Friday, April 11, 2008

The missing P(olitics) in DNA

I think I am confused, because, based on what I had learnt back in high school, there was no P in the DNA sequence. Let me explain in detail.  I am referring to the ATCGH in our DNA sequence and the missing P. 

Of course, I am kidding; on a more serious note the world is just becoming a place with more nepotism where blood lines bestow upon you an unofficial right to rule.

There are numerous examples supporting my claim that politically the world is falling back to a quasi-monarchic system.  Many ancient and medieval kings ruled by the sheer power of their bloodline.  Early on these claims were based on the divine powers that they were thought to have inherited from the gods (as in "Ra" in the egyptian kingdoms).  Later on these divine claims were lost, but the concept of being a "royal" by bloodline survived through the medieval world.  On a saddening note we see the remnants of this argument in the celebrity status enjoyed by the British royals even to this day.  Seriously, I think the British royalty needs to be tried in International courts for the crimes they committed against free peoples all over the world in the name of colonization.

On a more contemporary note, the missing P(olitics) in DNA seems to be omnipresent through its effects.  From the world's largest democracy (India) to its most powerful (USA), the consequences of DNA are evident.  India managed to elect the daughter of its first prime minister, his grandson, grandson's wife (extended phenotype at play here), and it seems like the country is on track to grooming the first prime minister's great-grandson for the role.  Let' not even talk about Pakistan, where the story is similar.  Considering the US, beginning 1988, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue read - bush, Clinton, bush for a big 20 years.  And now, if Hillary gets the ticket and gets elected it will be 28 years of two dynasties determining the fate of the world's most powerful country and the world itself.

And I am still talking about democracies.  Maybe the commies are better on this aspect as they seem to prefer bootlickers to their kids.

I must be missing something in the overall picture.  Have we come so far to be so similar to the ancients and medievals with respect to who is actually governing us.  Critics might say that some of these blood lines have survived because of the merit of the candidates.  yes, it is true to some extent as it is evident from the tough fights for the Democratic nomination in the US.  But, my argument is still valid that somehow after all thee centuries of evolution in terms of democratic ideals, merit and fair chance to everyone we are still in a state wherein being the kid or spouse of a the country's premier seems to bestow upon us an almost divine right to rule.


Thursday, April 10, 2008

Let's be honest

Marketing has taken too much flak.  I say, it is time marketing gets honest and reigns in its actors - models and celebrity endorsers who say unwanted things.  Sure, I do agree that the sole purpose of marketing is not to just "advertise" or "sell" or "convince" potential customers. It is a much broader definition that has many important components that include the matching between buyers and sellers, customer wants and needs and more importantly informing the customer as to how a product might solve the customer's problems.

Moving beyond this polemic treatise on marketing, there is one brand which i think is like the anti-christ to marketing's core message. I have no problems with brands that try to address genuine needs of consumers or which are not "shallow".  They live upto their promise.  This brand is Victoria's Secret.  I have nothing against their positioning or their marketing message.  I think it is fabulous and they have very nicely tapped into the male psyche.  However, I do take issue when one of their top models says on TV that she likes cheese and gorges on it.  Yet, the funny part is that her waist size is a mere 24, very atypical of the millions who like cheese and gorge on it.  I get cynical when i watch such messages.  Is this the purpose of marketing?  Are we here to cheat ourselves into believing that a model who looks gorgeous can also gorge on cheese?

BTW, do you know Beyonce likes Southern fried Chicken?

Moving on to a more airy philosophical issue the question is whether we have turned into a make-believe society that rewards our looks much more than what we are as humans inside.  Not just that, is a woman's beauty only enhanced by the lingerie she wears? If you answered with an emphatic yes, you are most likely to be either unmarried and less than 24 in age OR you are married and 40.  If you answered with an emphatic no, you are wise.  If you had a visceral reaction in between, then you need to visit the VS store soon.