Friday, October 03, 2014

Ebola and government lies: when policy interferes with credibility.

For years now, as we know, government has lied to us repeatedly on a wide variety of issues... much of that (but by no means all) based on policy.

The biggest of the many lies has been, of course, the infamous and reviled Obamacare, the "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; if you like your plan, you can keep your plan" shtick.

That's a problem, of course.  The issue itself aside, however, the problem now isn't the policy per se'... it's that government lied... repeatedly... for months... to get the policy passed.

The naysayers and skeptics... that is, those possessed of common sense... were trashed by every corner of the left.  We refused to disbelieve our eyes and our common sense.

Now, we have ebola.  I don't know all that much about it except it is not unlike AIDS in it's difficulty to treat and for the same reason: the virus mutates in between victims.

That's why, apparently, these outbreaks actually do die out... because, as I understand it, every generation of the virus is different than the one before it and, a key difference from AIDS, eventually it mutates to a non-lethal state.

That, however, is neither here nor there: I freely admit that I can be as wrong as the next guy.  And that's where government credibility comes it.

If our government had credibility... if we could believe them... if their was some level of trust... then when the people who wasted the better part of a billion dollars to build a horrifically non-functioning web site for Obamacare told us they got this ebola thing under control and there's nothing to worry about.

But is it true?

You got me.

If Barack Obama told me it was daylight out I'd look for myself.

He stood there and told us that ISIS was the "JV team."  And he's rebranded al Qaida as Khorason or something, because he'd claimed he'd "decimated" al Qaida.

He ignores terrorism in this country, attempting to, rather perversely, refer to muslim terrorism as "workplace violence."  Well, retroactively applying this standard to 9/11, THAT was "workplace violence" as well.

When, in fact, do we believe this moron and his minions?

When do we know they're telling the truth and when are they, as they so frequently have during his administration, blowing smoke?

The default position should be, I believe, a state of DISbelief.  This guy and his people have lied so much about so many things, that as much as we'd like to believe them about this, how can we?

As convicted liars, so to speak, is it not in our best interests to just presume that he's lying now?

And if he is... then what?

No comments: