Having a sense of humor is an absolute must when it comes to having a successful marriage. If you can't laugh then you are doomed. Some people take it to the next level.
Linda - Know those adorable idiosyncrasies you loved when first dating? After 20 years of marriage they become what the police refer to as 'motive'.
Valerie - Husband got excited thinking I was touching myself under the covers but I was actually just opening a Kit Kat I didn't want to share.
Justin - My wife wanted 2 kittens but I'm the man of the house and don't like cats. So we got two kittens
Exploding Unicorn - My wife asked me what I wanted for dinner then told me I was wrong.
Boyd - Couples have an amount they can spend up to without discussing with each other. Mine is around $50. My wife's is $643.27, apparently.
Annie - You were supposed to do something about the groundhog under the deck. Him - I did. I named him Lord Melbourne. He likes Cocoa Puffs.
Housy Wife - Sorry I was late. I had to find all the things that were in plain sight for my husband.
Momma Unfiltered - My husband still talks about that one time he loaded the dishwasher correctly like it's going to get our kids into Harvard.
Sven - My wife left the keys on the counter with a helpful note saying 'keys' in case I thought they were llamas.
Boyd - I love when I leave work early to surprise my wife at home and she greets me with those 3 very special words, Were you fired?
Stella - My husband is on the roof only a few inches away from an insurance claim that could completely change my life.
Amy - When my husband goes outside to investigate a suspicious noise, how long to I have to wait before un-pausing the show we were watching?
Christie - married sexting - I'm not wearing any underwear, because you never put the laundry in the dryer like I asked you to 100 flipping times.
Josh - before I got married I didn't even know there was a wrong way to put milk back in the fridge.
Simon - when my wife asks me to do that one thing in the bedroom that she really loves, she's talking about vacuuming.
The left wing has lots of arguments against building a fence or wall along our border with Mexico. Inhumane, not who we are, or fences don't work. That last part just amazes me because we've seen fences and walls work all over the world. Just ask the East Germans how that Berlin Wall thing worked for decades. But again, it's not who we are and they don't work.
OK then, why is there a fence around the White House and why is Obama making it bigger? The Secret Service and the National Park police division have approved a request to build a bigger, more sophisticated fence around the White House after a recent rash of fence jumpers have gotten inside the grounds. Of course, in the true vein of bureaucracy, something called the Commission of Fine Arts also had to give their approval and will have final say on the design of the fence, but that's another story.
The current fence is 7 feet tall and hasn't been doing a good job of keeping fence jumpers out. Some temporary barriers have been set up to stem the tide for now but the Secret Service and Park police want an 11' 7" fence that incorporated anti-climb and intrusion detection features. They don't go into a lot of detail about what those technological features entail because of course they don't want give anyone a chance to try and figure out how to side step the security features before the fence is even built.
I'm thinking they'll have some park workers regularly slather the fence with lard to make it slippery. Maybe they should use bacon grease to keep the radical Muslims away. Can't do that though because it's bigoted and as Obama says, Islam is a religion of peace and no one in that community would try and attack the White House. If someone was thinking about it, he's sure their community leaders would tip us off.
Let me ask you this, if you've ever had a fence built, how long did it take? A couple of days or maybe a week? Not only did the Secret Service have to get the National Parks Department approval and that of the Fine Arts Commission but with all the red tape in putting the project out for bid and typical bureaucratic delays, they are hoping, HOPING I say, to begin construction of the fence by 2018. That's a year and a half away in case you public school graduates can't read a calendar or do math.
Are you kidding me?! A year and a half to put this out to bid and get the project started. Remember the fence has already been designed; how long did that take? A little over a year since this project was started after a man jumped the fence in 2014. And you want the government to control your medical treatment?
But back to the original point, if fences don't work and don't represent who we are as a nation, why is Obama letting them build a bigger fence? Isn't that 'our house'?
Yes, I was on the road for a bit yesterday so I had time to think about random stuff. This one won't be as weird as yesterday's though.
Obama continues to attack Trump's immigration proposal echoing what he tweeted in November 2015, saying essentially that we can't bar refugees from war torn countries, "it's not who we are as a country, doesn't reflect our values as a nation." Really? In 2011 Obama's State Department put a 6 month ban on anyone seeking refuge from Iraq. All asylum, immigration, and refugee requests were denied because they realized that some terrorists were using the program to get into this country. So apparently, if someone else suggests a temporary ban on immigration in order to reset and get a handle on who's coming in, he's a racist, but if Obama does it, that's OK.
The feds tell us that we can't really figure out who the good guys and bad guys are when it come to immigration. But Obama and Hillary want that same government to figure out who should or shouldn't have a gun. How are they going to determine who's mentally unstable, has terrorist associations, or is otherwise 'unfit' to own a gun? They knew about the Orlando shooter, the Ft. Hood shooter and still weren't able to stop those attacks.
Let's talk a bit about Donald's immigration proposal: most experts agree that there are something like 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. We'll assume that's accurate for the sake of discussion. To round them up and deport them would take a lot of time and be very costly. Under current U.S. law before someone is deported they are entitled to a hearing and/or an appeal with an attorney being appointed for them if they can't afford one. That cost is born by the U.S. taxpayer. Opponents of deportation cite the cost and time factor as the main reasons for not even trying to deport someone. That law needs to be changed. Quite simply, if you can't show documentation that you came here legally, then you are gone. The burden shouldn't be upon us to prove that you should be deported, it should be the other way around. So what if it's a hardship on you? You broke the law and there should be consequences for that. What's so hard to understand about that concept?
The other facet of this problem is people who came here on a temporary visa and have not left. That number is smaller in scope but if they are caught, they are not entitled to the same hearing process that illegal aliens get. And if we were to go find them, they are supposed to be sent back to their country of origin, but we're supposed to pick up the cost. Why? Most of the people who came on a visa have financial means and should be forced to pay for their own ticket to ride. Or we take some of their assets. If they don't have any and we have to pay to send them back, we deduct that cost from the foreign aid we give to their home country and let that government seek reimbursement.
The young boy who died tragically at Disney World when an alligator attacked him at the lagoon: Where does parental responsibility end and the liability for the host business begin? Disney is certainly going to face a lawsuit or claim for negligence from the parents. Yes there was a beach at the lagoon but there were plenty of signs that said not to go into the water. There may have even been some that warned of gators but what if there weren't? There were still signs that said DON'T GO IN THE WATER! Shouldn't that be enough? Does it really matter why? Who doesn't know that in Florida there are gators and snakes in the water? Even at Disney. Now if this had been a problem, gators attacking people and Disney could have done something reasonable to further warn or protect guests, then they will have some liability if they didn't take reasonable steps to protect their customers. No amount of money can bring their child back. I have a problem with the parents getting any money out of this situation given that they are just as culpable if not more responsible than anyone else for their kid's death.
Speaking of responsibility and liability, some are suggesting that Facebook should be held responsible for the terrorist in France who broadcast the torture of the woman and her death on Facebook. That was sick but why should FB be held responsible? They provided a service that is used by probably millions of people for good purposes, connecting with family for instance. Just because one nut job used the service to show his evil deeds doesn't mean FB had any role in the murders.
An attorney for the ACLU tweeted after the Orlando attack; his tweet implied that Christians were ultimately responsible for the deaths since Christians have created a aura of hate towards the LGBT community. What effing world do you live in? LGBT are more accepted and have more legal protections here than anywhere in the world. Even when Christians disagree with their lifestyle, Christians don't kill them, torture them or anything else. What happens to LGBTs in other countries? Islamic countries have made it illegal to be gay or lesbian and will kill anyone that is caught engaging in homosexual relationships. Yeah, Christians fomented the attack: but that is liberal logic for you.
Obama said the future cannot belong to those who blaspheme Islam. Then why is it OK to blaspheme Christianity or Judaism?
By now regular readers and listeners to the show know that when I'm on the road, either visiting clients or traveling for college athletics, my mind wanders. Part of that is because I'm listening to so much talk radio, comedy channels, and other random things. Usually that results in columns/posts like this and sometimes it gets really varied and random. Here we go.
I heard a Democrat party strategist talking about Trump's speech regarding the terror attack in Orlando, part of which dealt with changing immigration rules, especially from predominantly Muslim countries that had shown support for terrorism against the United States. First off, typically the strategist cherry picked from the statements and said Trump wanted to ban all Muslims. That's not what he said. But he did point out something that really makes our point about immigration and I don't think he realized it. He said that we had high levels of immigration during the most economically prosperous times of our country, so why should we ban immigration now? He's right to an extent. During the 1920's and into the 1950's we severely limited immigration from all countries. But he pointed out that we didn't have, during those times, entitlements and we did pretty well. He's right. Because when those immigrants came to America, they couldn't get resettlement benefits, welfare, unemployment, health care, etc. They were expected to work. They were expected to assimilate into our society and follow our rules. And the vast majority of them did just that. Those of us that support Trump's proposals want just that, along with safety. We want immigrants to come here and work alongside us, becoming American citizens and contributing to society. If you are going to come here and live off of government largesse, then don't come. Period. Any other version 'interpreted' by Hillary, Obama, the left wing et al is purely political posturing and lying.
Let's be clear, Islam is not a race. It is a system of beliefs, a religion. It is not racist to say that we are concerned about radical Islamists/Muslims. 90% of the mass murders and terror attacks over the last decade have been committed by Muslims. When we are trying to prevent further attacks, history and science tell us that you have to look for common denominators and try to predict or analyze the likelihood of future attacks based upon those common denominators. To do otherwise would be like telling doctors to ignore viruses when trying to cure the flu or common cold.
Time to put on your tinfoil hats. The question has arisen as to how the Orlando terrorist was on the FBI watch list but was able to buy guns. Well you could say that because we have this politically correct wall between many agencies that prevented much of that information from being shared; all so we could give the appearance of being tolerant and not targeting any specific group. But you have to entertain the idea that this is what the anti-gun crowd, including Obama and Hillary, wanted. They want more examples of how current laws to prevent some people from getting guns don't work. They can then call for bans on certain types of guns and then when so called 'non-assault weapons' are used instead of the 'assault weapons', they can call for a ban on those too. Just a thought.
Hillary is outraged that someone under active investigation by the FBI is able to buy a gun. She wants to prevent anyone under active investigation to be prevented from purchasing firearms. By the same token, shouldn't someone being actively investigated by the FBI be prevented from holding elected office?
The national average for a gallon of gasoline is $2.35. So here in Grant County, despite what some will tell you, we are not way above average. In the last year, the price of a gallon of gas, average price, has risen about $.70 a gallon. Yet the price of a barrel of oil is still below $50. Wonder why the price of gas is so high? I do. But part of that is that we haven't allowed competitors to enter the market and we've left the majority of supply sources in the hands of a few companies.
The German 10 year bond is now offering a negative return, joining 13 other countries with a negative return on their treasury bonds and bills. You know who this hurts the most? Pension funds, who invest heavily in safer investments, including T bills and bonds. For Germany to have a negative return tells us as much about the state of the economy world wide as anything else.
I am so scared of getting the swine flu, which is making a comeback, that I won't watch The View.
I have a friend who is waiting for marriage to have sex. If that's your deal, good for you. I'm not sure I could have done that, unless I had a small penis. In that case, I'd have definitely waited. If you had a 3" rod wouldn't you wait? Then on your wedding night, disrobe and yell, SURPRISE! It's too late then. The only way it could be any worse is if her manhood was bigger than yours.
There is a segment of our audience that gets upset with me, whether they are liberals, vegans, animal rights activists, femi-nazis. But there is one group you don't really want to tick off: those who suffer from OCD. If you make them mad, you're going to get a letter. In fact, you're going to get lots of letters. It's like they are obsessed or something. Write a letter, check the stove, write a letter, check the stove.
President Obama once again took a tough stance, an unpopular stance, a politically risky stance, when he blamed the gun for the shooting in Orlando. Look at how many right wing, redneck, Bible toting, mouth breathers he might have ticked off by coming out and blaming the gun for the shooting. He didn't and should not have said anything about the shooter's belief system or association with groups known to have provided support to terror groups. That would have been too easy in the bigoted culture that is America these days. He is right to say that the availability of the gun is the real reason dozens of people are dead or injured. If it wasn't so easy to get a gun, this tragedy would not have happened.
You see, had the shooter had a tougher time getting a gun, he would have just given up and stayed home. The incidences of other terrorists using home made bombs attached to suicide vests or fertilizer based bombs stored in vans and parked next to buildings just doesn't happen often enough to be of real concern to President Obama.
And the shooter's belief system isn't what caused him to go to the club and begin shooting. Never mind that he had expressed the views of radical Islam. Never mind that his dad said he was angered by two gay men kissing, which he believes to be a sin against his God. Never mind that his interpretation of his religion's holy book says it is his duty to either kill or enslave all non-believers; that's all irrelevant. If they guns he had were not so easily obtained or available to average citizens, this tragedy would have been completely avoidable.
Let's ignore the fact that this was not an ordinary citizen just sitting on his porch then walking to a gun show or store and buying guns willy-nilly. This was a licensed security officer, category G I believe, which makes it legal for him to obtain certain types of guns, magazines and other paraphernalia, then carry those guns into locations that average citizens are not allowed to carry guns.
Let's also ignore the fact that this guy was on the FBI's terrorist watch list because of his known affiliation with terror and/or terror supporting groups. But that information isn't being shared with the state that licensed him because that might be unfairly prejudicial, because he's a Muslim. We can't profile don't you know. What does it take to say that we aren't profiling? Apparently killing over 50 people isn't enough to say that his belief system may have even been a factor in his decision making process because Obama won't call him a radical Muslim, for fear that the great unwashed in our country might begin stereotyping all Muslims.
Guess what Mr. President, calling them radical means they are not part of the mainstream Islamic religion. So we aren't stereotyping all Muslims, we are acknowledging the fact that many Muslims do not support the actions taken by the terrorists in the name of their religion. Just like we didn't condemn all Christians for Waco, Timothy McVeigh, or the KKK. But oddly enough, when a Christian commits a terrorist act, Obama and the left do condemn all Christians for their intolerance. Not sure how that logic works, maybe it's the part of Common Core that I don't understand.
Often we are told that when it's your time to die, there's nothing you can do. I've been told that hundreds of times when people find out I'm afraid of flying, assuming that my biggest fear is that I'm going to die. And they are right to an extent; I am afraid the plane is going to crash which I believe more often than not results in death. But it's not the fear of death itself that bothers me, it's the falling 30,000 feet while still alive and conscious that bothers me. The time to think about it and know that I have zero chance to do anything about it. And what are the odds that God or whatever overseer of fate you believe in has put 130 people whose time it up on that plane, at that time?
But for some people the odds are less daunting. Yang Dae-jin, 39 is a civil servant Gwangju, South Korea. He was leaving work in the public relations department for the county, headed home to his 5 year old son and pregnant wife. Just as he exited the building, whack!! An unnamed 25 year old student ran into him. Dae-jin never even saw him or had a chance to avoid him.
You see, the student had jumped from the 20th floor of the building and was rapidly approaching terminal velocity when he landed directly on Dae-jin's head. The student was killed instantly while Dae-jin passed later at the hospital from head injuries.
Police say the student was preparing to take the civil service exam when he decided to jump from the window. I can totally understand; a future of working in a bureaucracy would not be appealing at all.
We are becoming such a society of victims. We feel like everyone is out to screw us and we have no power, needing the government, the legal system, or someone else to solve our problems for us. Airline fees are the latest way we are being taken advantage of by some powerful entity. I was listening to a story about ticket change fees, ticket cancellation fees, and baggage fees in particular. I think it was American Airlines being singled out for having charged $50 for a passenger to change flights. Outrageous! Something must be done. And why should I have to pay $50 if I want to cancel my travel plans? Just give me all my money back. Never mind that in both cases someone at the airline must actually do some work to process your request. Never mind that the airline is losing planned revenue that they may not be able to make up if the cancellation is last minute. And baggage fees do compensate for having to add additional fuel and because it does require handling of the bags by airline staff. So Congress is now considering a law that would require airlines to justify in some manner the extra cost of change, cancellation, and/or baggage fees. Are you kidding me? What about the power of the consumer? A throw away by the reporter on this story said that AA had already dropped the change fee due to consumer pressure. Imagine that! Southwest Airlines has already made a big deal in their marketing campaign about not having baggage fees; more people are flying SW because of it. Having the federal government pass a law like this amounts to socialism. Do you know how much more it's going to cost airlines to have to present 'justification' to some bureaucratic body? More than $50 a ticket, I'm sure. But at least the victims will feel like someone is doing something.
Mrs. Clinton is telling anyone who will listen that she's been told so many times that people won't vote for her because she's a woman. She claims that some people even tell her they like her policies but just can't pull the lever for her because of her plumbing. I call BS. First of all, I don't believe she's being told by anyone that her sex prevents them from voting for her. Her contact with the public is so tightly controlled it's hard to believe that a misogynist would ever be able to get close to her. But she's playing the victim card in order to garner sympathy and support among that group of people, men & women both, who believe there is a large part of American society that doesn't want a woman in a position of power. Of course she is implying that conservatives are working against her simply because of her sex. Part of this is that she knows her policies and her previous job performance aren't appealing or aren't enough to get her elected, she needs a trump card (pun intended). So play the victim card to the lemmings who believe conservatives, evangelicals, and others truly are bigoted. Here's the truth, gender doesn't matter to 99% of conservatives. Think about this: who are two of the most admired leaders in recent history for conservatives? Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. The Iron Lady is revered among conservative men and women alike because of her principles and what she did for her country and the world. Gender doesn't matter to us, principles do. Clinton knows that but uses the victim card because it plays so well in our society these days.
Obama says he wants to expand social security payments to include more people and increased benefits. It's typical liberal rhetoric when he says his goal in doing so is to make sure retirees can live in dignity, fulfilling the promise that was made to them when the program was started. There were a lot of promises made when SS was created, like no increase in withholding, that have been broken. But the government's own actuaries say that by 2034 payments to retirees will be 75% of what we were promised because their isn't enough money in the account to make the payments. So let's promise to pay even more money out to many people who didn't even contribute money to the program, like illegal aliens. It makes perfect sense to a liberal because financial solvency doesn't mean a thing to them. They'll promise to raise taxes on the rich in order to pay for the additional costs but that won't cover the shortfall so they'll borrow more money from the Chinese and kick the can further down the road. Except that we are increasingly closer to the cliff at the end of that road and the Chinese won't have the money to loan to us. The more important goal for a liberal is to appear to be compassionate and caring so they can stay in power. Then when the adults in the room come along and tell us the brutal truth, that we can't have our cake and eat it too, the libs will scream racism, bigotry, child killer, or some other phrase designed to play upon the victim mentality and many of us will scream along with them, kicking the can right off the cliff.
I know there are still many of us who believe in the power we have to guide our own lives but the victims in this country are expanding and the power they have over our lives has increased exponentially. It's time to bring back lawn darts and thin the stupid ones out of the herd.
The price of a barrel of oil is about $50 these days, rebounding somewhat from its low price a few months ago of about $26 a barrel. Of course, that's nowhere near the $100 a barrel price that created stupid money for many countries. Ahead of the OPEC meetings coming up this week, I was reading an article that said cheap oil is bad for us. The premise of the article builds upon commentary that we heard when the bottom was falling out of the market. But is cheap oil, or cheap energy in general really bad for us?
This particular article says that many 'smaller' members of OPEC are hurting because of cheap oil; countries like Venezuela, Nigeria, and Iraq are seeing reducing revenue and struggling economies because of low oil prices. The premise is that their economies are struggling because the government can't get enough tax revenue. That's not unlike conversations that took place here in NM; state tax revenues were going down because of the low price of natural gas and oil. The 'logical' consequence for many was that with lower tax revenues, people were going to be hurt, starve in fact, because the government didn't have the money to take care of them.
Right there is the problem. Those countries, like Venezuela, or states, like NM, that have centrally controlled economies do struggle when the government doesn't have enough money to provide for the basic needs of their citizens. But not having enough tax revenue isn't the problem; it's that those running the government believe it is their responsibility to be parents to the citizens of their country or state. Really, it doesn't matter if there is a lot of money or little money, government can't provide food, housing, clothing, jobs or anything else for their citizens in an efficient and effective manner.
Venezuela started going downhill fast as soon as the government took over the farms, ranches, grocery stores and other industry with the idea that they could provide everything at a fair price and pay a fair wage by taking out the profit motive. Even with oil prices at $100 a barrel, shortages of food and other staples started right away. Those still in private business were told they had to pay higher wages, a 'fair' wage, and they couldn't fire their employees because it wasn't fair to do so. So people quit showing up for work. Why work if they are getting paid anyway? Then there wasn't anything to sell or buy, so what's the use of working at all?
We can go down the list of failed social governments, Cuba, Russia, Greece, Italy, Mexico... none of them have worked. China opened up free market areas in Shanghai and Beijing and those areas are booming, creating a higher standard of living and wealth to rival any country in the world. Those parts of China that are still run according to the principles of Marxism are dirt poor.
Now cheap energy is good for citizens in so many ways. Lower prices at the pump take a smaller bite out of our paychecks freeing up money for other pursuits; paying off debt, traveling, buying food, clothing, or other products. That stimulates the economy creating jobs. This country's economy was built in large part because of an abundance of natural resources including cheap energy. When it costs less to produce and distribute goods, it makes it easier not only for us to buy stuff, but for companies to make stuff for us to buy.
And even with cheap energy, there were a lot of people who got rich, very rich off of cheap oil and gas. And some of you won't like to hear this, but with increased economic activity, tax revenues actually increase for the government. But if we took the government out of the role of being our caretaker, we'd have more money left in our pockets to take care of ourselves.
People have tremendous insights into marriage and what it's like on a daily basis. Now with social media, we get to read all about it and it's quite entertaining. Here are some Tweets about husbands and wives that put it all into perspective:
My wife told me to grow up. I was speechless. It's hard to argue when you have 45 gummy bears in your mouth.
Marriage teaches you a lot about life: For instance, my wife has pointed out that I don't need to use so many paper towels. Apparently they're really expensive.
The Mrs. and I have been married so long she can finish my sentences. She also starts most of them and supplies the middle parts too.
Newlyweds: "Let's share everything!" Veterans: "Your knee was on my side of the bed last night."
My wife probably tells me that I never listen to her.
Marriage is all about knowing which hand towels you can use and which ones are for the better people visiting your wife's house.
Before I got married, I didn't even know there was a wrong way to put milk back in the fridge.
My wife asked me what I wanted for dinner and then told me I was wrong.
I've been married for about 45 lbs.
Wife: It's like every man on Earth has to share one brain. Me: I can't think of a good comeback because it's not my day to have the brain.
You know you've been married too long when she says, "you pee too loud, close the door"
At least 10% of divorces could be avoided by buying bigger blankets.
This whole deal with the gorilla being put down at the Cincinnati zoo is just another example of the screwed up thinking of liberals, especially the PETA crowd. It's quite simple; PETA and their ilk value the lives of animals over those of humans. The radical PETA (I know that's somewhat redundant) members think the ape should have been 'talked down' or tranquilized or offered food rather than being shot.
Quite simply the argument that the ape was protecting the child is specious at best. It sure is nice to think the ape was protecting the child but we know from experience that any animal doesn't have the ability to reason in the way that a human reasons. The ape could have seen the child as a toy and without the specific intent of killing the child, could have played with it in a rough manner that would have resulted in the death of the child. That means that action had to be taken quickly by the zoo authorities.
I listened to Ron McGill of the Miami Zoo talk about the idea that a tranquilizer gun could have been used. The drug doesn't begin acting right away. If you've ever watched any show in which an animal is shot with a tranquilizer dart, you know that the animal reacts to the pain of being shot quickly and often violently. Had the ape been shot with a dart, experience tells us he would have reacted angrily; that puts the child in danger and it's not so much of an 'if' as it is a 'will'. Again, the ape wouldn't have necessarily meant to hurt the child but in the reaction to being shot, the ape would have likely hurt or killed the child, pure and simple.
I listened to a representative of PETA talk about the tragic death of the ape and how other means should have been used, including having never put the ape in a zoo to begin with. OK, that last one would have prevented the situation, but the ape was there. Zoo officials said trying to have his handlers offer food or talk nice to the ape to distract him from the child was not a very good proposition. If the ape had mistaken the intent of the handlers as being playful, he could have whipped the child around. Or maybe the ape would have seen their approach as a threat to taking his toy away and attempted to 'protect' it. Again the likelihood that the child gets hurt inadvertently, according to the professionals, was very high. PETA doesn't know this ape as well as its handlers.
The PETA rep and others have said that the ape was doing nothing wrong and the child's parents are to blame. I can't argue with that too much because the ape wasn't doing anything but being an ape. The parents were not attentive and created the situation that allowed the child to wander up to the fence and fall into the enclosure. Police have said they won't charge the parents with a crime but maybe they should be charged. The abrogated their duty as parents; that is to keep an eye on their child, using more care than normal because of the potential risks involved.
Instead the police are considering charging someone from the zoo criminally because the fencing was not adequate to keep a child out of the enclosure. Umm, based on what I've heard and seen, this isn't a regular occurrence at the zoo. Kids or other people aren't getting into the enclosures willy-nilly. The fencing has been good enough to keep a whole lot of other people out of the ape exhibit. Once again, liberals are over reacting to a single incident, albeit a tragic one; but we know that you can't prevent all tragedy and there has to be a balance between trying to protect the animals and the public and reasonableness.
And as if the rhetoric couldn't be ratcheted up another notch, the Black Lives Matter crowd said this was akin to racism, that is shooting the ape to protect a child. Apparently they didn't realize the race of the parents. When they found out the family is black, they backed off a bit. So it was OK to allow a Caucasian, Asian, or Hispanic child to die in order to not shoot the ape? And what is BLM really saying when they compare the shooting of an ape to the shooting of a black person? That black people are apes? Isn't that racist? And by that same 'logic', if PETA wanted the ape to live at the risk of killing the child, doesn't that make them racist?
Liberals have shown, by simply holding some of these views that they value the lives of animals over humans.