Neither A Borrower Nor A Lender Be

In a world of courtesy, the principle of lending would be a great one. Giving or allowing someone the temporary use of one's own property or tender would be a nice gesture. Unfortunately there is a problem: the world is not one of courtesy. The majority of people that occupy this planet are parasites. Parasitism is an ugly, but very common, feature of the human species.
The problems of lending money have been discussed in such a vast amount of literary works that I will not elaborate on the topic much further. I will simply say that "lending" money is, in actuality, giving money more often than not. In the words of Polonius "...loan oft loses both itself and friend."
The lending of property has become perhaps more common than lending cash in casual situations. It is not uncommon for a friend or even a mere acquaintance to ask for a book, movie, or album to borrow. Although the chances of having the item returned may be greater than with cash, the condition in which the item is returned often leaves something to be desired. The key factor is respect, or lack thereof, and it is this disregard for others' property that makes lending a bad decision.
I have lent out DVDs that have come back so scratched that they would no longer play. The same is true of many CDs (when they come back at all). Books that I have loaned have come back with pages ripped and torn. The spines of the books have been broken as if the books were folded in half in the opposite direction. I have loaned people brand new text books that have come back filled with scribbles and highlight markings. People simply do not care about or respect the belongings of others.
The truly sad thing is that some will read this and dub me the bad guy. My curmudgeon-like attitude may be easy to dismiss. But when you really think about it, it is the borrowers that are the culpable ones. The real bad guys are the ones that use the property of someone else, throw it somewhere, alter it, break it, lose it, or do one of the many other things that result in the owner not having the same item returned. And just as borrowing "dulls the edge of husbandry," borrowing the things of others may result in lower maintanence of one's own property.
One final point should be made. In some cases the object that is requested is of small value. If there is any hesitation to lend the item, its value is immediately brought up by the one wishing to borrow it. The usual claim is something along the lines of "Oh, come on! It only costs (---). If anything happens, I'll get you a new one." As a first impression, it may seem like a reasonable argument. But let us analyze the situation in a bit more depth. For starters, the item only costs a small amount as was pointed out by the potential borrower. Yet this supposed trifle of a cost was enough for the person to ask for it from someone else, rather than purchase it. Furthermore, this conflicts with the "If anything happens..." remark. The person has already shown that he or she is not as willing as one might think to go out and purchase a new one. Finally, for one to immediately bring up the scenario of something happening indicates a prophesy that the borrower already feels to be likely.
In conclusion, I will say that I have not completely abstained from lending things to people. Many are given at least one chance to borrow something. However, I remember practically everything. Should the item be damaged or never returned at all, it is something I will always use as an excuse to never lend the same person anything again. So if you borrow something, respect the fact that it isn't yours. And if you are in the habit of lending, all I can say is "Caviat commodor."

On Fake Pockets

Fashion, the prevailing style of dress, is a topic that never fades. The actual styles and trends may change, but the issue of fashion remains a key article in magazines year-round. I am someone that dresses for comfort rather than style. But as long as you don't complain about my jeans and T-shirt, I won't care that you just spent an exorbitant amount of money on an ugly brown bag.
Despite my comfort policy, I can admit that sometimes it is nice to dress up. This can never be an everyday occurrence for me. I need to feel relaxed, and that is simply not possible when wearing a suit. On the few occasions when I conform to fashion, the same scenario seems to repeat itself. I shave against to grain to look my best, I shower, and I put on a nice tux or suit to head to some event. So far everything is fine.
Then I go to place an item in my pocket (the item itself is irrelevant). For a brief moment I am in a state of confusion as the pocket remains unopened. Then it dawns on me. The pocket is not real. It was placed on the suit to give it a special "look." This is one of the most retarded things ever. As the taylor is sewing a suit, a piece of fabric suitable for a pocket is obtained. This is then sewn on, not as a pocket, but as a patch. What the hell is the point of that?
Now I am aware that on some suits, the pockets are sewn shut. I suppose this prevents shoppers from filling the pockets with anything undesirable (I will not speculate as to what this might be). In these cases, scissors are used to remove the superfluous stitching and open the pocket. Of course this takes time and causes some inconvenience. But, nevertheless, the pocket can be used. The story changes when the pocket cannot be opened at all. When the pocket is merely an illusion, I get pissed off.
Utilitarianism is the belief that the value of a thing or action is determined by its utility. Although I don't quite believe that myself, I like the way these fake pockets are classified under such a philosophy. According to utilitarianism, these fake pockets are more useless than a pile of dung. At least the fecal matter can be used to make fertilizer.
So why the fake pockets? A fashion expert may say that the suit would look silly without anything in front. This might be true, but it is no explanation. A real pocket can be made to look exactly the same. I'd like to meet the person that came up with the idea of a pocket "just for show." That way I could punch him in the nose.
I have a wallet, keys, a phone, and other things. If I'm going out I need to put them somewhere. Am I supposed to go somewhere wearing a suit and a fanny pack? Hell, I wouldn't wear one of those things if it was the hottest trend around. So where am I supposed to put everything? In my pockets! But if the pockets are only an illusion, then I can't use them. It is time for these manufacturers to stop with these pocket-resembling patches. Give me real pockets!

On Forced Health

Foods classified as healthy (those with low fat, low carbs, low sugar and overall low amount of taste) have been trendy for quite some time. To a person like me, a lover of good-tasting food rather than good-for-you food, this was only a minor annoyance. A small grocery store that only had low-fat frozen yogurt would result in my having to find high fat, high sugar, real ice cream somewhere else. But this is nothing compared to what is now taking place.
Healthy food is no longer remaining a trend. It is now becoming mandatory by law. Aside from my personal fears of fascism coming true more quickly than expected, I have always been an opponent of the health trend. Nutrition is, at best, a good estimate of what types of food are healthy. It is not science. The main studies conducted in the field of nutrition are correlational. Any true scientist can verify that correlations merely show relationships, but do not explain any underlying causes. This tidbit of information seems to have eluded the nutritionists. They constantly claim that 'this food' causes 'that ailment' based on a correlation between the two.
Furthermore, nutritionists form no testable predictions. They may spout out some predictions, but none that are falsifiable. E.g. A nutritionist will claim that a person who eats unhealthy will die at an earlier age. After being told of a man that ate bacon every day, drank heavily, chain smoked, and lived to be ninety-five, the nutritionist will not admit defeat. The response would be something to the effect of "Well if he didn't do all of those things, maybe he would've lived to be 110." If you changed the age of the man to 110, they would say he could've lived to 125. In short, if it cannot be falsified it isn't science.
On a side note, all sciences like to use the same definitions when using scientific terms. The chemist and physicist when referring to an electron are speaking of the same thing. All science is like this so that information can be shared. Nutrition fails in this department. A calorie is a unit of heat equivalent to 4.184 joules. The true standard is the amount of heat required to raise one gram of water by one degree Celsius. One thousand such units is called a kilocalorie, but nutritionists call it a calorie instead. So their use of the word is different from the rest of science.
But enough of that long tangent I went off on. My main gripe is with the nutrition and health that is being forced upon me. Chicago first started the proposal to eliminate trans-fats by law, along with a number of other so-called bad foods. New York has now followed suit. Personal choice be damned, health is becoming the law. But I don't want to be healthy and miserable. I want to be unhealthy and happy. I want to eat greasy bacon until my arteries are clogged. I want to drink a ton of beer while eating some high fat snack food loaded with MSG. I want the fats I consume to have hydrogens across from each other instead of on the same side!
I never thought that the Stallone movie Demolition Man would be so prophetic. But I suppose this is a logical consequence to allowing the Constitution to be trampled upon. Everyone stood by and allowed the government to violate personal rights in order to prevent death by an act of terrorism. The government has now extended this to violate personal rights in order to prevent death by unhealthiness. Is this transition really that shocking? Apparently it is to some.
I have heard a number of people complaining about the new health law that will soon take effect in New York. Yet a lot of these people have stood up for the government when I complained about bag checks. To all of them, I say this: you can't have it both ways. You either want your freedom or you don't. You cannot stand there rooting and cheering them on as they pry open a can of worms, and then in the next instant complain that there are a bunch of worms everywhere.
Now aside from the fascist designs, there is another reason for these new laws. Health insurance costs are supposedly much higher due to problems caused by obesity. If everyone were healthy, costs would be lowered. But taking away freedoms is not the way to solve this problem. I have an alternate solution. Those that must receive regular medical attention due to not keeping healthy should simply pay more. You can claim that it isn't fair or it is discriminating, but in truth nothing could be more fair. I go to the doctor very rarely: less than once a year. Should I have to chip in to help pay the costs of someone else? Is that more fair? Certainly not.
In conclusion, I am going to continue to eat foods rich in flavour. I see it as my choice. I may have to cook it myself, but for the time being it is possible. Once I can no longer do that, I will flee the country. Truthfully, I would leave now if I had the means. Give me liberty, or I'll go out and search for it. And if it no longer exists anywhere, then give me death.