iRant: The Universe isn't racist

****Semi Spoiler Alert****

Star Wars Force Awakens and the racist galaxy.

I watched "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" a few days ago. I had little expectation of the movie being any good as it was made by Walt Disney. I'm not suggesting Disney is unable to make good films, as "Flight of the Navigator" is one of my favourite childhood movies, but Star Wars comes from a special view point of understanding...one that I didn't think Walt Disney could faithfully uphold and emulate.

They set themselves the cruel task of writing an additional chapter to the Bible and they failed, miserably.

My reluctance to view the movie before now wasn't easy, especially as the advertisements did a fantastic job of pointing out the story heavily featured a black actor as what could arguably be considered the protagonist role.

Seeing Boyega on the commercials, billboards and of course his interview tours really spoke to the ethnic minority in me. It's sad that this was a reality but lets face it, black protagonists in MAJOR saga based movies is about as rare as a 'non-racist' EDL member.

Even with this being said, I resisted, simply because I had no faith that Disney could do justice to this saga. If I'm honest the three films that came before it were representative of a declining general quality IMHO but I was, on the whole, still happy with the beloved Star Wars.

I had to dig into my blackness and say "I have to support the young brother, he was great in Attack the Block, although not a film of equal vintage or heritage as SW, Boyega's skills were not in question.

So I bit the bullet.

I'm sad that I cannot un-see things. Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a bag of shit.

I'm all for adding new dimensions to existing stories as a way of marking your influence on the narrative, (The Batman Dark Knight trilogy is proof of this) but Disney really really cocked this one up.

In the history of Star Wars there has never been a 'defective' Storm Trooper...NEVER. So they create a 'defective' Storm Trooper, cool! you are putting some twist in there...err why did he have to be black?

Star Wars historically has had a diaphanous relationship with ethnic minority characters a fact that was consistent with the era in which it was most prominent (apatheid), but even Lucas was delicate with how he cast Lando Calrissians character; Once a smooth talking hustler to a selfless leader of the fight against the empire. Fast forward to 2016 and your one black character is a 'defective' Storm Trooper.

It even creates a massive issue, because before now we'd never seen underneath a Storm Troopers mask, yeah we saw Luke Skywalker wearing a suit once as part of some infiltration, but we'd never seen what a Storm Trooper looked like, we just know they take instructions, don't eat and were basically slaves. Off pops a Storm Troopers mask for the first time and oh...he's black...so are they all black? Is this where all the black people of the Star Wars universe are, are they all Storm Troopers?

Can you see the problem? White people seem to think or at least want everyone else to think they are an abundant substance in the universe even if the opposite is true. They are the only ones (at least in majority) who get to Mars, travel at light speed to new galaxies and meet 'other intelligent lifeforms. Anyway bare digression.

Boyega acted his part well, very well in fact, but that was part of the problem. The part was for an unintelligent drone who would constantly 'impress' other characters with his 'knowledge/usefulness'. This gives credence to the idea that the other characters didn't have high expectations of his character, this sentiment was also echoed with the female main character; see a reoccurring rhetoric?

The only thing I can do to rid myself of this low point, is to watch the older films again and submerge myself in the force...the authentic force not this new Walt Disney take on it.

Big Big shout out to Boyega for making it.

#MayThe4thBeWithYou
P.s - I just realised Walt Disney used the 'Obama' method on me and it bloody worked. I must recalibrate.

iRant: Voluntary ignorance

The human condition is a pungent discharge.

We have a near mortal dependance to knowledge or the appearance of. Being 'wrong' or 'not knowing' has become the epitome of human fear.

We've attacked the offending idea with fervent fervor (a keen strategic positioning we think), because we can't admit that we don't know what we are doing.

Evidence of this can be found in the observation of the religious texts.

At some point in history our ego must have decided it didn't ever want to not know and so it created a story that would explain all that we marvel at in the world. Some might say thats also a good argument that the stories form some part of a true account as why would they continue to be told? Who knows...

What I know for sure is that when people lose sight of how something works, we conveniently make some unobtainable body responsible for it. Some cosmic ambiance, an almighty omnipresence, a complex contradiction of concepts designed purposely to make it hard to define or decipher. A body so powerful it could explain everything you recently realized you don't know. We cement the relationship by praising our creation instead of praising creation.

Our ability to consider our species as the centre of existence is exceptional.

So it really comes as no surprise that we could be caught in the following characteristic entanglement:

Certain members of the human species have developed an intense love of/for animals...they express this love by culturally assassinating their chosen animal of love. A curious contradiction.

If you asked "whats the culture of a dog", I consider the culture of a thing to be what that thing does with inherent perpetuance. It is therefore the culture of a dog to be a dog and a human to be human etc.

By loving a dog to the point that it is considered a member of your family you are culturally assassinating the dog, because you are by your actions completely ignoring what it is to be a dog and considering/treating a dog humanely. Dogs should be treated dogly.

When the dog does what we want it to, we consider it really clever and sometimes if the dog saves our life we might consider it an emotionally intelligent animal (not saying animals lack emotional intelligence...I really don't know).

I find it funny that if that same animal 'runs away from home' the 'owner' will put up posters imploring you, the 'conscious citizen', to help the vulnerable dog come home. Why is it never suggested that the emotionally intelligent animal is fed up of being treated like a human and so left home to go do some stuff it has been thinking about doing for a while? Why does the dogs intelligence suddenly vanish?

As if the dog example wasn't bad enough there are people that will debate about the relative intelligence between a dog and a cat. Cat lovers tend to consider cats smarter than dogs. So why in the molly frock would a cat owner ever put up posters for the missing cats return? I mean most cat owners know that cats need the ability to come and go as and when they want, so if the cat leaves and doesn't bother to come back, how comes the cat didn't just decide to leave and go live the cat life properly?

I'll be honest, I saw a 'missing cat' poster today and it just pissed me off.

iRant: Adulthood sucks Vol.1

Adulthood sucks!
I'm glad I got that out the way sooner rather than later.

I remember being young, yeah like it was that long ago, because it was...well...that long ago.

In those days, I had no responsibilities. I had no bills, I wasn't directly affected by tax. Sex wasn't important, hell I didn't even have to care about other peoples feelings. I had no dependents, in fact the biggest expectation upon me was to get good grades at school.

Getting good grades at school wasn't much to ask, I mean, lets be honest the questions were preempted and the answers were available. I really had very little to worry about, to be bound to, or to be stressed about.

Yet for some strange reason, all I wanted to do when I was younger was to be...well...older. I wanted nothing more than to be old enough to be able to go to bed when I felt like it, sleep in late without my parents insisting I wake up to do some chore. Getting away from chores altogether. For me, adulthood was the key to freedom, the right to do as you please, when you please, the opportunity to do all the things you couldn't when you were a teenager. Adulthood wasn't only the future, it was the promise land of life...

Fast forward some 20 years and now I'm in that adulthood I so coveted...


...Dreams come true


For the most part, adulthood is as your dreams imagined. It is what your parents lead you to believe it would be "you can't until you're an adult"... it is all that...but, my bastard parents never ever told me, or let me see that adulthood actually sucks in a major way. This discovery I had to make on my own, which on its own isn't an issue, but why did I have to have my heart broken in process?


The Lane


In order to explain my angst, we have to go back some years...back to 1995. The English Premiere league was into its 3rd season and "Merlin Collection" had just released its second edition of the Premiere league sticker book. Don't ask me why it was only the second edition given that the Premiere league was into its third season because I don't know. Don't ask me why we were so crazy about having this second edition, especially as none of us even knew the first edition existed. I don't have the answers, all I know for sure was that this sticker collecting magazine was advertised on TV and was available at our local newsagents.

After marveling at the advert it became my mission to get this book. My parents were very much about teaching me life lessons, so it was never a matter of 'ask and receive', instead it was 'ask and be given a way/means/method to work towards earning it'. Knowing this, I put the request out early and was given the chore for which I could earn the money to buy the magazine, a mighty £2.50 of the Queens fine sterling.

From the moment I saw the advert to the moment I could buy the magazine was about a week, maybe a week and a half. I remember going to school after the advert had aired and conversing with my compadres about which stickers I would be getting and how quickly I'd be filling the entire book, all this prior to even having the book. I had to watch for a week and a half as all the more fortunate guys at school paraded around the school playground with their sticker books in plastic wallets and stacks of stickers on standby ready for the 'swapsies'. The fortuitous kid with the sizable collection of 'shineys' was the envy of all, how did he have so many 'shineys' you only ever get one in a pack.

My time finally came, I was almost two weeks behind, but I could catch up, not only was I enthusiastic I had the advantage of friends that had too many doubles already, I was bound to benefit from the 'swapsies' market in a big way. A friend gave me my first stack of stickers, a collection of 'not so famous' players that he seemed to keep getting in every new pack he opened. I immediately stuck those in, I was on the road to filling this book up and nothing could stop me!!

Then came economics, I'm standing in the shop after having bought my first pack of stickers and I quickly realise this £1 a pack of 6 is going to take me a while to collect all the stickers, especially given the amount of doubles that were in circulation as exampled by my friends. The season will end before I can get enough of these stickers, I mean £1 a pack? That is literally 2 packs a week on my £2.50 earnings, this compounded by the rate of doubles, I'm going to have to really hustle here...a half finished sticker book is lame.


Hustle hard


My early realisation about the economy of the realm I had just entered, forced me to go into overdrive. Everything became about the stickers...I would bet stickers, wager stickers, gamble stickers. I started with a one week disadvantage and I had to make up for lost time. My two packs a week were never going to be enough. I started using different newsagents because my local kept giving me the same doubles over and over again, my desperation made me a little paranoid about the possible schemes in place to ensure I would never be able to finish this book but would always be willingly buy more stickers.

The end of the season comes and Blackburn Rovers win the Premier League title, Alan Shearer is top scorer with 34 goals, Cantona did a karate kick on a Crystal Palace fan and Tottenham Hotspurs finished way above Arsenal (7th and 12th respectively). My sticker magazine is not complete. I have a pile of doubles. I failed to achieve me goal, I actually feel defeated.


Reality


I never bought another sticker book, the pain was too much. Well not until I became an adult that is. I was in the same local newsagent from back then and my memory was jogged about the magazine and sticker collecting fad of yesteryear. I looked around for some other collections book to get into, I'm an adult now, I'll never not finish this book, I can buy boxes of stickers now, I actually can't be defeated. I bought a magazine and 20 packs of stickers, I could have bought the whole box but I figured I'd just take 20 packs. Somehow I managed to muster the same enthusiasm for opening these packs as I had in my youth.

I got to the 4th packet before my excitement had totally waned, it seemed with each packet I opened the realisation that this was not the same became more and more apparent. I was cheating, in a fashion that wasn't in the spirit of saving, waiting, buying a limited amount of sticker packs and hoping that you didn't get too many doubles. My guaranteed win, actually came with the price of a guaranteed loss. In having enough money to purchase as many packs as I wanted, whenever I wanted, I actually killed the fun of the exercise...Adulthood sucks!

iRant: Sayings that I hate with a passion - Vol1

I know it has been a considerable amount of time since I last ranted or moaned, or in fact touched this page in any fashion.

In fact its been so long, that I actually forgot the password for the account I use for this, if you saw the way I was frantically trying to interrogate my ageing brain, it was quite dramatic. Suffice to say that if I had indeed lost the sign in details, I would have cried!!!!!

Any hoot, let me not get carried away with my re-acquaintance!!
I won't make a load of written verbal commitments about how I'm going to treat this blog going forward and how I'm going to promise to update it often and etc and etc, truth is, I can't realistically commit in practice to what can so easily be said in words... so please just work with me here???

Right, now that I've got the intro stuff out the way, let me bring you in the fray about this here post.
It has come to my attention over the last 20+ years that most human beings are figuratively full of shite. I appreciate that was an expletive I let go of so easily there, but, believe me, I actually couldn't describe them any other way.

Don't get me wrong, I've been fortunate enough to have met a few wise individuals in my time, but in reality the majority are full of shite (<--- ooops there I go again)

There are a number of ways we can confirm this theory, but I'm not sure I actually need to go into that. So what does people being full of shit (figuratively speaking) have to do with this post?

Well you see, its peoples idea of 'innovations' that brings me to worry. Our obsession with 'new' in western society is shocking. So much so its made us all a little more shallow. This materialistic consumer based existence has both a pungent odor and a sinful after taste.

The thing is, because EVERYBODY wants to be seen as an innovator or the catalyst for something 'new', people are literally doing all manner of foolishness to establish a '1st' at something. This shallow culture has extended into the realm of parables and age old axioms. Stop frowning, I'll explain.

Throughout history there have been a set of 'sayings' that have past from generation to generation simply because the premise of the sayings, have been a combination of:

1. Identifiably true
2. Timeless and thus applicable throughout the ages

If you are a little confused think 'Children having children', 'Famine', 'You don't know what you've got till its gone' etc etc. You know that timeless cyclic stuff that generally occurred before we appreciated it and probably will long long after we are gone.

Yeah well, 'people' have decided to infiltrate this area of wisdom in attempts to be considered 'quotable'.

It is very sad and very annoying. The latest entry into this vernacular of bullshit is:

"It is, what it is"

Who the hell comes up with this bullshit? It is actual shit from a bull.

The thing is, people have the audacity to look smug when they say this codswallop. As if they've blessed you with this most profound of statements at the most apt time.

In reality, all they have done is state the f'ing obvious and are looking for social points. No Einstein, you've just successfully stated the obvious. Of course it is what it is, otherwise it would be something else.

iRant: Manufactured sympathy

I've taken a good while out to think about this. It hasn't been easy/straight forward or any other adjective you can think of. After great deliberation, meditation and pondering, I've come to the conclusion that I HATE the term "I'm sorry for your loss". I know this sounds like a callous notion on the surface and to a degree it is, but I have really thought about this and this is the conclusion I've come to.

Understanding the callous guy
I do not believe for a moment that the first person who ever said "I'm sorry for your loss", did so without real heartfelt sincerity. It's not beyond my mental abilities to imagine that the submission "I'm sorry for your loss" probably came from a moment of shock and uncertainty and truly reflected the emotions of a person in words. I imagine the person who first said "I'm sorry for your loss", did so after careful consideration, maybe even an internal assessment taking time out to properly get in touch with their own feelings, whilst maybe even giving a serious thought to how the person delivering the news felt. I'd hasten a guess that the first person to use the term "I'm sorry for your loss" actually empathised with the person they said it to.

Fast forward 100yrs and it seems we've made fast food of the term.

Fast food language
And that is the problem I have with this term, much like "Sorry", "I'm sorry for your loss" has become a throwaway term. People commit to the turn of phrase with little or no thought, then just casually segue onto the next subject of conversation.
It seems that in todays high paced superficial lifestyles, we've lost time for heartfelt sincerity, we've lost the capacity for empathy whilst forgetting almost entirely how to express it.

It's become apparent to me that automation is very much an integral part of the progression of many aspects of modern life. It's part of the reason people dress the same, or have exactly the same favourite devices, hobbies etc... we've been sold automation whole sale. I mean, most people hate rats...but have little or no aversion to squirrels....yet they are the same rodent family capable of the same level of filth.

Murder is wrong, unless you are soldier, then it becomes necessary...its fair to say that we've pretty much been programmed in relation to these things.

The thing that is so sad about this all for me, is that, somebody dying can be a traumatic experience. Telling somebody that a person has died is difficult within itself, so I find it incredibly disheartening that we are happy to just blurt out "I'm sorry for your loss" when a person tells us their unfortunate news.
We don't even take time out to process the information we've received. I don't think its possible that almost every human being since that person first said it, feels EXACTLY the same way as that person did. I don't think for a minute that, given they felt the same way as that person, they independently thought of what to say and came up with "I'm sorry for your loss". Instead I think its more likely that the pre-fabricated response absolved them of the commitment required to generate an empathetic response.

I'd probably go as far as to say, the automated response is an easy escape that circumnavigates the need to tap into your own emotions. To be honest, I find this term as comforting as "fuck off I have my own problems don't try to burden me with yours", in essence its virtually the same thing...well in my mind at least.

A word to whomever will listen
The next time somebody tells you about a loss of life, try to hold back your seemingly natural response ("I'm sorry for your loss") and take a moment out to think about the impact of what you have just been told, spare a thought for how the person telling you the news may feel. Remember the person who has passed (if you know them), after you've done this, then decide on a response you consider fitting....I bet you come out with "My condolences", if you do, you're NOT Neo, you're still plugged into the Matrix.

iRant: Treat me like an animal, so I can have better Human Rights?

In honesty I wasn't sure how to approach this rant. In fact I spent a great amount of time considering whether this was actually a rant or a moan...
It took me a while, but in the end I conceded that, I try to only moan about things I can and will change. I see no point in moaning about things that I will never or can never change, to me it just seems a fruitless operation...*shrugs*.

I would like to apologise now, just in case you read this and get the feeling I'm sounding somewhat evangelical. Please do not mistake me for a 'tree-hugger' (no offence to huggers of trees), or a preacher or a 'do-gooder'....these are just some observations.

So..where to start? Hmmm...."Human Rights" as a term, I really don't agree with. In honesty, I abhor it.

Abhor - to regard with extreme repugnance or aversion; detest utterly; loathe; abominate.

Yes, I feel that strongly about it, I mean the number of secondary questions that get thrown up every-time I hear the term its untrue.
- Firstly, what is 'Human Rights'
- What is a 'Human Right'
- Who decides what a 'Human Right' is?
- How is it decided that the people(s) that decide what a 'Human Right' is, are the most appropriate candidates for the that particular decision?
- If the rights of 'Humans' are to be discussed, shouldn't a majority of the 'Humans' who these 'rights' are supposed to be for, have a say in what is and isn't a 'Human Right'...?

Who came up with this notion or idea of 'Human Rights'....?
I did some brief research, that leads to the idea that the concept of 'Human Rights' was founded in Europe, Germany in particular, in 1525. Something to do with peasants making a list of personal demands against a ruling arm in some war, or something.

In my mind, in order to issue, or outline the 'rights' of another life form you have to consider yourself to be superior to that other life form. Now I know that as 'Humans' we have absolutely no problem with this concept in principle or practice. So I guess its actually witnessing the audacity to blatantly display it to masses and nations, is what I consider to be an insult to my senses.


I consider the term a farce. Especially when you take a snapshot at the societies we currently live in. I mean a prime example of this, is the calling for Human Rights to be acknowledged and implemented the world over. Now, the nations in the world that currently make lots of international noise about the Human Rights conduct of nations abroad, are Europe and America.

Both the aforementioned have little or no problem using 'Human Rights breaches' as a justifiable reason to enter foreign countries and further breach 'Human Rights'.

I think the protests both in the UK and USA helped me to see the fallacy of this pseudo moral high ground.

The treatment of some of the peaceful protestors was shocking and certainly in breach of some rights...and that was at the hand of licensed authorities...captured on TV and mobile phones.

There are other examples of where 'Human Rights' are ignored or overlooked, like the case of the man with the low IQ, who took a liking to sex, but was being subject to a court injunction which basically said he was not responsible enough of mind to engage in such activities. (The man with the low IQ). I appreciate there is some responsibility to be had as an adult and yes maybe he could be a liability with regard to not protecting himself properly (or at all), but surely a man has the right to consenting sex with whom so ever is legally permitted to engage?

Let me not even get into Guantanamo Bay...

Despite these examples, there is one that without a doubt, has pissed me off the most! Beyond all things sensible this none-sense is still allowed to happen and is legal, in fact not only is it legal but corporation make billions off of it every year, year in, year out. People are actually paying to have their human rights violated.

I need to calm down a little, so let me take a slight detour...I'll get back to the above I promise.

So...as much as I'm a city slicker, I love me some country, I'll save you the cliche list about the air, the greenery and the peace, cos I know you've heard it before and its not REALLY telling you anything 'new'. Oh look, by 'not' telling you I just told you...anyway I digress.

So, I was chilling out in the countryside recently. I got the opportunity to stand by a field and watch some cows grazing, beautiful sight, if you've never slowed down long enough to watch, I recommend that you do at least once in your life. Anyway...I stood watching these cows graze for a while, then a haulage vehicle pulls up. It turns out it was a transport for the livestock. I watched as the cows were shushed into the lorry, watched the door being sealed and the truck drive away.

Once the truck left I noticed only half the herd had left. There was a gentleman on the field at the time and so I decided to seek his council on this current event. I asked "if the remaining cows would be on the field for the night?", to which he replied "No, the lorry that just left, will come back for these".

I was a little bit confused by this, as the lorry clearly had enough space to fit all the cows on, so this really should have been one journey. I did feel stupid, but I asked, "Erm...why didn't you just load them all on at once?". My new farmer friend, chuckled and said "You can't carry more than X amount of beasts in that amount of space, if the authorities were to stop me and count them, we'd lose our transporting license, we wouldn't be able to carry livestock in transit".

Simple Simon, never turns down any opportunity to learn, so this new information would be probed, so I further asked "What are the criteria for transporting livestock then?". What he basically told me was that, the vehicle couldn't legally carry more than 20 of the cows.

Fascinated by the subject, I decided to go away and read up on agricultural cattle haulage. My findings were very interesting indeed.

Did you know, that a cattle haulage vehicle has individual pen's for each beast. I mean like each cow gets its own compartment. As if that wasn't wonderful enough, there is also a 'space per animal' regulation and I quote

Medium sized cattle of approximate weight - 325kg, must have a minimum of between 0.95 – 1.3m(squared) whilst in transit

Yes you read that correctly, there is actual regulation around how much space a cow has in transit. I delved into the subject further as I do and got some valuable information on the subject, I thought I'd be so kind as to drop a link at the end of this rant so you too can be amazed by my findings...

Anyhoot, now that I've calmed somewhat, I'll re-address the subject I took a break from earlier.

I'm unfortunate enough to have to take public transport to work.. so every blessed day, I, like hundreds of thousands of other cattl....I mean commuters, board over-packed rush hour trains. Each individual inadvertently touching another, sharing varying bits of DNA, whether it be through the air or by fabric to fabric connection, its just one, tightly squeezed mosh pit of 'sharing'. If the crowds weren't enough, I actually pay an annually rising ticket fare for the 'privilege'.

So while I'm crammed in this tube, my mind races, doing all manner of calculations about just how dangerous the current situation is.

Firstly; If the train was to stop in a tunnel...how long would it be before we run out of air?

If we were stuck in a tunnel for an undetermined amount of time, how would one, attain a state of relative comfort?

After asking a myriad of 'what if' type questions, my simple brain strikes gold! "How comes there isn't a maximum number of passengers per carriage restriction?"

Now, at the time of thinking this, I initially thought I was being pedantic... but then I remembered back in my youth, when I used to go clubbing quite a bit, the term "I'm sorry, we've reached capacity" was a legitimate reason for you not being able to get in, even after you've flashed two crisp £50 notes at the bouncer.

Then I remembered conversations I've had with venue managers, regarding private parties and venue capacity. These conversations always lead back to the same thing, 'It's health and safety, if authorities came in and saw us above capacity we could lose our license.'

In my school days the commute was via bus and they have the restrictions clearly written on the entrance to the bus, it was something like 62 seated and 18 standing or something like that. Coaches also have a seating restriction of 75, with no standing passengers.

Airplanes have a passenger restriction, in fact every other form of passenger/livestock transport, has a population restriction...all of them, except the tubes and the trains.

Now, please explain to me how it is;
a) possible
b) logical
that the modes of transport, that carry the most people in any 24hr period, have absolutely no guidelines for the number of passengers allowed to be safely transported from one place to another?

In disbelief I set about looking for the facts, figures and details...I'll save you the trouble, there are NO published details about passenger numbers (that I could find), with regards to trains and tube services. That is correct, you can stuff as many people as you like into a tube and not have to worry about 'Health and Safety' regulations.

So, now that we've come to grips with this non-sense, I know at least one person will say 'but what you've mentioned is a health and safety issue, it doesn't have anything to do with Human rights'. To those of you that share this view, I'll simply point you to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states and I quote;

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

If you as an individual can hand on heart say, that being stuck in a packed train, or tube, during rush hour, during a heatwave isn't cruel, degrading or inhuman...then maybe you are one of the cows that I saw on that haulage truck.

I never thought I would ever say this in my life but...'Please treat me like an animal, so I can have better Human Rights'.

iRant, because sometimes the liberties being taken are just unacceptable.

PROMISED LINK!!!! Animal welfare during transportation


Other animal related rants - Pets in the west, the Plight of the animals

iRant: For the plight of the animals

If I'm fortunate enough to have you as a 'regular' reader, then you would probably remember me previously making mention, of my fondness of animals...[Pets in the west]..(smile through gritted teeth). If your not one of the aforementioned 'regulars' please take a quick journey back there....i think it will help you to understand this post a little better...

Anyhoot, away with the formalities...

I'm fortunate in being privy to what most would call a colourful, scenic journey on my daily commute. I am blessed to be able to bare witness to some of the creators fine creatures. How so I hear you say?

I happen to work in a very rural area and as such its not uncommon for me to see:

Sheep
Chicken
Pheasant
Grouse
Horses
Cows
Rabbits
Squirels
Foxes

A nice wide selection of animals, none particularly predatory (minus the Foxes...). My daily commute will see me bump into all of the above at some point during the journey and believe me its a breath of fresh air every time, you would be amazed at the size and colour of all the above when your face to face with them.

Take the Grouse bird for instants:





Now you should recognise the bird as it was made famous by this advert:




This bird really does exist...I mean like there is a bird that looks and moves like that bird in the advert....its CRAAAAZY! Its a shame they weren't endowed with any sense though, generally speaking they wait by the side of the country lane, till they are almost right in front of a passing car, then dart across the lane and then dive into a nearby bush....suicidal I tell you....but then again there is always a Grouse at the other end waiting, so maybe they are playing dare? When I think about it what else have they got to do with their day?

Anyway...outside of the Grouse, the other animals on the list are ...well pretty run of the mill, which then leads me to ask what the point of this rant is....

Oh yeah thats it! Cruelty! Yes I said it CRUELTY!

One morning on my way in to work I was slowed by a horse being ridden by a human, nothing unusual there, a common sight for my in fact. For those of you who don't know the code and the practice, "one is to slow one's vehicle to a walking pace, being sure as not to make any unexpected movements or loud noises that could startle the Horse (s)" Like I was saying the Horse being ridden was a common sight, what did catch my eye however, was a shape I couldn't quite clearly see on the fur of the Horse. At the point where I was about to pass the Horse, the shape became clear...it was a 'Love Heart', as soon as I saw it I thought 'aaaahh the owner loves the Horse thats lovely'.

I got about 100m down the road and my mind was invaded by this thought 'How do they know the Horse wanted a heart shaved into the fur on its buttock? How do they know the Horse even likes 'Love Hearts'? Hold on a minute, how do they know the Horse likes to have some slightly over weight person on its back...' And so the thoughts raged on...then it became very clear to me that these Horses were being abused, worst still they were being bred to be abused.

In most western countries harming an animal can get you into serious trouble, in fact let me not speculate, here are the rules per country:

America - USA Cruelty Penalties
UK - UK Cruelty Penalties
Asia - Erm...there isn't a link for China or India or that region, not because there isn't an laws protecting animals, but because the laws are largely ignored, or in the case of China only just being formed.

Now the America link is quite straight forward...fines and jail time, state dependent of course.

The UK link doesn't actually tell you the penalties for animal cruelty but they are:

"Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the maximum fine for animal cruelty and welfare offences is £20,000. The maximum term of imprisonment for offences is six months."

So basically, fines and jail time.
That for me is not whats important on this particular link, if you scroll all the way to the bottom of the page you will see this:

"Our success in courts by following Code

All prosecutions are conducted by independent solicitors, who also review the evidence against the CPS’ Code and will advise if they are not satisfied that the criteria for a prosecution has been met.

It is by following this Code that we are able to achieve a good success rate in the magistrates' courts, achieving an impressive 98.2 per cent success rate in 2009."

"98.2% success rate" ...just savour that statistic for a moment, then consider if such due diligence was applied elsewhere how many pedophiles wouldn't have been employed in the schooling system or how many wife beaters wouldn't still be out there beating women. Oh...look at me missing the most obvious, the child neglecter's/abusers.

You see this statistic clearly shows that high levels or rates of success are fully achievable with proper application, this stat leads me to believe that people aren't prosecuted for 'real' crimes, because the system doesn't have it as a priority...it seems animals are higher up on the agenda.

Another interesting set of criteria I came across:

Animal rights

This is a link to the RSPCA page that clearly outlines the 5 basic needs that an animal should be afforded without question.

Its a very humble list, but what I found most interesting was that prison inmates are not afforded some of the 'basic needs' on the list...so again animals are being treated better then human beings.

Anyhoot, I digress, the point of the matter is this, the horse with the 'love heart' shaved into its fur is being abused. Now some will argue that the Horse is fed and sheltered and groomed and given shoes etc... But then I ask what the heck were Horses doing before mankind started tampering with them?

Animals in Zoo's are being abused, yes their fed, yes there sheltered but one thing everyone seems to overlook is this, the worst form of punishment is having your freedom taken away from you, its one of the actions that can dramatically change psyche and permanently alter the characteristics of a living creature. Do you really think that the Lions in the Zoo's don't know that whats happening to them is not right?

The caged environment is a tool, its the objective of the cage to tame the 'wild' in all animals, its part of the 'breaking' process. The moment an animal is placed in an enclosure, its natural foraging regime has been dramatically limited. Food being provided by a Zoo keeper has killed the natural process of 'the hunt'... the caging of an animal is the dumbing down of its nature. Ultimately the spirit of the animal dies and the 'cuddley' exterior remains.

So...on one hand we have the RSPCA cracking down (with a 98% of efficiency) on individuals who are cruel to animals, yet there are a number of million dollar industries that rely on animal cruelty as the back bone of their business model...can some one say 'Hypocracy'?

So strangely enough, I'm on the side of animals, but its seems that its more the non domesticated ones... on the whole cats and dogs are living better lives that a lot of human beings.

iRant because the human superiority complex reeks to high heaven....