I had to take my son’s budgerigar to the bird doctor the other day… one-hour visit, antibiotics injection, $280 bill.

It’s cheaper to treat humans.

This got me thinking about a conversation I recently had with a friend about vets.

“Vets have one of the highest suicide rates around.”

“You mean War Veterans right?”

“No. Veterinarians. Animal doctors.”

I just couldn’t believe it. My friend was telling me about an article she read about how vets (not just here, but in the US and the UK and probably elsewhere) have a much higher likelihood of taking their own lives.

So I googled it and it turns out it’s true. It’s a known problem in the industry and has been for years.

In the UK, vets are four times more likely than the general population to take their own lives. That makes them one of the most at-risk professions going.

I just couldn’t get it out of my head…


So I did a bit more digging.

Turns out I had a totally romantic idea of what being a vet was all about. I thought it was all helping dolphins give birth and pulling thorns out of hamsters’ paws.

Nope. Vet life is actually pretty stressful. Most work long hours, the pays not great, and your clients can be very demanding. And there’s a lot of blood and guts and vomit and sh#t to deal with.

But that alone can’t explain it. There are many high-stress occupations that don’t have high-suicide rates – forex traders and airline pilots.

And there are many jobs that are unpleasant. Ask any nurse – or childcare worker!

(A friend of mine works in daycare. She said one day, two parents dropped their daughter off and said she’d swallowed 12 marbles the night before. They wanted her to check that they all come through.)

Some people wonder if it’s the high mortality rates associated with vet work. Compared to doctors say, vets are much more likely to lose patients. Many only see their patients when it’s time to ‘put them down.’

Some say their job is less animal health than it is ‘unwanted pet disposal’.

That’s got to be pretty brutal. And if you’re dealing with cases of animal cruelty or neglect on a regular basis, that’s got to test your faith in humanity.

But again, it’s not just vets that have to deal with that. If you’re working in palliative care, 100% of your patients are going to die sooner or later.

And if you’re working in child protection, you probably regularly come face to face with the horrible underbelly of human nature.

But these professions don’t have high suicide rates.

So what is it that sets vets apart?

One study reckons that if you spend too long doing vet work, you end up getting used to the decision and the act of ending something’s life.

You get desensitised to putting something ‘out of its misery’.

But humans are a lot like animals (especially if you’re an animal lover which I assume most vets are). So this crosses over into ending human life.

Vets and vet nurses are much more likely to favour voluntary euthanasia. One UK study showed almost 95% of vets are in favour. That compares with about 70% of the Australian adult population.

And if you think it’s ok for people in general, then putting your own self ‘out of your misery’ no longer seems like such a big deal.

And so vets are much more likely to take their own lives.

Is that true? This seems to be the best explanation available, but I find it really disturbing.

Every time I hear about someone taking their own life, I feel a sense of loss. I feel like we, as a society, have failed them. And the tragedy and sorrow weighs heavily on us.

And our stubbornly high suicide rates are a national disgrace.

Is it really just a cold and tragic calculus that lies beneath it all?

If a horse has a broken leg, it’s like we say that any joy and happiness their future life might offer does not offset the suffering they will have to endure. We put them ‘out of their misery’.

But does it make sense to apply that kind of cost/benefit analysis to any life, let alone human life?

It’s feels like such a shame when someone takes that view of their own life and thinks, there’s not enough prospect for joy to bother going on.

Life circumstances can change. Easily, radically. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

But does it even make sense to place joy and suffering in opposition to each other? Both are needed for a rich and full life. One is not possible without the other.

And so I think vets are on the pointy end of a modern cultural fear of suffering. We run from suffering, see suffering as a problem.

My point is that a life full of suffering can still be a rich, powerful, meaningful and valuable. And suffering is a necessary part of life.

And a life full of suffering can still have a point. There can be still be a point to life.

I wonder if we, as a society, have lost sight of this. And vets, tragically, are the canary in the coal mine.

I guess I’m sharing this because I’ve also had my ups and downs. I’ve had my share of highs, but also my share of lows.

And I can be hard on myself. I set my expectations high. If a project doesn’t come off, it can really throw me.

But these set-backs – these hardships – are part of the journey. An important part of the journey.

The trick is not to fight them – not to see them as some sort of problem – but to allow them in.

Allow them in and realise that you are bigger than your suffering. You are bigger than it all.

And measure your life not by some entry in the joy/suffering ledger, but in meaning – in the contribution you can make to the lives of others.

Like your vet.

When did you last hug a vet?

Your thoughts?

younguns671 asked:

Anarchy is pure capitalism, how could you claim to be an anarchist when you are against capitalism?

I would have laughed if I had not read that you are pro Israel massacre.
Capitalism is the authoritarian and hierarchical domination of strongest class upon the economically weaker class which is exploited for the purpose of profit and maintenance of social order.
Among the rest historically the anarchist doctrine was actually born anti capitalist, with the utopian socialists just before Karl Marx, and after them with Bakunin during the First International.
Anarchy is a social order that is opposed to the class differences that are the primary form of oppression of man by man. 
Therefore anarchists are against the private property, market, finance, banks and any other instrument of economic oppression over the weak.
The libertarian struggles to the exclusive economic freedom, known as lassaiz-faire, but it is obvious that this would leave unchanged the living conditions of the majority of the global population, where 1% basically controls the world.
What the anarcho-capitalists want is lower taxation and less regulation of the market. What real anarchists want is the suppression of private ownership, of the states and boundaries, of the market and of the capitalist economic system of class.
Economic power (that in capitalism is the inherent profit and individual wealth of a few perpetrated through the war and the fundamental instrument of oppression known as state) is opposite to individual freedom and equality, and it’s the true basis of political power and of the authoritarian and hierarchical inequalities in society.
That’s why anarchists can only be anti-capitalists.

"We see that the richest property owners are precisely those who work the least or who do not work at all. It is evident to anyone who is not blind about this matter that productive labor creates wealth and yields the producers only misery, and it is only non-productive, exploiting labor that yields property.

What is property, what is capital in their present form?

For the capitalist and the property owner they mean the power and the right, guaranteed by the State, to live without working. And since neither property nor capital produces anything when not fertilized by labor, that means the power and the right to live by exploiting the work of someone else.

The right to exploit the work of those who possess neither property nor capital and who thus are forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both.”

Michail Bakunin

Competing versus solidarity, it’s that simple, really.

With Spring just around the corner most witches like to prepare for the coming season with gardening.Here are some spells from Llewellyn’s 2013 Magical Almanac, titled Spring Garden Magic by James Kambos.

Spell To Protect Garden or Property from any Negativity

What you’ll need:

Cauldron or Flower Pot (Preferably Clay Base)

Garden Soil/Soil


Dried Basil

Rusty Nail

Place your cauldron or flower pot inthe garden, combine a handful of garden soil, with a generous dash of pepper, and a pinch of dried basil. Tap the cauldron three times and stir the ingredients with a rusty nail. Sprinkle this mixture around your garden’s perimeter as you say “Basil cleanse, pepper sting,this garden is sealed with a protective ring.” Bury the nail at theedge of your garden.

Welcoming the Goddess

What you’ll need:



On a warm spring day, kneel directly on the ground. Crumble the soil in your hands and release it’s earthly scent. To purify your garden sprinkle vinegar lightly over the soil. To welcome the Goddess into your garden, press three apple slices into the soil. This not only draws fertility and abundance, it also honors the three aspects of the Goddess- Maiden, Mother, and Crone.

Fertility and Abundance

What you’ll need:

Grass,stems, branches, shrubs, preferably Spring Gardening Plants.

Jute Twine/Willow Branches

Cut some grass, stems, branches, shrubs, flowers, etc. (It does not state this but I believe anything that’s in your garden or grows around your areas would be best.) Tie your bundle with willow branches or jute twine. If you’re artistic you can shape into a form of a human or doll. Hide your bundle in your garden or bury it. As the bundle decays the magical powers of fertility is released, renewing the vitality of both plant and soil. This belief dates back to the fertility rites involving nature deities such as Pan and the Green Man.

spill-your-mind asked:

What I think people forget is both owners and employees are "workers." Most owners put in 80 hours a week and are the ones that take more impactful risks. I choose to not grow a garden myself, so others grow foods for me and I trade for it (grocery store). To deny property rights is to deny self ownership which is to deny any accountability of ones actions. If you read Mises you see that property and prices are required for the proper allocation of resources. Polls/voting will fail.

It is true capitalists work: they do business, spend (invest) their capital, they hire people for the toughest works, and everything they do is to increase their wealth, at their own advantage (and in opposition to the good of environment, and the poorer classes).
On the other hand the proletarians, immigrants, the precariat, can not help but carry out the less intellectual, heavier and demanding tasks, though often highly specialized. The risks of which you speak are also risks shared by the employee (which frequently loses his job) not that he can do anything to avoid them.

We live in a free market system for over four centuries today, if capitalism worked it would have amply demonstrated it. Instead what has been shown is that in this system the inequalities tend to gradually increase, making the owners class the richest (of most of the goods), at the expense of poorest.

To deny property rights does not equal to deny self ownership, it only means to eliminate the competition between the poor, and to eliminate the luck of birth as a causative factor of social wealth. The right to personal possession of some goods is not equivalent to the right to the capital (that benefits one class upon another).
By making the means of production common to all people, not only you would impose liability and work for a greater education of all individuals (promoting values such as solidarity, the common good and equality), but you would make the system more efficient.

Property and prices are required for the proper allocation of resources only in a (free) market economy. In a different type of economy however the allocation can take place in a voluntary manner, and with more precise and accurate predictions, producing the goods on the basis of environmental assessments and also on the social cost of production.