Slight overreaction there for what was meant to be a fairly light-hearted post yesterday. But let’s take a couple of points:

’For the children’. I’m afraid that stays. And the phrase needs to be repeated, and repeated, and repeated, until politicians (of both right and left) stop abusing it in the way they now do. I see no sign that they are about to. Now there are, of course, some policies that are ‘for the children’ and should be ‘for the children’. We all agree with that. What I don’t agree with is the way that so many policies that have nothing to do (or ought to have nothing to do) with ‘the children’ are sold on that basis. If ‘for the children’ has become a cliche, Ramesh, the fault lies with those politicians who started using it as a justification for just about everything they want to do ‘for’ this country. It’s dishonest, and, worse, it quite literally infantilizes our politics, our debate and our legislation.

Role models. I’m sorry. I don’t buy this. If Kate Moss has become a ‘role model’ for anything (other than a very successful businesswoman) the problem lies with society, not Ms. Moss. As for those cricketers, they are a nice bunch who won (appropriately enough, anti-smokers will think) ‘the ashes’ (English readers will understand) after years of waiting. Trust me, that’s a big deal. Begrudging them a booze-up and some smokes after a victory on that scale is prudery run amok, and nothing whatsoever to do with ‘the children’.

Smoking. I couldn’t care less whether people smoke or not (contrary to the numerous emailers who always assume that I do, other than the occasional cigar, I generally don’t). Except under certain very narrow circumstances, it’s harmless to anyone other than the smoker (spare me the ’science’ of passive smoking), but, Jonah, I do have a problem with ’social condemnation’ of smoking. It’s bad manners. And, yes, it’s also bad manners to go into someone’s house and light up without asking first.

And let’s take a look look at the, ahem, pharmaceutical aspects of the Moss controversy. She’s (allegedly) taken some illegal drugs. Wise? No. Healthy? No. Can we expect (another) rehab drama in due course? Probably. Those are all her mistakes to make. Her business. Not ours.

Cancelled contracts. That’s up to the companies, so long as their motive was the p&l, not anything else. I’m with Milton Friedman on the ‘moral’ responsibilities of companies. It’s to make money for their shareholders and stay within the law. That’s it.

Coming libertarian/conservative brouhaha? Not being very keen on labels myself, I’m never quite sure who is a libertarian or not, but I do think that after recent events big government conservatives (amongst whom I most decidely do not include either Ramesh or Jonah) should be keeping a very, very low profile.