May 7, 2010

Zoo holding contest to name its new lion cubs

 Photo by Racine Zoo

The Racine Zoo is having a contest to name the two Transvaal lion cubs born here on March 16.


Names for the cubs, one male and one female, will be selected by the Zoo from the suggestions received, and the winner or winners will receive a prize provided by Johnson Bank and the Journal Times. The winning names will be announced Saturday, May 29.

The cubs are scheduled to go on exhibit on Thursday, May 27, in the Vanishing Kingdom's main building during a member appreciation event. Public viewing starts at 10 a.m. on Saturday, May 29, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Four cubs born to parents Elsa and Aslan in 2007 were named Jabari, Kwame, Bomani and Kya after a similar contest. Those four cubs have moved on to other zoos.

An online form for submitting names is on the Zoo's website, along with pictures and video of the cubs. Entries may also be submitted at Johnson Banks or to the Zoo, 200 Goold St. The contest ends May 24 at 4:30 p.m.

50 comments:

  1. I vote for Pete & Dustin because I see a lot of lion in some of the "news articles" on this site.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dickertis & Aliar

    ReplyDelete
  3. Funny and Money

    ReplyDelete
  4. Seriously speaking, given Racine's notoriously high minority infant mortality rate, we shouldn't be doting on lion cubs. Back in their vile species' native habitat, lions are loathed by everyone except rich tourism racketeers and their paying guests. To most Africans forced to cope with lions and their depredations, the beasts are dangerous pests. Every year, lions and other big cats attack and devour African farmers and ranchers' livestock. Occasionally, lions and their kin kill the youngsters whose families depend on them to keep an eye on their goats and cattle. Until recently, Masai boys were expected to slay lions as proof that they were ready for manhood and its responsibilities. We should caring for the young of our own species instead of blowing big bucks on predators which compete with humans and consume them!

    ReplyDelete
  5. As usual, there's a Waxclan connection. (We can always trust the ceraceous tribe to fund folly while the poor go without the basics.) Too bad low income minority babies aren't lion cubs. Then, perhaps, the Lighthouse Loot Lords would treat them and their struggling parents better.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Please accept my apologies for an error in my 5/8/8:48 comment. The final sentence ought to read as follows: We should be caring for the young of our own species instead of blowing big bucks on predators which compete with humans and consume them!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Like many of the Johnsons' so-called philanthropic projects, the lion cubs and the contest to bestow appropriate names on them are pure nonsense. During a depression in which a certain foreclosure femme's bank has harmed hundreds (if not thousands) of local residents, Homelessness and Hunger would be appropriate monickers for the whelps.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Contrary to pro-nature propaganda and other elitist cr-p, lion cubs aren't cute cuddly little bundles of joy. They're carnivorous killers for whom people are a yummy snack.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In supporting filthy predators while neglecting the poor, the Waxies are merely following the bad example set by previous eras' socio-economic oppressor classes. Back in the Middle Ages, Emperor Frederick Stupor Mundi lavished fortunes on lions and falcons in the face of famines and epidemics which ravaged his subjects. Later, during the sixteenth century, King Felipe II of Spain just had to keep lions and a rhino in luxury even though his people could barely survive. When the Enlightenment arrived, the evil Habsburgs/Hapsburgs opened a zoo in Vienna and fed lions while their hapless underlings were taxed to support the beasts. I won't bother you with additional examples--the bottom line is that predatory oligarchs prefer predatory animals to poor people and will favor the former to the detriment of the latter whenever they can get away with it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Looks like someone got the keys to the computer lab away from his/her ward attendant yet again...

    ReplyDelete
  11. I hope John Dickert gets credit for bringing these cute little cubs to Racine. He needs a to be able to take credit for bringing something to Racine besides high unemployment and famine. Hopefully Racine will soon allow chickens in the yards of Racine neighborhoods so he can take credit for bringing fresh poultry to Racine. He should change his name to Noah.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dear 5/8/2010 10:03 PM, As a Christian, I must pardon you for insulting God's poor. Whether they will forgive you, however, is another matter. When the common man overthrows your elitist system, zoos and other vestiges of monarchy will swiftly vanish into the void. People, NOT predators, will be the new government's priority. Since children are more important than lion cubs, they'll receive the best possible care. On the other hand, the erstwhile plutocrats' pampered exotic beasts will be eliminated.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Regarding names for the critters, let's call them "Hun" and "Grrr." With all the food insecurity in Racine and the lack of help for suffering humanity, those names are appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  14. In view of Racine's reputation as a corrupt little company town with misery and injustice for all non-oligarchs, the lion-lovers should hang their heads in shame. Then they should get out their magic checkbooks and donate at least as much moolah to charity as they've squandered on their pricey predators.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Even during good economic times, blowing dough on lion cubs is ridiculous. During a depression, such misconduct is reprehensible.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Kids,NOT cubs!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Let's have a contest to name the poor people and posters out here - may I suggest losers!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dear 5/10/8:12 AM, As a Christian, I must forgive you for insulting the less-fortunate. As for "losers," you could become one if some corporate porker were to outsource your job to Dragon Land or Elephant Country. (Assuming that you're one of capitalism's high-living eliteniks, the vagaries of an out-of-control global economy could strip you of your assets and obscene arrogance.) Please grow a heart and a brain. Thank you very much.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Until the depression is over, the people of Racine don't need lion cubs and silly contests inspired by their presence in our Rustbelt burg.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I agree that we have issues with minority babies. All babies for that matter. High infant mortality rate. I encourage everyone to support the notion that something needs to be done. Maybe start off by combining the many health departments that encompass Racine County to cut bureacracy which sucks up the money and pass those savings to more nurses that go into the homes to do something with moms and babies.

    However, once these kids are born, would it not be nice to have something for them and their families to do together that might provide some education benefits. Something that might provide some quality family time. Something that might keep them from drugs/gangs/crime.
    If so, I think it is great that we have this small zoo right here in our own backyard.

    Or would you prefer to build KRM so we can go to Chicago and Milwaukee?

    For all the folks that say away with the zoo - are you in favor of the splash pad? What else do you want to run out of Racine?

    ReplyDelete
  22. If we weren't in the midst of a depression, blowing dough on the zoo wouldn't seem so extravagant. However, we've got an economic situation in which low-income seniors are being taxed out of their homes so the city and county may feed lions. Ideally, a poverty pit of a community like Racine should never have gotten into the exotic animal racket in the first place. Unfortunately, some corporate porkers wanted the zoo as a status symbol, so they saddled us with it. By and large, zoos are upper-middle class facilities with little if any appeal to or for ordinary people. Most of the kids I know would rather see a good movie or play video games than visit a zoo.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Then, perhaps, the Lighthouse Loot Lords would treat them and their struggling parents better. '
    BIRTH CONTROL!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Historically speaking, zoos go back to royal menageries. Prior to modern times, exotic critters--especially bloodthirsty big cats--were symbols of monarchical power. From Ancient Egypt's Queen Hatshepsut to the eighteenth century Austrian Habsburg emperors, human predators doted on predatory animals and made their subjects pick up the tab for their maintenance. Later on, the bourgeoisie emulated its royal precursors by continuing to insist that working class people be taxed to support zoos. Given our present depression and the dearth of jobs which yield a living wage, a zoo is an unjustifiable luxury.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dear 5/10/2010 9:33 PM, Yes, we should have birth control for lions and other pricey predators. Instead of spending fortunes on breeding programs for dangerous beasts, we should be reducing--not increasing--the number of expensive exotic animals maintained by our taxpayers.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Let's take good care of our own species first!

    ReplyDelete
  27. As soon as the citys babies quit having babies, maybe then they should think about reducing breeding. Until then, I'd rather the zoo continue breeding rather than kids popping out kids like rabbits.

    ReplyDelete
  28. If we had a just society in which the poor weren't driven to despair, we wouldn't have the brainless breeding which you deplore. Give poor girls a goal plus the means with which to achieve it and they won't reproduce like rabbits. In the meantime, until we've built a just society, splurging on lions and other predators is insane. Except for zoo keepers, tourism entrepreneurs and circus owners, nobody needs lions. In their native lands they're loathed by farmers and ranchers who'd wipe them out in a trice if we'd let them do it.

    ReplyDelete
  29. 5:35 - It's always someone elses fault! People need to take responsibility for their own actions - that is what is wrong with society. There are plenty of goals out there - let them strive for one and don't blame others for their rabbit farms.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I hope and pray that you're never reborn as a poor minority female. If they aren't pressured into non-consensual sex by males of their class, they're exploited by so-called men with lighter complexions and hefty stashes of cash. Don't blame them for their "rabbit farms." Anyone who's studied mammalian biology will tell you which sex initiates procreation and which sex is saddled with the consequences of male lust.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Most low-income minority women are victims of economic exploitation. In this evil system, their poverty and vulnerability set them up to be raped or otherwise coerced into sexual intercourse. So stop holding these women responsible for the brainless breeding which some so-called men and anti-birth control religions inflict on them. Meanwhile, until we solve our social justice and reproductive problems, let's concentrate on the well-being of our own species and stop blowing dough on lions.

    ReplyDelete
  32. If you research lions, you'll learn that they're anything but the charming critters you've encountered in "The Lion King," "The Chronicles of Narnia" and "Born Free." In the real world, they're like the rest of the big cats--lethal enemies of mankind. Assuming that we stopped meddling in the internal affairs of African nations, the locals would swiftly solve their lion problem. Only pressure from First World elitists (who want animate eye candy to photograph during their silly safaris) keeps African governments from allowing their constituents to blast the lions to Kingdom Come.

    ReplyDelete
  33. When kids are going without the basics, we have no business supporting lions in luxury. If I had the legal authority to order their sale or humane termination, they'd be gone pronto.

    ReplyDelete
  34. How about "Double" and "Trouble" as names for the lion cubs? After all, they've sparked controversy galore.

    ReplyDelete
  35. 9:06 you said "If they aren't pressured into non-consensual sex by males of their class, they're exploited by so-called men with lighter complexions and hefty stashes of cash." I think it is a disgrace you think so little of these babies.

    ReplyDelete
  36. What I think of the babies who have babies is irrelevant. The bottom line is the fact that males, who possess greater physical strength and earning power, can compel them to participate in non-consensual intercourse. As I see it, these unfortunate women are victims and should not be held responsible for what one commentator termed their "rabbit farms."

    ReplyDelete
  37. Rabbit-related remarks aside, we should be supporting poor children and their parents, NOT useless,pricey and dangerous big cats.

    ReplyDelete
  38. During an economic crisis second only to the Great Depression, a zoo doesn't belong in our city and county budgets. If the oligarchs wish to keep a menagerie in Racine, they should dip into the fortunes they've sweated out of toilers' hides to finance their folly. However, as long as low-income seniors are eating cheap slop or pet food in order to pay their obscenely steep property taxes, Racine shouldn't lavish public funds on lions.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Given our community's pandemic poverty, lion cubs are the shame, NOT the pride, of Racine.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Maybe we should feed all you naysaers to the lions - that way we'd keep the lions and we would not have to hear your continual whining.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Although you don't wish to hear low-income residents' "continual whining," more of it is on the way. Our workers are learning how to whine and win their war against the corporate oligarchy. When our people emerge victorious, lions--and the eliteniks who dote on them--will be history.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Mr. Angry - it ain't going to happen

    ReplyDelete
  43. Who's Mr. Angry? Who are you to stand in the way of progress? The people's will, not your whims, shall determine the future!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Lions: If we don't breed them, we won't have to feed them. KIDS, NOT CUBS!

    ReplyDelete
  45. How about "A Sin" and "A Shame" as names for the unwanted whelps"? After all, when people are deprived of the necessities, slurging on useless predators is "A Sin" and "A Shame."

    ReplyDelete
  46. Please excuse the typo in the second line of the last comment. "Slurging" should be "splurging." In a decent world, Racine wouldn't be splurging on lion cubs.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Any way you look at them, lions are enemies of mankind. The working people of Racine neither need nor want lions here. If it weren't for the corporate elite's interest in exotic critters as status symbols,Racine would be lion-free. The sooner they're sold, the better.

    ReplyDelete
  48. By and large, big cats are dangerous animals. Even supposedly-trained specimens are unpredictable. As far as I'm concerned, they belong back in their native habitat where the locals--who know what they are--can deal with them. (If our oligarchs and their bought-and-paid-for conservationists would stop pressuring Sub-Saharan African governments into protecting lions, the cattle ranchers and farmers would swiftly solve their leonine problem. Every year, lions and other big cats attack the people's livestock. Occasionally, the beasts also injure or kill the youngsters whose task it is to guard or herd the useful animals on which their families depend for survival.)

    ReplyDelete
  49. There's something sick or even evil about the corporate and academic classes' fixation on the well-being of lethal felines at the expense of Third World farmers abroad and low-income, taxed-to-the max toilers here. At the risk of seeming tedious, we should support kids, NOT cubs.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Why is it always the people that don't pay taxes are always complaining how the money should be spent?

    ReplyDelete