I can't believe they did this (again)!

Copenhagen Zoo kills 4 lions, weeks after shooting giraffe

Two of those were young lions that were not old enough to survive by themselves and would have been killed by the new male lion if it had the chance, Bro told CNN. He said the zoo had tried to place them elsewhere, "but unfortunately there wasn't any interest."

The other two are the youngsters' parents, described by the Copenhagen Zoo as a "very old" breeding pair. The new male lion was brought from Givskud Zoo, also in Denmark, to form a breeding group with the Copenhagen Zoo's two 18-month-old females, born on site in 2012.

A good opinion piece on the real reason for Marius the Giraffe's death: profitablilty

Opinion: Killing of Marius the Giraffe Exposes Myths About Zoos: For the Copenhagen Zoo, it seems Marius was worth more dead than alive

All of which raises some questions: Why is the zoo breeding reticulated giraffes, when they are not endangered in the wild? And why did they let Marius's parents mate?

For answers, you need look no further than the Copenhagen Zoo's Facebook page, where it celebrates the birth of a baby giraffe (possibly Marius) in 2012. Humans, science has shown, are drawn to babies of all kinds; we love the big eyes, the floppy limbs, the fluff and fuzz of infants. Baby leopards, baby pandas, baby elephants ... baby giraffes. They all draw huge, paying crowds to zoos.

And while the Copenhagen Zoo, and other European Union zoos, may celebrate themselves as conservation sanctuaries protecting animals on the threshold of extinction, a 2011 report from the Born Free Foundation tells a different story: "An average of only 13% of species kept in European zoos were classified as Globally Threatened" and on the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List of Threatened Species.

So, if these zoos aren't really engaged in conserving species as they claim, what is their purpose?

Okay, I just don't see where it is defensible to even be breeding an animal

If your concern is inbreeding of the captive species, and if you determine that none of the other organisations that offered to take your surplus male giraffe because they might have 'lesser standards of welfare', even though several other zoos offered, and if sterilisation just means he would 'take up space for more genetically valuable giraffes', then why on earth breed animals in the first place, only to kill them with a bolt gun and feed them to the zoo's lions in front of children?

I agree with Jack Hanna, director emeritus of the Columbus Zoo in Ohio, who said, the zoo's decision was 'the most abominable, insensitive, ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.'

I'm not saying that the death threats are warranted that they're now receiving, but gee whiz, what genius thought this was a great idea? It's at the very least a public relations disaster. And while yes, feeding the meat to the lions is less 'wasteful', the whole thing stinks to high heaven. Zoos are centres of conservation and education. If they can't treat animals humanely and breed responsibly, then they shouldn't be putting themselves into that arena. And yes, I know, they insist they were acting responsibly. They just don't get it, and that's more the pity. And here I thought the Danes had some advantages over Americans in terms of forward-thinking mentality.

Marius the giraffe: Copenhagen Zoo staff get death threats

Shame

US wavered over S. Korean executions

In the early days of the Korean War, other American officers observed, photographed and confidentially reported on such wholesale executions by their South Korean ally, a secretive slaughter believed to have killed 100,000 or more leftists and supposed sympathizers, usually without charge or trial, in a few weeks in mid-1950.

Funny how when war (regular or Cold) comes up, basic freedoms go right out the window. In this case an ally apparently conducted thousands of killings and the American government stood by, documenting and reporting on it but putting little pressure on the Koreans to stop it.

Also, I hate to admit, things like this, and Japanese internment camps, and releasing nuclear weapons on a civilian populace--these were all done under the Democrats' watch. We like to think of ourselves as the party that protects freedom. It's Republicans like Bush who curtail our rights, correct? But the wholesale slaughter and confinement of those who either disagree or simply inconveniently exist goes far beyond things like the PATRIOT Act (and for that matter, plenty of Democrats voted for that, too.)

We need to dig up and bring to light these unpleasant truths from the past so that we my learn from it. But I'm embarrassed by my government's choices in the 1950s. I have a bumper sticker, much loved by others, that says something like:

I love my country
It's the government I fear

This certainly reiterates why. I had considered getting a new sticker if the Democrats take the White House in the fall. This just shows that history bears witness that it political affiliation doesn't matter--you still can't trust, especially when given a political machine that operates in secret in the name of protecting freedom.