Roaming Around the Blogs

I have taken a day off all activities today other than routine ones – no digging, no mowing, no baccy making. It has been a while since I last took a full day off. My day off has culminated in watching England play Italy, starting at 11 pm. England lost 2 – 1. I have little to say about the match, except that England played well for most of the game and were quite sharp. Losing against Italy is not a disaster, since England and Italy are the best teams in the group. It now depends upon England beating the other two weaker teams. If they cannot do that, then they do not deserve to move into the final stage. QED.


But my day off has given me time to browse the blogs. First, I read my ‘favourites’ in my blogroll (which could do with bringing up to date!) along with others which I class as ‘Smoker Sites’. Apart from my own lists, I use Dick Puddlecote’s list of ‘libertarian’ blogs. Many readers will know that Dick has a list of blogs which is constantly updated by the time and title of the latest post. This blog is honoured to be on that list. Often, linking to Dick’s blogroll leads to other links, which lead to other interesting topics.The subjects are many and varied, but all are relevant to our collective search for freedom to live our lives as we please. But there is one thing that bothers me a bit. Whenever smoking is mentioned, few bloggers realise what is important. I do not demand that I should be permitted to smoke anywhere that I wish. For example, it is sensible not to light up when in the act of filling up your car’s tank with petrol. There really ought not to be signs in petrol stations saying, “NO SMOKING”. In fact, such notices are not accurate. What they should say is, “NO NAKED FLAMES”, which obviously includes matches and cigarette lighters. (The fact is that a lit cigarette, in itself, would not cause petrol fumes to ignite since it is not sufficiently hot – but it might, and therefore do not do it) It should be self-evident, just as not pouring water which you have just boiled, using a kettle. over your hands. What I object to, and consider to be FAKE is the law which forces publicans, restaurateurs, cafés, tents, private clubs, etc to ENACT a smoking ban and ENFORCE that ban. It has become very obvious, in the recent past, that ‘second hand smoke danger’ for workers was just an excuse, based upon deliberately cherry-picked (and probably fraudulently attained) ‘rumours’ from so-called epidemiological studies. Is it any wonder that journals like the BMJ and the Lancet have banned studies financed by Big Tobacco? If BT had the nerve, it could very likely finance studies which ‘PROVE’ that SHS is harmless. Is this contrary to the idea that it is impossible to prove a negative? I think not. The reason is that the proposition that SHS causes harm has to be shown to be true. Evidence that SHS causes no harm comes from the lack of evidence that SHS DOES cause harm. It is true that you cannot ABSOLUTELY prove a negative, but nor can you prove ABSOLUTELY a positive. In fact, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity shows that neither absolute positive nor absolute negative can be proved. The ‘truth’ lies somewhere between zero motion and the speed of light. And even the speed of light depends upon the ‘properties’ of space, which no one has a clue about. One blog that was linked asked the question: “What is Time”? As a ‘student’ of Relativity (lapsed), I had to smile. Even Aristotle (?), 2500 years ago opined that ‘time is the measurement of change’. I would not argue about that, other than perhaps amending it to read: “Time is the measurement of the rate of change”. A fundamental ‘thought experiment’ of Einstein was to imagine a clock which was sent off into space, and which was being continuously accelerated until it reached the speed of light. If that were possible, then, at the speed of light, the clock would not be able to change its indications (of elapsed time). It would stop. The reason is that any movement in the ‘workings’ of the clock would have to be GREATER than the speed of light. But that idea was just a ‘thought experiment’ intended to show that such speeds for material object were impossible.


Another interesting blog talked about the ‘economic multiplier’. That is a Keynesian idea from the 1930s. The idea, simply, says that, in times of unemployment, the Government could spend money (by building roads, for example) and thereby put money (via the production of materials and wages) into the economy which would have a knock-on effect as the money provided by the government spread through the economy. That blog post was interesting because it showed, to some extent, how it might work in some circumstances but not in others. But that post was some days age. I would have loved to make a comment saying that: “It all depends upon what the government spends the money on” I had in mind the idea that, if the government spends the additional money on, for example, Tobacco Control, then the effect would be to depress the economy further since the objective of tobacco control is to destroy the tobacco industry. At the present time, tobacco control is spending money on trying to get plain packaging. That effort is costing lots of money. If it succeeds, then the effect will be to depress the packaging industry. At the same time, it will almost certainly lead to more ‘illicit’ practices. Further, it will lead to more and more regulations, and the enforcement of those regulations, which are not in the least bit PRODUCTIVE. They are not even UNproductive. They DIMINISH production and productivity.


It is beyond my comprehension that the triumvirate of Cameron/Clegg/Miliband cannot see the difference between spending which encourages economic growth and spending which discourages economic growth. But we must not forget that an awful lot of government spending is neutral. An awful lot merely maintains the status quo. It is too late at night to go into that further, but one might consider that a lot of NHS spending goes on prolonging the lives of the very old for no purpose. Do not misinterpret that statement. I am just saying that it is a ‘truth’.


I’m off to bed.



2 Responses to “Roaming Around the Blogs”

  1. smokingscot Says:

    Trust you kipped well. Noted this and thought it might raise a smile.

    • junican Says:

      It makes you wonder if the only reason that the Bolton News prints Zealot propaganda is that they would otherwise have to print tittle-tattle like that.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: