Steak and potatoes! Lobster! Yul Brynner's noggin'!
Actually, I can't stand lobster. And I've very little idea what Yul Brynner's noggin' tasted like, even when he was alive. But those are Bill's comparisons, not mine.
He was talking about smoking, of course, yet another activity that's due shortly to be banned in this country, as usual for no readily apparent reason other than the fact that a lot of the people that voted for this Labour Govt. have a sufficiently limited understanding of the role and the powers of the state that they think this is the sort of thing that governments are for, and if the Govt. doesn't do what they want they'll vote for someone else next time (like the Conservative Party, rapidly becoming a simulacrum thereof), and since when not exhibiting a detestable self-righteousness Labour's top brass generally spends its nights waking in cold sweats at the thought of having ever to return to the misery of the Opposition benches, they'll pretty much do anything to keep the voters sweet. The idea of actual, you know, leadership, or conviction, very much takes a back seat. "Look," you can hear Blair saying, "there go my people. I must find out where they're going so I can lead them."
Anyway, my point was, why need there be a law? Can restauranteurs or publicans not decide for themselves if their establishments are to be non-smoking? Can the staff in those establishments not decide for themselves if they're prepared to work in a smoking pub or restaurant? Is it not possible that in some areas the majority of patrons will be non-smokers, in which case it would make sense for a publican or restauranteur to operate a non-smoking policy, whereas in another area the majority of patrons may be smokers, in which case, etc.? Why must one law apply everywhere? Weren't the catastrophic failures of various incarnations of corporatism, welfarism and socialism over the last 60 years enough to convince our alleged leaders of the inadvisability of the one-size-fits-all dogma? Apparently not (qv education).
He was talking about smoking, of course, yet another activity that's due shortly to be banned in this country, as usual for no readily apparent reason other than the fact that a lot of the people that voted for this Labour Govt. have a sufficiently limited understanding of the role and the powers of the state that they think this is the sort of thing that governments are for, and if the Govt. doesn't do what they want they'll vote for someone else next time (like the Conservative Party, rapidly becoming a simulacrum thereof), and since when not exhibiting a detestable self-righteousness Labour's top brass generally spends its nights waking in cold sweats at the thought of having ever to return to the misery of the Opposition benches, they'll pretty much do anything to keep the voters sweet. The idea of actual, you know, leadership, or conviction, very much takes a back seat. "Look," you can hear Blair saying, "there go my people. I must find out where they're going so I can lead them."
Anyway, my point was, why need there be a law? Can restauranteurs or publicans not decide for themselves if their establishments are to be non-smoking? Can the staff in those establishments not decide for themselves if they're prepared to work in a smoking pub or restaurant? Is it not possible that in some areas the majority of patrons will be non-smokers, in which case it would make sense for a publican or restauranteur to operate a non-smoking policy, whereas in another area the majority of patrons may be smokers, in which case, etc.? Why must one law apply everywhere? Weren't the catastrophic failures of various incarnations of corporatism, welfarism and socialism over the last 60 years enough to convince our alleged leaders of the inadvisability of the one-size-fits-all dogma? Apparently not (qv education).
posted by Novus at 23:44
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home