"I'm Gonna Cry, Cry, Cry . . . Big River"

No Soul to Damn, and No Butt to Kick

The Attorney-General Tips his Cloth Cap to Animism

Jamie Whyte
NZ Herald

Whanganui River has all the rights of a person under a Treaty of Waitangi settlement passed into law today.

A neighbour came over for tea last week. She became agitated and I asked what was wrong. She was furious with our lawn. It was uneven and she had almost fallen. I apologised for my poor gardening but she insisted it had nothing to do with me. Her dispute was with the ground, which she regarded as unforgivably derelict.

My neighbour is as mad as Dr Evil's father, who would "accuse chestnuts of being lazy". Thank God she doesn't have an important job, like being an MP.  Or maybe she does. Last week, our MPs unanimously passed a law declaring that the Whanganui River has all "the rights, duties and liabilities of a legal person".

Chris Finlayson, the Attorney-General, acknowledges that "some people will say it's pretty strange to give a natural resource a legal personality, but it's no stranger than family trusts, or companies, or incorporated societies".

Legal persons are of two kinds: we humans, known in law as "natural persons", and persons that are legal fictions, such as companies and countries. These fictional people solve legal problems that can arise when natural people act in groups.

An Ancient Greek Myth

A Real-Life Indiana Jones Movie

Many of the ancient Greek philosophers were animists.  The basic idea is that the rock is "alive".  Or, to flip it around, when one is confronted with life, we really have a peculiar arrangement of dead matter.  So, take the thrush songbird and its beautiful morning chorus.  Clearly the thrush is quickened with life itself (whatever that might be), but the ancient Greek animist said, not really.  It is just inanimate matter in a peculiar configuration.  

This idea rules amongst the materialistic scientists (who control the Academy in our generation).  To account for life out of dead, inanimate, and impersonal matter the Academy coined a fancy word--which the credulous found a compelling argument in and by itself.  That word was "abiogenesis".  The theory of the origins of life represented by that word was:  a) that the earliest life forms on earth developed from non-living matter; and, b) living organisms arose spontaneously from inanimate matter, by spontaneous generation.  Abiogenesis is now thoroughly debunked, except for the invincibly ignorant animists.

No matter how many verbal smoke screens are puffed out, stupid is as stupid does.  And secularist science is pretty stupid at this point.

Test-Tube Superstition

Karakia, Anyone?

Intellectual deceit and rampant hypocrisy crowd the modern Western stage.  Unbelief is not just a nasty termagant, it is also replete with intellectual dishonesty.  Take, for example, the militant insistence that New Zealand be a secular nation.  Religion, we are told, is replete with myths, lies, and deceits.  The only truth is secular truth--which apparently means truth which can be observed and experimentally proven in a test-tube.

But at the same time, and out of the same mouths (albeit from the other side) there is an enthusiastic celebration of spirituality.  In our country this has become institutionalised in the employing of Maori to incant and pray at all public events and gatherings.  In fact, it is pretty well acknowledged now that no event would be a happening at all, were it not accompanied by Maori prayers, or incantations (karakia), or traditional animist chants to invoke the Maori pantheon of gods.  No formal school opening, no commissioning of a public project, no opening of a New Zealand embassy anywhere around the world would be the real deal without an effusive display and contribution from Maori spiritualism.

Apparently Unbelieving secularism has fallen prey to the rationalist-irrationalist dichotomy.  In the end, the rationalist becomes the superstitious irrationalist. 

This is not just a New Zealand failing.

Enslaved to Everything

Under the Ban

We posted yesterday about the PC madness that now swirls around breast feeding.  Nanny-state is rising up in an attempt to control every part of the human anatomy, except (for the moment) the rear end.  Oh, wait.  Given enough time it will even attempt to control human methane emissions--to prevent the earth from destruction, don't you know.

This madness illustrates a corollary of G. K. Chesterton's bon mot: "When people cease to believe in God they do not believe in nothing; they begin to believe in everything."  The corollary is this: when people cease to submit to God they do not remain at liberty; they become enslaved to everything.  Human rules replace God's rules; and human rules crush.

Here is an apt example: playdough.  "What," we hear you ask?  For generations mothers and early childhood educators have baked playdough out of flour to create a wonderfully malleable, colourful substance to entertain and develop young children.  No longer it seems.  Playdough is coming under the ban.

Rent Seeking Monster

Treating Maori With Respect

New Zealand is boldly arrogant and fiercely proud of its rejection of the Living God.  Consequently, it is not surprising that as a nation we are so often played for fools and given up to stupidity.  We have just been given another serving up of the pathetic genre.

Maori, by playing on white liberal feelings of guilt and pity, exploiting them with great cunning, have inveigled themselves into a position of great influence in our country.  Essentially, Maori, as the indigenous people, have manoeuvred themselves into a position of perpetual rent-seeking, by which they extract money every time somebody breathes.  The only debate now is over not whether, but what new rents can be extracted.  The issue as to whether Maori are entitled to extract rents was settled three decades ago.  This unfortunate affliction has come about because white liberal guilt met up with cunning Maori avarice and the latter very cleverly and successfully did over whitey. 

Traditional Maori animism believed in mythical monsters known as taniwha.

New Zealand's Religious Establishment

Unclean Things

New Zealand, along with all nations, is acutely religious. But, more than most Western countries, the dominant religion is now the Established Religion. We are using "established" in the historical sense of a religion prescribed and protected, so that all citizens must respect and honour that particular religion's beliefs and practices. Established religion is the religion buttressed and proscribed by the law of the land.

The established religion in New Zealand is Maori animism. In historical terms it is a pagan and primitive religion, riddled with superstition and idolatry. It is an offence and provocation to the Living God. But none who want official and public respect in New Zealand dare criticise the Establishment. Those, however, who fear God more than man are prepared to call it for what it is: hokey pokey--a thoroughly sour, ignorant and stupefying batch of mouldy ice-cream. Every Christian who understands what the Bible says about idolatry and false gods has no hesitation in flatly rejecting Maori animism. In so doing, we have become the new Dissenters.

Wavering Christians may well be offended at such a stand because they fear it will cause offence to Maori. Not causing offence has regrettably become for some of our brethren, not the eleventh commandment, but the only commandment. To these brethren we say, "harden up". Fear God, not man.  These weaker brethren have not yet realised that when it comes to a choice between offending the Living God, on the one hand, or man on the other, Christians must offend man a thousand times over. We must never, ever offend our God. We will drive out any idol, never tolerating any in His presence. We will be as jealous of God's honour as God is Himself.  We will never bow down or honour any image of God, which makes all graphical representations of God idolatrous. We will never tolerate His Name being used in an empty or vain fashion. We will honour His holy day.

The ignorance and stupidity of Maori animism has been on display in recent days. A church youth group had a fantastic day out, climbing Mount Taranaki, packing up a couch and BBQ by hand. Quite a feat. At the top they reclined for a celebratory meal. After enjoying the Lord's creation and celebrating his goodness, they decamped taking their gear and detritus with them.

On returning to the land of the living dead they were assailed by a government official: an outraged Taranaki Department of Conservation boss, Phil Mohi. Now, Phil it turns out is a Maori who has returned to the religion of his ancestors and is a card carrying Maori animist. He has taken it upon himself to speak out in the name of his gods. His god is the mountain. The top of the mountain is tapu--sacred ground, in the eyes of Phil and his colleagues. According to a media report:

He said the summit barbecue was disappointing because the young people there probably didn't realise or hadn't learnt that the mountain and especially the summit is a very sacred place for iwi of Taranaki. "We discourage camping at the summit and try to make people aware that the very highest part is the most sacred of all – and ask climbers to avoid standing there.


"There's a difference too between eating prepared food for sustenance and actually cooking on the summit," he said.

Ah, the casuistry of the animist. How quaint.

Now the young Christians were taken aback by this outburst. They apologised. They did not want to cause offence, they said. What they should have said is something like this: "Mount Taranaki is holy to us because it belongs to the Living God Who owns the cattle on a thousand hills and the wealth in every mine. All the earth is His. We went up the mountain to celebrate His glory and His majesty. We ate and drank with Him and feasted with Him and communed with Him. We gave thanks to Him for our food. We praised Him for His greatness displayed in the grandeur of Mount Taranaki which He has created. People need to respect our faith. All the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof." Sadly, these young folk were not mature enough to understand that this is how they ought to have responded. Instead they apologised for offending animists by not respecting their beliefs. Sad. But, hey, they will mature.

Now all of this may have been a mere debate between opposed religions--except that Phil Mohi was speaking as an officer of the Government of New Zealand. This is why we have argued that Maori animism is now the Established religion of our nation.

Mr Mohi said that was a good reflection on the group and he encouraged and applauded all those that made use of the park. "But part of our management role is to promote and protect the mountain's cultural and spiritual values," he said.

He said the summit barbecue presented a timely reminder that the mountain is of huge significance to a great many people and that such actions show little respect to a very special place. DOC's interpretation panels do explain the overall significance of the mountain but Mr Mohi said that staff will be exploring other ways to build greater awareness among the public. (Emphasis, ours.)

OK, Phil--let's become aware of each other. What you are promoting is deeply offensive to Christians and to God. It is also a lie. Your gods do not exist. Your beliefs offend and anger the Living God. Such idolatry ripens New Zealand and our people for judgment. It calls down the curses of the Covenant upon our land. Have we not already begun to taste His cup of wrath. Are we not being left once again in this country to demons from the ancient world? Are we not bloated upon the carcasses of our abused and aborted children? Are we not enslaved to drink, drugs, and crime? Are we not subjected to criminal gangs that imprison, enslave, rape and maim all who fall into their clutches?

The fact that your paganism is now the Established Religion of our nation makes it all the worse. The fact that our government will stand four square behind Phil, supporting him in his imperialistic animist beliefs condemns us all to wrath. But we Christians want no part of it. We are called to come out from among them, and be separate, and to touch not the unclean thing. (II Corinthians 6: 16-18)

The "unclean thing" is Maori animism; the clean thing is the creation, for it belongs to the Lord alone. Therefore, we will go up the mountain again, as often as we consider it appropriate, and eat and drink and feast and be merry before the Lord.

The Gospel According to Tuku Morgan

Tainui, Animism and Forthcoming Penury

Tuku Morgan is the chairman of Te Arataura Waikato-Tainui. As such he is involved in the investment and divestment of Tainui assets. He has made an impassioned plea for New Zealand not to sell land to foreigners. Tainui, he says, will not be selling any land to foreign owned interests. (NZ Herald, 30th August, 2010)

Good for them. If the tribal authorities own the land on behalf of the tribe they are free to sell to whomever they choose. The tribe has a private property right in the assets, after all. But Mr Morgan goes further. He makes his argument on the basis of Taunui's religion and wants to see the same principles and practice of ownership be extended to all New Zealand. He informs us that, “There are strong cultural and spiritual elements to our belief that land ownership must remain in the hands of New Zealanders.” Now Tainui are entitled to their own established religion; but he wants to see the principles and beliefs of his tribal religion extended to govern the behaviour of all New Zealanders. That is wrong. Such religious imperialism must be firmly resisted.

Mr Morgan explains that land is sacred in Tainui's religion, (which, he asserts, incidentally to be the religion of all Maori, not just Tainui). He writes: “Maori continue to regard their land as taonga tuku iho, a treasure. Land gives us our identity, our kotahitanga, our tino rangatiratanga.” Ancient Maori animism is well documented. Mr Morgan continues to hold to those beliefs in asserting that land somehow gives him and his tribe and his race identity. If we were to ask, Why not your BMW? or your house? or your flat screen TV?--why don't these possession likewise give you identity? no doubt Mr Morgan would reply that there is something distinct and mystical about land in a way not shared by other material assets. It is related to the ancestors and to the gods and through them Mr Morgan and his colleagues are able to relate to their ancestors and their gods.Land apparently serves as a channelling talisman in Mr Morgan's animistic religion.

One presumes, those Tainui who have left their tribal land and migrated overseas must have lost their identity, their kotahitanga and their tino rangatiratanga. They presumably are able to be regarded as human beings, but, one assumes, no longer Tainui, no longer Maori.


Some might argue that primitive Maori socialism is also at work here. Property, goods and possessions are not really owned by the individual, but by the collective (past ancestors, present living tribal members, and descendants to come) and therefore must never be sold. But no, Mr Morgan quite explicitly makes a distinction between land and other property. When speaking of foreign trading partners and investors, he is quick to point out that Tainui is keen to buy and sell with the best of them.

Waikato-Tainui has established relationships with foreign partners. We want to reach out and be part of a vibrant global community. We will draw on the skills and resources of overseas partners as they will benefit from ours. But land sales will never be part of those relationships. A key element of . . . our 50-year inter-generational strategic plan for the social, cultural, and economic advancement of Waikato-Tainui, is to grow the tribal estate—to reclaim for our tamariki and mokopuna and for their tamariki and mokipuna, the lands of their tapuna, their ancestors.

“We are doing that block by block, acre by acre, piece by piece. It is a long and drawn-out process—to reverse the alienation of a people from its land—but we are determined. (Emphasis, ours)

He goes on to explain that for the tribe, land, unlike other assets and property, is owned under the principle of guardianship. He writes: “We do not 'own' it as individuals. We are merely caretakers for those generations who went before, and those yet to follow.”

So, in Waikato-Tainui's mind, land is in a special category. It can be bought, but never sold. Meanwhile, stadia, hotels, businesses, commercial buildings can be bought and sold at will—as Tainui have done. That kind of property can definitely be “alienated” from the people by being sold off.

It is clear that land ownership for Tainui is a religious matter. Once again—they are entitled to their beliefs and particular religion. It is a false religion, but they are entitled to it. It is economic nonsense, but there you go.

To explain, let's explore just three aspects. Let's assume for a moment that Mr Morgan's religion is the truth and that the land occupied by their ancestors really does control and shape his person. Let us also grant for sake of argument that such land can never be owned individually but is collectively owned by the Tainui—including all past generations, those presently living, and those yet to be born. Does this principle also apply to the land occupied by the Waikato-Tainui ancestors before their migration to New Zealand? And if not, why not? And if so, then Tainui has a far bigger problem than their present alienation from land in the Waikato.

Secondly, why has Mr Morgan confused individual ownership and corporate ownership of property with transactions of property? Why does he imply land must owned corporately and inter-generationally (and therefore never be sold), but all other property can be bought or sold by the tribe at will? Surely all tribal assets such as hotels and so forth can be bought and sold, but, he would agree, remain corporately owned. Purchase and sale simply is exchanging one form of ownership for another, or exchanging one form of property for another. But all tribal assets must be held in perpetuity for the tribe? And if not, why not? Why would land be placed in a special category of ownership—never to be sold, once purchased? Why can tribal assets such as hotels be sold, but land never?

But, if it were true that land really did determine the personhood of individual people—or Tainui believes that it does—then surely Tainui should sell up all their other assets as soon as possible to buy up as much land as possible—to ensure a greater identity and personhood of tribal members.

And herein lies the economic folly of what Mr Morgan is proposing: the market value of any asset is determined by what people are willing to pay for it. Mr Morgan wants Tainui to buy land, then remove it from sale forever. This means that the market value of the land falls overnight to nothing. That which can never be sold is often said to be priceless—but in fact, it is worthless in an economic and market sense. If Tainui pursue this fifty year strategy seriously the tribe will end up in penury. It will have a huge land bank with which it can do very little. Waikato-Tainui will succeed to poverty—and so the cycle will repeat. This is what animism always produces.

The smart Waikato-Tainui will have nothing to do with such nonsense. The idea that such folly should be extended to all New Zealand must be rejected out of hand. Mr Morgan and his colleagues have a right to take the tribe to penury if they so choose. They have no right to argue, even insist, that the rest of the country must likewise be afflicted with their false religion and its attendant economic nonsense.

Volcanoes and Primitive Superstition

The Gods Are Not Crazy, But Angry

We recently watched the second UK "Leaders' Debate" on Fox. Two things (of not equal significance) were striking. The first was the relative politeness of political discourse on display. The moderator was not trying to make himself the "star" of the show and improve his next bonus by constantly interrupting like a childish jack-in-the-box. The three leaders, whilst disagreeing and debating, did so respectfully, with minimal interruption, cheap point scoring, crass one-up-man-ship, and megaphonic shouting down. We in New Zealand could learn a thing or two.

The second striking feature was, despite the superficial sophistication, the evident degraded state of the United Kingdom. All the candidates are so far into the mire of soft-despotic statism that the only differences were relatively minor. All candidates were scrupulous to do all they could not to offend anyone, particularly those identified as disadvantaged minorities. The UK is gone-burger--until its people come to their senses like the Prodigal at the swine trough--and repent. Let us, therefore, continue to pray for all those who have not yet bowed the knee to Baal in the UK, and who continue to believe, display, and proclaim the Gospel of the Lord Messiah. We do hear encouraging reports of the Spirit of God moving once again over that now formless and void nation.

The raw ignorance and wilful blindness of the UK has been on display again recently, with a cacophony of voices raised in praise and honour of the great gods of the Icelandic volcanoes, that shut down airports. (Well actually bureaucrats and soft-despots, using their "risk-prevention" mantras shut down the airports, but for the enlightened Druid set, that's mere hair-splitting.) What was so wonderful about the airport shutdown, we hear you asking? Well, it stopped all those dastardly CO2 spewing aircraft from flying of course. Nature was showing us how powerful she is. At one fell eruption, it displayed the man with all his oh-so-clever, devilish machines as puny. And that's a very good thing.

Brendan O’Neill, in a piece entitled, Bow Down Before the Mighty Volcano, reviews the celebration of primitivism disemboguing in the British media over recent days.

It took a few days, but after the initial shock of a volcanic eruption 900 miles away having such a dramatic impact in Britain and other parts of Western Europe, various observers started venturing the idea that maybe this was a Good Thing. ‘Even a modest rumbling in the underworld is enough to throw a gigantic spanner into the works of modern life’, said one overexcited commentator. For others the ash was a timely reminder of the awesomeness of nature in contrast to arrogant-but-actually-pathetic mankind. ‘Hate Iceland? No, their volcano reminds us that nature is the boss’, said one headline, above an article mocking the idea that mankind is ‘sophisticated and clever enough to master nature’.

An editorial in the Guardian cheered the fact that ‘the heavens were restored to a heavenly condition’ by the post-volcano grounding of flights – that is, there were no ‘wispy vapour trails’ in Britain’s skies. The editorial then said, with more than a hint of regret, that ‘for all the damage done to our climate [by manmade flight], there is no chance at all of mankind submitting to becoming a flightless animal once more. But how about for one day a week?’, it asked, arguing that the quieter, calmer, flight-free skies brought about by the volcanic spewing offered a glimpse of a greener, happier world. A world where BBC correspondent Fergus Walsh, who lives near the flight path to Heathrow, could finally hear ‘blackbirds, robins, wood pigeons, even song thrushes’. And what is mankind’s ability to take to the skies compared with a BBC journalist’s right to hear birds tweeting and squawking?

And then there is this pious, worshipful drivelling from the Observer:

The Observer was positively ecstatic about the impact of the volcanic ash on modern life, going into full sixth-form creative-writing mode to express its worship of the Icelandic volcano’s power. ‘For most of us’, it said (most of us – really?), ‘the plume of ash and smoke rising from beneath the Earth’s crust… is cause only for awe’. Sounding like members of some weird ancient nature cult, the Observer’s leader writers argued that ‘the eruption provides a reminder of our status in relation to our planet and over which we have arrogantly seized stewardship. We imagine ourselves its master and yet with one modest belch it hems us into our little island, sweeping instantly from the skies the aeroplane, which we consider to be an example of the irrepressible genius of our species.’

Animistic Druidism appears to be making a comeback in the broad temple of "scientific" rationalism in the UK and not surprisingly it is being granted a seat of honour. If you do not fear and worship the Living God, you end up worshipping some aspect of His Creation. And so the Green movement and its propaganda organs in the UK are lifting their hands in due reverence and obeisance to a volcano! As O'Neill argues:

And . . . the excitable idea that one volcanic belch has reminded us how small we are reveals what lies behind the contemporary green outlook: a misanthropic view of mankind as a cocky and destructive species which needs to be firmly put back in its place. It is striking that even a natural event which cannot in anyway be described as ‘manmade’ has unleashed so much nature-dominates-man commentary. This shows that, for all contemporary commentators’ claims that they are only interested in communicating the ‘scientific facts’ about what will happen if we continue distorting and warping the natural world with CO2, in fact they are instinctively drawn to any natural occurrence that can be held up as evidence of Mother Nature’s power over deluded mankind.

What we effectively have is a new, modern version of ancient man’s fear and humility before volcanoes. As one study of volcanology argues, in ancient times people thought ‘volcanic eruptions were the work of angry gods, determined to punish us for deeds that displeased them’. The birth of the science of volcanology, from the nineteenth century onwards, helped us to understand that volcanic eruptions were in fact natural phenomena with no moral meaning or sentience. Only now they are being given meaning once more, with some suggesting that maybe ‘Mother Earth is having her revenge on mankind for disrupting the balance of the world’. In short? The gods are displeased and they are punishing us.

Maybe the next step will be to call for a few choice sacrificial victims to be thrown into the angry maw of the beast, to propitiate its wrath. It's been done before in primitive societies, and the UK is now going back to the future at an ever increasing rate. Nothing would surprise us from here on out.

Misty Eyed Animism

The Semi-Deification of Whales

The International Whaling Commission is discussing a proposal that Norway, Iceland and Japan be allowed to resume their traditional whale harvesting activities and replace "scientific" whaling with gastronomic whaling. At the same time, says the Commission, it wants to reduce the number of whales killed annually to less than the current 3,000.

This has provoked a storm of predictable outrage from green mystics who "an immediate rejection of any plan that would validate the killing of whales." (NZ Herald, 25 Feb, 2010) This is an interesting development insofar as the political theatre it will create.

Now as everyone knows, the "scientific" whaling regime has been a "legal" loophole that has allowed Norway, Iceland and Japan to continue to put whalemeat on their plates, as they have done for centuries. But, it has been generally tolerated insofar as the rubric "science" provided a bit of a propaganda smokescreen and the world preferred to operate on a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But now things are going to become more overt. The International Whaling Commission is considering whether actually to approve and regulate the killing of whales so that they may be eaten.

That will set the cat among the proverbial pigeons, for many in our modern spiritually mushy world regard whales as semi-human, if not semi-divine. Whilst our culture remains indulgent and relaxed towards killing 18,000 unborn children-bearing-the-image-of-God a year, killing whales, let alone eating them, is a definite and certain evil. This doctrine is animalism at its worst. (Once again it shows how religion and food are inextricably connected. Tell us your doctrines of food, and we will have a fair crack at being able to define your religion.)

Now, to be sure, we believe very strongly that no species should be made extinct by the wilful or careless imperial terrestrial reign of human beings, God's sub-creators. If God created such things, we had better not extinguish the species, without incurring His wrath. Whales, therefore, ought to be protected from extinction in the same way that any other wonderful species, such as cockroaches or mosquitoes, ought not to be extinguished.

Therefore, moratoriums or other restrictions upon whaling to prevent the species being killed off in toto seem an eminently sensible thing to do. But putting whales into a mystical semi-human category that would see their killing and eating as intrinsically evil, is itself not just loopy, but is wicked in its own right. Maudlin appeals to Maori myths and animism simply illustrate the point, Whalerider notwithstanding.

But, we understand that minke whales, which were of particular concern, have now recovered strongly and fears of extinction have faded.

An interesting question is what would be the best means to control the killing of whales going forward so as to preserve all whale species and ensure their survival? We acknowledge the difficulty with open seas administration and binding agreements. However, there is plenty of evidence now that if it were possible to create international property rights in whales, to be owned by commercial whaling companies, and administered through a quota system, the survival and management of the species would be likely well ensured.

We know that the quota system in New Zealand for management of our fisheries has been an unqualified success (apart from the alleged dubious illegal practices of certain fishing magnates and companies which will remain nameless). We have just seen another evidence of this with the opening of the Bluff oyster season. The administrators have announced another low catch season in protection of the oyster beds. The fishermen strongly support the restrictions and self-police them with commendable vigilance. Why? Because they all own quota property rights over the beds and catches, and the value of their property will reduce over time, if not erode entirely, if the oyster beds are not sustained indefinitely.

The more healthy and populated the oyster beds now and in the future, the more valuable one's quota property becomes. Every commercial fisherman has a vested pecuniary interest in the sustainability of the beds and in the careful scientific research into their health and monitoring of them.

The establishment of property rights allowing their monetisation and sale does wonderful things for the protection and care of the natural environment in general and of animal species in particular. If it could ever be established, it would be hugely successful for the preservation and prospering of whales.

But, in our animistic topsy-turvy Western world this would be horribly offensive to many--if not the majority--whose maudlin sentimentality over animals is killing out them and all too many of us. Witness the stridently aghast refusal to terminate the killer whale in Florida which just recently killed its third human being.