My colleague wonders whether, having spent my entire career attacking subsidies of one sort or another — subsidies to transport, subsidies to finance, subsidies to farmers and fishing and mining and manufacturing and everything in between, and in particular subsidies to the cultural industries, including film, broadcasting, books and magazines — I might nonetheless make a mockery of everything I’ve ever written, not to say a total hypocrite of myself, by secretly preferring that Maclean’s, alone, should be subsidized. He feels there may be some doubt whether I support a special exception from the general principle for the company that pays my salary. He wonders how “in good conscience” I could fail to clear this up, as “nobody should have to guess.”
My colleague wonders whether, having spent my entire career attacking subsidies of one sort or another — subsidies to transport, subsidies to finance, subsidies to farmers and fishing and mining and manufacturing and everything in between, and in particular subsidies to the cultural industries, including film, broadcasting, books and magazines — I might nonetheless make a mockery of everything I’ve ever written, not to say a total hypocrite of myself, by secretly preferring that Maclean’s, alone, should be subsidized. He feels there may be some doubt whether I support a special exception from the general principle for the company that pays my salary. He wonders how “in good conscience” I could fail to clear this up, as “nobody should have to guess.”
Grateful as I am for his concern for my conscience, I think I’ll leave him guessing.