Or...don't let the truth get in the way of a great column. JC was on the radio this morning and quoted the late great Keith Waterhouse as saying that if, as a columnist, you had to make a phone call, then you'd failed. in other words, what people want is to be entertained by your witty writing and outrageous opinions; they don't want to be distracted by boring things like facts.
That's exactly the sort of "mission statement" that guides this blog. I'm not going to let minor quibbles get in the way of opining, for example, that a 10 year-old could do the England football manager's job as well as anyone else. Who cares if it's true or not?*
So here's another thing to outrage those who like facts: smokers are better people than non-smokers. They are more tolerant, wittier, cleverer, better cooks and better lovers. Willie Rushton (another "late and great") once said that if you do give up smoking, don't be a non-smoker - be a smoker who isn't smoking. He clearly recognised this definitive distinction between the good and the bad, the right and the wrong, the smoker and the non-smoker.
Be wary of non-smokers. They are usually small minded people and are often mad, suffering from the delusion that if they don't smoke, they will live forever. Remember that giving up smoking doesn't necessarily make you live longer - it just feels like it. I'm sure I'm not offendiing anyone here because only right-minded people, i.e. smokers, read this blog.
The tax treatment of smokers and non-smokers is perverse isn't it? Smokers are forced to pay huge amounts of tax by way of tobacco duty despite the fact that they probably will die younger (there - I've resorted to a fact) and therefore be less of a burden on the state. Logically, it is the bed-blocking non-smokers who should be the ones forking out the extra tax and we should start lobbying George Osborne to introduce this new tax which I am calling SNOUT (Sanctimonious NOn-smoker Umbrage Tax) in the forthcoming budget.
How would Jean-Paul Sartre have survived without tobacco to fuel his gloomy existentialism? Would the books of Martin Amis be worth reading or the food of Marco Pierre White be worth eating had they not regularly partaken of a nicotine hit? And as for smokin' Jeremy Clarkson...I know some of you don't like Top Gear but do please read his excellent nicotine-inspired words before you write him off. Then close to the top of the tobacco-inspires-greatness chart is of course Stephen Fry. Yes I know he doesn't smoke these days but I refer you to the Willie Rushton guidance quoted above.
I'm trying to ignore the one gaping flaw in my argument: Nick Clegg smokes. Oh well, I shall resort to the "exception that proves the rule" get-out clause.
I conclude that without tobacco the world would be spiritually and culturally impoverished. Financially too: the world economic crisis occurred ominously soon after smoking bans became the trendy cause de nos jours in the Western world. Never mind all the financial wrangling to get us out of this mess, do away with the smoking bans and we'll soon be back to the days when we were lighting cigars with tenners, rather than printing them by the shed load and chucking them at Greece. Do they go in for smoking bans in China? Who has all the money? I rest my case.
And as for sex: do I smoke after sex, I hear you ask? I don't know, I've never looked.
*It is true of course.
3 comments:
Yes, I read your recent posting in spite of the picture of JC 'adorning' it. Dispensing with fact-checking is one thing, but the great man's name was Willie RushTON ... so soon forgotten etc. etc. Signed A Pedant
Many apoligies. Especially to the great Willie. I had spotted it myself but you beat me to it!
You are forgiven. Keep up the good work. Do you read 'The Oldie', by the way? Don't be insulted when I say I think you would like it! Peter and I are unashamed subscribers.
Post a Comment