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!