Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Anna Hazare II

I sometimes love it when politicians exploit the general public's weak command over basic logic.

Take this twisted logic for instance - The 'People' believe that in order for someone to be effective in the anti-corruption committee the person must have had a corruption-free past record. Given the gargantuan stupidity of the assumption that merely being a honest person is a *necessary qualification* (maybe they believe it is a *sufficient qualification* as well) for one to be capable of effecting policy changes - why shouldn't a politician take advantage of this strange notion of "qualification". In a way this must make it so easy for politicians to gleefully dismantle Anna Hazare's effort.

So we now have a situation where respective parties are saying following things:

People: A good eye doctor must have never worn glasses.

Anna Hazare: Even if there is a small hint that the doctor has worn glasses, I will take his medical license away.

Politicians: Person A in the committee may have done LASIK now. But he definetely wore glasses in 2006. Look at this a photo where he is shown wearing glasses

Person A: I never wore glasses in 2006. This photo has been doctored and a glass has been digitally placed in the photo.


None of this would ever happen if people didn't have a stupid assumption to start with. Or if Anna Hazare said that he does not care about whether someone in the committee had been corrupt in the past or not. People in the committee must be paid professionals who will execute a task for a salary. But we have this romantic, flawed, irrational notion called "Qualification". And we won't stop to think about it because its just too popular a notion already.

16 comments:

Alan Smithee said...

It is LASIK. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LASIK)

Bala said...

The British were much better. Imagine what would have happened if the British had the Indian Politician's DNA. They would have plastered the personal life of the freedom fighters on every wall. Imagine the result of that. With all new books coming out on the Indian Freedom fighters the common Indians of the time would have felt the British were much better.. Maybe History would have been different..

Sidhu's wife said...

As usual the self appointed saviour of logic, who also happens to be the smartest guy on the planet, laments about the "lack of basic logic" and "stupid public"...

Sreekrishnan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sreekrishnan said...

I agree to your fact that some one with no record of corruption being qualified is bad - as bad as your example.

A simple question is history of no Corruption can never assure he wouldnt. Corruption is not just money - but somehow vaguely misuse of power. LokPal Guarantees such a person the provision to misuse.

All that you need is an impeccable commitment to the ideas of self righteousness or atleast make them write a good SOW.

An interview where the public gets to vote based on his answers.

Apdi ethavthu pannalaam .. Interview, Test, ithellam poyachu la ?

Asura said...

"People in the committee must be paid professionals who will execute a task for a salary. But we have this romantic, flawed, irrational notion called "Qualification". And we won't stop to think about it because its just too popular a notion already.
"

Going by your logic it should be perfectly OK for you I guess to have former convicted criminals and rapists to contest in elections and be MLAs and MPs. While we are it, Let us also pay Azharuddin, Manoj Prabhakar and Ajay Jadeja to ensure that they are part of the BCCI committee that investigates match fixing matters. Since they will be "paid professionals" everything will be allright. The public will have the complete faith in them, just like how they will have the complete faith in a committee that possibly has tainted members proclaiming themselves as the watchdogs of corruption.

anu said...

Being honest or corrupt is a question of ethics. A person always has complete control when making the decision of staying honest or not. Wearing glasses is a physical condition that is not always in the complete control of a person, especially when you genetic causes.
So, as they say, this is an apple to orange comparison and not a valid argument...

Hawkeye said...

sidhu's wife,

your marriage choice saved at least 1 man and 1 woman.

sreekrishna.

imagine the world's cleanest and non-corrupt person was elected/chosen for the job. How would the public evaluate his performance?

asura,

so you interpreted my post to mean "corruption is a +ve qualification and must result in mandatory selection"

how did you pull that off?

anu,

you lost me in the first sentence. who defines ethics on whats the correct sallary to do your govt job?

Sidhu's wife said...

Oh yes, you seem to be my husband's alter ego.. You both grate the public in equal amounts..

ayyampettai arivudainambi said...

For someone who constantly berates the janta for its lack of logic, your choice of analogy is strange.

A better one would be:

People: Only someone who has been a doctor may become the dean of a medical college.

Now, would that be a gargantuan stupidity?

I don't see how having a clean track record is a strange notion of qualification. It has to be a prerequisite but certainly not the only qualification.

PS: Are you trying to say that no one is clean, or that it doesn't really matter and what really matters is picking someone who can deliver?

Hawkeye said...

siddhu samsaaram,

apparently you are being compared to a cricket pitch. hopefully you dont turn the wrong way at an important moment.

ayyampettai,

while your is a good analogy it is not a 100% match. as I believe the choice of being corrupt or not doesnt really exist the way one does not have a choice of having eye defect and all.

on your last question. what i said to sreekrishna. if you flip the logic and have a honest person do the job - would people stop checking if he delivers or not?

this pretense of having a clean track record should be dispensed with. it is useless or irrelevant to the task at hand.

and if they cant get 5 people who are clean. imagine. the whole bill depends on 100s of such people getting appointed countrywide. manglam dhaan.

Sidhu's wife said...

@aa nambi-

For someone who constantly berates the janta for its lack of logic, your choice of analogy is strange

Yes,there was a Newton, an Einstein and a Hawkeye...

Kaliaperumal Indiran said...

sidhu samsaram,

Einstein and Newton are scientists. logic is a philosophy. good examples would be Aristotle etc.

adhu seri.. sidhu kooda kudumba nadathra alavukku muttaala irukeenga.. ungalukku enna theriya poguthu.. vidunga vidunga..

Asura said...

"so you interpreted my post to mean "corruption is a +ve qualification and must result in mandatory selection"

how did you pull that off?
"

No, I am disputing your point that corruption can be summarily ignored from the candidate's prior track record, since he is going to be checked anyways on his output (by the people)

Your logic also throws the world-wide HR policy of background checks before recruiting into the dustbin. Evaluate the guy after you have recruited him. why did your company spend hundred of dollars doing background checks on you befoe they hired you? Stupid guys. They could have anyday checked how you were delivering and could have dismissed you if you were'nt doing your job. Right?

abbeyjodh said...

I like This post very Much . It is very nice.



Thanks
Nanshi
Lone Emi

wisdomjobs said...

In todays generation corruption has become the major part to put a nomination in politics. Even if the person is so calm as soon as he/she enters into politics, they do not take much time to change.