The Meat-Eating Animal Lover

I was asked my thoughts about Steve Irwin (The Crocodile Man) not being a vegetarian. After all, he appears to really and truly love animals. So it could make sense for him to be a vego, couldn't it?

The question brought recollections of some caustic comments I've heard/read aimed at vegetarians and vegans (vego) in general. And it all fell into place.

There are TWO types of vego. And I'm not talking about Vegetarian and Vegan. I am talking about the motivation for being a vego. There are TWO motivations.

Vego Type # 1: Animal lovers - the largest type. These vegos are vegos because they love animals and think it is wrong/cruel/whatever to eat them. Maybe it causes the animal pain, or who knows. They have their own reasons which are based along those lines. Some are vegetarians (still eat dairy) while others are vegans (having no animal products whatsoever).

Vego Type # 2: Health conscious - the minority. These vegos are vegos because they don't want to ingest the loads of natural and artificial chemicals, antibiotics, parasites and hormones in the animal products. Their reasons are unashamedly self-interest based. They are not out to save the whales or rhinos or banded spotty mouse (if there is such a creature). They realize good health is paramount and strive to achieve the maximum health they can. (That it benefits animals is a positive side-effect.)

It is vego Type 1 at which the caustic comments are normally aimed, even though they are thrown at vegos overall. Because those vegos can, at times, appear to have lost the plot. Wanting us - the top of the food chain and the highest lifeform and most intelligent of the species on the planet - to needlessly suffer and subject ourselves to be servants of the lower unthinking lifeforms. We have to make sacrifices for their good. Screw us, seems to be their credo. (My credo is, humans first and animals second. [Give this some thought as it is not as "cold" as you might think it is at first])

Of course, their wants always see the personal and property rights of others being infringed upon. Maybe it gives them some sense of power, or a "good guy badge" they can wear around. And those who would infringe upon the personal and property rights of others, whether they do it directly or try to influence the government to do it for them, are normally hypocrites. They want us to make sacrifices while they will not. You've all seen it. The "activist" who had no problem buying a house in the new estate but is now protesting the removal of other trees for the expansion of the estate.

Anyway. This isn't about the hypocrisy of many (but not all) of the "save the animals" vegos. It is about Steve Irwin. But I felt I needed to address the differences between WHY someone doesn't eat meat, so you won't lump all vegos into one group.

So how does Steve Irwin view vegosim?

To a question in Scientific America of, "Have you ever considered becoming a vegetarian?" he answered this way...

I went through a big stage of my life where I thought, you know, maybe it would be better to be a vegetarian, so I researched it. In no uncertain terms did I research it. Let's say this represents one cow, which will keep me in food for, let's say, a month. Now that cow needs this much land and food. Well, you can imagine, that cow needs x by x amount of land, and you can grow trees in it. Around that cow, you can have goannas, kangaroos, wallabies. You can have every other single Australian animal in and around that cow. If I was a vegetarian, to feed me for that month, I need this much land, and nothing else can grow there. Herein lies our problem. If we level that much land to grow rice and whatever, then no other animal could live there except for some insect pest species. Which is very unfortunate.

Now let me reveal the fundamental flaws in Steve's answer...

A cow needs about one acre of land. So let's assume that one acre is the amount of land he is talking about. And which he says the cow can feed him for one month.

To this one acre he wants to add other critters too. This immediately will cause a food shortage problem as the one acre is only enough for a single cow. One solution might be to feed the cow, right? But that food needs to be grown somewhere, doesn't it? So you would be back to where he started - having land which is only used for growing crops.

He also sees the cow as feeding him for one month. But the cow took maybe two years to grow before it could feed him for one month. So to feed him constantly, for one month at a time, he would need 24 cows in various stages of growth and 24 acres of land for those cows.

Now. That same one acre of land if used for fruit and veg, could feed a family forever! The family would not need to have 24 acres under cultivation just for themselves. It would only use one acre and have fresh fruit and veg for as long as they wanted. And, in fact, they would probably produce more food than they could consume. (As long as they didn't grow low yield foods like asparagus.) - And this does not take hydroponics into account.

So using his own argument against him, we would use less land for food if we were all vegos. And this would mean more land for his precious animals.

We would no longer need land for the meat animals to roam, nor land for their food to be grown (because there wouldn't be such animals). Which would also mean more land for his precious animals.

In fact, no matter which way you look at it, his reasons for not being a vegetarian do not make sense. Of course, he needs to have some kind of reason for proclaiming himself to be such a staunch animal lover while simultaneously eating meat. So let me take a shot...

Just because you love animals does not mean you will automatically be a vego. Just like being a vego does not automatically mean you are an animal rights activist trying to infringe upon other people's property rights.

So what else of Irwin?

Oh. He is a hypocrite for sure. For a true native animal lover would not want to cage the animals he so proclaims to love. A true animal lover would want those animals he cares about to be free, like the wind. A true animal lover would not disturb the animals he claims to love.

The fact he owns a zoo full of native animals shows his typical leftist-like hypocrisy... HE can have a zoo and have the animals as "pets" BUT doesn't think anyone else should have such animals as pets because those animals need special care. It's just like the lefties who want us all to reduce our gas consumption while they drive around in gas guzzlers or, like John Kerry, fly around in private jets burning more gas in one trip than most people would use in a lifetime.

So why does Irwin, a loudly self-proclaimed animal lover, eat meat?

Because, like almost everyone else in the world, he doesn't really know why.

Like most of us, his parents fed him meat and he continues to eat it without asking why.

As you can see by his answer to the question, he doesn't really know why he eats meat. He just does. And tries to justify it with his silly "we can grow cows and other animals on the same land" reason. A reason which reveals he hasn't given it the thought he says he has. And a reason which appears, on the surface, to be one to try to justify why eating meat is a good thing. Instead of an object view of it.

From a thought-process reason, he could eat meat because he thinks we need to. And so his meat eating is "as nature intended" in his eyes. And if he thought that, then he should at least say as much. It would make a heck of a lot more sense than the reason he gave.

For the fact of the matter is, a cow on one acre of land will not graze with kangaroos or wallabies or whatever fantasy he comes up with. Roos graze in "mobs" and do not do so with other animals. Goannas roam over vast areas and will likewise not see sharing a block of dirt with a cow as a good idea. (And this says nothing of sheep who ruin grass they graze on.)

And as for his claims of having trees on that same block of land. If you have ever spent time on a cattle ranch, you will know that when the animals gather under trees, the grass under the trees dies off very fast. Hence, there is no "good grass" to be had under trees. And the more trees there are, the less grass there is for grazing, if for no other reason than the grass won't grow in the shade.

I personally find Irwin to be what I call a "Plastic Person." That is, he is fake. What we see is all a front. A put on. And as I have ZERO time for such people, I tune them out and off. What this means for TV viewing is, he comes on and I change the channel.

Now there are some people who are signing a petition to have Irwin's license to import exotic animals revoked. I think those people are wrong. And they are exhibiting the very thing I mentioned up near the beginning. They are trying to infringe upon someone else's property rights by using the government to do it. Then they can walk around thumping themselves on the chest for the "good" they have done.

When will those people learn to just mind their own business? What Irwin does or does not do is NOT anyone's business including theirs.

Quite frankly, all those who claim to know what's best for me (or other people) and who take action to try and enforce their view of how things should be for me and which always ends up infringing upon my personal and property rights, piss me off. They are no better than the government trying to tell me what I can and cannot do. But they are worse, because they do it by proxy - by using the force of the government to "control" my life. To hell with them.

To me, the idea is simple: lead by example instead of trying to force your restrictions on to others. If you don't want to eat meat, then don't eat meat. But then, don't try to actively convince others to stop meat eating either. Leave them to their own devices.

If you don't like Irwin, do as I do and switch him off. Don't visit his zoo (animal prison). Tune him and his antics out. And get on with your own life - making sure to not do to others what you wouldn't want done to you.

Is Kerry A Shoe In, In 2004?

Thinking about how crowds are, a realization entered my head. Something drastic will have to happen for Bush to win in 2004.

When things are going well, or we are pleased, we become apathetic. That is, we do nothing to keep the status quo, because nothing needs to be done. This is a wonderful automatic guidance system when it comes to achieving our goals - we only make course corrections when we veer of course a bit, otherwise we don't do anything.

Conversely, when things are NOT going well, or we are displeased, we become vocal and action oriented. That is, we do everything in our power to change the status quo, because everything needs to be done. Again, this is wonderful for goal achievement - we take action to correct our course.

Thinking about the Kerry/Bush debate (or Bush/Kerry if you prefer), there seems to be a heck of a lot more people who are displeased with Bush than there are those who do not like Kerry. And applying the above two points to the electoral equation we get...

Bush lovers don't need to do anything because Bush is in. They are pleased with how things currently are. No action is needed on their part.

Kerry lovers hate Bush with a passion. They are NOT pleased at all. They will be taking massive action to rectify the situation as they see it.

This is the wonderfulness of voluntary voting. Those who are displeased come out in great numbers while those who are pleased do not. A change of government is effected, at least for one term until the formerly pleased now get off their butts to vote otherwise.

We do not hold rallies and protest by way of support. We do not give praise to those doing good. We tend, instead, to protest AGAINST things we do not like and to ridicule and criticize those we are displeased with. This aspect of our being, played out on a large scale as it is during elections, could very well see Bush out in 2004 unless he can do something to delay the election or put it off indefinitely.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming months.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Why You Can't Get Away With Murder

As a bit of a crime fan, I am amazed at the stupidness of murderers - apart from the obvious reason that they killed someone.

As much as the crime shows and media like to hint otherwise, the number one suspect in a murder investigation is the dead person's closest acquaintance - husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend, and so on. Because in almost every case, those are the people who commit the crime.

Think about it. There is no reason to kill a total stranger because that person hasn't done anything to you. As Hanibal Lecter said, we covet what we see.

Dead body turns up. Identify the body and you have a place to start. Unravel the person's past. Who are they? Where did they live? WHO did they live with? Insurance? Debts? Affairs? All of it points to someone who was close to the dead person.

When a murderer kills a total stranger, it is for their own reasons that have nothing to do with the stranger. This is why serial killers are so much harder to catch.

Dumb Bob comes home from another crap day at the office. He did a business deal that is going down the drain and is going to take his life's fortune. If only he had an extra $100k. Lucky for Dumb Bob, his wife has a $100k life insurance policy. Dumb Bob kills his wife to collect on the insurance to save himself. Little does Dumb Bob realize, no matter how much he made it look like a kidnapping and other stuff, HE was the first suspect in the case. And when the investigation turns up his near business collapse and subsequent save thanks to the insurance money, the investigation focuses on him even more. All the while telling the media that further inquiries are still being made.

The Dumb Bobs of the world don't realize this "No 1 Suspect" thing.

And now and then there are Smart Dumb Bobs. They think they know how to do it without getting caught. Ah, if only it were so for them. Thankfully, it is not. Of all things, the police are not paid on performance. They can take however long it takes. They can put a man totally on the one case all day everyday. While Smart Dumb Bob needs to work - and thus cannot spend all day everyday covering himself.

Look at it. Years ago bodies were found in South Australia. About five or six of them. Some were ten years in the ground. The newest one was two years dead. Six months later they caught the guy that did it. Dead bodies just don't disolve away very good.

Bodies in the barrel. Found the bodies. Identified them. Got the guy. He only killed people he knew.

That is the curse of the murderer. Only killing people they know, because there is no reason (motive) to kill a stranger. The link that led them to commit the murder is the link that proves they did it. Dumb dumbs. If they studied more real life crime they would know there is no way to get away with murder, and then they wouldn't do it.

Sheepism, It's Natural

Sheeple, or Podies (Pody) as I like to call them, are everywhere. You know them as people who cannot think for themselves and do whatever other people do.

Pody: A term I made up based on the lack of individuality shown by those who were "converted" in the movie Invasion of The Body Snatchers. Those converted were done so from plant PODS. They became pod people. Or as I call them, Podies.

While Podies seem like a plague, the condition of sheepism is actually natural and built into us for our survival. And, despite all protestations to the contrary, we all exhibit traces of sheepism.

Consider going to a supermarket we have never been to before. We watch what other people do and where they go to help us determine WHERE the entrance is. We mindlessly form lines... or look for lines at which to line up at. And if you cannot speak the native tongue, you observe what other people do, then do likewise.

In the ancient days this was a much needed survival mechanism. We watched what mom and dad did to gather food and kill prey. We thus learned which foods were all right to eat and how to hunt certain animals. (Learning just like any other animal on the planet.)

Children even learn this way now. By watching their parents a child learns what to grab to open a cupboard and how to pull it open. In fact, they learn much more this way than parents realize.

But this type of learning is sheepism. Seeing what other people do and doing it too.

Of course, once we are older we don't need sheepism as much any more. It can still come in handy at times... but only because people don't want to appear to be idiots and ASK someone else (what to do, where the checkout is, whatever). So to avoid looking like idiots we resort back to our naturally sheepish ways.

There is another element to it as well... podies do not like anyone else who is different. Specially if they consider you one of them... one of their pody group. Then they detest your free mind. Because it means they have to also have a free mind. And it is just so easy being a pody.

As I have written previously, almost no-one knows why they do anything or why they actually think certain thoughts. And I exampled this by asking you to figure out why murder was wrong - without resorting to "it's the law" or "it says so in the bible."

Being a non-pody means I can move in and out of sheepism as I see fit and as I need to to get by in society (but I do this totally of my own free will and with full knowledge of what I am doing, unlike the podies). Because without a certain amount of sheepism, we would have to learn everything each time - and - we would find it very difficult to have a functional society - we would all line up at the checkout in any old way, for instance.

Which raises an interesting question for you to ponder... do you recall learning how to line up at a checkout?

Chances are, you do not recall this at all. It was a "learnt by observing" thing as your mom/dad took you shopping. You just kept doing it as you grew older and without ever questioning how you learnt it.

How many other similar pody things do you do on a daily basis?

Final thought: Non-podies cannot stand being around podies. It drives them nuts.