A barrel full of a nauseating-looking stew of what looks like sputum, blood and pus appears on the Nicollet Mall.
Behind it is a large sign, set off by bright, blinking lights:
BARREL MIGHT CONTAIN
HIGH CONCENTRATION OF
EBOLA VIRUS!
Exposure Could Very Possibly
be Fatal!
If true, do not Lick, Drink,
Rub on Skin or Smear on Face!
(Also, it might not. You’ll have to
lick, drink or smear it on you
to find out what’s in the barrel)
Let’s assume there are three groups of people walking past this barrel:
-
Epidemiologists, Virologists, and other people with the medical and science background to know what a “Barrel full of Ebola virus” means – figure maybe 1/1,000 of the passing audience
-
People who without medical or scientific training, but who think the idea of licking, drinking, or rubbing a concoction rich in Ebola viruses on their face is a bad idea, and refrain from doing so
-
People who say “Yes, We Can!”, and lick, smear their faces with, or guzzle a pint of the concoction.
Question: Of the three groups above, who are the stupid ones?
Just curious.
There you go again with rhetorical questions!
From the article:
“Among voters who favor the health care law, only 18% think Americans are too stupid to understand the actual costs associated with the law.”
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that this 18% is in the group of people who are too stupid to understand the actual costs associated with Obamacare.
The Democrat Party is the party of free stuff. I’m a lover of free stuff as much as the next guy, but I also wasn’t born last night. It never made sense to me that the number of people with health insurance was going to go up and the price was going to go down. That is like arguing we are going to reduce the supply of X and expect that the price of X will go down. Plenty of my college educated friends and relatives don’t realize that. I don’t think they’re stupid, at least not in the sense of being mentally challenged. Economics is not taught anymore, at least not in a recognizable form.
If you read the liberal commenters on this WaPo piece re: Gruber, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/11/14/an-appeal-to-fox-news-investigate-grubers-remarks/
you will find that liberals do, in fact, believe that the government can reduce the cost of something by rationing it. The reason given is it will work because republicans are evil.
Mitch:
As part of your test shouldn’t there be that picture of Mr. Yuck with the sick look and frown through his face. Even stupid should realize don’t drink or touch because of that sign.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
On the other hand, think of all the attention, PR, pity, and free stuff an Ebola sufferer might get. Heck, this week’s People Magazine features one of the infected nurses’ story. Plus, she’s all healed-up now. Win/ win/ win …
Plus, not only would the Ebola consumer get all these benefits, they’d likely get the life-long status of “victim.” And we all know how desirable that is.
Seriously, I too believe that if such a scenario took place, there would be at least one person would voluntarily (and eagerly) indulge in the offering …