In Support of the Postal Strikes

(The image above is just from a random socialist march, in France, I believe)

Today, Royal Mail sorting-office workers walked out, tomorrow the deliverymen will join them. This post is an expression of my support for the Communication Workers Union (CWU) in their fight to preserve their union rights (they aren't striking for money, this is a strike of principle).

Personally, I think ol' Darth Mandelson is behind all of this. It was, after all, he who wanted to "part"-privatise royal mail (*cough* slippery slope *cough* shove *cough*) earlier on, and had to back down after a total lack of public or partisan support. Then suddenly royal mail management launches new "working conditions agreements" which seem to totally neuter the CWU's ability to fight for its member's rights in any meaningful sense - this was obviously going to provoke strike action. And as soon as the word "strike" is mentioned, Royal Mail management has adverts put in the national newspapers telling its "valued customers" how sorry they are that the CWU will be disrupting their Christmas (apparently Christmas is in October now, who knew? - That Jesus, what will he do next?); and then we have various New Labour MPs and Royal Mail management types making TV appearances, again bashing the CWU for hurting the poor customers who just want to enjoy their Christmas, sob sob.

And when it looks like strike might be averted, why, Peter Mandelson appears to make the most provocative statement against the CWU since Thatcher's time. Hmm. Oh, and then when the CWU actually agreed to terms proposed by Royal Mail management, and was going to call off the strike, Royal Mail management vetoed their own terms, suggesting they were rather hoping they wouldn't be accepted at all.

Now when we consider this alongside the simultaneous media-offensive being launched by all the Newspapers owned by New Labour's old friend (though now turned foe - yet I suspect he still loves ol' Mandelson) Rupert Murdoch against the CWU, urging customers to boycott Royal Mail and listing all the businesses which have even considered such a course of action, well, one almost begins to suspect that Mandelson wanted this strike to happen. Say, to, ooh, I don't know, discredit Royal Mail in the eyes of the public, thereby building up additional support for a renewed "part"-privatisation effort, while simultaneously facilitating such a project by depriving Royal Mail of corporate custom.

Just a theory, you understand?

It's not like TNT is bidding for private post contracts in place of Royal Mail's deliverymen....oh wait...they are...hmmm.

So stick it to the bastards, CWU, you are outnumbered and out-gunned, but they will screw you over either way, so don't lie down tamely! Fight them back!

Today...

I learned that when a techy sort of person says "My hotmails been compromised", it does not, in fact, mean "My husband is having an affair".

Asinine Photography

Firstly off: Yes, the post title categorically is a pun on Francois' now discountinued 'addictive photography' blog.

What follows are some pictures I took in Belgium (in the Ardennes, to be precise), and have since edited in slightly different ways. I think the results are vaguely "artish" for someone who knows nothing about cameras, photography or image editing, and has no specialist software to hand...but then maybe thats just my own delusions of grandeur talking.

I particularly like how the first one looks almost like a painting.

Smokers: What a Bunch of Cunts

Note: If you are a smoker, do not read this post: To do so would waste valuable time in which you could be going bungee jumping without a helmet - or a rope.

Grrr, I seriously hate smokers. When I rule the world, smoking will only be permitted inside one's own house, and one will have to put a special mark on one's door, made of the fetid black gunk coughed up from one's own lungs, to alert passersby that one's home smells like a burning sack of shite.

Seriously, the smell! The only comparison I can draw is of a theoretical analogy: Imagine if a tramp went and bought some fetter cheese, and put it in a brown paper bag. Then he ejaculated into the bag. Then he left the bag out in the sun for two weeks. Then he set it on fire. That is what cigarette smoke smells like, and, by extension, what smokers smell like.

Today, while sitting on the step of the small, quasi-dais on which sits the plinth of Gray's Monument in Newcastle, trying to eat my lunch, I had to move my position no less than three times because of fucking smokers. And still I was not free of them. The first time, one sits downwind from me, and I get a strong waft of their disgusting tramp-wank odour straight in the face. After moving, another smoker lights up next to me, and a heated bit of fag paper drifts off and embeds itself in my sandwich - disgusting. I can't eat that now, thank you very much, you cancerous little wankshaft. Then, when I finally find a spot where I can eat my remaining sandwich without inhaling reeking cadium, I find the satisfaction of consuming my remaining, untainted sandwich, somewhat marred by the repeated interruptions of the most disgusting coughing and retching sounds I have ever heard, from, yes, yet another smoker - why can't you just hurry up and die, you odour-spouting little piss drip!? And if you're going to fill your lungs with such rank, viscous, tarry substances, and then hawk them up, could you please go and do it somewhere where I am not trying to eat my facking lunch!?

Then, walking back to uni, I saw the most dessicated looking little wretch, she looked like she was old enough to be of geological significance - my grandmother died in her nineties, and she didn't look anything like so decrepit as this little smeagol with a fag sticking out of its mouth. But it is just the cigarettes that do this to them, they...crinkle up...like apples left outside for several months too long - their skin even starts to discolour as well! This presents a further public issue - the fact we are now forced to look on these hollow, walking carcasses, as they stumble about, barely encased in their putrefying flesh, coughing up sludge and reeking of smouldering tramp spunk.

I see people wearing secondary school uniforms, who must be only 13 or 14, yet they look about 40, because they have inhaled so much tramp seminal fluid. Why can't you disgusting, malodorous, pathetic excuses for humans just fuck right off and stop bringing down the respiratory health of those of us who don't want to suck a burning, paper cock-tube as a pastime, along with your own!?

Smoking a cigarette should be seen as equal to giving a blow-job to a cheese-eating, incandescent tramp - sure, if you derive some pleasure for it, then go ahead, but you shouldn't get away with doing it in public, around people's children, around people trying to eat their lunch.

I hate smokers.

Libertarianism and Corporatism

This post seeks to explain what I see as a very strong link between the ideologies of "libertarianism" - i.e. a right-wing perspective supporting total free-markets alongside social freedoms, and "corporatism" - a term which I intend to define forthwith:

I don't know who originally coined the term "corporatism"; Mussolini claimed it as his own little wunderkind, but as I understand evidence suggests this is almost certainly not true, and that in fact he stole it from someone else - but hey, whose going to accuse a brutal, fascist dictator of plagiarism?

The concept is based on a view of society which was popular at the time of its coinage. This view divided society into three essential components, three "power groups", if you will.

The first of these was the state - that is, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The state's power lay in its ability to make and alter the law, to declare and end wars, and to exert strong influence over issues such as international relations/trade agreements, and territorial boundaries.

The second power group was that of the corporate - big business. The power of the corporate lay in its influence over the economy - the corporate was not answerable to anyone except shareholders - whose sole interest was profit. Big business could send employment through the roof, or create widespread unemployment. It could devalue money itself, by raising prices and creating inflation, while conversely it could bring about deflation. It could cut off the supply of a given resource to society, or flood society with an abundance of that resource. It could buy whatever was for sale, and sell whatever could be sold. And all this power was concentrated in the hands of a few, wealthy individuals, with no accountability to anyone save themselves.

The third and final power group was the people - the workers. Their power lay in their ability to organise themselves into collectives - trade unions. If the workers collectively stopped working, the corporate would lose its influence, and the state would have no backing whatsoever - as with the people against it, and the corporate out of the picture, the state had no tools with which to enforce its dictates.

Corporatism proposes a solution to what it sees as the excess of power held by the people. This solution takes the form of an alliance between the state and the corporate, against the people/workers. The state, through the legislature, changes the laws so that trade unions don't have to be recognised, so that there are no enforceable conditions that a company has to provide to its employees, so that concepts such as "health and safety" or "unfair dismissal" cease to exist, so that money is redistributed from the people to the corporate - via top-rate tax cuts. The judiciary refuses to hear any cases brought against the corporate by the workers, so there can be no employment tribunals, discrimination hearings or anything like that. The role of the executive lies in keeping the legislature under tight control, and generally taking a pro-business line wherever it can.

Meanwhile, the corporate uses its new-found power to exercise iron control over the people - public land becomes private, troublesome workers are instantly fired - with no forewarning or redundancy payments, wages and conditions are slashed, while hours are increased. With no recourse at law, all the workers can do is take direct action - and this is where the state steps in once again: because the state provides the police and the soldiers to suppress any such dissidence on the part of the workers. Odd that the military and the police are the two sole areas which libertarians say they would not de-nationalise, no?

The end result of all this is, essentially, a merge between state and business, where the boundaries between the two almost completely cease to exist. Statesmen are shareholders, with vested, profit-based interests in the propositions they are voting on. Directors and CEOs sit in the houses of state. The services which a state would normally provide - health care, education, security etc etc, are all privatised and run as for-profit enterprises.

This is corporatism.

It is also, as far as I can see, libertarianism. Libertarianism advocates the privatisation of everything except the military and police - which are needed to keep the workers in line. Libertarians would have us privatise schools, hospitals, airport security, welfare...everything, essentially. Libertarians want to tumble all our anti-trust laws and market regulations. Goodbye, consumer protection. Libertarians advocate sweeping tax cuts - matched by public spending cuts. Libertarians believe that what happens with public land should not be decided by the public, democratically, but by whoever has sufficient money to outbid their rivals on the issue.

Libertarianism is corporatism.

Where Can I Get More Information About Cranberry Juice?

"

FAQ:

Q: Where can I get more information about cranberry juice?

A: A bureau has been set up - The Cranberry Information Bureau. Its purpose is to give information about cranberry juice. You can contact the bureau on 01273 834716.

"

- http://www.coloplast.co.uk/ECompany/GBMed/FAQ.nsf/(VIEWDOCSBYID)/6CCA07548EFAECD500256A8B003B6854

Go on, give them a call on 01273 834716 - you know you want to.

DISCLAIMER: COBALT/TANGENT/STEPHEN - THE AUTHOR OF THIS POST AND BLOG, CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY COSTS YOU MAY INCUR IN CALLING THE CRANBERRY INFORMATION BUREAU. ANY PERSONAL LOSS, GRIEF, HARM OR DEATH THAT RESULTS FROM CALLING THE CRANBERRY INFORMATION BUREAU IS YOUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY, AND A MATTER TO BE RESOLVED BETWEEN YOURSELF AND THE CRANBERRY INFORMATION BUREAU. THE SENTENCE "GO ON, GIVE THEM A CALL..." DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ACTUAL IMPERATIVE, OR ENCOURAGEMENT TO CALL THE CRANBERRY INFORMATION BUREAU. COBALT HAS NO FEELINGS EITHER WAY ON WHETHER YOU CALL THE CRANBERRY INFORMATION BUREAU, NEITHER PRO NOR CON.

The Catholic Church: A Terrorist Organisation?

Dictionary.com provides the following definitions of the word "Terrorism":

1. The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce
2. The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization
3. A terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government

I myself would define it as follows:

Purposefully inducing intense fear to manipulate the thoughts and/or actions of others

For instance, take 9/11 or 7/7: Islamic fundamentalists plant bombs and kill a load of civillians, with the presumed purpose of spreading fear amongst the rest of us, so that we might, say, oppose the intervention of our state in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere? Accord Islam greater respect?

Now take Catholicism: A religion which preaches that we carry the burden of our ancestor's sins, and that unless we absolve them by doing whatever the hell the Catholic church tells us to, we will spend eternity in the worst torture chamber conceivable - a fate far worse than being blown up or kidnapped by Islamic fundies: Eternity is a long time.

There have been people who have developed serious anxiety disorders or other mental health conditions because of the intense, irrational fear of "Hell" inculcated in them by the particularly zealous Catholic faith. This, to me, constitutes the use of fear, or "terror" to manipulate the thoughts and actions of others, therefore I define it as "terrorism". As such, by my lights, the Catholic Church is a terrorist organisation, and catholic preachers are terrorists.

Any thoughts?