The Idea of “Right at all Costs”
I have a little story to tell with some potential commentary to follow.
There was a conversation that I had earlier about this ast election. It basically involved me talking to someone that supported Obama and his recent election by the American populous, and myself pointing out it’s potential direct effects to the other’s source of income and how supporting that guy would put them out of a job as they are involved directly in the defense industry as a contractor. This was done by identifying the comments made during the Obama campaign calling for a drastic cut in defense spending. From experience in that environment, and from speaking from an economically sensible position, the easiest place to cut said spending would be in a sector that has the dollar value broken into blocks that are issued out in yearly increments with a yearly obligation attached to the money as well, because the easiest thing you would have to do to swell the coffers in this instance would be to not renew the contracts and let the services that are provided just drift off, with the persons attached to the process not being absorbed, but let go.
Makes sense, right?
The other person took some time to digest this thinking, but eventually came around and confirmed that they believed I was right. I then asked how many in that company supported the newly-elected president, and the response was staggering.
I was told that everyone in that office did.
I told her to take the information that I had provided to her and show it to a co-worker.
The response? The co-worker gave her a dumbfounded look and continued with their celebration.
I was dumbfounded. -How could this be? How could someone, some group, support another that quite often stated that not only did they did not support them in turn, but had also used as a platform proposed legislation that could potentially eliminate their very livelihood? Was this some twisted version of Stockholm Syndrome where the victim not only identifies with the attacker, but also justifies the actions that could cause them to live a much more difficult life than before? Where these people some sort of socio-masochists?
Nope. From what it sounds like just highlights another example of a person choosing a path prior to knowing where it will lead; and, even after seeing that said goal will lead to their downfall will refuse to see the risks associated but will ignore all to maintain that the goal at the end will lead to some sort of salvation…. even if the goal is NOTHING like the one promised.
Even if the goal is hardship and pain.
I know, this sounds a little disjointed, but I will flesh this out a little more on a later date.
Oh, and it is good to be back.
