On last night’s episode of Zoo [1], the writers decided to explore that most overplayed of liberal story lines: the environment/fauna is destroyed by corporate greed and reckless endangerment and mutates! Our protagonists for this overdone, lazy monotony are activist/journalist Jamie Campbell (Kristen Connolly) and “I’m too moody and deep for you to possibly comprehend the depths of me," animal anthropologist Mitch Morgan (Billy Burke).
Since episode 1, Campbell has actively pursued the theory that chemicals produced by Reiden Global, the evil corporate entity of choice for this particular series, cause lions to communicate with each other and attack humans. But tonight, we found out the deeper, underlying reason for Campbell’s quest to destroy Reid Global. Hint: it’s a reason you could never have possibly seen coming:
"-I was 11 when my mom got sick. She was one of the first ones. Eventually, there were 26 more. 26 formerly healthy members of the community.
-Cancer clusters.
-We tried to make a case, but... By then, Reiden was this... Huge, monolithic super-corporation, and we were just a bunch of sick farmers in a tidewater town. And who knows what causes cancer, right? All you can do to avoid it, good luck and good genetics. Or so the thinking goes.
-I'm sorry.
-Do you have family? I never asked.
-Yeah, we're not close. As you can imagine, I'm an acquired taste.
-Yeah, in the beginning. In the end, though, you come through. Anyway, I wanted to bring you here to show you that I wasn't completely nuts. I'm just very, very angry."
Okay, I lied. A corporation causing people to die of cancer, thus spurring their loved ones to embark on crusades against said companies, is a plot line that anyone could see coming a million miles away. Because, not only have we seen that before, but as evidenced by Jurassic Park 3, Magic Mike 2, Fast & Furious 97, Rambo 9, and the new Ghostbusters series, Hollywood is completely incapable of coming up with new ideas! While staying true to the theme of enviro-propaganda that is the soul of Patterson’s book, by episode 3 the series has lapsed into tried and tired liberal talking points and story lines.
Equally silly is the idea that non-tobacco corporations, who rely on people being, you know, alive to spend money on their products would somehow knowingly or willingly cause people to have cancer.
However, I digress. The most disturbing part of this episode, however, came later when one Mrs. Blanchard goes to visit the death row inmate who killed her husband. The inmate not only proudly but also grotesquely boasts of having killed her husband because, as the inmate says, he was a “murderer” for hunting animals. But what the inmate gives as his inspiration for murdering her husband is even more twisted:
"-I'm surprised you agreed to see me.
-Seems it's God's will. Well, some might say a veiled attempt to stave off any kind of unforeseen unpleasantness in the hereafter. But I don't answer to them, Miss Blanchard, only to you.
-It's Mrs. You've always maintained your innocence. But I need the truth, Mr. Hartley. Did you kill my husband?
-I wasn't always like this. Lusting. Craving. We played God. And we paid a horrible price. I was out there looking for the cure. Out there in the woods. That night, seeing your husband and his friends on that hunting trip... It triggered something. Watching men celebrate murder. They made it easy. Easy to kill. Your husband was the first. He was a little slower than the rest. I took him down fast. You should know he didn't suffer, Miss Blanchard. My knife is fast.
-Mrs.
-And before I got caught, I was out there looking for another hunting party. 'Cause it had become... It is now... My nature. I know you got questions about what I did. But all the answers are right here, Miss Blanchard.
-Damn it, it's Mrs. Mrs. Blanchard.
-Is it, though? Is it still? You see, I thought I removed the "Mrs." When I removed Daniel's heart.
-Guard! I want to leave now!"
Clearly, this inmate went to the Pope Francis school of theology, where a justification for every form of liberal environmental activism is apparently found in the Good Book. Interesting that this degenerate claims the justification for murdering this poor woman’s husband can be found in a book that says “Thou Shalt Not Murder.” He must have a different version.
Not to mention the fact that the Bible contains passages of God calling for animal sacrifice, Jesus filling the nets of fishermen (the hunters of the sea) with fish, and no less than 42 different instances [2] where hunting is mentioned, alluded to, or analogized in a positive or neutral way.
That represents an inconvenient truth for animal rights activists when it comes to religion. But with judges like we have, it’s only a matter of time before SCOTUS rewrites those parts, too.