ChaosScenario

Reason: The impotent antidote for the arbitrary whims of powerful and selfish people

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan

Have you ever had one of those dreams where you knew somebody you love was going to experience some major calamity, but you were unable to warn him or her about it, no matter how much you wanted to or how much you tried?

Usually it starts off innocuously enough, with only a minor sense that something is wrong. But as the dream progresses, your heart rate elevates as the events unfold, and by the end you're yelling and screaming but unable to touch or convince your loved one that they're in danger. You wake up, breathing heavily for a few minutes before your heart and breathing calm down, grateful that the dream is over, and go back to sleep.

I feel like I've been living that dream for the past decade or so. Only recently have I gotten to the part of the dream where my heart rate begins to elevate.

The problem has been two types of events that we should have predicted:

1. Past events with consequences we should have seen coming
2. Current events with consequences we should see coming

What's got me so worried? Let's take a look at some recent stories.

IRS Revenue Down 34%

The U.S. gets a good portion of its revenue by taxing a percentage of income and wealth. When income and wealth decrease, there is less to take. Therefore, tax revenues decrease.

x% of y-1 < x% of y, where x and y are real numbers.

In order for government to be able to collect revenue, it must have wealth and income to tax. The way to increase wealth is only to invest it. If they have less to invest, they cannot increase wealth. If they cannot increase wealth, the government has less to take.

x% of y+1 > x% of y

When people or companies have money to invest, they typically, in some form or fashion, transfer it to another, in the hopes (but not the promise) that they will be better off for what they get in return. They are free to succeed and they are free to fail.

They will have decreased, on their own accord, how much money they have at any given moment, and someone else will have taken possession of it.

With safeguards against fraud and the protection of private property, that process increases wealth, generates jobs, and is completely consistent with the free choices of the entities who earned it.

Rather than encouraging this sort of behavior that tends to increase wealth, our government has deemed it necessary to use a different equation. Instead of increasing wealth, they are working toward a mechanism to increase the percentage of the income they take from the people who are increasing it through a form of national sales tax called a VAT on TOP of all other sources of revenue.

The thinking goes that this will increase tax receipts.

x+2% of y > x% of y

However, this fails to account for the fact that people will have less to invest on their own, thereby hampering their ability to generate wealth. Initially, tax receipts will increase, but at the expense of the system's efficiency.

x+2% of y-1 ~ x% of y

The government gives very little consideration to the idea that they should spend less during these times, in spite of massive debt they accrue, which increases the interest their posterity will need to account for in the future, as demonstrated by its recent bailout of just-about-everything, including the U.S. automobile industry, which has been languishing for decades because of problems the government helped to create.

Government Will Now Own 72.5% of 'New GM'

Back in December 2008, GM's president Fritz Henderson claimed that GM was too big to be allowed to fail. Showing a remarkable amount of chutzpa, Henderson went as far to say that bankruptcy was not an option and that the government had a moral imperative to inject GM with a ton of taxpayer money to keep it from filing bankruptcy.

What could he possibly have meant by that? Because now it looks like bankruptcy is indeed on the table.

Constitutional issues aside (and there are many of them), the problem with nationalization of enterprise is that it creates a monopoly, drags down innovation borne of market necessity, does not rely on profits or losses to determine its fate (see the Post Office vs UPS or FedEx for an example), which further decreases the efficiency of the system.

(Though I'm not addressing the constitutional issues here, that is not to suggest they are less important than the economic ones. In fact, the two are so intertwined that it's very difficult to leave one aside to talk about the other.)

What's more, since the government doesn't have the money to make the purchase, it must either borrow or print the money to do it. An excess of either tends to cause inflation, which requires the government collect more revenue to both:

1. Service the increased debt
2. Buy products and services

Even still, if the increased debt lowers the country's credit rating, it increases the interest rate the taxpayers must pay on that increased debt.

Faber: Inflation to 'Approach Zimbabwe Level'

Inflation under these conditions is unavoidable. Whether we will reach hyperinflation seems likely, but I don't know if investor Mark Faber is correct when he says it is a 100% certainty (If you don't know what hyperinflation is, or if you need a reminder, click the link above, but only if you don't mind that it will scare the Hell out of you). I hope he's wrong, but I'm not smart enough to know for certain.

In either event, inflation decreases the value of money generally. It destroys wealth, which decreases the amount that individuals are able to freely invest on their own accord.

As we've already shown, when wealth decreases, so does the value of what the the government is able to collect, even further exacerbating the problem.

This is true whether we get hyperinflation, garden-variety inflation, or something in between. One of them is certain.

What is the consequence of all of this? And what does it have to do with marketing?

With a growing appetite and fewer resources to satisfy it, there is little that is out of our government's reach. Rather than curbing its diet, to satisfy this appetite, the it takes more from you and your clients.

• This means you have less work.
• This means you collect less revenue.
• This leads to being able to hire fewer people.
• This leads to higher unemployment rates.
• This leads to diminishing tax receipts and, in the current environment, more government spending.

If you think a government can control everything and you can remain free, I'd like to know what you're smoking.

We've already seen that, with respect to the functional nationalization of the auto industry, the government can now determine who is allowed to run the company, how much they're allowed to pay their executive employees, and how much they're allowed to advertise.

If you're a marketer -- if you're human -- showing how this applies to you is as easy as drawing a short, straight line between A and B.

And unless we act, the worst is still ahead.

"Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." - Ronald Reagan

What do you do when you see that a building is on fire? Do you sit back and watch it happen? Do you call 911? Or do you rush in to save anyone who might be trapped inside?

If you're stuck inside a burning building, do you resent the one who comes in to rescue you? The one who shouts from the ground to warn you to get out?

Nothing would please me more than to not feel this way, to go about my life as if nothing is wrong.

But the fire is burning. The effects are as predictable as the sunrise. And before I accept this fate as inevitable, I feel a growing sense of responsibility to at least say something. To convince one person.

Powerful and selfish people will tell you differently, and many people will believe them because either they have something to gain from what they say being true (after all, the consequent sure does seem painful) or they're just easily influenced by powerful people. No amount of logic or reasoning will dissuade them. They resent the bell ringer who warns them that their building is on fire.

But the fire does not depend on one's belief. It either is or it isn't.

Let's just keep our eyes open and not  be afraid to see what we see. As long as we do, assuming we catch it early enough, we can correct the problem.

But first we have to be willing. - Cam Beck

Lest We Forget...

Note: This Memorial Day, as a tribute to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, I am republishing one of my favorite articles, which was originally published 11/8/1998 on OO-RAH.com. The events being described are real, but the names may have been changed (including the author's). Be advised that this article describes intense situations and quotes people who used language that some may find offensive. - Cam Beck

Lest We Forget
by Harrison Greene

The hill in front of us was lit up like daylight on this particular November morning in Vietnam. We could see an occasional burst of our artillery hitting its target off in the distance. The three of us sat peering out of the slits in our bunker. Despite being able to see an occasional flash from an enemy rifle, we did not open up with our secret weapon ... a .50 caliber machinegun. We chose not to do so since the enemy had not yet figured out where all of our heavy guns were located. After all, we had only just moved into position on the side of this small hill late the night before and our bunker had not yet been dug very deeply. Things had been quiet most of the night, and now, at 3:30 AM, the enemy had chosen to wake us up.

We had 105mm howitzers behind us cranking off illumination and high explosive rounds at a rate of one every 15 seconds. It was getting quite noisy, and the three of us had to nearly shout in order to carry a conversation.

Things were beginning to get busy out in front of us.

The grunts were starting to rock 'n roll. We could hear the familiar M-14 cranking off semi-automatic fire. We could hear the reports of the enemy's M-1 carbines and an occasional AK-47 assault rifle.

Earlier that evening, while things were still quiet, Gunnery Sergeant Tchaikovsky called all the outposts on the field phone and told us that intelligence reports were predicting an enemy probe sometime during the night. He told us that there was reportedly a battalion-sized Viet cong unit moving towards our position. He ordered a 100% alert!

He didn't have to order that, believe me. We were all more than a little nervous about finally being baptized under fire. This would be our first battle since arriving in country several weeks prior.

Gunny Ski (affectionately known as "Gunny Godammit") was a big, lanky Pennsylvanian with a curious bit of wit about him. We gave him the respect he deserved for having been a veteran of the Korean War, but not much else. Just about every sentence he spoke would include the word "godammit" in it.

I can still hear him in front of our morning formations back in California, "Alright, godammit, FALL-IN!"

One afternoon, the gunny called a special formation. He had heard a complaint that several Marines in our unit had only been issued one wool blanket. "Alright, godammit," Gunny Ski bellowed, "some of you Marines have been issued two wool blankets, while others of you have only been issued one. So, I want the ones who have two blankets to give the guys with only one blanket one of their blankets, and then everyone will have two."

I'm still wondering where the logic is in that one!

Like an idiot, I gave one of my blankets to Lance Corporal Jimmy Jones. Gunny Ski was certainly tough on us, and he was a Marine that all of us loved to hate.

Jimmy was now my A-gunner on the .50 caliber machinegun. The other Marine in our outpost was Jake Barnes, a Louisiana man who spoke very slowly and deliberately ... and with a strong southern drawl. We heard Gunny Godammit off in the distance behind us yelling some obscenities.

"Alright, godammit." He yelled, "Keep your heads down up front."

No sooner did he say that when suddenly we were being clobbered by 40mm M-79 grenades, which were landing all around our bunker. About five or six of them landed to our right, and one hit the back of our bunker. We wondered if the gunny had been drinking.

Jones picked up the field phone and tried calling back to our HQ to let them know that the gunny's aim was off. Our phone was dead, the lines probably severed by the rounds that landed in our vicinity. We started yelling back to the gunny to cease fire, but the rounds kept coming.

Finally, after another dozen rounds were fired in our direction, we couldn't hear each other talking anymore, but the bombardment stopped. We breathed a little easier, for the moment, but then things began picking up momentum in front of us.

TAT - TAT - TAT - TAT - TAT - TAT - TAT - TAT - TAT - TAT! "That was an AK!" said Jones. We all agreed that it was very close to our position. TAT - TAT - TAT - TAT - TAT - TAT - TAT - TAT! A spray of dirt from the sandbags in front of us filled my eyes. TAT - TAT - TAT - TAT - TAT! ZING! My head felt like someone hit me with a sledgehammer, and I fell backwards against the rear wall of our bunker. I reached up to wipe my eyes and feel my face, and it was all wet.

At the same time, I felt a huge weight slump against my shoulder. It was Barnes. At first, I couldn't see what was wrong with him. I heard a gurgling sound and a sound like he was trying to talk. The cannons behind us grew more intense, and the weapons fire to our front was now murderous. I yelled to Jones telling him that I thought I was hit. I told him that something was wrong with Barnes, but I still couldn't see clearly what was happening.

The illumination rounds being fired from the 105's kept the night sky lit, and we were finally able to see Barnes, now lying on the floor of our bunker, and bleeding badly from the face, his hands clenching his throat. Still in a state of shock from having my own bell rung, I dug around in the darkness looking for a first-aid packet on one of our cartridge belts. Got it! I felt like I was all thumbs as I opened up a large field dressing and began working with Barnes.

Still unsure of my situation, I asked Barnes if he could hear me. He nodded in the affirmative. He started to cry. Things were getting seemingly worse out in front of us, and Jones reported that he could see more rifle flashes pointed in our direction. He wanted to fire the machinegun, but I told him not yet.

Barnes was shaking violently, and was obviously already in shock.

He was conscious of what was happening; yet there wasn't anything we could do to make the hurt go away. Jones tried the field phone again to get a corpsman down to us. The phone was still dead. He started calling back to the rear area where the cannons were still firing away.

We could hear Gunny Godammit yelling down to us to answer our field phone, but it was apparent that he had no idea what was going on with us at that moment. "POST TWO, ANSWER YOUR GODAMNED PHONE, GODAMMIT!" he yelled.

I told Jones that one of us had to get back to the CP and get help. Barnes needed a corpsman before he bled to death. Jones volunteered to stay with him while I crawled back to get HM2 "Doc" Stewart.

Crawling out the back of our bunker, I followed the Comm wire towards the battery CP. Shortly after leaving the safety of our bunker, I felt very vulnerable to the rounds that were landing around me as I crawled as fast as I could up the side of the hill.

Holding onto the wire, I came across the break, which was severed by one of the 40mm grenades Gunny Ski was laying on us. After searching around for the other end of the break and finding it, I twisted the wires together, and crawled back down the hill to the safety of our bunker and tried the field phone.

"Battery CP, Lance Corporal Toomey speaking," I heard the voice say. "This is post two ... Barnes is hit pretty bad ... send Doc down here NOW," I shouted into the field phone.

Barnes' field dressing was completely soaked in crimson red, and he was still whimpering and shaking uncontrollably. I reached over to him and told him that Doc was on the way.

Just as I was doing so, I turned around and saw this huge figure of a man come sliding into our bunker. "Alright, godammit, ... let's get this Marine outta here." Never before was I ever so glad to see Gunny Ski. He was the veteran Marine. The Marine that all of us sometimes hated; yet secretly admired because he was a seasoned combat veteran. Somehow, we knew we were going to be all right now. The Gunny came to our rescue. And, he brought with him a replacement for Barnes, who was now being carried back to the CP in the arms of this big, lanky, tough, dim-witted, loveable Gunnery Sergeant of Marines.

It was now about 0530, and the fighting began to taper down. The morning dawn was creeping over the hillside on which we were entrenched, and we could barely make out the outline of several water buffalo which were casually strolling across the meadow beyond.

"Time for "check-in," isn't it, Greene?" Jones asked.

"Exec Pit, this is post two ... all secure," I reported.

I never saw Gunny Tchaikovsky again after that terrible morning in early November. He was killed about an hour after he carried Barnes out of harms way. He was killed while saving another one of his precious Marines from an almost certain death. The date ... 10 November 1966 ... my first Marine Corps Birthday in the Marine Corps.

I know where Gunnery Sergeant Tchaikovsky is today. Rest assured, he is taking care of our beloved Marines who have been called back to guard those pearly gates.

The Perils of Bureaucracies

In his new book, Why The Mighty Fall, Jim Collins took some time to explore the characteristics of a "good fit" for any given organization. (See Appendix 5: What makes for the "right people" in key seats?)

1. The right people fit with the company's core values
2. The right people don't need to be tightly managed
3. The right people understand that they do not have "jobs," they have responsibilities
4. The right people fulfill their commitments
5. The right people are passionate about the company and its work
6. The right people display "window and mirror" maturity

This concept spotlights an important principle that Collins says makes good companies great: First who, then what. In other words, key positions must be filled by the right people before worrying about what exactly it is that they will do.

The right people, he says, do not need to be told what to do. They're self-motivated because they are competent and they buy into the mission of the organization. If you restrict their creative and intellectual freedom or their ability to freely advance with needless regulations and bureaucracy, you drive the right people off, leaving in their place unmotivated people who do need to be tightly managed.

In Collins' words, "When bureaucratic rules erode an ethic of freedom and responsibility within a framework of core values and demanding standards, you've become infected with the disease of mediocrity." (emphasis mine)

The bureaucratization of American industry
When reading this -- although Collins did not make the point himself -- I could not help but thinking of it in light of the quasi-nationalization of the banks and GM -- industries that have already been historically been tightly regulated and strapped by layers of red tape.

Throw into the mix the fact that officials are using this opportunity to more tightly manage them to the point that the government is dictating to them how much they're allowed to advertise and how much they can pay executives, and you have a sure recipe for not only mediocrity, but taxpayer-subsidized mediocrity.

Permanent mediocrity
Worse, still, it's a mediocrity that cannot be replaced because people are not allowed to use their own resources to find a market-based solution -- the government is removing the resources of the resourceful to prop up the mediocre -- thereby ensuring its continuation through even more layers of bureaucracy that tend to drive out the very ones who could save it!

Bureaucracy, either institutional or inflicted by the government, cannot replace good, resourceful, people. It just replaces one's sense of responsibility with mundane tasks.

Systems and rules can definitely help an organization, but only as much as they reflect, rather than replace, the company's core values and the people's inspiration to fulfill them. - Cam Beck

The Root of All Failure

A funny thing happened to Jim Collins (Author of Good to Great & Built to Last) on his way to write his next book on companies that survive economic turbulence. A bunch of great companies he profiled in his previous two books started going belly-up or experiencing major problems, and he had to write another book just to address the crisis. Collins remarks in his preface, "I considered setting this piece aside until we'd finished the turbulence book, but then the mighty began to fall, like giant dominoes crashing around us." Take a look at the material he had to work with.

Circuit City. Bankrupt. Liquidated. The brand name and web domain was recently bought by the parent company for CompUSA at a reported $14 million price.

Fannie Mae. The harbinger of a major lending crisis so severe that it sent shockwaves throughout the entire global economy.

Hewlett-Packard. Experienced considerable difficulty trying to keep up with the dot-com bubble and lurched about for a bit before (as of this moment) recovering.

In his new book, How the Mighty Fall, Collins set out to identify the qualities that characterize a once-great company that fails. Although he doesn't claim causality, he wonders if a fall can be predicted and avoided if the company recognizes it's in one of the first four stages of decline.

Stage 1: Hubris born of success
Stage 2: Undisciplined pursuit of more
Stage 3: Denial of risk and peril
Stage 4: Grasping for salvation

Some companies realize they're in stage 4 and are able to recover. Others proceed to Stage 5: Capitulation to irrelevance or death.

But how do you know it's coming? And more importantly, how do you turn things around? If you thought, like I did, that great companies fail because they become complacent and lazy, you'd be just as wrong as I was.

"I've come to see institutional decline like a staged disease: harder to detect but easier to cure in the early stages, easier to detect but harder to cure in the later stages. An institution can look strong on the outside but already be sick on the inside, dangerously on the cusp of a precipitous fall."- Jim Collins

As is probably true with most failures, the companies analyzed here failed because they were arrogant. They were arrogant because they were successful and they remained arrogant because they had been successful in the past. (See related post: The Marketing of Conceit)

The good news is all is not lost. And Collins discusses how and why some companies recovered.

There is a lot to appreciate about this work.

The first thing I noticed is that Collins doesn't claim that any one thing causes a fall and he explains why he is unable to do so. Also, Collins doesn't claim to be unbiased. He's human, he says, and it's difficult to erase any preconceived notions he had about companies.

However, unlike some other brilliant and popular authors, he takes great pains to explain the methodology he used to minimize bias and to identify the characteristics that precipitated the fall of great companies. This way, there is no magic box. The reader can judge the work and analysis on its merits.

Even so, like his other books, this work is supremely readable and informative. It's relatively short, so a motivated student can read it in a single sitting. I read it in two.

Whether you're a big company wondering what you can do to stay relevant or a small company wondering what principles characterize great, lasting enterprises, you can't buy and read this book quickly enough. I highly recommend it. Buy it today. - Cam Beck

3 Ways to Build a Good Reputation

1. Do something notable.

Today.

If you wait until tomorrow, someone else will have done it, and your doing it won't be as notable.

Who was the second person to walk on the moon? The third?

By any measure, just breaking the earth's atmosphere is quite an accomplishment, but we give extra credit to those who impress us first.

2. Do something good.

Each day. Every day. For a lot of people.

Add value to each person you come in contact with. Don't worry about what they can do for you. Assume nothing. What can you do for them?

3. Fail.

Someday soon, if not earlier.

It's inevitable. You're going to fail. But take heart: A little failure (or even a spectacular one) can be a good thing.

Failure is a great instructor. It builds perseverance. It teaches us different ways to look at things. It necessitates developing alternative solutions.

It also brings us humility, which keeps us from being so confident in our beliefs that we can't see other perspectives. We can empathize with those who disagree because each person may, in Benjamin Franklin's words, "doubt a little of his own infallibility."

But don't give up just because you failed once. Or twice. Or three times.

Or even 6,000 times. Like Thomas Edison's successful invention of a marketable incandescent light bulb, your next try might produce the breakthrough you seek.

- Cam Beck

The Marketing of Conceit

"Toleration is not the opposite of intolerance but the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms: the one assumes to itself the right of withholding liberty of conscience, the other of granting it." -- Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

The longevity of the spurious concept of tolerance among smart people never ceases to amaze me. The brilliant Seth Godin, author of one of my favorite marketing books, planted his flag on Tolerance Hill today, and I'm guessing that, as with most of Tolerance's great advocates, no fierce bombardment of arguments could remove him from it.

Wisely, Godin was not specific or direct in his criticism, lest he alienate his fans. However, it's possible to infer, given the entire context of the article, that he was subtly ridiculing a Polish politician who articulated a position that maintained that sizeable public investments should produce sustainable returns.

People who wrap themselves in the Tolerance Flag are quick to pat each other on the back to congratulate themselves on how tolerant and open-minded they are. However, they often mistake the self-congratulatory applause for being right, and they are quick to eschew all reason that contradicts them. They are so enamored with their assumed virtues that they lack interest in hearing any argument that demonstrates contradiction.

"The nations...cling to their opinions as much from pride as from conviction. They cherish them because they hold them to be just and because they chose them of their own free will; and they adhere to them, not only because they are true, but because they are their own... It was remarked by a man of genius that 'ignorance lies at the two ends of knowledge.' Perhaps it would have been more correct to say that strong convictions are found only at the two ends, and that doubt lies in the middle." - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

Tolerance is not a virtue, and it is not superior to intolerance. Both of them are simply conceit, and neither of them deserve marketer's promotions.

If confronted with someone who doesn't value the same things you do, you may indeed attempt to sway his opinion and change his behavior (after all, as Godin essentially notes, this is what marketing is about), but keep in mind that with respect to the virtue of those beliefs, "[N]o earthly power can determine between you." - Cam Beck

Insights: Are Your Customers Lost? Because You're Lost Without Them.

Findability is one of the most overlooked tools of marketing. There's just no glitz in making things easy to find. Yet, in nearly every case your customers and potential customers  come to you, they aren't seeking out a "brand experience." They're looking for a solution to a problem or an answer to a question. If they can't find it on your website, often they will simply look elsewhere.

Making sure they can find what they're looking for is the first step in making yourself approachable -- a trusted resource.

In this week's column at the Click Here blog, I wrote about 5 Ways to Ensure Your Online Customers Never Get Lost.

It's not likely to happen by accident. First you have to plan for it. - Cam Beck

Steve Krug: Keeping it Real

Don't Panic. Just Lead.

At MPDailyFix, Beth Harte related a story about how a friend of hers, who is a senior-level marketer, was offered employment with junior-level pay. She goes on to explain some of the reasons this is happening and why she believes it will become more commonplace if marketers don't show their value. She's right. But if I can add my own perspective here, the problem Beth identifies can be understood economically and solved in the same terms.

Unemployment means there are too many people for too few jobs. In other words, there is a surplus of labor.

Surpluses tend to drive down prices.

The price of labor is measured in wages. Thus, when there is a labor surplus in any industry (like marketing), it tends to depress the wages of the people in that industry.

This is especially true when the hiring manager believes it doesn't matter from which part of the labor pool he chooses. One person is just as good as another -- or in Beth's words -- a commodity.

Being good -- being great -- these things don't matter unless we distinguish ourselves from the rest of the pack. It is the perception of our expertise and effectiveness that will enable us to demand higher wages.

Actual expertise can help drive perceived expertise, but it does not guarantee it. Now, more than ever, a marketer must be both good and an excellent self-promoter.

Doing this effectively is about all the things Beth mentioned. Among them:

• Be a leader.
• Measure.
• Document.
• Foster and nurture relationships.
• Continuously improve.

However, this effort shouldn't resemble a campaign -- which is temporary and smacks of insincerity. In order to assure others of our value, we must first strive to be valuable. We must both improve the product and promote the improvement.

Luckily, in our cases, the act of successfully promoting the improvement, in some ways, actually helps to improve the product -- especially when we're willing to make mistakes and learn from them.

Instead of curse the conditions that led to this difficulty, we must embrace it as an opportunity to revolutionize the way we practice marketing. And we can apply to our clients the wisdom we gained from the experience of practicing it on ourselves.

I'm afraid that this won't guarantee a happy ending for everyone -- even a lot of the good ones. However, being a jack of all trades (and more importantly, being the sort of person who can adapt to changing circumstances) all but promises that we'll find someplace to be of use. - Cam Beck

Who are you calling a sell-out?

Awhile back, I wrote about Anthony Bourdain's criticism of Rocco DiSpirito for what some of Bourdain's fans called "selling out." (Anthony Bourdain: Hypocrite ... or Genius?). I asked a Bourdain fan, who (about a year after I wrote the piece) came to criticize DiSpirito and praise Bourdain, exactly how "sell-out" is defined. His answer is revealing.

...but at one point he [DiSpirito] was a serious chef making good food ..then he made the decision of saying i want to become a "star" and ill do anything i can do get there. but i wont do it through my food, ill do it through a marketing machine...

This, he said, qualifies DiSpirito as a sell-out.

I thought about this conversation again when Senator Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania switched parties because, in his own words, he did not think he could win as a Republican.

I am unwilling to have my 29-year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.

He also added, "I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans,"  but if that's the case I wonder why it took him so long to discover what the rest of the GOP has known for decades.

Like DiSpirito, Specter has been accused of being a sell-out. But also like DiSpirito, Specter simply made a calculated decision to do something that was in his own self-interests.

That alone doesn't make either of them a sell-out.

Even Specter's 2001 suggestion that representatives not be allowed to change parties between elections doesn't make him a sell-out. If you're tempted to call him one, it just means you have to better identify the principles that motivate him, not the principles that you think he should have.

Alan Keyes, the former Reagan diplomat, political candidate, and occasional contributor to WorldNetDaily, deftly points out the hypocrisy of Michael Steel, the RNC chairman, to denigrate Specter's action as entirely self-serving. [pargraph breaks added for readability]

Steele has no problem sacrificing principle in order to keep politicians like Specter in the GOP ranks. He sees them as the key to victory and he has made it clear that, as far as he's concerned, winning is the only thing that matters.

Unfortunately for him, Specter's switch is entirely consistent with that principle.

Specter has rightly concluded that Republican primary voters will reject him in 2010, as they would have in 2004 had it not been for the help he received from Rick Santorum and others who put party loyalty above their commitment to the nation's fundamental moral principles.

By running as a Democrat, Specter feels that he stands a better chance of winning the general election. As far as principle goes, the only difference between Specter and Steele is that Specter will now reach for victory while being true to his leftist views.

Meantime, the Michael Steele Republicans, as they fume over his desertion, further demonstrate their willingness to seek victory by betraying the party's supposed conservatism.

Similarly, DiSpirito's decision to sell something besides the food he personally cooks doesn't make him a sell-out. It just means that he is interested in doing something other than what some people (like Bordain) want him to do.

That's his freedom. That's his right. And certainly in DiSpirito's case, it's entirely harmless.

To be sure, no one on this earth always live up to the principles they say they hold dear, 100% of the time with 100% consistency. One can make a mistake with respect to those principles -- or a series of mistakes -- and not be a sell-out.

But be warned: If you disappoint or mislead people who mistakingly ascribe certain principles to you, you will sacrifice your own credibility with those people, and you may not recover from it.

It's risky to be transparent and authentic, but hopefully the risk will just motivate us to be a better people who can act, more often than not, consistently with principles we've promised we have. - Cam Beck

P.S. For a great piece on branding and authenticity, I suggest this letter from Mike Rowe of The Discovery Channel's Dirty Jobs.