Tigers Kill Man Who Stuck His Arm Into Zoo Cage

Darwin strikes again. Fox News is reporting that there was an unfortunate incident that occurred in Gauhati, India.

Two tigers killed a man who stuck his arm into their enclosure in northeastern India on Wednesday, ripping off his arm as his family and dozens of visitors looked on, zoo officials said.

The man, identified as 50-year-old Jayaprakash Bezbaruah, avoided zoo safety precautions in an apparent attempt to photograph the two adult Bengal tigers up close, said Gauhati zoo warden Narayan Mahanta.

I wonder if he got that shot he was looking for. But in any event, I have never wondered why there were safety precautions around tiger cages (or lion cages or any of the big predatory cats). I can only imagine what sort of insanity came over this unfortunate soul to try something so stupid.

Story here.

Outspoken Roman

Boston Globe endorses McCain and Obama

The Boston Globe has (not surprisingly) endorsed as Presidential Candidates for their respective parties John McCain and Barack Obama in a story published on 15 December (story is here). In part the story states that McCain is honest (which means critical at times of President Bush) and also has this little ditty:

As a lawmaker and as a candidate, McCain has done more than his share to transcend partisanship and promote an honest discussion of the problems facing the United States. He deserves the opportunity to represent his party in November's election.

This should not be surprising and should not be anything that McCain should be happy about. Any endorsement from a liberal mag like the Boston Globe is not a reward for any conservative credentials but actually is noting where the candidate bucks the Republican party planks which again is not something McCain should be proud of. The Globe wants the candidate that best represents its views and it is not Mitt or Rudi or Ron Paul, but John McCain on the Republican side? What does that say about McCain's policies that he has the support from the Globe. What is next, endorsement from the NY Times? This should be the kiss of death for a Republican candidate rather than something to crow about.

Also Joe Lieberman has endorsed John McCain. So we have a Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate endorsing McCain. Another reason not to vote McCain as you have to wonder why a liberal Democrat like Lieberman would be supporting a Republican like McCain over someone like Chris Dodd or Hillary? Is it all about the war to Lieberman?

Well so much for taking the Outspoken Roman's advice. The NY Times is reporting that McCain is seeking to leverage the Globe's endorsement (and others) into attracting independent voters to his campaign. The story states:

Senator John McCain, seeking to capitalize on a string of highly sought newspaper endorsements, is making an aggressive push to attract independent voters, who helped drive his victory here eight years ago.

(It) is the string of recent endorsements from The Des Moines Register, The Manchester Union Leader, The Boston Globe and other newspapers that has helped energize the campaign just two weeks before the first nominating contests.

Let me be clear. These endorsements are not a good thing for McCain who is a war hero and has done so much for his country. But to be honest (to quote Jay Severin, a local talk radio host) it is time for him to get his gold watch and retire. He has fought many a good fight but he is not the standard bearer the Republican Party needs for 2008 and beyond. His views are against free speech and are at times even liberal and why would any self respecting liberal vote for John McCain when there are a slew of liberals running as Democrats? Answer is they won't.

Outspoken Roman

Michelle Malkin » Pearl Harbor: 66 years

Michelle Malkin » Pearl Harbor: 66 years

7 Dec 2007 is certainly a time for reflection and for all of us to honor those who lost their lives in this attack and of course to put in perspective those who took on the task of going to war against Germany, Japan and Italy. Great pics at Michelle Malkin's site (follow the link above).

It is sad that more people care about Britney Spears' activities than those that took place 66 years ago yesterday at Pearl Harbor. Take a minute to think about what transpired that day.

Visit http://www.pearlharbormemorial.com

Visit http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/pearlhbr/pearlhbr.htm

Say a prayer of thanks that America can take on an attack like that and come back stronger than ever and say a prayer for its veterans.

Outspoken Roman

Where have all the Iraq Stories gone?

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Television Networks Fade To Black As The U.S. Surge Succeeds In Iraq

The above link is a great story from Investors Business Daily on the reduced coverage the Media is giving Iraq now that it looks better than it had earlier this year. The article highlights a study by the Media Research Center that notes in looking at the newscasts of the ABC, CBS and NBC a trend that "as the news from Iraq has steadily improved, the war has practically disappeared from TV screens".

The article notes that during the President's talk of the troop surge (11 months ago) the networks were "openly hostile" and now since the early fall, there has been a marked change in what is being reported from Iraq and the number of stories that are coming from the networks' anchors.

From the article:

In October, as the number of U.S. troop deaths dropped to their lowest levels in a year and a half, the networks trimmed their war coverage by 40%, to 108 stories. Most of the coverage continued the negative spin. NBC's Richard Engel argued in an Oct. 14 report that the continuing war has hurt U.S. security. "The war in Iraq created a giant recruiting tool for al-Qaida," Engel asserted.

Only in November did all three networks begin to shift their coverage away from the pessimism that prevailed for most of the year. Yet as the news became unmistakably good — fewer casualties, displaced refugees returning — TV coverage dropped by another 38%, to a mere 68 stories.

Combined, all three networks in the month of November aired just 11 reports actually from the war zone itself. ABC's World News has stood out as the best of the Big Three in documenting this new, more encouraging phase of the Iraq War.

Next time you are watching the news and a article on Iraq comes on, note the tone in the story. Does it reflect the overall pessimism that the media anchors openly expressed on the Iraq war and/or the surge. And if there are no stories on Iraq, ask yourself why? Certainly if things were continuing as is or were even getting worse, we would be hearing about it as the top story. Can things really be turning around in Iraq. If the metric is how much is being reported by the evening newscasts, I would venture to say yes.

Outspoken Roman

Continuing the no spanking debate with Dr. Laura.

I wrote in a previous blog that some local lawmaker are considering working and passing legislation that would effectively ban spanking. I have followed this story and even saw the lawmaker who was pushing this legislation on The O'Reilly Factor. I was really surprised that the lawmaker, Rep. Jay Kaufman, basically back pedaled on the issue saying that he was only doing this for a constituent (what?). A recent story on the Sun Chronicle Online noted that Rep. Kaufman "signed the bill as a petitioner for his constituent, not as a supporter". Why would anything be brought forth by a lawmaker that he or she doesn't support. Seems a little shady to me. The Chronicle story also has this quote (which is good news) - "Area lawmakers say the bill to ban corporal punishment on children under 18 is expected to go to the "round file."" Thank goodness there is still some common sense on Beacon Hill.

So what was the real issue here? Well it was notionally child abuse. As the Chronicle story states:

Kaufman said the bill is not designed to stop parents from disciplining their children to maintain order or control, but the goal is to stop child abuse.

More than 19,000 cases of abuse have been reported to the Department of Social Services during the last three months.

So ok, if child abuse is a concern (and who is not against child abuse?) I offer this solution from Dr. Laura.

On her blog post entitled "Child Abuse More Likely in Shack-Up Relationships" she writes:

Children living in homes with unrelated adults are nearly fifty times as likely to die of inflicted injuries as are children living with their bio-parents. (Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, 2005). Children of single parents had a 77% greater risk of being harmed by physical abuse than children living with both parents (National Incidence Study, 1996). Children living in stepfamilies, or with single parents are at higher risk of physical or sexual assault than children living with their bio-parents (University of New Hampshire’s Crimes Against Children Research Center). Girls whose parents divorce are at significantly higher risk of sexual assault, regardless of which bio-parent they live with (Family Law, Washington and Lee University).

So it seems to be one potential way to stop abuse is to encourage and promote stable relationships between a man and a woman and to stop people from entering into this "casual" relationships that are usually based on something fleeting whether it be sex, the feeling of being with someone just to be with someone, a person thinks that he or she is owed happiness by society, or the other tired amoral beliefs that a person gets from Reality TV, Sex Therapists, Liberals, or Soap Operas. Maybe I should send Dr. Laura's post to Rep Jay Kaufman and he can introduce it to the legislature. It is at least a better proposal than the one that has the Government interfering and intervening in an area that it should remain disengaged with. Isn't it about the children?

I wonder if I would get a shot at appearing on the O'Reilly Factor?

Outspoken Roman

The return of Don Imus

Don Imus back on the air - Yahoo! News

So as the story above notes, Don Imus returned to the airwaves today. Truth be told I liked the Imus show and much preferred it over the other local chat shows (although I did like Scotto on WRKO but he was removed to make room for a criminal who wanted a talk show - go figure.) Anyway I had written earlier what on the remarks of Don Imus and the aftermath and didn't think he should be banned from radio and I guess seeing that he is back, he must have paid his dues by being away from the microphone and saying he is sorry.

But it was interesting that the Yahoo story notes that while his crew remains somewhat the same, he has brought on some new cast members:

Don Imus returned to the airwaves Monday eight months after he was fired for a racially charged remark about the Rutgers women's basketball team, and introduced a new cast that included two black comedians.

One thing I have never considered is that Imus is stupid and it was interesting to say the least to hear that with expanding his cast to include black comedians, he is still in a sense placating the community that was so outraged by his comments, inflamed in my opinion by Rev Sharpton and others who exploit issues such as this for their own gain (similar to what we saw in the Duke Lacrosse rape case). Why would Imus hire black comedians otherwise? Isn't this just a shameless attempt to continue the appeasement? The Imus I remember would not be such a rear end kisser.

It is sort of coincidence that I was watching HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm on DVD last night and watched the episode from the first season where Larry David makes a joke about affirmative action to a black doctor and spends the entire episode justifying his liberalism, his support for affirmative action and for apologizing to many of the episodes black characters. He is called on the carpet as the show Seinfeld had few if any black members in the cast (and not regulars that I can recall but the cook at the diner where the characters would eat). I think there is something to this as it demonstrates that Larry David is a racist as he didn't include any black characters in Seinfeld (forgetting for a moment that this show is developed on himself and people he knew). Maybe he should pull an Imus and Computer generate some characters to put on the DVD releases of the Seinfeld series to insulate himself from attacks on his racial sensitivities. Come to think of it, I don't recall many white members on The Cosby Show - but I suppose that is a different issue all together.

Welcome back Imus - we will miss you.

Outspoken Roman

NewsBusters column on Republican You Tube Debate

As all of us know, the much watched You Tube debate with the Republican Presidential Candidates was so far the most watched debate of the season. I read a number of blogs that thought that this debate went quite well and showcased the real differences in the two parties, with the Republican candidates actually answering the questions that were asked rather than using each question as a platform to bash President Bush. I agree though with Rush Limbaugh and others who noted that the debate also showcased the actual "moderate" nature of most of the leading candidates and when I hear that each candidate is looking to be the "conservative" in the race, my feeling is that each of them have a long way to go before the mantle is bestowed on them (if at all). I have long maintained that the current administration is not really conservative but more moderate in many things and quite liberal with its spending policies - which any real conservative needs to make policies away from the current Governmental largess.

So it is looking like CNN has egg on their face again as many of the supposed undecided Republican voters have ties to the various Democratic Presidential Campaigns (Edwards, Obama, Clinton) and some of the others have dubious Republican credentials (one was a former CAIR intern, another questioner worked with Dick Durbin's staff). See Michelle Malkin's excellent write up on this here and here. It seems Michelle is getting some flak for daring to type in a questioner's name in a search engine and seeing what pops up. And CNN didn't do this why? Also the blog "Nice Deb" has a great article on the retired General who had the question about Gays in the military. BTW I have a response for him. It is never a question of the professionalism of the military that is in question, it is the avoidance of the United States Military openly endorsing a deviant human behavior and being used as a way of social promotion of the gay lifestyle with the military as a conduit. But as usual I digress. What I would have loved for one of the candidates to have the guts to say something like that!! We don't have to accept every sort of strange behavior that individuals decide is their choice or "orientation" and elevate that to the level of normal.

I also find it interesting that the Republicans will go on CNN and have "activities" like the ones these bloggers have uncovered occur but the Dems will still avoid Fox News. Which group shows more leadership and courage? I will leave it to the reader to decide.

Finally Newbusters has a great post about looking at this issue from a "what if" perspective. Can you imagine the lefties uncovering that during one of the debates, a questioner was revealed to have ties to the Fred Thompson campaign? The post writer Tim Graham quotes Eric Deggans (a reporter/blogger from the St. Petersburg Times) who states:

And even though some liberal bloggers are saying the political background of questioners shouldn't matter, I have a hard time believing they would have tolerated seeing Hillary Clinton asked a tough question on an issue important to conservatives by someone with hidden ties to Rudolph Giuliani or George W. Bush.

It's an ironic turn, given that so much initial concern about the CNN/YouTube debates centered on whether the questions would be good enough. Turns out, we all should have been playing closer attention to who was asking the questions -- especially CNN.

Mr. Deggan is right. The political background is not important if it is stated as such but this was supposed to be a debate to help undecided Republican voters get the answers that they need to make their decision as to who should they support. It was not supposed to serve as a forum for any crank to get a microphone and try and either cause a rift between candidates and their supporters or to showcase how potentially "nutty" Conservatives are. If the shoe was on the other foot (and this was done at Fox News) the left would be in a virtual meltdown and there would be plenty of condemnation to go around (and rightfully so). Shame on CNN who I think is better than this. Or CNN can check this site out (again h/t to Michelle Malkin).

Original Newsbusters Story below.

Would Liberals Tolerate Hillary Questioner With 'Hidden Ties' to GOP? | NewsBusters.org

Outspoken Roman