Democracy is bullshit.

Now, you all know I call things like they are, especially when I write politically-rooted material like this ditty right here, and the plain, unvarnished truth is that democracy is a bullshit system: if you're an English teacher and don't like the word 'bullshit', you can substitute the phrase 'unworkable and impractical'.  The reason it's bullshit is that it operates on the otherwise-perfectly-reasonable assumption that the great majority of the voting public have a politically-oriented, intelligent, sound mind.  This assumption would have been right some years ago; now, however, correct is the last word I would use to describe this theory.

Several months ago, I had a conversation with a young lady, whom I shall call Adrienne (a pseudonym).  I wish she'd worn one of those name-tag stickers you wear at children's parties---the sort that comes in multiple colours, with 'Hello, I'm' pre-written at the top.  Adrienne could have written her first initial and a particular word, and the sticker would be entirely factual and reveal her true identity at first glance: her first initial is A., and the word is moron.  Hello, I'm A Moron.  Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

At a pub in Ontario, I had asked Adrienne which party she'd be voting for in the Ontario election.  Due to its unfortunate ability to provoke a riot where drink has been taken, the discussion of politics is often discouraged in pubs and clubs; personally, though, I find it one of my few reliable conversation starters.  Adrienne replied that she'd be voting for the Liberal party, thank you very much; at this point, I felt that she was merely misinformed.  I said I was a dyed-in-the-wool Tory, and I asked her why exactly she was voting for a party that had broken promises time and again, instead of putting her voice behind a party such as the New Democrats, who would do the same for Canada as the Liberals would, and they'd do it fucking better, too.

I'm putting her reply in inverted commas even though what came out of her mouth may not be verbatim et literatim what's on this page, since I deal in accuracy, and not facts, which are for the historians to interpret.  You'll know a historian when you see one (although you may find it difficult to distinguish it—er, him—from a mathematician or physicist): he'll be the one to be wearing a bleach white shirt buttoned up all the way and tucked in to a pair of trousers hitched up to his chin; furthermore, he will probably have a pink plastic-and-wire thing called a retainer (I have been told that this is a status symbol among such people) in his mouth, as well as an ugly but effective accessory known as a pocket protector (in the obvious place—you don't think he'd be storing it where the sun don't shine, do you?).

So, here's her totally accurate quote.  If you said something similar to this in a country pub in Ontario to a fellow with day-old stubble, longish black hair, and a vaguely West End accent, feel free to correct me: 'Have you seen Dalton McGuinty?  He's so hot!  Hudak looks like a total squirrel next to him, and I wouldn't fuck that Horwath woman for the whole bottle of oxies I saw you shooting up in the bathroom.'*  Yeah, right, first of all, those weren't oxies, those were dillies, and second of all, I wasn't shooting up... heh heh.

* The preceding statement has been edited in accordance with my policy of keeping quotes factual and accurate.

Some days, I wish I had the freedom to ignore such pleasantries as tact and social graces, so as I could tell idiots like this what I really thought of them.  I asked her about the agenda (a.k.a. platform for you Americans) of the Ontario Liberals and was met with a frank 'I don't know or care.  I hope they legalise weed.  Fuck the government.'  At this point, I realised that any form of political discussion would be useless, so I quickly changed the subject to music.  I would have been open to a discussion on marijuana if she'd watched her fucking language and used the right word for the plant/drug taken from it.  I don't talk weed with stoners; I discuss the possibility of easement of restrictions on cannabis and its derivatives with interested parties.

If I was above such petty nonsense as courtesy and civility, I would have said this, and only this.  'I can not help but feel that you are confusing two similar, but different, concepts.  What you are going to vote in is a pro–vin–shul ee–leck–shun.  In a provincial election, you vote for a can–duh–dit representing a pah–tea with whose viewpoints you agree most.  What you were thinking of was a byoo–tee pad–junt.  In a beauty pageant, you vote for someone who looks hot.  Are we clear now?'

I wouldn't be concerned otherwise, but the recent past really has me worried.  Canada used to have some pretty damn good leaders; hell, a majority of Prime Ministers of Canada have been hypercompetent—not only cutting muster, but doing the job with excellence.  I mean, there were a couple of exceptions: the first name that sticks in my mind (this just goes to show that I most definitely don't think chronologically!) is that of the universally-maligned Conservative Bryan Mulroney, who was for Canada what George Bush, Jr was for the United States of America.  Another relatively early P.M. that conclusively proved his incompetence (this time in one fell swoop) was John 'The Chief' Diefenbaker—or was it just plain old inexperience in the area of military contracts, as he was an excellent P.M. otherwise?

Latterly, both Canada and Ontario have been having nothing but dipsticks for leaders.  It started with that redneck Quebecker (no offence against any Quebeckers reading this) John Cretin—pardonnez-moi, j'ai fait une erreur—Jean Chrétien.  Yes, that one.  The one that could speak neither of Canada's two official languages correctly.  The one who constantly spoke awkwardly, out of only one side of his mouth, as half his face was paralysed from a stroke.  When Cretin retired, he passed on the torch–be yours to hold it high!–to Paul Martin.  Martin strikes me as a fellow who could strike it big as a James Bond, but certainly not as a politician—boring name, boring face, boring agenda.  "Hello, I'm Paul Martin, M.P. and I'm the most boring man in Canada.  By the way, I am a current Member of Parliament; my party allegiance is to the Liberals and I represent LaSalle–Émard."  Then Stéphane Dion, who lost Canadians' confidence in the national wing of the Liberal Party without ever being Prime Minister, was the very picture of stupidity and probably one of the reasons we've had a sane leader like Harper for a good long while.

Ontario, on the other hand, has had Dalton McGuilty.  They've had Mike Harris too, who was an idiot, but Dalton McGuilty is either pure evil or pure stupidity.  The Tax Man, as I like to call him, seems to spend all his time either fucking his administrative assistants in half (he isn't hard to look at, I must admit—no homo!) or combing the books for some unprecedented opportunity for a new tax.  When he finds said opportunity, he has said secretaries (who may or may not suffer from social diseases!) look in the thesaurus and find a synonym for tax.

Fine, he's got some things to his credit.  He's lowered wait times at the doctor's, and maybe he's increased our budgetary surplus.  There are right ways and wrong ways to do shit like this though.  Anything, really.  And by right and wrong, I mean socially, morally, politically, and even fiscally.  The British NHS has it right.  They operate almost as a group health insurance company—NHS-approved doctors, medications, hospitals, whatever.  There is the NHS system, and the privately-insured system. I introduced my friend and doctor Elinor to her second career (she works at multiple medical practices, and yet her motto never changes from "I'm bored!") in what the Americans call concierge medicine—pay a modest fee per year (privately insured or out of pocket), and your services increase.  You jump the queue; appointments become housecalls; you get a direct line to the doctor; prescriptions go direct to the pharmacy.  (Unfortunately, I forgot to mention to Ellie that my referrals to her concierge pain practice would mostly be émigrés from Florida hungry for "just a little bit of OxyContin to hold me over"–Ellie, like most British pain control docs, is morbidly afraid of the non-toxic, but somewhat-addictive narcotic oxycodone, although she is perfectly all right with its metabolite, oxymorphone, or its close cousins, hydromorphone and morphine).

A similar system applies to accident and emergency: you pay a modest fee, you get to jump the queue as a Tier One patient.  It's a fair system.  I have no problem with handouts; please just let there be a second option!

But what the hell is up with these damn sneaky taxes?!  I swear there's going to be another one.  This is bullshit.  Seriously.

On Canadian Politics

I see some international readers here, so I'm going to try to explain some political terminology for you. Brits will not have a problem; the British and Canadian political systems are the same, with the exception of the labour-oriented party being called the rather more obvious Labour in the land of hope and glory, and the "New Democratic Party" here in the colonies.  You Yanks, however, probably didn't understand my last rant; maybe you understood it, but you didn't understand it (Stranger in a Strange Land fans will understand me when I say grok).  So, for all you mad Americans, here's the Complete Idiot's Guide to Canadian Politics.

In Canada and Britain, we don't directly elect what you call your President, and we call our Prime Minister.  Instead, the composition of our Parliament determines the All (Actually, Not-So) Powerful Head Honcho.  Actually, even though most of you Merkins don't know this, you use a similar system, but your guys (called Electors, obviously enough) aren't involved in the political process beyond... d'uhhhhhh... elections.  Our system is a bit more simple, and it runs kinda like this: you place your vote for the political candidate of your choice, who represents your area (riding) in the House of Commons.  You Yanks call it the House of Representatives.  In other words, our Presidential and House elections take place at the same time.  The leader of the party who wins the election becomes the Prime Minister.  

In Canada, there are three real political parties, just like in the greatest of Britains (yes, I do mean Great Britain, how could you tell?): the Liberals, the Conservatives, and the New Democrats, aka the N.D.P.  Our Liberals are even more liberal than your Democrats, our Conservatives are like your Republicans with the one exception that they are secular (I see a lot of religious rhetoric with your Republicans, so much so that I doubt there even is a separation of church and state), and the N.D.P. which is kind of like your Democrats, but they are pro-labour unions and such (basically about the closest you'll get to a Communist party).  Oh, yeah, and we're not afraid of the word agenda.  If a party doesn't have agenda (in other words, a list of things it wants to do), is it even a party?

Honestly, what's with that word being such a nasty word in America?!  To me, saying "we don't have an [sic] agenda" means saying "we don't have a list of things to do".  Are you saying you're going to make decisions off the cuff without planning them, or are you saying you're not going to make any decisions at all?  Wait, wait... you mean you don't have any hidden agenda... why didn't you say so?  Oh, yeah, and the word agenda is masculine plural, like fora or asyla, not feminine singular like alumna or amnesia.  Saying an agenda is like saying an buttons or an zippers.  Learn some Latin, guys.  Figure it out.  (Oh, by the way, masculine plurals take their singular with um, so agenda, agendum; fora, forum; and asyla, asylum.  Feminine singulars take their plurals with æ, so alumna, alumnæ; amnesia, amnesiæ.  If I don't correct you, you'll never learn; by the way, unless you mean a form of salt, there is no such thing as an alum.)

So, here are the agenda of each political party, stated as accurately as possible:

Conservatives:

• historically supported marriage defined as between one (1) man, id est a male specimen of Homo sapiens, and one (1) woman, id est a female specimen of Homo sapiens;
• historically (and occasionally presently) supported fœtal abortion when medically or socially necessary;
• support the (futile) war on drugs, but not to the extent of the Republicans;
• (federally) support national defence;
• (federally) support the lowering and possible removal of the Goods and Services Tax (which was actually instituted by Conservative Prime Moron, Brian Mulroney);
• (federally) support the highly sensible idea of two-tier health care;
• when money is needed, the Conservatives prefer austerity over raising taxes
• (in Ontario) support the removal of the Harmonised Sales Tax from certain items
• (in Ontario) support the closure of fossil-fuel power plants
• (in Ontario) support clean energy that is proven to be reliable (such as nucular, hydroelectric, natural gas).
• (in Ontario) support the sensible plan to make prisoners actually work and not stay at Her Majesty's Pleasure Hotel with cable TV and weight-lifting facilities.
• (in Ontario) support making so-called smart meters for electricity usage optional - a smart meter is a device that meters not only the amount of electric power used, but also the times of day electricity is used, giving discounts for off-peak usage, and marking up on-peak usage.
• (in Ontario) support ankle bracelets for high-risk criminals, a public online registered sex offender database, and a public online database of homes used as clandestine locations for the production of cannabis and methamphetamine.

Further explanation is needed here.  The Conservatives support the war on drugs, but you can buy needles and syringes over the counter, and you can even get them for free in some places; head shops operate openly, and a bong is a bong, a pipe is a pipe; and there is a drug-use facility in downtown Vancouver that operates with impunity.  Two-tier health care means that the National Health Service, also known as Medicare, still operates, but if you want to "jump the line" at your doctor's office or especially at an M.R.I. or other specialist clinic, you can pay a modest fee (this is illegal at present).  In Ontario, smart meters are mandatory, which forces those less fortunate to (for instance) shower before seven in the morning or do laundry after midnight.  Meth. lab./grow op. registries are currently considered a municipal responsibility; therefore, the case is such that the federal capital city of Ottawa has such a registry, as well as the small town of Guelph, but the provincial capital city of "Tronnuh" (Toronto) does not.    In general, the Conservatives are best for what is called the middle class: those who engage in, and benefit from, organised labour.

Liberals:

• support individual rights (regardless of morality) such as marriage defined as between two people and elective abortions;
• support the generation of a budget surplus (by any means necessary);
• support the environment at the expense of the individual;
• support (sensibly, I might add!) the legalisation of marihuana;
• historically have had some excellent leaders, but recently are a shell of their former selves; Chrétien, Martin, Dion, Ignatieff (the worst out of the bunch!), and now Rae!
• support restoration of the long form of census, which, as I remember it, was one of the most tedious and useless pieces of paperwork I ever wiped my arse with;
• support 
• support taxation (introduced the damn Harmonised Sales Tax in five provinces... godawful thing for those of us that actually use services and not just buy goods)

This last issue is why I hate the God-accursed Liberals.  The federal Goods and Services Tax (this was introduced by a Conservative I hate just as badly as Iggie, and his name is Brian Mulroney) applied, as its name says, to goods (like coffee makers, sofas, computers, and telephones), as well as services (like haircuts, blow jobs, and carpet cleaning).  The Provincial Sales Tax applied only to goods.  Harmonising the sales taxes has done nothing but suck money out of people's wallets.  "Unless you are among the 15 per cent of families with an income under $10,000 a year, you’re paying more sales tax under the HST than you would under the PST/GST: On average about $350 per family." Thus concluded an independent report paid for by the government of British Columbia; and thus conclude your facts.

I don't deal in facts; I deal in accuracy.  Basically, this has been the song played by Dalton "Tax Man" McGuilty's government since it was elected: when campaigning, keep saying the words "no new taxes" till they believe you.  Then, the Tax Man spends taxpayer money on a thesaurus, looks up the word tax, and then calls whatever tax he's instituting by a synonym.  Right, if you don't call it a tax, it isn't a tax.  But the fucking HST takes the God damned cake for unfairness.  Let's not just create a new tax, let's bias it towards the people that actually do work!  Not even the rich, because making $25,000 a year isn't rich, it's barely surviving, but basically everyone except the homeless, those who make their money by criminal means, and the underclass, is taxed!  They should have called it the fucking Affirmative Action Tax.

And, now, the New Democratic Party.  They're as close to the Commies as there will be; in other words, tax everybody fairly, but give out money fairly too.  I like them; they're like the Liberals, but a damn sight more honest.  They used to have shit leaders, and the whole party was shit, but when our dear Jack Layton, God bless his soul, faced off against Iggie, he said those six magic words: together, we can make a change.  Together, we did make a change, and let's just say that when Jack came in second, every God damn M.P. in the NDP that got his seat shat his pants when he heard.  I wonder what the liquor bill came to at the Liberal party headquarters.

So, here's what I want.  I want Hudak (the head honcho of the Conservatives) to win.  But I want them to win less than half the seats (this is called a hung Parliament, for you Americans, because the so-called winners get to hang themselves from Parliament's joists, as they're outstripped by the other two parties, who are REALLY the winners), the rest to be made up of (what's that Polack's name... uhh, wait, that OTHER Polack... Horwath, that's it) NDP and (God help, but it's a necessary evil) Liberals.  That way, we get the benefits of both... we get the pro-unionist, pro-work, and pro-weed legislation put forward by the New Democrats, and we get the (fucking finally!) tax cuts and austerity measures from the Conservatives.  The Liberals get to breathe oxygen from the atmosphere and emit greenhouse gasses from their mouths and arseholes, and we get to finally ignore them.  Sounds like a nice deal to me!

The Elvis Cocktail --- a guide

Sometimes, in my blog, I refer to the "Presley cocktail", or the "Elvis cocktail"; having nothing else to write, I will try to explain what this means.  Due to possible interactions, and due to the habit-forming effect of some of the ingredients, these drugs, including those obtainable over the counter, must be reported to your doctor.

The principal raison d'être of this drug cocktail is for chronic pain; the various components of this cocktail treat the physical and mental effects of pain, although only the opioids (opiates, or narcotics) described below, are indicated specifically for pain.  Because some of these drugs pre-date the introduction of the metric system into Europe, their dosages are occasionally written in grains, or fractions thereof; one grain is sixty-four milligrammes, often rounded down to sixty.

Severe chronic pain reduces the patient's attention; one becomes so fixated on the pain that it becomes hard to focus on a task.  Accordingly, the first ingredient in a Presley cocktail is a psychostimulant; Presley himself used dextroamphetamine, usually sold as Dexedrine, and racemic (half-and-half) amphetamine, then known as Biphetamine and now (in a slightly different formulation) known as Adderall.  Here is a list of psychostimulants most used in Canada, Great Britain, and the United States, along with my recommendations:

• 50:50 Amphetamine (Benzedrine) - not recommended, because it is too mild
• 75:25 Amphetamine (Adderall/Biphetamine)
• Lisdexamphetamine (Vyvanse) - time-released form of Dexedrine.  Multiply by 2.5 to get the Dexedrine Spansule dose.
• Dextroamphetamine (Dexedrine) - double the dose of Benzedrine, or multiply the dose of Adderall by 1.35.  Recommended by psychiatrists, Elvis, and me.
• Methamphetamine (Methedrine or Desoxyn) - the undisputed best, but also highly abusable.  Used to come in many formulations, now comes in only one: the 1/12 gr. (5 mg) instant-release form.  The blue ribbon goes to this one; by far, it's the best amphetamine out there.
• Methylphenidate (Ritalin) - chemically not related to any of the above, but can also be used to good effect.  Not to be combined with any of the above.

The pain itself must also be treated; the drugs most common for treating pain are what I have termed the typical opioids (these include those naturally harvested from poppies with no modifications, those modified in the laboratory, and fentanyl, which is completely synthetic but behaves like the natural and semi-synthetic opioids).  Atypical opioids (most synthetic ones) are also used, but these have some very different, and sometimes unpleasant, side effects.  Presley himself preferred hydromorphone; I entirely agree with his recommendation.  Because these drugs are very old (possibly the oldest class of drug in existence), no brand names will be listed except for certain drugs that are mostly known under their (usually American) brands.

• Codeine - 1/10 the strength of morphine; very mild and not recommended for moderate-to-severe chronic pain.  Over the counter in almost every country.
• Dihydrocodeine - See codeine.
• Morphine (Sevredol, MS Contin, and many others) - The gold standard.  Used for everything from headaches to terminal cancer.  Also very mild, and over the couwritten some countries, as a result.  This drug is nine times the strength of morphine; the dosages Browne's Chlorodyne, Kaolin and Morphine Mixture, and Diocalm.
• Morphine diacetate (Heroin) - This is a form of morphine used mostly in the United Kingdom, but also elsewhere.  It works just as morphine sulphate and morphine hydrochloride do, with one exception: it is twice as potent by injection than other morphine salts.
• Dihydromorphine - Most commonly used in Japan.  Dosages and effects are roughly equivalent to morphine.
• Dihydrodiacetylmorphine - Just as dihydrocodeine is codeine with two atoms of hydrogen bound to it, and dihydromorphine is morphine with two atoms of hydrogen bound to it, the same is true of dihydrodiacetylmorphine; the duration of action and doses are slightly different (unlike oxycodone versus hydrocodone.)
• Oxycodone (OxyIR, Percocet, Percodan, Percolone, Supeudol, and OxyContin) - Oxycodone is an odd drug from its family.  Unlike every other opioid, oxycodone has stimulant qualities; for those suffering from pain together with fatigue, oxycodone is a blessing.  This 
• Dihydromorphinone/Hydromorphone/Dilaudid - Different names for the same drug; Dilaudid is a trade name that in America has almost become the generic name and written with a small 'd' as a result.  This drug is nine times the strength of morphine; the dosages available are 1/30, 1/15, 2/15, 4/15, 8/15, and 1 gr.  Because of its strength, the higher dosages are available only as slow-release tablets.
• Buprenorphine (Butrans, Buprenex, Subutex, Suboxone) - An excellent drug; ounce-for-ounce and pound-for-pound the most potent semi-synthetic opioid used in humans.  Butrans is a one-a-week patch; the others are twice-a-day tablets.   As a result of its potency, it is measured in microgrammes, not milligrammes or grains (patch only).  Subutex sublingual tablets are available in 1/32 and 1/8 gr. strengths.  The one-eighth-grain tablet is equivalent to 240 mg. (over four grains) of morphine at once; it is less sedating, but it still packs quite a punch for pain.
• Fentanyl - Entirely synthetic; comes in many strengths, but must be placed under the tongue or on skin, just like buprenorphine.  It's far shorter-acting; the instant-release fentanyl is for breakthrough pain only, and the patch lasts for three days only.  The patch can leak, which can be deadly.

For sleep, there are essentially six options, as outlined below.  Due to the extreme variety of drugs available (there are far more sleeping powders and pills than pain medications), two drug groups will be covered only as such.  Each hypnotic loses effectiveness over time, so it is important to rotate them for chronic sleeplessness.

• Benzodiazepines - These are the most commonly-used prescription drugs for sleep.  There is a great variety of them, but all of them are controlled drugs, and for good reason: once benzodiazepine dependence forms, withdrawal (unlike the pain drugs above) can be deadly.  It parallels alcohol withdrawal (delirium tremens and seizures being very common).  However, benzodiazepines are safe in overdose unless combined with alcohol (which is highly contraindicated when on a benzodiazepine).
• Barbiturates - These are prescribed more rarely, but remain a valid option; these have most of the advantages of benzodiazepines, but many more disadvantages.  Barbiturates are extremely deadly in overdose, whether combined or not; the withdrawal usually is deadly (although substitution therapy works well), and addiction sets in earlier than with benzodiazepines.
• Chloral hydrate (trichloroacetaldehyde) - Very safe, as it is used in large amounts; however, this drug is uncommonly prescribed, and mostly used with children and seniors.  This drug is available as a liquid which tastes rather like acetone; (very large) gel capsules are available as well.  The main problems with chloral are a hangover effect, as well as stomach irritation (nausea, vomiting, ulcers).  Chloral addiction is uncommon, but can result, and is extremely uncomfortable, but rarely fatal.
• Quetiapine (Seroquel) - This is an antipsychotic often used also as a sleep aid, but this use is not suggested.  Should be used as a last resort only.
• Melatonin - An over-the-counter hormone that induces sleep; my own preferred sleep aid, aside from chloral and diphenhydramine.  Available in 3 mg and 5 mg.  Gently nudges you to sleep.
• Antihistamines - These are used for the relief of allergies and side-effects from pain medication far more than for sleep, but this remains a valid option.  The antihistamines to use for sleep are generally the older ones: diphenhydramine (Benadryl) and dimenhydrinate (Dramamine), both over-the-counter, work well.  The usual dose for sleep is 50-100 mg of Benadryl, or 100-200 mg of Dramamine.  THESE DRUGS ARE VERY DANGEROUS IN OVERDOSE (DELIRIANTS).    

These drugs must be properly spread out.  The most common practice is to take the opioid four times a day, the stimulant twice or three times, and the hypnotic once.  Some examples of the Presley cocktail in practice:

8:00 AM:  Hydromorphone 8 mg; dextroamphetamine 15 mg. 12:00 AM: Hydromorphone 8 mg.  4:00 PM: Hydromorphone 8 mg; dextroamphetamine 15 mg.  8:00 PM: Hydromorphone 8 mg; diphenhydramine 100 mg.  10:00 PM: Bedtime.

9:00 AM: Morphine 60 mg; one large coffee (caffeine 120 mg).  1:00 PM: Morphine 60 mg.  5:00 PM: Morphine 60 mg; one small coffee (caffeine 120 mg).  9:00 PM: Morphine 60 mg; one large glass of grapefruit juice (to make the morphine last out the night!); 1.2 g chloral hydrate.  12:00 PM: Bedtime.

This can be simplified with modified-release tablets, as well:

8:00 AM: Jurnista 64 mg; one large coffee.  Patient drinks coffee and grapefruit juice throughout the day.  8:00 PM: 600 mg of chloral hydrate is taken.  10:00 PM: Bedtime.  Patient wakes up at 8:00 AM with no pain.

My own Elvis cocktail (all drugs are instant-release):

9:00 AM: Oxycodone 10 mg; one large coffee; dexamphetamine 15mg.  Liberal amounts of nicotine throughout; Sativex (dronabinol spray) as needed.  5:00 PM:  Oxycodone 5 mg.  9:00 PM: Diphenhydramine 100 mg; melatonin 20 mg; chlordiazepoxide 25 mg; oxycodone 5 mg.

Welcome to Canuck politics.

As you may or may not know, I live in a large city in Ontario, a province of Canada.  The provincial election is coming up, which means that the three major parties of Ontario (the Conservatives, the labour-centric New Democrats, and the Liberals) are campaigning... and so is the Green "Party".  Those who know me personally already know that I agree with the Conservative stance on issues of economics and culture, and with the New Democrats on labour law and foreign policy.  The Liberals were once a hulking giant; in recent years, however, their federal leaders have been, for lack of a better word, morons.  This, perhaps, is what led to their crushing defeat last election, after which Chief Moron Michael "Iggy" Ignatieff made a non-resignation speech, followed almost immediately by his resignation.  The separatists of Quebec lost official party status, and the Queen Cow of the federal Greens, Elizabeth May, finally got a seat to put her withered, flatulent arse on (I think she's personally responsible for 95% of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere today).

Despite these major changes (and they truly were major), almost nothing has changed in the political climate with the exception of the fact that the Conservatives now form a simple majority (more than half, in other words) of Commons.  When it comes to politics, I almost never deal in facts and figures; those are for the historians to review and argue over.  I deal in accuracy: a verbal photograph, if you will, of the political scene, right here, right now.  What happened last federal election is also going to happen this provincial elections... mostly.  Ontario, particularly the provincial capital of Toronto, leans left-of-centre; this means that many of our recent Premiers have been affiliated with the Liberal Party.  For those of us that don't see past the Great Wall of Bullshit, the eighth Wonder of the World, the Liberals are a left-wing party.  They might paint themselves as centrist, but the reality is that they are left-wing in all areas, with the exception of organised labour, the part that counts.  By harmonising the federal and provincial sales taxes, Mr McGuilty effectively punished rich and middle-class alike.  No handouts or tax reductions were given to Canada's heart and soul: people who work (for a living or otherwise).  Instead, the unemployed and the unemployable now live like kings.  I seem to recall that it is more financially advantageous to be unemployed than it is to be employed earning less than a certain amount, which I do not remember.

Rant over.  Now, back to your scheduled programming: before the Canadian federal election, the leaders of the four political parties had a debate, which was televised (on numerous channels, actually).  Present were Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Conservative), Mr Ignatieff, Gilles Duceppe (Bloc Quebecois), and John Layton (New Democratic Party, God rest his soul).  The "leader" of the federal Green "party", Mrs May, was not invited for one reason, and it is not the one she claimed (i.e. the Canadian government does not care about the environment).  The simple reason that the Greens were not represented at the debate was that the debate examined each party's agenda (that is, their stance on various issues and their future plans).  These issues fell into realms as wide as foreign policy, taxation, and cultural diversity.  The Greens have only one agendum: the environment.  Therefore, asking Mrs May questions in reference to, for example, the war in Mesopotamia, would not represent the agenda of the Greens collectively; the answer would only be representative of Mrs May's personal agenda.  Furthermore, until the last federal election, the Greens had not a single seat in Parliament.  Taking into consideration these two facts, only an idiot would be indignant that his or her loose association of independent candidates (because that's what the Green "Party" is) would not be represented at a debate.

Mrs May, therefore, quite clearly is an idiot.  She did get her seat, though; it was inevitable, and it is crucial to have a diverse parliament.  I would have enjoyed the added diversity in Parliament if it had been anyone but Mrs May.  Beyond being an advocate for nucular power, I am not an environmentalist, just as I am not an advocate for euthanasia with the exception of assisted suicide (by a physician or otherwise).  However, if there weren't people in Parliament that disagreed with me, it wouldn't be a democracy, would it?  The problem is not Mrs May's environmental activism, or her independent views; it is the blatant flaws in her character and personality.  Political views aside, Elizabeth May is a cell-for-cell clone of Sheila Copps (or Hilary Clinton if you're American). Dear Lord, you can have both Mrs Copps and Mrs Clinton, just please, please, please give us back our Jack!

Now, I hate to tar a whole group of people (again, I hesitate to say "party" because they really aren't one) with the same brush, but I'm beginning to think they're smoking the same thing they're hugging.  As I alluded to before, history repeats itself.  There was a debate yesterday, in which the New Democrats, the Liberals, and the Conservatives were represented by Andrea Horwath, M.L.A., Premier Dalton McGuilty, and Timothy Hudak, M.L.A., respectively.  The Ontario Greens, led by Michael Schreiner (not an M.L.A.), were not, coincidentally (or not), represented.  Mr Schreiner staged a (very public) protest, contemporaneously with the debate, and, once again, that old and hoary maxim was proven to be right: it is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.  "The debate is happening down the street, and we need to shout to show them we're here, and that the [Ontario Greens] will not be silenced!"  the Green Party was just plain irrelevant; it would be more accurate to say that Mr Schreiner was absent.  Mr Schreiner "addressed the Green Party policy initiatives he would have raised," Mrs Grainger wrote, "including the creation of a carbon tax [like we don't have enough taxes already], freezing tuition rates, lowering energy costs [for who?!] by reducing energy usage, and controlling healthcare costs [you are speaking from a position of ignorance, mate!]... by... improved access to healthy food."  First of all, if you want to put in a carbon tax, you'd better lower some other taxes!  Second of all, just whose energy costs do you want to lower?  There is only one way to consistently reduce energy usage, and this is to make it less convenient (in other words, more expensive).  This would hit the consumer hard, and that was when Mr Schreiner put his foot in his mouth.  The people who vote Green are generally part of what is called the counter-culture; they may be stoners, anarchists, hippies, or something entirely different, but it is safe to say that many people who vote for the Greens are anti-government, anti-regulations, and anti-establishment. Making energy expensive, or hard-to-get in some other way, would make Mr Schreiner very unpopular with his voter base.  I agreed with his mention of making healthy, nutritious food easier to get; however, Mr Schreiner, where are your medical credentials?  That's right; nowhere.  I understand there's a loose association between healthy eating and healthy bodies... but coming right out and saying that healthcare costs will be lower because of easy access to nutritious food is a logical fallacy.  I forget which; I'm too stoned to tell.

See that big thing up in the sky, though?  That's the flying fuck Ontario doesn't give about the Greens.  Sure, okay, Mrs May has a seat in Parliament.  At this point, though, Mrs May has no political clout; she is far from the fly in the ointment she says she is.  She is more like a mosquito: invisible, stupid, and very hard to finally swat.  Thankfully, you can wear ear plugs for a mosquito, and that is, essentially, what the M.P.'s have been doing till now with Mrs May.  I see no reason why this will turn out any different from the federal election.  Schreiner will get his seat, nobody will give a shit.

Technology Then... and Now

As we live in what has been called the Information Age, it is only logical that the greatest improvements during the last sixty-odd years have been in the office.  In fact, the changes in office technology were so great that this can not be called an evolution, but a revolution.

My uncle worked, and still works, in the corporate and tax division of Clifford Chance, a great monster of a British law firm with offices around the globe.  The environment in such a firm is almost stereotypically corporate; the job is fine, the money is great, but the atmosphere just drains your life away with all its fluorescent lighting and rat-racing.  He began work in the 1970s; 1974, I believe.

In 1974, or thereabouts, there were no mobile phones, much less smartphones, flat-screen televisions, or internet.  Even though there was no internet, there were computers; great, big, hulking machines in glass enclosures with raised flooring that were used in factories for inventory control and in offices like this one for number crunching, which was done by a specially-trained computer operator at night, as the lawyers leaving work gave her jobs to do.  Word processing and computers did not mix; in fact, the slang for the one computer the London head office owned was "expensive calculator".  For word processing, there was the electric typewriter; not the electronic, but the classic IBM Selectric that had a whirring engine and plugged into the wall.

At great expense, the management of Clifford Chance saw fit to purchase what would now be called  fax machines for the offices in London, Paris, Prague, and elsewhere; they were then called telecopiers (this is still the case in French), or telefax boxes.  Regardless, the slang was then, and is now, "Mojo Wire", although what faxing has to do with morphine (mojo) I can't fathom.  Back then, the Mojo Wire was a olive drab-coloured box with a spinning drum around which a flimsy sort of paper called thermofax would be placed.  A vintage Mojo Wire would print at the blazing fast speed of seven minutes per page and would fill the office with the smell of burning plastic.

The xerox was, mercifully, common by this time; as it was very much in demand, the xerox at Clifford Chase was a very large autocollating model that required a trained operator.  I'm unsure how the boys at that company could possibly have managed without a xerox machine.  It was quite easy to mimeo a document if one prepared a stencil for it when he was making it; otherwise, he was out of luck.  In a law practice with a mimeo, you'd be more often out of luck than in it.

Ten years later, the landscape had changed.  Mobile phones had been invented; about as large and heavy as a brick, they required a briefcase-sized wet battery to be held in the other hand.  These telephones were very expensive at the time (costing as much as a small car), but they were evidently worth the price for the lawyers, young and old.

The real player, however, in the 1980s, was not the mobile phone; too early for that.  The real player was the computer.  In 1981, IBM, the maker of the large computer in Clifford Chance's basement, came out with the Personal Computer; soon, each paralegal and secretary had his or her own Personal Computer, and the huge mainframe was taken to the rubbish dump, despite being technically superior in every possible way (but less convenient).

Even the venerable Mojo Wire (fax) changed, although the name for it didn't.  Gone was the awkward drum and the acrid smell; now, the Mojo Wire transmitted at the speed of one page per three and a half minutes, odourlessly and on standard paper that fed itself into a slot.

In 1995, the internet arrived; it was a primitive thing compared to the internet of today, and logging on to the internet would tie up the phone and the Mojo Wire, if they didn't have separate lines.

The smartphone also arose from two independent concepts during the era: the miniaturised mobile phone and the personal digital assistant.  In fact, the personal digital assistant of ten years ago did not look all that much different from today's iPhone, with the exception of the monochrome touch screen and the lack of a telephone feature.

Here we are in 2011, wondering how the hell our forefathers managed to even think about doing business, what with the lack of office devices and all.  I am myself amazed at how we went from a machine that copies paper (the xerox) to a machine that sends copies by phone (the Mojo Wire) to personal mobile phones and computer technology.

On Driver Design

I am growing sick and tired of the way companies design CDs for drivers (management software for printers and the like).  Does there have to be a useless programme that slows the computer down to 10% speed included on the CD?!  Answer: there doesn't.  Usually, the programme will pretend to do something useful, such as reporting the level of toner still left in the printer, or letting you write macros for the keys on the keyboard; this makes it even more confusing.  At least the drivers that are installing spyware (Do you agree to the terms and conditions of Google Toolbar?) let you give informed consent (Hell no!).

The worst company for this seems to be Hewlett-Packard... yet I like them most of all for hardware.  Several days ago, I needed to install a multifunction printer/scanner/fax on my Windows drive.  This thing is wireless, so I'm thinking I'll need to install the damn support bloatware with the driver, too.  I grit my teeth, make a restore point just in case, and start the bloatware installer.  Get this: the software is so huge that it comes on two CD's.  The install, predictably, takes over an hour (that's longer than Windows itself took).  You must restart your computer in order to proceed, yada yada.

Ten minutes later... What.  The.  Hell.  My CPU usage widget is showing 80% usage, my free memory widget is showing zero free memory, and my computer is running about as fast as a turtle... on Valium. The install took 200 MB of disc space.  Seriously, what the hell? I don't even bother trying to print.  I start up my system restore application, restore to the last checkpoint... takes another hour.  By this point, I'm sweating and my patience is about as existent as six-headed unicorns.

While the restore is happening, I grab the manual and start thumbing through it.  There's a hard-to-find section on how to make the multi-function box join a network.  Sounds promising.  Turns out, no PC required, you can hook the box up to a network.  I try it; takes me two minutes flat.  Well, how was I to know?  It wasn't in the quick start!  By this time, the restore is done.  I check my router to see at which IP address the multi-function box lives, and I navigate there.  The box has the nicest admin Web page I've ever seen.

With a practiced hand, I go through every folder on the two CD's to find the drivers directory.  No, not the bloatware; the bloody drivers.  You try explaining that to HP's support people.  I find the directory, finally, and I copy it over to my desktop.  I go through the Add Hardware wizard, finally get the damn printer installed, and restart into Linux.  On Windows, the whole experience took me over five hours: installing, venting, restoring, swearing, drinking beer, reading, setting up printer, setting up network, venting some more, another beer, installing just the driver, and one more beer.

In Linux, I spend half an hour on the Internet trying to find the HP printer driver kit.  I finally find it, download it, run it.  The driver kit asks me what printer protocol I use.  This could have been made a lot easier by having the choices: wired directly to pc, in wired network, in wireless network, wired to print server.  Instead, it uses all sorts of acronyms none of which I can understand, since I am not a network guru (no, the acronyms aren't wifi and 802.11b, I know what those are!).  I spend a little time trying, and erring, and trying again, till I finally get it.  Total time, one hour, despite some truly indecipherable acronyms.

HP's "quick and easy" driver and bloatware installation programmes are anything but.  The Linux ones are easier... and yet Linux has a reputation for being completely indecipherable.

Next time I will follow, yet again, my set-in-stone directions for installing drivers; you should too.  If you follow the steps below, you will never run into the kind of frustration that I ran into yesterday.

1.  Open the CD that came with your product.  Search for the string "*.inf".  Open every folder that has a file that ends in .inf in it and copy them to your Desktop.

2.  Run the Add New Hardware wizard.  When possible, click the "Have Disk..." button on the bottom: a dialogue box should appear.  Enter the path to the .inf folder, click OK.  If there are multiple folders, find the one that is compatible with your operating system and/or product.

3.  Your driver should now install, with no "support software".  If you want support software, download some, or buy some.

Addendum: if you want to be shocked, select all the .inf files (sometimes they're all in one big folder called DRIVERS), right-click, and click Properties.  The size should be no more than a few megabytes.  Now take a look at the other stuff... next time you say that drivers slow your computer down, think long and hard about what you mean by drivers, and do you need them.

On cloud computing

So, back to your regular programming here at Dark of Days, the world's #1 aggregator of black coffee and morphine-induced ranting and raving.

Cloud computing.  Grr.  How I hate the name.  It stinks of the usual business-stroke-sales-and-marketing bullshit bingo buzzwords.  Like the word "convergence".  Or "seamless integration".  It sounds like just another phrase you slap onto a product to get it off the shelves quicker.  The funny thing is, it isn't.

Ten years ago, cloud computing existed under a different name.  It was used in computer-science courses at universities the world over, and in small businesses, and on a little Web site called SourceForge.  Back then, cloud computing was called "real-time collaboration".  Now, not many readers of this site know about a little programme called CVS; it was mainly used in higher education and in business, and it is still used mainly in those circles.

CVS was a small programme that ran on the command line.  No graphic elements whatever.  Its use is best explained by the following scenario: Alice, Robert, Thomas, Richard, and Henry are collaborating to author a book.  Alice is the proof-reader and checks the manuscript once a month for spelling errors; Robert is the typesetter and makes sure the manuscript is in appropriate style to be published, checking in five minutes every day; Thomas writes nine-to-five, Monday to Friday; Richard writes at odd times, including on weekends; and Henry writes every day on evenings.

How can the manuscript of the book be appropriately managed?  eMail would be very impractical; each person would need to keep a copy on their machines, periodically giving it to one person to reconcile with the others.  If that person would prove to be irresponsible, there goes the manuscript.  The answer is in what is called "cloud computing" today: a virtual whiteboard, upon which many can write.  CVS is a system that does just that: it collects different people's versions of what they feel a document should be, and if two people submit the same file at the same time, CVS has an elaborate system of checks and balances to make sure that nothing becomes corrupted.

Another example of cloud computing is what was then called "simultaneous sign-in"; one username and password would log in to a large number of Web services at the same time.  The most prolific of such services was Microsoft Passport, a service known by its users as "MSN".  One password would sign in to MSN Messenger and a whole host of other services; today, this same thing is called "Google Accounts" and operates Blogger, Google+, gMail, Google Docs, and many other such services.

Yet in the 1990s, such services were not much used; this just further adds to my theory that some developments in computer history must be made before or after others.