The Weirdness of Politics

An interesting comment appeared on “Tobacco CONTROL tactics. (How Tobacco Control deceives)” which is linked to in the sidebar today from ‘Tbarthatotherbloke7Here is the comment:

Our governments are nothing but hypocritical criminals who are two-faced and nothing but a bunch of f****** scabs it is more punishing by our laws to grow a tobacco plant then it is to grow illegal drugs yet our government sells tobacco with high taxes some of the highest in the world and yet they will put you in jail for 2-5 years for growing a tobacco plant and charge you up to $85,000 per plant there’s nothing but a bunch of f****** dogs f*** you government and on top of that all they ban us from smoking practically every where you walk outside your door they can go f*** themselves up the f****** ass with a piece of glass.”

I don’t know where he is from, but I would guess Australia. The laws against transporting tobacco plants and seeds go back to 1911, and, I guess, were enacted to protect the tobacco plantations of the aristocrats who governed Oz at the time. All that has really happened is that Oz has updated those laws to make them suitable for their persecution and punishment agenda for smokers. Thus, the massive increase in potential fines – done because they can do. But then there is all the nonsense about ‘lock-outs’ applied to bars after a certain arbitrarily chosen time at night in Sydney (I think). I think that the idea is that you can continue drinking in a bar after midnight, or whatever the time is, but you are not allowed, by law, to move from that bar to another one. I’m not sure if you can nip out for a cig and then reenter the bar that you have nipped out of.

What could be the reason for such a law? The only thing that springs to mind is that it clears the streets for a while. But only for a while. Eventually, all the bars will empty as people head home, and the streets will be full of people for a time.

The odd thing is that politicians can be bothered with such things. I mean, from a political point of view, why do the politicians in Sydney think that their ‘raison d’etre’ is to control what people do at such a trivial level? It is a massive city, for heavens sake, and there will never be a sort of early-morning quietness when the birds wake up and start their sing-song. The streets are cleaned around that time and deliveries to businesses start.

So massively punishing people for growing plants is what politicians see themselves as for?

I see an ascent of trivia. Cameron and his Cabinet thought that it would be nice for a man to marry a man, or a woman to marry a woman. What changed was the definition of marriage. That is all. It was a trivial decision. But the consequences are nonsensical, since that change of definition means that there is no reason that several men and/or women should not all marry each other. Any number of people could decide to become married in a big ceremony. Wonderful! And then later, they could all get divorced, either in bulk or in bits. Only an arbitrary decision not to permit such marriages stands in the way, so that the word ‘marriage’ means nothing at all other than…. erm…. other than……

a sort of contract, but which is a contract which can only exist between one person and another at any given time. That is what the law is. ‘Marriage’ is just a contract between one person and another.

And so we have a similar situation (and it is indeed very similar) as regards PP. The visualisation is very similar. PP will have an effect. The ‘Experts’ in OZ claimed that PP would reduce smoking prevalence among youths, but it has not actually happened. And so, the ‘Experts’ have moved the goalposts. The ‘value’ of PP is now not reduction of smoking prevalence but ‘perception’ amongst youths. In other words, there is no quantitative measure of success. Smoking prevalence can increase, provided that youths think that the new packet are horrible, and that is ‘success’.

What I think might have happened is that politicians at the very top of parties have been seduced. They have been flattered by being part of the ‘Big 10’ or whatever. For example, it seems that the 27 nations in the EU, apart from the UK, unanimously voted in favour of Juncker et al’s treatment of the UK’s decision to quit the EU in a meeting lasting for less than 10 minutes. Done and dusted, as they say.

The idiocy, in my opinion, is that there has never been a barrier to people moving between countries in Europe in the past. It is a recent invention. It was rather unusual numerically – that is all. Professors of this and that moved from University to University, all over the place, and traders moved to and fro without hindrance. I went through France and Belgium in 1957 on my bike with no hindrance at all. I just showed my passport when required.

Is the tourist industry between the UK and the rest of Europe going to cease to exist after Brexit? Don’t be silly!

So we can assume that a lot of the ‘scares’ are just that.

But why do not clever men and women who are politicians see the perfectly obvious? BREXIT IS NO BIG DEAL! Don’t let the bastards move the goalposts. We voted to withdraw from THE EUROPEAN UNION. Nothing else. We voted to reverse the Treaty and Act of Parliament which took us into that Union. That is all. We did not vote to terminate any previous treaties.

The proliferation of ‘fake news’ is astonishing.

But who is to blame for the proliferation of fake news? I do not know, but I suspect that it is the same group of people who control the UN. Who or what controls the UN? Who or what decides what subjects are debated and decided upon? What payments are spread around for votes? Is there any organisation which is more likely to be corrupt than the UN?

What I like about The Donald is his apparent incorruptibility. He will, no doubt, do deals, but I doubt that he will corrupt the USA. In my opinion, people like Cameron corrupted the UK by introducing PP and Gay marriage and I do not understand why they did so. I do not see any political advantage from doing so. ‘Civil partnerships’ were already in existence. Why bastardise the word ‘marriage’? Why copy Oz about PP without ‘proof of concept’?

In the UK, we need a Trump. It would be wonderful if Theresa May became that person.

What is very clear is that she would have to change the whole concept of ‘Government Advisers’. Who chooses the ‘Experts’ who will advise Government? ‘Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”

That is the massive, massive problem and explains the ‘Weirdness of Politics’. Politicians, generally, know bugger all about detail. They demand ‘equality’, but do not know what ‘equality’ entails. They demand it anyway, and they shroud their ignorance with slogans.

The really sad thing is that their tactics work. But that is another thing altogether.

I think that Politics is changing very quickly. In some ways, it seems to be degenerating into massive fake news, but the Brexit vote has changed everything. REALITY has surfaced and intervened.

The only thing that I am unsure of is that Brexit might be used as a tool by TobCon to further persecute smokers.

What is certain is that it is all going to be very silly and amusing. The latest pronouncements from Juncker and Tusk are proof positive.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “The Weirdness of Politics”

  1. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Yes Junican it sounds like Australia. We must never allow this to happen here. I was in my garage buying a newspaper this morning. They had just had a huge delivery of cigarettes and rolling tobacco all in nanny state medical porn packaging. Their sales apparently, on asking, have increased since standardised packaging !

    • junican Says:

      I don’t really see why sales should either decrease or increase, but the same thing seems to have happened in Oz – increases in sales.Maybe most people are just carrying on as usual, but there are enough people sticking two fingers up to make a difference.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: