Yeah, I’ve been really unmotivated lately as far as writing goes.

I might as well write SOMETHING, so here is a bunch of random stuff that will likely be of no interest to anyone:

Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott, and the pending election:

In three years we have now seen a Black US president and a female Australian Prime Minister. That is fantastic. Things like this – while usually over-hyped, really do stand out as great examples that we are moving forward as people and as a society. I can only hope that there are similar progressions as far as gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are concerned. To any rational person these things should not and do not matter but there is still progress to be made. It is important that the mere fact that these milestones have been reached is not forgotten, and is used as a constant reminder that we as humans really can get past those old, social dogmas. In this way, I am really optimistic. The next generation to take leadership of the world may have been raised by shows like Big Brother, Survivor and Master Chef, but it looks like there’s a good chance that they’ll be liberal enough to reject some of the draconian social pressures that we’ve experienced in the past.

That said, I am not at all impressed with one particular view of Ms Gillard. I was thrilled to learn of her secular affirmation as an alternative to a traditional “swearing in” where one swears on the Bible to serve their country. I have no quarrels with religion where it stands on it’s own, but I think it’s also a big step forward that a leader can be open about their lack of theology without wanton protest. I suspect that the reception to a similar occurrence in the United States would be dramatically different in this day and age. Julia’s opposition to same sex marriage, however, was not at all welcome in my eyes. I am a big believer in not standing in the way of someone’s happiness or ambition because of your own arbitrary sense of what is “acceptable” or “right” differs from theirs. It appears that while Gillard is not theist, she seems to hold at least one of the same views (although for likely different reasons) as the right wing in the fact that apparently gays should not be allowed to marry under law. It’s disappointing.

Then there’s the problem that there are many voters that are apparently not prepared to vote for Julia Gillard in the upcoming election because of the circumstances of her rise to position of Prime Minister. They cite the “fact” that if the former Prime Minister couldn’t trust her not to “overthrow” him, then “how can we trust her”. (She’s welcome to overthrow me, at any time. It’s hardly a promotion in this case, but I’m sure she’ll have a great time cutting up animals) This, to me, makes no sense. I don’t claim to know if she deceived Kevin Rudd or reneged on a promise but those facts alone have no bearing on a person’s ability to govern a country, much like race and gender have no bearing. It seems we have come pretty far in race and gender equality, but people are still hung up on other trivial and insignificant details. Do you see where I’m going with this? I can’t help but think that some people are using the circumstances of Ms Gillard’s ascendancy as an excuse to disapprove of her as a viable choice in the election due to the fact that she is a female and she challenges their sensibilities. In short, they are using a politically correct excuse to mask a socially frowned-upon worldview. I have no evidence for this, but I think it is definitely occurring to some degree in the population. I suppose if it is, then the mere fact that people need to mask their disapproval of a female leader means we are moving forward, just at a slower rate than I would like.

As for Tony Abbott. Well, I’m sure it’s no secret to people who read this blog that I am very much in favour of a secular government and of a rational and logical worldview. Abbott seems to stand squarely in the way of that kind of progress. I don’t have too much to say about Abbott but what I will say is that he genuinely makes me uneasy whenever I see him or hear him speak. I don’t claim to have a “sixth sense” or any other implausible power of observation, but Abbott elicits a really uncomfortable feeling on my part, almost on a primal level. I don’t mean to “poison the well”, as it were, but I feel that Abbott is on a mission to become Prime Minister more for himself and his own views than his party or country. Maybe that is my own bias clouding my judgment, I don’t know. I do know, however, (on a rational level) that Abbott is a very dangerous choice come election time. Along with his right-wing views and policies, we would be gambling with work choices again, and there is a good chance our country would be stepping closer to the theocracy that so many theists (I don’t want that to sound too venomous) are vying for. That may sound alarmist, but I need only point you in the direction of the United States during the office of George W Bush to illustrate my point. Not only did they have a religiously motivated leader in power but during his power, and still now, have become a more conservative country at the expense of science and general progress and equality. That is a vague statement, I am aware. But I would be happy to discuss it further if any dissent emerges.

A long story short, Julia Gillard Vs Tony Abbott. In the scene these days that is Australian politics it is easy to be dazzled and confused by the near-tabloid level of attention and hype these newly doted celebrities are getting, but we need to remember that they are just people. Maybe a little more “successful” on a social level, but they are driven by the same needs and ambitions as the rest of us. That is to say, that they are human. We tend to immortalise  those who are in the spotlight and those we can’t touch, and even though we know that politicians lie and manipulate for a living, we all need to take into account the fact that we aren’t voting for a saviour, or an answer. We’re voting for the  person who is going to do the least damage to our preferred way of life. To use a biblical term (this is for you, Abbott) “The lesser of two evils”.

On the subject of (televised) sport:

It’s still a load of shit.

Celebrities:

Holy shit. While society may be going forward in terms of equality of race and gender, apparently the same thing is happening in the way of news and celebrities being treated equally. If you’re finding it hard to understand that last sentence and are wondering why I separated news and celebrities, then you need to locate a rope and elevated beam as soon as you can, in the best interest of the human race.

I’ve been noticing, anecdotally, that celebrity news has been infiltrating the “normal” news broadcasts more and more over the past year or two. I can completely understand why. Celebrity news targets younger audiences with disposable incomes, who in-turn watch the adverts in between the tabloid bulletins and thus earn the networks more money. Knowing how it works is the opposite of solace for me. Understanding why they do what they do makes me feel like I’m in on the whole thing. It’s really a disgusting feeling.

On ONE day this week, the news was dominated by three celebrity stories in a row. There was Mel Gibson being a prick *oh god*, Angelina saying something about Brad *gasp*, and Kyle Sandilands and his wife split up *whaaaa*.

This is where I REALLY get pissed off. The reason this kind of thing really annoys me is because apparently, NO-ONE ELSE IS ANNOYED! We are being force-fed shit every day and it seems that no-one cares that their intelligence is insulted constantly. Maybe because most of us are buying into it, slowly and gradually. That thought alone is terrifying, but is completely representative of the insidious nature of advertising and marketing. It’s not a conspiracy theory, as much as it might sound like one. It’s an “open secret” that just happens to work so well, that no-one cares. It’s a shame we are so easily sucked in.

For the record. I love Mel Gibson. I should qualify that though. I am a staunch opponent of racism, and as such I condemn his anti-Semitic rant a few years ago. I also condemn his alleged assault of his former (wife/girlfriend?). So why do I love Mel Gibson then? Cause he is a fantastic actor and an even better director, in my opinion. Anything else is NONE OF MY FUCKING BUSINESS AND NONE OF YOURS. I feel I need to capitalise that. Mel Gibson is known to us and came to fame by acting and directing. Why we should want, or apparently (given the zealous reporting of mainstream media, complete with audio clips) NEED to know about any other aspect of his life is sadly not a mystery, given my statements above. There is money to be made, and social intelligence to be insulted. Perhaps the most amusing thing to come out of the whole Mel Gibson thing is the fact that while the Australian media is continuously condemning him, they conveniently leave out the fact that he is “Australian”, which they are more than  happy to assert ad-nauseum whenever he or any other “Australian” is achieving something positive. By the way, like most of “our” celebrities, Mel Gibson was not born in Australia. Just like Russell Crowe, Sam Neil, Rolf Harris, and even JULIA GILLARD. Remember – Aussie pollies are celebrities now! To put it simply, Australians are far too proud of the fact that they fall out of a uterus that happened to be in Australia at the right time. Be proud of your country, fine. But not just because it makes you feel good or because you like to be part of a fanatical group who shares the same arbitrary pride as you do. It’s still all marketing and herd mentality.

I am a grouch:

I really am way ahead of my time! I shouldn’t turn into this much of a grumpy prick until I’m 147.859 years old, by statistical measures, yet here I am! I’m a very negative person when it comes to expressing my views, but I like to think it’s for the right reasons. I think I’m negative all the time because I see a better alternative. It’s not criticism for it’s own sake, but because I think that there is a more dignified, rational, or fair solution or alternative to whatever is the subject of my diatribe. Whether or not the alternative is better in everyone’s interests can certainly be debated and maybe I’m way off the mark of what is best or possible, but I’m pissed off for a reason. It took me a while to realise that, and I was actually resigned to the fact that I was a generally miserable human being for a while. It’s not true (I really, really hope not). What I’ve learned is that that we shouldn’t second guess ourselves. If you’re pissed off at something, then you should voice your opinion. It may be wrong and completely misguided, but that’s the beauty of having other people around. They can tell you that you’re misguided. The thing is, that it’s up to you to be able to make the admissions that you were wrong and to adapt your view accordingly. Something politics could certainly benefit from, rather than automatically attacking every view of the opposing party. That brings us back to the top of this post and politics.

Goodnight, and thanks for reading.

There was a time, many, many years ago I remember harping my mother to give me money for one of the many “bookorder” brochures we got in primary school. The particular bookorder I am talking about is one about UFOs and the paranormal. Now, due to untold amounts of alcoholic damage on my arguably functional brain I can’t remember all of the specifics but I seem to recall it was basically a mixture of various conspiracy, alien, and paranormal folly. It included a little spinning wheel that could decode secret messages, it had a little booklet that explained in largely vague details government cover-ups and it even gave instructions on how to pick out a legitimate alien spacecraft from the stars in the sky.

Looking back now I can definitely see the appeal. Who wouldn’t want to believe in that? Who wouldn’t want to look for the newest blip in the sky in the hope that they would be the next kid sitting on the chair under bright lights on “Unsolved Mysteries”?

It’s funny how easily we are pulled into the appeal of fantasy. As much as I loved that “Paranormal Pack” my mum bought me, I know now that it was nothing more than an opportunistic appeal to a child’s curiosity and imagination. The funny thing is that I have absolutely no regrets, and I owe my mother, no matter how oblivious she, and I were at the time she purchased my inadvertent ticket to a better, albeit gradual understanding of the real world and science. Mum wasn’t exactly a scientist, but she always gave me a level headed point of view, despite the material I had available to me at the time.

After playing with my wheel and booklets I realized for myself that there wasn’t much to the whole thing. After retiring the paranormal set and observing my surroundings as an older boy I couldn’t see anything to verify it. The older I got, the sillier it all seemed. Before long I started actively researching these things and coming up with nothing substantial at all.

Now, I know that the possibility of extra terrestrial life is statistically overwhelming (we can scientifically say that it is extremely probably that intelligent life exists somewhere in the universe at some frequency of occurrence), yet it is extremely unlikely that they would be able to make it to our corner of the universe and even less likely that they would come all the way here, and steal a cow’s arsehole and make a pretty pattern in some hillbilly’s corn field then piss off.

This brings me to my main point:

In recent months, I have become more and more interested in pseudoscience, the paranormal and quackery. Whether it be UFOs, Homeopathy, Ghosts, Tarot, Magic rocks… Anything that people seem to put a lot of effort and belief into with little to no evidence to support the claims made by the proponents of these various scams, hoaxes, ideologies, or flights of fancy. That isn’t to say that there is nothing at all to these phenomena and that they do not exist, (It’s impossible to prove that something does not exist, no matter how hard you try) it’s just that the likelihood that any of them having any veracity at all is almost none at all, and that’s not for lack of research.

As much as I am intrigued by the various facets and variations of these topics, I am equally fascinated and perplexed by the reasons many of us choose to believe in them, and to a greater extent, why we defend these beliefs so staunchly and uncritically. Despite so much evidence to the contrary, people will have you believe that the disembodied spirits of the dead can and do inhabit places such as houses (According to Wikipedia, a whopping 40 percent of Americans polled believe in haunted houses!), which they inhabited during life. This belief doesn’t sound too preposterous until you consider all of the evidence. By evidence, I mean blurry double exposure photos, camera flash bouncing off dust particles and camera straps creating “orb” and sounds in the night. (I kid you not, as I was typing that the globe in my bedroom blew. Perhaps I have enraged some resident ghost who has refused to let themselves be known until then, anyone know a good cleansing ritual?) After ALL the time people have spent trying to prove the existence of ghosts and all the cameras on mobile phones nowadays, these are the best “evidence” yet. It doesn’t look good. Of course, all these “phenomena” are easily explainable and even if you have no certain explanation never forget the fantastic critical thinker’s tool known as Occam’s Razor. The premise is simple, take the available explanations and get rid of the least likely explanations (based on what you already know) and you have what is more than likely the right answer, or closer to it than “WHAT THE FUCK GHOST”.

Something all of the pseudosciences and woo woo have in common is the fact that they start off with the desired conclusion let’s say “Ghosts exist” and work their way backwards to prove said conclusion.

“Did you hear that”? “That was a bump”! “I didn’t see what did that so it must have been a ghost, I now have proof that ghosts exist”.

Anything that cannot be explained is an explanation that proves the desired conclusion. That sounds stupid, hey? To any reasonable, logical person it would but this is literally the mindset of hundreds of thousands of people!

Traditional Science starts off with with a hypothesis ie. “If ghosts exist, then we could expect to see this, and this, and this” then collects data in a controlled and quantitative manner from a multitude of sources to create a sample (The larger the sample the better and more accurate the result, typically) then statisticians pore over the data and scientist draw a scientific conclusions ie “IT IS EXTREMELY UNLIKELY THAT GHOSTS EXIST SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT”.

So why do people believe? Well, naturally I’m never short of an opinion, and in this case these are a few of my own hypotheses on why people believe in bullshit:

- It’s fun and exciting and much easier to understand than actual science because it’s marketed that way deliberately to hit a larger demographic. Money money money!

- Some people know damn well when they start “believing” that it’s all crap but self deception is surprisingly common and easy to accomplish. They dig themselves into a hole. Conversely, there are people who might fall into pseudoscience and defend it initially before realising it is all bunk. Due to pride they will continue to defend it despite knowing better.

- It simplifies the world around them makes certain complicated subjects they never had a hope in understanding seem as clear as day. (Similar to the first point but decidedly different)

- It gives them hope. Whether it be a cure for an illness in the case of quackery, “knowing” something all of the sceptics don’t in the case or a conspiracy theory or (dare I say it) knowing that 80 years on Earth isn’t all we get because you’re going to live with God in Heaven for eternity.

- It give people a sense of belonging. The most extreme example would be cults (ie. Scientology, Branch Davidians, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Manson) but to a lesser extent it could be the anti vaccination movement, Intelligent design (Which is really a thinly veiled attempt to get religion admitted into science by literally changing the definition of science, it’s a travesty) or any number or organisations that encourage membership with false promises or nefarious ends.

- Here is the biggest reason and a sad indictment on educational systems world wide: (Not all their fault but mostly) They simply don’t know any better.  They have been taught dry facts and figures that they can cough up on cue but were never taught any significant critical thinking skills at all.

The list could go on. There is surely hundreds of reasons but that was a pretty sizable introduction for what I hope to  be an entertaining entry to this site. You have heard of Astrology, well, I have taken it on myself to revamp and update Astrology (or thereabouts, let’s face it, not even astrologers can agree with what’s right and wrong in their own profession) for the modern citizen. My take combines the variation of Chinese astrology with the traditional Western variety to make quite a concoction of delicious diarrhea that is sure enough to make any ill informed mark’s head spin. I have dubbed this “Spastrology” specifically to confound the believers and amuse the sceptics. Without further ado, I would like you to introduce you to “Spastrology and you. A spiritual journey into the mystical realm of pure shit”.

Introduction

Welcome to Spastrology! My name is Rik Stares I am the famed trusted super magnificent and completely remarkable  unabashed and modest GOD that will accompany you on your mystical journey of self discovery and enlightenment on the planes of all that is unknown and all that will be known.

Don’t listen to the sceptics, they doubt everything and know nothing. Science can’t prove what I do, and while I’m at it I’m going to go ahead and deny the Holocaust, encourage you to buy the latest edition of Dianetics, donate to PETA and vote Liberal at the next election.

In the following pages you will learn what separates you, the purchaser and all of the filthy vermin who were too intelligent to buy into my line of narcissistic bullshit. And that is that they have a much better credit rating than you do, most likely.

Now take my hand and fly with me, through the mysti put it on your penis and move it up and down, see, now I can feel like a real Astrologer Spastrologer since all I am doing is jerking you off.

Spastrological Years

The Year of the Gullible Fuckwit

Occurs when: The constellations of “Bread and Butter” and “The Unabashed Charlatan” meet on the Spastrological plain of “Piss Poor Investment”.

You are switched on, bright, and rarely miss a trick. You are known for making smart, intelligent decisions and you rarely end up in unenviable situations as a result of your insufferable incompetence such as, say somehow knocking out three teeth, setting off the smoke alarm and breaking your collarbone while opening a can of soup. You have a remarkably high IQ and you are usually the “go to” person when people need information of any kind. Unfortunately, you are also minimally capable of detecting sarcasm and irony.

Notable celebrities born in The Year of the Gullible Fuckwit: See late night shopping ads.

The Year of the Insipid Douchebag

Occurs when: The constellations of “Pretentious Knob” and “Inflated Ego” meet on the Spastrological plain of “No-one gives a fuck”.

You are incredibly annoying. Not only that, but some people seem to think that you actually possess charisma. As if that wasn’t enough of a travesty, you abuse it all by perpetuating your own lines of bullshit and condoning anyone else’s. You know who you are and I hope you get cancer.

Notable celebrities born in The Year of the Insipid Douchebag: Oprah Winfrey, Neil Adams, David Icke, Bart Sibrel, Jenny McCarthy, John Edwards, James Van Praugh, Sylvia Browne, The list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on…

The Year of the Stumbling Peasant

Occurs when: The constellations of “Blithe Apathy” and “Inherent Ineptitude” meet on the Spastrological plain of “The Freeloading Cockhead”.

Those people who are born in the year of the Stumbling Peasant are completely oblivious of this text, which is why we can discuss them openly. We know this because they are typically too lazy to learn to read, piss straight or pay child support to their 16 year old ex girlfriend, and if by chance they can read they are most likely using their ability looking for “XXX horse porn sally sucks off a horse in the kitchen” on Limewire. It’s okay though because one day they will go blind, which will make their weekly trek to Centrelink somewhat hazardous if not impossible. People born in the year of the Stumbling Peasant can usually be identified a perpetually confused look on their face and a thumb up their arse.

Notable celebrities born in The Year of the Stumbling Peasant: Haha! That’s rich!

The Year of Trite Mediocrity

Occurs when: The “Black Hole of Creativity” meets the the constellation of “Appalling Pus” on the Spastrological plain of “Borderline Spastic”.

You are pretty fuckin’ average, I gotta tell ya. So average, in fact, that if an asteroid were to come plummeting toward the Earth and the Government had to build shelters for a limited amount of citizens, not only would you be denied entry, they would probably grind you up beforehand for mortar and simply because they would be strengthening the foundation of the bunker AND the gene pool for future generations. Not to mention it would be great fun because you are more than likely a hopeless twit. As much as looking at you is the cure for the will to live, it’s not for your lack of trying, you DO try ever so hard. Stop it. It’s pathetic and we really need you to piss off and make room for someone with more promise, like, say, a Stumbling Peasant.

Notable celebrities born in The Year of  Talentless Mediocrity: Take your pick: Australia Top 40 Chart

The Year of the  Underachieving Oaf

Occurs when: The constellations of “Flight of Stairs” and “Diminished Cognitive Ability” meet on the Spastrological plain of “Mostly Confused Facial Expressions”.

You would be somewhat accomplished if it weren’t for the fact that the most intelligent thing to go through your head was a coathanger, courtesy of your old man who is apparently incapable of performing a backyard abortion satisfactorily. Of course, explaining this to you is completely pointless, as your vast repertoire of assorted talents is topped only by drooling and masturbating. As long as all of that juice is going to waste and not a drop goes toward the next generation of your significantly deficient family tree, we’ll all be better off. Just to be safe, it is recommended that you drink a pint of battery acid and wash it down with a shotgun shell, preferably courtesy of a sawn off shotgun.

Notable celebrities born in The Year of  The Underachieving Oaf: Andrew O’Keefe, Eddie McGuire, The shit for brains on 10 early news, Carl Stefanovic and his shit for brains brother.

The Year of the Expanded Ego

Occurs when: The constellations of  ”Preening Jackass” and “Posturing Knobhead” meet on the Spastrologic plain of “The Broken Beer Bottle”.

You are largely inferior and you know it. You resent the fact that you are shorter than your munchkin stunt doubles but you don’t let it visibly bother you simply because you have grown sufficient facial hair to hide your inevitable inadequacies. Your talents include puffing your chest out to rather comedic proportions, breathing rather vocally through your mouth and rationalizing your inexplicable sexual attraction toward your mother with an endless mantra; “I’ll knock yer teef out ya cockhead”!

Notable celebrities born in The Year of  The Expanded Ego: Mike Tyson, Possibly Steven Seagal.

The Year of Unfortunate Compensation

Occurs when: The constellations of “The Micro Penis” and “I’ll bash yer” meet on the Spastrological plain of “Crusty Kleenex”.

Much like your Expanded Ego brethren, you experience the in-enviable phenomenon known as “Limp Dick”. Unfortunately, as the odds go, you are more than likely also afflicted by “micro penis” which contrary to popular belief it not equatable to the “micro machines” toys where you can get more for selling them if they are in mint “untouched” condition, as you would be more familiar with. We see that there appears to be little hope for you and as it turns out, no-one cares. Good luck fucking your hand, loser.

Notable celebrities born in The Year of  Unfortunate Compensation: Russell Crowe, Bert Newton’s stupid looking kid, Anyone who watches AFL.

The Year of Failure and Despair

Occurs when: The constellations of “Shit For Brains” and “Ineptitude” meet on the Spastrological plain of “The Masked Debater”.

Sorry, but your parents are hippies. Why the hell else would they have let you live if they weren’t tuned into the epic wank that is the universe? You haven’t given them a good reason to keep you around. Shit, your old man had to figure out how to use the dvd player by himself. You are clearly useless. There is only one responsible thing left for you to do. Murder your parents, then pour some kind of acrylic substance on yourself during one of your epic masturbation sessions. Centrelink needs a mascot.

Notable celebrities born in The Year of  Failure and Despair: The majority of the cast of “Law and Order”.

The Year of Mightiest Toughness

Occurs when: The constellations of “The Might Fist” and “The Mighty Kick in the Nuts” meet on the Spastrological plain of “The Late Night E.R Visit”.

Again, much like the compensators previously mentioned, you’re underwhelming figure and undersized penis are matched only by your ability to puff out your chest and make idle threats of violence when any of your misogynistic ideologies are challenged. Frequently mistaken for a eunuch, you feel the world owes you everything and that you have no obligation to pull your somewhat redundant weight. You are the the person at the party that everyone laughs at behind your back and you never knew. Now you do. Have a good one.

Notable celebrities born in The Year of  Mightiest Toughness: NONE AT ALL. Well maybe Russell Crowe again but he’s already appeared AND SPASTROLOGY ISN’T AN EXACT SCIENCE.

The Year of the Magnificent Dickhead

Occurs when: The constellations of “Immaturity” and “Unequaled Recklessness” meet on the Spastrological plain of “The Hammer and the Wrench”

You take great pride it pointing out the inadequacies of others to mask your own fatal flaws. If it weren’t for the fact that at times you can be mildly entertaining there is little doubt you would have been shot years ago like a crippled racehorse. You give yourself far too much credit, and it’s just as well, because no-one else gives a shit. Suicides are common among those who are born under the Magnificent Dickhead, which amusingly makes it the only thing they are truly good at.

Notable celebrities born in The Year of  The Magnificent Dickhead: Kyle “Fuckwit” Sandilands, and anyone who looks like him.

As you can see, the world is (or can be for some) a far more interesting and simple place when you believe in this stuff. I can quite easily pigeonhole any person into one of these categories and claim that I am right. Like I said before, it’s fun, easy, and simple. Unfortunately, it’s not accurate, much like Astrology. To suggest, say that (as horoscopes do) if you are born under the sign of Scorpio then your day will hold  good results in matters of finance, then you would be suggesting that 1/12 of the worlds population holds these same results. To make an assertion so broad is both ridiculous and insulting to say the least, but it’s fun for some, and gives them a sense of control.

Hopefully this was an entertaining AND thought-provoking post this time around. As always it was fun writing!

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.

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 goes by the name of Jenny Moxham. 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.

I am happy, and obviously completey un-ashamed to introduce a new web series created by and starring a close friend of mine and my good self.

The series is entitled “The Al Kaider Show”.

The Al Kaider show is a comedy advice/DIY/help show starring the (as you might have guessed) Illiterate Afghani terrorist (or as he likes to refer to himself, ‘Terrorist Expert”) , Al Kaider.

There will be a number of episodes released at a time and these episodes will all be divided into volumes which will all be of the same theme/topic (Such as, how to build a better backyard, etc) then episodes which are numbered under the volumes. The episodes will all fall under the theme of the current volume. (such as how to build a dog kennel, how to make a birdbath, etc)

Volume one has been released. It is appropriately themed “Protection from terrorists”, and contains 4 episodes. I will embed the episodes below, but please feel obliged to watch in the official Al Kaider Show channel HERE and subscibe, so that you will automatically be notified upon new episode releases.

We both hope you enjoy the show, and look forward to filming more episodes.

The Al Kaider Show Episode 1: What to do when a terrorist demands entry into your home.

The Al Kaider Show Episode 2: What to do when a terrorist has entered your home.

The Al Kaider Show Episode 3: What to do to negate a terrorist threat.

The Al Kaider Show Episode 4: What to do to stop a terrorist break-in.
Continue reading this post…

A 5 second summary of the movie, Titanic.

LINK

First off, allow me to apologize for going so damn long without an update. I’ve been pretty busy and feeling oddly uninspired as of late. I’ve made up for it by including a video I’ve put together in this post. Be sure to watch it after you’ve finished reading.

I am of course talking about “Swine Flu”.

If you were to believe all we’ve been hearing the last few days, now is not the time to be reading blogs. No. Now is time to PROTECT YOUR FAMILY FROM IMPENDING DOOM. So what are you waiting for?

If you’re still reading, I’m going to assume you are of rational mind and therefore will hang around for the whole article. First off I would like to comment on the title of this post. I used the title because it is actually a well used title for articles on the “Deadly Swine Flu”. “Journalists” are actually asking themselves if the Swine Flu is the “one” that’s gonna wipe out the human race.

It would be funny if this kind of “reporting” wasn’t so dangerous and insulting. While I don’t see this leading to global hysteria (I honestly believe that people are too lazy for that) it is incredibly misleading equating a Flu that has only killed people in one country (Mexico, and as we know they are WORLD RENOWNED for their cutting edge health system) to something of a modern Black Death that could spell doom for the human race. These people have conveniently forgotten about Spanish Flu and the like. Why don’t you look that up? Then tell me what you think about Swine Flu. It would be laughable to make a comparison.

The trick the mainstream news media is using this time (as they do on many occasions) is intentionally leaving out facts to create a much more dramatic story and provoking fear, which of course keeps people coming back for more “information”, thus increasing exposure to their sponsors commercials and boosting their coffers. It’s a fairly basic concept which happens to work.

This style of reporting is also dangerous. People (particularly hypochondriacs) will be much more likely to go to their physicians after being berated with fearmongering. It’s fine to go to the doctors for moderate to severe symptoms but we all know better than to believe that will be the case. People will be showing up for all sorts of inane reasons, from runny noses to tiny rashes. The numbers of people visiting their doctor is going to grow, and so is the liklihood of them contracting something worse just by being in contact with so many others in waiting rooms, one could argue. All of this can most likely be avoided if we are given the facts instead of the propaganda.

I’m not saying that Swine Flu shouldn’t be reported on television at all and that we shouldn’t be aware of the risks, but when something as benign as this “Pandemic waiting to happen” is blown out of proportion the way it has been, I think it’s time that some people stood up and attempted to get the real facts across.

The real facts are as follows:

• The swine flu is nothing new. It surfaced over 30 years ago in the USA. One person died. Many more died from the effects of the vaccination. That one person who dies, as far as I am aware, is the only person outside of Mexico who has ever died of the Swine Flu.
• I think we can all agree that a bunch of people dying in Mexico as the result of an illness is not indicative of what would happen in our own FIRST WORLD countries with state of the art medicine.
• The symptoms of Swine Flu are as follows: Hightened Paranoia, Panic, Unsupstantiated claims, Forgetfullness as far as facts go, etc. As for those who are SUFFERING from the condition, it’s basically a moderate to severe REGULAR flu.
• Regular flu vaccinations have been proven effective at combatting the virus.
• We are not all gonna die, life is not going to stop, and Coldplay is not a good band.

If anything, the only cause for concern is that the Swine Flu seems to be more congagious than the regular flu. Hardly time to panic though but where would be the fun in that?

One good thing has come out of this though, is that  I have been given the distinct privelage of watching these fruitcake reporters interviewing people hanging out their windows and standing on their doorsteps while wearing masks. While standing 20 feet away. These aren’t confirmed cases by the way, the person usually called up with a caugh or a sore throat. I’m not kidding. The interviews go something like this (with a little bit of creative license):

Reporter: So how are you feeling?

Mr 15 Minutes: Ohhh, I got a stuffed up nose an’ I’ been coughin’

Reporter (taking another step back): So do you think you have swine flu?

Mr 15 Minutes: Ohhh, I dunno. Me throat’s pretty sore an’ I had ta take a sickie.

Reporter (Turning to the camera): So there you have it! Flu crisis worsens.

So yes, I laugh. I think it’s ridiculous, I think it’s a farce, and I think it’s hilarious but I think it’s sad at the same time that people can get away with blatant half truths. There was an ad on tonight telling me I must watch some show to get tips on how to protect my family from Swine Flu. I’m far more concerned about protecting them from ignorance.

I was gonna make this a longer article but I’m completely buggered and I’ve lost my voice from yelling at A Current Affair, so I’m gonna sign off.

Stay Healthy. Or not. I’m gonna go have some bacon.

Here is the video. It pretty much summarises how seriously I think the claims of mass media should be taken. Enjoy.

LINK

I’m not sure what this bloke’s malfunction is, but he has a bunch of videos of him attempting to climb into a giant balloon. this is one of his many hilarious failures.

LINK

No doubt you have just noticed the dramatic change in the layout and overall look of Rikstares.com. I have just spent a few hours upgrading the site, and I’m thrilled to be able to announce a brand new look!

Just above you’ll notice a bunch of pictures you can scroll through, which are individual stories I’ve posted over the past months in chronological order (leave your mouse curser over the picture and the title of the article will pop up). Just below this post you will find a brief summarization of the most recent post from each category, which you can click to view the complete story, and under those you will find a nifty little “Video of the day” where I will regularly add a video that I find interesting or entertaining (though probably not EVERY day).

If the changes seem a bit daunting at first, just remember that the most recent story will always be in this place in it’s entirety, so you won’t have to worry about missing any schizophrenic, wild, poorly constructed walls of text in the future. Though, if that sounds appealing, there’s always the “unsubscribe” option.

I hope I’m not the only one who thinks the new layout is a drastic improvement, and if you don’t like it, then tough shit as always (I mean that in a really nice way) .

I’m  in the process of brainstorming new ideas for this site, but for the moment I’m pretty happy with the way it is, and as always, I’m excited to keep updating with various views, rants and now, VIDEOS.

Please stay tuned and by all means, don’t be afraid to comment once in a while!

PS:- I have a small story coming up which will take full advantage of my new policy of sharing videos. If you like to laugh, you sure as hell don’t wanna miss it.

This is a really well done short film with a great twist.

LINK