the whole tiger thing

so i keep finding myself having this same conversation over and over again, almost always with someone under 25; in fact, the younger they are, the more mystified they seem to be as to why lots of people aren't more sympathetic to the guys who were mauled by the tiger.

to me the answer is simple--it involves a basic, elemental law of nature that has guided human behavior since time immemorial: in the real world, actions have consequences--and the immediacy and severity of said consequences can pretty much be reliably counted upon to increase in direct proportion to the stupidity of one's actions.

most post-adolescents in the real world with three-digit i.q.'s innately understand--and tend to carefully abide by--this concept, which is how they survive long enough to breed.

unfortunately (at least from my point of view) we're not talking about the real world in this instance; we're talking about america in the new millenium where, no matter how stupid your actions might be, "they" are supposed to protect you from any and all harm; consequently, i really can't fault the twentysomethings for their take on this--it's the way they were raised.

being of (and from) a different age, i look at it more this way: to all appearances, the zoo's safeguards did a perfectly fine job of keeping the tigers safely separated from all the reasonable, rational humans who visited its grounds for almost two decades. but because in perfect-world america the zoo's planners committed the unforgivable offense of failing to anticipate the day that some cretinous drunken adolescents would decide that it'd be fun to taunt a tiger, slingshot a few rocks at it and then maybe even drape a waggling limb over its fence, thus providing the enraged and adrenaline-fueled animal a foothold upon which to claw its way out of a pen it probably never would've been able to escape otherwise (and you know damn well that's what happened)--because of that egregious oversight--the zoo will pay dearly for this little mishap.

see, had this happened in, say, 1965, this would have been seen, and treated as, an isolated incident. zoo would've paid some out to the dead kid's family, covered his injured friends' medical expenses, raised the fencing in the tiger's enclosure by three or so feet to safeguard against the unlikely event of such an occurrence ever happening again, and that would've been pretty much it. there would've been no public outcry, no national story--especially when the ugly truth about these guys and what they did began to emerge--because people back then understood that there was a price to be paid for foolishness.

but forget then; here's how it's gonna play out in 2008 (and why, incidentally, lots of people are so pissed): (1) the "victims" predictably and immediately lawyered up, and mark garagos, sleazeball attorney extraordinaire, will secure huge settlements for them all--because god knows the zoo wouldn't dare go to trial with this in california; (2) as a result, the liability insurance for zoos--which i'd be willing to bet up until now has been fairly reasonable--will skyrocket, and carriers will demand that all zoos shell out additional funds to idiot-proof their enclosures beyond all reasonable standards if they want to keep their coverage (such costs to be passed on to the municipal taxpayers and zoo patrons, of course); and (3) as a result of (2), future zoo-goers across the land will pay more to get less, as admission fees increase and reasonable proximity to the animals diminishes--all of this goodness visited upon america courtesy of these three assholes.

now, please understand--i'm not saying the zoo doesn't have liability here; they've even acknowledged (probably stupidly) that the fence shoulda been higher.

what i am saying is that the thugs who i have absolutely no doubt provoked this incident should--rather than winning the lottery--share in that responsibility; hell, it's looking increasingly likely that they should probably be charged with complicity in the death of their friend.

but we all know that's not gonna happen--the new american ethos dictates that
everybody but the ones who really caused this will end up paying for it; ironically (and in my opinion criminally), their irresponsibility has probably insured that they'll be set for life.