Among Interrogation 101’s most basic techniques of determining likelihood of truthfulness is to ask the same question multiple times, from different angles and phrased differently. If the story changes, it’s highly probable that deception or avoidance is taking place.
Borders should’ve been closed, but shouldn’t be closed. Masks work, but only when they don’t, and wearing them should be mandatory, but only if we want. Hospitals should be protected so they can deal with the critically ill, except if they’re dying. Government officials are essential workers, but only in the ruling minority party.
To give credit where credit is due, the authors of the scripts Trudeau reads from every day have done a pretty good job at intermingling facts with conjecture, evidence with ideology, and science with scientism, leaving us feeble-minded underlings with enough to leave us confused enough to wait another day for clarification that never comes. God only knows what happens while we’re cowering in our homes, grateful for being forced to try to survive on financial handouts that are a fraction of what we earned before our businesses were forced to close, trying to make sense of it all and not paying attention to anything else at all.
Consistent messaging with canned responses to questions is great, too. Except when they’re given for completely unrelated questions, or when no answers at all are given. It must drive the novelists in the LPC PR room nuts to see such abject failure in the deliverology.
Yet, we’re supposed to quietly nod in placid agreement to everything that has passed through the political filters and not question how it contradicts personal experience or well-documented research conclusions? We’re supposed to shame those who question the most basic of facts, regardless of their level of expertise? We’re supposed to report those who deviate from the prescribed behavioural patterns?
Riiiiiiight.
I can’t wait to tune in to the cuckoo clock appearance to hear what I’m supposed to think today!
