To Kill A Mockingbird

I have to admit that I'm not a fan of Twitter.  It's certainly popular and is a fantastic tool for marketing your products, getting exposure for your blog or website, sharing a pithy viewpoint, etc.  It also allows people like the Root of All Evil, aka Les Chapman, to champion his hateful views incessantly to the herd of incredibly small-minded fuckwits who want to control every aspect of your lives.  They gobble it up greedily, like pigs at a trough filled with rotten fruit and excrement.  Hey, I believe in free speech, even speech that I do not agree with nor care to hear or see.  It does not even pain me to say that even the Root of All Evil deserves a platform to tell the world how much he hates you.  Because that afford us an opportunity to call him a fucking hateful, petty, nannying tyrant in response.

So, although I do have a Twitter profile that I have just recently created, I don't use Twitter except when I'm researching something or when someone e-mails me and points something out.  For me, one of the most annoying things about Twitter is that some people endlessly re-tweet (RT) others' tweets, like mockingbirds.  While I accept the usefulness of RT'ing in many circumstances, it doesn't make it any less annoying.  That is, of course, my problem.  If Twitter works for you, that's "luvly-jubbly."  Do what you like. It's your life, and I do not seek to ever tell you how to live it.

On the other hand, sometimes people offer up advice in the hopes that you might reconsider what you're doing.  Take, for instance, Sabine Wolff (and I apologise, I know nothing about Ms Wolff or her views on life) who tweeted "Stop retweeting Simon Chapman. Seriously."

This is sage advice, Sabine. 

Of course, the Root of All Evil is hurt by that, evidently:

Pro Tip, Root of All Evil:  You are often an arsehole of the highest order, which is my opinion and which is shared by more people than you would care to accept.  You are rarely nice to anyone and you are one of the most petty, hateful bastards I have ever seen -- and I've seen plenty in my day.  Don't get hurt when someone gets sick of seeing your twisted fucking views re-tweeted by your sheep-minions of hate. OK?  Now, please, go play with your fish and shut the fuck up for once.  If you weren't so in love with yourself, decent people might actually give you a pass.

But you're evil, and people have got your number by now. So no pass for you, Les. 

It's Midnight, and This is the Best I Can Do Right Now

Went out tonight with family.  Discovered a new pub with a fab, heated, mostly-covered smoking area.  Food was particularly awesome.  Any pub that tries to cater to their smoking customers is a winner.  Do take note, pub owners.  Make the effort and spend the money, and we'll spend our money at your establishment.

So, I haven't checked to see if this ad is accurate (and I don't really truck with the whole AGW thing) but the text is mighty compelling.  Plus, bonus: a smoking baby.  Cuz a little sensationalism goes a long way, baby.  Only a matter of time now before our favourite root of all evil wants to ban cars, to protect the children. 

Big Society or Big Brother - Is There Any Difference?

The oppressive boot-in-the-face nanny state is advancing apace.  Via Big Brother Watch, we learn that government seeks to control everything you do and see -- not just your lifestyle habits, but your on-line viewing habits, too. If you thought that the Tories were for freedom, for choice, for letting people live their lives without government dictating to you, you have thought wrong.  The Conservative party is fast shaping up to be far, far worse than Labour was in noughties.  We are in incredible danger of losing all of our civil liberties under the false pretense of protecting the children.

What happened?  An "independent" panel of MPs called forth the nannies and other interested parties (ISPs and even one porn producer) and concluded that government needs to protect your young, gullible children from all of the evils out there on the interwebs.  Government wants to create an omnipotent busybody department that monitors and regulates everyone's internet activity.  How much do you want to wager that this group will be amalgamated into the new nanny department? 

Read the full inquiry here. It's 89 pages of unadulterated shite, mostly.  So, I'll just provide the panel's recommendations below for your ease of reference:

Recommendations:

1. The Government should urgently review the implementation plans for “Active Choice” and press for an accelerated implementation timetable, more clarity on installation targets for all customers, and funding commitments from ISPs.

2. ISPs should provide better support for internet safety education and initiatives such as ParentPort and improve signposting for these services from their own web domains.

3. Government and industry representatives should draw up guidelines for improving the communication of existing internet safety settings, improving training for retailers, developing a family friendly kite-marking scheme for manufacturers and retailers and improving signposting to pre-installed security settings during device configuration.

4. ISPs should be tasked with rolling out single account network filters for domestic broadband customers that can provide one click filtering for all devices connected to a home internet connection within 12 months.

5. The Government should launch a formal consultation on the introduction of an Opt-In content filtering system for all internet accounts in the UK. The most effective way to reduce overall development cost and create the most flexible solution would be for ISPs to work together to develop a self-regulated solution.

6. Public Wi-Fi provision should also be filtered in this way otherwise home-based controls will be easily circumvented.

7. The Government should also seek backstop legal powers to intervene should the ISPs fail to implement an appropriate solution.

8. Finally, the Government should consider the merits of a new regulatory structure for online content, with one regulator given a lead role in the oversight and monitoring of internet content and in improving the dissemination of existing internet safety education materials and resources such as ParentPort.

Once again, parents, you are utterly incapable of raising a child. Do not forget that.

For the rest of us:  All you really need to do, folks, is follow the money.  Who stands to benefit from such a scheme?  Well, firstly, ParentPort.  That one is obvious. Also, the major ISPs will benefit hugely. Because only the big ISPs will have the financial resources to even attempt to monitor your activity.   The little independent ISPs won't stand a chance, so off they'll go into the ether.  You can count on the big ISPs to support any legislation that will crush their competition like they are gnats!

All big businesses support legislation that will benefit them financially, tobacco companies included.  Yes, the big tobacco companies stopped fighting the display ban because they knew the smaller ones would be unable to compete if no one could see alternative brands.  It is about shareholders -- it is always about money.

And it is never about protecting anyone or anything except for their purses and wallets.

Vote them all out, people.  All of them.  Collectively, they have created this financial mess and are now trying to distract our attention by putting forward all of these terrible restrictions on personal choice and freedom.  If you want to be nannied, move to Australia.  I'm sure there's room for you there.

The Art of Bad Parenting

I've been trying to think of an easy way to break it to all of the parents out there who support plain packs and the display ban and every thing else that government wants to keep your young, gullible kids safe from, but I cannot.  How do you tell someone that they are a shitty parent?  It's not easy, particularly when they don't mean to be shite parents.  I would expect some abuse, both verbal and physical, if I tried.  Sometimes it is best to avoid unnecessarily telling people that they are stupid and that they need to think through things and not let their emotions guide their decisions.

But isn't it always best to tell the truth? I mean, you might think that not telling the truth means you are protecting their feelings.  Decent people don't go out to deliberately hurt people.  Yet who are you really protecting?  You or them?  Maybe both to be fair.  So you might keep your opinion quiet to keep the peace. 

Sometimes the truth hurts.  Because it's true.  And few people can accept criticism.  Certainly not dickheads like Simon Chapman.  Of course it is all right for him to call people stupid, to accuse them of having no morals or being a stooge, because he's an evil, bitter nanny-tyrant, and tyrants do what they like.  He is the bane of freedom and civil liberties.  He is...  I digress. 

Here's the truth, parents.  If you, as a parent, let the government decide what is best for your child, or if you let the government tell your child what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, then you are not doing your job as a parent. Your children are your responsibility. You do not get to delegate that responsibility.  You should never abdicate your responsibility to the government, because government will gladly take it from you and won't give it back.  Are you incapable of teaching your children what is right or wrong? These are your kids.  You have to raise them unless you're completely incompetent.  Don't let the state raise your children -- certainly not the nanny state.  Government will blindfold your kids to keep them protected.  The result is that your kids will be unable to make their own best choices, and unable to know when they've made the wrong choices. It will be your fault.

So if you want the government to take control of your kids, of your life, your responsibilities to educate your kids about the real world, then go ahead.  If you believe that your kids will be attracted to shiny cigarette packets, and that the only way to stop your gullible children from even trying cigarettes is to take away the pack designs and replace them with horrible, grotesque pictures, that's your choice.  But do not cry out how unfair it is when they do the same to alcohol, chocolate bars and candy, video games, coffee, fast food and everything else that someone says is harmful.  Because it will happen.  This I promise you.  They will stop at nothing to enforce their belief systems on you. 

Hey, you love your kids, of this I have little doubt, and you would do anything to keep them safe.  Right?  But do know this:  If you believe the hateful deception and evidence-lacking propaganda from the likes of Deborah Arnott and other tobacco control fanatics, and you support plain packs and the display ban because you want to keep your kids safe, then it means you are a shitty parent.  Sorry, there is no easy way to say it.  You have failed your children, and they will suffer greatly for it when they grow up.  Your kids deserve better.

Plain Packs - First Day of Oral Arguments in Oz

Australia saw its first day of oral arguments against the totalitarian plain packs law.  You can read it here, if you want.  The basic argument (and I'm really simplifying it) so far is that the Australian Commonwealth is appropriating the packaging of the products of a business to promote the government's message as if it were a billboard for the government.  The argument also claims that the tobacco companies' trade mark rights are being extinguished.  These are both correct assertions.  The judges may seem to be incredibly hostile, and maybe they are (it is Australia after all --  Nanny Land), but that is also part of their job. You have to argue your case and convince them.

Here's a word cloud of the transcribed text, because life is way too short for non-legal folk to suffer through the whole text of a proceeding:

Notably absent from the text are the words "Freedom," "Adult(s)," and  "Civil Liberties."  I think this is a mistake, but then I'm not the one arguing the case...

The Agenda - Plain Packs Are Daft

Poker goddess and smoker Victoria Coren weighs in with her views on plain packs on ITV's The Agenda yesterday.  You can watch it here (it starts about 1 minute in or so), but fair warning:  Ed Miliband is on the panel of guests, and yes, he's still a moron. 

Watch It, Ed! We're coming for you nannies!

Plain Packaging Already Doesn't Work

You know what already comes in plain, nondescript packs that both adults and kids are still buying despite decades of trying to stop them from doing so?

Drugs.  Lots of illegal drugs.  Just about all of them. 

Oh, you might find a dealer or two with a sense of style and flair about how he packages up his wares, but on the whole you see only transparent plastic baggies, foil, or brown paper.  So where's the evidence that plain packs work?  There isn't any.  Even fuckwit himself, Simon Chrapman, admits it.  It's theory. It's unproven.  See for yourself:

I can keep reposting this all day, folks...

The Consultation

The plain packs consultation is up here: http://consultations.dh.gov.uk/tobacco/standardised-packaging-of-tobacco-products/consult_view

I've only had a brief chance to peruse it, so I will come back later and give my thoughts on it.  I did notice a couple of leading questions, and the whole preamble looks like it was written by tobacco control. 

The Devil's Kitchen: The Day The Coalition Went Mad

Over at The Devil's Kitchen, The Nameless Libertarian wonders “when did scrotums begin to walk and talk?”

The Devil's Kitchen: The Day The Coalition Went Mad: Now, after just two short years in power, the coalition seems happy to openly endorse the sort of utter shit that they used to rightly decry when it came from the last Labour government. Last Friday was not just the day the coalition went mad; it was also the day they became Nu Labour. The terrifying implication of this is not so much that nothing changes, but rather than nothing can change while the three main parties have a monopoly on power in this country.

Remember to vote them all out.

How Petty Can One Man Be? Plenty Petty.

https://twitter.com/#!/SimonChapman6/status/191482691890327552

Yep, he's a dickhead.

Vote Them All Out

One of the greatest dangers to a free society is the career politician.  Politics is often a nasty, petty business, filled with back-biting, childish taunts, and sensationalised propaganda unfit for even a schoolyard.  The mechanisms of "compromise" corrupt those who began their political careers with the very best of intentions, and even the most stalwart defenders of civil liberties and freedom may vote against their core beliefs and conscience in order to secure a victory for something else later.  It is almost unavoidable.  The longer one remains in politics, the more likely their integrity will be eroded.  Without genuine integrity to guide the politician's decisions, votes are likely to be ego-driven and self-aggrandising.  The career politician must toe the party line and curry favour with big businesses and special-interest groups. In return, the politician gains more power, greater influence and wealth.

Our democracy is representative, meaning that we voluntarily elect citizens to act on the people's behalf.  A true democracy, where every citizen has an equal voice and could vote freely on every issue, would be an impractical and logistical disaster for most every country and society.  And the honest truth is that most people simply cannot be bothered to care.  If someone else can do the job for them, all the better.  So we hire a few select citizens and grant them very special privileges to take care of all of the things that should keep society running smoothly.  In effect, we pay them to do our dirty work for us.

When you think about it, making decisions for vast swathes of the populace is an awesome responsibility.  It is not a duty that should be taken lightly.  Livelihoods are often at stake.  No one decision will please everyone and the politician should ideally proceed by weighing up the opinion of the majority and carefully considering the impact any given law will have on a minority.  Unfortunately, we find that the politician's responsibility has been delegated to party leaders with particular agendas at play.  The politician is told what to think, what to say, how to act, and how to vote on any given law or proposal.  The duty of being a politician for the people is therefore corrupted by the selfish interests of the few for short and long-term gains of the party.  Decisions are not made in the bests interests of the people, they are made for the best interests of the politicians we've elected, and they are too often made for special interest groups and big businesses which would profit by certain legislation.

On the other hand, what if every politician actually voted for what they and the people they represent believed?  If there were no parties to align oneself to, would chaos ensue during debates and votes?  Is the party system a necessary mechanism of politics in order to get things done as it were?  It probably is.  If all of the MPs were given equal time to debate every proposed regulation and law, allowing for rebuttals, and further rebuttals, it could likely take years before a vote occurred.  Nothing would be achieved efficiently. So the party system could be seen as a further representative device within government to delegate the authority of the many to the party leaders.  It's difficult to imagine a working system of government without a party system in place to speed things up a bit.

So if we want a somewhat functioning government (and I'll leave it to you to argue what that means), we should accept the limitations of a democracy.  Right? Can we do representative democracy better?  Is there another system that would ensure efficiency and integrity? I really do not know.

The real trouble isn't the party system despite its flaws.  The trouble is that we have people who make careers out of being politicians. Some stay in for life. I suppose it's easy to argue that experience with the system makes for a more effective politician; that the older pols will train the newer pols how to work within the system; that the contacts made over the course of many years are vital in greasing the wheels of democracy. The truth is that the system is gamed to reward those who stay in politics.  It is this way because all of the politicians in the past have set it up to be like that.  It's protectionism at a grand scale. Think of it as a labour union.  The job of the union is to protect as many of its members as possible.  And so it is with politics.

Because the system is gamed, there are no limits for how long a politician can remain in power.  And you can bet that very few of them would accept term limits. How many of us would accept being forced out of our jobs every five years, especially when we loved our work?  Probably none of us.  So our options are limited, but we can do something about it.

We vote them all out.  They need our votes to keep their jobs.  We should not give our votes to those who want to remain in office, regardless if they did a good job while serving.  Many, if not most, will become corrupted by the system, if they were not already corrupt to begin with.  We could use our power of democracy to enforce term limits on those who would seek to profit from their responsibilities.  We should vote them all out in put in new recruits at election time.  We could effectively limit the corruption to a short amount of time.  Since they won't change the system, we can try to do it for them. 

To me, it doesn't matter which party you want to vote for.  I view them all as pretty much the same with a few minor variations.  Just get rid of all of the politicians currently serving and start fresh, every time, because they have, every last one of them, let us down spectacularly.  I don't imagine that doing this will be the panacea for everything that is wrong with politics.  Indeed, I can already see a host of other problems that it would create.  But it's a start in a new direction.  By limiting the time they can serve in office, we can begin to limit the influence of special interest groups and big businesses who influence the debate unevenly and unfairly.  We can effectively end some of the cronyism and we can bring a little more integrity to our political systems.

One further caveat:  It does require that you begin to care.  Just a little more than you might already do.  I sincerely believe getting people to care will be the greatest hurdle of all.

Portrait of a Tyrant

Make no mistake, Simon Chapman wants to protect you from harm.  A professor at the University of Sydney, he is Australia's premiere public health activist and campaigner.  He has written over a dozen books and hundreds of articles opining on health and tobacco control issues and most anything else that may or may not harm you.  He's a believer.  But it is not his beliefs that should concern anyone; it is his heavy-handed methodology of attacking anyone who challenges those beliefs.  Simon Chapman does not need to debate.  His beliefs are, in his and his followers' minds, unassailable truths. It has taken him a few decades, but through a tireless crusade he has successfully managed to insinuate his tyrannical, let-the-nanny-state-protect-you-from-harm healthcare policies into most of the western democracies.  Your free will does not matter.  Your ability to assess the risks of your activities and make your own informed choices is irrelevant.  All that does matter is that you conform.  Conform or be cast out.  Resistance is futile.  Alone, Chapman cannot protect you.  Backed up by the all-powerful State and its legions of legislators who wish to be seen as doing "good works for the benefit of society," Simon has all the ammunition and weaponry he needs to bend you to his will and keep you safe.

Chapman is a classic cult of personality, comparable to any historical tyrant who used fear and hatred to stir up public sentiment and ultimately to whip up support to eradicate a segment of society that the tyrant believed to be intolerable.  If there is any doubt that his intentions are to destroy rather than heal, then read the end of his opinion on tanning bed use and the solarium industry printed in the Sydney Morning Herald in February 2010 (emphasis mine):

So why do we tolerate solariums? This is a gnat-sized industry that could be squashed with barely a whimper of protest about lost jobs. Have people switch to spray tans to satisfy their tanning fetish.

Like today's employees of the tobacco industry, these are people who entered the cancer promotion trade with their eyes wide open. They went into it cognisant of the risks and should expect no sympathy if they are shut down. They just don't care, and neither should we.

If it became fashionable to wear a lump of uranium yellowcake or flaky blue asbestos around your neck as a sign of some neo-gothic death wish, would this be allowed? If the radiology (x-ray) industry tried to expose young people to vanity-based radiation exposure, the community would be understandably outraged. This is an industry whose time must surely be up.

Look carefully at Chapman's word choices.  "Why do we tolerate?" "Eyes wide open."  "That could be squashed."  "No sympathy."  These are deliberate word choices.  The entire article is inflammatory, absolutely designed to whip up sentiment against an industry that Chapman is unable to tolerate.  Before he wrote the opinion piece, Australia had already enacted legislation to prevent children from using tanning beds.  That wasn't good enough for Chapman, though.  So out he comes and compares solariums to the cigarette industry.  (ed note: So much for tobacco being a unique product, eh guys?)  Do also note the whole article talks about victims of the tanning bed industry, and Chapman deftly weaves in cancer statistics and facts to support his viewpoint.  He begins the article by pointing out the tragic death of a young woman who died from melanoma.  He then uses that as a basis of guilt to convince you of his beliefs.  He is effectively saying:  "Look here, fools, this woman died. And it's their fault!  They are responsible for other people's choices. We must squash them!"

In Chapman's world, you can never go too far and the ends always justify the means.  Nothing is too outrageous. No tactic too terrible.  How far is he willing to go? Perhaps make smokers wear some kind of ID badge (the link is probably parody -- I sure hope it is) or force smokers to wear a scarlet letter?  From the tobacco world web site, we learn that Chapman is advocating for forcing smokers to get a licence to buy tobacco:

Yet some of the government’s key allies, such as the public health lobby, are already hedging their bets on a potentially successful challenge [of the plain-packaging laws] by tobacco companies in the High Court.

This is why over the weekend anti‑tobacco campaigner and University of Sydney academic Simon Chapman turned up the heat with a new proposal to make smoking history, through creating a consumer license to smoke.

Under the proposal, a license would give the smoker a right to a limited quota of tobacco supply, say 10 cigarettes a day or 20 cigarettes a day and so on. There is a fee payable to government to give the consumer the right to use tobacco. The more tobacco the license holder pre‑commits to smoke, the higher the license fee involved.

Under the licensing plan consumers would be asked to pass a test, ‘not dissimilar to a driving test’ Chapman stated, to qualify for a right to receive a license to legally purchase tobacco.

Is it really any stretch to see how easily it could be taken further, such as advocating that tattooing smokers with an ID number would be the best way to enforce a licensing requirement?  Already it is clear that a number of Chapman's supporters would very much like for smokers to die right now.  Their utopian vision of a planet of mindless drones who will all live forever is at stake, of course.  Hurry up, smokers.  Please do hurry it up, they say.

I do not exaggerate when I say I believe he is the root of all evil in modern society.  I do not say it lightly, either. There is no room for freedom of expression, self-choice, civil liberties and tolerance in Simon Chapman's world.  He sees only death and cancer, and he will likely stop at nothing to impose his utopia on the rest of us.  What we all need to take away from the lessons of tobacco control is that if you give a tyrant an inch, he will take a light year.  And it will be a long while before you are able to scratch and claw back even a millimetre.

How to Spot an ASH Stooge

Generally, it is pointless to get into a debate with anyone on an on-line newspaper website.  Sometimes, however, it can be fun.  But you need to know who you're up against.  If you see someone commenting on every other comment arguing against for or against something, you can almost be assured they that are being paid to do so.  Take for example, this guy.  (Click on "Activity.")  I'm not going to link to his web site, because he's a twat.  If you want to visit, feel free by doing so through Disqus.  But suffice to say that he's now "freelance."  He describes himself on his site as an "apathetic activist."  Translation:  "Pay me and I'll and support your cause."  His CV reads like someone who believes he should be regarded as important, but the truth is he doesn't play well with others, and I suspect he's not very well liked.  So he's a gun for hire, a stooge for tobacco control or anyone. Go back and read all of his comments if you want to.  You'll see.

One of the benefits of Disqus is being able to go back and see their entire commenting history as well as which posts they "liked."  But do note, when you see that roughly the same people are liking their comments in a variety of unrelated topics, then you pretty much know it's the same guy logging on with different accounts. It's what they do. 

You might be surprised that groups like ASH, Fresh and CRUK actually spend money to hire people to espouse their views of intolerance.  You might be surprised, but you shouldn't be.  It's easier and cheaper to give someone a few hundred quid than to do it yourself.

So, how to spot an ASH (or tobacco control) stooge.  First trick, deviate from the tobacco control script.  Look, they know what most people are going to say long before we know what we're going to say.  It's their job to have an answer at the ready.  But when you get them off-guard, anything can happen, and the ASH stooge will feel obligated to reply with meaningless statistics, because that's all they have at their disposal.

If they answer with the standard statistics, then it's an ASH stooge  Copy and paste the text of their message into a search engine and you'll see. Sure, some people will take the time to Google something, but most people will only type what they think.  Statistics = stooge. Every time.  If they suddenly disappear or fail to answer, mostly likely a stooge.  Obviously, not everyone is hanging on every word they've ever posted as a comment somewhere.  But these guys are on the clock.  They work for a few hours, and that's it. They're only being be paid to do a few hours work, and once those hours have expired, they move on to the next job.  That's how it works. 

(Coming up this weekend, our Simon Chapman special. Man, is this guy a supreme wanker or what? Stay tuned.)

Richard Pugh - Your Community Development Hater

He really, really does hate you.

Smokercide

It is appalling how many anti-smokers want smokers to die.  Tobacco control fanatics are not interested in helping anyone but themselves; they are only interested in furthering their hate campaign against adults who smoke.  Anti-smoker propaganda is disseminated to today's children with religious fervour -- "Believe and accept our faith and everlasting life will be yours," they preach from their pulpits of faux morality.  They know that the only way forward is to socially-engineer the children to believe in hate over tolerance.  It is a relentless crusade, one that exploits a natural instinct to protect your offspring at all costs, and so the crusade goes mostly unchallenged, for who would want children to be harmed?  The result is an army of kids wearing khaki shirts who are true believers, because it is all they have ever been told.  They grow up and become unwitting participants in a culture of hate, because it is all they have ever known.

People often say that you lose an argument the moment you call someone a fascist or a Nazi.  And that may be true when it's done to end an argument you want nothing more to do with, and if you give no supporting evidence to back up that claim.  The reason people say you've lost, however, is because of the grotesque and almost unimaginable acts that happened before and during WWII.  We all know what happened.  We all know how it happened.  We even know why it happened.  Even now, few people want to talk about it or even think about it. It's repulsive. But in order to truly understand it, you need to ask some very uncomfortable questions about what people are capable of doing to other people.  You need to ask yourself those very same questions.  What are you capable of doing to support your beliefs, your causes, your crusades?

And it's an answer that is almost impossible to accept.  The truth is that some people are capable of doing anything.  Maybe most people, given the right belief system, event or circumstance.  What does that really say about us?  Are we all monsters or are we simply sheep?

There are those out there who would wish great harm on smokers.  These are people who are capable of justifying any act, no matter how terrible that act is, to support their cause.  There are no boundaries for them.  Everything and every one of us is fair game.  They will attack any one who does not believe, or who gives comfort or support to their enemies.  You shall know them by their fruits. And that fruit is ever-so-rotten.

I call it Smokercide. 

What do you call it?

Completely Missing That Huge Elephant

When I saw The Independent's blog post title "David Cameron’s oppressive Big Society," I admit I got a little excited before I had even clicked the link.  Surely, someone was to have a go at the Tories for being nannying tyrants like Labour had been before them.  Alas, I was disappointed.  Still, it almost began to cover the nanny state:

But though group security can bring comfort and belonging, it can also perpetuate injustice and ignorance. The understandable craving for affection and status within a group – and what esteemed physicist and author Leonard Mlodinow claims is the deep need for an “affinity with a group identity” – often leads to people immersing and identifying themselves in only a few social networks.

And so we have group-think: too little interaction, and thus empathy for, other groups. Instead, a deep internalisation and fierce defence of one’s own group norms.

And then that huge elephant standing in every pub, every supermarket, every train station, and soon itself to be wrapped in plain packaging if the nannies get their way was completely missed.  Maybe he is completely unaware of it?  I don't know.

The sad truth is that millions of adults in this country simply do not care or they are unaware that their freedoms are being taken away, one by one.  The media doesn't care, either.  Because when this country finally does descend into that Orwellian utopia, the media will still be there, pumping out government-approved propaganda.  I am vaguely reminded of this quote:

"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed-if all records told the same tale-then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'" - George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 3

It was just a blog post, though.  So I won't be too hard on this kid for missing the elephants, in all of the rooms.  And really, it's my fault for having any expectations at all. Which is why I so rarely read or watch the news.

Except for late at night when Babita is on, but I'm not really paying that much attention to the news.

Way Back in 1990

Finding Cigarettes In The Soviet Union: It`s A Real Drag 
July 28, 1990 | By James Yuenger, Chicago Tribune.

MOSCOW - A cigarette shortage is giving the Soviet Union a collective nicotine fit.

The shortage is serious business in a country where an anti-smoking crusade has largely fizzled, smoking restrictions in restaurants often are ignored and health warning labels were added to cigarette packages only a couple of years ago.

So acute is the situation in the city of Perm, in the Urals, that purveyors last week began marketing packets of tobacco dust that had been used earlier against garden pests.

That triggered a demonstration Thursday by a tobacco-starved crowd of people who lay across streetcar tracks, disrupting traffic, before moving on to register their protest at City Hall. Chronicling these events in the newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda, a writer indignantly puffed:

``There are too many explanations, as always. But if our criminal code provides serious punishment for personal insults, who will punish this continuing insult to an entire nation?``

Adding injury to insult, prices have soared.

Read the rest of the article here.  And I wonder, could something like this ever happen in the UK?  If the antis get their way with plain packs, banning smoking in cars and homes, it could be worse.  Much worse.

It's the easiest thing in the world to counterfeit cigarettes after all.

Love and Tolerance or Hate?

Once you start exposing the hate and intolerance that is out there, it is inevitable that people will call you a hater in response.  Here's a good one by @ulieichhorn, who "Loves things digital & print. Plus travelling, photography, nature, environment/sustainability," but apparently that love doesn't extend to people like me and possibly all smokers because she wants me to die soon:

Hey, Uli.  I'm not the one doing the hating here.  I have not and never will advocate for anyone to die.  I don't want Simon Chapman to die any time soon - I hope he can live for as long as he wants to live.  I only want for everyone to live their lives as they see fit for themselves. What I do not want is people telling me how to live my life and then legislating it.  And that's what this blog is about. It's not about hate. It's about calling out the hate and intolerance by the people who say they care about people so much that they want them to die soon.  Do you see my point? 

Now, I do not mind name-calling so much.  Simon can call me a splenetic miscreant whenever he wants to do so.  In fact, I fully support free speech, even negative speech about me.  I wouldn't dare try to censor someone's opinion of me or anyone simply because I do not agree with it.  I would challenge it openly.  I even support Simon's right to educate people against smoking, particularly educating young kids who have no business smoking at all.  You will find that most pro-smokers feel exactly the same way.  For example, Pat Nurse said to Amanda Sanford: "I do admire the work that you’ve done in helping to protect children from my generation and my children’s generation."  I have never met anyone who wants kids to smoke. 

So, if any anti-smokers out there want to guest post on this blog to have your say, I'm 100% all for that.  Get your views out there, and let them be challenged.  Feel free to contact me, or write in the comments.  Say your piece, people. But we can please stop the fucking hope-you-die-soon hate towards people who do not choose to live the same lifestyle as you? 

Because hoping that I die soon is pretty fucking hateful, Uli.

Just saying.  Give it some thought.

Greece, I Apologise

Sometimes I fail to choose the best words to make a point.  Sometimes those words of fail are fairly challenged and I need to re-evaluate and reconsider what I said and put into a proper perspective of how someone else might view things.  I am human, and "I want to be loved" I am not perfect.

In first link above, I wrote the following comment on Dick's post about minimum pricing:

"The sooner Greece falls, the better...  Why?  Because we need things to get a a lot worse before we can make it better.  The reason is because no one will take action until thing get bad enough. While I don't know when it will happen, I do think Greece will fail, then Portugal, and Italy, and Spain... then France, and of course the UK.  America right behind them..."

I was then rightly challenged by another commenter, who wrote:

"You are adopting the faux-Marxist position of the French situationists in the 1960s, and supporting the deliberate worsening of ordinary people’s lives, and deliberate provocation of the authorities so they will be provoked into striking back with disproportionate force, so they will be condemned, and so there will a popular uprising, and then the “we” that you refer to can take power, right?"

Well, I wasn't really adopting that faux-Marxist position at all, although when you read my comments you could not be faulted for thinking that I was.  I did write one further comment in reply to try to justify my comment and mitigate any damage caused, but the damage had already been done and I sincerely doubt that last reply had helped -- it probably made it worse.

There is a whole lot of fail in my comments, definitely.  We don't need things to get worse. We need to make them better.  If we can do that before things get worse, I am definitely all for that.  I just don't know how, and that frustrates the hell out of me.  I didn't consider my comments about Greece properly before typing them.  It's easy for me to sit here, in my computer chair, and type whatever the hell I think without actually being in the middle of it.  I'm not in Greece, which is having huge problems and the very beginnings of civil unrest, so for me to make a frustrated, flippant comment about wanting it to fail sooner isn't fair to anyone in Greece.  Not to fair to anyone, perhaps.  My real issue is with the UK government and how they are walking all over us.  And I do believe that here in the UK, it will probably get much, much worse before anyone actually stands up to the government's bullshit.

So I apologise to all of Greece and to the commenter for my insensitivity.  Because you are all dealing with it right now.  I am completely unable to offer any advice, because I have no idea how to fix any of it.  (Maybe this kid does?) I didn't mean to be insensitive.  Honest.  I can only offer consolation, which is hardly enough I admit.

And I'll repeat that I don't want any of this to happen to Greece.  I just think it will happen.  I don't want any of the EU countries to fail -- not Portugal or Italy or Spain -- but from my magical armchair perspective it certainly appears as if it is all going tits up quite rapidly and I cannot see how German and French intervention is going to make it better in the long-term.

I hope I'm wrong.  I often hope I'm wrong when I say some things, because I'm a cynical optimist.  I hope, yet I somehow feel it's going to go horribly wrong -- like a child asking for money to go to a film for over 18s hopes and yet knows his parents are going to say "no" before he even gets the full question out. You still gotta ask, though. Right?

Human Rights? Pish.

Disclaimer:  I have a feeling this post will be one of my least popular viewpoints.  You are entirely welcome to disagree with me in the comments, and I encourage you to do this if you feel strongly enough about it.  My role here isn't to tell you what to think, how to think or even convince you of anything.  I do not require your acceptance of my views in order to validate my existence on this blue spinning orb.  I will never tell you how to live your lives.  You have free will; you are more than capable of making your own decisions, and the last thing you need is yet another person telling you what to do.  So here we go:

I Will Survive!

The idea of "human rights" is utter bollocks.  The hard and fast truth is that you have none, except for tenuous legal constructs that governments have reluctantly conceded to give you in order to shut you up and let them take more of your money.  If you had any human right at all, it would be simply to do anything you want to your own body.  Except you don't even have that. There are hundreds of laws preventing you from doing what you might want to do to yourself.  Because there is always someone out there who thinks they know what's best for you, like Andrew Lansley, so they will go to great lengths to make sure that you cannot be in control of your own body and your life.  So what are you left with if you can't even do what you want to your body?  Nothing.  You can only hope to survive, which some mistakenly refer to as a "Right to Life."   That's all you've got.  Survival. A chance to survive, actually.  And this isn't a human right.  It's a fundamental law of nature.

There are no guarantees in life.  You are not born with a book or some kind of guide that definitively outlines your human rights.  No one is.  Every right you believe you have can be and most certainly will be taken away from you given the chance.  You do not even have a right to procreate and to have children, which is necessary in order to ensure survival of the species.  You have only a chance to reproduce, provided that A) you live long enough to reach sexual maturity,  B) you can find a mate who has also reached sexual maturity, and C) you are both fertile and you have sex together.  That's the magic formula for human life right there.  Children or Reproduction equals:

A+B+C

(Random Chance * Frequency of Mating)

OK, I've completely made that formula up, and I know it's not even remotely accurate, there are way too many variables for my little brain to consider -- if you have a better, funnier formula, please post it in the comments.  Still, you can significantly improve your chances of successfully reproducing with a set or two of these:

 

Your Human Rights Explained

You do not have a human right to own a home, or even live in one.
You do not have a human right to breathe clean, unpolluted air.
You do not have a human right to health care.
You do not have a human right to a job.
You do not have a human right to not be offended.
You do not have a human right to Internet access.
You do not have a human right to drive or to a parking space.
You do not have a human right to privacy.
You do not have a human right to marry.
You do not have a human right to education.
You do not have any human rights.

Welcome to Your Goverment-Approved Entitlements Culture

I'm sorry, but it's the truth.  The reason we say we have human rights is so that society and civilisation can get on with the business of surviving.  Just because people say it's a human right, doesn't make it so!

The point is this: All of the things that people say are "human rights" are merely civil liberties, whether ancient or modern, and they are liberties or rights granted to us by the powers-that-be in the place where you live.  Civil liberties that people have fought and died for, sacrificed greatly for.  If these were truly human rights, we wouldn't need to write them down and enshrine them in law.  We would all instinctively know them as universal truths from the moment of our birth.   You wouldn't even need to fight for them.  They would simply be without the need for defining them or arguing for them.

We bandy about the term "human rights" incorrectly so often that we now fail to realise or even consider that these are only "legal rights" afforded to us.  Legal rights always come with exceptions, and are not necessarily binding, for they can be stripped away at any time.  Indeed, they are taken away when it suits government.  Legal rights vary from country to country, culture to culture.  It's great we have some legal rights.  Some societies are far less fortunate.

Politicians love the idea of human rights, because it inspires them to create entitlements for us, by doling out taxpayer money that most of us didn't need in the first place, all in exchange for voting them into office.  What? You thought they actually cared about you?  Please.

The First Rule About Fight Club Is...

So, when you believe you are fighting for your human rights to do anything, including smoking, you are actually fighting for your civil liberties.  It really is an important distinction to make.  And when you wonder why your civil liberties have been taken away, like the smoking ban in public places, it's because you do not have any human rights at all.

"You take tuberculosis. My smoking doesn't go over at all."
Image Source: Entertainment Geekly via Google Image Search