Public Speaking

Corruption is Political Life Blood …

Posted on June 2, 2017. Filed under: Indian Thought, Public Speaking |

Interesting Stuff – By Prameet Kamat – published in Law and Govt May 17  

Corruption funds politics. More specifically, it funds political parties, elections and ideology. So, to understand a party’s ideology, political view point and it’s corruption model, it’s crucial to look at the party’s organization and funding model rather than its personalities.

Let’s look at a simplified model of the economics of a national party. India has about 700 districts and 6 lakh villages. For a political party to have a national foot print, it probably needs about 100,000 local offices, plus a state level and national level organization — offices and people, like any other corporation need funding. Rent + people + consumables per office: 50,000 INR per month.

That’s a fixed bill of INR 300 – 500 crore annually. Add to this cost of LS elections — 400 seats @ 25 cr INR each = 10,000 Cr every five years


And another 2,000 crores every five years for the state election, assembly polls and so on. So about 2,000 crores annually give or take. The number in itself isn’t important. The dimension of it is.

Now, Inflows: Donations to the Party: from well wishers, ideological supporters and common citizens ie through –

  • Administrative corruption (services to common people and small businesses— police, transport, jobs, posts, records, licenses, permits, certificates etc)
  • Unorganized Business Corruption ( Bribes for Liquor vends, LPG gas distribution etc)
  • Local Extortion(Protection money from small shops, petty crimes, prostitution rings etc)
  • State level Organized business corruption (Real estate, Mines, Natural resources, Liquor, Transport)
  • State level Lobbying & Extortion

Corruption, as the man on the street experiences it, is largely what we can call Administrative and Unorganized Business Corruption. Typically, the way it works is that every government official needs to collect “revenue” from the common man for services rendered and pass on a fixed amount every month to his superior. Anything over and above that fixed amount can be kept for personal benefit.

For example, a State Administrative service officer (government salary is at about 75k per month) needs to pay a fixed amount of 1–2 Lakh per month to his superior, who in turn aggregates it and passes it on to his superior, who in turn passes it on higher.

(This simple system is fascinating. So many models can and are tried at an individual level by different government officers to meet different levels of personal ethics and morality — The Robinhood model, The Capitalist model, Honest Rebel model. There is also the aspect of a “department culture” — how does the head of the department set the tone — how does he negotiate his fixed amount with his superior — does he say I’ll get my department to perform giving you street credit but in return I’ll only extract so much from the department? What does he do after that? Pass the message on and keeps the cash? How are “non- economic favors” handled? Does the superior say “do this favor for my friend or family — I will take a lesser amount from you this month?” or does he say — I don’t care, favors or not — you need to deliver this or you are transferred to Mizoram. How does he negotiate the selection of his subordinate officers? Does he maximize inflows or trades off inflow vs performance?)

The rest can be clubbed into Business Corruption. The money you get from large corporations for resources, permissions, infrastructure decisions and so on.

The Money Trail. So this whole money trail ends at the Minister in charge of the department and then on with the CM. What then happens with this gentleman? He needs to deposit it into the Party treasury. How much does he need to pay? Again, a simple view of this negotiation I imagine to be — The party funded 15 crores in the last election and the CM spent say 10 cr personally and hence they agree on say 100 crores a year to the party. You can imagine the dynamics at play here. A “bankable” candidate with his own street level organisation will negotiate a lower party contribution but get lower funding from the party at election time. The party can choose a candidate who offers a higher monthly contribution to the party but needs more funds and street level support from the party at election time.

Clean Corruption? The second more fascinating strategic choice for the CM and the party is Administrative & Unorganized Business Corruption as a percentage % of total inflows. Or in simple words — how much do I take from the common man every month?

This decision determines his popular perception and his electability. With a “clean CM”, the common man experiences better government services, benefits, roads and utilities. Except that the CM is not really clean — he is just choosing to get a higher portion of his funds from Business Corruption. It’s not an easy choice in its execution. The established system of administrative corruption is far easier to milk and manage than negotiating deal specifics with multiple business entities.

The sheer costs of running a political party show us that running a clean, corruption-free government is an impossibility unless they have guaranteed donations every month. Hmm. (When was the last time any party except AAP canvassed you for donations?)

How do parties differ then? How does the government get better under one party and get worse under another? Why does one party build more roads and the other build less? If its just economics, shouldn’t it all be the same?

The answer lies in your corruption strategy. And here is where Mr. Narendra Modi comes in. But to understand this, let’s see how the Congress Party works.

The Congress invented the Corruption Model in India. The Congress party came into power mainly under the leadership of Gandhi and Nehru with a socialist agenda and with the momentum of having had a primary role in the creation of Independent India. They formed the government and ran the country until 1977 and then again intermittently till 2014 making them the ruling party for about 50 of the 70 years as Independent India. If we assume corruption began with the formation of the government and evolved as a way of funding the expenses of running the party and managing election expenses, we can imagine that people with wealth would come into positions of power in the party by donating to the party. We can then see how the model kept evolving morally where the party leadership kept managing and controlling these funds for the good of the party and then ended up controlling power distribution in the party.

The Congress interestingly never had to build a street level election organization and rode on their brand and freedom fighter credentials to win elections. They had the least costs but by virtue of being a monopoly, had the highest fundability leading to a bigger and bigger party war chest. This model steadily built on itself until the late eighties, where first the Janata party and then the BJP started biting at this monopoly and winning elections with low funds but higher street level volunteer-led organisations.

As economic critical mass grew, regional parties started using local issues and identity to win elections and come into power. No party however can even today match the economic might that fifty-year head start gave the Congress. It also explains very easily why even politically inept newbies within the Gandhi family still manage to hold on to that power. The combination of assets, cash and corporate relationships that were held closely by the party leadership and managed by loyal accountants for the party in vague cross-holdings is near impossible to usurp.

Congress election strategy is basically Votes for Cash. The cash-rich Congress has since then stayed with the strategy of trading political seats for cash. I imagine Sonia Gandhi being practical with her choice of candidates- “I don’t understand political context. Who comes in with highest probability of winning elections and with least ask of my party funds?

Effectively, an inorganic acquisition strategy — that simple equation has defined Congress electoral strategy for the last couple of decades. It explains why we see so many power centres in the Congress Party and their love of regional alliances.

BJP strategy The BJP on the other hand initially rode on the Ram Janmabhoomi movement to capture electoral mandate and came to power. They had a few short years at the top but being a relative startup were far more unified in their ideology and their leadership under AB Vajpayee and LK Advani. After coming to power, they inherited some of the corruption systems that the Congress has built and probably started to fund themselves and their partner organisations.

I think Pramod Mahajan was the driving force for collating the thinking on how to harness funds and had started to really transition the party into a commercial entity at a national level.

Something different happened in Gujarat. Narendra Modi came to power as a relative outsider and by sheer luck or genius found himself with the electoral mandate. I don’t know whether this was due to circumstance or innovation, but I imagine he looked at the local funding model in the context of the unrest for the man on the street, and decided to focus exclusively on Corporate or Business Corruption to fund his party and local organisation.

It’s entirely possible that this is by sheer luck as his some of the nation’s largest corporates came from Gujarat and due to its ports and trading activity had a heavy bias in being invested there. Leveraging that into a business relationship seems like the only logical way to relieve the pressure on Administrative and Unorganized corruption. It’s the only way that an newbie outsider CM could harness his government’s administrative resources and ask them to provide a smooth ride for the man on the street and restore his confidence. “No funds required from the government to the party.”

This simple choice allowed the CM to focus on selecting the best candidates for ministerial and senior officer roles. We can take this even further and imagine that the CM says to his ministers and officials, you perform and I’ll take care of you. You don’t need any revenues from your departments. He does this for a year and then another and realizes he is getting political credit and earning him an electoral mandate. His next election then lets him go back to his corporate sponsors and say, okay look, I am cleaning up the administration and creating infrastructure for you. For this, I am going to need a 1,000 crores from you every year – a sort of a retainer model.

For the corporates, this becomes an easy deal — the CM has just offered a bulk discount on the thousands of crores I bleed every year at the hands of his government at his ports and his license and excise offices. This centralized corruption strategy starts to do a couple of things — you start to control the funding, and hence the party and therefore the election strategy, and second, you really start to control the government for performance. You effectively subsidize the common man through the goods and services he consumes from the private sector and the resulting profits. You start to select ministers and leaders for performance rather than “party revenues”. You are less reliant on local leaders for elections, and in effect can run a performance government, creating massive economic opportunity for corporations, which then goes back to reinforce his value propostion to both his stakeholders- the voter on the street and the corporate promoter.

What happens next? The Scale up and the Lock-in.

After ten years of managing this at state level, you then offer the central party leadership a massive fund infusion for the party elections in return for becoming the PM candidate and saying that I will manage the party funds as well, effectively controlling the entire election and candidate strategy. You have just done what the Congress has done for three decades- control the party by controlling the inflows. You win the election by outspending your fiscally conservative competition and with a better strategy. The unified face of the party allows you to control the message and win you a national election.

What happens next? Now you have got to pay your sponsors back. You then deploy the same centralised corruption strategy at a national level. You deploy international strategy as a new growth lever for your corporate sponsors. You push the government into high performance mode on power, roads, railways — generating economic growth for your sponsors and economic and political momentum.

The Counterstrike. Even with all this, you still worry about the next election. For one simple reason. Your main rival still has 5X the resources you have. Theoretically, the Congress could break the bank in the next election and outspend the BJP to dilute the party’s electoral mandate, especially in the regional constituencies.

You do two things — One, you neutralize the Congress with the only way you can neutralize their resources — Black money and Demonetization. You go after their assets stashed abroad over the years. You tighten the screws on taxation and transactions. Even if you don’t reduce their resources, you at least succeed in reducing their liquidity and hence their deployability. Congress vote share is declining in every successive poll since 2014 bar a couple of exceptions. You take a hit too but if you look at the damage you cause your biggest rival, this is a a shin graze.

Two, you then go ahead and remove the cap on anonymous political donations, effectively legalizing the entire transaction between your corporate sponsors and your party treasury.

With these two simple steps, you have just changed the game for political domination in India. And that is what I believe is happening in India today.

What of ideology? What of the manifesto? Well, honestly if you control the economics, you control the medium that can control the message. If you run the government and the corporations, you effectively control nearly everything. You can manage messages locally to suit or modify the narrative.

.Two exceptions remain. The Judiciary and the Internet.

That’s for the next chapter.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Views on WHISKEY

Posted on November 21, 2013. Filed under: Guide Posts, Light plus Weighty, Public Speaking |

In 1952, Armon M. Sweat, Jr., a member of the Texas House of Representatives, was asked about his position on whiskey.  What follows is Class Tongue in Cheek (taken from the Political Archives of Texas):

“If you mean whiskey, the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean that evil drink that topples Christian men and women from the pinnacles of righteous and gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, shame, despair, helplessness, and hopelessness, then, my friend, I am opposed to it with every fiber of my being.

However, if by whiskey you mean the lubricant of conversation, the philosophic juice, the elixir of life, the liquid that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer, the stimulating sip that puts a little spring in the step of an elderly gentleman on a frosty morning; if you mean that drink that enables man to magnify his joy, and to forget life’s great tragedies and heartbreaks and sorrow; if you mean that drink the sale of which pours into Texas treasuries untold millions of dollars each year, that provides tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitifully aged and infirm, to build the finest highways, hospitals, universities, and community colleges in this nation, then my friend, I am absolutely, unequivocally in favor of it.

This is my position, and as always, I refuse to compromise on matters of principle.


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Great Speech – Cricket and Politics …

Posted on November 11, 2013. Filed under: Indian Thought, Public Speaking |

These are Sri Lanka Foreign Minister Late Lakshman Kadirgamar’s after dinner remarks, in the UK where Sri Lankan Cricketers were present.
Some historians say, I think uncharitably, that cricket is really a diabolical political strategy, disguised as a game, in fact a substitute for War, invented by the  ingenious British to confuse the natives by encouraging them to fight each other instead of their imperial rulers. 
The world is divided into two camps – those who revel in the intricacies of cricket and those who are totally baffled by it, who cannot figure out why a group of energetic young men should spend days, often in the hot sun or bitter cold, chasing a ball across an open field, hitting it from time to time with a stick – all to the rapturous applause of thousands, now millions, of ecstatic spectators across the world.
The game has developed a mystical language of its own that further bewilders those who are already befuddled by its complexities.In the course of my travels I have a hard time explaining to the non-cricketing world – in America , China , Europe and Russia – that a ‘googly’ is not an Indian sweetmeat; that a ‘square cut’ is not a choice selection of prime beef; that a ‘cover drive’ is not a secluded part of the garden; that a ‘bouncer’ is not a muscular janitor at a night club, that a ‘Yorker is not some exotic cocktail mixed in Yorkshire or that a ‘leg-break’ is not a sinister manoeuvre designed to cripple your opponent’s limbs below the waist.
Ladies and Gentlemen, let me see whether politics and cricket have anything in common. Both are games. Politicians and cricketers are superficially similar, and yet very different. Both groups are wooed by the cruel public who embrace them today and reject them tomorrow. 
Cricketers work hard; politicians only pretend to do so. Cricketers are disciplined; discipline is a word unknown to most politicians in any language. Cricketers risk their own limbs in the heat of honourable play; politicians encourage others to risk their limbs in pursuit of fruitless causes while they remain secure in the safety of their pavilions. Cricketers deserve the rewards they get; the people get the politicians they deserve.
Cricketers retire young; politicians go on for ever. Cricketers unite the country; politicians divide it. Cricketers accept the umpire’s verdict even if they disagree with it; politicians who disagree with an umpire usually get him transferred.  Cricketers stick to their team through victory and defeat, politicians in a losing team cross over and join the winning team. Clearly, cricketers are the better breed.
A story goes that a shark was asked why diplomats were his preferred food. He replied “because their brains being small are a tasty morsel, their spines being supple I can chew on them at leisure – and they come delightfully marinated in alcohol.
Today we lost a match. But you lost to the rain and M/s Duckworth and Lewis. You did not lose to England . Only a few weeks ago you had a resounding victory against South Africa . You will win again tomorrow. What is important is to keep up your confidence and spirits.
Nobody told me that I had to make a speech, it dawned on me that there is no such thing as a free dinner!”
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Churchilliana …

Posted on February 25, 2013. Filed under: Personalities, Public Speaking, The English |

Toward the end of his life, Winston Churchill visited the House of Commons. A buzz throughout the room accompanied his presence, taking away from attention to the debate at hand. “They say he’s potty,” murmured one member of Parliament.“They say he can’t hear either,”responded Churchill.

. During World War II, an aide read to Churchill an account in a tabloid: A seventy-five-year-old man on a cold January day-with the temperature thirty-five degrees below freezing had propositioned a nineteen-year-old girl to have sex on the grass in Hyde Park.  Churchill replied to the aide, “Over seventy-five! Below-zero temperature! It makes you proud to be an Englishman!”


George Bernard Shaw sent Churchill an invitation to the opening night of his play Saint Joan. He enclosed two tickets and a note “One for yourself, and one for a friend–if you have one.”    Churchill expressed his regrets, asking if it would be possible to have tickets for the second night–“if there is one.”

 .When the first destroyers arrived in the fall Of 1940 under America Is Lend-Lease Program to Great Britain, Prime Minister Churchill went to inspect them. He was joined by FDR’s right-hand man Harry Hopkins. Churchill looked at the decidedly over aged rust buckets and grumbled in a whisper, “Cheap and nasty.” Hopkins, who was startled by the remark, queried, “What was that?” Churchill amended aloud, “Cheap for us and nasty for the Germans.”


Churchill was visiting the Southern United States in 1946. He attended a dinner party a socialite’s house. The hostess aked him what kind of chicken meat he desired. He said that he wanted breast meat. Shocked the hostess replied that in the South they don’t say things like that and that chicken is either white or dark meat.    ……………..    Several weeks later, Churchill sent the hostess a card thanking her for dinner. Enclosed was also a brooch with a short description saying: “Pin this to your white meat.”

After the British deliverance at Dunkirk, Churchill, in the House of Commons, rallied Britain with his most memorable speech. …….. “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender,” he declared. Then, as the House of Commons thundered in an uproar at his stirring rhetoric, Churchill muttered in a whispered aside to a colleague, “And we’ll fight them with the butt ends of broken beer bottles because that’s bloody well all we’ve got!”

During the war, Churchill one day left the House of Commons to hail a cab to go to Shepherd’s Bush, the site of the BBC Studio. Churchill was scheduled to deliver an 8:00 P.M. address to the nation.  At his wave, a cab came to a halt and Churchill gave the address of the BBC studio.

“Sorry, sir,” was the reply. “I have the radio on and I want to hear the prime minister’s address.” Churchill, delighted with his response, slapped a five-pound note in his hand. “Driver, I have to get there fast.”

The driver replied, “Frig the bloody prime minister, guv’nor, what’s that address again?”

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

A Parsi in the House of Lords…

Posted on November 26, 2012. Filed under: Business, Guide Posts, Indian Thought, Personalities, Public Speaking, The English |

Lord Bilimoria in the House of Lords. – Thursday 24 May 2012 –

My Lords, more than 1,000 years ago, a group of Zoroastrian refugees fleeing religious persecution in Iran arrived in India in what is now the state of Gujarat . The Zoroastrians asked the local king for refuge but he said there was no space for them in his land. One of the Zoroastrian priests asked the king for a cup of milk filled to the brim. The priest gently took a teaspoon of sugar and stirred it into the milk  without spilling a drop. He then said to the king, “If you take us into your kingdom, we will be like the sugar in the milk: we will blend in with you but we will also make your kingdom sweeter”. The king allowed them to stay and that group of refugees, and others who followed, flourished to become India ’s Zoroastrian Parsee community.

Fast-forward over 1,000 years and the Zoroastrian community is still tiny: only 69,000 people, less than 0.006% of India ’s population of 1.2 billion people, and yet wherever you go in India , everyone knows who a Parsee is. Moreover, what makes me so proud as a Zoroastrian Parsee is the reputation of our community within India . When I took over as UK chairman of the Indo-British Partnership, now the UK India Business Council, of which I am president, my Indian counterpart Narayana Murthy, one of India’s most respected business leaders, said to me, “I have never met a bad Parsee”.
Mahatma Gandhi said: “In numbers, Parsees are beneath contempt, but in contribution, beyond compare”.
Over the centuries, the Zoroastrian Parsee community has excelled in every field. Today, both the Chief Justice of India and the Solicitor-General of India are Parsees. Maestro Zubin Mehta, the world-famous conductor. I could go on. In fact, I could go so far as to say that in achievement per capita, theZoroastrian community is the most successful in the world by far. However, the community has not only looked after its own but has always put back into the wider community. It exemplifies one of my favourite sayings: “It is not good enough to be the best in the world, you also have to be the best for the world”.
The Zoroastrian faith was brought to the world by the prophet Zoroaster in around 1500 BC. It is said to be one of the world’s oldest monotheistic religions, if not the oldest, with a god, a supreme being, and the concepts of good and evil and heaven and hell. This was the religion of the largest of the ancient empires, the Persian Empire . This was the religion of the Emperors Xerxes, Darius and Cyrus the Great.
The Emperor Cyrus is of course credited with writing the world’s first Bill of Rights, the Cyrus Cylinder, which is far older than our own Magna Carta, whose 800th anniversary we will soon be celebrating. The basis of Zoroastrian faith is three words: “Humata, Hukhta, Hvarshta”—good thoughts, good words, good deeds.
When Jamsetji Tata, the founder, set up Tata Steel over 100 years ago in the jungles of what was then part of the state of Bihar, where our company, Molson Coors Cobra, now owns the only brewery in the state, a British civil servant at the time dismissed the idea of an Indian ever owning a steel factory and said he would eat every bar of steel that came out of that factory..
Dadabhai Naoroji entered the House of Commons as a Liberal in 1892, against all odds. In 1895, just three years later, the second Indian, Mancherjee Bhownagree, also a Zoroastrian Parsee, was elected to the House of Commons as a Conservative. In 1922, the third—and the only one of the three Indians elected to the other place before India’s independence—was Shapurji Saklatvala, or “Comrade Sak”, who was elected as a Communist with Labour support.
I am so proud to be a Zoroastrian Parsee. I am so proud to be an Indian. I am so proud to be an Asian in Britain , and most importantly I am so proud to be British.”
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

True Religion …

Posted on June 18, 2012. Filed under: Guide Posts, Indian Thought, Personalities, Public Speaking, Quotes, Searching for Success |

All Religions preach the same stuff. Yet they are all at war with one another and are responsible for much of the bloodshed and suffering.

Here is how the Dalai Lama defined true religion when some Smart Aleck tried to trip him up by asing which was the Best Religion. 

The Best Religion is the one that gets you closest to God. In other words which makes you a better person.

Whether you are religous or not is not important. What is important is your behavior in family, at work, at play, in your community and outside – indeed every where and all the time.

Your personal universe is the echo of your thoughts and actions. The law of action and reaction is also true in your relations with others. Goodness will beget goodness and evil will beget evil.

You will always have what you desire as long as you desire the same for others. Happinnes is not a matter of destiny – it is a question of options.

Because your thoughts will become words. Your words will become actions. Your actions will become habits and your habits will become character.

And your character will become your dsstinyAnd destiny is life.  There is No Religion Higher than Truth.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

This Crazy English Language …

Posted on March 12, 2012. Filed under: Light plus Weighty, Public Speaking, The English |

There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger; Neither apple nor pine in pineapple. English muffins weren’t invented in England.
We take English  for granted, but if we explore its paradoxes – We find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square, And a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.
And why is it that writers write, but fingers don’t fing, Grocers don’t groce and hammers don’t ham?
Doesn’t it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend? If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, What do you call it?
If teachers taught, why didn’t preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?
Sometimes I think all the folks who grew up speaking English Should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane. In what other language do people recite at a play and play at a recital?
We ship by truck but send cargo by ship… We have noses that run and feet that smell. We park in a driveway and drive in a parkway. And how can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, While a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?
You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language In which your house can burn up as it burns down, In which you fill in a form by filling it out, And in which an alarm goes off by going on.
There is a box, and the plural is boxes. But the plural of ox becomes oxen, not oxes. One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese, Yet the plural of moose should never be meese. You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice, Yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.
If the plural of man is always called men, Why shouldn’t the plural of pan be called pen? If I speak of my foot and show you my feet, And I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet? If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth, Why shouldn’t the plural of booth be called beeth?
Then one may be that, and there would be those, Yet hat in the plural would never be hose, And the plural of cat is cats, not cose. We speak of a brother and also of brethren, But though we say mother, we never say methren. Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him, But imagine the feminine: she, shis and shim!
              And in closing………..If Father is Pop, how come Mother is not Mop??? 
Compilation Copyright © Wink Creations
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

English Usage – Humor and Irony …

Posted on March 10, 2012. Filed under: Light plus Weighty, Public Speaking |

PARAPROSDOKIANS are something Winston Churchill dearly loved. It is a figure of speech in which the latter part of a sentence or phrase is surprising or unexpected and with much pungent wit. Eg “Where there’s a will, I want to be in it,”

Here are some classic examples.

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it’s still on my list.

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

If I agreed with you, we’d both be wrong.

We never really grow up; we only learn how to act in public.

War does not determine who is right – only who is left.

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

Evening news is where they begin with ‘Good Evening,’and then proceed to tell you why it isn’t.

To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism. To steal from many is research.

A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk, I have a work station.

I thought I wanted a career. Turns out I just wanted paychecks.

Whenever I fill out an application, in the part that says,’In case of emergency, notify:’ I put ‘DOCTOR.’

I didn’t say it was your fault, I said I was blaming you.

Women will never be equal to men until they can walk down the streetwith a bald head and a beer gut, and still think they are sexy.

Behind every successful man is his woman. Behind the fall of a successful man is usualy another woman.

A clear conscience is the sign of a fuzzy memory.

You do not need a parachute to skydive. You only need a parachute to skydive twice.

Money can’t buy happiness, but it sure makes misery easier to live with.

There’s a fine line between cuddling and holding someone down so they can’t get away.

I used to be indecisive. Now I’m not so sure.

You’re never too old to learn something stupid.

To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target.

Nostalgia isn’t what it used to be.

Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.

Where there’s a will, there’s relatives.

Take your time , we have got all evening.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

The Six Methods for Gaining Control over Men/Women …

Posted on January 5, 2012. Filed under: Personal Magnetism, Public Speaking, Searching for Success |

This Post is one of the Posts aimed at Making Your Life a Success.

There was this  Lord Chesterfield whose letters are full of nuggets that have wide  appeal. Here is one such  – “Learning is acquired by reading books but the much more necessary learning, which is knowledge of the world, is acquired by reading men and studying their various facets. You have to look into people as well as at them and take the tune of the company around you.”

With that as the starting point. lets have a look at how we all,  men and women, resort to our most favorite method to influence others to help get our way or crudely put, how to use them.

There are some half dozen methods used by most folk to get their way. Here is a look at each.

At the bottom of the rung is Selfishness.

This may also include and cover the use of sex to get one’s way.  It is indeed the the quid pro quo thing. People use money, favors and even women or women use men to gain control.

Basic low level cheap stuff which sadly is much too rampant. Has been so since the beginning of time.

Slightly above comes the ‘Bullying’ method used to cudgel and brow beat. Here the guy uses ‘Accusation’ or ‘Challenge’ and even ‘Threatens’ one to get his or her way.

Crude and common place for the ‘bullying natures.

Then come the refined methods where guys use Generosity and Liberality and that laced with Politeness to captivate and charm.

These never fail to impress, attract and please.

Lots more refined and adroit than the above is the method of ‘Harmony’ used by the cleverer guys where they seem to be aligned with your views and values but ever so slowly and most subtly they gradually shift you to their own view point.

Then comes ‘Humor’. Like ‘Harmony’ this needs great finesse because Humor is never the telling of jokes or the dirty stuff.

Indeed, ‘Humor is seeing the ludicrous in the serious’.

And one should seldom resort to it until one is able to wholly master this subtle and sublime art of the Mark Twains of the world.

At the top of the pyramid are those emotions most commonly used consciously or unconsciously to get one’s way in this world. These are ‘Interest’, ‘Sympathy’ and ‘Kindness’.

All very easy to apply but sadly not that widely or commonly employed. They cost so little and gain  so much. More importantly they add value to life.

Did not the guy say, “If you want to gather honey, don’t kick over the beehive!.”

Look around and see the time of day in how these methods are being used here there and everywhere.

And so Adieu till next time.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

You and Your Personal Qualities … I

Posted on October 6, 2007. Filed under: Guide Posts, Personal Magnetism, Personalities, Public Speaking |

Self Containment is the greatest quality of a person and is the most potent of all agencies for developing power.

It calms strong feelings and results in the superb mind, which refuses to come in contact with the meanness of life.

It is the Courageous, Polite and Even Carriage of Temperament.

What is temperament? It is the sum total of the emotions that prevail in a man or woman.

The difficult part is that which requires the even carriage of the disposition.
The constantly unruffled disposition begins with the perfect control of the body and all its parts and a rich and pleasing voice.

Imperturbability of body, mind, nerves and soul.
The imperturbable mind, cool, calm and unruffled nervous system, with the mind always in control.

The first essential is power – power in excess – but no wasted motion. The presence of the greatest energy combined with the greatest calm.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

« Previous Entries

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...