So my dad’s getting married:

We are looking for 2 “ushers” to guard the open front door for 10 minutes – a legal requirement, since this is a public ceremony.

So because it’s a “public ceremony” you have to have the front door open. But should a member of the public request entrance, you would be within your rights to tell them to piss off (hence ushers, guarding). Instead of achieving the same end by, say, closing the damn door in the first place and saving everyone ten minutes of standing around looking stupid on a particularly stressful occaision because heaven forbid we should proceed with the ceremony while Gary and Stuart are standing outside guarding the door which we have to have open in order to… etc.

How in the name of Christ’s left nipple is this part of a legal document of any sort? Was some legislator planning on getting hammered off their face and then crashing their ex’s wedding and didn’t want to be foiled by an inability to manipulate door knobs while simultaneously refraining from projectile vomiting until the bride was in range? Or do they just spend their time coming up with utterly ridiculous stipulations to the commissioning of contracts in order to give themselves wiggle room when they inevitably get divorced for fucking their secretary? “Well, actually m’dear the front door was closed so we were never legally married. No alimony for you, please leave the keys under the potted plant on your way out, I’ll be late to pick the kids up on Friday.”

No wonder lawyers are such a humourless bunch of zombies – their sense of the absurd gets burned out by prolonged exposure to shit like this. It must the psychic equivalent of working in a tyre factory.

Having a blog is like having a tattoo. No matter how tasteful, no matter how well thought out, it’ll always be something you have in common with these guys.

The Featured Artists Coalition relased a statement a little while back regarding their position on filesharing and their support of the British government’s proposed measures to restrict the web access of repeat filesharers (which is a logistical nightmare waiting to happen, but anyway). This brought to mind something that has bothered me for a while now: second hand record shops.

Surely second hand music sales are just as bad for the music industry as illegal dowloads? It’s not like they’re making any money off it. I doubt the owner of “Greg’s CD Heaven”, or the sellers on Amazon Marketplace are sending EMI royalty cheques every time they sell a cd. So if I choose to buy a cd from the weird little kiosk in the local shopping centre or second-hand off the internet, I am stealing from the artist or the industry or whoever in exactly the same fashion as if I downloaded it off a filesharing network. Not only that, but I am actually supporting someone who makes thier livelihood off stealing from artists and record labels, and perpetuating their criminal enterprise, enabling them to sell more second hand records and cheat hard-working musicians and record executives out of even more money. Why haven’t we had a vicious attack on the second hand record shops? Why haven’t Sony and EMI and the RIAA sued Amazon and eBay to shut down their trade in second hand music? Am I missing something obvious here?

Only thirty or so years late.

The central tenent of Marxism, all that historical analysis crap aside, is “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need”. Sounds pretty good doesn’t it? Fair, egalitarian even. Especially to Johnny Working Class.

“Ooh,” thinks Johnny Working Class. “I shan’t have to work so hard and I’ll be able to get a new hat for the missus, a new pair of boots, and three meals a day. Oh joy!”

Sorry Johnny WC, but you’ve got that wrong. Let’s take a look at that formulation of Mr “Living off the sweat of the working masses while decrying their situation” Marx’:

1) “From each according to his abilities”. This sounds fair enough, doesn’t it? The worker shall be required to do such work as he is suited for, to the extent that he is able. Works out to Johnny WC working less, right? Wrong. Let’s face it, at the moment you’re probably skiving off as much as you can because you hate your flabby bosses and just can’t be arsed to pay for their third Porsche. Thirty minute smoke breaks, hour long tea breaks, hour and a half for lunch sound about right? Well, Johnny there’s none of that under communism. You’ve got to meet your potential. None of this nipping off for a quick nap in the disabled loos Johnny, we mustn’t let the revolution down. Must meet our quota old boy. What’s that? You can’t meet an arbitrarily set measure of productivity? It’s beyond your ability? Well, I’m sorry Johnny, but Jack Working Class the next bench over is doing just fine. You’re just being lazy. You must work harder! For the revolution Johnny! For the Revolution!

2) “To each according to his needs.” Again, this sounds pretty fair, doesn’t it Johnny? None of this fat-cat boss behaviour, grabbing as much as you can shove into your pocket with those chubby hands. Nope, just the noble knowledge that you are only taking what is coming to you. Although, we have to say, that new hat for the wife… do you really need that? Is a second pair of boots an absolute necessity? Do you really need three meals a day when you can work just as well on one? For the Revolution Johnny!

Do more, eat less, feel secure in the knowledge that everyone else is as miserable as you are. Like a health spa, only you can’t leave and if you steal the towels you’ll be shot. For the Revolution!

Stick that in your Che Guevara t-shirt and smoke it.