You Need a Butterfly Knife, Don't Delay!

So after a few conversations, I've felt forced to answer a question that should answer itself: Why should one prefer butterfly knives? Now honestly, this is a question so silly that no one else would entertain the thought of answering it, but since I'm such a kindly fellow I'll take a stab at it.

Pun intended...

It should seem obvious that this is like asking why men have nipples, even though the obvious answer is "how else can one tell if a man is cold or not?" Sure you could ask, but that's just odd and off-putting to have another person walk up to me like a bolt of lighting from clear blue skies and ask if I'm cold, or excited, or craving sexual satisfaction that I have yet to attain that day; this, provided she is not some type of samba girl or rap video model of course. Forgiving my digression from the point (pun intended), allow me to answer with a question or two.

Let's take a look at conventional knives: They don't fold, and are therefore inconvenient. You could put it in a sheath round your belt, but unless you're Rambo you're going to have your admission withheld at the door to the strip club, and there's nothing more embarrassing than being turned at the door of a titty bar. Furthermore, they're difficult to conceal. How in the hell am I to swiftly mug you in an alley on the fly? Now I'll have to plan for it in advance, and opportunity comes when one least expects it, so I'd be missing out which simply can not stand. I mean, have you seen someone flip a butterfly knife out in front of you? That's some intimidating shit, you'll have their wallet in no time. A note to the reader: Try the line "scream and I'll cut ya" after whipping it out; never fails. 

Folding knives, while easier to conceal, more convenient in carrying and far cheaper in most cases seem to have the following issues:

It's bad enough I need to pull this thing out, this folding knife, but to use both hands to open it? That's just madness. True, there's always the assisted unfold, but you still need both hands to close it! What the fuck is this? You mean to tell me, my stout chap, that I must condescend to using two hands to close it? I thought we were past this.

But fortunately we are. Enter the "Balisong" or "butterfly knife."

Originating from the Philippines and to date one of the few good things to come from that island apart from -I can't think of anything- the Balisong can be used anywhere a folding knife can. The difference being that it is approximately twenty-percent "cooler" (which is just science)  when unleashed upon an unsuspecting block of cheese or an unfaithful spouse who can't keep it in his pants, tricking around the neighborhood and thinking you'd never find out, that cad.

I'm so sorry, you're better off without him...


I hope this answers the question for those of you still holding out on an answer. To be honest, knife manipulation and implementation with a butterfly knife is just better and easier. Some even speculate that OJ Simpson would have gotten away with double homicide within a shorter period of time had he mercilessly butchered his two victims with a butterfly, ask any attorney! So if the increased likelihood of getting away with the wanton slaughter of a person isn't enough incentive, I don't know what to tell you. You must live a lonely life, enshrouded by confusion and doubt.

Guilt By Association: Why Romney May Wish To Avoid Bloomberg

Among Mitt Romney's rumored choices for running mates, one name stands out above all: Michael Bloomberg. But the old-school Republican could bring something else to the Romney camp that could destroy the campaign entirely, the New York Blizzard of 2010.

December 27th, 2010 has been hailed as the "busiest day for 911 calls since Sept. 11, 2001" in an article published December 29th, 2010 by the New York Daily News. That day was faced with the helplessness of being trapped by seemingly endless drifts of snow, and a city government that seemed unwilling to protect its citizens.

By December 30th,  Mayor Bloomberg finally ventured out to see the aftermath of the four boroughs and how they fared without the support that Manhattan had received. It is speculated that since Manhattan is a major tourist destination, the city went out of it's way to ensure the streets were cleared. New York Public Advocat Bill de Blasio, second-in-line to the Mayor, had sent a letter to the office of Bloomberg demanding an explanation for the late and ineffective response, which remained unanswered. Even after plows finally made it to the outer boroughs on and after December 30th, the streets were not salted, thereby weakening any effect that plowing would have to the 20 inches of snow; a final insult to the lives lost during the storm.

Flash forward two years later, and the man at the helm of this city is now being hailed as a 'safe' choice for Mitt Romney by ESPN columnist L.Z. Granderson. It seems that the memory of the Republican party, once again, is fuzzy and measurable in nano-seconds. This textbook result of ineffectual leadership should be foremost in the mind of Romney, and to head off any bad press at the proverbial pass, he'd ought to look to another running mate. Preferrably a running mate with less blood on their hands.

Bloomberg's track record of attempting a $34-million dollar cut in childcare services and the forced layoff of over 4,600 teachers in the City of New York is -comparatively- light work in the face of the blizzard. This does nothing to give the impression that he is an "old-school" Republican and is more in-step with the modern incarnation of the standard issue Republican: "All for None, and More For Me" being the generalized concept.

Given Bloomberg's history, and the already shaky foundation of Romney's campaign, choosing Bloomberg as a running mate may prove to be the winter of Romney's discontent.

An Open Letter to Stereotype Enthusiasts

To Whom it May Concern,



If you've ever said, "you're not *really* black," then you're part of the
problem. I hope that got your attention, because this is going to be a long
and painful read for some of you. This letter is to inform all concerned
that I am identifying only with the "human" race, as opposed to identifying
as "black" or some other such designation. If you think it's cool to tell
someone they're "not really" a specific race based on their behavior not
sticking to a specific stereotype, then you are an idiot. It is one of the
most appalling yet subtle pretenses we've used to divide ourselves.

Perhaps I'm speaking as the victim? Not exactly. I'm guilty of this
stupidity myself. The difference is I've learned from it, and you to whom
this is addressed have not. A note on the "you're not really
black/white/asian/latino" phenomenon that has permeated our society, I'm
not. No, I am "not really" black. I'm a human being and my character or
behavior is not defined by my color or ethnicity, it's defined by my
fucking behavior; tell me this is not a difficult concept to grasp. The
fact that I've even heard the phrase in its several iterations at this
stage in human history makes me want to vomit.

Then there's the low-calorie version, the "what are you mixed with"
question. I'm mixed with... well I don't know. Carbon? Yes, carbon. Does it
really matter what the hell my ethnic origin is? Are you asking because
it's gonig to change your opinion of me? It probably won't, but many think
it will. You automatically establish a dividing line between yourself and
the person you ask that same vile question in the subject's mind. If
the subject of the question doesn't think anything of it, then perhaps they
should, because your ethnicity does not define your conduct.

Who gives a shit about ethnic pride for that matter? As George Carlin put
it, you've won a "lottery." A completely and utterly arbitrary system of
vetting in which people are born into a nation, into a family of a certain
bloodline, and are then faced with the cultural/economical/social
landscape which they were spat upon. Pride, again in the spirit of Carlin,
is earned. John Locke's Theory of Value and Property, holding any weight,
would put ethnic or national pride at absolutely "nil."

So don't look at it as being politically correct when I urge you to take
any and all of what's stated into account. Take it as encouragement to be a
world citizen, take it as news you can use towards a better cohesiveness.
But whatever you do, at the very least, take your anqituated notions to the
dumpster and be a human being; nothing mundane about that.

Sincerely,
Rey Ignatius Fawkes

FLATWARE: NOT AS WELL REGULATED AS YOU MAY THINK

In the wake of the obesity epidemic gripping the United States, have we overlooked the main accomplice to the sometime friend and enemy, food? Moreover, have we actually asked ourselves the hard question: Can flatware be the blame?

With the increasing prices in high-grade, high-performance, high-capacity food rich in nutrients our eyes have been blinded by costs. It begs to be asked however if we're actually seeing the farm beyond the dinner table, but in fact the dinner table may hold the key to the issue. Utensils otherwise known as flatware are responsible for the vast majority of the food we eat. Food -as has been well documented- is one of the major factors contributing to obesity. Looking at the sum of its parts, flatware seems to be a dangerously overlooked factor. Flatware is imperative in bringing most foods to our mouths, but those who suffer from obesity may very well be abusing such a major tool in eating, resulting in their higher chances of suffering from diabetes and heart failure.

This is not to say that all flatware is bad, and that anyone who uses flatware will inevitably use it to make themselves obese, though it may be time to ask precisely what level and how strictly flatware should be issued to the general public, if issued at all. Flatware has had a long history of going without regulation. According to the Sheffield Knife Book (Tweetdale, 1996) flatware's use and inventory has been documented in British Tax Records as early as 1297. But in our modern times, why have we failed to heed the lessons from our past and not maintain register and accountability of our flatware? Instead, the populace has been roving about, utensil in hand and ready to give themselves a hard case of indigestion at the very least.

High-capacity kitchen utensils are not to be ruled out, as was mentioned in a previous article. It begs to be asked why so many people wish to have restaurant-grade cooking implements in their house. True, some may enjoy the thrill of cooking and the security that you can prepare haute cuisine in their own home at their leisure. On the other hand, is it really necessary when there are fully qualified culinary specialists able to make better use of it? Even if the restaurant is closed, there's always prepared meals to be had from the grocer's freezer.  Not to mention, the multifunctional mass murder machine known mainly as the "spork."

As a people, we'd ought to count the gravestones of those who've died from obesity-related disorders. Can it not be asked if there was limited access to flatware, these people would be living fulfilling lives instead of the dreadful fate they've met? But without doubt, it can be said that in the defense of regulating and limiting access to flatware, "forks can, and will, make you fat."

Gingrich's Twelve Steps To Rewritten History

Republican Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich has published a "draft" of his soon to be infamous "Presidential Comission on Religious Freedom," set to be finalized as an Executive order by September 27th, 2012. As a reinforcement to the guiding concept of "freedom of religion," it hopes to set in place a committee to oversee that freedom to worship openly is enforced. But does Gingrich realize how deep the Christian leanings of the nation, and the words of his proposal, actually are?
Published to Gingrich's campaign website on December 18th, 2011, the comission outlines twelve steps that, to put it lightly, partially increase the size of government by establishing a "working group" to go forth and ensure that freedom to worship is upheld in all aspects of our society. This is quite ironic, considering the Republican agenda to decrease the size of said government has been made apparent for decades, if only to refocus the size on issues relevant to the Republican Party. A major question is precisely who qualifies to serve on the working group? This, given that it is not outlined in any level of specificity that this writer can ascertain from reading.
A few varying degrees of political double-speak permeate the comission document, notably in the reference to the "Establishment Clause" of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" despite the fact that the ramifications of such a comission may very well require action from Congress. Another, following the Republican trope of interpreting and thereby asserting to know the will of the Founding Fathers, punctuates the document as often as a comma or period would in a letter. This is visible in the "Six Themes Summarize The Founders’ Vision For Church And State" section of the document (Federalist, Nationalist, Democratic, Libertarian, Philosophical and Theological.)
The final highlight goes into a laundry list of "low-points" in American History, characterizing them as issues that could only be resolved through religious morality. This, despite the fact that the true resolutions of issues such as the eugenics movement and slavery had been ousted not by religious intervention or hinging on a change of conscience, but by political means. Most especially slavery, despite the fact that Europeans could not support a country that perpetuated a law they had long since abolished was more of a contributing factor to the abolition of slavery than the fact that Lincoln appealed to the moral "conscience" of Americans. Through interpretation of the Founding Fathers intentions with "cherry-picked" quotes from those same men, there is also a laughable reference to Machiavelli's "The Prince," a book written with the sole intention of satirizing the Medici family's rise to power, however brief in quotation; not unlike using an episode of "All In The Family" to illustrate America in the early 1980s .
Though the intention to ensure religious freedom may be encouraged in the "spirit" of the document, Gingrich's "Presidential Commission on Religious Freedom" seems more bent on ensuring the free practice of the Christian faith, and contradicts itself at every sloppily executed turn. This writer would suggest to any Republican, regardless of faith (or lack thereof) to familiarize themself with this comission before taking one step (or twelve) towards supporting the Gingrich campaign.

(The actual draft is available here: http://www.newt.org/presidential-commission-religious-freedom)