Eyes Wide Shut

Adults, more than children, play this game – they convince themselves that shutting their eyes to incidents means that they aren’t really occurring. So when Churumuri asks, in connection with the criminalization of politics, if “the people’s court stand[s] above the law court”, the assumption is that the “Rule of Law” exists in India and that it is somehow different from mob justice. But these assumptions are hardly based on facts. After all, in India, “Law” is what people say it is, and has nothing to do with Natural Justice. That is the essence of democracy – majoritarianism.

The other day, on a television news program, Congress spokesman Manish Tiwari cracked a joke. When someone from the Hindu right wing raised the issue of minority appeasement, he said that the test of a democracy lies in how well it treats its minorities. So there is nothing wrong in appeasing them, “bringing them into the mainstream.” The assumption here is that a “minority” always refers to some group, mostly religious, and as far as the Congress is concerned, always Muslims. Since political correctness in India has not descended to the ridiculous depths seen in British society, he can conveniently ignore homosexuals when referring to minorities, have laws on the books designed to persecute them, and then claim that democracy has to pass a “minority test”. And because of his party’s socialist ideology, he can simply brush away the entity Ayn Rand referred to as “the smallest minority on earth” – the individual.

wgreen compares the increasing State control over the US economy to Marx’s Communist Manifesto. He sees the parallels. So do most of us who are not wearing socialist blinkers and, who are not blinded by Obama-love. But while the US may not turn into the USSR the day-after-tomorrow, the fact that the US parliament and its president are pissing all over their constitution is lost on a majority of the people. Some people are starting to see it, but its too little, and too late. Lest this be construed as a specific attack on Obama, the same was true of his predecessor Bush, and the gold robber Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

But then, “Eyes Wide Shut” is a temporary cure for cognitive dissonance.

Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.


  • you12  On March 26, 2009 at 1:13 am

    Cognitive dissonance it is then. But at least its better than the misplaced sense of ‘Change and action’. Two words that have led to unimaginable destruction,along with the dreaded ‘Common good’.

    Does make one wonder though- Where should the individual draw the line and when should he actually influence the process and the society.

    I mean if people around me have incorrect views,should I point them out and direct such people in the direction I believe to be right,or should I allow each individual to hold his own view. I don’t see wrong with doing either.

    Similarly,should one help out a failing man,or let him figure out the error of his ways on his own.

    When there is no immediate benefit or interest but some implicit promise of indirect benefits in the future, what should an individual do.

    • Aristotle The Geek  On March 26, 2009 at 2:24 pm

      I am wary of “helping” people, especially those who are “failing.” I have found that you invariably get kicked in the teeth for pointing out flaws in their thought process, or worse, for actually helping them. So, don’t help unless someone asks for it, or better still, begs. And then do it on your terms.

      As for incorrect views, it helps to clarify where you stand on a particular issue. But there is no point “teaching” anyone. Some people recognize that there is something wrong with the way the world works, and they actively search for answers. Such people can be helped – merely pointing them in a general direction should do the trick. The others – those who are simply not interested – stay away from them. They cannot be convinced.

      # “When there is no immediate benefit or interest but some implicit promise of indirect benefits in the future, what should an individual do.”
      What do you mean exactly? An indirect future benefit to you? Of what nature?

  • you12  On March 27, 2009 at 8:34 pm

    What do you mean exactly? An indirect future benefit to you? Of what nature?

    For example voting for the lesser evil or someone who largely represents what I believe in. Participating or donating in charities that I agree with. Such cases may provide some benefits to me in the future, but theres no guarantee. On such cases I don’t have a position.

    • Aristotle The Geek  On March 29, 2009 at 1:27 am

      I won’t say that I never understood the idea behind “the lesser evil,” because I do. Whatever the motivation, the fact remains, however, that the “lesser evil” is still evil. You are not going to gain any benefit from supporting it.

      Other than that, I don’t see any problem in supporting someone whose position is similar to yours, or charities that you believe in, regardless of the benefit you get from such an action.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s