The Case Against Nut Encrusted Fish

Change for the sake of change destroys humanity. There. I said it.

The inevitability of change is a construct of life; the lack of control over this construct neither helps nor hinders the meaning we derive from its consequences. What creates divisiveness is pushing change onto cultural entities that already coexist naturally with people and places. Like fish.

The origins of fish encased in nuts eludes me, but it lacks creativity and corrupts nature's intentions. Some cook/chef simply realized that changing fish into an entity resembling not-fish seemed like a great idea: Let's do something different!

Now, I don't advocate eating only fried fish or ridding ourselves of sushi. If some want nuts on their fish, their freedom cannot be denied. But let's do it for the reasons of taste or nutrition or geographical identity. Let's not change just for the sake of acting, eating, or looking differently.

To continue the nut motif, why have many airlines banned peanuts from in-flight snack time? In the 60s and 70s, I cannot remember one incidence of nut induced trauma or seizures. For whatever reason (environmental, genetic, or nutritional) peanut allergies now cause life threatening results. It's the most common cause of food related deaths. Okay. No peanuts for those people. But do we have to change the entire consumptive role of society? Even peanut butter bears the label that this food product may contain peanuts!

Appealing to common sense in the 21st century may place me in the role of Grand Inquisitor, yet many people believe scrolling through the telephone tree of a major corporation and then waiting 20-25 minutes to speak to a Homo Sapien is normal. Companies rationalized that change as "more economical" and "time saving." (I could laugh but I lost my voice shouting at the phone tree operator.)

If it ain't broke, don't change it. Accommodate the less fortunate and the legumely challenged. But leave the halibut alone.