Gov­ern­ment math

The Compass - - OPINION -

Ed­i­tor’s note: the fol­low­ing was first pub­lished in the Nov. 22, 2013 print edi­tion of The Tele­gram.

There have been so many pos­i­tive com­ments on Com­pre­hen­sive Eco­nomic and Trade Agree­ment with the Euro­pean Union and our fish­eries in­volve­ment in it — by the pre­mier, gov­ern­ment min­is­ters and large fish mer­chants like Bill Barry and Martin Sul­li­van — that con­trary com­ments and ef­forts of in­quiry into the truth are over­pow­ered or lost. Is this the way our coun­try and prov­ince works, where ex­am­i­na­tion of gov­ern­ment ac­tiv­ity and pol­icy mak­ing, the as­sess­ment of facts and their fu­ture con­se­quences on our peo­ple, are de­nied to those same peo­ple whose fu­ture lives are af­fected by it?

Imag­ine the stu­pid­ity of gov­ern­ments and pol­i­cy­mak­ers who, once they have made their pol­icy, have ev­ery thought and com­ment there­after agree to­tally with their imag­ined out­come of that pol­icy. Ev­ery bit of logic and rea­son, no mat­ter how wrong or ridicu­lous it is, is pos­i­tively di­rected to the so­lu­tion that pol­icy pro­fesses! You don’t be­lieve me? Here’s the proof.

If the gov­ern­ment de­cides the an­swer to, or so­lu­tion to, Pol­icy 94 is 94, then that’s it. It’s 94 for­ever more. They will add any com­bi­na­tion of num­bers and it will come out to be 94. Here’s how they do it. Eight added to 88 is 94, 50 added to two is 94, or 10 added to 10 added to 106 is still 94.

In case you are check­ing my num­bers to see how cor­rect they are, don’t fret too much over it be­cause you haven’t seen other added sums of the gov­ern­ment — wit­ness this “piece of work” by the gov­ern­ment — two plus two is 94, zero plus zero is 94, and -1 added to +1 is still 94.

Don’t bother ask­ing where I got this from, or how good I am at check­ing gov­ern­ment fig­ures be­cause that has noth­ing to do with it. All you need to know is this is a gov­ern­ment fact. That’s how they work. Per­haps some are of­fended by the word “stupid,” which I used to de­scribe this gov­ern­ment, or won­der what I’m try­ing to con­vey.

Well, if you have paid at­ten­tion to what I have said on how gov­ern­ments carry out fish­eries pol­icy, you will see then that per­haps a bet­ter word to de­scribe it is ig­no­rance.

— Phil Earle writes from Car­bon­ear

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.