Fish tanks are fine if they're made from the same glass as the bear exhibit at the Minnesota Zoo, those are only susceptible to bears carrying large rocks. If we're talking Doom, I don't know about a Catzooka, but there was a Chicken Launcher.

Hopefully that was in a zoo. If not, that bear now equates humans with food(even if it's not eating one) and will likely have to be put down. The kindest thing you can do for a wild animal is make it fear humans. It would have been better for the bear if the woman had sprayed bear mace in it's face(not that I'd recommend that).

I remember a raccoon at a zoo who was behind just a bars cage and young guy was goading him with his shiny keys. He let me try and the thing that stood out most was the paws were the softest. I've also seen them fight like crazy in a garbage bin so...why is one in a kitchen?

Normally I don't feel terrible for most animals in this type of situation.. They usually have a good amount of space, free food, and don't have to worry about predators.

This, however, looks like they're keeping that octopus in an incredibly small space

It'd be like keeping a porcupine at the zoo in a shoebox.

That's a zoo cat too. Nowhere near as powerful as a wild tiger. Hugely impressive animals.

They don't let androids into the zoo

My grandfather was instrumental in the founding of the Houston zoo (or so I've been told). I'm glad they're keeping their standards up and doing their best to keep the animals happy and entertained.

Fucking Hollywood man. It's a freaking Zoo out there.

You're welcome

That's a great aarvark story I'm actually quite happy to be associated with such cute little fellows.

I don't think our zoos have one though

According to my on-line dictionary they're maasika in Finnish, but I assume they're not terribly common there

Thanks!

Oh, and I have to mention, we went to the zoo last week, and they had the cutest oritte.. aardvark there! He was out in the 'watering hole' - a big area where they take animals out, and he was quite unruly.. They wanted to get him back inside, so they could do a cheetah run next, but he kept running around and dodging the door. They had about 5 people with food bowls after him, but he didn't go inside until they brought his aardvark girlfriend as bait

I had never seen one before! Made me think of you!

Where is Lincoln? Their children's petting zoo has pandas?!? Good for them.

Up until I saw my fellow countrymen (including many I respected) fawning like chimps at a tea party during that whole "jubilee" thing I might have agreed. There seems to be a huge cognitive dissonance for most people when it comes to the royals.

On the one hand most don't really take it very seriously, on the other many (maybe even most) appear to have a sub-conscious desire/need to submit to their natural betters. Our whole national identity is built on the myths of Kings and failed rebellions and I fear for many the Monarchy represents a kind of bizarre political security blanket. We claim to not really care but deep down I think many of us secretly fear loosing our mythical matriarch.

One might liken it to celebrity worship backed by 100's & 1000's of years of religious mythology. The Royal's aren't really human to us, they are more like some closely related parent species born to a life we could only dream of. I realise that when asked directly most people would consciously acknowledge that was silly, but most would also respond the same to say Christian sexual repression. They know sex and nakedness when considered rationally are nothing to be ashamed of, but they still continue to treat their own urges as somehow sinful when they do not fall within rigidly defined social parameters.

We still haven't gotten over such Judeo-Christian self policing because the social structures built up around it are still with us (even if we fool ourselves into thinking we are beyond the reach of such sub-conscious influences). I don't think we will ever get over our master-slave culture while class and unearned privilege are still built into the fabric of our society. Having a Royal family, no matter how symbolic, is the very living embodiment of this kind of backwards ideology.

It's like trying to quit heroin while locked in a room with a big bag of the stuff.

It's true to say most don't take the whole thing very seriously but that to me is almost as concerning. Most people when asked don't believe advertising has a significant effect on their psyche but Coke-a-cola still feels like spending about 3 billion a year on it is worthwhile. One of them is clearly mistaken!

Our royal family here, is to me working in the same way as coke's advertising. It's a focal point for a lot of sub-conscious concepts we are bombarded with our whole lives. Naturally there are many sides to this and it wouldn't work without heavy media manipulation, state indoctrination etc. but it's an intrinsic part of the coercive myth none the less. Monarch's, Emperors and wealthy Dynasties are all poisons to me. No matter the pragmatic details, the sub-conscious effect seems significant and cumulative.

"Dead" symbolisms IMHO can often be the most dangerous. At least one is consciously aware of the devils we see. No one is watching the one's we have forgotten.....

The above is reason enough for me but I have bog all better to do this aft so I'll dive into the rabbithole a bit.....

(We do very quickly start getting into conspiracy theory territory hare so I'll try to keep it as uncontroversial as I can.)

A. The UK is truly ruled by financial elites not political ones IMHO. "The city" says jump, Whitehall says how high. The Royal family being among the wealthiest landowners and investors in the world (let alone UK) presumably can exert the same kind of influence. Naturally this occurs behind closed doors, but when the ownership class puts it's foot down the government ignores them to their extreme detriment. (It's hard to argue with people who own your economy de-facto and can make or break your career)

B. The queen herself sits on the council on foreign relations & Bilderberg group and she was actually the chairwoman of the "committee of 300" for several years. (and that's not even starting on club of Rome, shares in Goldman Sachs etc.)

C. SIS the uk's intelligence services (MI5/6 etc.), which have been proven to on occasion operate without civilian oversight in the past, are sworn to the crown. This is always going to be a most contentious point as it's incredibly difficult to prove wrongdoings, but I have very strong suspicions based on various incidents (David Kelly, James Andanson, Jill Dando etc.), that if they wanted/needed you dead/threatened that would not be especially difficult to arrange.

D. Jimmy Saville. This one really is tin foil hat territory, but it's no secret he was close to the Royal family. I am of the opinion this is because he was a top level procurer of "things", for which I feel there is a great deal of evidence, but I can't expect people to just go along with that idea. However given the latest "paedogeddon" scandal involving a extremely high level abuse ring (cabinet members, mi5/6, bankers etc.) it certainly would come as little surprise to find royal family members involved.

Points A&B I would stand behind firmly. C&D are drifting into conjecture but still potentially relevant I feel.

But even if we ignore all of them, our culture is built from the ground up upon the idea of privilege of birth. That there are some people born better or more deserving than the rest of us. When I refer to symbolism this is what I mean. Obviously the buck does not stop with the monarchy, England is hopelessly stratified by class all the way through, but the royal family exemplify this to absurd extremes.

At best I feel this hopelessly distorts and corrupts our collective sense of identity on a sub-conscious level. At worst....Well you must have some idea now how paranoid I'm capable of being about the way the world is run. (Not that I necessarily believe it all wholeheartedly, but I'm open to the possibility and inclined to suggest it more likely than the mainstream narrative)


On a pragmatic note: Tourism would be fine without them I think, we still have the history and the castles and the soldiers with silly hats etc. And I think the palaces would make great hotels and museums. They make great zoo exhibits I agree, just maybe not let them continue to own half the zoo and bribe the zoo keepers?


Anyway much love as always. You responded with considered points which is always worthy of respect, regardless of whether I agree with it all.

I'm no monarchist. But you're tilting at windmills. The symbolism you speak of is dead, because everyone knows how ridiculous they are. The government treats them with disdain and are always cleaning up after one of them goes gobbing off. The constitutional veto that the Queen nominally has, for example, would be impossible for her to exercise.

The British tourism industry is based almost entirely on the history of the Royal family and the USP is that we still have one - they're not just figures from history, we have, as Mr Stanhope points out, the genuine article still in residence. It's a zoo.

Congratulations! Your comment on Bear Saves Crow from Drowning in Zoo Pond has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your video, Bear Saves Crow from Drowning in Zoo Pond, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 104 Badge!