Zany Book Titles

Here's a change from my usually serious political, technological, and medical fare: humour!  Yes, that's right, I said humour.  With a 'u'.  That's the way it's spelled correctly.

So, I was looking through my library the other day.  Yes, I read ink-and-paper books; in the decadent age before Kindles and iSlabs and other ridiculous nonsense like that, that's all we had.  I noticed some titles that seemed to leap out at me from the bookshelf, just like their equally weird and wonderful authors.  Without further ado, here they are:

- Auto Repair for Dummies, by I. Will Fix
- An Introduction to Law, by Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe
- The Economic Impact of Crime, by Robin Banks
- Advanced Mining Safety, by Dinah Mite
- A Textbook On Urinary Lithotomy, by I. P. Freeley
- Sex: The Ins and Outs of the Ins and Outs, by Heywood Jablome
- Elementary Psychiatry, by Lucinda Heade
- Cooking for Breakfast, by Chris P. Bacon
- Hypogonadism in the Adult Male, by Drew P. Wiener
- The Complete Idiot's Guide to Plumbing, by Dwayne Pipe
- Depression: A Medical Overview, by Sarah Tonin
- A Clinical Guide to Neurology, by Sarah Bellum
- Chronic Pain Management, by Moe Fiennes
- An Introduction to Queue Theory, by Yul B. Neckst
- Addiction Therapy, by Hugh Foria
- Gifts for All Occasions, by N. M. T. Bochs
- The Culture of New Orleans, by Marty Graw
- A Guide to Engineered Textiles, by Polly Esther Close

On Government

The United States of America are not a democracy.  They used to be, certainly, but since the middle of the 20th century, everybody seems to rule but the people—the demos in demokratia.  There are a few reasons why, but it all really comes down to the size and power of the American government.

First of all, what the hell is the U.S.A. doing in Syria?  What the hell are they doing in Afghanistan and in Mesopotamia?  Last time I checked, those were independent countries.  There's a civil war going on in Syria;  protestors took up arms against the ancien régime, since it obviously was not treating them right.  The civil war in Syria should remain a civil war; what interests does the U.S.A. have in supporting one side or the other?  America is not the world police.

The problem of Afghanistan would have been resolved in a different way in the 1950s: America would consult the United Nations about the blatant human rights abuses, and it would be up to the United Nations to decide whether action should be taken.  More likely than not, the U.N. would temporarily lend full control of the territory to a particular superpower under a so-called 'mandate' until the problem were resolved.  

In fact, this is precisely what happened after the end of World War I.  The former Ottoman Empire, allied with Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, was embroiled in civil war; the British, naturally, found this convenient, and delivered military aid to the Arab rebels.  The Arab rebels won, and the Ottoman Empire was fractioned up.  The Ottoman Empire, though, was not like the British Empire, in which borders existed and everybody knew what they were.  In the Ottoman Empire, boundaries were so blurred as to have disappeared entirely.  When it was split up, the British knew that, unless boundaries were drawn, the Arabic part of the former empire would engage in infighting; Colonel Lawrence, a young military intelligence officer, was sent in to draw up a map for the partitioning of the land.  To keep things fair, Palestine, Jordan, and Mesopotamia was given to the English, while France got Lebanon and Syria; on average, each lasted about fifteen years before gaining its independence.

Second, drug law needs reform.  I liked the old Pure Food and Drug Act; what's wrong with ensuring that all foods and drugs were adequately labelled with their contents?  However, the Controlled Substance Act is a work of pure stupidity, or evil, or both.  For instance, antidepressants, though they cause withdrawal symptoms far worse than any opiate, are non-controlled, simply because they have no "abuse liability".  In other words, they don't make you feel good.  Even on a non-medical basis, however, controlling the use of substances has no basis.  Before 1914, no country in the world had a law controlling the distribution and possession of drugs, and the world did just fine.

I disagree with recreational drug use, especially of hallucinogens and of marijuana.  However, the problem of addiction is a medical one.  It should be up to the medical establishment to cure the disease, not the government to put miscreants in prison where they mingle with true criminals, like murderers and rapists.  There is such a thing as responsible drug use; if there was no way to use a drug of abuse responsibly, why are so many drugs of abuse used medically in hospital?  Pure morphine is one of the least dangerous medicines available; if it is injected with a clean needle, it will cause zero damage.  The danger is not in recreational use, but in abuse: in some individuals, the use of a particular drug may balloon out of control—the definition of addiction.  Therefore, it is essential to treat these people, without subjecting everybody to harsh criminal punishment.

Third, pull a dollar out of your pocket.  What is this dollar?  Quite simply, it's a promise that the government responsible for its printing has gold or silver on hand to pay the value of the dollar upon request.  If money is printed without procuring the appropriate amount of gold, it's essentially worthless.  Before Pres Nixon cancelled it in the 1970s, there was a simple system in place: one troy ounce of gold cost thirty-five dollars.  Gold, not paper, was the unit of account, and almost all gold in America was held by the Federal government.  Since then, the price of the dollar became a fiftieth of what it had been.

Fourth, what the hell is this affirmative action malarkey?  God, what an exercise in Orwellian double-talk!  If a company refuses to employ, say, those of Polish heritage, it's discrimination.  When the government forces this company to employ so many Polish, it's affirmative action.  Seriously.  It is illegal to discriminate based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other one of those arbitrary divisions we've created to carve up the human race... but when the government does so, it isn't discrimination?  If you're hiring for a job, the only discrimination allowed should be based on skill.  

Not only does the government discriminate in jobs, but it discriminates in industry funding.  For instance, there is a government incentive to create ethanol from maize; no such incentive exists for ethanol from sugar-cane.  The free market is a powerful thing.  It derives its power from collective intelligence: the fact that a group of experts will make better decisions together than each of those experts acting alone.  There are several surprising examples of this.  For instance, if a number of people take guesses at the number of jelly beans in a jar, the average of these guesses will almost certainly be very close to the true number, even if some of those guesses were way off.  Alternatively, consider the fact that the stock market managed to find the cause of the Challenger disaster months before the official verdict: an O-ring manufactured by Morton Thiokol.  Last of all, there is the simple fact that in 1920, there were over one hundred automobile manufacturing companies based in the United States of America.  Today, there are four.  Therefore, wouldn't it make more sense to leave it to the free market to determine which solutions are best as alternative fuels?

The people don't rule the U.S.A.; paperwork and offices do.  America is not a democracy; it is a bureaucracy.

A Break-Up eMail... would you believe this was auto-written?

So, here's a break-up eMail I had written by a website... just tick a few boxes when the time comes, and next thing you'll be singing is, "Breaking up is easy to do!"


Dear Bitch,

I'm writing you this email because I think our relationship has run its course. Your arrogance seems to have no limits; it's as if you think you're actually somebody. I know you'll probably tell everyone that you dumped me, because you're a liar. But everyone knows that already, so they won't believe you. You couldn't even pass your exams without cheating; I should have known you'd cheat on me too, prick. It might be hard for you to believe, but one thing I can tell you for sure: you really need to work on your skills in bed. I mean, you're just plain bad at sex. Maybe part of the problem is that you drink so much. You can't actually call gin-flakes or beerios breakfast. I'm fed up with kissing an ashtray and seeing you waste your money on cancer sticks every day. It's disgusting. Doing drugs so much really got in the way of more important things. You need to clean yourself up.

And as if that wasn't enough, you have to criticize me all the time! Now it's my turn to be the critic. I give you one thumb up: stick it up your ass! All that nagging of yours worked, assuming your intent was to get rid of me. At first I couldn't understand what smelled so bad when I spent time with you, but now it's clear: you're spoiled like a piece of meat left out in the sun. You don't live in a soap opera, so quit causing so much drama. I'm not a puppet, you can't just control me by pulling on a string, so why do you try to control everything I do? I need my freedom, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Sorry, but you're not even worth keeping as a friend. It's not you, it's me. Really. You may not have realized, but I saw you with him, you fat-fried hamburger-humper! You may not have realized, but I saw you with her too, you greasy-heeled cunt-sniffer! I never want to see you again, jerkface! Stay away from me or I'll beat you with a frozen salmon. I think you get the idea: this relationship is over.

Enjoy your new freedom, slut!
Dude

If you want to get a taste of the magic yourself, just go to breakupemail.com.  Best thing is, it's simple and free!

Lessons in rugby

Rugby is not something you play just for fun... it's something you feel.  All you have to do is believe in yourself, and just as Webb Ellis did on that day in 1823, take the ball in your arms and run with it.  Half the game, however, happens from the neck up.  Discourage yourself and you will lose within the first ten minutes of play.  However, if you try (and I mean make an honest attempt, not score five points) to win; if you believe in yourself; if you practice; if you dare to become the best—if you show your opponents what you are capable of, in other words, you will win the match from the first kick.

Rugby is an expression of life—a single, glittering thread that reflects the whole.  Like life, rugby is messy and unpredictable, a picture of the instinct of survival.  No matter what you do to control it, it will have its own way with you.  The trick is to experience the moment with a clear mind and an open heart.  If you do that, the game—and life—will take care of itself.

Keep calm... and play rugby.

Republican Candidate Impressions

For the first time in my life, I've been closely following the Republican primary process on television (for any/all Brits reading this, I mean the process by which a candidate is selected to lead an American party).  The reason this is my first time following the primaries, in spite of the fact that I'm a cognoscente of politics, is that it is the political equivalent of watching sausages being made: it's messy.  However, in contrast to the usual 'closed' methods by which candidates are selected in other countries, open primaries almost always produce a party leader who is acceptable to most everyone.  So far for the theories: now for the nitty-gritty.

There are now four candidates in the Republican primaries: Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and the old, plodding medical doctor, Ron Paul.  Spkr Gingrich, in my opinion, is absolutely the most qualified to run for President; Gov. Romney seems shifty and avoidant—not good qualities in a politician—although he may simply be anxious when talking about some things (for instance, himself).  Sen. Santorum, a candidate who will certainly drop out of the race soon, simply seems like an also-ran: like a first-grader screaming 'Pick me!  Pick me!', Sen. Santorum just oozes desperation, also something not good to have in a leader.  In fact, I recall him saying something almost exactly like the first-grader almost every time he participates in the debates or makes a speech; the most salient example of this is when, during one speech, he called one candidate (Spkr Gingrich, although Sen. Santorum didn't name names) "too hot", another (Gov. Romney) "too cold", and then went on to imply that he himself is the Goldilocks candidate (just right).

Gov. Romney's 'coldness' (anxiety/deer-in-the-headlights) is a major factor when he debates; one must have his finger on the button to be successful, and he doesn't—his hands hang limply at his sides, so to speak.  The gears simply don't turn at the right speed.  For instance, when Gov. Romney was asked to reveal his tax returns, as did Spkr Gingrich (as well as Mitt's father, Sec. George W. Romney), he waffled, first saying he would "maybe" (politics-ese for 'no') release a tax return, then saying he'd release several of them at once, while sweat glistened on his forehead.  If he's got nothing to hide, then why not release his returns?  More importantly, if he gets shaken by such a simple question, how does he expect to become the world's foremost celebrity (with all the autobiographical questions this entails)?  Another reason Gov. Romney is unelectable is due to a lack of qualifications: Spkr Gingrich and Dr Paul both spent a lifetime in government and can safely call themselves 'politicians', whereas Gov. Romney is a management consultant, a job that pays well but does not provide the appropriate skillset to become a true politician.  In fact, Gov. Romney's chosen career makes him even more unelectable, as management consultancy is a seven-figure salary; Republicans, by and large, are middle-class, and Mitt Romney has, so far, been unable to connect with middle-class voters.

This stands in stark contrast to 'Idea Man' Gingrich.  A schooled-and-raised politician, Spkr Gingrich has no problem in debates, radiating an air of supreme confidence even when questioned on a hard topic, such as his past infidelity.  American Republicans, unlike Anglo-Canadian Conservatives, have a significant portion of so-called 'evangelical', 'born-again', or 'Christian fundie' voters, who have always tended to place more emphasis on a candidate's dirty laundry than on his political worth.  However, on a televised debate, this was all turned on its head when the inevitable question came out, and Spkr Gingrich easily blamed the media: he received a standing ovation.  Owing to the fact that he is a 'mere' politician (which is, after all, what being President is about), Spkr Gingrich has considerably less wealth than Gov. Romney: although this hinders his advertising, it places him on a level field with the middle class of America, his target.  Furthermore, Spkr Gingrich seems to have one idea after another; I swear he must be on some King Hell crank.  Not that that's a bad thing.  America needs someone with ideas to pull it out of the recession.

Then, there's Dr Ron Paul, who certainly seems to be second-best, although as a libertarian (in other words, one who believes government and private life are incompatible), he is, sadly, not taken as seriously as he should be.  Refreshing is the fact that, in contrast to Mitt Romney, whose top campaign sponsors are major financial corporations, Dr Paul's top sponsors are the Army, Navy, and Air Force.  This reflects his stance that America should only go to war with a declaration, a stance that I agree with.

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!