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."

War is Inevitable? Says Who?

Having a fondness for political lectures, I've noticed another troubling pattern in the rhetoric of Right-leaning speakers to the tune of "war is inevitable." In most cases, I would brush this aside as another scare tactic employed to shake up the base in their faction. Unfortunately, it has become endemic and the rhetoric is slowly crossing party lines. The question is, how can we as a species abide this?

There are lots of things that are inevitable: The collapse of a star, the expiration of our lives and hell, the expiration of milk. Birds fly, fish swim, and we try to kill as many of each other as one can in their lifetime? Really? The impermanent nature of being is one we become acquainted with early in our childhood, though at such an age we are unable to articulate our opinions on the subject concisely. We understand that there are things we simply have no control over unless technological, economic and social advances manage to overcome them. But in terms of war, an event reliant on the perogative of the aggressor to take effect, it is hard for me to see the parallel.

When a person says "war is inevitable," it sends a clear message that it is no one's fault. The language, even in legalese, implies that no one is culpable. From the voter who cast their ballot for the warhawk head of state to the head of state himself, anyone involved can be held responsible, could they not? The question of whether or not we are going to admit where we as a people come to take ownership in this.

National defense spending in the United States, regardless of figures and times after the Second World War, remains the highest of any one nation on this planet. This tremendous and ever-increasing sum seems to be spurred on by the perceived inevitablity of war, but why is no one stopping to take a look at the root of the problem? John F. Kennedy may have said "It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war" but is he not the same man who said "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings"?

Humbly though I submit my opinion, I would dare to say that war is a man-made problem, a dreadful invention that at this point in our history as a species, can destroy the world at the turn of a key and recitation of code. Keys, codes, buttons: All of these things are made by us, for us or more accurately, in spite of us. I challenge anyone to deny this; I challenge you! Could not the world be a better place were we to deny ourselves the indulgence of this dark fantasy? Can our curiosity for how much destruction we ourselves can wreak on our own planet not be sated?

But what of this dread-fascination? This death-preoccupation? I have seen it in religion too, as I can't shake the feeling that though many on the religious front may be expecting an apocalypse. Unfortunately, since I don't believe in such things, this appears to me as a self-fulfilling one if the wrong person gets their hands on the right means. Even in some polytheistic religions from antiquity, there are deities exhalted as patrons of war. Ares, Tyr and Mars to name but a mere fraction of the tie-ins between religion and war.

No, I say no to all of it. No to the foolishness of waiting for war. What is there to wait for? If the desire to see bloodshed is in the heart of men with the means to do so, it will be done. What we as a species must do is surpass this. War is not "inevitable," it is the perogative of a mere consequential few.