Once upon a time, our printer at work was out of order. When this happened,
someone put an "Out of Order" sign on the printer. When the printer was
repaired, the sign was removed and put on the table beside the printer,
where it sits to this day.

Next to the printer there is a pillar, whose job, I assume, is to hold up
the roof and provide general structural integrity. As I stood by the printer
today waiting for my document to print, I briefly pondered sticking the "Out
of Order" sign to the pillar - just a bit of surrealist humour. If I was
still working at my previous job I would have, but here we have procedures
for everything, and I'm sure if I moved the sign, someone would implement
the Emergency Pillar Out of Order Procedure.

According to the href=http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/fire/cadinfo/livecad.htm
target=_blank>Toronto Fire Department Active Incidents page, my building
is on fire right now.

Whatever it is, it doesn't seem too urgent. The alarm isn't going off, and
the firefighters aren't so much rushing in and out of the building as
ambling.

GIVEN that there is a doctor shortage in many areas, and
GIVEN that, for whatever reason, they are hesitant to let foreign-trained
physicians practise without further training/certification/something...

They should have a system whereby foreign-trained physicians work in
walk-in-type clinics in underserviced communities in exchange for
queue-jumping on the certification process. The public could know the
foreign-trained physicians' credentials so they could decide for themselves
whether to go to that clinic or do whatever they were doing before the
clinic arrived (waiting a long time, going to another town, whatever). I
can see why you perhaps might not want a doctor whose qualifications may not
be up to Canadian standards to, say, manage your regimen of psychiatric
medication or perform delicate surgery to repair your nervous system, but
that's no reason why they can't prescribe penicillin and give flu shots.

Today all the women in my office except for two were wearing red shirts and
black pants. Weird.

Totally Impractical April Fools Jokes:

1. Switch the directions of the subway, so southbound subways travel on
what are normally northbound tracks, and vice versa.
2. Get a Magical HTML Editing Search & Replace Bot to replace all
occurrences of "about" in Canadian websites with "aboot".
3. Everyone in the world writes their April rent cheque for one cent less
than the amount of their rent. See how that affects the economy.

You have to give John Lennon and Yoko Ono credit: a bed-in is a damn good
protest! You don't get blisters on your feet, you don't have to worry about
the weather, the police have no reason to assault you because you're just
lying there in bed, and you can catch a nap whenever you want.

Things They Should Invent: make DVD players so they can recognize a disc,
and you can program them to do certain things with certain discs. For
example, go straight to this chapter, or automatically Play All, or skip a
certain chapter. (Yes, my ulterior motive is to avoid phobia-inducing
scenes).

Or, even better, the individual chapters on the disc are rated based on the
traditional movie rating system, and are also rated for other things:
violent, sex, language, innuendo, fart jokes, boring non-funny exposition,
and all manner of phobia-inducing creatures. So then you can set your DVD
player to automatically skip all chapters that you deem unsuitable. Comes
with an access code so parents can restrict their children's viewing.

I was thinking, as I often do early mornings, about the simple pleasures of
being home sick. Being sick is not fun, of course, but there is a certain
satisfaction to lying in bed, zoning in and out of sleep, listening to the
rest of the world go to work and school, and knowing that this is the single
best thing you can be doing for yourself and for society.

It then occurred to me that being sick is also somewhat pleasant because
Maslow's hierarchy of needs kicks in, so you stop caring about anything
except the fact that you're sick. Your concerns about your purpose in the
universe and the current political situation and that project at work and
the poor quality of cable television programming and various dysfunctional
interpersonal relationships are all put on hold, and all you care about is
Getting Better. Not that I'd want to be sick all the time, but it is
somewhat refreshing not to care about anything more than staying warm,
hydrating, sleeping, and taking my medication on time.

Perhaps this is why some people use alcohol and drugs to excess, well beyond
what they can comfortably handle. While they are drunk/high, and while they
are recovering, their body is essentially sick. It has been invaded by an
uncomfortable quantity of foreign substance and now it must survive this
invasion. So for as long as the substance is affecting them, they don't
need to worry about anything else.

I wonder if there have been any scientific or academic studies about the
optimal size and composition of a sitcome ensemble cast?

How to vote in a Canadian federal election:

1. Find out what parties are running in your riding. You can find this from the Elections Canada website. Type in your postal code and click OK, then click on "Who are the candidates running in my riding?" The list will be finalized by June 9, so don't panic if there are no candidates there today.

2. Of the parties running in your riding (not the candidates, the parties they represent), decide which party you would like most to win (hereafter "the best party"), and which party you would like least to win (hereafter "the worst party"). If you do not already have the best party and worst party in mind, you can find out about their platforms by Googling the party names, and by following analysis in news media. (Just keep in mind the editorial stance of the media you follow). Please note, this is very important, your determination of the best party and the worst party has NOTHING to do with their likelihood of winning at this stage of the process. At this point you are simply choosing the party with the best and worst platforms. Don't worry, strategy will be addressed later.

3. Look at the best party's platform and record, and look at the worst party's platform and record. Decide if it is more important to you that the best party wins, or that the worst party does not win. Again, at this point it has nothing to do with their likelihood of being elected. Just decide whether it is more important for you to use your vote to help elect the best party, or to help defeat the worst party.

4. If it is more important to you to help elect the best party, vote for the best party. If this applies to you, you can stop reading here. If it is more important to you to help defeat the worst party, read on.

5. Assess the worst party's chances of winning in your riding. This has nothing to do with their chances of winning across the country, because your vote is only counted against other votes in your riding. You can work out their chances of winning by keeping an eye on riding polls in your local news media (try typing your riding name into Google News every few days) and by looking at previous results in your riding. This is not a straight mathematical assessment - what you need to do here is look at the risk of the worst party winning, and decide whether the risk is small enough for you to be comfortable with it (acceptable risk), or large enough for you to be uncomfortable with it (unacceptable risk). It might be that all signs point to the worst party coming in second in your riding, but it's enough of a risk that you're uncomfortable with it. This is entirely about your personal comfort level.

6. If the risk of the worst party winning in your riding is low enough to be acceptable to you, then vote for the best party. If this is the case, you can stop reading here. If this risk is unacceptable, read on.

7. If you think there's an unacceptable chance of the worst party winning in your riding, determine (the same way you determined the worst party's chances) which party is most likely to be able to beat the worst party in your riding. Examine the platform and record of the party most likely to defeat the worst party. If you can in good conscience vote for them, do so.

8. If you are in a situation where there is unacceptable risk of the worst party winning, and you cannot in good conscience vote for the party most likely to defeat the worst party, vote for the best party. In this case, your riding thinks that there are very few people with your politics in the riding. By voting for the best party, you are standing up and being counted. If enough people do this, it may change the riding's (and the incumbent's) perception of the politics of its voters, and it's better ethically than not voting at all, or voting for someone you cannot vote for in good conscience.

If, at any point, you are lacking the information you need to make any of these decisions, your local reference librarian will be able to help you. (Torontonians can contact a reference librarian for free here.) All the necessary information is available from non-partisan sources, it just isn't always easy to find. Elections Canada is non-partisan despite being a government organization.

From the Things I Don't Understand file: shot-by-shot remakes of movies.
Isn't that like paying tribute to your favourite author by rewriting your
favourite book work-for-work?

Since I moved here, just blocks away from both a fire station and a police
station, I've noticed that a thunderclap is almost always followed
immediately by the sound of siren.

I'm planning to write my MA thesis on the translation of proper names in Harry Potter, using French, Spanish, and German translations (in that order of priority - I'll only use as many translations as my thesis advisor feels necessary). I will be doing this retrospectively, after book 7 comes out, from the point of view of "Do the elements of the names that were and were not translated accurately represent the importance of those names?"

I'm just blogging this for the benefit of anyone Googling for research on the subject.

When I was in high school and we studied Shakespeare, the teachers would
always note that all the references to mythology and religion etc. in his
plays were common knowledge in those days, so it would have been much easier
for Shakespearian audiences to "get it" than it was for us. They'd always
tell us this with a sort of eye-rolling sigh, as if they were saying "kids
these days, they don't know their mythology, they're so culturally inept."

It occurs to me that we don't know our mythology because that function of
mythology has been thoroughly replaced by the Simpsons. I'm sure a
moderately talented 21st century playwright could infuse a play with
Simpsons references in the same way that Shakespeare used mythology.

Some people say that blogs are ruining Google, but personally I think that
commerce is ruining Google more. For example, I recently read somewhere
that they can do drug tests with strands of people's hair. I was curious
about how that worked, so I Googled it. The first few pages of results were
all trying to sell me some method to beat hair-based drug tests, when I
wasn't looking to buy anything, I was just curious about the science behind
it!

Then today in the G&M (Roy MacGregor's column if you're looking for it, I'm
updating by email so I can't link) there was an anecdote about Queen
Victoria and green tea. I was curious about how urban legend this was so I
Googled it, but all the results were sites trying to sell me tea.
Apparently there's a Queen Victoria brand tea or Queen Victoria's favourite
tea or something.

Sometimes when I am Googling something I do get all blogs, but most bloggers
(not me because I suck that way, but most bloggers) do link to things they
are referencing, so I can get there. Blogs are more useful than 25
identical sites all trying to sell me something I'm curious about but have
no intention of buying!

In French, the Sorting Hat is "le choixpeau". That just made my day :)

Fortress of Solitude by Jonathan Lethem

This book is saturated with magical realism so realistic that one initially
wonders if the magical aspects are just drug-induced hallucinations. Lethem
describes with such vividness the intricacies of navigating one's way
through growing up in Brooklyn that the reader feels almost qualified to
handle a schoolyard encounter themselves. His portrayal of the metamorphosis
of a small boy playing stickball into an adult crack addict is so
matter-of-fact that it seems more like a natural progression than a
downfall. The perpetual confusion of childhood is accurately portrayed
without ever being overtly acknowledged from the omniscient adult narrator's
perspective. A brilliant work - read it not for the plot, but just to watch
the author practise his art.

My initial thoughts on the Ontario budget:

- On the concept of health premiums: once I got over the initial sticker shock (my premiums would be more than the health care services I require are worth, although I can easily afford it) I think it's a reasonable action. It isn't a burden to me, funding health care is extremely important, and I don't hold McGuinty to not raising taxes. (I think it was irresponsible for him to sign that pledge in the first place, but I totally see why he did it in an electoral context).

- On the branding of "health premiums": This branding could go either way. The fact that it's labelled as for healthcare could make people more supportive of health premiums, or it could increase opposition to public health care. The word "premiums" could remind people that this is insurance, which might ease the sticker shock, or it could make it look like the government is trying to avoid using the word "taxes". Myself, I would rather have it be part of the income tax, so as to avoid bringing about any new opposition to public health care, but perhaps the "health" label will ensure that it gets spent on healthcare rather than going into a collective pot.

- On the amounts of the health premiums: Some people have said they are a burden. Any new tax will be a burden for people living without enough leeway in their budget, which I know happens at all income levels and at all money management skill levels, for a myriad of reasons. My only problem with the amounts of the premiums is that they constitute a larger percentage of low incomes than of high incomes. It was better to stagger the amounts than to say "Okay, $400 per earner across the board", but it should either be X% of income, no matter what, or have tax brackets with percentages increasing as incomes increase.

- On delisting services: This is SO not cool! They had my support right up to this point. You want to improve the health care system, improve the health care system, but health care is not about a balance sheet, and cannot be improved by delisting services. I would rather pay higher premiums than have services delisted.

- Vitriol du jour: The people who are saying that a nominal fee should be charged for all health services "to remind people that health care costs taxpayers' money". This is health care! I seriously doubt that, with the possible exception of a few cases of Munchausen syndrome, people are haphazardly receiving health care for the fun of it! People should not be avoiding receiving needed health care for the purpose of saving money - their own or the taxpayer's. That's why public health care was introduced in the first place!

A note to news media: Please stop referring to the provincial and federal governments as "the Liberals". That makes it unclear which level of government you are referring to.

If this works, I'm publishing to my blog by email. I was just recently
thinking "There should be a way to send email to your blog and it
automatically posts". And guess what, with the last blogger revamp I think
they did!

From the Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work file:

There are many adult privileges that people earn during their adolescence, such as the right to drive, vote, drink, smoke, gamble, have sex, take legal responsibility for oneself etc. However, under our current system, these privileges tend to be earned arbitrarily based on a person's age. I propose a system under which you earn adult privileges based on good behaviour.

You start earning points at age 13 (all numbers and ages in this example are arbitrary). You earn points through such good behaviour as school attendance, good grades, gainful employment, volunteer work, extracurricular participation, etc. Whenever you earn enough points, you are entitled to a new privilege. The points are coordinated in such a way that an average person who keeps their nose clean but doesn't do anything spectacular would earn full adult privileges by the time they are 20, but it could take as little as three years for a wunderkind adolescent, or it could take forever for someone who keeps getting in trouble. All privileges could be earned within a year of living independently, responsibly and self-sufficiently and not doing anything that's anti-social (in the criminology sense of the word), no matter what the person's age. So if you can function as an adult for a year, regardless of your age, you get to be an adult.

Each privilege has a certain number of points assigned to it depending on how big a responsibility it is. For example, being allowed to buy lottery tickets might be worth 40 points, but driving a car might be worth 100. You can cash in your points right away to pick up a number of smaller privileges, or you can save them up for a big privilege. When you earn a privilege, you get a card (like a driver's licence) that you keep in your wallet saying you are entitled to that privilege.

Points can be lost for law-breaking, for abuse of the privileges to which one is entitled, or for attempting to use privileges to which one is not entitled. Points cannot be lost for general bad behaviour that is not illegal (for example, bad grades or unemployment) - this just prevents you from earning more points or makes you earn points slower. If you lose enough points to take you below a privilege threshold, you lose one or more privileges. For example, suppose you currently have 120 points, and 100 points worth of privileges. If you lose 5 points your privileges are not affected, but if you lose 30 points you lose a privilege.

In addition to earning points for good behaviour, points can be earned for responsible use of one's existing privileges - for example, you can get points for driving for a year without any tickets or accidents. Positive behaviours that are more valuable, and accomplishments that are more difficult, earn more points. For example, getting straight A's in university is worth more points than getting straight A's in high school; having a full-time job where you earn enough money to completely support yourself is worth more points than working part-time at Tim Horton's. Once you earn all your privileges, you get a one-year final probationary period. You continue to earn and lose points as appropriate during this one-year period. If your points level never slips down below the cumulative level required for all adult privileges, you are officially an adult and get to stay in adult status for the rest of your life.