Letters to the editor
Taking a Chance on Insanity
Dale Perkins, Victoria
Volume 29 Issue 1, 2 & 3 | Posted: March 19, 2015
Obviously we are a country of gamblers. Here in BC we happily hand over $2 billion a year to our provincial government for the opportunity to gamble and play a ‘Game of Chance’ (BCLC’s annual profit from gambling/gaming).
I am told that our statistical chance of winning a lottery operated by one of the gambling pimps we’ve permitted governments to operate openly and everywhere stands at about 1 in 30 million. So certainly that’s something governments should encourage and promote and since the odds are so favorable (?) we definitely will want to buy our “chance to make a bundle” every week.
Obviously we are a country of gamblers. Here in BC we happily hand over $2 billion a year to our provincial government for the opportunity to gamble and play a ‘Game of Chance’ (BCLC’s annual profit from gambling/gaming).
I am told that our statistical chance of winning a lottery operated by one of the gambling pimps we’ve permitted governments to operate openly and everywhere stands at about 1 in 30 million. So certainly that’s something governments should encourage and promote and since the odds are so favorable (?) we definitely will want to buy our “chance to make a bundle” every week.
But right now governments in Canada are hot about protecting us from terrorists (most of whom, they imply, are of the Muslim-persuasion). So Bills are passed in Parliament, which permit spy agencies to scrutinize everyone’s e-mail and phone calls and postal mail – because there may be an actual threat to innocent ones and their lives if we were ever let down our guard.
Again, citing statistics, the actual threat to our lives posed by terrorists stands at about 1 in 20 million (at least it’s higher than our chance of winning a lottery). But those awful statisticians won’t leave us alone.
They go on to tell us that our chance of getting killed or maimed by lightning is about 1 in 136,000 and from hurricanes, tornados, or floods the actual risk of getting killed or maimed is about 1 in 84,000. What about death due to sharp objects? – that apparently stands at 1 in 38,000.
Car accidents? – 1 in 500. OK, but what about suicides? – that apparently is 1 in 100 – heart disease and cancer? 1 in 7.
The federal government’s spin-doctors now command centre-stage and are demanding millions of dollars to keep us safe and out of harms way. But to inform we ordinary citizens that spending our hard-earned taxes on surveillance and security, while health care and disease prevention only receives a few crumbs that fall off the Budget Day table.
Security, it seems, represents a good investment and demands complete acceptance and accolades – that almost qualifies as madness. Something has to change.
For starters, we need to concede that the real threat posed by terrorist is infinitesimally small, and hardly worth all the millions being expended by our Federal Governments.
If we really were concerned about the number of people being killed and maimed we need look no further than preventing suicides among our military personnel, or attacking the actual causes of disease such as cancer through a rigorous regime of stopping pollutants from going into our air, water and the additives put into our food.
And it would nice if our leaders would stop provoking such attacks by their irresponsible policies and attitudes.
If we really wanted to enhance life and provide real security then we would have to demand a complete change in public policies and practices. Are the current crop of players and politicians capable of leading us in that direction?
Maybe this is important enough that we will re-enter the political stage and demand that our democratic structures actually offer us what we believe is necessary to give us life and essential services. Are we up for it?
Dale Perkins, Victoria