Funny stuff!
If this doesn’t tug at your heart strings then you’re not human (or a liberal).
(Blaze) — Petty Officer Jon T. Tumilson was laid to rest Friday in Rockford, Iowa, where an estimated 1,500 mourners came to pay respects for the fallen Navy SEAL, including his dog Hawkeye. In fact, Hakeye’s loyalty to his owner at the funeral was visible, creating a heart-wrenching image as he laid down by the casket of his owner during the entire service.
The 35-year-old Tumilson died Aug. 6, when a rocket-propelled grenade disabled the helicopter he was in. It crashed, killing 30 Americans and eight Afghans. Fellow Navy SEALS told KIMT-TV that Jon was someone with unmatched work ethic and character.
Here’s another view:
Photographer Dyrk Daniels noticed the 370lb Golden Bengal Tiger had taken an interest in the child, who was leaning against his glass enclosure.
As the tiger, called Taj, headed over to her, Mr Daniels got his camera ready, expecting him to snarl and bang against the glass.
Tender moment: Rather than banging against the glass, the tiger gently put its paw up to the little girl's hand
But amazingly the tiger hung his head, stretched a paw out to her hand and rubbed his cheek against where the girl's face was.
Father-of-two Dyrk Daniels, 47, went to Cougar Mountain Zoo in Issaquah, Washington State, to photograph the Bengal tigers.
When he got to the enclosure there were several children and families in the area, so he decided to let them see the tigers first before he tried to photograph them himself.
‘That is when I noticed this little girl was leaning against the glass with both hands out stretched staring at the ‘big kitties’,’ he said.
Gentle giant: As the tiger headed over to the glass partition towards the little girl, photographer Dyrk Daniels thought the big cat would snarl and frighten her
Bonding: The tiger put its face right down so the little girl could look it straight in the eye
‘I noticed that Taj had taken an interest in the girl and was heading towards her.
‘I thought for certain that the little girl would need therapy after the encounter and fear cats for the rest of her life.
‘I could not believe my eyes when Taj approached the girl, bowed his head and then placed his huge right paw exactly in front of where the little girl's left hand was.
‘It was incredible to watch. Taj let down his right paw, rubbed his cheek against the glass where the little girl's face was and moved off.’
Far from being scared, the little girl was so excited that she started clapping as she walked back afterwards towards her mother.
‘I have never seen such tenderness from such a large predator,’ Mr Daniels said.
It's time for a new edition of the Newspeak dictionary. According to the pointy-headed circus clowns who pass down surrealist moral judgments from atop their ivory towers, our current vocabulary oppresses animals:
Animal lovers should stop calling their furry or feathered friends "pets" because the term is insulting, leading academics claim.
Domestic dogs, cats, hamsters or budgerigars should be rebranded as "companion animals" while owners should be known as "human carers", they insist.
Other forbidden terms include "critters" and "beasts." Pet owners are not to be referred to as "owners," because this "harks back to a previous age" when animals were considered to be animals.
The term "wildlife" is not to be used because "For most, 'wildness' is synonymous with uncivilized, unrestrained, barbarous existence." In actuality, academics have discovered that tigers and hyenas sit around tea tables in the jungle, sipping Earl Grey with their pinkies raised.
Certain idiomatic expressions also have to go:
Phrases such as "sly as a fox, "eat like a pig" or "drunk as a skunk" are all unfair to animals, they claim.
With all this verbal abuse hurled at their sensitive feelings, you can see why Obama's Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein wants animals to be provided with lawyers so they can sue us.
Wednesday, December 22nd 2010, 4:00 AM
Liberal animal rights and global warming activists have bonded together to save this formidable predator from what they tell us is certain death. They insist that, thanks to us, species are becoming extinct faster than ever (though I don't think we were measuring back in 500 BC).
Good rule of thumb: If you're quick to blame America for most bad things that happen in the world, you also may be quick to blame human kind for everything sad that happens on the planet. And frankly, that's just species-ist.
But unsurprisingly, President Obama isn't impervious to the maudlin message. He is currently considering reclassifying the poor polar bear's status from "threatened" to "endangered" under the federal Endangered Species Act. This year, he set aside 187,000 square miles in Alaska as a "critical habitat" for polar bears, which has prompted the state of Alaska to consider suing the administration for potentially costing it millions in lost economic activity and tax revenue.
But here's a question that's rarely asked: Why should we necessarily bother saving a species - any species - from extinction? And what's so gosh-darn special about the polar bear? Yes, animals are dying. But death - of a single animal or a whole species - is a part of life.
At least, that's what Darwinists tell us. In fact, if you think hard about it, animal conservation should actually be anathema to the Darwin-loving liberal agenda, which holds up evolution - and not altruistic compassion - as the final word on the survival of a species.
Sure, it's possible that we're crowding out the polar bear - but aren't we animals, too? And don't animals sometimes crowd each other out? Isn't it entirely possible that the polar bear is simply going extinct, like countless species before it?
The crass and sometimes violent coming and going of species proves evolution's central logic. So why, then, do polar bear activists insist that another species - that would be us - tamper with Darwin's grand design and swoop in to save an animal that simply wasn't fit enough to make it in the cutthroat world of biological survival?
Take the Monteverde golden toad of Costa Rica, for example, which many thought went extinct in the 1980s because of global warming - the same villain that is now apparently killing the polar bear. Well, it turns out that the Monteverde toad died from disease, according to a recent study.
Oops.
The fact is, we don't know conclusively what is killing the polar bears. If it's global warming, then doesn't bovine flatulence deserve some of the blame? Don't laugh - it's a potentially harmful discharge. No, seriously.
And what about global warming and melting polar ice caps? A study by the National Snow and Ice Data Center indicates that in the last three years alone, summer sea ice has increased by a staggering 409,000 square miles.
Oops again.
One recent study in Nature suggested that polar bear hybridization with grizzlies had something to do with their decline. So maybe it's the grizzly's fault - he's probably a Republican.
Maybe we should admit that our science is not as perfect as we would like to believe and that nature is ultimately inexplicable and beyond our control. There is no sense in meddling with the extinction of polar bears, not when so many more pressing human problems await. Until there's ironclad proof of how and why extinction works, and how much evil we've done to hasten it along, I'm going to save my emotional anguish for dying and suffering members of my own species. Okay, and puppies. They're just too cute.
White tigers are very rarely found in the wild. In about 100 yeas only 12 white tigers have been seen in the wild in India. They are almost extinct and most of the ones living are in captivity, mostly in zoos. This specific tiger is neither an albino nor a seperate subspecies of the tiger. They are beautifully white colored and have black stripes. It has blue eyes and a pink nose. It also has white colored fur. The white tiger is born to a bengal tiger that has the gene needed for white coloring. A pure white tiger has no stripes and are totally white.
Some fascinating pictures of a ferocious tiger in the water.