Apparently. It’s probably rare though, so don’t worry. A world where I get what I want all the time would be a horrendously scary place.

It’s been some time since I posted the letter I sent off to the Geelong council. Long enough that anyone who is interested in what played out afterwards already knows, but for posterity I am documenting it here. Also because it’s a Friday arvo and I have nothing better to do.

After sending my cordial and very relevant letter to the Geelong council and publishing it on this cordial and relevant blog, I received  a suggestion from a mate to “Send it in to the Addy”. “The Addy”, for those who may not know is our local newspaper, “The Geelong Advertiser”. I resisted at first, mostly out of laziness. “There’s no way they’d give a shit about a silly letter I sent about my piddly-arse problems” I said in a round about way and with far more profanity, but I eventually acquiesced when I thought of the fun that might be had. After sending in the letter, marked “URGENT” and signed, “Mr Bag”, I promptly forgot all about it until a couple of days later when I recieved a letter in my inbox that wasn’t titled “Want a bigger COCK?”. Sensing something was amiss, I opened the letter while attempting to resist my gag reflex. It was from the opinions editor for the Geelong Advertiser informing me that he liked the letter and that they’d like to publish it, however they’d like my real name to put on it. Apparently “Mr Bag” doesn’t sound like an acceptable name for some reason. Despite giving me the option to run with my aforementioned pseudonym I opted to include my real name because let’s face it, when am I ever going to see my name in the paper again without it appearing under a headline that contains the words “Tragic”, “Disaster”, or “Drunk”.

Anyway, rather than running it as a letter, they clipped it here and there and made it an article which was kind of cool:

(Click for bigger pic) Sadly this isn't the most ridiculous thing I've seen published in the Addy.

It was a pretty happy result, I guess, to get some of what I write out there into the public. Especially because I never intended for it to happen.

Apart from the novelty of polluting the minds of others with my rancid intellectual refuse there was little joy to be had. I still had a broken, soggy footpath to contend with. Until a couple of weeks after the article was published, that is. Then I started seeing strange markings sprayed on the path but never saw anyone spraying them. Shortly thereafter, some workers came along and started ripping up the footpath and laying down a fresh, new concrete path. I don’t want to jump to conclusions but the most logical conclusion I could come to was that an enterprising group of satanists read the article and heard my plight. At their next convenience they took it upon themselves to lay down glyphs on the path before completing their sordid ritual. Oh, don’t give me that. It’s either that explanation, or the Geelong council promptly attended to a problem. When was the last time you saw THAT happen? Damn right.

A big "up yours!" to all those who have told me my writing is juvenile and pointless, I guess. (They're still right)

This was the mess before the new footpath. I'm pretty pleased with the transformation.

That concludes my adventures of writing silly letters to the Government. For now, of course. I have learned something from the whole experience though. If you have a problem with something, TAKE THE TIME TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE APPROPRIATE PEOPLE. I never expected anything to be done. My letter was more a catharsis (much like this entire blog) than anything else but as it happened, the problem got taken care of and proves that other changes are possible. Bigger and more important ones than a footpath.

So instead of apathy, try a little action!

Popularity: 11% [?]

Most of you know I like to write the odd letter. I also like to have fun doing it. Here’s a letter I just sent to the Geelong Council regarding a meddlesome footpath I have to deal with on a daily basis. Enjoy!

To whom it may concern,

I am contacting the City of Greater Geelong council in regard to an issue I, and other fine residents of Geelong have had with a footpath for quite some time.

For approximately seven (7) years, I have walked the footpath which proceeds due north after the roundabout where Plantation Rd intersects Bacchus Marsh road. I make this walk twice a day, five days a week as it is the only way I am able to make it to and from work. To assist you in understanding precisely where I am referring to, please see attached link one (1) for a map, and attached link two (2) for a more precise illustration of the area. I should mention that both of these images were made possible with the assistance of my good friends over at Google.

Unfortunately, during times of rain this footpath has a nasty habit of disappearing under rather a lot of water, which I have found to be somewhat troublesome as I don’t own SCUBA apparatus, and further, if I did I should find it even more inconvenient to “gear up” as it were, merely to make it to work as dry as I was when I embarked. Not to mention the fact that passing drivers would undoubtedly be distracted by a man wearing flippers and an oxygen tank running awkwardly through a puddle in order to make it to work in time, I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that though. Needless to say, the puddle makes me very cross.

The problem is often worse in the mornings, as at the time I am making the traversal (6:30am) it is dark during most of the year. This makes for a rather perilous and awkward attempt on my part to hit the highest parts of the uneven and cracked footpath beneath the copious amounts of water in order to keep my socks comfortably dry for a long day’s work. I can truthfully say that futilely jumping and splashing around on a daily basis makes me feel like a contestant on that dreadfully inane TV show, “Wipeout”. This is almost as distressing as the prospect of showing up at my dead-end job.

I digress. I took the liberty of snapping a shot on the way home from work today (attached link three (3)), as you’ll see the puddle is quite long, and at the time was at what I like to call “low tide”. Usually, the whole area pictured is completely submerged, and had actually been bad enough on several occasions to prompt me to remove my shoes and socks to make it across, lest I ruin my stylish workboots. Given that today I had the fortune of navigating it in full daylight, it was nowhere near as frustrating and menacing as it usually is in the mornings, but I still feel uncomfortable that passing motorists may see my jumping between dry areas as a solitary game of drunken hopscotch. (If I were to participate in such an activity, I certainly wouldn’t do so alone. I have friends who like to drink)

This problem, in my opinion, has two (2) causes. As follows:

- The first (1st) cause I believe to be poor maintenance of the path. In the area that it floods, it has sunk at least half a cubit. (I use biblical measurements because the predicament reminds me of the fable of Noah’s Ark. Yes, I know the exact measurement of a cubit isn’t known, but you’ll have to humour me on this.) The path is severely damaged, and I will go as far as to say that it’s more cracked and broken than Tony Abbott’s credibility. I do not make this claim lightly.

- The second (2nd) cause is poor drainage in the area. The general area around the usual flood zone (or Davey Jones’s Locker, as I like to call it) is usually flooded and smells of stagnant water and decaying plant life, not to mention the fact that a family of frogs has comfortably taken up residence. To bring up the bible again: Remember the frog plague? That’s why I think this is a very important issue. We already have 2012 to deal with, and I just want to nip this one in the bud before the Barwon flows with blood and the lunatics at Green Peace get involved. Anyway, there is a small pipe that leads off to the side and proceeds under Bacchus Marsh Rd, to the other side to allow drainage but as I can tell, this is either inadequate or blocked. Or there is a conspiracy of some kind to keep the water there for some nefarious purpose, probably communism. I’m pretty sure that it’s one of the first two reasons though.

I believe the problem to be serious enough as to warrant an inspection at the very least and then further action and repair if deemed necessary. Much of this letter has been light-hearted and in jest, (except the part about Tony Abbott’s credibility. I absolutely meant that) as I want this issue to stand out, and I understand how mundane such letters usually are. Once again, I make this request in earnest, and I look forward to a response. I sincerely thank you for your time.

Attachments:

Attached link 1: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/695/fpath1.png/

Attached link 2: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/402/fpath2.png/

Attached link 3: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/8/imag0019do.jpg/

Popularity: 17% [?]

Well, it was barely 12 hours after sending my email to the lovely Jenny Moxham, when a brand spanking new email arrived in my inbox ready to be taken apart like leper in a strong breeze.

Before I reveal her reply I would like to make a few observations, those being that I have a slight feeling that her article in the Addy was heavily edited. I feel this way because she seems to be somewhat grammatically challenged. Furthermore, I don’t know if I condone the use of red text in an email. This should only be reserved for teenage females. Oh, and she spelled my name wrong.

Jenny also likes to quote information with no source or attribution, making in considerably difficult to cross check the veracity or legitimacy of said information. Add to that, the fact that she left a bunch of my email in her reply and that the only way I could discern her quotes from the text she had typed her self was that the quotes weren’t in broken English.

Not only was her article in the Addy somewhat insulting to any thinking person, but I found that her email was also pretty half-arsed and kind of insulted the time and effort I had put into my email. Don’t get me wrong though, I do appreciate her actually bothering to write back to someone with an opposing opinion, which is better that what I’d expect from a lot of animal rights activists, as they can get a little extreme and indignant at times. She certainly deserves commendation for keeping everything civil and mature, which is why I almost feel bad for the reply I gave her. Almost.

Of course, you can be the judge, here is her reply in it’s entirety (the red text is her reply. For some reason she kept all the other crap in there and it makes for a frustrating read):

Dear Ric,

Dear Jenny,

I am writing to you in regard to your article which appeared in the October 15th issue of the Geelong Advertiser newspaper regarding double standards in society where animals are concerned, as quoted below:

Before I go any further I think it would be prudent to inform you that I am a 24 year old male, and I am currently an employee of a slaughterhouse and have been for five years.

May I ask why a very articulate person like yourself has chosen to work at a slaughterhouse and  – what is your job?

I do not come to you as an apologist for animal cruelty or as a defender of the meat industry. As a matter of fact, my chosen industry had nothing at all to do with my opinion of animals or animal cruelty, I assure you. I merely want to share with you my opinions on the issues you have raised.
I also feel it necessary to state that you and I are in complete agreement in regards to being appalled by cruelty to animals we both appear to be unanimous in the belief that animals should be treated with respect and compassion.

I’m pleased to hear that. My reason for contacting you directly regarding the issue of animal treatment is twofold: Firstly, because I believe that you have made some fairly weak and ignorant arguments in your piece and I hope to obtain some more detailed viewpoints from you in the hope that we can both enlighten each other on this issue, which is clearly an important one.
Second, published articles like your own, whether they be in journals, papers or television media carry a certain amount of credibility for most people by default. By that, I mean that most people will trust what they hear from an authoritative source, regardless of it’s veracity. I understand that your article is more of an opinion piece than a news article, but it is my belief that a certain integrity should be maintained and since I don’t believe your arguments were made with an open mind, I contend that your article is misleading biased without factual reason.
If I may, I would like to address a few key points of your article individually:
“On Sunday at Barwon Park in Winchelsea _ the place where in 1859 the un-smart Thomas Austin decided to release 12 pairs of imported rabbits simply for the pleasure of hunting them _ there was a family day at which children got to cuddle rabbits and their parents got to listen to a Department of Primary Industry talk about killing them.”
You and I are in agreement that Thomas Austin is “un-smart” as you put it. Of course, it was a fairly disastrous decision regardless of his intentions or ignorance of the consequences at the time and it has clearly had a negative effect on our ecosystem. I also agree that having children cuddle rabbits while their imminent demise is being discussed seems to be inconsistent, although I attribute this argument as calling out inconsistency for it’s own sake merely to point fingers at those with an opposing viewpoint. Unfortunately, we do not agree with the latter half of this statement. While you are correct about the Department of Primary Industry talking about killing rabbits, you were very deceptive, and I believe deliberate in leaving out the reason why they are to be killed. Obviously most of us know that they need to be removed from the environment to avoid further damage to local agriculture, flora and fauna but in leaving that out you have exposed yourself to rightful criticism. Perhaps it isn’t necessary to kill them and there are other ways to remove them from the environment in a more humane way. Perhaps not. I don’t have a more humane, yet more economically and efficient alternative idea myself. Perhaps you do?

Some info re ‘feral ‘animals you may care to flick through.

It is often taken for granted that feral animals should be eradicated. They are accused of causing all sorts of damage. However, a Senate Select Committee inquiry concluded that much more research was required. For example, Dr Peter O’Brien, Principal Research Scientist with the Bureau of Rural Research, gave evidence that there was little comprehensive and qualitative data on damage caused by feral animals, adding that: ” there is a need for much more extensive long-term studies of impact “. Similarly, according to the Northern Territory Government: ” …although the impact of feral animals is widely accepted, relatively few detailed or rigorous studies have been conducted ”

Soil erosion
Grazing animals such as horses and rabbits eat off vegetation that covers the soil and holds it together. Once the earth is bare, it is susceptible to wind and water erosion. Hard hooves compact the, soil and create tracks that can be eroded into gullies.
However, it must be remembered that there are 126 million sheep and 27 million cattle in Australia. These hard-hoofed grazing animals also increase soil erosion.

Reduced fodder for domestic animals
It has been estimated that 9 rabbits eat as much as 1 sheep . According to the Northern Territory government, the forage removed by 100 horses would feed 45-128 cattle. Similarly, a brumby catcher stated: ” If you get rid of 1000 horses from a station, you will be able to run another 1200-1500 cattle ” .
If people are genuinely concerned about environmental damage and depriving native animals of feed and habitat, then it is hypocritical to replace feral animals with domestic animals who have the same effect. As a Northern Territory government officer stated
” …many of the environmental impacts … are purely the result of too many animals on a particular area of land, whether they be managed or unmanaged animals “.

Regarding the claim that feral animals reduced feed and habitat for native animals
Such claims ignore human effects on the landscape. Much of the continent has been cleared of native vegetation, and clearing goes on to this day. Obviously this has destroyed the habitat of many native animals. Also 126 million sheep and 27 million cattle compete with native animals for food. It is very simplistic to blame feral animals for all the environmental problems in Australia.




“Just recently, I read that a church in the Geelong region was inviting the congregation to bring their pet animals along for a World Animal Day blessing. Guess what followed the blessing? A sausage sizzle! In other words, barbecued non-pet animals! Now how inconsistent is this?”
I agree that this can certainly be construed as inconsistent, but it really comes down to how much you want to pick at something to make a point and by picking on things like this repeatedly it illustrates that you have little to fall back on in way of legitimate criticism. I’m prepared to let this one stand on its own merit, but as an argument for animal rights it holds little to no water in my opinion.

The animals served up as sausages, would, if pigs ,have endured lives of total misery and pain. They would have been deprived of all semblance of a natural life. They would have had their tails painfully cut off and, if males, been agonizingly castrated. Unlike the ‘pet’ animals invited to the blessing, they would never have run, played, felt the warmth of the sun, breathed fresh air or viewed the beautiful world in which they lived. Their pitiful mothers are still, languishing in body hugging metal ‘crates’ on cold concrete floors. If we buy sausages we are giving our approval to this inhumane treatment .
Consequently blessing one lot of animals then supporting cruelty to another lot of animals is totally incongruous.
“On TV, I saw a group of guys being interviewed. They’d been rescuing abused dogs. Fantastic! I thought. The host then rewarded their kindness to animals by giving them loads of dog food comprising the minced up body parts of other cruelly-abused animals.”
The wording of this statement irks me.
Your basic claim that the men were rewarded for their kindness to animals by being given minced up animals is of course technically true, as dogs are animals, and dog food is made up of animal products. Unfortunately you blatantly spin this as hypocrisy and inconsistency to make your somewhat dubious point despite the fact that the men rescued the dogs and were rewarded with dog food, presumably so they can better take care of their own dogs. Some people may see your wording and stance on this point as innocuous, however I take exception as it is clearly a dishonest assertion. I also take issue with your false premise that dog food is made up of “cruelly abused animals”. Unfortunately however, I think you and I have entirely different views on cruelty and what the word “cruelty” actually denotes so I will avoid getting into a discussion of semantics. My final problem with this point is that you seem to make an indirect point that dogs should not eat meat, or at least meat comprised of animals that were slaughtered. I would like you to address this as I can’t think of too many alternatives as far as feeding dogs goes.
There is a very healthy non-animal dog food called veganpet.
http://veganpet.com.au/articles/
Should we release them periodically to hunt down live prey like they would in the wild? Should we feed them only vegetables or vegetable or synthetic products? Wouldn’t that be cruel to deprive them of their most natural diet of meats? I apologize if I sound condescending as I don’t intend to insult you, I am just perplexed by your reasoning.

“Why don’t people get it? Cruelty is cruelty. It’s cruel to wantonly hurt dogs but it’s also cruel to

Again, the wording of this statement is unnecessary and deceptive. You can make your point without resorting to overreaching words such as “wantonly”. To suggest that the entire meat industry is rife with wanton cruelty is patently false.

I disagree. All animals are routinely subjected to painful mutilations without anaesthetic.
This would be illegal if done to a pet animal.They are denied everythig that is normal and natural in life. Factory farmed animals are deprived of fresh air, sunshine and exercise. They are also abused.
http://www.vegsoc.org.au/downloads/WhyVegan-0404.pdf

Baby male chicks are routinely ground up alive.
www.mercyforanimals.org/hatchery

Unless of course you care to redefine the word “wanton” for me. It’s also an extreme generalization. As a general rule, if you sum up an entire industry/demographic/etc with one word or sentence, you are generalizing and that is intellectually dishonest.
“Last Sunday on Channel 9′s 60 Minutes program a reporter was interviewing an official from Japan’s Whale and Dolphin Meat Culinary Association regarding the slaughter of dolphins at Taiji.
The reporter asked the official if he could understand why many Australians would consider that what Japan was doing was barbaric?
The official retorted that to the Japanese people our killing of kangaroos is just as bad.
He was entirely correct, of course, but this time the reporter didn’t seem to get it.”
In this case, the Japanese man was NOT entirely correct in saying that our culling of Kangaroos was as bad as their killing of Dolphins and Whales for meat. I would rather not go into too much detail on this issue as I think you understand where I am coming from. Far be it from me to defend a journalist, but I understand his confusion. It seems to me that you like to cherry pick facts to support your cause. It just so happens that the cherries in this case are low hanging fruit and you would rather state things in an overly simple form for your arguments without regard to the underlying issues and complexities behind them. This brings me to what might perhaps be your most misguided statement:
“Then there are those charitable organisations which, every Christmas, do their best to entice us to send cows, pigs, goats etc. to people in third world countries to supposedly help alleviate hunger.
Well, hello! Guess who’s eating up one third of the world’s food? Animals!
The world’s hunger problem would not exist at all if the food fed to animals in the West was fed directly to humans.
According to the United Nations, the amount of grain needed to end extreme hunger is 40 million tonnes and 540 million tonnes of grain is currently being fed to farmed animals in the West.
Clearly the solution to world hunger is not to increase the number of farmed animals in the world but to reduce it. Isn’t it time for a little more consistency and clear thinking in our daily life?”
I would like to share a quote with you:
“The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day (FAO 2002, p.9). The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food.” *http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm
Some facts re world hunger
The World Health Organisation estimates one in three people are affected by malnutrition—a factor in at least half of the 10.4 million child deaths each year. Yet, between one third to one half the world’s edible harvests are fed to livestock.
Worst of all, land in developing countries that could be used for production of crops for hungry humans is instead used to produce and export crops to feed to farmed animals in developed countries.
At the height of the 1984 famine in Ethiopia, they were still exporting feed crops to Europe. During severe food shortages in North Korea in 1997, they still exported 1,000 tonnes of maize to Japan for poultry feed.4 And Brazil (the world’s main agricultural exporter) clears vast expanses of rainforest to grow soya beans to feed to chickens in Europe and Japan. Meanwhile the FAO reports that 16.7 million people in that country are undernourished.13
Conservative estimates predict that a 50% reduction in meat consumption in developed countries could save 3.6 million children from malnutrition.4 When these estimates are projected to all people in extreme poverty (not just children) it is estimated that 33.6 million people could be saved from malnutrition.



I apologize that the statistics are a little old but I have no reason to doubt that they have increased since then, as they had up until then. Feel free to do more research and correct me if I am wrong.
The statistics clearly state that there is enough food to feed the world as it is, even with animal grazing and feeding present. Your fallacious argument that we can feed the world by taking the food out of the mouths of animals is based on the false premise that there is not enough food now, and it also discounts the issue of transportation of said food to the people who need it, not to mention countless other logistics, economic and social problems that would arise in its wake.
There are a few other minor issues I have with the article, but I already feel impolite addressing the ones that I have even though I believe that my contentions are all valid. Besides, I’m sure you have better things to do than to read long-winded essays rebuking your opinions.
In conclusion I would like to ask that you examine your arguments a little more closely in the future and perhaps read some literature which has been authored by people with an opposing viewpoint to your own, as it often offers useful insight into the issues you discuss and leaves you better equipped to handle the more pressing questions you may be faced with. You make some legitimate arguments and you are standing for a very worthy and noble cause but you do so without regard for the complexity and effort required to remedy the problems at hand and that only serves to the detriment of the animal rights movement and the general public’s perception of animal rights activists. It’s all good and fun to want the best for every man, woman, child, animal, etc. I could make many arguments for why I think war is a travesty. But doing so would call for plausible and viable alternatives. Saying we want to be rid of something doesn’t mean we can wish it away without consequence or action on many levels.
I have a few more things I would like to discuss with you regarding your manner of expressing your opinion and the arguments you raise, but I think I have gone entirely too long for one letter already and I don’t want to come off as didactic.

I would like to thank you very much for your time and express once again that I am in general agreement with you as far as ethical treatment of animals goes and I believe that there is definitely work to be done on that front.
I hope to begin a correspondence with you that may lead to a mutual understanding or perhaps even further enlightening of us both in regard to one-another’s viewpoints. Feel free to argue any of my points or to ask me any questions at all regarding my beliefs or clarification on any of the points I have made. I look forward to hearing from you.
I hope that my response has been of some value to you.
Kind regards,
Jenny
Yours Faithfully,
Rik Stares

In any case after reading her reply it became apparent that this correspondence was going nowhere, and to be honest I never really expected it to. I could more than likely refute her new claims (after finding where they came from of course) and I actually planned on doing so but this is one of those issues that really boils down to personal morality and tolerance and trade-offs. So rather than let this fizzle out into a boring mutual understanding, (you didn’t come here to read about me agreeing with ANYONE, let’s face it) I decided to take the low road, or as I like to call it, “The entertaining road where we insult Jenny’s intelligence and see how she likes it”. I  had a lot of fun writing this email. I hope you like reading it and I apologise that the formatting got a bit screwed up when I posted it here.

Dear Jenny,

I would like to begin by thanking you on your fast reply to my email. It was splendid. I appreciate the time you took to address my concerns and the effort that you must have gone to find the information you quoted in your reply.

In regard to your query:

“May I ask why a very articulate person like yourself has chosen to work at a slaughterhouse and  – what is your job?”

My reasons for working where I do are fairly complex, but to avoid a number of long winded details: My employment at a slaughterhouse was part of a plea bargain. I cannot say anything more at this time since there is still a long running case against me and I do not wish to incriminate myself. My tasks include weeding out snitches in the lower ranks and packing boxes with entrails.

There is also something I wish to apologise for, and that is the fact that I had carelessly rebuked your arguments without making clear my own specific views on the issue of animal cruelty. Rather than going into a detailed and boring point by point detail on my opinions I would like to share with you a story from my childhood that I believe perfectly illustrates my position on the issues of animal cruelty and the meat industry.

Growing up, I didn’t have many of the perks or pleasures a lot of my peers were privileged with. My parents’ marriage was rocky at the best of times and I’d rather even not talk about the worst of times. My father is Serbian and my mother is Croatian. It seemed like every day they were yelling or screaming at each other and throwing rocks and sticks.

Anyway, I would like to get out of the house whenever I could to avoid the stress and the misery. Thankfully back then I had two very good friends, Raptor and Jim. Jim wasn’t his real name of course, we just called him that because he had pronounced scurvy.

Raptor, Jim and I would hang around a lot at about that time (I was about 15). There were a few times we went to an arcade and bowling alley near my house. We’d usually only ever get halfway through a round of bowling before we got bored and started throwing the balls instead of rolling them. It was great fun until one day Jim went a little bit too far and hit one of the bigger kids with his balls. Of course the big kid came up and threatened all three of us with a sound beating. Now, Raptor was a pretty big guy for his age… Not quite as big as the bully who got hit by Jims balls, be he had a temper and he usually refused to be intimidated by anyone, no matter how big. That’s when Raptor sneaked around behind the bully while he was threatening Jim and pulled down his pants. Everyone saw it and what made it even better is that the bully wasn’t wearing any underwear which was revolting and funny at the same time since on that day we discovered that the biggest kid in school was a hermaphrodite. He never picked on us again after that. Actually he disappeared from school. Although I do remember a large, unusually hairy girl with a strong jaw line joining our class thereafter…

Anyway, I’m getting off point.

This other time we were riding our bikes and we were picking on Raptor cause he had to ride his sisters bike and it was pink. He was going with it though and we were having a good afternoon riding around until it started raining. Now, we used to love riding in the one place in town. It was like an aquaduct drain kind of thing. We’d race down that thing for hours. Anyway, we decided to get up as much speed as we could and then skid for as long as we could on the wet concrete. I had my go first, then Jim, then Raptor. Well it turns out raptor won even though he was riding his sister’s bike. That kind of sucked.

Onto the point:

I remember one hot day, we were flipping through channels at Raptor’s house (he had a crappy TV and his parents were cheap when it came to decent snacks) and we came across the fashion channel. The women were wearing all sorts of weird wonderful and exotic outfits and we all stared at the screen mesmerized for the next hour or two, none of us saying a word.

It was on that warm February day that I made the life-changing realization that I am in fact, more of a boobs man than I am a bum man.

I’m sorry if I rambled on a bit there, with I think that pretty much sums up where I’m coming from perfectly. Of course, if you need any clarification or questions I’d be happy to elaborate for you.

So as you can see, you and I are not that different, we both have certain issues that we throw the baby out with the bath water and a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Before I conclude this email, I would like to ask you a few questions which may help me understand your position a little better.

At which point in your life did you become an animal rights activist and why, specifically?

Do you condone the keeping of animals (domesticated or otherwise) in captivity at all?

Which ninja turtle is your favourite? (I like the red one. I don’t know why, but I feel he is less likely to commit a violent sex crime and as we all know that would be second only to eating meat on the scale of crimes. As an interesting note, violent sex acts and eating meat are known as one and the same in our fine prison system)

If you answered no to the captivity question, do you have any pets? (I have a rat named Rambo and he’s white and he has red eyes and he likes it when I scratch his tummy)

Are you religious an any way? Does that influence your stance on animal rights? (I am a 6th degree tangerine belt in scientology, in case you were wondering)

If you could be any animal, which animal would you be? (I’d be a marmoset, duh)

If a cat was wondering across a front yard at 4km/h and was run over, head on by a ride-on lawnmower measuring 1.2m long at 6km/h, how long should it take for the minced up cat to make it out the back of the mower. (This is tricky but I assure you there IS an answer.)

I would like to conclude this email by thanking you again for your prompt response, and civilized rebuttal of my own points. I would also like to wish you a happy nineteenth of October. I look forward to hearing from you again. Take care,

Rik.

PS: I almost forgot, I have a short (5min) presentation that you might find educational. It is on youtube, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86wKWjvUD50

Of course, if I get a reply, I’ll put it straight up here for you to read. And be sure to check out the link I included at the bottom of my email. It really is educational. I think it will probably resonate with Jenny.

Popularity: 80% [?]

First of all: I’m back!

It’s been nearly six months… The Rikstares.com 1 year anniversary, the death of Michael Jackson and Earthquakes. Low hanging fruit, yes but still no updates to the site simply because I was lazy. I have no excuse.

You may have also noticed that the new sleek blue theme has reverted to the old theme again. I did that cause there were problems amounting in the style sheets and version conflicts and blah blah blah, it wasn’t worth it so here we are… Over a year of the site and still the classic look.

Onto the story at hand:

I read a story in the Geelong Advertiser yesterday. It was by (from what I can gather) an amateur journalist and poet who likes to write about animal rights. Now before you shrug and go for the little x in the top right hand corner of your screen, hear me out.

We all know that between Greenpeace terrorizing the seven seas and PETA advocating human breast milk as a substitute for cream in icecream, the animal rights activists don’t exactly have the “sane” vote, but in their defense I think we can all say that we advocate ethical treatment of animals and that unnecessary cruelty is very, very dastardly indeed.

So I would like to present you with the article that I read in the Geelong Addy in its entirety:

JENNY MOXHAM: Double standards in animal world

October 15th, 2009

WHY are humans so totally inconsistent, particularly where animals are concerned?
On Sunday at Barwon Park in Winchelsea _ the place where in 1859 the un-smart Thomas Austin decided to release 12 pairs of imported rabbits simply for the pleasure of hunting them _ there was a family day at which children got to cuddle rabbits and their parents got to listen to a Department of Primary Industry talk about killing them.

If you felt hungry, no worries, you could tuck into some rabbit sausages.

What are your thoughts on this story? Tell us using the feedback form below

Just recently, I read that a church in the Geelong region was inviting the congregation to bring their pet animals along for a World Animal Day blessing. Guess what followed the blessing? A sausage sizzle! In other words, barbecued non-pet animals! Now how inconsistent is this?

On TV, I saw a group of guys being interviewed. They’d been rescuing abused dogs. Fantastic! I thought. The host then rewarded their kindness to animals by giving them loads of dog food comprising the minced up body parts of other cruelly-abused animals.

Why don’t people get it? Cruelty is cruelty. It’s cruel to wantonly hurt dogs but it’s also cruel to wantonly hurt gentle cows, pigs and sheep.

Wherever we turn there seems to be this inconsistency. We pamper our dogs and cats yet happily tuck into other equally lovable, intelligent and sensitive pigs and lambs.

Last Sunday on Channel 9′s 60 Minutes program a reporter was interviewing an official from Japan’s Whale and Dolphin Meat Culinary Association regarding the slaughter of dolphins at Taiji.

The reporter asked the official if he could understand why many Australians would consider that what Japan was doing was barbaric?

The official retorted that to the Japanese people our killing of kangaroos is just as bad.

He was entirely correct, of course, but this time the reporter didn’t seem to get it.

Then there are those charitable organisations which, every Christmas, do their best to entice us to send cows, pigs, goats etc. to people in third world countries to supposedly help alleviate hunger.

Well, hello! Guess who’s eating up one third of the world’s food? Animals!

The world’s hunger problem would not exist at all if the food fed to animals in the West was fed directly to humans.

According to the United Nations, the amount of grain needed to end extreme hunger is 40 million tonnes and 540 million tonnes of grain is currently being fed to farmed animals in the West.

Clearly the solution to world hunger is not to increase the number of farmed animals in the world but to reduce it. Isn’t it time for a little more consistency and clear thinking in our daily life?

_ Jenny Moxham is an animal rights activist.

Obviously I took exception to this article for obvious reasons, being the critical thinker that I am. (Often TOO critical and gratuitous, I know, I know…) I resolved to write a piece on it on this very website. BUT! I did one better. I sent her a letter, and in this letter I come off as a complete condescending and arrogant prick. I don’t mean to be. Really, I am trying to sincerely find some common ground and actively combat the shoddy journalism I am always whinging about relentlessly. I figure it’s about time I stop bitching and do something, and I thought I’d start at the bottom.

I would like to share this letter with you, sent only about 20 minutes ago. I plan on sharing any and all correspondence between Jenny and I on this website, so if you’re interested, check back:

Dear Jenny,

I am writing to you in regard to your article which appeared in the October 15th issue of the Geelong Advertiser newspaper regarding double standards in society where animals are concerned, as quoted below:

“WHY are humans so totally inconsistent, particularly where animals are concerned?

On Sunday at Barwon Park in Winchelsea _ the place where in 1859 the un-smart Thomas Austin decided to release 12 pairs of imported rabbits simply for the pleasure of hunting them _ there was a family day at which children got to cuddle rabbits and their parents got to listen to a Department of Primary Industry talk about killing them.

If you felt hungry, no worries, you could tuck into some rabbit sausages.

Just recently, I read that a church in the Geelong region was inviting the congregation to bring their pet animals along for a World Animal Day blessing. Guess what followed the blessing? A sausage sizzle! In other words, barbecued non-pet animals! Now how inconsistent is this?

On TV, I saw a group of guys being interviewed. They’d been rescuing abused dogs. Fantastic! I thought. The host then rewarded their kindness to animals by giving them loads of dog food comprising the minced up body parts of other cruelly-abused animals.

Why don’t people get it? Cruelty is cruelty. It’s cruel to wantonly hurt dogs but it’s also cruel to wantonly hurt gentle cows, pigs and sheep.

Wherever we turn there seems to be this inconsistency. We pamper our dogs and cats yet happily tuck into other equally lovable, intelligent and sensitive pigs and lambs.

Last Sunday on Channel 9′s 60 Minutes program a reporter was interviewing an official from Japan’s Whale and Dolphin Meat Culinary Association regarding the slaughter of dolphins at Taiji.

The reporter asked the official if he could understand why many Australians would consider that what Japan was doing was barbaric?

The official retorted that to the Japanese people our killing of kangaroos is just as bad.

He was entirely correct, of course, but this time the reporter didn’t seem to get it.

Then there are those charitable organisations which, every Christmas, do their best to entice us to send cows, pigs, goats etc. to people in third world countries to supposedly help alleviate hunger.

Well, hello! Guess who’s eating up one third of the world’s food? Animals!

The world’s hunger problem would not exist at all if the food fed to animals in the West was fed directly to humans.

According to the United Nations, the amount of grain needed to end extreme hunger is 40 million tonnes and 540 million tonnes of grain is currently being fed to farmed animals in the West.

Clearly the solution to world hunger is not to increase the number of farmed animals in the world but to reduce it. Isn’t it time for a little more consistency and clear thinking in our daily life?”

Before I go any further I think it would be prudent to inform you that I am a 24 year old male, and I am currently an employee of a slaughterhouse and have been for five years. I do not come to you as an apologist for animal cruelty or as a defender of the meat industry. As a matter of fact, my chosen industry had nothing at all to do with my opinion of animals or animal cruelty, I assure you. I merely want to share with you my opinions on the issues you have raised.

I also feel it necessary to state that you and I are in complete agreement in regards to being appalled by cruelty to animals we both appear to be unanimous in the belief that animals should be treated with respect and compassion.

My reason for contacting you directly regarding the issue of animal treatment is twofold: Firstly, because I believe that you have made some fairly weak and ignorant arguments in your piece and I hope to obtain some more detailed viewpoints from you in the hope that we can both enlighten each other on this issue, which is clearly an important one. Second, published articles like your own, whether they be in journals, papers or television media carry a certain amount of credibility for most people by default. By that, I mean that most people will trust what they hear from an authoritative source, regardless of it’s veracity. I understand that your article is more of an opinion piece than a news article, but it is my belief that a certain integrity should be maintained and since I don’t believe your arguments were made with an open mind, I contend that your article is misleading biased without factual reason.

If I may, I would like to address a few key points of your article individually:

“On Sunday at Barwon Park in Winchelsea _ the place where in 1859 the un-smart Thomas Austin decided to release 12 pairs of imported rabbits simply for the pleasure of hunting them _ there was a family day at which children got to cuddle rabbits and their parents got to listen to a Department of Primary Industry talk about killing them.”

You and I are in agreement that Thomas Austin is “un-smart” as you put it. Of course, it was a fairly disastrous decision regardless of his intentions or ignorance of the consequences at the time and it has clearly had a negative effect on our ecosystem. I also agree that having children cuddle rabbits while their imminent demise is being discussed seems to be inconsistent, although I attribute this argument as calling out inconsistency for it’s own sake merely to point fingers at those with an opposing viewpoint. Unfortunately, we do not agree with the latter half of this statement. While you are correct about the Department of Primary Industry talking about killing rabbits, you were very deceptive, and I believe deliberate in leaving out the reason why they are to be killed. Obviously most of us know that they need to be removed from the environment to avoid further damage to local agriculture, flora and fauna but in leaving that out you have exposed yourself to rightful criticism. Perhaps it isn’t necessary to kill them and there are other ways to remove them from the environment in a more humane way. Perhaps not. I don’t have a more humane, yet more economically and efficient alternative idea myself. Perhaps you do?

“Just recently, I read that a church in the Geelong region was inviting the congregation to bring their pet animals along for a World Animal Day blessing. Guess what followed the blessing? A sausage sizzle! In other words, barbecued non-pet animals! Now how inconsistent is this?”

I agree that this can certainly be construed as inconsistent, but it really comes down to how much you want to pick at something to make a point and by picking on things like this repeatedly it illustrates that you have little to fall back on in way of legitimate criticism. I’m prepared to let this one stand on its own merit, but as an argument for animal rights it holds little to no water in my opinion.

“On TV, I saw a group of guys being interviewed. They’d been rescuing abused dogs. Fantastic! I thought. The host then rewarded their kindness to animals by giving them loads of dog food comprising the minced up body parts of other cruelly-abused animals.”

The wording of this statement irks me. Your basic claim that the men were rewarded for their kindness to animals by being given minced up animals is of course technically true, as dogs are animals, and dog food is made up of animal products. Unfortunately you blatantly spin this as hypocrisy and inconsistency to make your somewhat dubious point despite the fact that the men rescued the dogs and were rewarded with dog food, presumably so they can better take care of their own dogs. Some people may see your wording and stance on this point as innocuous, however I take exception as it is clearly a dishonest assertion. I also take issue with your false premise that dog food is made up of “cruelly abused animals”. Unfortunately however, I think you and I have entirely different views on cruelty and what the word “cruelty” actually denotes so I will avoid getting into a discussion of semantics. My final problem with this point is that you seem to make an indirect point that dogs should not eat meat, or at least meat comprised of animals that were slaughtered. I would like you to address this as I can’t think of too many alternatives as far as feeding dogs goes. Should we release them periodically to hunt down live prey like they would in the wild? Should we feed them only vegetables or vegetable or synthetic products? Wouldn’t that be cruel to deprive them of their most natural diet of meats? I apologize if I sound condescending as I don’t intend to insult you, I am just perplexed by your reasoning.

“Why don’t people get it? Cruelty is cruelty. It’s cruel to wantonly hurt dogs but it’s also cruel to wantonly hurt gentle cows, pigs and sheep.”

Again, the wording of this statement is unnecessary and deceptive. You can make your point without resorting to overreaching words such as “wantonly”. To suggest that the entire meat industry is rife with wanton cruelty is patently false. Unless of course you care to redefine the word “wanton” for me. It’s also an extreme generalization. As a general rule, if you sum up an entire industry/demographic/etc with one word or sentence, you are generalizing and that is intellectually dishonest.

“Last Sunday on Channel 9′s 60 Minutes program a reporter was interviewing an official from Japan’s Whale and Dolphin Meat Culinary Association regarding the slaughter of dolphins at Taiji.

The reporter asked the official if he could understand why many Australians would consider that what Japan was doing was barbaric?

The official retorted that to the Japanese people our killing of kangaroos is just as bad.

He was entirely correct, of course, but this time the reporter didn’t seem to get it.”

In this case, the Japanese man was NOT entirely correct in saying that our culling of Kangaroos was as bad as their killing of Dolphins and Whales for meat. I would rather not go into too much detail on this issue as I think you understand where I am coming from. Far be it from me to defend a journalist, but I understand his confusion. It seems to me that you like to cherry pick facts to support your cause. It just so happens that the cherries in this case are low hanging fruit and you would rather state things in an overly simple form for your arguments without regard to the underlying issues and complexities behind them. This brings me to what might perhaps be your most misguided statement:

“Then there are those charitable organisations which, every Christmas, do their best to entice us to send cows, pigs, goats etc. to people in third world countries to supposedly help alleviate hunger.

Well, hello! Guess who’s eating up one third of the world’s food? Animals!

The world’s hunger problem would not exist at all if the food fed to animals in the West was fed directly to humans.

According to the United Nations, the amount of grain needed to end extreme hunger is 40 million tonnes and 540 million tonnes of grain is currently being fed to farmed animals in the West.

Clearly the solution to world hunger is not to increase the number of farmed animals in the world but to reduce it. Isn’t it time for a little more consistency and clear thinking in our daily life?”

I would like to share a quote with you:

“The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day (FAO 2002, p.9). The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food.” *http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm

I apologize that the statistics are a little old but I have no reason to doubt that they have increased since then, as they had up until then. Feel free to do more research and correct me if I am wrong.

The statistics clearly state that there is enough food to feed the world as it is, even with animal grazing and feeding present. Your fallacious argument that we can feed the world by taking the food out of the mouths of animals is based on the false premise that there is not enough food now, and it also discounts the issue of transportation of said food to the people who need it, not to mention countless other logistics, economic and social problems that would arise in its wake.

There are a few other minor issues I have with the article, but I already feel impolite addressing the ones that I have even though I believe that my contentions are all valid. Besides, I’m sure you have better things to do than to read long-winded essays rebuking your opinions.

In conclusion I would like to ask that you examine your arguments a little more closely in the future and perhaps read some literature which has been authored by people with an opposing viewpoint to your own, as it often offers useful insight into the issues you discuss and leaves you better equipped to handle the more pressing questions you may be faced with. You make some legitimate arguments and you are standing for a very worthy and noble cause but you do so without regard for the complexity and effort required to remedy the problems at hand and that only serves to the detriment of the animal rights movement and the general public’s perception of animal rights activists. It’s all good and fun to want the best for every man, woman, child, animal, etc. I could make many arguments for why I think war is a travesty. But doing so would call for plausible and viable alternatives. Saying we want to be rid of something doesn’t mean we can wish it away without consequence or action on many levels.

I have a few more things I would like to discuss with you regarding your manner of expressing your opinion and the arguments you raise, but I think I have gone entirely too long for one letter already and I don’t want to come off as didactic.

I would like to thank you very much for your time and express once again that I am in general agreement with you as far as ethical treatment of animals goes and I believe that there is definitely work to be done on that front.

I hope to begin a correspondence with you that may lead to a mutual understanding or perhaps even further enlightening of us both in regard to one-another’s viewpoints. Feel free to argue any of my points or to ask me any questions at all regarding my beliefs or clarification on any of the points I have made. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours Faithfully,

Rik Stares

Of course in the grand scheme of things no-one is right or wrong on the issue of animal cruelty here. It’s merely a matter of personal ethics and morals. But on the issue of journalistic integrity and responsibility, I think any reasonable person would have to agree that the article in question was severely lacking. Feel free to disagree with me though, cause I loooooove a good debate.

That concludes this article. It’s good to be back writing, and I’m slapping myself for staying away as long as I did.

Popularity: 80% [?]

I thought I would share with you all, a marvellous new toy, set to take the world by storm. It is called “The Star Wars Force Trainer.”

For those of you unaware (probably none), “The Force” is a “power” or “Ability” used by “Jedis” in the Star Wars universe. Essentially The Force is the power of telekinesis and a few other silly mind tricks. Telekinesis is the ability to manipulate objects and to move them with your mind.

“The Star Wars Force Trainer”, give YOU the ability to do just that. It consists of a tube set on a base containing a fan and inside the tube is a ball. There is a headset included that actually reads brainwaves and when the user puts on the headset and concentrates, the headset picks up alpha and beta brainwaves, and wirelessly triggers the fan in the base of the main unit and it blows upwards, raising the ball.

Here is a demo video:

It was just last night I saw a segment for this toy on A Current Affair, one of my favourite shows, as you no doubt know by now, always reporting the important news and the things we need to know. Anyway, the toy is set to be released in Australia sometime in the coming weeks, I believe.

Included in the ACA segment on TV last night was a little demo the toy’s makers put on in an Australian primary school classroom. One by one each child would get to come to the front of the classroom, put on the headset and give it a go. I couldn’t help but imagine the “slow kid” in the class (every class has one) getting up the front and putting on the headset only to get no movement out of the ball whatsoever. The thought seemed to have a profound effect on me, so after I had wiped away the tears of laughter, I resolved to ponder on this little toy the following day at work (today) and write a bit of a piece about it.

That brings me to now. I suppose I should start with my general opinion of the toy. Well, for a start, the pricetag is set to be between $200 and $250AUD. Let’s not lose sight of what we are dealing with here. It’s a tube with a ball that goes up and down. Yes, it reads brainwaves which is a nice novelty but in my opinion, to spend that much money on such a novelty would mean that you are lacking one of the vital components in making this device work, that being: A brain.

Seriously though, in this day and age the kids would spend 5 minutes playing with it until the novelty wore off then they would probably be too lazy to use it again. Yes, that’s right. Too lazy.

BUT! Don’t discount all of the nerds out there. The Trekkies, Star Wars fans, the geekiest of the geeks the ones who keep their Star Wars figurines still in the packet in the freezer to keep them in mint condition. They’ll want this, and they’ll display it with pride on their computer desks and at LAN parties the world around. That may be fine, but let’s not forget that these people are pretty smart. It will only be a matter of time before some nerd pulls apart one of these machines, figures out how it ticks and then puts it to other uses…

Let me explain. The headset detects brainwaves and communicates wirelessly with the main unit, switching on the fan. All they would need to do is to take the “switch” out of the main unit that tells the fan to power up and integrate it with another piece of hardware, say a computer on/off switch, a tv remote, even a light fixture. God bless their hearts, you know they’ll figure it out.

Let’s not worry about the nerds though. Lets focus on how we could make this work for the common man and the common woman. Today, (if you’ll pardon the pun)  I had a brainwave. Let’s make this toy work for US! Let’s ensure that this toy benefits the children it’s made for in a way never thought possible! Ladies and Gentleman, I give you:

The Child Trainer! A modern disciplinary solution for today’s parents. (Patent Pending)

How does it work?

Essentially, we remove the switch from the main unit of the toy, attach it to a 150,000 Volt taser then attach THAT to a collar. Affix the collar to the lucky child, put on the headset, and there you have it! Hands free corporal punishment for the 21st century! Sure the laws say you can’t lay a hand on your kids, but they sure as hell don’t say anything about giving that little shit a piece of your mind!

For those of you still reading, I should probably mention that I was given corporal punishment as a child. I was never beaten, but I was given a stout whack when I needed it. I regret nothing, and I hold no grudges. I believe it worked for me, but I don’t believe corporal punishment works for every kid. This kind would.

Obviously, the Child Trainer has many advantages over the old wooden stick or leather belt, but it must be said that there are some side-effects which include but are not limited to:

• Loss of sensation in extremities
• Sever dental damage
• Involuntary twitches
• Braindeath (Let’s face it, no-one’s likely to notice)
• Loss of bladder/bowel control (Again, who would notice?)
• Loss of reproductive functions (Godsend in many cases)
• And many more!

Obviously the advantages far outweigh this list. It allows our inner sociopath to really come into its own for one thing. Picture this, your kids are swimming, and your’re watching them, making sure their safe when your boy starts spitting water at his little sister. Shoot him a mean look and watch him light up like a christmas tree. Then you can give him another one for pissing in the pool. The real fun? Water conducts electricity! Oh, the fun you could have.

Here’s another one, you’ve just done the grocery shopping and you’ve loaded it into the car, you get in and realise you’ve left the lights on and the battery is flat. Good thing you’ve got your little bundles of pride and joy with you. Get Sally to touch one terminal, Mikie to touch the other, and you’ve got yourself a pretty reliable jumpstart right there. Believe me, they’ll jump. Also a great way to revive grandad when he stops breathing while watching footy on the couch.

Another one of my great ideas that will probably never become a reality, I suppose. But I’ll be damned if there isn’t a single parent reading this who kind of likes the idea.

That is the ubrupt ending to this chaotically written piece. I had a shit of a day at work today and I can’t be arsed proofreading. I’m going to lie down.

Tell your kids I’m thinking of them. *wink*

Popularity: 100% [?]

While glancing over the monday paper this morning, on my first morning back at work in over 3 weeks my eye was caught by an interesting article title. The title read: “Losing as bad as death”.

I was both curious and bemused as I pulled the paper closer to read what would no doubt (in my mind at least) be nothing more than trite crap about sport.

I was DEAD wrong. It was more. Much more. It seemed to embody the culmination of 3 weeks worth of insulting, sensational, absurd, fluffy BULLSHIT that I’d had the pleasure and luxury of missing during my holidays.

Don’t believe me? Don’t fear, Herald Sun have gone to the trouble of immortalizing this gem in ones and zeroes on their site. I highly suggest this read not only for the entertainment value, but because the rest of this entry will make no sense without it:

A BIG football loss can be like dealing with death for fans, research has found.

The worst were those where victory was expected, such as the Western Bulldogs’ 1997 preliminary final loss to come-from-behind Adelaide.

One fan even likened memories of that game to a war.

“It was ‘impossible for us to play at the G without getting horrible flashbacks . . . similar to Vietnam veterans to low flying choppers’,” he said.

For Collingwood fans it was their Grand Final losses, including 1977, 1979, 1980, 1981, 2002 and 2003, and for Essendon fans their 1999 preliminary final loss to Carlton after leading by seven goals.

The more likely a team was to win, the more crushing the defeat.

Victoria University sports studies lecturer Dr Matthew Klugman interviewed 20 footy fans about losing for the paper, Australian Football, Tragedies and the Question of Catharsis.

He said some losses could be “seriously perturbing, somehow more ‘like a death’ than the loss of ‘a mere football match’.

“They are shocking in a manner that cannot be articulated, and lead to substantial suffering likened to that occasioned by a death.

“For many Bulldog followers, what happened (in 1997) couldn’t be put into words.

“Their shock and bewilderment were expressed instead by silence, tears and other physical manifestations of considerable unease.

“A normally ‘mild-mannered public servant’, who never expressed anger, tried to ‘get out and kill’ a celebrating Crows supporter who was yelling and banging on his car.”

In the paper, Collingwood fan Nadia found the Magpies’ 2003 Grand Final loss to Brisbane to be like a death.

She couldn’t sleep and huddled in bed, freezing, with a hot water bottle.

“A combination of faith and signs that the faith would be realised had established the conditions for a defeat that would later be read as tragic,” Dr Klugman found.

The study found that no matter how bad the loss, some fans could not resist reliving it.

“They often want, in the months and years that follow, to annihilate the memory of the hideous defeat, but many seem unable to stop talking about it,” it said.

Although the trauma was never fully released, Dr Klugman found fans dealt with big losses by looking towards the next big win – not always a good plan.

“It can occasion the presumptive certain belief that sets the conditions once again for another shocking loss,” he found.

On the plus side, Dr Klugman said winning was even sweeter if your team had a bad record.

Link: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25123871-2862,00.html

We are truly living in scary times. When a study like this can get any kind of media coverage and gain any credibility whatsoever, you really have to ask where our tax dollars are going (These are the universities we’re paying for??) and more importantly, if this is really how a lot of people feel, WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED TO THIS COUNTRY?

Deep breath, count to ten. Let’s break it down, shall we?

A BIG football loss can be like dealing with death for fans, research has found.

Fine, I’ll accept this. Not for the same reason most others will (because it suits them and it’s easier not to think about it for themselves) but because I’ve just become a footy fan. Who was the shittiest team last year? Right. They’re now my team. “Why?”,  “Why, oh why have you sold your soul, Rik?” I hear you ask? Simple. Bereavement leave. Every Monday. If my team loses (and goddamn it, they better), I’m going to need to grieve. I expect fresh flowers on my doorstep every week too. Apparently we can expect to see a few flags at half mast too.

The worst were those where victory was expected, such as the Western Bulldogs’ 1997 preliminary final loss to come-from-behind Adelaide. One fan even likened memories of that game to a war. “It was ‘impossible for us to play at the G without getting horrible flashbacks . . . similar to Vietnam veterans to low flying choppers’,” he said.

Do I even need to make a smartarse comment about this? No. Instead I’ve devised a couple of tests. The first being a “Spot the Difference” kind of puzzle and the second, a multiple choice question. First, the “Spot the difference” (I know it’s hard, but try to concentrate. Please try not to take more than 25 minutes to make your decision.): TEST

Now, after that, the multiple choice question: You are running through mud, dodging bullets and shells, barely able to hear the calls of your fellow soldiers over the rain and the shells exploding nearby. You turn to a fellow rifleman, only to see his head explode, showering you with brain matter.

WHERE ARE YOU?

A. Geelong Vs Sydney

B. World War II

All jokes aside, this is evidence that we need to bring back military drafting, but instead of using birthdates, we should be using football club membership numbers. You think a football game’s like a war, huh? Here, off to the middle east with your scrawny dilusional self-important arse.

I can’t think of a more insulting thing a veteran could hear than the above statement from that fucking meatball. Why don’t we ask some war widows what the difference between a football GAME and WAR is?

Victoria University sports studies lecturer Dr Matthew Klugman interviewed 20 footy fans about losing for the paper, Australian Football, Tragedies and the Question of Catharsis.

Well, as always, it’s nice to see it was a nice, thorough, comprehensive study, eh? Twenty people! They really went all out on this one. Keep in mind the bloke who performed the study is a FUCKING LECTURER! A sports studies lecturer, mind you. Yet somehow he’s commenting on something that would by far be a far more psychological study than a sports one. Let it never be said again that not going to university is a bad thing. If this is what I was learning, I’d demand my money back.

“They are shocking in a manner that cannot be articulated, and lead to substantial suffering likened to that occasioned by a death.

I think this man should stick to what he knows. That being gasbagging on and on about curling, tabletennis, and other mundane activities. That, and parading around the male changerooms which I’ve noticed a lot of sports teachers always liked to do.

“Shocking in a manner that cannot be articulated”? I suppose you were wondering why little Timmy doesn’t talk anymore… No, it wasn’t that incident where his father stabbed the rest of his family to death with a box spring out af a filthy overpriced mattress they got from the Salvos, it was Geelong’s shocking loss last year in the grand final. Poor timmy will never be the same again.

What about little Sally? Why does she look like a stick figure and blow away out the window every time you turn the fan on? She doesn’t eat anymore. Was it because of the excessive advertising containing impossibly thin, toned, beautiful models? No, her team didn’t make the semis and now she has no apetite.

If you are experiencing substantial suffering due to your team losing in a football GAME you need to find another hobby, and be quick about it. May I suggest drinking lead-based paint.

“A normally ‘mild-mannered public servant’, who never expressed anger, tried to ‘get out and kill’ a celebrating Crows supporter who was yelling and banging on his car.”

No. This won’t do. NEVER expressed anger? NEVER?!? Well, I should think all of that would boil to the surface at some point in time, in which case I don’t blame him. The more realistic way of looking at it would be to tell the silly prick to calm down and send him to the doctor for prescription drugs. Or even better – arsenic.

Football games don’t cause this behaviour on their own. Something is broken with these people to begin with. Same with drugs, same with gambling. Any addiction, as a matter of fact. That’s precisely what this is.

In the paper, Collingwood fan Nadia found the Magpies’ 2003 Grand Final loss to Brisbane to be like a death. She couldn’t sleep and huddled in bed, freezing, with a hot water bottle.

This is just funny. Even hilarious. Only it’s funnier if you picture every fan of a specific team sleeping like this on every night their team loses. Only they’re pissing in their bed uncontrollably too. This woman has some serious issues, yes. But is it football? I highly doubt it. As above, arsenic is the only solution. Either that or a punctured hot water bottle and an electric blanket.

When it all comes down to it, if these feelings and “symptoms” people are experiencing due to their team’s losing a game are genuine, then it’s unarguable they have a fairly serious problem. The priorities of these people and many others are severely retarded.

The true solution is to re-order those priorities and back off the football, even if just a bit. After all, haven’t we been telling our kids “It doesn’t matter if you win or lose, it’s how you play the game”? If a kid hears that, then looks over at his old man huddled on the couch biting his nails, pissing his pants and yelling at the tv, they’re bound to be a little confused.

I think we all know, however, that this “study” was nothing more than a little segue into this year’s football season to make those super serious football fans feel more justified and comfortable with being neurotic turds.

I guess the point of this whole entry is: My biggest gripe with newspapers is that they’re a bit rough on the arse. But what the hell else are you gonna use ‘em for?

So there you have it. From now on, when you wake up every morning and grab the ‘Sun from the front lawn, you can place it gently on top of the Geelong Advertiser. In the bottom of your birdcage.

Popularity: 61% [?]

We have seen a fair few advances in global communications technology in the past decade. It’s safe to say that most everyone in the civilized world has an active internet connection or has at lease used one. Most adults end even a large portion of children have their own mobile phone (or more than one).

I suppose it should come as not surprise then, that the same system we appreciate to keep in touch with loved ones, has come to be abused and exploited in the name of money and “cheap” (nothing could be further from the truth, read on) thrills.

Now we can text to see our horoscopes, we can text to see if our partner is cheating, to see how compatible we are with a person based on our names and we can now even text to LOCATE our partner and see what they are doing according to the ads. Apparently.

Now you wouldn’t think many people would be into this shit for the amount of money they charge, however they continue afvertising on television so presumably they are making a pretty sweet dollar. This brings me to my point. We all know these survices are pure bullshit, so it is my goal to provide a cheaper, and more accurate alternative:

Why pay $5 a text and subscribe to a service when you could just text my number and you’ll get an even more accurate response from me for a lesser price? Text me “What is my partner doing?” and you’ll get a response. Try it. You’ll see.

Granted, it will be one of only a few possible responses every time, but it will also always be accurate. For example:

- Your partner is seeking more meaningful relationships after the revelation that you posess little more intelligence, ambition and commonsense than a wet dishcloth.

- Your partner who barely had enough self confidence to get by in the first place (which is why they settled for you) has just thrown themselves in front of a moving train after realising that you don’t trust them enough to let them live their own life without prying. Congratulations, have a glass of champaigne.

- Your partner is currently selling their arse on the street to pay for your phone bill. Go and read a book you stupid sack of shit.

- Now would be a good time to call the vet. On a related note, your partner needs to enroll in rehab for sex addiction.

How about my new text service to tell you how better to spend your time? I already have a few responses, I think you’ll like them. Text “Time” to my number for more.

- Cut off your privates and sell them on ebay. Compare your selling prices with friends and make a high score chart. You could even make graph to compare dollars per inch. This is sure to have lasting appeal. Or maybe not.

- See how many women you can impregnate in a 12 month period. Alternatively if you are a female, see how many abortions you can have in the same amount of time. This is sure to piss off the conservatives. It’s win-win.

- Enroll in a primary education program and apologise to your parents for being such a disappointment.

- Please forward your bank account number and pin to recieve your advice. Thankyou.

I suppose my dream will never come true. Why is it that I can give perfectly sound advice and I earn nothing, and these ripoff mongers get piles of money and offer randomized and mathematical responses?

I know why. People are by and large fickle, frivolous and willfully ignorant animals and are becoming moreso every day. Maybe I look to far into it, but even the stupid people are smart enough to at least smell bullshit in our society that gets thicker and thicker everyday but they ignore it out of convenience. The smarter ones will see it. The so called “ambitious” ones will cover themselves in it. Yes, we are only talking about crappy text services, but you’ll find that the point I’m making applies to just about everything.

The truth is that many would rather not aknowledge the truth because the truth hurts. It always did and always will. It’s far more convenient for most to live in the shadow of ignorance than to walk in to the harsh light of reality.

But is it?

Time will tell, I suppose.

TEXT NOW!

Popularity: 24% [?]

After my first attempt at creative writing for this page, I got a good amount of praise, which I’m grateful for. For anyone who enjoyed my last effort, you should hopefully like this. I came up with the basic idea a few weeks ago, and fleshed it out today during work. It’s a little bit “fruity” or “lame” for lack of a better word, not to mention on the long side but despite not being as refined as I’d like, I think it’s satisfying.

This piece is written in the first person by an old man. He tells a short story. Or perhaps it’s a tall tale. You decide.

The Gift

In days gone by, I might not have opened my mouth. Maybe it’s cause I’m old now. Just an old man who can’t keep his mouth shut.

The kids in town laugh and scoff whenever I tell them my story. Some even call me names and throw rocks and food at me, calling me a bum and a beggar. I suppose it doesn’t matter what they think. I know my story is true. I was there. But it still hurts.

Now I ramble on again. It’s harder to keep my thoughts together now than back then, but I’ll tell you my story, if you promise me one thing. Promise me you’ll try to believe me. Promise you’ll at least try.

I may say it’s my story, but truth be told I’m just a fellow who happened to play a part. This isn’t my story. It’s the story of a stranger.

I have lived alone in my seaside home for over forty years now. It stands on it’s own, atop a cliff overlooking the ocean and the rocks, far below the edge of the outcrop. It’s just me, they sky and the ocean. I have no running water or electricity. I find my way at night with candles and cook on a wood stove. There’s no other way I would have it. It’s a ways off to the nearest town, 3 hours walk, I’d say. I rarely venture far though, only for occasional supplies. You can probably tell by now the townsfolk see me as a bit of a crackpot. A hermit. I suppose it goes with the territory. People will think what they like.

Anyway, it wasn’t long after I’d moved into my home say, 40 years or 50 years ago that I noticed a lone tombstone, standing about 10 feet from the edge of the cliff. It would have been about 5 feet tall. I thought that a grave all the way up there was odd to say the least. It was just visible from my home, which wouldn’t have been more that 100 metres away. It overlooked the crashing ocean below.

The tombstone was almost completely overgrown with moss, and the other hardy weeds that were so common in the area. It became a project of mine over the few days after I discovered it to cut away the weeds and clean it down of the moss. After liberating the tombstone from the overgrowth, I noticed about half a dozen little candles, partly burned down and some barely recognizable half decomposed flowers. I was disappointed to see that any writing that was engraved in it’s face was long lost to time but one thing remained. A lone angel, it had been carved as part of the stone. It was perched on top looking to the sky, engraved tears running down it’s face.

The stone, although overgrown clearly meant something to someone, as there were gifts that had been left. I saw no harm in tidying it up and keeping it tidy. I was sure it would be appreciated.

Over the next few months after I found the odd tombstone, I kept an eye out for a visitor to the grave. No-one ever came. Not until one strange evening.

It was during summer. I was writing in my journal as I did daily, and glancing casually out of my window, hoping to catch the sunset which was not far off. It had been a beautiful day. The smell of the ocean in the air and the sun beating down on my vegetable garden. That was about to change.

Out of nowhere, clouds seemed to roll in. Not too threatening at first, but in a matter of minutes they had darkened and the sky was a thick grey. That’s when the rain started. I was stunned enough as it was, but I had never seen rain pelting down like it was this night, in my area. I could hear the waves crashing louder than I ever had. In a matter of minutes the weather had gone from perfect to downright scary. It wasn’t long after the rain started that the thunder began to drown out the crashing surf at the base of the cliff. As I looked out my window, I was shocked again to see a man, running. I was about to get up to let the poor fellow in for some shelter when I realized where he was running. There was only one place he could be going, running in that direction. The grave.

I peered closer, barely able to see. My nose was pressed against the windowpane. I remember now, I didn’t know why I was so engrossed. I saw the man arrive at the grave, and could barely see him kneel down and place something in front of the grave. I then saw a light. He was lighting a candle. I stared, motionless for over 20 minutes, as the rain continued to pour down without mercy. It didn’t seem to bother the man. Without warning, the man then stood up, looked up at the sky, then ran back down from where he came. I could see the candle flickering for a few more seconds after he left, then the rain extinguished it’s flame.

If what I had just seen wasn’t odd enough for me at that point in time, the events that transpired after, were. The clouds cleared, the rain stopped and the thunder ceased. As quickly as it had all came, it left, being replaced by a beautiful red sunset. I had never seen anything like it. the visitor to the grave made it all the more peculiar. Being the curious fellow I was at the time, I went outdoors as soon as I was sure the rain had stopped and made my way to the grave.

Nestled beneath the headstone, was the candle the man had lit, and a single white rose.

The details are a little fuzzy now, but I remember feeling emotional at the sight. Someone special was buried here. At least, they were special to someone. I got out my matchbook, and re-lit the candle. I returned to my cottage and made my way back to the grave with a small cup full of water and put the rose in it. I don’t know why I felt like I wanted to help. Maybe it is human nature, maybe I was just lonely.

Things were normal for many months. I didn’t see the fellow return to the grave. I kept it tidy though and went about my business wondering if I would ever see the man again. Until a warm summer evening.

I was writing in my journal, looking through my window. Hoping to catch the sunset. Out of nowhere, clouds began to roll in. It was happening again. Something struck me, as I could hear the rain begin to pelt the tin roof above me. I quickly flipped through my journal and affirmed my suspicion. It was a year to the day since the man had visited the grave. It was all happening again.

Just like the year before, the man ran to the grave he lit a candle and left a rose. And just like the year before, I re-lit his candle, put the rose in water and looked after the headstone.

This went on for many, many years. Always the same. Same day. Always sun, then always raining, always turning to sunset. The fellow kept coming, and I kept lighting the candle, watering the rose he left, and looking after the grave. The only thing that changed was that the man was taking longer and longer to make the trek through the rain. He was no longer the fit young man he was.

It must be a couple of years ago now. I was looking though my window on the day. Waiting for the clouds to roll in. They didn’t. There was no wind, no thunder, no rain. Eventually the sun set, and the moon rose. For so many years I was used to seeing the same thing. I sat in the dark, moonlight pouring through my window. I checked the date in my journal, it was right. But there was no stranger, and no storm.

I stepped outside, looking at the moon. What had happened? A soft wind blew as I walked, slowly to the grave, stopping in front of it, looking out to sea. Something was different. I looked up at the top of the headstone, where the angel ordinarily sat, weeping. I was shocked to see that was no longer the case. The angel was no longer alone. Now, perched atop the stone, there were two angels embracing, smiling. Both were carved out of the stone.

I didn’t even try to understand how it had happened, but I knew why. Filled with an odd sadness mixed with joy I smiled, and took off my hat. I stood there, looking at the angels and said a little prayer. I then turned around and made my way back to my house.

I nearly fell over when I got back. Sitting on my doorstep were two white roses. I opened the door. Every candle in the house was lit. All I could do was smile.

I never found out the name of the stranger. I never found out who was buried in that grave. I still look after it. I can’t help smiling whenever I see the two angels there, on top of the stone.

So, that’s where the story of the stranger ends. I’ll keep telling it to the kids in town. It makes me feel good to recount my past, even if they think I’m just old and senile. I’ll leave you to think about my tale. You can make up your own mind now. What do I think? I think that just as life is a gift from above, the roses, they were a gift from beyond.

Popularity: 22% [?]

It is with great sadness and a heavy heart that I inform you all that the search for intelligent life has failed.

This is one instance where I truly believe the word “failed” falls spectacularly short, however I can’t seem to draw a more appropriate word at this time, so you’ll have to humor me.

Understand that the following update is at least 3 weeks old now and the only reason I haven’t posted it yet is because I’ve been busy with a lot of other things, namely reading 18 encyclopedia volumes just to recover the lost IQ points from my last liason with the lovely Anastacia.

Without further gusto, here is the brief conclusion to this wonderful saga. It also serves as a reminder that perhaps having kids with the lady you met at a family reunion isn’t nessisarily a good idea after all.

when you get this please seak to me
i miss you

Hi… I am not Mr Scumbag, I am his cousin.

I am really sorry to tell you this, but Scumbag has passed away.

He was found dead last Sunday, behind a dumpster with a needle in his arm. This is no surprise. My family and I can only feel relief from his passing as he really was a disappointing piece of shit.

Everything he tried, he failed at. He stunk, he talked constant crap and he even ate his only girlfriend’s dog. A more pathetic excuse for a human being you would be hard pressed to find.

There will be no funeral, if it were up to us we would have left him behind the dumpster to be consumed by his own filth. Unfortunately we have to pay to get the fucker roasted, far too good for him I think. Not to mention expensive. He was so inconsiderate.

I’ll kindly thank you to forget about Scumbag, whose name couldn’t be more fitting. My only regret from his dying is that I will no longer be able to spit on the pathetic oaf every time I pass him on the street. He and his stupid lice are out of my life forever, and things are already looking up.

I am sorry for your loss, if you could call it that. But you are better off without him. He was a filthy, filthy man.

I’m sure he is still performing somewhere up in heaven, dropping knives on himself, twitching around like a hyperactive lunatic and Infecting angels with various venereal diseases. It would be just like him.

God, he was such a dick.

i dont care he was alright he was the best dont talk to me

Then, a few days later:

i thought he was really good friend
so why didnt you help him
stuck by him like a cousin would do

Several days after her last message, this little gem appeared on my public profile for all to view, (Read: Scratch their heads over):

i will always love him

I decided it would be in everyone’s best interest to leave it at that and not to draw it out any longer. I think we can all agree that she has her fair share of problems and issues, especially having to deal with the loss of someone so dear to her. It would be downright irresponsible of me to take advantage of her at this time. I would never do a thing like that.

Now is the time to move on, and look back fondly on the memories of dear Anastacia and the many splendid times we shared. Don’t ask me how this turned into a eulogy. No-one here is dead.

Shhhhh.

RIP Scumbag. I will always love him.

Popularity: 20% [?]

I just came up with this on my way home from doing the groceries. There was no inspiration, it just more or less popped into my head. Hopefully it doesn’t turn out to be too excruciating to read, as I know it’s rough around the edges. I don’t have a title for it yet.

A man slams the door of his Mercedes and hastily activates the alarm. He looks, squinting down the busy inner-city street. It’s a Friday night and rain is falling steadily.

Traffic moves at a crawling pace, cars lights reflecting off the saturated road. Honking horns break through the sound of the storm, the cars occupants frustrated.

The man hurries along the pavement, pushing past people who are just as intent as he is on escaping the downpour. He is dressed for a night out, his usual Friday night of excessive drinking and promiscuous sex. It was always a sure bet, he had the money, the looks, the charm.

He comes to an intersection. His destination, a members only nightclub, is just beyond. Upon his start across the street, he is stopped. The rain continues to pour, unrelentingly as he is frozen staring across the road.

He sees a little girl maybe six, dirty and dressed in torn clothes and huddled impossibly close to a building in a futile attempt to escape the rain. His attention is drawn to an older woman to the girl’s right. She too is dressed in ruined clothes, her hair a knotted mess. She has her arm around the girl, and is stroking her head in a reassuring manner.

The man can only assume he is seeing a homeless mother and daughter. He wonders why it has taken his attention.

A man approaches the woman and child, they smile upon seeing him, he returns the gesture before kneeling down, and presenting the two females with one small bread roll each. He then makes his place next to the girl and puts his left arm around her and patting the woman’s shoulder gently as he looks into her eyes. He watches as they both eat, himself going without.

No-one cares to give them a second glance.

He does though. Still transfixed and standing in the rain he wonders where this family will be this time tomorrow, next week, next year. Which street or alleyway they will be foraging in for food when he will be eating at fine restaurants. Which dumpster they will be seeking shelter in when he will be sleeping in a clean king sized bed. How many people will turn them down when all they want is a dollar for food yet he will still be earning more money than he’ll ever need. They have nothing.

The man watches the family sitting there, huddled together shivering while the rest of the world moves, seemingly in fast forward around them. The man, appearing to be unfazed by the family’s situation is playing with his daughter. She is laughing, the mother smiles.

The man’s gaze on the family is broken when he blinks hard and a tear rolls down his left cheek, mixing with the rain. It is unnoticeable but he turns away, bitterly. It isn’t pity he feels. It’s envy.

Popularity: 19% [?]