Lockhart here, folks.
In a case-in-point that is sure to offend some people, I am going to demonstrate what I consider to be an example of the Republican party's callous disregard for lower and middle class Americans, many of whom comprise a large portion of their constituency. Let us, for a moment, zoom in upon Gulfport, Mississippi.
Haley Barbour--governor of Mississippi, one-time lobbyist, chairman of the Republican National Committee, and Reagan White House political director--has redirected $600 million in federal Housing and Urban Development grant money, originally earmarked to provide housing for the tens of thousands of Katrina victims in the state, to an expansion project for the port of Gulfport that would include casino and resort facilities. Barbour and his Republican-controlled state bureaucracy defend this move by claiming that revitalization and expansion of the port will bring tourism and high-paying jobs to the impoverished state.
I would like to ask Governor Barbour where he intends all of these tourists and well-payed workers to live.
It would appear to me that the state has its priorities out of order. More than 35,000 Mississippians are still living in FEMA-provided housing (read: trailers). While it is certainly necessary to rebuild the port to make it viable again (especially with the prospect of increased sea-traffic brough on by Panama's widening of the Panama Canal), a sane and responsible government would realize that it is far more important for its citizenry to have proper homes to live in.
Or perhaps these right and good Republicans do have their priorities in order. The party as a whole has long been accused of catering almost exclusively to obscenely wealthy business interests, exactly the sort of people who would benefit from a port expansion project at this phase in the Mississippi Gulf coast's recovery. When viewed from that angle, these redirection of funds appears not just irresponsible, but criminal.
A fuller explanation of the callousness of the Republican party toward the lower and middle class Americans and why these people continue to support the party would require far more time than I have here and likely cause my editor much worry, so I will have to leave you to your own conclusions. However, as one final thought, one would think that the city of Gulfport would take a lesson from the City of New Orleans.
(Not to whitewash the New Orleans recovery effort or to compare private sector recovery efforts with federal grants, but at least they have their priorities straight.)
Cheers,
Lockhart
Friday, January 25, 2008
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Redacted Wednesday Blind Item
My apologies, readers. It appears that our culture columnist doesn't quite grasp the concept behind a blind item. Hopefully this won't happen again, but in the meantime, I'll opine.
Consider this, if you will. For a bit of background, the Westboro Baptist Church, headed by the Reverend Fred Phelps, is a Topeka, Kansas-based hate group that masquerades as a religious organization. They have no dogma to speak of, except to use the more forboding passages of the Old Testament to condemn other people, most notably homosexuals, feminists, liberals, and "pagans." One look at the church-run website and a person would not be incorrect in saying that the Westboro Baptist Church hates everyone who is not a part of their malicious little cult. They are almost amusing in their hatred. Almost.
Of late, the WBC has been making a general nuisance of itself by demonstrating at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq, saying that the soldiers were killed by God's own hand as retribution for being gay and defending a country that defends gay people. But now, in the same spirit of anti-homosexuality, they are planning to demonstrate at Heath Ledger's funeral....not because he was a homosexual, but because he portrayed a homosexual in a movie.
This planned demonstration is almost absurd. Almost. Were it not so hatefully insensitive to the late Heath Ledger's family, friends, and the millions of people who enjoyed in his acting, we could all happily laugh the WBC into obscurity. But a story like this begs the question, "Do these people have no souls?" I and my writing team lean towards, "No."
It is the acme of inpropriety to turn a solemn occasion like a funeral (regardless of whose funeral it is) into a platform to advance any ideology, let alone one of blistering, ignorant hatred. Heath Ledger's funeral should be about remembering him and what he stood for, and he most certainly did not stand for Phelps and company's agenda of bigotry.
Consider this, if you will. For a bit of background, the Westboro Baptist Church, headed by the Reverend Fred Phelps, is a Topeka, Kansas-based hate group that masquerades as a religious organization. They have no dogma to speak of, except to use the more forboding passages of the Old Testament to condemn other people, most notably homosexuals, feminists, liberals, and "pagans." One look at the church-run website and a person would not be incorrect in saying that the Westboro Baptist Church hates everyone who is not a part of their malicious little cult. They are almost amusing in their hatred. Almost.
Of late, the WBC has been making a general nuisance of itself by demonstrating at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq, saying that the soldiers were killed by God's own hand as retribution for being gay and defending a country that defends gay people. But now, in the same spirit of anti-homosexuality, they are planning to demonstrate at Heath Ledger's funeral....not because he was a homosexual, but because he portrayed a homosexual in a movie.
This planned demonstration is almost absurd. Almost. Were it not so hatefully insensitive to the late Heath Ledger's family, friends, and the millions of people who enjoyed in his acting, we could all happily laugh the WBC into obscurity. But a story like this begs the question, "Do these people have no souls?" I and my writing team lean towards, "No."
It is the acme of inpropriety to turn a solemn occasion like a funeral (regardless of whose funeral it is) into a platform to advance any ideology, let alone one of blistering, ignorant hatred. Heath Ledger's funeral should be about remembering him and what he stood for, and he most certainly did not stand for Phelps and company's agenda of bigotry.
Today's Blind Item
As we're all stunned in the aftermath of Heath Ledger's tragic death, the Cynics' Salon has it on good information that a certain Reverend Fred Phelps of a certain whacko Baptist church in Topeka, Kansas is planning an anti-homosexual demonstration at the actor's funeral. This, of course, in reaction to Ledger's portrayal of a homosexual cowboy in Brokeback Mountain.
Perhaps this certain "Reverend" has finally lost the last of his marbles.
Perhaps this certain "Reverend" has finally lost the last of his marbles.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Observations 'pon a Wednesday Morn.
We return today after a short re-organization hiatus with a few observations:
1.) In Austria, A Chimp is Not a Person. Seems the Austrian judicial system had to get involved to help these folks tell the difference between A Human and Not A Human. Seriously...was a court ruling really necessary to declare that a chimpanzee is not a person? I didn't think it could get any more ridiculous than a Constitutional amendment to define marriage.
2.) If you're going to drive like a jerk and assume that everyone else should kowtow to your vehicular whims on the road, don't display a red, white, and blue bumper sticker that reads, "United We Stand," because you're obviously not driving like you want to be part of the group. At least if you had one of those delightful cartoons of Calvin urinating on something, it would more closely define your character to the rest of us.
3.) Liberals, stop backing Ron Paul! He's not a liberal! Libertarianism is, at bottom, a philosophy that presupposes that all forms of liberty are mutually inclusive, and that all members of a society are rational enough to recognize this. If such were the case, there would be no need of special places to keep those individuals who chose not to respect or are incapable of respecting other people's liberties (we call these places prisons.) Since one cannot expect all members of a society to respect the liberties of every other member of the society, and because many liberties are mutually exclusive (meaning that that for one to enjoy something, someone else must suffer), libertarianism is merely a nice word for anarchism. The "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" mentality espoused by most libertarians would in reality become "do unto others before they do unto you."
Thus, Liberals, either find a Democratic candidate you can live with or stay home on election day. If you're so cynical that you'd consider voting for Ron Paul as the "lesser of all evils," then just let those of us who care about the electoral process carry the country.
4.) And while we're on the subject of libertarianism, if you're going to accept welfare dollars from the government, you can't claim to be a libertarian. It's against the rules.
Cheers,
Lockhart
1.) In Austria, A Chimp is Not a Person. Seems the Austrian judicial system had to get involved to help these folks tell the difference between A Human and Not A Human. Seriously...was a court ruling really necessary to declare that a chimpanzee is not a person? I didn't think it could get any more ridiculous than a Constitutional amendment to define marriage.
2.) If you're going to drive like a jerk and assume that everyone else should kowtow to your vehicular whims on the road, don't display a red, white, and blue bumper sticker that reads, "United We Stand," because you're obviously not driving like you want to be part of the group. At least if you had one of those delightful cartoons of Calvin urinating on something, it would more closely define your character to the rest of us.
3.) Liberals, stop backing Ron Paul! He's not a liberal! Libertarianism is, at bottom, a philosophy that presupposes that all forms of liberty are mutually inclusive, and that all members of a society are rational enough to recognize this. If such were the case, there would be no need of special places to keep those individuals who chose not to respect or are incapable of respecting other people's liberties (we call these places prisons.) Since one cannot expect all members of a society to respect the liberties of every other member of the society, and because many liberties are mutually exclusive (meaning that that for one to enjoy something, someone else must suffer), libertarianism is merely a nice word for anarchism. The "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" mentality espoused by most libertarians would in reality become "do unto others before they do unto you."
Thus, Liberals, either find a Democratic candidate you can live with or stay home on election day. If you're so cynical that you'd consider voting for Ron Paul as the "lesser of all evils," then just let those of us who care about the electoral process carry the country.
4.) And while we're on the subject of libertarianism, if you're going to accept welfare dollars from the government, you can't claim to be a libertarian. It's against the rules.
Cheers,
Lockhart
Friday, January 11, 2008
When Hell Freezes Over
This morning, snow fell in Baghdad.
Sort of makes one think, doesn't it? Funny how something as simple as precipitation can make one dare to hope that maybe things will get better one day. Funny how it makes even a hard-boiled cynic optimistic.
Cheers,
Lockhart
Sort of makes one think, doesn't it? Funny how something as simple as precipitation can make one dare to hope that maybe things will get better one day. Funny how it makes even a hard-boiled cynic optimistic.
Cheers,
Lockhart
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
WTF, NOLA?
In a rare, double-whammy posting day, I present for your approval the following:
Katrina victim sues U.S. for $3 quadrillion
Federal government hit with 489,000 damage claims after hurricane
For those of you not following the link: 489,000 claims have been filed against the federal government over damage from breached levees and floodwalls. The dollar amount of these 489,000 claims comes to unrealistically boggling sum of $3,014,170,389,176,410.00.
I honestly (for once) have nothing to say.
Cheers,
Lockhart
Katrina victim sues U.S. for $3 quadrillion
Federal government hit with 489,000 damage claims after hurricane
For those of you not following the link: 489,000 claims have been filed against the federal government over damage from breached levees and floodwalls. The dollar amount of these 489,000 claims comes to unrealistically boggling sum of $3,014,170,389,176,410.00.
I honestly (for once) have nothing to say.
Cheers,
Lockhart
There's No Crying in Politics
Lockhart returns, rested and triumphant. Now to the point.
Somebody needs to tell New Hampshire that there's no crying in politics, or at least the 39% of them who voted for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama because she got misty-eyed about her daily struggles. Call me old fashioned, but there are two people who should never, never cry: journalists and politicians. Walter Cronkite didn't cry during Vietnam. John F. Kennedy didn't cry during the Cuban Missile Crisis. And, more to the matter, Margaret Thatcher didn't cry when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. I don't meant that these figureheads can't feel emotions. Quite to the contrary I want to know that my leaders feel; a bad leader would be preferable to a leader who treats visceral matters with a callous disregard. But it needs to be controlled. If you're the President of the United States, above all you need to appear calm, serious, and unsentimental.
Of course, to say that the spontaneous emotion on Hillary's part was the only factor to her victory in New Hampshire would be a reducto ad absurdum. But if it is a factor at all, it is surely the most ridiculous factor.
After some discussion over doughnuts this morning (purchased with some spare change we found in the couch cushions in the lounge), we've decided that the crying was contrived on Hillary's part. Her campaign suffered early on from the image of Hillary as domineering, ruthless, and ambitious. She didn't even play the "First Woman President" card at first, which actually earned her points in our book (not that those points count for anything). But now this: a ridiculously sentimental Hillary Clinton wooing New Hampshire's female voters to edge out Barack Obama.
If Hillary Clinton has to counter Obama's appeal through cheap political parlor tricks, we are not impressed.
Cheers,
Lockhart
Somebody needs to tell New Hampshire that there's no crying in politics, or at least the 39% of them who voted for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama because she got misty-eyed about her daily struggles. Call me old fashioned, but there are two people who should never, never cry: journalists and politicians. Walter Cronkite didn't cry during Vietnam. John F. Kennedy didn't cry during the Cuban Missile Crisis. And, more to the matter, Margaret Thatcher didn't cry when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. I don't meant that these figureheads can't feel emotions. Quite to the contrary I want to know that my leaders feel; a bad leader would be preferable to a leader who treats visceral matters with a callous disregard. But it needs to be controlled. If you're the President of the United States, above all you need to appear calm, serious, and unsentimental.
Of course, to say that the spontaneous emotion on Hillary's part was the only factor to her victory in New Hampshire would be a reducto ad absurdum. But if it is a factor at all, it is surely the most ridiculous factor.
After some discussion over doughnuts this morning (purchased with some spare change we found in the couch cushions in the lounge), we've decided that the crying was contrived on Hillary's part. Her campaign suffered early on from the image of Hillary as domineering, ruthless, and ambitious. She didn't even play the "First Woman President" card at first, which actually earned her points in our book (not that those points count for anything). But now this: a ridiculously sentimental Hillary Clinton wooing New Hampshire's female voters to edge out Barack Obama.
If Hillary Clinton has to counter Obama's appeal through cheap political parlor tricks, we are not impressed.
Cheers,
Lockhart
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Lockhart's Day Off
Ryan won the office pool on the BCS Championship last night, correctly predicting LSU's victory over Ohio State by more than a touchdown. Of course, this entitles him a.) to celebration and bragging rights, and b.) to sleep off said celebration and bragging--and hangover.
The task of finding something half-interesting to talk about would normally fall to the entertainment columnist, but he's too busy sulking to be useful. Unfortunately, I can't write. At all. That's why I'm an editor.
Instead, I'll just leave you with a few thoughts.
I read recently that interrogators at Guantanamo were using the music of the Red Hot Chili Peppers to break down prisoners (pardon, "detainees.") Isn't this rather insulting to the Chili Peppers? The theory goes that if you play enough loud, cacophonous music, your subject won't be able to sleep or think straight, and will eventually crack and tell you what you want to know. But the Chili Peppers are neither loud, nor cacophonous. In fact, I rather like to listen to them. If they're going to use music to torture these suspected terrorists, why not use Slayer instead? Or better yet: Bjork. Five minutes of Bjork, and I'd rat on my grandmother.
Secondly, I'd like to make a motion. I move that anyone who drives through a crosswalk while people are walking through it be flogged publicly. It's a crosswalk, for Pete's sake. That means a pedestrian should be able to walk through it without worrying that someone is going to run over his foot...or the rest of his body for that matter.
That's all for today. Comrade Lockhart will return tomorrow. Whether he has anything interesting to say or not will depend largely on whether he gets out of bed at all today.
- L. Jonathan "Johnny" Masters, III
The task of finding something half-interesting to talk about would normally fall to the entertainment columnist, but he's too busy sulking to be useful. Unfortunately, I can't write. At all. That's why I'm an editor.
Instead, I'll just leave you with a few thoughts.
I read recently that interrogators at Guantanamo were using the music of the Red Hot Chili Peppers to break down prisoners (pardon, "detainees.") Isn't this rather insulting to the Chili Peppers? The theory goes that if you play enough loud, cacophonous music, your subject won't be able to sleep or think straight, and will eventually crack and tell you what you want to know. But the Chili Peppers are neither loud, nor cacophonous. In fact, I rather like to listen to them. If they're going to use music to torture these suspected terrorists, why not use Slayer instead? Or better yet: Bjork. Five minutes of Bjork, and I'd rat on my grandmother.
Secondly, I'd like to make a motion. I move that anyone who drives through a crosswalk while people are walking through it be flogged publicly. It's a crosswalk, for Pete's sake. That means a pedestrian should be able to walk through it without worrying that someone is going to run over his foot...or the rest of his body for that matter.
That's all for today. Comrade Lockhart will return tomorrow. Whether he has anything interesting to say or not will depend largely on whether he gets out of bed at all today.
- L. Jonathan "Johnny" Masters, III
Saturday, January 5, 2008
The Facebook Debate, Part the Second
Now that it's over, some final reactions before the Entertainment correspondent challenges us all to Halo 3:
1.) Bill Richardson wants to ask Musharraf to step aside? Will this polite request take the form of an engraved invitation delivered upon a silver platter? The only leverage the U.S. could have in a scenario like that is military leverage. Unfortuantely for Bill, the military is tied up leveraging something else at the moment.
2.) While we're on Bill, we like his proposed energy policies, but we think he's too sentimental when it comes to war and terrorism to be a strong leader. And if we hear him say that he's the only Democratic candidate who's balanced a budget, we may lose our pizza and beer.
3.) Hillary wishes she had death rays for eyes. We just know it. But even while she was tearing into Obama like a starving kid at Thanksgiving, she appeared much more personable than usual.
4.) Hillary and Bill make good points about the troop surge. The fact that it has been successful in lessening the violence makes McCain look good, but the whole point was to prompt the Iraqi government to take responsibility for its own affairs, and it simply has not done this.
5.) John Edwards might never have "taken a dime from a special interest" but he certainly didn't mind taking plenty of dimes from malpractice lawsuits as an ambulance chaser. Furthermore, he's resurrected the ghost of Teddy Roosevelt to show that he's against the special interests....but Teddy "Carry a Big Stick" Roosevelt is probably not the best image for a Democrat to adopt.
6.) Biggest joke of the night? Charlie Gibson's hypothetical family of two college professors that makes $200,000.00 a year.
7.) On the whole, the Democrats were far more civil and mature than the Republicans. That said, we're going to have to declare McCain and Obama the winners. Both were on point, defended themselves effectively (even McCain during Romney's invective about immigration policy), and (a key issue for the Facebook folks judging by the polls) looked good in their suits.
8.) The real victim tonight was the Associated Press. Almost every one of the candidates blamed their position shifting on the AP misquoting them.
1.) Bill Richardson wants to ask Musharraf to step aside? Will this polite request take the form of an engraved invitation delivered upon a silver platter? The only leverage the U.S. could have in a scenario like that is military leverage. Unfortuantely for Bill, the military is tied up leveraging something else at the moment.
2.) While we're on Bill, we like his proposed energy policies, but we think he's too sentimental when it comes to war and terrorism to be a strong leader. And if we hear him say that he's the only Democratic candidate who's balanced a budget, we may lose our pizza and beer.
3.) Hillary wishes she had death rays for eyes. We just know it. But even while she was tearing into Obama like a starving kid at Thanksgiving, she appeared much more personable than usual.
4.) Hillary and Bill make good points about the troop surge. The fact that it has been successful in lessening the violence makes McCain look good, but the whole point was to prompt the Iraqi government to take responsibility for its own affairs, and it simply has not done this.
5.) John Edwards might never have "taken a dime from a special interest" but he certainly didn't mind taking plenty of dimes from malpractice lawsuits as an ambulance chaser. Furthermore, he's resurrected the ghost of Teddy Roosevelt to show that he's against the special interests....but Teddy "Carry a Big Stick" Roosevelt is probably not the best image for a Democrat to adopt.
6.) Biggest joke of the night? Charlie Gibson's hypothetical family of two college professors that makes $200,000.00 a year.
7.) On the whole, the Democrats were far more civil and mature than the Republicans. That said, we're going to have to declare McCain and Obama the winners. Both were on point, defended themselves effectively (even McCain during Romney's invective about immigration policy), and (a key issue for the Facebook folks judging by the polls) looked good in their suits.
8.) The real victim tonight was the Associated Press. Almost every one of the candidates blamed their position shifting on the AP misquoting them.
Mid-Debate Reactions
In a rare moment of grown-upped-ness, we've all gathered around tonight to watch the debate. Our editor has ordered pizza, I've supplied the beer, and the arguments have ensued.
And one piece of pizza was thrown at the television in anger (in response to Rudy Giuliani's call for more combat battalions).
Now, some mid-debate reactions:
1.) We're pretty sure the other candidates hate Mit Romney, and that he in return, hates them. Yay for partisan infighting.
2.) How many issues can Ron Paul relate to "the market?"
3.) Judging from the amont of over-talking, interrupting, and barb-throwing, John McCain's campaign is correct in saying that he was the only adult in the room.
More after the Democrats.
And one piece of pizza was thrown at the television in anger (in response to Rudy Giuliani's call for more combat battalions).
Now, some mid-debate reactions:
1.) We're pretty sure the other candidates hate Mit Romney, and that he in return, hates them. Yay for partisan infighting.
2.) How many issues can Ron Paul relate to "the market?"
3.) Judging from the amont of over-talking, interrupting, and barb-throwing, John McCain's campaign is correct in saying that he was the only adult in the room.
More after the Democrats.
Friday, January 4, 2008
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Malibu Beach House
Lockhart here, folks. Today's piece speaks for itself.
http://music.msn.com/news/article.aspx?news=291008>1=7702
That said, I'm going to speak for it anyway.
Could this woman get any worse? At this point she's imploding at the rate of a black hole, and just when we, as a people, think that it could not get any worse, it gets worse in some way that nobody imagined.
Or maybe somebody did imagine that she would end up being carted off in an ambulance. It seems plausible. Perhaps she should even be committed, straight-jacketed, and heavily medicated. Certainly Britney is no longer a role model for young girls, not that she was ever a good role model anyway. I can just hear the family discussions now--"Mommy, Daddy, I want to wear revealing clothing, marry a loser, lose my kids, and eventually self-destruct in international media!" One only wonders if her sister will be following the same path. Let us all hope, more for our sanity than anything else, that the answer is no.
Brit-Brit would almost be an entertaining spectacle if she did not reflect so badly on us all. By all appearances, the woman does not even take her own life seriously anymore, and has become the exemplar both for bad parenting and over-indulgence. All she needs to do to cinch her pop-media immortality is to join some kooky doomsday cult. The Cynics' Salon recommends the Church Universal and Triumphant.
I'll leave you with this thought: when even your attorneys refuse to represent you, that should signal that you have a problem.
Cheers,
Lockhart
http://music.msn.com/news/article.aspx?news=291008>1=7702
That said, I'm going to speak for it anyway.
Could this woman get any worse? At this point she's imploding at the rate of a black hole, and just when we, as a people, think that it could not get any worse, it gets worse in some way that nobody imagined.
Or maybe somebody did imagine that she would end up being carted off in an ambulance. It seems plausible. Perhaps she should even be committed, straight-jacketed, and heavily medicated. Certainly Britney is no longer a role model for young girls, not that she was ever a good role model anyway. I can just hear the family discussions now--"Mommy, Daddy, I want to wear revealing clothing, marry a loser, lose my kids, and eventually self-destruct in international media!" One only wonders if her sister will be following the same path. Let us all hope, more for our sanity than anything else, that the answer is no.
Brit-Brit would almost be an entertaining spectacle if she did not reflect so badly on us all. By all appearances, the woman does not even take her own life seriously anymore, and has become the exemplar both for bad parenting and over-indulgence. All she needs to do to cinch her pop-media immortality is to join some kooky doomsday cult. The Cynics' Salon recommends the Church Universal and Triumphant.
I'll leave you with this thought: when even your attorneys refuse to represent you, that should signal that you have a problem.
Cheers,
Lockhart
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Return of the Killer Cat
Folks, today we're going to revisit the issue of the tiger mauling at the San Francisco zoo. We're going to revisit it because people complained to our editor that The Cynics' Salon had not tackled the issue with customary tenacity. In short: we wimped out.
Today we shall not wimp out. Let the invective begin.
Assuming that you've read the previous article and are at least mildly familiar with the story, we shall pose this rhetorical question to you, dear reader: Who--for the love of Pete--goes to a zoo on Christmas Day to taunt a three-hundred-fifty-pound Siberian tiger with a slingshot? Moreover, if you're going to nettle a tiger with a slingshot, what would you expect would happen? A Siberian tiger, and indeed all tigers and great cats, have one purpose on this planet: to kill things. And they are very good at what they do. If you're dumb enough to taunt this well-tuned killing machine of the wilds, we daresay you deserve to get mauled.
"But, Ryan!" you might say, "What about the children?" It's a tragedy that this happened to these people and to their families. It's a tragedy that one of them died. It's a tragedy that it happened at the San Francisco Zoo on Christmas day. It's a tragedy that they were dumb enough to provoke a tiger. And it's tragedy that the tiger had to be killed in order to save two of these idiots.
To be fair, the tiger (whose name was Tatiana) had previously bitten one of the zookeepers at a public feeding. The zoo was fined for inadequate safety procedures, but the zoo's director opined that Tatiana was simply doing what a tiger does. But there is a gulf of difference between a tiger biting a zookeeper at feeding time, and a tiger going on a bloody rampage because three punk kids are shooting it with slingshots.
The two survivors have since retained Mark Geragos (of Michael Jackson and Scott Peterson fame) and reported plan to sue the zoo. Upon learning this, my cowriter put it best: "Really? There's going to sue the zoo for not preventing them from being suicidally stupid? Isn't that a little like suing Smith and Wesson over a game of Russian Roulette?" This contributor has to agree. What basis do these two think they have to build a case against the zoo?
Sure, the tiger enclosure's wall was shorter than the minimum height mandated by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, but the experts agree that there was no way the tiger would have made that leap had someone not provoked it. Investigators discovered concrete chips in Tatiana's paws, evidencing that it had had to claw its way out of the dry moat around the enclosure just to reach the wall.
But they have Mark Geragos. They'll file the suit, the zoo will settle in order to minimize the bad publicity, personal responsibility for one's actions and their consequences will have been defeated yet again in a colossal waste of the legal system's time and money, three families will get richer, Geragos will get richer still, and a seventeen year-old boy and a tiger will still be dead.
Didn't these kids' parents not warn them that they'll be burned if they play with fire? Isn't that basically the same concept we're dealing with here?
Cheers,
Lockhart
Today we shall not wimp out. Let the invective begin.
Assuming that you've read the previous article and are at least mildly familiar with the story, we shall pose this rhetorical question to you, dear reader: Who--for the love of Pete--goes to a zoo on Christmas Day to taunt a three-hundred-fifty-pound Siberian tiger with a slingshot? Moreover, if you're going to nettle a tiger with a slingshot, what would you expect would happen? A Siberian tiger, and indeed all tigers and great cats, have one purpose on this planet: to kill things. And they are very good at what they do. If you're dumb enough to taunt this well-tuned killing machine of the wilds, we daresay you deserve to get mauled.
"But, Ryan!" you might say, "What about the children?" It's a tragedy that this happened to these people and to their families. It's a tragedy that one of them died. It's a tragedy that it happened at the San Francisco Zoo on Christmas day. It's a tragedy that they were dumb enough to provoke a tiger. And it's tragedy that the tiger had to be killed in order to save two of these idiots.
To be fair, the tiger (whose name was Tatiana) had previously bitten one of the zookeepers at a public feeding. The zoo was fined for inadequate safety procedures, but the zoo's director opined that Tatiana was simply doing what a tiger does. But there is a gulf of difference between a tiger biting a zookeeper at feeding time, and a tiger going on a bloody rampage because three punk kids are shooting it with slingshots.
The two survivors have since retained Mark Geragos (of Michael Jackson and Scott Peterson fame) and reported plan to sue the zoo. Upon learning this, my cowriter put it best: "Really? There's going to sue the zoo for not preventing them from being suicidally stupid? Isn't that a little like suing Smith and Wesson over a game of Russian Roulette?" This contributor has to agree. What basis do these two think they have to build a case against the zoo?
Sure, the tiger enclosure's wall was shorter than the minimum height mandated by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, but the experts agree that there was no way the tiger would have made that leap had someone not provoked it. Investigators discovered concrete chips in Tatiana's paws, evidencing that it had had to claw its way out of the dry moat around the enclosure just to reach the wall.
But they have Mark Geragos. They'll file the suit, the zoo will settle in order to minimize the bad publicity, personal responsibility for one's actions and their consequences will have been defeated yet again in a colossal waste of the legal system's time and money, three families will get richer, Geragos will get richer still, and a seventeen year-old boy and a tiger will still be dead.
Didn't these kids' parents not warn them that they'll be burned if they play with fire? Isn't that basically the same concept we're dealing with here?
Cheers,
Lockhart
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
New Year, New Name, New Vow
Happy 2008, Readers.
We've decided to start the new year off with a new name (i.e., one that's more marketable than the old one), and a new vow. The editor wants us here at the Cynics' Salon to bring your tongue-in-cheek accounts of our world and culture every day. However, we're not all that diligent, so we're only going to commit to three days a week. If we do more, we do more, but the writing staff is fairly confident in our ability to produce three readable pieces a week. Let's say...Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, shall we? Enjoy us with your mid-morning coffee...or fruit juice if you're not a caffeine junkie.
For today, consider this: the two brothers who were mauled in the Christmas Day tiger rampage at the San Fracisco zoo were allegedly found carrying slingshots, and an empty bottle of vodka was found in their car. Now we're not going to make any allegations, but we merely wish to ask why a person would need a slingshot at a zoo. Draw your own conclusions.
And if it indeed was the intention of these young men to taunt a Siberian tiger (and we're not saying definitively that it was), what did they expect to happen?
Food for thought.
Cheers!
Lockhart
We've decided to start the new year off with a new name (i.e., one that's more marketable than the old one), and a new vow. The editor wants us here at the Cynics' Salon to bring your tongue-in-cheek accounts of our world and culture every day. However, we're not all that diligent, so we're only going to commit to three days a week. If we do more, we do more, but the writing staff is fairly confident in our ability to produce three readable pieces a week. Let's say...Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, shall we? Enjoy us with your mid-morning coffee...or fruit juice if you're not a caffeine junkie.
For today, consider this: the two brothers who were mauled in the Christmas Day tiger rampage at the San Fracisco zoo were allegedly found carrying slingshots, and an empty bottle of vodka was found in their car. Now we're not going to make any allegations, but we merely wish to ask why a person would need a slingshot at a zoo. Draw your own conclusions.
And if it indeed was the intention of these young men to taunt a Siberian tiger (and we're not saying definitively that it was), what did they expect to happen?
Food for thought.
Cheers!
Lockhart
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)