My wife isn’t just a pretty face. Behind it she’s got a sit-up-and-take-notice brain, i.e. one not to be trifled with. So in response to my query at the end of my last post, she’s offered the following answer.
Not unlike so many other things we do – America’s involvement in Vietnam or Iraq, marrying at the age of eighteen, and so on – it seemed like a good idea at the time. But by the time we realize it wasn’t such a good idea, we’ve already invested, and we’d rather throw good money after bad than lose what we’ve already squandered. In Vietnam Americans didn’t want 25,000 of their young men to have died in vain, so they threw in another 25,000. And most of us who’ve been divorced report that we should have got out years before we finally did.
Of course the previous investment trap is only one of the two conflicting vectors driving our response to Covid 19. The other, as noted in my penultimate post, is the growing awareness of the stupidity of our initial response to it. But what’s especially interesting is that both vectors – the previous investment trap and the no-end-in-sight clause – have been strengthening in lock step with each other. If this be doubted, just listen to the two rhetorics, the one coming from CNN, the other from Fox.
Ultimately the forces of natural selection will have their say. So yes, at some point discretion will prove the better part of valour. The tragedy is that it’s Trump who knows this. And that will accrue to his reelection in November. So yes indeed. Covid 19 really is the tragedy that just keeps on giving.
Categories: Critical Thinking
Paulosophical Vimplications 
As to the two conflicting vectors:
“There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.”
― Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles
LikeLike
When there is no best, right answer, We assign one person job to make informed decision when that decision must be made. Most understand that, some never will.
LikeLike