People are comparing Steve Irwin’s carrying his month-old son tucked under one arm while feeding meat to a croc (Crikey!) to Michael Jackson’s dangling his son over a balcony.
There is no comparison. To Irwin, it’s the equivalent of “Take your child to work” day. He’s so confident that nothing could go wrong that he perceives no danger.
Except these are wild animals we’re talking about, something *could* go wrong, and he shouldn’t do it again because it’s just plain asking for trouble.
Michael Jackson, on the other hand, was just plain nuts. Bringing your month old baby along to your work environment, albeit a hazardous one, is simply not the same as dangling your infant over a three story drop just for laughs, and I’m still furious that the German police didn’t arrest him.
Jackson remains a frustration for me. I’ve always been a major proponent in separating the person from the art. I’m the first one to say that you shouldn’t allow personal antipathy to color your enjoyment of the work. But Jackson’s personal life, from his creepy facial metamorphosis to his horrific risk of that infant, has made it so I can’t even watch his older stuff which I used to enjoy a hëll of a lot. That bugs me, because I want to be able to hold true to the philosophies I espouse. But in his case, I really, really can’t.
PAD
• 
I understand and share your frustration. To some extent, I can separate the artist from the art, but when it comes to putting children at risk — or outright abusing them — I don’t even try.
I’ll watch The Pianist when it comes to cable, I’m sure, but I wasn’t about to see it in the theatre and put even a penny in Roman Polanski’s pocket. Ditto the films of Victor Salva — a child molester with a thing for young males who exercises his fetish in films like Powder and Jeepers Creepers.
Chuck Dixon’s politics aren’t my own. That didn’t stop me from enjoying his work on the Bat-books. John Byrne has some strange ideas, but I’m looking forward to his JLA work. For the most part, I can separate it, but in those cases, biology overrides all political correctness, and the desire to see the young of our species protected is hard to trump.
“Except these are wild animals we’re talking about, something *could* go wrong, and he shouldn’t do it again because it’s just plain asking for trouble.”
Too true. You’d think he would have learned something from Roy Horn.
I’ve often wondered just what went on behind the scenes in Michael Jackson’s life. I’ve heard rumors of everything from physical abuse to forced injections of female hormones to keep his voice from changing.
And in view of all the other changes he’s made, I can’t really believe the story about a skin disease causing his odd bleached look.
I think there’s a difference between what Peter’s talking about an taking issue with someone’s politics or views (Dixon and Byrne). In a way, the latter is an example of too much access to creators. While I like reading this board or John Byrne’s, interacting with a creator isn’t worth losing the enjoyment of his or her work.
Nothing was more obnoxious than the people who “boycotted” Woody Allen’s work because they didn’t like choices in his personal life. That’s just stupid.
I remember being frustrated when the name Dave Sim became synonomous with “loon” rather than with the guy who achieved one of the greatest feats in comics.
(Speaking of which, I remember being annoyed by “Tangent” because every line in that essay was a point he’d made — and far better — in the preceding graphic novel, Going Home. The average person might need to express himself through an ordinary essay but a great artist can go the higher route.)
I watched a bit of the Michael Jackson special tonight and I have to say, it’s really a tragedy. This man was (is?) undeniably talented and he just went completely bonkers and is arguably now a threat to others. As much as I enjoy the video to Don’t Stop till You Get Enough, I can only see the face of a handsome young black man that would become the victim of horrific self-mutilation. Sad.
Glad he didn’t forget which hand was which.
Nobody is perfect, I really don’t care how many crocs he has fed, and I really just think what he did was stupid.
Hiya PAD,
I, too, can identify with the kind of conflict you mentioned. It is, however, slightly different in my case as it involves a woman I have deep feelings for yet if anything were to develope I think I might wind up on an episode of COPS.
For me the desire to protect the young, to get closer to ‘on topic’,
has absolutely nothing to do with them being young. It’s more about them having harmed no one. This is why we don’t dangle them over balconies, let them play on roadways, lock up the household chemicals, and so forth. Children, right up to age 18 at the least, require constant supervision (some even require more, but I have already mentioned COPS). I believe that this is best demonstrated after a kidnapping when we often hear the phrase “I only turned away for a second.”
I think it’s also about fairness. I find it remarkabley unfair to willingly put anyone, especially a child, although I don’t ascribe a greater value to ones life based on their age. Then again, I have no children so the addition of a child to my life may well change that perspective.
Regarding Michael Jackson: I think that he needs some psychological evaluation before he is permitted to spend time with children if he is found to be innocent of any molestation charges. Just my opinion.
Salutations,
Mitch
I see absolutely nothing wrong with what Stevo did. Jacko was nutso but Croc Hunter is as friggin trained as a man can get with those critters and I can say with full faith that he wasn’t taking any chances. I’ve watched the man feed the crocs before and his attitude and posture was different. Though the croc was not agitated or aggressive, he approached it as if it was. He was on full watch mode and was set to protect the kid with his life. Now if he would have walked to the water’s edge and dangled the kid over the croc’s head…maybe I can see the big deal. But he didn’t so I can’t. It’s not like a cop taking his kid along on a drug raid in a papoose pouch. It’s a man showing the world that he is the man when it comes to crocs (he’s a showman after all) and to get his kid started early. I can’t wait to see the scene in Croc Hunter 2: Honey, The Baby’s Loose!
Peter David: There is no comparison. To Irwin, it’s the equivalent of “Take your child to work” day. He’s so confident that nothing could go wrong that he perceives no danger.
Except these are wild animals we’re talking about, something *could* go wrong, and he shouldn’t do it again because it’s just plain asking for trouble.
Luigi Novi: I’m sorry, but these two passages seem at odds with one another. I agree wholeheartedly with the second, but not with the first. What Irwin did was flat-out STUPID, and JUST AS DANGEROUS as what Jackson did. What difference does it make if Irwin is “confident” or “perceives” no danger, or is “trained”? Mistakes and accidents happen all the time to “trained professionals,” sometimes as a result to other things on set that are beyond their control. Or have we already forgotten what happened to Roy Horn? Or for that matter, Vic Morrow, John Erik Hexum, or Brandon Lee? Experts like Irwin do get bitten and injured, and that kid could’ve gotten killed REGARDLESS of whether Irwin is trained or not. Risking his son’s life like that was inexcusable, and there is no way in hëll that he’s not every bit as irresponsible and stupid as Michael Jackson.
William Watson: I see absolutely nothing wrong with what Stevo did. Jacko was nutso but Croc Hunter is as friggin trained as a man can get with those critters and I can say with full faith that he wasn’t taking any chances.
Luigi Novi: No, leaving the kid out of the cage entirely would’ve been “not taking any chances.” If doing what he did was not taking ANY chances, then what degree of chance-taking would leaving him with his mom outside the cage have been? Negative chance-taking?
William Watson: I’ve watched the man feed the crocs before and his attitude and posture was different. Though the croc was not agitated or aggressive, he approached it as if it was. He was on full watch mode and was set to protect the kid with his life.
Luigi Novi: Not bringing the kid in there would’ve done that with far greater certainty.
William Watson: Now if he would have walked to the water’s edge and dangled the kid over the croc’s head…maybe I can see the big deal.
Luigi Novi: That would’ve been more dangerous. Not dangerous instead of what he actually did do.
William Watson: But he didn’t so I can’t. It’s not like a cop taking his kid along on a drug raid in a papoose pouch.
Luigi Novi: If you can rationalize the utter stupidity and showbiz selfishness in bringing a kid into a crocodile cage to feed it, then you can rationalize anything, including bringing a kid to a drug raid. You can say that the papoose pouch is made of Kevlar, and give the kid a little bullet proof helmet, and say, hey, what are the odds he’ll get shot? After all, most cops never get into shootouts in which they have to discharge their weapons during their entire careers anyway…
William Watson: It’s a man showing the world that he is the man when it comes to crocs (he’s a showman after all) and to get his kid started early.
Luigi Novi: Holding the baby in his arm while feeding a croc with the other doesn’t “get the kid started” on anything, since the child isn’t being trained to do anything, and probably won’t remember the event. Instead, he’s being used as nothing more than a prop, and it’s dámņëd selfish and retarded for Irwin to do so.
Peter David: There is no comparison. To Irwin, it’s the equivalent of “Take your child to work” day. He’s so confident that nothing could go wrong that he perceives no danger.
Except these are wild animals we’re talking about, something *could* go wrong, and he shouldn’t do it again because it’s just plain asking for trouble.
Luigi Novi: I’m sorry, but these two passages seem at odds with one another.
No, they’re really not. I’m saying I understand why he did it…but I think he was wrong to do so. He was certain he wasn’t putting the child at risk because he’s so well trained and experienced with crocs. It’s possible he was right and there was no risk. But I personally don’t think he should have taken the chance. No conflict in the statements.
I agree wholeheartedly with the second, but not with the first.
You disagree with my opining that Irwin thought there was no danger? Uhm…okay.
What Irwin did was flat-out STUPID, and JUST AS DANGEROUS as what Jackson did.
I didn’t say it wasn’t. I did say, however, that it was *different* from what Jackson did in that Irwin eats, sleeps and breathes crocs. In his mind, he was just introducing his child to the world he so easily inhabits. I don’t think the argument could be made that Michael Jackson eats, sleeps and breathes dangling children off balconies. At least I sure hope not.
The potential for a terrible outcome is much the same, but the motives and situations were, to me, very different.
PAD
I didn’t say it wasn’t. I did say, however, that it was *different* from what Jackson did in that Irwin eats, sleeps and breathes crocs.
Do you think he wears them, too? I haven’t seen him in any croc-skin shoes lately. 🙂
Anyways. I also think there is a distinction to be made, even though I also think that Irwin’s stunt was as stupid as Jackson’s.
Steve needs intense psychological help. I don’t care how trained he is. Getting the kid in the enclosure is idiocy
What Irwin did was worse. He KNEW exactly what he was doing. Jacko is just plain old insane…at least he has the “excuse” of being mentally unhinged. Irwin was endangering his one month old child for a PR blip. That’s much more disgusting of an act.
What Irwin did was worse. He KNEW exactly what he was doing. Jacko is just plain old insane…at least he has the “excuse” of being mentally unhinged. Irwin was endangering his one month old child for a PR blip. That’s much more disgusting of an act.
It would be if we knew for a fact that’s why he did it. We don’t. If I’m reading the AOL coverage right, Irwin seems surprised that it’s attracted such attention.
I think you have to allow for the possibility that, to him, what he did was no big deal. “Gonna show ya the crocs daddy works with! You’re gonna love it! Crikey!” That he didn’t do it for a PR stunt, but because it was–to him–the most natural thing in the world.
Again, a dangerous move in my opinion. But I’m not prepared to ascribe the nefarious motives others are.
Oh, just for the record…I don’t watch his show. He just kind of gets on my nerves.
PAD
I think that what we need to remember is people percieve the relative danger to children differently. I’ve taught my son to ride a motorcycle. In fact, I prefer that he ride the bike rather than drive his car, due to the fact that he’s FAR more paranoid about other drivers while he’s on the bike. Then again, I don’t have any firearms in the house because I feel that THAT is an unneccesary risk. I’m sure that other parents do the reverse. Is taking your child into the crocodile cage different from taking them scuba diving? Obviously I’ve never taking either one of my kids near a 300 lb reptile, but they have touched sharks while swimming in the ocean. Remember, that each parent weighs the need to protect a child against the need to give them experiences that they’ll cherish forever.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with what Stevo did. Jacko was nutso but Croc Hunter is as friggin trained as a man can get with those critters and I can say with full faith that he wasn’t taking any chances.
Roy was as trained with tigers as Stevo was with crocs and look what happened to him. The fact of the matter is wild animals are still wild animals and sometimes they do unpredictible things even around people who have a great deal of experience with the animals. If a fire fighter ran into a burning building with a baby in his hand and defended it by saying “hey I do this every day of my life, I’m an expert, the kid was in no danger, trust me”, we would take the kid away from him and throw the guy in jail for child endangerment, no one would even bother debating it. Why we don’t do the same to the Croc hunter is frankly beyond me. As for MJ, I have said it before and I will say it again, there are parents, teachers, preist and scout leaders who have been investigated, tried, convicted and are serving long sentences for doing far far less than what Jackson has openly admitted to, (and continues to admit to), on national TV. It is long past the time where the creep should be locked up and throwing away the key might not be a bad idea either.
**I’ve often wondered just what went on behind the scenes in Michael Jackson’s life. I’ve heard rumors of everything from physical abuse to forced injections of female hormones to keep his voice from changing.
And in view of all the other changes he’s made, I can’t really believe the story about a skin disease causing his odd bleached look. **
I knew someone in high school who had the skin condition that Jackson claims to have and it looked nothing like that. As for MJ’s strange behavior, I knew someone who worked on the Grammy awards in the mid 80’s, (86-87 thereabouts) and told me a bizzare story about MJ. According to them when Jackson was rehearsing his grammy number he insisted everyone except the camera people get out of the building, the camera people were told to wear face mask and the director had to watch and comunicate from a van set up outside Radio City Music Hall. Jackson was driven to the building in a privatly rented ambulance and brought in in a “glass coffin”. All of this was because he was afraid of germs and it was tolerated by producers because he was, at the time, the biggest star on the planet. Of course later that night he lost his germ phobia when he had to perform in front of the grammy audiance. This story was told to me serveral years before the Jackson is nutso stories started to hit the tabloids, oh and one of the Wako Jackson stories the went around in the early 90’s, (some 5 years or so after I heard the grammy story), concered Jackson sleeping in a germ free glass coffin.
Something I think people are ignoring is that Mrs Croc Hunter (Terri Irwin, who’s accompanied her husband on many of his expeditions) publicly stated she didn’t have any reservations.
From the AOL news account:
**His American wife, Terri, who handed the baby over to Irwin in the enclosure and giggled at the spectacle, agreed.
”It was a wonderful sensory experience for him (the baby). He dug it,” she said.**
To me, the man’s job itself is crazy. I wouldn’t go looking for crocs, much less round them up for relocation purposes or investigate a croc nest, nor would I spend my time chasing taipans, kraits, cobras or death adders for “educational purposes” (for one of his programs, he went on a hunt for the world’s 10 deadliest snakes, and lucky for him, they were all around Australia). Those actions, though, are part of his job, and I would feel much safer letting Steve Irwin hold a baby in a croc pen than I would letting someone who isn’t trained.
What Steve did may be regarded as a momentary lapse of good judgment, the only thing that could make this remotely similar to the Michael Jackson incident is if Steve had taken little Bob by the ankle and held him as croc bait and passing it off as a “joke”.
He did that for attention. Still, the dangling of a baby whether it be in front of a croc or over a bulding should be against the law.
We all know Jackson is just plain nuts.
There’s a fine line between a publicity stunt and being pedifile, which, Jackson is.
ps: and, if the croc decided to have the baby as his luch would you still think it entertaining???? if Jackson had slipped and his baby fell to his death would you still make excuses for him???
I like The Crocodile Hunter and his show, but I have to agree that what he did was clearly reckless endangerment of a child.
“Freak accidents” where the wild animal, usually crocodiles and alligators but also many of the snakes he’s handled, attacks/bites and injures Irwin have occurred numerous times. Irwin has had shows highlighting most of his mishaps and this occurrence is not uncommon or exceedingly rare for him in his profession.
Roy’s horrific attack was triggered because he tripped even though he had performed this act to polished perfection for years; he was still human and simply tripped in front of that lion. Irwin could just as easily trip someday and if it had happened that particular day the worst could have happened.
I have an 11 month old son (my first child:) and to take any sort of a risk like Irwin or Jackson did can not be excused or justified to me. I don’t care about a person’s motives as to why they have endangered a child, I care that this type of occurrence should not happen and if it does there should be serious consequences for the act.
As for Irwin specifically, if neither he nor his wife understand wrongness of his act, and as PAD suggested the Irwin’s might have thought it was simply a case of showing the son what daddy does at work, then how many more times will the Crocodile Hunter feed a large crocodile with one hand while he holds an infant in the other???
Here’s my little problem. Everyone is human, and none of us can stand having a microscope put to our lives. The major difference beween Steve Erwin (who is equally as nuts as Michael, in my mind, but for a whole other reason) and Michael is one has that microscope, and one does not. Both spend careers begging for that microscope (its about entertainment folks, nothing more) but, for reason that are obviouse, Michael gets it Steve does not.
Okay, what is the point here? I say if you had careers up your butt all the time, then every single solid stupid thing you do will come out. I watched Michael dangle that bady, and I was thinking, “Okay, he’s an idiot.” Not just for the baby dangle, because frankly I have watched friends and family do things with babies that would make your hair stand up on end if you thought about it. He’s an idiot because he seems to forget that the microscope is there and ready to report when he doesn’t have a bowel movement. This is why I keep wondering why he denies all the obvious operations, when the microscope was there along with him. I mean you can’t get private doctor’s records, but you can get PUBLIC HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS. So he’s an idiot because he will tell an obvious lie, yet pretend no one caught him.
But Steve did as STUPID a thing as Michael. Take your child to work? Peter? I expect better of you (kinda, sorta). I was watching that thinking, if that thing snapped up and pulled his hand, then you’re in trouble. That’s a FRIGGIN creature. It doesn’t see the entertainment value of lunch, it just see’s lunch. Taking that child with him while he feeds an unpredictable animal is EQUALLY as bad as dangling a child out a third floor balcany. But everyone is willing to give Stevie a pass because its so cute that he’s friggin two steps away from being TV show Batman villian. If Steve wants to dangle his meat in front of Earth’s natural monsters or if Michael wants to shave his skin so that people will forget he’s Black, its stupid, it’s insane – but its their choice. But it irritates me that people have more condemnation for Michael and with nutty Steve, its “Hey, don’t do it again fella.”
Oh, and having a four year old and a five year old it makes you realize that ANYTHING can go wrong when it comes to the safety of a child. They can find cliffhanger dangers with a piece of string and the cat.
You know, when people profess not to possess a certain bias that I am told doesn’t exist as much as before the Civil Rights Era, and I watch that bias continously practiced dispite the weirdness of the one who it’s practiced against…I honestly wonder exactly how far this society has changed. That’s a pretty friggin scary thought.
I’ve seen active, live crocs in the waters and, believe me, if that croc wasn’t well fed and was hungry at the time, he woulda had that baby for lunch. A wild anmal IS still a wild animal no matter how you look at it no matter how pro the hunter might be. THATS not entertainment, thats just plain stupid. A hungry animal only cares about onething, his next meal.
You know, this whole discussion just reminds me of the scene in FINDING NEMO where Marlin goes off on Dory’s openess to ‘taking a risk’, and then mistakenly calls her “Nemo”.
KET
All I have to say is that I would trust Steve with a child under him arm than Jackson with a kid over a balcony. I’ve watched Steve for years and if he wasn’t sure there wasn’t any danger to his child, he wouldn’t have done it. His wife isn’t a spring chicken either. She wouldn’t have let him do it if she had any doubts.
Feeding crocodiles is what Steve does for a living and has been considered to be the best at what he does.
Dangling babies over a third floor railing is not Jackson’s trained occupation.
Hear Hear Peter…my sentiments exactly. Tried to separate the two but have found it impossible.
-tpl
I look at it this way… What Steve did was incredibly stupid, but…
He’s well trained, fast enough to get away if something goes wrong, and has handlers standing by to help in the event of an emergency. Those guys are almost as fast as Irwin himself.
Still a fool for doing it, but it’s trained for that kind of situation. Vice Versa, Michael Jackson is NOT trained to defy gravity if something goes wrong.
This is the reason I disagree with your point, PAD (and likewise, those of the people who agreed with you on it): “He’s so confident that nothing could go wrong that he perceives no danger.”
This couldn’t be further from the truth. As it’s been said, he eats, breathes and sleeps dangerous animals. He’s a professional zoo wrangler. Comparing him to Roy (of Siegfried and Roy) is like comparing the Flying Wolendas to a high school gymnast — both have the training to be safe, but the guys that have been doing it so long and so well they become famous become one of two things; cocky or fully conscious of all the risks. If you’ve ever watched Steve’s show (you said you haven’t, PAD — you should watch it at least once just to understand what the guy really does, honestly), you’d know that he never approaches a beastie without being hyper-aware of his every move, to the point that when he’s done with what he’s doing, he’ll tell you exactly what would have happened if he’d done it wrong.
As viewers of an overblown spectacle, you’re looking at something from a layman’s perspective, not knowing anything about crocodiles except what you’ve heard about them or inferred from those big, pointy teeth.
Steve, however, knew everything that could go wrong. Someone said something about “if that crocodile was really hungry…” Well, it wasn’t. Steve knew it wasn’t, for a few reasons. For one thing, dumb animals behave a certain way when they get really hungry. Pet owners know this. I have cats, for example, and I know when they’re hungry because they tell me. Crocodiles who rely on a human for their food are the same. I couldn’t tell you what they do in their zoo pens to tell the zookeepers, but I’d put money on it that Steve Irwin can.
Steve Irwin grew up around this stuff, which is why he is good enough at it and has been doing it long enough to have a tv show. If Steve Irwin wasn’t more aware than usual of the dangers when he went into that pen, I’ll eat my hat. Actually, I like my hats, so I’ll go buy a crappy little baseball cap and eat that.
Yeah well, guess what? He’s in deep šhìŧ now. Files are being chaged against him.
Its on the frontpage of yahoo news.
Time to pull the plug on these dangling baby stunts.
Correction: Thats charges. Its all over the news now.
I think that Steve’s little stunt was probably a good deal less risky than so many mundane risks we all take every day. That boy was probably safer with Daddy and the croc than my children are every time I have to drive with them into Manhatten. I’m taking a miniscule risk with their lives when I feed them chop meat or when I go into the 7-11 after dark. The difference, in my opinion, is in the WHY. Why did he do it? What makes a risk unnecessary? So he makes sure the animal is well fed, drugged, arthritic or whatever precautions he took….what is to be gained by the experience. What is worth even the tiniest risk?
My grandparents took the whole family to the Bahamas when my daughter was a year and a half. All the cousins did the whole swimming with dolphins thing, and my husband and I took turns going in the water so that one of us could always stay on deck with our child. My family thought I was absurdly overprotective because I thought it to be an unnecessary risk to have her in the water. The dolphins might have done something unexpected; she might have done something unexpected (and she did bear a passing resemblance to bait at that age). The experience was not diminished by caution. She had a wonderful time seeing the dolphins from Mommy’s lap. We have adorable pictures anyway.
One has to live life and have fun and try not to be ruled by fear. But we should listen to our fear. I wonder about Steve….was his adrenaline pumping at the time? In his own heart and mind, did he perceive a threat to his child? I’m sure he doesn’t get a rush when he goes it alone anymore, but if he had any fear at all over this, I hope he listened to it and decided not to do it again.
There are cases you can’t separate the artist from the person. In my case it was John Denver. Once he said that drunk drivers were “misunderstood” and “needed more help” from society (just a few days after being pulled over for drunk driving himself). He had no remorse and took no responsibility. I’ve not been able to bring myself to buy/listen to his stuff since.
I know PAD hates when people stop buying artist material – he’s said it here many times. However, every once in a while someone comes along that pushes you past that limit – whether it be MJ and his strangeness or the Dixie Chicks and their case of “open mouth, insert foot” for not being aware of their core audience.
Idiots like to copy other idiots that they see on TV. Case in point, that stupid show Jáçkášš. and, what makes you think some moron wouldn’t go and do what Steve did eh??? Oh Steve did it so its ok to dangle my baby in front of a croc while I fed it. Oh yeah, I can see it now. Monkey see Monkey do. Come off, stop making excuses for it.
Files are being chaged against him.
I think you mean charges are being filed.
The Yahoo article doesn’t say that. It just says he was “warned” by child-care authorities.
And this article specifically says charges won’t be filed:
http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,271855071,00.html
Corey
Er, try this link instead.
http://www.zap2it.com/news
Corey
Peter David: No, they’re really not. I’m saying I understand why he did it…but I think he was wrong to do so. He was certain he wasn’t putting the child at risk because he’s so well trained and experienced with crocs. It’s possible he was right and there was no risk. But I personally don’t think he should have taken the chance. No conflict in the statements.
Luigi Novi: Okay, I see what you mean now. Thanks.
Peter David: You disagree with my opining that Irwin thought there was no danger? Uhm…okay.
Luigi Novi: No, I misunderstood that passage to mean that there was no danger simply because Irwin didn’t perceive any. My bad. 🙂
And I agree with Darren J. Hudak. To point out an example of his point, Motley Crue drummer Tommy Lee was SUED by a parent whose kid drowned in the pool at Lee’s son’s birthday party, even though there was the lifeguard on duty there. For Michael Jackson’s son not to be taken away is just more of the hypocrisy on the part of his apologists, and if Jacko’s son did eventually get hurt or killed, the same apologists would probably still defend him by saying that “Oh, it was an accident,” or “There was nothing he could do.” Jackson seems to be the only celebrity that even other celebrities seem willing to defend, no matter what he does.
Joseph: Something I think people are ignoring is that Mrs Croc Hunter (Terri Irwin, who’s accompanied her husband on many of his expeditions) publicly stated she didn’t have any reservations.
Luigi Novi: You say we’re “ignoring” it as if to imply that knowing of her statement would mitigate the Steve’s stupidity.
It doesn’t.
Why would it? If she feels this way, she’s just as retarded as he is.
FunkyBlue: His wife isn’t a spring chicken either. She wouldn’t have let him do it if she had any doubts.
Luigi Novi: “Isn’t a spring chicken” is a phrase used to denote that someone isn’t very young. What does Terri’s age have to do with anything?
FunkyBlue: Feeding crocodiles is what Steve does for a living and has been considered to be the best at what he does.
Luigi Novi: Not while holding a month-old infant in the other arm it isn’t.
Aaron: Still a fool for doing it, but it’s trained for that kind of situation.
Luigi Novi: No, he’s trained to feed crocodiles. He is NOT trained to feed crocodiles while holding a month-old infant in one of his arms.
I agree with Peter here, the intent of the two acts is very different. Steve should probably still get a visit from the Child Protection authorties remainding him not to do that again, but charges would be overblown. Whereas I’m shocked (Especially given recent allegations) that Micheal still has custody for his kids (Who I really feel sorry for..)
As for seperating Micheal Jackson the preformer from the person, well I usually try to do that but I just can’t for Micheal. It also doesn’t help that Micheal the preformer bought the rights to the Lennon/McCartney Beatles songs and commercialized them. Once that happened I could never respect him as an artist again.
Sadly he’s also proven that his moral character as person is even more corrupt…
For all those people out there who say that they would “trust” Steve Irwin to take care of his own child because he’s a professional, I’d just ask — would you be so trusting if he asked if he could take YOUR child with him instead of his own? In fact, would you trust him if he invited YOU?
It’s worth noting here that we put our infants in ENORMOUS danger every time we strap them into the car seat and drive on the freeway.
Which is necessary when we want to go somewhere. Holding your month-old infant while feeding a crocodile ISN’T.
I just heard Irwin on 1010 WINS radio, and he said that this was “all about perceived danger,” echoing Peter’s comment. Does anyone else see the flaw in this thinking on Steve’s part? Since when does not perceiving something mean that that something doesn’t exist or isn’t there?
He went on to say that he was in “absolute control” with that croc.
Wrong.
You might have been mostly in control, Steve, but you are no more in “absolute” control than Roy Horn was with Montecore. There is ALWAYS going to be some element of danger, and some chance that something might go horribly wrong. Working with wild animals will always have an element of unpredictability. The only way you can be absolutely in control of a crocodile is if it’s DEAD.
Please, stop with the comparisons between Steve Irwin and Roy Horn.
Roy was on stage in front of a huge audience that was out of his control. Didn’t Steve have just a few other people around, including his trained wife and a trained cameraman?
Roy was behaving cockily because that’s what his public expected. An example? Oh, how about the way he hit the tiger’s nose with his microphone right before he was bitten?
To make it a true comparison, Steve would have to have been playing keep-away with his baby. On the contrary, he was behaving as cautiously as he could, in part because that’s what his public expects, and in part because that’s how he behaves.
I agree with PAD — although I think Steve took a risk, I don’t think Steve thought it was a risk. I agree that he thought it was take-your-baby-to-work day.
Posted by Luigi Novi:
\\Joseph: Something I think people are ignoring is that Mrs Croc Hunter (Terri Irwin, who’s accompanied her husband on many of his expeditions) publicly stated she didn’t have any reservations.
Luigi Novi: You say we’re “ignoring” it as if to imply that knowing of her statement would mitigate the Steve’s stupidity.
It doesn’t.
Why would it? If she feels this way, she’s just as retarded as he is.\\
No, my purpose in mentioning Terri in regards to the topic was that PAD, at no point, mentioned her “complicity” in this horror/fiasco (whatever word you wish to use). No, his discussion made it seem as though Steve Irwin did this all on his lonesome, and no one else in replying to PAD’s comments seemed to know of it, or apparently, weren’t very concerned over the matter.
The fact is SHE handed little Bob to his dad, so it shouldn’t all seem to be “Steve’s being stupid”.
Parents have always done stupid things with their children, and always will do stupid things. And the mere fact that a celebrity is “caught” doing so shouldn’t mean they deserve to be treated any differently than if it were some non-celebrity. I’ve seen fathers pick up their children and give them a toss in the air, and no one seems overly disturbed. I also know of people who’ve left their babies alone with family pets which have then attacked the children.
Make sure you have some bile reserved for those common parents.
See…because Steve is popular and “cute”, people are willing to make more of an exception. If you change the lightbulb on top of the Empire State building…and you have been doing it for 20 years, does that make it acceptable to strap your baby to your back while dangling above NY? No…you are putting your baby in a dangerous situation. Yes, you can say a kid is in a dangerous situation just being in a car…but certain situations have in place safety procedures. What if Steve tripped…or have you never seen the episodes where he gets surprised. I am sure that they probablly fed the Aligotor before hand. A fed Aligator is less aggressive, and lazy. BUT after all that…I don’t care. Just let it drop!!! Why are we going to have to listen to “follow” up stories on this and other more important stories get swept under the rug???
It was very obvious that he was willing to sacrifice his own life to save his child if anything should go wrong, but it just looked insane. Particularly when ‘walking’ the child along the ground. A few months down the road when the child is less of a rag doll, perhaps I would have felt differently. But one trip, one stumble, and fresh dinner for the croc.
Someone wrote:
Is taking your child into the crocodile cage different from taking them scuba diving? Obviously I’ve never taking either one of my kids near a 300 lb reptile, but they have touched sharks while swimming in the ocean. Remember, that each parent weighs the need to protect a child against the need to give them experiences that they’ll cherish forever.
No offense meant, but the big difference between giving a child a “cherished experience” and what Irwin did is that Irwin’s child is only ONE MONTH OLD. There’s no way on earth he would ever remember such a stupid experience. This also shoots down the excuse that he wanted to have the kid grow up “croc savvy.”
My biggest problem with Irwin is that there is no good reason on earth for him to do what he did other than a cheap publicity stunt or to prove his own manhood at the expense of the unnecessary risking of his child’s life.
I do have to wonder if everyone here who is an instant expert on the behavior of wild animals has anywhere near the level of expertise Steve does on this matter.
An awful lot of statements and accusations that Steve didn’t know what he was doing are being made as if they were absolute gospel, so I’m assuming those making them must have many years of experience working with wild animals and are recognized as world-class authorities on the subject, right?
Honestly, it looks crazy to me, but I went to school for photography and writing. He’s spent his life doing THIS. Steve Irwin has forgotten more than I will ever know about wild animals, and I’m inclined to trust his judgment.
Irwin’s long been on my list of least-favorite media personalities; I always root for the crocs, snakes, and other critters he needlessly and elaborately chases to turn and chomp any part of his fool’s anatomy that appeals to them. (And while I’m sorry for his suffering as a fellow human being, Roy Horn got what he asked for, too. Animals–especially wild animals– are not on this planet to entertain us, and we forget that at our considerable peril.)
I’ve got little fear for or sympathy for anyone who exploits animals in the wild as Iriwn does for his or her own profit. (On the other hand, for someone who gets it right most of the time, look to Jeff Corwin, whom I’ve never seen harass a creature for the sake of getting the most entertaining shot…)
So I’m not surprised at Irwin’s latest stunt–it’s a logical progression, after all, from the rest of his career, just another “fun” upping of the ante. Crikey, indeed. Lord, what fools these animal “experts” be. Here’s hoping he’s got the good sense from here on out to keep his child out of reasonably predictable potential danger while looking for the good bit of film– until such time as that child can grant his own consent.
I don’t see much difference between Jackson’s balcony idiocy and Irwin’s croc follies, PAD: both idiots assumed they were in full control of the situation. Jackson thought he had a good grip on both his child and on the law of gravity; Irwin thought he had a good grip on both his child and that particular croc’s likely behavior at that point in time. Fortunately for the children in question, both men lucked out—that time.
There are many things we can’t protect our children from, many risks we need to let them encounter for their own larger well-being, in fact. But there’s no greater good served–beyond the needs of the ever-present cameras–by dangling a baby over a balcony for hordes of adoring fans or by staging a funny bit with one’s infant and a large carnivore. Idiots. Total idiots.
**All I have to say is that I would trust Steve with a child under him arm than Jackson with a kid over a balcony. I’ve watched Steve for years and if he wasn’t sure there wasn’t any danger to his child, he wouldn’t have done it. His wife isn’t a spring chicken either. She wouldn’t have let him do it if she had any doubts.
Feeding crocodiles is what Steve does for a living and has been considered to be the best at what he does. **
Oh what a load of bovine excrement. My dad worked in a power plant for most of his life, working on the power grid, climbing on power poles, working with turbines and generator, yada yada. The idea that it would have been OK for him to drag myself or one of my siblings up a power pole and dangle us over live electrical wires and generators because he was good at his job is absurd. Lots of people do jobs that are dangerous, most of those people have the common sence, the brains, the sence of responiblity to know that you don’t bring your children to work when you doing one of those jobs.
\\I look at it this way… What Steve did was incredibly stupid, but…
He’s well trained, fast enough to get away if something goes wrong, and has handlers standing by to help in the event of an emergency. Those guys are almost as fast as Irwin himself.\\
A few months ago most people would have said the same thing about Roy and his white tigers. They are wild animals, wild animals, even trained wild animals, sometimes do not act predictably and sometime when they go wild even the best trained and most experienced handlers can’t control them, again see the Roy example.
For me, separating the artist from the personality is easy. In my not-so humble opinion, Michael Jackson’s music sucks, Steve Irwin’s is annoying as all hëll, and Woody Allen’s movies are pretentious and boring.
The fact that their personal lives are amusing side shows is only secondary.
Aaron: Still a fool for doing it, but it’s trained for that kind of situation.
Luigi Novi: No, he’s trained to feed crocodiles. He is NOT trained to feed crocodiles while holding a month-old infant in one of his arms.
Not the point. I’m saying that, god forbid, my child had to be carried through an area filled with wild animals, I’d trust Irwin over pretty much anybody else.
He’s trained to live in that kind of situation. He probably practiced with some prop for months just to be certain… Probably slaughtered a few Cabbage Patch Kids in the process.
No excuse for what he did, but I can certainly understand why he felt there was no danger. Don’t agree, of course, but he’s too smart to have not taken the precautions necessary for that little stunt. I’m even gonna guess that he fed that croc plenty beforehand, just to slow him a bit… God knows I’d want that croc to not be very hungry before I were to go near it.
\\I look at it this way… What Steve did was incredibly stupid, but…
He’s well trained, fast enough to get away if something goes wrong, and has handlers standing by to help in the event of an emergency. Those guys are almost as fast as Irwin himself.\\
A few months ago most people would have said the same thing about Roy and his white tigers. They are wild animals, wild animals, even trained wild animals, sometimes do not act predictably and sometime when they go wild even the best trained and most experienced handlers can’t control them, again see the Roy example.
And someone else pointed that his stance was a guarded, prepared one. I could see it too. Roy was supremely confident, and it cost him. Irwin KNOWS something can always go wrong. He went in with both eyes open, and the croc at arm’s length. If anything, the croc would have gone for HIM instead of the baby, giving the handlers time to grab the kid.
I still think they should press charges. Just like they should have pressed charges with Jackson.