FISH? OR ABOMINATIONS?

I had reason to glance at the Metropolitan section of The Washington Times today (03/06/08), as I planned a short break from toil. I headed for a small "library" nearby, where I hoped to get myself grounded in local doings. Immediately, I was struck by a color picture of various fish (sole on ice?), lined enticingly at a counter display at some seafood vendors or other.

The article which accompanied the photograph (by Joseph Silverman) was entitled: "SEAFOOD: HOW SAFE?" It was the project of one Karen Goldberg Goff, and was a consumer-oriented piece. The specific area of concern was mercury contamination of seafood. It began: "Information in the seafood world has become as muddy as the water during a thunderstorm..."

I thought that this was an inauspicious beginning, as it seemed to suggest that the writer was not going to be too plain herself, regarding the warning which presumably was to follow. However, I'm all in favor of public information being presented on issues affecting health. The article proceeded forward, touching on consumers, science, law and public policy. Hence, one does not feel "cheated," having spent a bit of time glancing through it.

The article does not offend me so much as a sort of statistical chart that adjoined it. This chart is fairly large (almost as large as the photograph, previously cited, under which it rested). The title of this chart was: "FISH FACTS." This seemed to me to be perfectly straight-forward and germane. In fact it even seemed to be a tad more specific than Ms. Goff's "seafood world."

Bitter was my disappointment! Under the title for the chart were three subtitles: "HIGH MERCURY," "MODERATE MERCURY," and "LOW MERCURY." Beneath the "MODERATE MERCURY" subtitle, one spies the caveat: "These fish contain moderate amounts of mercury:". Thereafter, one observes among the list of "fish" such specimens as: "Lobster" (crustacean) and "Mahi-mahi" (dolphin: mammal). Under the subtitle of "LOW MERCURY" one finds the caveat: "These types of fish contain the lowest amounts of mercury:". Beneath it are listed such "fish" specimen, as: "Clams," "Crawfish," Oyster," "Shrimp," and "Squid."

Really? Although few people today pay heed to ANYTHING Biblical, and, therefore, the fact that most of these singled out items are, in fact, dubbed "abominations" by Holy Scripture eludes the typical newspaper reader. Nevertheless, has zoology changed that much since I was a young student? Do modern teachers (or textbook writers) view inequality with such abhorence that they cannot teach any form of observable categorical distinction? Will some form of marine life be "offended" if excluded from the category of "fish?" Indeed! (Some modern "dictionaries" even list as secondary definitions of "fish" nearly anything one could "bring in" in a net (plastic bottles included).

Although, no doubt, the pedagogery has evolved from distinctions among observable life-forms to "almost sameness" in life-forms, this is not based on Charles Darwin's observations and theory of a natural selection at work, but rather a fine madness, which replaces materialism with abstractionism. This abstractionism is proclaimed "more essential" by these "con men" than the old observable criteria for establishing categories. One example of this that comes to mind, being the proclamation, ipse dixit, that we are all emanations from the "sea of being." In such a "sea" there cannot be any distinction between fish and crustacean, nor, indeed, fish and fowl. And so it goes with modern "schooling."

Folks, we've encountered this before. Hans Christian Anderson's tale of the "King Who Wore No Clothes" touches upon the ongoing duping of the world by these "tailors."

Well, if they win, and we are all eventually proclaimed to be fish, my only advice is: Stay low and keep your fins moving.