to politicize hunger, terrorism, and poverty. Now is the time to say, 'Don't politicize pubs, or panties. '

..and, finally, that the aam aadmi neither has the time nor the means to go to pubs?

...who votes!

Does Pramod Mutalik know? There's no such thing as bad publicity

So, there's a campaign going on which aims to  send pink chaddis to Pramod Mutalik whose group allegedly ransacked a pub in Mangalore. Their facebook group and blog has generated some interest and attention as well. And chances are that Mr. Mutalik might indeed get some gift packages, by Valentine's day. 

That there's some cheap fun in all this is undeniable. It's a stupid campaign afterall, and stupid is as stupid does i.e., profligate on something without any results. 

It's possible that the packages may not be accepted for delivery; it's possible that most avid followers of the group will simply backoff once they actually have to open their wallets over postal charges--I can see this happening with overseas enthusiasts of the campaign; it's not cheap to mail all the way home in such a short time. 

That this will help Victoria's Secret or few of its cheap imitators, too, is given. Though few thousand buyers will hardly make a dent in normal times, the manufacturers will be the most happy ones. And so the mail delivery people. 

But, what if these indeed reach their intended recipient i.e., Pramod Mutalik. All he has to do to turn the campaign on its head is to make profits over it and do exactly what the pink groupies don't want him to: use the generated money to forward his agenda.  

Here's how he can go about achieving precisely that: Get some parcel handler to manage the inventory and auction the wares online. Or even sell it to some NGO. 

Channeling the accumulated funds shouldn't be difficult. For his part, Mutalik gets to live the marketing dictum: there's no such thing as bad publicity. 

As for politics, it's highly doubtful how far his rival netmob will stay interested in one campaign. They'll move one. Mutalik, meanwhile, might end up a winner in public battle. Politics makes for strange fellows afterall.

Akashvani for secular Obamaoids?

I don't think so. Maureen Dowd might have annoyed the Obamaoids back home with her column today. I mean the all-knowing-oh-so-secular types. She seems to believe that the new American President might have(actually did?) learnt his lesson:

It took Daschle's resignation to shake the president out of his arrogant attitude that his charmed circle doesn't have to abide by the lofty standards he lectured the rest of us about two years.

Obama " admitted that 'ultimately it is important for this admnistration to send a message that there aren't two set of rules. You know, one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes.'" 

It is of course a given that the ebb and tide in Obama's reputation shines on the water carriers of world liberalism. That mantle, in India, rests on the seculars' shoulder. Hence the desperate effort to cast Prince Rahul as some sort of twenty-somethings' hearththrob. That Obama has a Harvard law degree, and le prince, a Harvard dropout matters little to the hype brigade. 

Whether Rahul baba's extreme makeover will end up in coronation is a matter of speculation, except that your odds might be better if you have a hotline to the charlatan duo of Chawla and Qureshi.  

But Rahul baba's failure to launch cannot, and will not, stop the seculars from ooh-ing and aah-ing at the site of Obama. One won't be surprised if recycling Obama's lofty sentiments becomes a favorite pastiche for seculars. Of course, they're above aam-aadmis and slumdogs when it comes to accepting screwups, learning lessons, or eating humble pies. But even for them, "only a Gandhi can be king." 

Can't we all just get along?

You've heard the fruitcake expression:

Can't we all just get along?

You love life, and we love death. - Al Qaeda spokesman 

[From Sun Tzu Was a Sissy by Stanley Bing]

Secular press agencies goof up

A seemingly confident 'secular' journalist clearly misunderstands the little flub during Obama's swearing-in ceremony, and conjures up a completely inaccurate report based on his limited understanding.  

"But at one point early on, Obama paused, as if grasping for the next words. Roberts helped him over the brief awkward moment, repeating a few words to get Obama back on track. He was then the first to congratulate Obama on his new job."

And then his overconfidence does him in.

"The smile-evoking assistance could be the precursor to many important interactions between the two men who rose to their positions of power quickly and who have some background similarities, but whose politics differ."

A typical case of putting your foot in mouth, you would agree. The upstart secularist prevailed upon himself, refusing to cross-check his account with what actually went on. Here's a Slate report that accurately jots down the real happenings. It was Obama who tried to help the Chief Justice, and not the other way round. 

P.S. The secular newspaper has pushed this erroneous report in the background and published a correct one on their front page instead. Meanwhile, Obama is readministered the oath by CJ John Roberts.