[marden]

There are many people who try to sell their views of life and national defense here and they just have a different way of looking at things. We focus on many different things about why they suggest the things they do. But one thing we seldom question is their risk quotient.

Some people do things that are risky and some do things that are foolhardy and then they come here and pretend they are normal people like everyone else and when they say something is good they do so without letting us know they have an abnormal risk quotient.

These people had enough money to go on an African Safari honeymoon but not enough sense to know you shouldn't go on an African Safari honeymoon. Yet if this person had came to MacNN and posted things like the US should get out of Iraq and presented intellectual reasons supporting his ideas we wouldn't know that these ideas were from somebody who was crazy enough to risk his life on an African Safari honeymoon.

I wouldn't be surprised if the people who have no regard or understanding of their safety are mouthing off more than they should about things they can decide for themselves but not for others.

Elephant stamps Briton to death on his honeymoon
03/10/06
By Dan Parkinson

A BRITISH tourist on honeymoon in Kenya was crushed to death by a stampeding elephant in front of his new bride.

Patrick Smith, 34, was on an early morning walk with wife Julie when the six-ton animal charged at them.

The newlyweds, from Purley in Surrey, desperately tried to flee but the elephant, believed to be a bull, attacked Mr Smith as it thundered past.

Mrs Smith screamed as she watched it knock their Masai guide out of the way before trampling her husband underfoot.

The attack was over in less than a minute but Mr Smith is believed to have suffered massive internal injuries.

He was cradled by his terrified wife as the guide, a fully-trained Masai warrior, ran to summon the Kenyan flying doctor service.

Medics soon arrived at the scene but Mr Smith, who worked in IT for news agency Reuters, was dead.

They flew Mrs Smith, who also works for Reuters, to a nearby landing strip from where she was taken to the capital Nairobi with her husband’s body. Last night she was believed to be on her way home to Britain.

The couple were spending their honeymoon on a £3,000 safari and had been staying at the up-market Richard’s Camp, 100 miles south-west of Nairobi. They had been in Africa for a week after flying out following their wedding.

The camp, which is in a clearing on the edge of a small forest on the edge of the Masai Mara, is made up of six luxury tents and has a honeymoon suite.

It has an open-air Victorian bath and by night the secluded camp is lit by lanterns, making it a popular destination for newlyweds.

Mr and Mrs Smith had set off on an early morning walk on Sunday with other guests to see animals accompanied by their Masai guide. At around 9.30am the guide spotted a small group of elephants grazing about 150 yards from the camp.

The tourists, who were downwind from the elephants and would not have been spotted by them, settled down to watch the group.

But, seconds later, the elephants began to stampede towards them. It is believed they may have panicked after being surprised by another animal.

The tourists fled to safety and could only watch as Mr Smith, who was singled out by one of the elephants, was pinned to the floor. Experts said it was likely that the elephants, which have poor eyesight, would only have seen the tourists at the last minute.

One theory is that the elephant attacked Mr Smith because it felt he might block the herd’s escape route.

There was no suggestion that the guide or the camp were responsible for the death as all safety precautions had been followed.
Neighbours last night told of their horror at the tragedy. They said that Mr Smith had moved into a new £350,000 detached house in Purley six months ago with his bride-to-be.

"We heard the news today and I am just stunned," said one, who did not wish to be named.

"They moved in a few months ago. He was a very nice man, very into gardening and camping, a real outdoors kind of person.

"I really didn’t have much to do with him but he and his fiancee seemed a lovely couple. It’s just terrible this has happened on their honeymoon."

http://express.lineone.net/news_detail.html?sku=500

[Dakar]

Is this some kind of weird excuse to post that article?

[Dork.]

Anna Benson must have something to do with this, it's the only explanation that makes sense to me.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Anna Benson must have something to do with this, it's the only explanation that makes sense to me.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Is this some kind of weird excuse to post that article?

I was going to post it in the lounge but realized this political reason was my only reason to post it. Otherwise it is just a sad event but nothing I would post.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by marden

Exactly. Now you understand.

[Dakar]

Well, here's the short of it. You're fearing what you don't understand. You seem to do that a lot.

Just because you don't like how a person has chosen to live their life doesn't mean all their decisions are flawed.

But then again, that's pretty much the crux of the extreme left/right divide.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Well, here's the short of it. You're fearing what you don't understand. You seem to do that a lot.

Just because you don't like how a person has chosen to live their life doesn't mean all their decisions are flawed.

But then again, that's pretty much the crux of the extreme left/right divide.

Now you get it.

Someone who thinks there is no need for a Coast Guard Great Lakes border defense is a person who is willing to accept what most others believe is an unreasonable level of risk. Not speaking of anyone specifically.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by marden

Someone who thinks there is no need for a Coast Guard Great Lakes border defense is a person who is willing to accept what most others believe is an unreasonable level of risk. Not speaking of anyone specifically.

Sure you aren't.

The problem with the above statement? It's your opinion, duh. It's also a nice bit of speculation.

So does this mean all the people who don't believe in extreme defense are Thrill Seekers?

For someone who claims that we need unity, you sure seem to be seeking to divide us.

[Chuckit]

Isn't that basically the criticism many people lodged against Bush — that he's going out playing cowboy with the rest of the world?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Sure you aren't.

The problem with the above statement? It's your opinion, duh. It's also a nice bit of speculation.

So does this mean all the people who don't believe in extreme defense are Thrill Seekers?

For someone who claims that we need unity, you sure seem to be seeking to divide us.

I had an exit strategy. At the first sign it wasn't working I pulled out.

If the people won't rise up to support peace and unity then at least I tried. If someone else wants to try it I will support it.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Isn't that basically the criticism many people lodged against Bush — that he's going out playing cowboy with the rest of the world?

No and that is what causes so much misunderstanding. What President Bush did was like a housewife practicing greater fiscal economy at home buy spending $100 on toilet paper at Sams Club because the per roll price was so low. The family will not have to think about buying it again for a year.

What Bush wanted to do was make sure once Iraq was free and democratic that we wouldn't have to worry about crap from that region again.

It was a very conservative move to try to take care of the problem once and for all. The liberals would rather have a constant problem to deal with over and over and over and over and over again.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden

No and that is what causes so much misunderstanding. What President Bush did was like a housewife practicing greater fiscal economy at home buy spending $100 on toilet paper at Sams Club because the per roll price was so low. The family will not have to think about buying it again for a year.

What Bush wanted to do was make sure once Iraq was free and democratic that we wouldn't have to worry about crap from that region again.

It was a very conservative move to try to take care of the problem once and for all. The liberals would rather have a constant problem to deal with over and over and over and over and over again.

You misread what Chuckit said. He didn't say "Isn't that basically what Bush did — go out playing cowboy with the rest of the world?"

What he did say was "Isn't that basically the criticism many people lodged against Bush — that he's going out playing cowboy with the rest of the world?"

The criticism of Bush isn't that "what President Bush did was like a housewife practicing greater fiscal economy at home buy spending $100 on toilet paper at Sams Club because the per roll price was so low". That's your perspective of what he did. The "cowboy" criticism is from the perspective of other people.

Ultimately, what this thread (and some of your others) appears to be about is that you don't want to hear opinions from people who don't share your perspective and you don't want these people to be able to vote.

[ADD]
This appears to be another version of your "Foreign Agents" mentality
[/ADD]

[Wiskedjak]

Tell me, what do you define as "Thrill Seeking"? What do you consider sport hunting? If you're not hunting for food, are you not seeking the "thrill of the hunt"?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Tell me, what do you define as "Thrill Seeking"? What do you consider sport hunting? If you're not hunting for food, are you not seeking the "thrill of the hunt"?

People whose attitudes about risky behaviors differs greatly from the general public's attitude should not be in a position to decide foreign policy.

When Steve Irwin, rest his soul, held Baby Bob during the Croc demo some people were offended because this violated what was considered overly risky behaviour. Such behaviour may be fine for the individual but would someone with that kind of risk acceptance do things you wouldn't feel comfy with?

No doubt.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden

People whose attitudes about risky behaviors differs greatly from the general public's attitude should not be in a position to decide foreign policy.

Sounds about right. So, you don't consider sport hunting to be a risky behavior? I suppose if you're only hunting that which doesn't stand a fighting chance and the only risk is poor aim, then perhaps sport hunting isn't "risky behavior". But, then I don't think an African Safari really qualifies either.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Sounds about right. So, you don't consider sport hunting to be a risky behavior? I suppose if you're only hunting that which doesn't stand a fighting chance and the only risk is poor aim, then perhaps sport hunting isn't "risky behavior". But, then I don't think an African Safari really qualifies either.

If the President or Vice President's lives were in danger that would be another story.

In T. Roosevelt's day his risk taking reflected the sensibilities of the citizens of that era.

We are a different people and this is a different time.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden

If the President or Vice President's lives were in danger that would be another story.

In T. Roosevelt's day his risk taking reflected the sensibilities of the citizens of that era.

We are a different people and this is a different time.

So, it's ok for Bush to go on a Safari, but not for a couple of honeymooners?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

So, it's ok for Bush to go on a Safari, but not for a couple of honeymooners?

Yes. Because of the results and because of the protections and because people who indulge in risky behavior should not be listened to when they suggest foreign policy.

The Secret Service would not let the POTUS or VPOTUS get hurt by animals or anything. So the behavior wasn't risky.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by marden

The Secret Service would not let the POTUS or VPOTUS get hurt by animals or anything. So the behavior wasn't risky.

So you think he wouldn't have gone on a safari unless he had someone to watch his back (assuming he was a private citizen)?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar

So you think he wouldn't have gone on a safari unless he had someone to watch his back (assuming he was a private citizen)?

He would be at less risk than the normal average Joe even if he went there as a citizen.

[Dakar]

Because?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by marden

Yes. Because of the results and because of the protections and because people who indulge in risky behavior should not be listened to when they suggest foreign policy.

Those people got trampled by an elephant. Bush stood in front of an elephant. His behavior took the exact same risk. The fact that the result was different is irrelevant — risky behavior, by definition, means it's a matter of chance.

[Zeeb]

The connection between this story and how you consider people who disagree with you to be risky is non-existent. It seems you're trying a new method to characterize anyone who disagrees with you in some type of negative light but its not really working. There are too many examples of conservative decision makers engaging in very risky behavior to make this point valid.

Also, what happened to the poor guy in the story you posted was an accident. It wasn't mentioned that he provoked the elephant in any way. Would you consider yourself a risk taker by getting into an automobile?

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

It seems you're trying a new method to characterize anyone who disagrees with you in some type of negative light but its not really working.

Yep.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

There are too many examples of conservative decision makers engaging in very risky behavior to make this point valid.

Mark Foley?

[itai195]

It's well established that Ken Skilling is a thrill seeker and that his company had close ties to the Bush administration, possibly having influence over energy policy.

Plus, Bush spends all that time clearing brush on his ranch. If that's not thrilling, I don't know what is.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by marden

Yes. Because of the results and because of the protections and because people who indulge in risky behavior should not be listened to when they suggest foreign policy.

The Secret Service would not let the POTUS or VPOTUS get hurt by animals or anything. So the behavior wasn't risky.

If that elephant got spooked the Secret Service would have had about one second to shove him out of the way before Bush would have been gored or stamped to death. Look how far away the President's "body-man" is--The guy behind him in the white shirt and sunglasses--there is no way they would have been able to move Bush out of the way that quickly without him suffering some injury. So, he was putting himself in *some* danger. But it's okay right, because he is President Do-No-Wrong Bush.

[Dark Helmet]

Unless the elephant was gay or an atheist I don't understand why it is in the PL.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Unless the elephant was gay or an atheist I don't understand why it is in the PL.

Which is possible!

I, for one, think that elephant is atheist... Just look at it! It looks very secular the way it is strutting around all confident, mocking Christian America with that smirk on its face!

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Which is possible!

I, for one, think that elephant is atheist... Just look at it! It looks very secular the way it is strutting around all confident, mocking Christian America with that smirk on its face!

ya and that trunk is rather suggestive.