The talk-radio host known simply as "Lionel" joined the Air America team in May, and he has demonstrated he belongs on the exotic fringe with the rest of the network. Most people don’t take sides when a zoo tiger mauls a teenager to death. "Lionel" favored the tiger. His blog declared: "If you shoot a tiger with a sling-shot, you deserve to get mauled. That’s just how it works." The New York Post reported several teenagers that were victimized by the tiger had slingshots, but that has not been confirmed by San Francisco zoo officials. On his show Wednesday, "Lionel" was even more explicit:
Call me wacky, but hurray for the tiger that killed the kid who was...taunting him. Now, I know this is not right...but let's hear it for the wild...I loathe zoos. I'm still cheering the fact that some stingray whacked that Aussie pain-in-the-ass Steve Irwin.
Remember this when they tell you that all the compassion for humanity resides on the left. Actually, the left favors wild animals over humanity. They feel humans have less dignity, less of a right to life.
It reminds me of how Brent Bozell talks about being blindsided on the old "Politically Incorrect" show with Bill Maher when it was on Comedy Central (before it moved to ABC). It was 1995, and the actor Christopher Reeve had been paralyzed in an equestrian competition. Brent said Maher took the position that Reeve deserved the accident because he was victimizing the horse. Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby confirmed Maher’s position.
UPDATE: Radio Equalizer has posted an audio clip, and noted that Maher, too, thinks the Crocodile Hunter's death is hilarious.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Another "liberal
January 4, 2008 - 08:12 ET by motherbeltAnother "liberal sensitivity" update.....
I don't know anything about
January 4, 2008 - 08:33 ET by ZapI don't know anything about the tiger story, but if some teenager was stupid enough to shoot a tiger with a slingshot then the tiger really shouldn't be blamed for attacking the kid. It IS an animal after all. I think that was what the guy meant. Actually cheering on the tiger for killing the teen was heartless and cruel though.
Unless the kid actually climbed into the pen and then shot it with the slingshot. I have no sympathy for someone who'd be stupid enough to do that.
I agree with you that
January 4, 2008 - 09:02 ET by motherbeltI agree with you that taunting a tiger elicits a natural reaction from the tiger. And expressing a "Well it was a stupid thing to do" would have sufficed. But as you said:
Actually cheering on the tiger for killing the teen was heartless and cruel though.
That was my point regarding the "sensitivity."
If someone like Rush Limbaugh went on the air and said "Well what do you expect when you keep poking a stick at a tiger??? They are not "pets"....they will react with their instinct, which is to attack!" liberals would probably go into a collective swoon at his "cruelty." and blame the zoo for not having cages with mesh roofs so that it would be completely impossible for the tiger to get over the fence.
They are supposed to be the "sensitive" ones.
It's the zoo's fault
January 4, 2008 - 23:53 ET by Edward LeeThe tiger is a wild beast driven by instinct, and deserving of our respect as such. It's a shame it had to be shot. I don't blame it any more than I blame a harvester that takes off a farmer's arm when he reaches in to clear a jam while its still moving. When people put wild animals on display for the public's entertainment, they are 100% responsible for knowning such basic things as how far tigers can jump when strongly motivated. That makes them responsible for both the human and tiger death that resulted from the latter's escape. The kids quite reasonably assumed that the zoo keepers knew how to contain a tiger (they were malicious but not stupid). If they did indeed shoot the tiger with a slingshot, they commited what I consider a serious crime, and the survivors should be punished to the full extent of the law. Last I heard, though, execution by being ripped apart by a tiger is not part of that justice.
I don't hate zoos
January 4, 2008 - 09:10 ET by sarcasmoBut IMO if these guys were annoying that tiger, the gene-pool suffered no great loss...Reminds me of the true story of a jerk kid & his dad tossing stuff at a big crok at the old Miami Serpentarium. The jerks kept doing it, the crok kept not-moving, and finally the jerk's kid got too frisky with his throws & fell into the pond.
Then the crok moved. :) Sadly, even though it was just being a crok and even though IMO the budding jerk it killed and mostly-ate was likewise no-loss to the gene-pool IMO, they ended up killing the stupid crocodile...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
Does everyone who did
January 4, 2008 - 09:24 ET by JerryDoes everyone who did something stupid at some point in their lives deserve to die to clean up the gene pool? If that is the case, it truly would be the animal kingdom, because there would be no humans left.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would celebrate the death of a child, no matter what the circumstances. A grown-up should know better, but a child will do stupid things.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
No.
January 4, 2008 - 09:34 ET by sarcasmoBut I was sad for the crok being killed, more than I celebrated the child's death, and hopefully his death functioned as a social lesson for the jerk-population who think it's ok to be cruel to critters. I've done a few things that might have gotten me killed, and if it happens it happens -- life's not a risk-free proposition. But it's not ever a good idea to deliberately piss-off large critters for no good reason, especially if they can eat you. (When Mr. Shark displays intense interest in a speared fish, it's best to let him be the boss.)
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
Getting Away With . . .
January 4, 2008 - 09:41 ET by HeikiI don't know about the experience of other people, but in my own case, I am frankly surprised that I survived adolescence, given the number of Darwin Award submissions on my part during that phase of my life; I don't think my experience is far removed from the main, either. For that matter, I'm astonished that as many humans survive adolescence that do, in fact. These chuckleheads will without doubt end up in the next edition of the samesaid recurring compendium. Am I sorry for them? Absolutely. Am I surprised in the least that one of them removed themselves from the gene pool through their (apparently) foolhardy actions? Neggits.
I guess the short answer to
January 4, 2008 - 10:06 ET by BruzillaI guess the short answer to your question is "yes". Call me crazy, but I think there's a substantial difference between doing something stupid like, say, wearing black socks with tennis shoes or forgetting to take the Thanksgiving turkey out of the freezer until that Thursday morning, and shooting a slingshot at a tiger. The former are cases of being stupid, the later one of being insane, and we need to keep the insane people out of the pool.
This guy Lionel used to be on New York's WABC morning show
January 4, 2008 - 09:55 ET by Free StinkerThis guy Lionel used to be on New York's WABC morning show and he always came across as a Liberal leaning Libertarian who was very very pro-2nd ammendment.
He also was known for dooing goofy things such as stating that "The people of Cuba should have their own language instead of English. We can call it Cubonics." And then he would take calls from all the ignorant people that didn't know Cuba was a spanish speaking country.
Anyway, he alwasy came across as a Libertarian, and tried to make a goofy show to entertain people . . . maybe he changed?
Newsbusters. Log on and find out What the heck is so yummy over here!
". . maybe he changed?" Like
January 4, 2008 - 12:03 ET by Chris Norman". . maybe he changed?"
Like a chameleon adapting to a new background? Like Joe Scarborough after a year on MSNBC?
Whoooaa, good one,
January 4, 2008 - 17:14 ET by motherbeltWhoooaa, good one, Chris!
LOL
There is a latent disdain
January 4, 2008 - 11:03 ET by SmartypantsThere is a latent disdain for human beings evident in the liberal orthodoxy. Liberals claim to have endless compassion for the plight of those who are weak or disadvantaged; however, this is a relative point of view. They may favor poor people over rich people and weak people over strong people, but animals can generally be considered inherently "weaker" than humans in this mindset, so many libs will almost always choose the side of the animal over the human in any confrontation between the two.
It still amazes me that so many people, who have no problem with unfettered abortions being performed on unborn human beings, practically lose their minds when they see someone wearing a fur coat. The "logic" of the left is truly astounding to me.
still on the air?
January 4, 2008 - 13:03 ET by wizardjrI didn't know that Err America was still on the air. How big is their audience now, about 15 people (14 studio techs plus one guy who found them by accident).
However, I'm sure he agrees
January 4, 2008 - 15:55 ET by nythatesusaHowever, I'm sure he agrees that these guys should have been given Geneva Convention protections before the mauling began.
I wonder
January 4, 2008 - 16:57 ET by candanceWill Harry Reid send a letter to Airhead America demanding they apologize?
"If they did indeed shoot
January 4, 2008 - 17:06 ET by ckc1227"If they did indeed shoot the tiger with a
slingshot, they commited what I consider a serious crime, and the
survivors should be punished to the full extent of the law. Last I
heard, though, execution by being ripped apart by a tiger is not part
of that justice."
Apparently, the tiger disagreed with you.
While I sympathize with their families, I don't lose much sleep over someone that was taunting a wild animal getting attacked by that wild animal. The tiger was doing what tigers do: defending itself.
On a postive note, maybe folks will think twice before taunting wild animals in the future.
Nice...
January 4, 2008 - 17:26 ET by BigBIt comes down to this: The tiger thing...Mess with the bull...get the horn. I don't think it's something to cheer about. Don't whine about it. The Steve Irwin thing though??? WTF??
This Prick said it just because he knew it would cause a big stink and get his formerly unknown dumb ass some publicity. Any normal human being would 'Not Go There'...but this jackass plainly has all the morality and empathy(and brains) of a horse turd.
I know there is a saying like 'He who resorts to violence is out of options'. You know damn well this dork has already rationalized his own blatherings (probably starting with 'It was just satire') so that any kind of critisism would just bounce off and any kind of dialogue is out of the question....
The only thing I believe would do Lionel any good at all would be a real good ass kicking..maybe rip out half of his cheesy beard and feed it to him..It probably wouldn't change his retarded metal process, but it might give him pause the next time he want's to open his cake hole and it would no doubt wipe the smug look off his face.
Hey, when yer dog craps on the carpet, you rub his nose in it...until he stops doing it.
Now, this might sting just a little bit.....
He's right
January 5, 2008 - 03:28 ET by goldwaterfanHe shot at the tiger with a sling shot. What do you expect the tiger to do? Too bad the tiger didn't kill all three of the drunk Mexicans.This guy just stood close by while the tiger scaled a 20 foot wall. What an idiot. He could have ran away, but he was too wasted. He totally deserved what he got.