... hope they get your story right.
You probably have seen at least a headline about the tiger that got out at the S.F. Zoo on Christmas day. My family has been going there for Christmas every year since the kids were in strollers and we were there Tuesday. We missed Titania's escape by about 2 hours.
The SF Chronicle is all over the story with updates every few hours. The story changes about that fast, too. My rant is not about the writing style of the Chron, but the comments I've read in response to the story.
The jury is still out on whether Titania was taunted by the boys. What is getting me is the tone of entitlement, that even if the boys did taunt a four-year-old tiger, that they should have been perfectly safe in doing so. It is the expectation that no matter what someone does; taunt a tiger, leave their child unattended, buy too much house, ride a motorcycle, eat certain foods, that the World owes them indemnity from their actions.
Where does this come from? Is it the poor math perception that taxes or an admission ticket constitute a perfect insurance policy; not that we will be reimbursed, but that the bad thing will never happen? I understand that the parents and family of Carlos Sousa Jr. are in agony over this event, but what is the basis for the reaction from the people not so directly affected?
I think some of it (but not all) comes from our elected officials. Candidates can market programs to provide transfer payments, interest rate locks, and other economic supports and hold them out as entitlements, signs of civilization, protections for good, honest people. "You deserve this, and I will get it for you." But no matter how well intentioned, how well executed, no program is going to bring Carlos back.
I think this kind of thinking is a slippery slope to treating other people shabbily. When things go badly and the pattern is to blame rather than mitigate, we end up with even more grief. It's lazy thinking, but it is a pattern that is supported by our economics (e.g., tort suits, votes for the reform candidate, revenge), so the system is not likely to self-correct.
Drew, you're singing to the choir! :D
I feel so bad for that tiger and of course the families too. Now it appears that the wall was only 12 feet high and of course tigers swim there is no point inthinking a moat will help. Maybe a tree fell accross the wall. Video cameras should be on all doors housing dangerous animals and those cameras should be monitored!!! That particular tiger was probably just a good escape artist and climber and she was probably hungry too. It being Christmas the zoo was probably short staffed and off the feeding schedule, and as far as I am concerned ANYONE who teases an animal in captivity deserves to be eaten. There should be a strictly enforced zoo policy no teasing the animals!!! This is not to say that any of those young people were teasing just that no one should tease animals in captivity.
I feel as you do about the families. Sometimes my kids do things I don't want them to. Still, we're not sure if Carlos and his friends taunted the tiger (Starting to sound like a broken record).
I've been to the zoo, so I can tell you that there is no water in the moat. The environment is sort of like a flattened mountain where the cats hang out. No tree fell across and Titania, according to her handlers and other tiger experts not associated with the zoo say she was exhibiting normal tiger behavior.
The zoo would have been normally staffed, if not augmented, since Christmas at the zoo is a big deal. It's an anti-holiday for zoo staff. Feeding time was at 2:00 pm. I was there, :).
The zoo had no problem with escapes for the 60 years since the tiger exhibit has been in existence. The zoo will probably end up having to have cameras to protect the tigers and the people from "outlier behavior". Normal, decent people would not hurt a caged animal.
Many years ago I had a golden retriver. The dog was kept in a kenel behind my house. I had some friends over once and we caught their 12 year old son taunting the dog by poking it with a stick thru the chain link wire. Several months later the boy just happened to show up while I had the dogs out. This dog who was normaly very gentle attacked him on sight. It was all I could do to get him away from the boy. Luckily he wasn't hurt to bad. That dog had remembered the taunts and saw the boy as a threat. I suspect this tiger incident wasn't much different.
Mexican food, anybody?
Oh, wrong thread. d*
From somebody who knew what was going on -- quoted from comments after a news story.
QuoteThese idiots were taunting a wild tiger and deserved what they got. Unfortunately, the tiger was killed for doing what hundreds of people everyday come to see it do, be a wild animal. The only true tragedy in this is the death of the tiger. And now every time the 2 surviving kids look in a mirror and see the disfigured faces staring back at them they will realize how stupid they were.
Quote from the father and another story.
QuoteCarlos Sousa Sr., the father of 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr. who was killed in the attack, told NBC's "Today" show that whether or not taunting was involved in the incident, the animal should not have been able to escape its enclosure at all.
"His parents said he loved rap music and aspired to write and record music one day."
"The police chief would not comment on whether the animal was taunted."
http://www.knbc.com/news/14930362/detail.html?rss=la&psp=news
Sorry to lump these kinds of kids together, but kids with similar lifestyles did a few thousand dollars damage to my wife's car breaking in and stealing the stereo in Fresno.
I'm with the above commenter -- I'll feel sorry for the tiger.
The SF Chronicle now reports that Carlos Sousa Jr. was a hero for distracting the tiger that was attacking his friend. The implication is that the attack would not have happened if the wall was taller.
I love the wall part. All the amateur building inspectors are commenting on the negligence (or worse) of the zoo in having a short wall. I wonder what other factors are involved that may have let the inspectors not flag the wall. Perhaps the run up to the wall was short enough that a tiger was not likely to get the speed/angle needed to make the jump? Maybe they have their own "span tables" at the zoo.
The paper is word-smithing for maximum revenue. And why not? Its a business, not a public service. Being a business, we get the news we deserve. I'll buy your paper if you agree with/entertain me. The web comments back on the stories is mana from heaven for the media.
Years ago when we bought our first house, we told our realtor that we could only do it if the loan payment minus the tax deduction would be the same as our current rent. "Oh, yes. Yes, of course it will be," he said. We make things easier by telling people the lies we want to hear.
Quote from: ScottA on December 28, 2007, 10:57:10 AM
Many years ago I had a golden retriver. The dog was kept in a kenel behind my house. I had some friends over once and we caught their 12 year old son taunting the dog by poking it with a stick thru the chain link wire. Several months later the boy just happened to show up while I had the dogs out. This dog who was normaly very gentle attacked him on sight. It was all I could do to get him away from the boy. Luckily he wasn't hurt to bad. That dog had remembered the taunts and saw the boy as a threat. I suspect this tiger incident wasn't much different.
Scott, when I was a kid, we had a little miniature spitz dog. The boys who lived next door decided it was funny to rip shingles off their own roof and chunk them at her, pesky little future criminals that they were. Sugar had never bitten anyone, though she was quite protective of mom and me... she wouldn't let any man closer than about 5 ft. She would sit there and growl and show her teeth, and no one ever had to be told twice. Well, one year, she had puppies, and because her shots came due when she was still nursing the puppies, the vet told my mom to wait on her rabies shot until the pups were weaned. That same week, she got out of the fence when the three boys were walking down the road, and my guess is that they were teasing her and barking at her from the road, and she bit all three of them on their calves. The mother filed charges against us, and because the dog was two weeks overdue on her rabies shot, she had to be put in a veterinary quarantine for two months and watched by the vet. It cost us more than $20 a day, and we really didn't have the money, but mom loved that dog. As soon as Sugar was done biting the boys, she came right back into the fence and plopped down with her pups. I didn't blame her a bit. One of the boys was in my class at school and made life difficult for me for a while, threatening to kill my dog, etc. Mom went into debt to save the dog, and our vet said from the very beginning that she knew Sugar wasn't rabid and had every reason to attack those boys. Then, the city made my mom keep Sugar on a chain, pretty much for the rest of her life, if she was outside at all, even though we had a chain-link fence because they labelled her as a vicious dog. It was a sorry deal. Those boys threw stuff at her, poked at her with sticks, taunted her, etc... what did they think she'd do??? Oh, and for the record, the only one of the boys who was actually hurt by the dog happened to be wearing shorts and he had exactly two small puncture wounds in his calf, the big sissy, and went crying home to mommy when he knew good and well it was his own fault.
I am curious on what defines a taunt? When my kiddos were younger we took them to the zoo a few times. The monkey area was their favorite. The would them self act like monkeys, wave to the monkeys, do what kids do to get the attention of an animal. Is that considered taunting or is that a reasonable expectation of what is expected by kids at a zoo?
Monkeys will many times throw poo at kids who bug them. In general probably not as bad as monkeys like to monkey around - if the monkey is not obviously upset.
Big cats like to play like small cats. They like to bite arms legs and heads of smaller food animals of which people could be one. If one was to be obviously making the cat mad I don't think there would be much question. I would say teasing the cat to make it mad because you thought you were safe on the outside and it couldn't get you could be considered taunting - or anything to annoy the captive animal.
Hmmmmmmm.
I generally agree with you. But I must admit I am sure I have snap my fingers, made a loud noise to get an animal to turn so I can take a picture. I wonder if these guys who have been accused of taunting was doing it intensionally or misguided like I have been?
I was reading that there were footprints up on the side of the cage and the commenter quoted seemed to know that they were stupidly taunting the tiger.
Quotethere have been reports that one of the victims provoked the tiger, named Tatiana, by dangling his legs over the exhibit wall. "If an animal is used to spectators on the other side of the barricade and someone ... has their leg dangling over, that could be a problem,"
QuoteThe Chronicle cited unnamed sources close to the investigation as saying that evidence found at the scene "included a shoe and blood in an area between the gate and the edge of the ... moat."
A shoeprint found on the barrier of an enclosure at San Francisco Zoo could shed more light on the tiger attack that left one person dead and two injured, police said Thursday.
San Francisco police chief Heather Fong revealed that the footprint had been found on the railing of the exhibit from which a Siberian tiger escaped on Tuesday before embarking on a deadly rampage.
The report also said "pinecones and sticks that were found in the moat might have been thrown at the animal. Those items could not have landed in the grotto naturally," according to the sources.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5glzUOMikfoz-ZJpJUpoGhJksoajw
I guess the tree hugger is going to show in me :(
I have hunted all my life and like most really avid hunters, love animals. I'm not sure what happened at the zoo but I am sure that the Tiger was just being a tiger. Anything in a cage is dangerous if you get too close. If you don't believe me, go to a prison and start rattling bars sometime.
A similar thing happened in Richmond a few years ago. Maymont park had a Bear. I've raised Hell for years about the bear. They don't belong in cages. Anyway....some rideculas soccer mom held little bumblebutt Jr. over the safety rail so he could see the bear better. The Bear reached out and took a couple pounds of meat off of jr.
After a lot of screaming about public safety, they killed the bear. To make matters worse, they got another bear to take it's place.
Wild animals don't belong in cages so City People can gawk at them. Nothing does.
Sure the Tigers are endangered.....Is life in a cage better than being dead on your own terms....NO!
My thought was that the Tiger had had enough. It probably suspected it was going to die but decided to take one of the little misfits with it before it went out.
At least she died doing what she was born to do and that probably gave her at least a little bit of satisfaction at taking out one of her tormentors and one of the symbols of her loss of freedom. Maybe she didn't think that deep though. [crz]
If it is true that the guys did cross that line and placed them self the other side of the gate, then they took a chance and lost. Darwin Award Canidates.... Just like that teen up in Alaska who decided to go swimming with Binky the Polar Bear and lost his leg.
Quote from: peternap on December 29, 2007, 10:15:51 AM
...Is life in a cage better than being dead on your own terms....NO!
Amen
One should die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly - Nietzche
He was talking about people, but I think it applies to animals as well
I think in the S.F. tiger deal IF the tiger got out ON IT'S OWN , as in no door was opened , no plank / walk way was thrown into the pen / cage / enclosure , allowing it to "climb a ramp" so to speak it's the ZOO'S fault NO MATTER WHAT THE PEOPLE DID , IF the animal got out on it's own the cage was NOT good enought and that kids death and the others injuries are on the ZOO!
If the kid was dragged into the pen , or got into the pen and or was allowed to get close enough to the tiger cage and the tiger reached out and got the person then it's the person fault .
In this case , at least at this point , the wall that WAS reported to be 18 feet , turns out to be 12' 6" and the tiger got out on it's own so the ZOO and city should and will I'm sure be paying for this little blunder for many many years.
I have to agre. The wall was insufficient, that tiger certainly could jump a 12 foot wall. With little or no provocation AND in additiont to that the zoo should realize that although normal people don't tease animals, there will always be those that do. There should be strict policy that anyone caught teasing animals will be permanantly expelled fromt he zoo. And the animals should be provided "safe spaces" a place where they can escape if they are teased. My dogs know better than to growl or bite a child but when small children come around they tend to do their best to get away from them, like hiding under my feet until I put them in a room by themselves. These zoo animals deserve a place to get away from the barrage too. Just because the zoo wants people to see them doesn't mean they want to be seen. if this cat had a private place to go perhaps she would have just turned her back on the teasing. From her preivious attacks though it appears she had some territorial issues and perhaps the zoo should screen for that as well. Some animals are more territorial than others and they don't make the best pets, and they need additional protections at a zoo, but they make great protectors and watch dogs.
An unconfirmed story said to come secondhand from an SFPD officer -- I have no reason to doubt that it is true. If true which is likely, then the young hoodlum assisted the tiger to escape confines which had been adequate by being excessively stupid and making an unsuccessful attempt at showing how tough he was. No amount of walls can overcome excessive stupidity.
QuoteThree teenage boys were harassing a tiger in the zoo near closing time, they were probably throwing stuff at it. The tiger, getting pissed off at them jumped the fence into moat. Luckily the moat is too deep for the tiger to be able to jump at the boys.
The boys kept harassing the tiger and were trying to hit it now with their jackets. The tiger latched onto one of the jackets and was able to pull itself up enough to get the other paw on the ledge of the wall. The tiger then was able to climb out and proceeded to exact its revenge on one of the boys.
The other two run off to one of the concession carts to get help, the lady in the cart thinks they are trying to rob her so she locks herself in and calls the police. The zoo director comes by and the boys tell her about the tiger. She jumps in her cart to check it out and finds the one dead boy but no tiger. She calls for SFPD and the paramedics.
The police and paramedics arrive and the boys are still at the concession cart waiting. Having caught a wiff of the boys scent the tiger comes back to finish its revenge on the boys. Everybody tells the boys to stay still but one takes off running, the tiger jumped at him and rips his face apart.
The police can't shoot for fear of hitting the kid so they distract the tiger with a flashlight. The tiger rushes at the cops and they run to their cars. While the tiger is trying to attack the cops in their car everybody is shooting at the tiger trying to take it down. Eventually the tiger goes down after who knows how many rounds to the head and body.
If true, which is likely, The tiger was simply cleaning up the gene pool so that we would not be plagued with offspring of excessively stupid people. It's one thing to be stupid and tease it a bit - it's another thing to dangle your leg for bait and an escape route.
If our ancestors had been that stupid -- say teasing a bear or mountain lion, we probably wouldn't be here.
Young hoodlums who meanly tease animals will think nothing of committing crimes on humans.
I think a bit of it comes down to survival of the fittest. The tiger was obviously more fit than the young hoodlum who was harassing it.
In a zoo the animals always have a place to hide. I don't understand why a prisoner should have to hide because some young aspiring criminal and possible future wife beater, hold up man, dope dealer, stereo stealer, armed robber or even president of the United States thinks it's cool to be mean and harass, taunt, terrorize, abuse a caged animal.
Tiger 1 -Idiot 0 yea team.
It's all glenn's fault.
Maybe Glenn , ::) but the zoo IF they are going to keep animals like tigers, etc . They ( the zoo's )need to insure public safety , if the cat got out due to a coat tail hanging down that needs to be fixed.
The people might need a "cage" to keep them back so that can NOT happen!
If that cat got out and all he / she needed was a jacket sleeve to grab to make the leap the WALL WAS NOT HIGH enought.
If the cat grab the guy and dragged him into the cat cage then it's the guys fault , BUT THE CAT needs to be KEPT IN THE CAGE , BY THE ZOO! At ALL cost .
This cat got out , IF it jumped the WALL and was NOT let out a door , IT'S THE ZOO'S FAULT , at least in my mind!
YMMV , as I'm sure you know :)
I will grant you that the cat should not have gotten out, PEG however if this kid actually lent him a leg up as the above story indicates, then I feel that the cat was still justified in eating him and the only reason I feel that the cat should have been kept from eating the idiot was not for the idiots sake, but to save the people of the city from having to pay more for their insurance policy.
:)
I agree with that IF those guys where teasing the cat , no problem . But the cat at that point is just doing what it does, kills to eat , the only thing that stopped it from killing was a cop with a gun.
I do still feel the zoo is responsible to keep those type animals in there cage, at what ever cost. In this case it's to bad the cat only needed so little "help" to get out . IMO that pen is "cutting it to close" / making it to easy for escape.
Some puny human kids leg was ALL it needed, what if a tree limb blew in and the cat could grab just a skimpy limb and still escape?
The "margin of safety " in this case was / is (did they beef up the pen / move back the human fence ???? [noidea' ) or will they be doing some or all of the following now that the horse (or tiger) rofl has gotten out of the barn (cage) [shocked]
Wonder if anyone really knows for sure how the cat did get out? We may never know. hmm
I have been to the SF Zoo. It is pretty old - not state of the art.
PS. Note that I did have to take the Tigers side on this.
I was Class of '69 -- the Taft High Tigers, Lincoln City, Oregon.
We always lost -- I didn't do sports, but our team always lost. It really sucks when you come from a loser school so I just felt I had to stick up for my fellow Tiger. Note that I skipped graduation -- made them mail my diploma to me. Nobody was gonna stick one of those goofy looking hats on me. >:(
Didn't two guys survive? They should be able to tell the whole TRUE storey . Hell even IF they did bad things to that tiger the fact that it got out is going to cost the city or at least the zoo (, I guess that will depend on how good the lawyers are on both or all sides) BUT no jury in Ca. is going to allow the zoo / city off on this one.
That tiger NEVER should have been able to get out over the walls , like I said before IF it dragged the guy into the cage maybe it's the humans fault( in my eyes it would be ,,,,in a jury's eyes it may still be the zoo's ::))
BUT the cat got out so no matter how or why IT IS THE ZOO'S fault.
Note I'm in NO way placing ANY blame with the tiger, it just did what any tiger should have done , KILL TO EAT! The tiger is in no way at fault in this issue IMO.
You'd look good in a cap and gown.
I did put on a see through evening dress in the Janet Reno look alike contest. [crz]
My guess is someone turned that cat loose for reasons of their own. And they felt justified doing it.
tiger should not be able to get out....But you know I would not go near a tiger no matter how safe someone tells me it is...
I vacationed once in Florida and people were swimming where gators were sunning themselves on the banks...They asked me if I wanted to swim I told them to "F" off and got the hell out of there... They assured me that there was no danger...Well I was scared to death to swim in gator infested waters with gators in plain sight...
And I am sure that every year a couple people die from gators eating them...Simple solution to me...Do not swim with gators, and you cannot get eaten by gators...
Even at the Zoo I am not going right upto the tigers or whatever... "F" that...I would rather watch them on the discovery channel and live
So peg is right that the city will pay dearly for this for years and years...And those that think this is just natural selection are correct in their own way also...
Mother nature selected these idiots to be removed from the human gene pool....
Quote from: benevolance on December 31, 2007, 12:44:58 AM
Mother nature selected these idiots to be removed from the human gene pool....
Sometimes I feel she's not giving that job her full attention.
I think that sometimes she is on holiday or has retired... She needs to hire an assistant methinks
Anyone else enjoy reading The Darwin Awards? :)
It costs $11 for an adult who does not live in SF to visit the Zoo. It's only $9 for a local because they voted for the bond measure that helped fund the Zoo. I saw new exhibits there this year which might have come from that funding.
It will take another infusion of money to improve the cat environment. Maybe it can be done economically with a big plastic screen, maybe not. The Zoo will probably have to invest in cameras, extra security, management consulting, and PR to get through all of this. There is also the revenue loss from having the exhibit closed while the building happens.
So we are likely to see an increase in the ticket prices. Two parents and two kids ($ for ages 3-11, or $8 ages 12-17) is now $11x2 + $5x2 = $32 not counting lunch. It's not Disneyland rates yet, but it is not cheap entertainment.
So what is the cost going to be to cover the plastic screen? Another $2 per ticket over 10 years?
Keep in mind we are only talking about the tigers right now. No one has tried to accuse the gorillas of substandard housing yet.
Wait. Someone can still climb the plastic wall, or throw something over it. Or write on it so that no one can take a picture. Or fall off of it.
Perhaps we can post a guard at the tiger exhibit to make sure someone doesn't do something guaranteed to them in their civil rights and ticket price like the Freedom to Climb Fences and/or Taunt Animals. I am not saying that the kids did this - I am responding to the "safety no matter what" conditions.
But what if there are more climbers/taunters than the guard can handle?
The only guarantee to not get hurt at the Zoo is to not go to the Zoo. But people want to go, and the Zoo wants them to come. In order to facilitate this, the Zoo and the visitor agree to the terms and conditions on the ticket. That requires a standard of care on both sides of the agreement. If I buy spray paint, throw the cans into the campfire, and get hurt when they explode, the proximate cause is not the faulty can but my abuse of the product.
The Zoo (the gas station, the nail gun manufacturer, whatever) must cover the risk for the reasonable use of its product and advise the consumer of that reasonable use (We have all seen the warnings on tools.). If the customer insists on abusing the tool/service, the manufacturer/provider should not be held responsible. We as a society can decide the standard for "reasonable use". We don't want companies to make bad tools and hurt a person who is acting reasonably. But to expect perfect safety under all conditions advised and unadvised is not feasible. The result would be that no one would put those tools and services on the market.
i love the darwin awards!
the guy who put his testicles in the golf ball washer.... pure genius
Quote from: StinkerBell on December 31, 2007, 04:21:40 PM
Anyone else enjoy reading The Darwin Awards? :)
I have seen this guy nominated several times in reading comments looking for info.
Quote from: glenn kangiser on December 31, 2007, 09:36:29 PM
I have seen this guy nominated several times in reading comments looking for info.
So Glenn did you ferget to add a link or somethin [noidea'
And I'd think it would be pretty hard to get nominated
more than once for the
same Darwin award / act wouldn't it? d* d*
It was mentioned in comments after news stories -- I read a ton of them looking for more than the MSM was saying. Sorry - no link -- Just comments from people who thought he deserved it - not a real live nomination.
Here's one. http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=3292296 caution
nuther
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/rnr/520415256.html
Quoteit would be pretty hard to get nominated more than once for the same Darwin award / act wouldn't it?
Nah. Several people could nominate a person for the same event. But if you don't win you can't go out and try something else :)
That's an understatement, John. rofl
It had to come to this
Two brothers who were attacked by an escaped tiger at the San Francisco Zoo have filed claims against the city alleging negligence and defamation.
Kulbir and Amritpal "Paul" Dhaliwal are seeking monetary compensation for "serious physical and emotional injuries." The claims filed this week are a prerequisite for filing a civil lawsuit.
Here is the story. I don't know how long it will stay up
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080328/ap_on_re_us/tiger_attacks (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080328/ap_on_re_us/tiger_attacks)
In the end:
Tiger - dead
Taxpayers - screwed
Lawyers - Enriched
Sad part is that these two Darwins will likely prevail.
Prevail with what? Winning a suit? BFD. That happens to a million morons a day. Are these guys actually going to turn their lives around and have a happy, productive life with a bunch of tax payers' money? I seriously doubt it. More likely they will have an initial rush (like a lottery winner) and things will return to "normal". The money will go to booze and drugs (Like the stuff in the car) or other things that won't have a lasting effect. Cars that are great for a few weeks, then become the norm. Maybe a house that the payments aren't kept up on. Will these guys learn new values? Will they go to school? Will they think, "Well, I don't have to work now. What can I do in my life to create something positive? Is there something I feel is important that I would be willing to volunteer my time for?" I don't think we're looking at that kind of life change. Then there are the family and friends that will come around.
Things that are not earned do not increase our permanent state of happiness. If someone's waiting for money to make them happy, that bus is not coming. Sure, money gives you more choices in this world, no doubt about it. But if you're ability to make good choices is limited, you are not going to be happy.
Prevail? They cannot prevail because they haven't even joined the game.
You're probably right on their eventual outcome. They are not smart enough or they wouldn't be in the position they are in. The thing that bothers me though is the share that will be eaten up by their mercenary, scum sucking lawyers, AND the fact that the money is coming out of the city/county/state, whatever taxpayer surrendered dollars.
I can't add much to that Drew, because you have it nailed to a tee.
An early teacher I had said you could take a drunk out of the gutter, give them a million dollars and a new start, and they would find their way right back to the gutter in just a short time.
Likewise, take a successful person -- take away everything they have and they will again become a success.
...I guess I should add, take a failed contractor who just can't make the grade, and he will become a building inspector... ::)
Yow! You've got it, Glenn!
I've sometimes said that if I ever sustain a crippling head injury I could always find work as a [insert job].
I try not to think about the taxpayer money that's going to these clowns and their entourage, MD. It only makes me crazy when I do. I have to think that some of it is paid to keep the noise level down so we can get on with our personal business. I know people who apply for credit cards, fill them up on a cash advance, and tell the bank they won't be paying, all as part of a plan. They probably think they are being clever, but I have no respect for that.
Again, it goes back to this: Is what I am doing right now part of what I want to be? In one case you're carrying a heavy load for the third trip back to the truck. It's hot out and it's no fun. But you're packing up after a 4H competition you attended with your kid. So maybe the work sucks, but the job is great! Sometimes we're having a great time, but it's not doing what we should be doing. We can make excuses why it's okay to do it, but in the end we aren't doing ourselves any favors. Make a life of this and no amount of money, molecules, or comfort will rescue you.