Obama's Public Support of Michael Vick

[RockOn]

I just read this article this morning.

Here is the link which was posted Mon Dec 27 09:26am EST:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Obama-calls-Eagles-owner-to-congraulate-him-for-?urn=nfl-300632

I don't know how it will look copied and pasted below until I submit so keep in mind this is my attempt to convenience you. :)

*********** Begin Article ************

Obama calls Eagles owner to congratulate him for signing Vick
By Chris Chase


Michael Vick(notes) has been getting support from all sides during his road to redemption. He's now getting it from the leader of the free world.

NBC's Peter King reports that Barack Obama called Philadelphia Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie earlier this week to congratulate him for giving Vick a second chance after his release from prison. According to King, the president said that released prisoners rarely receive a level playing field and that Vick's story could begin to change that.

Forget your political allegiances or feelings about Michael Vick and take a step back to think about this. The sitting president of the United States went out of his way to publicly praise a man who, 3 1/2 years ago, many thought would never play again in the NFL. Even the most ardent believers in Vick couldn't have fathomed a turn-around like this.

In retrospect it seems obvious that Vick would get a second chance in the NFL, but it wasn't so clear-cut back when he was lying to the commissioner, getting sternly admonished in federal court and serving out a sentence at Leavenworth. We tend to take for granted unbelievable events when they slowly unfold before our eyes. The step-by-step nature of these sorts of tales tend to minimize the shock when taken in over a long process. So though it now seems like it was all pre-destined to work out like this, it wasn't: Vick's rise and fall and rise is a truly stunning tale. He went from star to pariah to inmate to backup to MVP candidate to political prop for the leader of the free world all in a span of a couple years.

[Related: Obama and Kobe Bryant talk trash]

For Obama to praise Vick now shows a number of things, namely that uttering the quarterback's name is thought to be a safe political move. He's playing the best football of his life for a playoff team and was the second-leading vote getter for the Pro Bowl. At the moment, he's the model of redemption, someone worthy of praise.

Because, if you think about it, Vick got that "second chance" from Lurie 16 months ago. There was no phone call from the president then. Praising Vick at that time would have been a political third rail. But now that Vick is playing great and most people seem to have either forgiven him or stopped caring about his transgressions, it's a shrewd political move. After what could be termed a rough two years in office, the president is looking for a second chance from the people who have turned against him over the past two years. Supporting a huge star like Vick could help with the president's recent image problems. It may not register much nationally, but it couldn't hurt in Pennsylvania. After all, it's a swing state and 2012 is just around the corner.

*********** End Article ***********

I want to know what others here at the BF Planet think about this.

Here's my input:
After reading this, Obama sealed his fate regarding my future vote. He will not get another vote from me this next time around. If he feels compelled to forgive Vick, he could have done so quietly in his heart. Obama's public support of Vick under his title as the United States of America's President not only sickens me but really infuriates me.

[morningstar55]

still waiting for him to show some sort of remorse of his crime.... instead of smirking about it.
and maybe some serious animal rescue help and support / as in funding to the animal humane society would be nice.
or has he done this already and I just missed it somehow?

[RockOn]

I would like to see Vick permanently out of the public eye but his jock stardom will continue lifting him up.

I am not hear to judge whether another a person is willing to forgive Vick or not.

I am simply fucking sick to death of how this country generally excuses the horrendous behaviors of our athletes and embraces them in high status. Look at the history. I won't name other jocks. You know who they are.

morningstar55, thanks for taking time to post your opinion.

Will be late for work if I don't get a shower and scoot ...

Wishing everyone a pleasant day! :)

[Kobi]

This is another of those tricky ones.

I thought it was odd that a sitting President stuck his nose in this.
Then again, I doubt he would have if it wasnt politically advantagous
to do so.

Vick is a hot commodity right now. A lot of people might want
to jump on that bandwagon.

On the other hand, regardless of how I feel about what Vick did,
he was tried, convicted, and served his time. He paid his "debt to society".
He has the right to resume his life and career.

I dont think this is about special treatment to athletes or excusing
horrendous behavior of athletes. It is about an ex-con having the right to pick up the pieces of his life.

[SnackTime]

We are entitled to our opinions. Personally, I do not see anything wrong with what Obama did. The decision of Obama contacting the owner of the Eagles and giving his support will NOT sway my vote in the next election. I personally would not take this kind of thing into consideration when making my decision on who to vote for. In my own honest opinion, there are far more important things to consider when it comes to the elections.

[Sachita]

are you fucking kidding me?

I think that ANY act of animal abuse on ANY level should have huge penalties ESPECIALLY if you're a public figure. I can't even believe so much media attention and money has been spent on a selfish idiot when all that money could have been put to use helping animals. The ignorance of people just blows my mind.

[MysticOceansFL]

I would rather have obama for president than someone else who wouldnt even consider giving us equal rights would you?

[Glenn]

Second Chance for the Michael Vick Dogs: Meet the Rescued Pit Bulls www.badrap.org/rescue/vick/

[betenoire]

Here's my input:
After reading this, Obama sealed his fate regarding my future vote. He will not get another vote from me this next time around.

Sarah Palin will appreciate your support in 2012. ;)

[Medusa]

Curious - For those who will not support President Obama, who has done more for Gay rights than any sitting President in the history of our nation, in the next election because he congratulated the Eagles coach on Vick: Do you feel that congratulating a football coach on gaining anothe player (no matter their history) negates President Obama's (in my opinion) stellar Gay Rights record?

[betenoire]

Curious - For those who will not support President Obama, who has done more for Gay rights than any sitting President in the history of our nation, in the next election because he congratulated the Eagles coach on Vick: Do you feel that congratulating a football coach on gaining anothe player (no matter their history) negates President Obama's (in my opinion) stellar Gay Rights record?

Further to that, do you people not realise that by not voting Democrat in the next presidential election you will be actively voting FOR someone who not only will not do anything good but who will ACTIVELY work to HARM you?

Even if you don't vote and the Republicans win you are complicit in their winning.

[princessbelle]

*IMO*

A phone call to congrat someone for giving someone a second chance is in no way going to sway me into voting for anyone other than Obama.

Doesn't mean i don't cherish and love animals. It is so beyond that thought.

The world is full of self perfect people.

The world is full of people who screw up and continue to do so.

The world is full of people who screw up and don't do it again.

The world is not full of people who care about our rights.

Obama has done so much good...imo and continues to get my vote.

[dreadgeek]

Somewhere in DC, a consultant for whomever will be the Republican nominee in 2012 is smiling at the thought. I get being angry or disappointed (although, quite honestly, I'm not) but to seriously base your vote on THIS issue? Really? I can understand not voting for Obama because he hasn't shut down the Guantanamo detention center. I can understand not voting for Obama because he hasn't stopped the indefinite detentions. I can even understand not voting for Obama because he's shown poor political judgement but to not vote for him because of THIS? I just don't understand the political calculus or rationality you are using. Perhaps you can explain it?

Let's say, for instance, that Sarah Palin is the nominee (please, please, let her be the nominee) are you going to tell me that between a woman who believes that shooting wolves from a plane is sport and a man who believes that an ex-convict deserves to get his life back (even an ex-con who abused animals) you would choose the former? If you say you wouldn't vote then *by default* you've voted for whoever wins the election. So you wake up the day after Election Day 2012 and find out that Palin is the next POTUS. Would you feel okay with that outcome given that it was based on this issue?

Cheers
Aj

I just read this article this morning.

Here is the link which was posted Mon Dec 27 09:26am EST:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Obama-calls-Eagles-owner-to-congraulate-him-for-?urn=nfl-300632

I don't know how it will look copied and pasted below until I submit so keep in mind this is my attempt to convenience you. :)

*********** Begin Article ************

Obama calls Eagles owner to congratulate him for signing Vick
By Chris Chase


Michael Vick(notes) has been getting support from all sides during his road to redemption. He's now getting it from the leader of the free world.

NBC's Peter King reports that Barack Obama called Philadelphia Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie earlier this week to congratulate him for giving Vick a second chance after his release from prison. According to King, the president said that released prisoners rarely receive a level playing field and that Vick's story could begin to change that.

Forget your political allegiances or feelings about Michael Vick and take a step back to think about this. The sitting president of the United States went out of his way to publicly praise a man who, 3 1/2 years ago, many thought would never play again in the NFL. Even the most ardent believers in Vick couldn't have fathomed a turn-around like this.

In retrospect it seems obvious that Vick would get a second chance in the NFL, but it wasn't so clear-cut back when he was lying to the commissioner, getting sternly admonished in federal court and serving out a sentence at Leavenworth. We tend to take for granted unbelievable events when they slowly unfold before our eyes. The step-by-step nature of these sorts of tales tend to minimize the shock when taken in over a long process. So though it now seems like it was all pre-destined to work out like this, it wasn't: Vick's rise and fall and rise is a truly stunning tale. He went from star to pariah to inmate to backup to MVP candidate to political prop for the leader of the free world all in a span of a couple years.

[Related: Obama and Kobe Bryant talk trash]

For Obama to praise Vick now shows a number of things, namely that uttering the quarterback's name is thought to be a safe political move. He's playing the best football of his life for a playoff team and was the second-leading vote getter for the Pro Bowl. At the moment, he's the model of redemption, someone worthy of praise.

Because, if you think about it, Vick got that "second chance" from Lurie 16 months ago. There was no phone call from the president then. Praising Vick at that time would have been a political third rail. But now that Vick is playing great and most people seem to have either forgiven him or stopped caring about his transgressions, it's a shrewd political move. After what could be termed a rough two years in office, the president is looking for a second chance from the people who have turned against him over the past two years. Supporting a huge star like Vick could help with the president's recent image problems. It may not register much nationally, but it couldn't hurt in Pennsylvania. After all, it's a swing state and 2012 is just around the corner.

*********** End Article ***********

I want to know what others here at the BF Planet think about this.

Here's my input:
After reading this, Obama sealed his fate regarding my future vote. He will not get another vote from me this next time around. If he feels compelled to forgive Vick, he could have done so quietly in his heart. Obama's public support of Vick under his title as the United States of America's President not only sickens me but really infuriates me.

[Medusa]

I'd like to mention another thought I had regarding this:

I think that Michael Vick did wrong. Dog fighting is not not not ok on any level. I did wonder when this story first broke how the environment would have been different had it been a white person, another type of animal cruelty, etc.

Because Im not a fan of dog racing or horse racing either. Horses and dogs are routinely kept in inhumane conditions, shot up with drugs that make them twitch and foam at the mouth and trained under stressful, painful circumstances so people can stand around and bet on who runs the fastest.
Not trying to equate dog fighting with horse racing - they arent on the same level, but I do see some class stuff going on with how the mistreatment of animals is viewed when a black man does it and how it is viewed when white folks have been doing it for 100 years.

[EnderD_503]

*********** Begin Article ************

Obama calls Eagles owner to congratulate him for signing Vick
By Chris Chase


Michael Vick(notes) has been getting support from all sides during his road to redemption. He's now getting it from the leader of the free world.

Roflcopters... I guess the rest of the west just didn't get the memo? :p

Further to that, do you people not realise that by not voting Democrat in the next presidential election you will be actively voting FOR someone who not only will not do anything good but who will ACTIVELY work to HARM you?

Even if you don't vote and the Republicans win you are complicit in their winning.

Anyways, pretty much agree with what betenoire posted. To refrain from voting for Obama, if you have any interest in obtaining equal rights for the gay community in the US in the next few decades, is counterproductive. Voting in most of the western world is pretty much a lesser of two evils deal, in my view. I don't consider myself a supporter of any of my own country's main political parties, but when it comes down to maintaining and progressing human rights it's important to know which parties will get it done in our current society. In the US, the democrats are the only realistic hope the American lgbt community has if it desires equal rights. Personally, I wouldn't squander away a chance at equal rights over his support in giving a second chance to an athlete charged with dogfighting. Dogfighting, while not humane, is just one of the biproducts of even greater and more enduring problems present in western societies. Solve those and you'll be much closer to solving problems like dogfighting.

As for the topic at hand, personally I don't think it's part of a politician's job to make public comments/show support on issues that have nothing to do with their role. It's been a few times now that I've heard of Obama lending support to issues that have little to nothing to do with his role as American president, and, imo, it makes him look more like a celebrity than a politician. Not a smart move on his part.

[RockOn]

Lots of interesting views. Thanks for your posts.

I will not be voting for Obama or Palin - that is for sure. I see myself as having a minimum of three choices. ;)

Lunch hour is almost up - back to the office. Thanks again, everyone.

[suebee]

I don't have to worry about who to vote for, being Canadian. But I agree with some here that NOT voting for Obama is the equivalent to voting Republican. THEY certainly are not working toward many causes I believe in.


As for animals, it's been expressed much better than I ever could:

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

"To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being."

Mahatma Ghandi

An animal is not a human child, therefore it's life is worth less? Human arrogance. Look around and see what THAT'S done to our planet.

Vick - I have no use for him. He tortured, killed and ruined the lives of a great many of our fellow creatures. Fucker!

[suebee]

June, my comments weren't aimed at you personally. You may have been the only person to have made the comparison to a human child on this thread, but it's a comment I've heard again and again. OF COURSE you'd save your child first. My point is that humans have been comporting themselves in a far too arrogant manner for far too long. It's destroying our planet. It's used as an excuse to do absolutely HORRIFIC things to animals. It's time we stepped up to the plate and behaved like the itellectually and morally superior creatures we (as a race) make ourselves out to be.

[Ebon]

Distractions from the real issues. That is all this story is.

[JustJo]

I love animals, and I think dog-fighting is one of the most inhumane and disgusting things that people do (along with bull-fighting, cock-fighting, etc.)

Having said that, I do put human needs and human rights ahead of those of animals...including those of former prisoners who have paid their debt to society and who most often do not get a chance to rebuild their lives free of prejudice and judgment.

Do I think Obama should have made that call, as the president? No. I think that was stupid. I also recognize that he's human...and that a whole lot of folks have an attachment or put a value on sports and athletes that I, frankly, don't understand. Maybe he's one of them. Maybe he was doing it for political points. I don't know...and honestly don't care, either. I think he's fallible. I also think he's done a great deal to try to make our society more equitable and just....not all successful, but the effort has been there, and I appreciate and respect that.

[BullDog]

The rationales people use for their voting or non-voting continue to amaze me. Whether people like it or not there are 2 major political parties in the United States- Democratic and Republican. So if you do not vote for a Democrat, either because you decide not to vote as a "protest," vote for a third political party (which has no chance in hell to win and I've never been convinced that having more than 2 parties would necessarily in and of itself make things better), or vote for Republican party- in any of those 3 scenarios you are voting Republican.

I don't understand the concept of "protest" votes and non-votes. The Republicans are happy to pocket them. They also happily take the votes from the Republican Log Cabin people and at the same time ban them from their national conventions and actively work against gay rights.

The differences between the Democratic and Republican parties when it comes to queer rights, womens rights, people of color, animal rights- and the list goes on- couldn't be any more stark. I've posted the 2 party platforms numerous times. You could put the differences on flashing billboards across the country and I swear it still wouldn't compute. I seriously don't get it.

So don't vote for Obama. It's your choice. You won't be getting a more animal friendlier political party in power. That I can assure you of.

p.s I agree with Organic- it's just a distraction.

[Ebon]

June, my comments weren't aimed at you personally. You may have been the only person to have made the comparison to a human child on this thread, but it's a comment I've heard again and again. OF COURSE you'd save your child first. My point is that humans have been comporting themselves in a far too arrogant manner for far too long. It's destroying our planet. It's used as an excuse to do absolutely HORRIFIC things to animals. It's time we stepped up to the plate and behaved like the itellectually and morally superior creatures we (as a race) make ourselves out to be.

Absofuckinglutely!!

[dreadgeek]

An animal is not a human child, therefore it's life is worth less? Human arrogance. Look around and see what THAT'S done to our planet.

Actually, as a matter of reality, we DO have a hierarchy whether we like it or not. Like June, if my house caught fire and I could ONLY save either my granddaughter or my dog, I would save my granddaughter. Anyone who says otherwise is almost certainly lying and if they aren't, then they may need a reset of their moral compass. If it were a question of my family starving or eating the neighbor's chickens (with his permission, of course, otherwise it would be theft) then I feel like chicken tonight! Am I valuing the life of my granddaughter over that of my dog? Yes. Does that mean I don't *really* love my dog? no.

As far as 'what that has done to our planet', you mean what has been done that hasn't been topped by, say, very large rocks periodically striking the planet at several multiples of the speed of sound? Are we doing damage? Yes. Should we stop? Yes. But are we really on course to do worse than, say, the K-T extinction where a rock the size of Manhattan struck the Earth at around 30K mph and killed off half of all sea life and about 70% of all land life? No. That doesn’t mean that we should be sanguine about the extinction of tigers (and it is, at this point, almost certainly a fait accompli that tigers are going extinct) but it does mean that some perspective is in order. Human beings have been hunting, killing and eating animals since before we were Homo sapiens. We've been at it since *at least* the time of Australopithecus. Those canines you have in your mouth aren't there for decoration and they aren't vestigial like the wisdom teeth. In fact, our transition away from a plant-based diet to a mixed plant-meat based diet is written all over our bodies. Wisdom teeth used to be useful when we ate more plants, they were a third set of molars for grinding up plant material. Our brain size is ENTIRELY explained by meat-eating (your brain is very energy hungry and the only diet that would support the explosion of our brain size in the ancestral environment was a protein-heavy (therefore meat-based) one). Our eye-hand coordination was adaptive for hunting.

We are, whether we like it or not, apex predators. Again, that doesn't mean that animal cruelty is acceptable but it *does* mean that this idea that we have, at any point in our evolutionary history, lived in peace and harmony with other animals is a fallacy. The last time anything in our evolutionary ancestry remotely lived a life resembling that myth was when we were prey animals and the last time THAT circumstance obtained was more than 15 million years ago. This idea that we are the only animals that do violence for anything other than sustenance is also not true. Again, NONE of this is a defense of Mr. Vick or an argument in favor of animal cruelty. It is simply to say that somehow, we are supposed to be something more than the large-brained primate that we are is to argue for a fantasy and an inconsistent one at that. If you argue that we should know better than other animals then you are elevating us above the rest of the animal kingdom. If you argue that other animals aren't cruel or are only violent in pursuit of food you are falling into the Disney-fication of Nature (chimps, just to name one species amongst many, fight and kill over territory, mates, and because of rivalry and they do it in coalitions just like we do).

The truth is, suebee, that chances are you value the life of any random human being more than you value the life of any random species of rodent. That doesn't mean that one cares nothing at all for rodents (or any other phyla) but it does mean that, truth be told, if you could only save the life of a baby or a cat and you HAD to choose because the house is burning down, you'd pick the child. That isn't license for animal cruelty but it is a recognition of the reality of our moral instincts (and our morals, despite religious claims to the contrary, are instincts).


Vick - I have no use for him. He tortured, killed and ruined the lives of a great many of our fellow creatures. Fucker!

Can we take this to mean that you don't believe in redemption? One strike and you're out? I was not a fan of Mr. Vick before his conviction and I'm not a fan of Mr. Vick after his conviction. I am, however, a believer in redemption. Mr. Vick was arrested, tried, convicted and did time for his crime. His sentence was up and he was released and now he is trying to get his life back. Now, to some here, perhaps he should pay for the rest of his days. Perhaps some think he shouldn't be allowed to play in the NFL but I wonder if there is ANY job they would think he should be allowed to do. I doubt that there is.

You may have no use for him but Mr. Vick is still a human being, he still needs to eat, and he still deserves to be able to make some kind of a decent living doing something he is, I presume, competent at.

Cheers
Aj

[suebee]

Actually, as a matter of reality, we DO have a hierarchy whether we like it or not. Like June, if my house caught fire and I could ONLY save either my granddaughter or my dog, I would save my granddaughter. Anyone who says otherwise is almost certainly lying and if they aren't, then they may need a reset of their moral compass. If it were a question of my family starving or eating the neighbor's chickens (with his permission, of course, otherwise it would be theft) then I feel like chicken tonight! Am I valuing the life of my granddaughter over that of my dog? Yes. Does that mean I don't *really* love my dog? no.

As far as 'what that has done to our planet', you mean what has been done that hasn't been topped by, say, very large rocks periodically striking the planet at several multiples of the speed of sound? Are we doing damage? Yes. Should we stop? Yes. But are we really on course to do worse than, say, the K-T extinction where a rock the size of Manhattan struck the Earth at around 30K mph and killed off half of all sea life and about 70% of all land life? No. That doesn’t mean that we should be sanguine about the extinction of tigers (and it is, at this point, almost certainly a fait accompli that tigers are going extinct) but it does mean that some perspective is in order. Human beings have been hunting, killing and eating animals since before we were Homo sapiens. We've been at it since *at least* the time of Australopithecus. Those canines you have in your mouth aren't there for decoration and they aren't vestigial like the wisdom teeth. In fact, our transition away from a plant-based diet to a mixed plant-meat based diet is written all over our bodies. Wisdom teeth used to be useful when we ate more plants, they were a third set of molars for grinding up plant material. Our brain size is ENTIRELY explained by meat-eating (your brain is very energy hungry and the only diet that would support the explosion of our brain size in the ancestral environment was a protein-heavy (therefore meat-based) one). Our eye-hand coordination was adaptive for hunting.

We are, whether we like it or not, apex predators. Again, that doesn't mean that animal cruelty is acceptable but it *does* mean that this idea that we have, at any point in our evolutionary history, lived in peace and harmony with other animals is a fallacy. The last time anything in our evolutionary ancestry remotely lived a life resembling that myth was when we were pray animals and the last time THAT circumstance obtained was more than 15 million years ago. This idea that we are the only animals that do violence for anything other than sustenance is also not true. Again, NONE of this is a defense of Mr. Vick or an argument in favor of animal cruelty. It is simply to say that somehow, we are supposed to be something more than the large-brained primate that we are is to argue for a fantasy and an inconsistent one at that. If you argue that we should know better than other animals then you are elevating us above the rest of the animal kingdom. If you argue that other animals aren't cruel or are only violent in pursuit of food you are falling into the Disney-fication of Nature (chimps, just to name one species amongst many, fight and kill over territory, mates, and because of rivalry and they do it in coalitions just like we do).

The truth is, suebee, that chances are you value the life of any random human being more than you value the life of any random species of rodent. That doesn't mean that one cares nothing at all for rodents (or any other phyla) but it does mean that, truth be told, if you could only save the life of a baby or a cat and you HAD to choose because the house is burning down, you'd pick the child. That isn't license for animal cruelty but it is a recognition of the reality of our moral instincts (and our morals, despite religious claims to the contrary, are instincts).



Can we take this to mean that you don't believe in redemption? One strike and you're out? I was not a fan of Mr. Vick before his conviction and I'm not a fan of Mr. Vick after his conviction. I am, however, a believer in redemption. Mr. Vick was arrested, tried, convicted and did time for his crime. His sentence was up and he was released and now he is trying to get his life back. Now, to some here, perhaps he should pay for the rest of his days. Perhaps some think he shouldn't be allowed to play in the NFL but I wonder if there is ANY job they would think he should be allowed to do. I doubt that there is.

You may have no use for him but Mr. Vick is still a human being, he still needs to eat, and he still deserves to be able to make some kind of a decent living doing something he is, I presume, competent at.

Cheers
Aj

lol I don't think we as a species are responsible for everything. No. There is a hierarchy - obviously. There is also the very natural instinct to preserve your own species first. NONE of that Aj, absolves of of responsibility for what we have done AND I might add - for what we have not done. This entire planet is made up of interdependant life forms. Many believe that animals are here to serve us. That view point is not only arrogant, but incredibly short-sighted. All creatures have to do what they have to do to survive. Unfortunately humans excell at cruelty just for the fun of it.

I think Vick is a fucker. That's my opinion. It's got nothing to do with redemption (which I don't happen to believe he has achieved, btw). It's got more to do with what he actually did. His self-serving statement a few weeks ago saying that he'd like to have another dog - and I'm paraphrasing here - so that people could see that he's changed - didn't impress me at all. He said it was hard to explain to his child why they couldn't have a dog. He said he misses having a dog. He didn't say anything to make me believe he's learned anything about the value of another creature's life.

[dreadgeek]

I'm curious, is there anything he could have said that would convince you that he was truly repentant? if so, what?



lol I don't think we as a species are responsible for everything. No. There is a hierarchy - obviously. There is also the very natural instinct to preserve your own species first. NONE of that Aj, absolves of of responsibility for what we have done AND I might add - for what we have not done. This entire planet is made up of interdependant life forms. Many believe that animals are here to serve us. That view point is not only arrogant, but incredibly short-sighted. All creatures have to do what they have to do to survive. Unfortunately humans excell at cruelty just for the fun of it.

I think Vick is a fucker. That's my opinion. It's got nothing to do with redemption (which I don't happen to believe he has achieved, btw). It's got more to do with what he actually did. His self-serving statement a few weeks ago saying that he'd like to have another dog - and I'm paraphrasing here - so that people could see that he's changed - didn't impress me at all. He said it was hard to explain to his child why they couldn't have a dog. He said he misses having a dog. He didn't say anything to make me believe he's learned anything about the value of another creature's life.

[suebee]

I'm curious, is there anything he could have said that would convince you that he was truly repentant? if so, what?

First off, I want to note that "repentant" is your word, not mine. If you're asking for specific words - I don't purport to know how another human being will express himself. As I said above, what I heard in his statement online didn't address whether or not he has learned that another creature's life has intrinsic value.

[BullDog]

I don't condone what Michael Vick has done, but I do find it interesting what people choose to focus on. I don't see a lot of protest over Ben Roethlisberger who was suspended by the NFL. Maybe there wasn't enough evidence against him. I don't know. He is of course a white quarterback.

Here's a list of players who have been suspended by the NFL since 2006. Many of them have to do with domestic violence. Again, I don't hear a lot of hue and cry about them. If you were to go back earlier than 2006 you will find even more news stories about football players assaulting and beating up women- wives, girl friends, women met in bars, etc.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5121614

NFL Conduct Violation Suspensions

The 16 players suspended under the personal conduct policy by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell since he took office in 2006:

• Rocky Bernard (assault, 1 game)

• Michael Boley (domestic abuse, 1 game)

• Fred Evans (fight with police, 2 games)

• Chris Henry (various arrests, 8 games)

• Larry Johnson (simple assault, 1 game)

• Tank Johnson (2-month jail term, 8 games)

• Pacman Jones (various arrests, 16 games, 6 games)

• Marshawn Lynch (weapons violation, 3 games)

• Ricky Manning (felony assault, 1 game)

• Brandon Marshall (various, including assaulting girlfriend, 1 game)

• Bryant McKinnie (street fight, 4 games)

• Rob Reynolds (domestic disturbance, 16 games)

• Ben Roethlisberger (misconduct-no charges/arrests, 6 games)

• Donte' Stallworth (DUI-vehicular homicide, 16 games)

• Fabian Washington (domestic violence, 1 game)

• Michael Vick (dogfighting, 2 games)

[Tucker]

I say give the man a nice cat.

[Sachita]

June mentioned that not everyone is raised the same or has the same perception. This is very true. Living in the south it blows my mind what people deem as acceptable treatment of animals. It was only this year they passed a law forbidding dogs to be tied. I keep flyers in my van and won't think twice about knocking on a door or raising hell in the defense of a helpless animal. I wouldn't even leave my pig without an insulated stall, plenty of hay and heat lamp in 30 degree weather but you have a whole lot of people who think an old dog house is just fine.

I board dogs. Most of you know this and on one of my forms is a release for emergency treatment. Some people put 1500.00 others 100.00. There is no amount of money when it comes to my dogs. I can't support breeding and have lots of friends who spend thousands of dollars on dogs when there are so many homeless animals. I'm not passing judgement just proving that we all have a different mindset, HOWEVER in the case of Mr. Vick it was clearly abuse no matter how you slice that pie.

Now this makes me think of a very good vegan friend who wants to breed race horses. She doesnt eat animals because morally thinks its cruel. This rattled the fuck out of me. I asked her if she ever did any research on animal abuse in horse breed/racing. Also why she felt it was ok to train an animal for a sport that supports an even bigger problem "gambling". People should be allowed to do what they want but is it ok to allow an animal to be used in a sport for gambling? Is it ok to train a work animal to be a service dog or herd animals? These are all clearly questions someone needs to ask and rather then choosing an answer that suits your agenda people should be more conscious when it comes to animals. Once my friend did her research she was floored. She had no idea but honestly she turned a blind eye, saw what suited her interest and not in the best interest of the whole picture involving horses.

The passion i'm displaying right now is not about Obama. Medusa is right... he;s the first one that actually did anything and it wasn't all lipservice. He walked into a major mess and still actually did something. I admit I was skeptical. BUT as someone else put- I want to see a democrat in office no matter what. My agenda here right now is fueled by yet another Michael Vick media show and that enough is enough. He should be punished. Laws should be tightened in the case of animal rights. Plain and simple. instead homeowners are having insurance canceled or must get rid of a beloved pet. Dog boarding facilities (not mine) won't take pit bulls or the insurance to take them or any aggressive breed is too high. So let's have another dose of this M.Vick media parade.

don't forgive him. put all these mother fuckers in jail. lol seriously. maybe then it will stop

[suebee]

I say give the man a nice cat.



Try and do some of that shit to a CAT and see what happens! My dogs won't even mess with my cats! lol

[Daywalker]

Forgiveness is essential in all our lives.


:praying:


If we are to place any faith whatsoever in the importance of this in our own lives,
then we must acknowledge that it is essential in other peoples' lives.


With that said, if Prison time did not send any messages to Mr. Vick about
how wrong it was to use animals for wicked icky sport, then the Support
being offered up cannot possibly be genuine...as his
remorse would not be genuine.

Other than that, without being up close and personal in Mr. Vicks life,
I cannot make any further assessment of this article with great faith.

:coffee:

:daywalker:

[Nat]

I think what Vick did was awful. But I also think if you eat meat you are most likely supporting animal cruelty. Anybody who chooses not to spay/neuter their animals is participating in behavior that leads to the killing of animals who end up at the pound.

I don't understand Obama's motivations but that extends beyond this decision. I do support the re-employment of those who have received criminal convictions and who have served their time.

As vile as Michael Vick's actions were, the inhumanity other football players have shown towards other humans (see bulldog's post) is also vile. The white racist reactions to Vick were also vile.

Most people in the US live in glass houses and have no business throwing stones when it comes to animal cruelty.

[dreadgeek]

Now this makes me think of a very good vegan friend who wants to breed race horses. She doesnt eat animals because morally thinks its cruel. This rattled the fuck out of me. I asked her if she ever did any research on animal abuse in horse breed/racing. Also why she felt it was ok to train an animal for a sport that supports an even bigger problem "gambling". People should be allowed to do what they want but is it ok to allow an animal to be used in a sport for gambling? Is it ok to train a work animal to be a service dog or herd animals? These are all clearly questions someone needs to ask and rather then choosing an answer that suits your agenda people should be more conscious when it comes to animals. Once my friend did her research she was floored. She had no idea but honestly she turned a blind eye, saw what suited her interest and not in the best interest of the whole picture involving horses.

I don't know about gambling and won't waste a lot of time on that subject. But as far as using animals as working animals--herding, etc.--yes I think that is absolutely acceptable. I own a sheepdog, it is clear that his instincts are to herd. Particularly with the animals that we have co-evolved with and that we have bred into their modern forms (dogs, cats, horses, chickens, etc.) we absolutely should continue with employing them in the ways we bred them to be employed. We, as a species, created the modern dog and most of our dogs would not, in point of fact, do well if humans disappeared. Dogs need humans at this point. Anyone who has lived with a dog knows that we have created a breed that wants to socialize with us and is sensitively tuned to human facial expressions and vocal subtleties.


The passion i'm displaying right now is not about Obama. Medusa is right... he;s the first one that actually did anything and it wasn't all lipservice. He walked into a major mess and still actually did something. I admit I was skeptical. BUT as someone else put- I want to see a democrat in office no matter what. My agenda here right now is fueled by yet another Michael Vick media show and that enough is enough. He should be punished. Laws should be tightened in the case of animal rights. Plain and simple. instead homeowners are having insurance canceled or must get rid of a beloved pet. Dog boarding facilities (not mine) won't take pit bulls or the insurance to take them or any aggressive breed is too high. So let's have another dose of this M.Vick media parade.

How long of a prison sentence does he have to serve? He was *already* punished.


don't forgive him.

Sorry, I just can't sign on to the idea that yet ANOTHER black man should spend the rest of his natural days behind bars or be utterly unable to make any kind of living because he ran afoul of the law. We do that quite enough already, how many black men have to be locked up for very large parts of their lives before America is satisfied that it has done enough? He did 23 months in prison--not some county lock up but *prison*. How long does he have to serve? Let's also keep in mind that the ONLY reason he didn't serve longer is because he is a celebrity. The next time you're out around town, take a look at a random black man, now imagine him convicted of the same crime that Mr. Vick committed and imagine what his prison sentence would look like. We're talking a minimum of 5 to 10 years. Like I said, America is already what I consider overzealous and unbounded in its enthusiasm for locking up black men for the term of their natural lives. I'm not sure that Mr. Vick should have to rejoin the 850,000 black men already in prison. (That's one in every nine.)

Cheers
Aj

[Mister Bent]

Bear with me, because I'm on cold meds and my brain isn't cooperating fully.

The OP was framed around Obama's endorsement of the notion that the Philadelphia Eagles gave an ex-con a "second chance" and that in some way perhaps Michael Vick has turned his life around.

Tangential dialog has revolved around whether or not Vick is repentant and whether redemption is possible. Because the issue involves dogs, it is one fraught with emotion, in addition to the political ramifications. I am passionate about dogs. I have worked in rescue, including the recent fostering of a pit bull terrier.

I agree with Organic, from a political standpoint, this is a sideshow meant to distract us. As far as whether Vick truly regrets what he did, outside of how it sidelined his life and career, how can we ever really know? I don't believe we can.

I also agree that he deserves a chance to work, to support his family, pay off his attorneys, but not in a job where men are so often elevated to hero status. Not many ex-cons get out of prison and make millions. Not many can afford to pay their outstanding legal fees. Not many could have afforded lawyers like Vick's.

These discussions about Vick always leave me thinking the same thing, which is that while Vick's crimes were heinous, the larger issue is the mentality - the psychopathy behind them. What people seem to not understand is that the kind of brutality Vick sanctioned and actively participated in is the thing of which we should be wary. He is more than a criminal, he is an abuser. I feel the same is true of the players Bulldog listed, including Ben Roethlisberger, quarterback of my beloved Steelers.

This type of behavior is rarely a one time incident. Whether culturally formed or otherwise, it speaks of a mind wired to accept brutal behavior as possible and perhaps even necessary. It's beyond simply the issue of animal cruelty to me.

I wish Obama hadn't said it, but he did, so fuck the politics. Vick didn't hold up a convenience store, he's not simply an ex-con. He engaged in systematic abuse, of which he took a hands on role. I simply do not hold to the belief that abusers change.

[Nat]

Maybe football is a sport where being an abuser is advantageous to the game.

Maybe subjecting yourself and your own body to injury and ritualized violence as a career - and for the entertainment of others - makes life seem cheap.

Reading about what he did - I tend to think he's wrong in the head. But maybe America is wrong in the head for deifying sports figures in the first place. Sacrificing your body for money is a strange trade - why is it glorious when a man does it?

[Sachita]

sorry typing one-handing lol

yes I agree with animals that work and treated properly.

and I also think you're right that he was punished and it should be enough, right? I agree with this but I am just exhausted at the media on this. I'm overly sensitive and had a knee jerk reaction. He did his time and we, even the president can move on. I have not done the research so forgive but I'd like to see Vick and Obama working together on setting a strong example. Now that would get a hell yeah from me but honestly I doubt I will ever be able to forgive him for what he allowed to happen to helpless animals. No ever.





I don't know about gambling and won't waste a lot of time on that subject. But as far as using animals as working animals--herding, etc.--yes I think that is absolutely acceptable. I own a sheepdog, it is clear that his instincts are to herd. Particularly with the animals that we have co-evolved with and that we have bred into their modern forms (dogs, cats, horses, chickens, etc.) we absolutely should continue with employing them in the ways we bred them to be employed. We, as a species, created the modern dog and most of our dogs would not, in point of fact, do well if humans disappeared. Dogs need humans at this point. Anyone who has lived with a dog knows that we have created a breed that wants to socialize with us and is sensitively tuned to human facial expressions and vocal subtleties.



How long of a prison sentence does he have to serve? He was *already* punished.



Sorry, I just can't sign on to the idea that yet ANOTHER black man should spend the rest of his natural days behind bars or be utterly unable to make any kind of living because he ran afoul of the law. We do that quite enough already, how many black men have to be locked up for very large parts of their lives before America is satisfied that it has done enough? He did 23 months in prison--not some county lock up but *prison*. How long does he have to serve? Let's also keep in mind that the ONLY reason he didn't serve longer is because he is a celebrity. The next time you're out around town, take a look at a random black man, now imagine him convicted of the same crime that Mr. Vick committed and imagine what his prison sentence would look like. We're talking a minimum of 5 to 10 years. Like I said, America is already what I consider overzealous and unbounded in its enthusiasm for locking up black men for the term of their natural lives. I'm not sure that Mr. Vick should have to rejoin the 850,000 black men already in prison. (That's one in every nine.)

Cheers
Aj

[Corkey]

While I have no use for Vick and am NOT a fan of his, what the President did, I wish he would do for perhaps the woman (generic) who lost her job and has kids to take care of, a mortgage and is in debit up to her arm pits. Vick has celebrity, the woman doesn't. It is PR pure and simple and I'm not falling for it. I see that he is trying to prop up a young man and give him a new start, but the woman, where is her new start.

[julieisafemme]

Here is an update on some of the dogs from Vicks property who were lucky enough to end up at Best Friends.

http://www.bestfriends.org/vickdogs/

Obama still has my vote. I don't though understand what would drive him to use this case to highlight the issues ex-cons face when coming out of prison.

[SnackTime]

I board dogs. Most of you know this and on one of my forms is a release for emergency treatment. Some people put 1500.00 others 100.00. There is no amount of money when it comes to my dogs. I can't support breeding and have lots of friends who spend thousands of dollars on dogs when there are so many homeless animals. I'm not passing judgement just proving that we all have a different mindset, HOWEVER in the case of Mr. Vick it was clearly abuse no matter how you slice that pie.

Now this makes me think of a very good vegan friend who wants to breed race horses. She doesnt eat animals because morally thinks its cruel. This rattled the fuck out of me. I asked her if she ever did any research on animal abuse in horse breed/racing. Also why she felt it was ok to train an animal for a sport that supports an even bigger problem "gambling". People should be allowed to do what they want but is it ok to allow an animal to be used in a sport for gambling? Is it ok to train a work animal to be a service dog or herd animals? These are all clearly questions someone needs to ask and rather then choosing an answer that suits your agenda people should be more conscious when it comes to animals. Once my friend did her research she was floored. She had no idea but honestly she turned a blind eye, saw what suited her interest and not in the best interest of the whole picture involving horses.

The passion i'm displaying right now is not about Obama. Medusa is right... he;s the first one that actually did anything and it wasn't all lipservice. He walked into a major mess and still actually did something. I admit I was skeptical. BUT as someone else put- I want to see a democrat in office no matter what. My agenda here right now is fueled by yet another Michael Vick media show and that enough is enough. He should be punished. Laws should be tightened in the case of animal rights. Plain and simple. instead homeowners are having insurance canceled or must get rid of a beloved pet. Dog boarding facilities (not mine) won't take pit bulls or the insurance to take them or any aggressive breed is too high. So let's have another dose of this M.Vick media parade.

don't forgive him. put all these mother fuckers in jail. lol seriously. maybe then it will stop

In my honest opinion, training a work animal to be a service animal or herder is not even close to be on the same level as what is being talked about in this thread. I have an Australian shepherd and it is in her nature to herd anything and everything (ask anyone that has ever met her...LOL).

I know there are at least a few counties here in Tennessee that have banned the pit bull breed. A few weeks ago, one of my friends told me that her son had to get rid of a pit bull (he found or it was given to him) because their homeowner's insurance.

[katsarecool]

Not much left to be said about this story as it pretty well has been covered here. As much as I love animals I am sticking to my support of our President and will be voting for him again in 2012!

[MsDemeanor]

in this mI don't feel that it is appropriate for any President to single out any player in this manner during that player's season and in the middle of an MVP race. Call and meet teams when they win a championship or break a record (go UConn Women!!) or individual athletes after they win a medal - yep, that's part of the fun part of a President's job. Shoot hoops with whatever ego-inflated overpaid basketball he likes in the off season - fine, whatever, pardon my eye roll. Single out one player like that in the middle of the season and in the middle of MVP voting - wrong.

Comparing a wealthy black man's reduced sentence and instant hire in to a wealthy profession to what any non-famous black man would have suffered in the same situation ("level playing field" my ass) - clueless.

[suebee]

So far in this thread we've talked about rehabilitation, redemption, the inordinate number of black men that go to prison - and serve more time in prison than a white man would, whether or not some of us would vote for Obama after having taken the actions he did in regard to Vick, whether or not it was appropriate that he do this before the season is over, whether or not the matter concerning the President is a deliberate distraction from other political issues..... ALL valid issues.

Here's what I think about when I hear the name Michael Vick:
quote:

Dogs that didn't fight well were beaten, drowned, shot and even electrocuted by Vick and his associates, according to court records.

Thought it's nearly impossible to know the extent of the emotional and physical abuse these dogs endured, in some cases it's apparent.

One dog, Georgia, had all 42 of her teeth pulled. Caregivers believe it was to prevent her from attacking male dogs during forced breeding.

"We don't know who did it. We assume it's because she was such a valuable breeding dog," McMillian said. "Very often females will not accept males in breeding and will attack."
end quote

I'll add that a dog that has it's teeth pulled or ground down is often a bait dog. That's not a sparring partner. That's a bait dog. Believe me, this description doesn't even BEGIN to describe what happened to these poor animals.

Pit bulls are lovely creatures. Yet many municipalities have banned them. At a great many shelters pitties are euthanized simply for being pitties. Why? Because the dog fighting industry has tainted the reputation of the breed to the extent that it's considered poisonous to insurance companies, landlords, peace officers, and many "shelters".

That's what I think of when I think of Michael Vick. According to the justice system he's paid for his crime. He's served time in prison, and made certain amends. I've already said that I haven't seen him say anything that indicates to me that he has stepped out of the culture that he was immersed in and had an epiphone: "no creature deserves to be abused". I just haven't seen that. I'm not in the man's head, but if he's making public statements to rehabilitate his image, well you'd think that a new-found appreciation for the intrinsic rights of other creatures would be FRONT AND CENTRE, if indeed it were there.

If this were a child abuser I doubt he would have so easily slipped back into the role of hero. WE - our SOCIETY, has created the problem of over-population of companion animals. We therefore have the responsibility to take care of these animals. That includes - IMHO - not so easily forgetting the suffering and death that this man is responsible for. And CERTAINLY so easily handing him back the magic wand that makes him a rich privileged hero of the professional sports world.

Sue

[Waldo]

Aj,

(forgive me my soapbox, this may have been best as a completely new thread)

It is so very rare that I find myself in near complete disagreement with you, but I have to say that I find this argument of yours weak. Painfully so.

The burning building argument is so far to the extreme that it annoys me it was pulled out in this discussion, and worse yet that it's now being perpetuated. Yes, in an extreme circumstance I'll help my fellow humans, but I would also do everything in my power to save *every living thing* in such a case.

Yes, there is a hierarchy, and based on Genesis 1:26 "Man has dominion over the inferior creatures". What's not clear is if dominion means that we're free to eat and force into labor at our hands or if we bear a higher responsibility to care for them. In various translations it's stated as "rule the" or "rule over"... but is that in the way a Sovereign would rule a Kingdom? Does that give the Sovereign the right to enslave it's people and put them to death? If they have that right, is it ok just because it's the way it's always been done?

No, we've never lived wholly at peace with animals, it's only been in the last 30 years that we've breed, excuse me, produced animals in the way that we are now and in the numbers that we do now - specifically for slaughter.

Only now do we pump them so full of growth hormones to get them to mature faster to elevate profits. So fast do broiler chickens grow now that they often cannot support their own weight. (http://www.idausa.org/facts/factoryfarmfacts.html)

Only now do we pump their feed full of antibiotics in an effort to "minimize loss", that we're seeing 80% of US antibiotic usage (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/news-update-farm-animals-get-80-of-antibiotics-sold-in-us/) on animals. The long term human health effects of which have long been a concern for doctors. (http://www.organicconsumers.org/Toxic/animalfeed.cfm)

So cramped are their cages that they cannot turn around or stretch their wings. In many cases their beaks are cut and cauterized so they don't peck other chickens to death out of boredom and frustration. (http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/factoryfarming/eggs/)

Now, due to specialization between broilers and layers... all male chicks born as layers are "disposed of" because they are economically worthless (http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/18348/welfare-of-male-layer-chicks-hits-headlines).

And that's just what happens to chickens. I could go on about pigs and cows and turkeys, not to mention sheep and other farmed animals.

All in, according to a UN study in 2006 (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772&CR1=warning) it was found that Factory Farming/Animal Agriculture contributes more to global warming than driving. As a matter of fact 296 times the Global Warming Potential of CO2. Factory Farming is also a major cause of land and water degradation.

And why is this all the case? We, particularly those of us in the US, consume more meat than ever. Meat, once a luxury item at the market, is now common place. Meat prices have not kept pace with inflation and demand has skyrocketed. Our appetite for fast food burgers, chicken and pork is out of control and factory farming has risen to the challenge of meeting this every increasing desire.

With practices that any rational human being can agree are inhumane, this nation turns a blind eye to the suffering animals endure in order to "feed the world". But it's not just feeding humans that causes such suffering.

Clothing and other products rely heavily on animal products. Leather is everywhere. If you are not already Vegan, I dare you to consider your closet or your home and think of just how many products you use each day which are animal based. It's staggering.

YouTube - Earthlings 5 of 9 (dolphins, clothing industry, india cows, leather, fur farms) (warning: Graphic. May be unsuitable for some viewers, Forward to 3:35 for information about the Indian Leather Trade). Hindus revere cows. Yet poor Indian families are routinely lied to in order to buy their cows. Those cows are then transported to an area where they can legally be slaughtered. Their handling during this transport is nothing short of nightmarish.

I could go on, but I just wanted to point out the vast difference between a rock falling to earth destroying half of all life and the systematic cruelty which we, humans, subject the animal life we've been entrusted with. We have control over one - not the other. It reads, to me, as an astonishing amount of arrogance to suggest otherwise.

Just because we've been at something for eons, surely you're not arguing we should continue a practice? I don't think I need to go into the parallels between sexism, racism, DADT, slavery, a woman's right to vote, marriage freedom and so on and the eating of animals, do I?

Many vegans and vegetarians believe that if we had to kill the animals we eat, we'd all be vegetarians. I don't believe that for a minute, but I do believe our ranks would swell. I know if I'd been forced to do so I would have become vegan as a child. Having become vegan at 40 I feel guilty for the years where I lived disconnected from my compassion for companion animals and the systemic cruelty suffered by food and service animals.

In closing, I encourage anyone who has interest in learning more about these issues to watch, in it's entirety, the documentary film, Earthlings. It is available on YouTube, in multiple parts. YouTube - Earthlings 1 of 9 (CC Subtitled). It is also available (in it's entirety) on Netflix.

Actually, as a matter of reality, we DO have a hierarchy whether we like it or not. Like June, if my house caught fire and I could ONLY save either my granddaughter or my dog, I would save my granddaughter. Anyone who says otherwise is almost certainly lying and if they aren't, then they may need a reset of their moral compass. If it were a question of my family starving or eating the neighbor's chickens (with his permission, of course, otherwise it would be theft) then I feel like chicken tonight! Am I valuing the life of my granddaughter over that of my dog? Yes. Does that mean I don't *really* love my dog? no.

As far as 'what that has done to our planet', you mean what has been done that hasn't been topped by, say, very large rocks periodically striking the planet at several multiples of the speed of sound? Are we doing damage? Yes. Should we stop? Yes. But are we really on course to do worse than, say, the K-T extinction where a rock the size of Manhattan struck the Earth at around 30K mph and killed off half of all sea life and about 70% of all land life? No. That doesn’t mean that we should be sanguine about the extinction of tigers (and it is, at this point, almost certainly a fait accompli that tigers are going extinct) but it does mean that some perspective is in order. Human beings have been hunting, killing and eating animals since before we were Homo sapiens. We've been at it since *at least* the time of Australopithecus. Those canines you have in your mouth aren't there for decoration and they aren't vestigial like the wisdom teeth. In fact, our transition away from a plant-based diet to a mixed plant-meat based diet is written all over our bodies. Wisdom teeth used to be useful when we ate more plants, they were a third set of molars for grinding up plant material. Our brain size is ENTIRELY explained by meat-eating (your brain is very energy hungry and the only diet that would support the explosion of our brain size in the ancestral environment was a protein-heavy (therefore meat-based) one). Our eye-hand coordination was adaptive for hunting.

We are, whether we like it or not, apex predators. Again, that doesn't mean that animal cruelty is acceptable but it *does* mean that this idea that we have, at any point in our evolutionary history, lived in peace and harmony with other animals is a fallacy. The last time anything in our evolutionary ancestry remotely lived a life resembling that myth was when we were prey animals and the last time THAT circumstance obtained was more than 15 million years ago. This idea that we are the only animals that do violence for anything other than sustenance is also not true. Again, NONE of this is a defense of Mr. Vick or an argument in favor of animal cruelty. It is simply to say that somehow, we are supposed to be something more than the large-brained primate that we are is to argue for a fantasy and an inconsistent one at that. If you argue that we should know better than other animals then you are elevating us above the rest of the animal kingdom. If you argue that other animals aren't cruel or are only violent in pursuit of food you are falling into the Disney-fication of Nature (chimps, just to name one species amongst many, fight and kill over territory, mates, and because of rivalry and they do it in coalitions just like we do).

The truth is, suebee, that chances are you value the life of any random human being more than you value the life of any random species of rodent. That doesn't mean that one cares nothing at all for rodents (or any other phyla) but it does mean that, truth be told, if you could only save the life of a baby or a cat and you HAD to choose because the house is burning down, you'd pick the child. That isn't license for animal cruelty but it is a recognition of the reality of our moral instincts (and our morals, despite religious claims to the contrary, are instincts).

[SnackTime]

Pit bulls are lovely creatures. Yet many municipalities have banned them. At a great many shelters pitties are euthanized simply for being pitties. Why? Because the dog fighting industry has tainted the reputation of the breed to the extent that it's considered poisonous to insurance companies, landlords, peace officers, and many "shelters".

Sue

I disagree with a lot of your post but this paragraph stuck in my head. I do not believe that the breed has gotten a bad rap because of the dog fighting industry. I have seen several reports on the news where the family pet (pit bull) attacked a family member and the animal had to be put down. I have been seeing these reports long before the dog fighting rings were being talked about in the media.

I know a lady whose granddaughter had to have 26 surgeries because the family pet attacked her (her and the dog grew up together). The doctors told them that if the dogs jaws would have been locked on the child for a minute longer she would not have survived.

[Mister Bent]

I disagree with a lot of your post but this paragraph stuck in my head. I do not believe that the breed has gotten a bad rap because of the dog fighting industry. I have seen several reports on the news where the family pet (pit bull) attacked a family member and the animal had to be put down. I have been seeing these reports long before the dog fighting rings were being talked about in the media.

I know a lady whose granddaughter had to have 26 surgeries because the family pet attacked her (her and the dog grew up together). The doctors told them that if the dogs jaws would have been locked on the child for a minute longer she would not have survived.

I was waiting for something like this. This is precisely the sort of prejudiced, ill-informed comment that perpetuates ignorant stereotypes and promotes mass hysteria. There are also numerous stories of how these loyal and brave dogs have saved lives and prevented harm.

Bite stories and statistics rarely report whether a bite or "attack" was provoked or not. Any dog can bite, obviously a larger dog's bite is going to do more damage, and so more caution needs to be - but often enough is not - exercised. I know more people who have been bitten, and rather ferociously, by small dogs (talk to vet techs and groomers and ask them which dogs are most likely to bite them). There is nothing in the breeding of a pit bull type dog that will give it a greater to propensity to "random" attacks/bites. They are a terrier breed, though, and tenacity is a breed characteristic. They are also extremely strong, as are rottweilers, dobermans, German shepherds and a multitude of other breeds, from whom even an accidental bite can be very damaging. Dog attacks occur as a result of negligent dog owners who ignore warning signs, don't train their pets, don't socialize them, or even abuse them. A majority of dog attacks are completely preventable.

Unfortunately, a lot of these dogs are also victims of abuse, such as the Bad Newz Kennel dogs, or from other rescue situations. The enormous popularity of pit bull type dogs has led to a large number of them ending up in shelter situations, which creates a plethora of difficulties for any dog, which few people are really equipped to deal with.

Bull and terrier types (American Staffordshires, English Bull Terrriers, etc) are unique dogs with a distinct breeding history, which does NOT include aggression toward humans. That part, sadly, is solely the province of irresponsible and ignorant humans.

Some people shouldn't own pit bulls, just as some people can't drive muscle, or other high performance cars. It's the same way with horses, pick a breed and individual suited to you.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Sigh

I love a thick steak, rare.

Abuse is abuse, I hope I really do he learned his lesson. If Vick was not a commodity to the team or owners he'd be another one of our black men in jail, pfft we wouldn't even know who Vick was if that was the case.

[suebee]

I disagree with a lot of your post but this paragraph stuck in my head. I do not believe that the breed has gotten a bad rap because of the dog fighting industry. I have seen several reports on the news where the family pet (pit bull) attacked a family member and the animal had to be put down. I have been seeing these reports long before the dog fighting rings were being talked about in the media.

I know a lady whose granddaughter had to have 26 surgeries because the family pet attacked her (her and the dog grew up together). The doctors told them that if the dogs jaws would have been locked on the child for a minute longer she would not have survived.

I see Mr. Bent has addressed the pit bull issue. So I'll just say that pit bull or poodle - NONE of those animals deserved to be abused, tortured and (some) killed! I don't see how this is even disputable. Perhaps that's why the breed is being put into question. I don't think those dogs cared what breed they were when they were suffering at the hands of those idiots.

[Corkey]

The only time I've ever been bit was by a Scottie, the poor thing was in his death throes, but still. I have been around pitties for a long time, various partners and landlords, not once have I ever even had the thought that a pitt would become aggressive with me or anyone I was with.
It isn't the breed, it's the incompetent, ignorant owner.
ALL dogs can bite, all humans should be aware of their own behavior.

[dixie]

As for what Vick did, yes, I think it was totally heinous and can only hope that he truly is reformed (even if I personally don't think he is). As for Obama, I see nothing wrong with what he did and do not feel that it should bias election opinions solely based on this act. Everyone's using examples so I'll throw in my own. Would we be having this conversation if Obama was showing support to another "reformed" person? For example, if he went into an inner city youth program being ran by a former gang member who is now "reformed" and showed his support would there be an issue? Or perhaps to an ex-prostitute who is now helping get others off the street? To me, it's all the same in my mind. If someone truly is "reformed" and goes back to being a normal citizen and even a productive member of the community, should we NOT support them? And no, this is not just a defense for Vick because I could care less one way or the other for the man, and do think his penalties should have been more severe to begin with (especially since I am a hardcore animal lover). But also, I think other athletes and celebrities should have to face the same consequences for their crimes as "civilian" citizens. They get off far too easily in most cases, but that's another rant all together...

As for the animals, I agree with Bent. I grew up in an area where dog and cock fighting were rampant, and still goes on today. I had an in-law who raised fighting pits. I have seen those fighting animals as completely aggressive towards other animals yet gentle with humans, so there goes most folks preconceived notions about that. (And no, I do NOT condone ANY animal cruelty in any form, and was very happy when this person's ring got shut down.) I myself have had these animals for pets, and know from experience that it is not necessarily a "genetic" trait or preconceived behavioral pattern for these animals. Did you know that in the 40s and 50s pitbulls were the number 1 family dog in America? Did you know that you have a higher chance of being attacked by a German Shepherd or Dalmation than you do of a pit? Or that aggression issues are more prevelant in smaller breeds? Up until a few years ago, the cocker spaniel was the number one most aggressive dog in breed studies and pits didn't even make that list. It has become highly sensationalized and "popluar" to blame/shame pits after the major publicizing of dog fighting ring crackdowns in the last 10 or so years. It does not matter if you raise a pit or a poodle or a chihuahua from birth, or whether you have known bloodlines. ANY animal has the capacity and capability to attack or become vicious. Unfortunately for pits, they seem to be the only ones that ever make headlines...

[dixie]

I disagree with a lot of your post but this paragraph stuck in my head. I do not believe that the breed has gotten a bad rap because of the dog fighting industry. I have seen several reports on the news where the family pet (pit bull) attacked a family member and the animal had to be put down. I have been seeing these reports long before the dog fighting rings were being talked about in the media.

I know a lady whose granddaughter had to have 26 surgeries because the family pet attacked her (her and the dog grew up together). The doctors told them that if the dogs jaws would have been locked on the child for a minute longer she would not have survived.

My best friend since kindergarten had her face completely ripped off, along with the fingers on one hand. She had to have multiple reconstructive surgeries. Was it a pitbull? Nope. It was a schnauzer. PUBLICITY means everything. If folks only realized how many serious and fatal dog attacks were NOT committed by pits, they would probably think twice about the kind of pets they owned...

[Waldo]

I disagree with a lot of your post but this paragraph stuck in my head. I do not believe that the breed has gotten a bad rap because of the dog fighting industry. I have seen several reports on the news where the family pet (pit bull) attacked a family member and the animal had to be put down. I have been seeing these reports long before the dog fighting rings were being talked about in the media.

I know a lady whose granddaughter had to have 26 surgeries because the family pet attacked her (her and the dog grew up together). The doctors told them that if the dogs jaws would have been locked on the child for a minute longer she would not have survived.

And in report after report dogs are mistakenly labeled pit bulls.

Can you find the pitbull (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html)?

In 2008 pitbulls ranked 8th overall for aggressive behavior (http://indigorescue.org/?page_id=83), and that includes lumping all pits together (there are three distinct "flavors" of pitbull type dogs). Dachshunds ranked first at 1 out of 5 observed dogs trying to bite a human. That's 20%. Pitbulls ranked 7%. Pitbulls and Akitas, which both have "bad boy" reputations ranked high due to their observed aggression toward other dogs, not for aggression toward humans.

Further, it's noted in the study that larger breed dog bites are likely over represented in dog bite statistics because bites from larger dogs are more likely to cause bite victims to seek medical attention and therefore report the bite incident.

Now, damage done by a large dog, particularly one with the physical stature of a Pit or a Rottie, is another thing altogether. The likelihood of a fatal attack coming from a small breed dog is very slim so when one hears of a particularly vicious dog bite/attack it's usually from a large breed such as a Pit or a Rottie. And that propagates the notion that most bites stem from such dogs.

It's really important to understand the difference.

And finally, even with Breed Specific Legislation in locations such as Denver, which bans all Pit Bulls - and put to death hundreds of the dogs, dog bite statistics declined in accordance with dog bite statistics in other cities without BSL. See here for a discussion on the effects of Denver's BSL versus a city such as Oregon, which instituted a "Potentially Dangerous Dog Ordinance" instead. Which do you think has had a dog attack fatality since introducing their legislation?

Pit Bulls are NOT the problem. Irresponsible owners are the problem.

[dixie]

And in report after report dogs are mistakenly labeled pit bulls.

Can you find the pitbull (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html)?



I bet it really throws folks off to know the cutest little cuddly looking dog on that list is the pit... Most who haven't had experience with them would asume they were one of the more "vicious" looking breeds on there. Sad :(

[pajama]

And in report after report dogs are mistakenly labeled pit bulls.

Can you find the pitbull (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html)?



Dang. Took me three guesses to find it. Most of y'all have done a fine job of defending the breed and explaining what/why/how a 'vicious' dog is created. So I won't add to that.

[SnackTime]

I see Mr. Bent has addressed the pit bull issue. So I'll just say that pit bull or poodle - NONE of those animals deserved to be abused, tortured and (some) killed! I don't see how this is even disputable. Perhaps that's why the breed is being put into question. I don't think those dogs cared what breed they were when they were suffering at the hands of those idiots.


I never stated in my post that any animal deserves to be abused or tortured.

[betenoire]

I think that dogs, in general, have an undeserved poor reputation. I have grown up with dogs. All my life until I moved out of my parents house I have lived with at least 2 dogs at all times. Rotties, Dobermans, German Shepherds, Dalmations, Labs, and even a Pitbull. My parents like their dogs big, so do I.

I have never been bitten by a dog.

Now, ask me how many times I've had to go to the hospital because I was attacked by a cat.

[Waldo]

I think that dogs, in general, have an undeserved poor reputation. I have grown up with dogs. All my life until I moved out of my parents house I have lived with at least 2 dogs at all times. Rotties, Dobermans, German Shepherds, Dalmations, Labs, and even a Pitbull. My parents like their dogs big, so do I.

I have never been bitten by a dog.

Now, ask me how many times I've had to go to the hospital because I was attacked by a cat.

What the hell are you doing to those cats??

[betenoire]

What the hell are you doing to those cats??

I take in strays.

[suebee]

I see Mr. Bent has addressed the pit bull issue. So I'll just say that pit bull or poodle - NONE of those animals deserved to be abused, tortured and (some) killed! I don't see how this is even disputable. Perhaps that's why the breed is being put into question. I don't think those dogs cared what breed they were when they were suffering at the hands of those idiots.

I never stated in my post that any animal deserves to be abused or tortured.



To clarify: I said Mr. Bent had addressed the pit bull issue. I simply continuted with the conversation.

[nycfem]

Mo'Kelly's take via Huffington:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/morris-w-okelly/mr-president-youre-wrong-_b_801965.html

[Sachita]

In my honest opinion, training a work animal to be a service animal or herder is not even close to be on the same level as what is being talked about in this thread. I have an Australian shepherd and it is in her nature to herd anything and everything (ask anyone that has ever met her...LOL).

I know there are at least a few counties here in Tennessee that have banned the pit bull breed. A few weeks ago, one of my friends told me that her son had to get rid of a pit bull (he found or it was given to him) because their homeowner's insurance.

I think animals and human working together is a beautiful thing IF its humane, makes the animal happy and safe. I have no problem with this.

[Sachita]

The biggest problem with pits and dogs like rotties is the power of their jaw. Any dog can turn aggressive. Some breeds, like pits are just more capable of killing quickly and thats what makes this a dangerous breed. My rottie Bear (RIP) was the most gentle animal I ever met and 120 pounds but there was no doubt in my mind he could kill a human within seconds. Could a lab do this? Probably not. I've broken up dog fights before and I've been bitten by dogs (as well as many other animals). I would not, under any circumstances break up a fight with a pit, rottie, etc. I would scream like a crazy person, pick up objects and throw it.

another thing and you can disagree as much as you want- I would never leave a jaw strong breed or any dog for that matter alone with a child. I've seen the most calm breeds become scared and turn into monsters.

I board pits and most all dogs. I am more cautious and supervise them around other dogs because I know what they are capable of. This doesnt mean a human has the right to abuse them in any way

[The_Lady_Snow]

The dog is not the problem, it's the treatment they received from their caretakers be it past, now or future.

[JustJo]

The biggest problem with pits and dogs like rotties is the power of their jaw. Any dog can turn aggressive. Some breeds, like pits are just more capable of killing quickly and thats what makes this a dangerous breed. My rottie Bear (RIP) was the most gentle animal I ever met and 120 pounds but there was no doubt in my mind he could kill a human within seconds. Could a lab do this? Probably not. I've broken up dog fights before and I've been bitten by dogs (as well as many other animals). I would not, under any circumstances break up a fight with a pit, rottie, etc. I would scream like a crazy person, pick up objects and throw it.

another thing and you can disagree as much as you want- I would never leave a jaw strong breed or any dog for that matter alone with a child. I've seen the most calm breeds become scared and turn into monsters.

I board pits and most all dogs. I am more cautious and supervise them around other dogs because I know what they are capable of. This doesnt mean a human has the right to abuse them in any way

I think this is a critical point, and one reason why people that don't know, understand and handle dogs properly shouldn't (I think) own these breeds. We have a mini-dacshund and, as someone previously pointed out, they are a biting breed. Ours doesn't, but I've met many that do. The difference is that a doxie really can't do much harm given their size and strength. Worst case scenario might require a stitch or two....and they can be absolutely restrained easily even by a sensible child.

I've known wonderful pits, rotties and dobermans...but I wouldn't own one. Not because there's anything wrong with the breed, but because I know myself - and I don't have the dedication that it takes to train and handle these breeds properly.

It's a shame that these breeds seem to attract, in many cases, the absolute last people who should own them.

[Medusa]

Did anyone see the article this morning with that Tucker idiot saying that Michael Vick should have gotten the death penalty?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/29/tucker-carlson-michael-vi_n_802192.html

Does anyone see the mental illness in that?

[Julie]

Did anyone see the article this morning with that Tucker idiot saying that Michael Vick should have gotten the death penalty?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/29/tucker-carlson-michael-vi_n_802192.html

Does anyone see the mental illness in that?

Tucker is an idiot... I remember when this all hit the news. My initial response to him and what he did...

Kill the FUCKER! Throw him to the most brutal inmates - strip him down and let them at him. But do it slow and be calculating about it.

Emotional response!

I am more offended he referred to himself as a Christian - as if he is a Supreme being. I am a Christian (yeah so) and I have made mistakes (yeah so).

Do I think he should have been executed? No, because I do not believe in the death penalty. However... What he did is unforgivable. I have no tolerance for those who pray on the weak. Be it animals, children, women, elderly. I have no tolerance and cannot think beyond my emotional self, which is why I try to stay out of these conversation! This replaces every single logical cell in my body.

[Ebon]

Did anyone see the article this morning with that Tucker idiot saying that Michael Vick should have gotten the death penalty?

[URL]

Does anyone see the mental illness in that?

doesn't surprise me it's Fox News. There should be a law against them being allowed to call themselves news. Anytime a news caster adds their own personal opinion to the news it becomes their own personal opinion. MSNBC does the same thing but for liberals.

[Sachita]

have the dedication that it takes to train and handle these breeds properly.

It's a shame that these breeds seem to attract, in many cases, the absolute last people who should own them.

bingo. that is the essence of it right there. I have a customer that has a Great Pyrenees she keeps as an indoor dog. This dog should be outside, up all night barking and protecting his home. Nothing would make this dog happier. When he comes I let him bark all night and sleep on the deck. (he has a dog door to come in but prefers outdoors)

People dont research breeds before taking them into their homes. This is so important. You should not take in large breeds unless you know you're able to handle them and feed them. Just MY animals- dogs and pig (pig eats same dog food) I spend at least 150-200 a month. Also, check because some breeds are more prone to medical conditions and vet care is something you need to consider when taking any pet.

I have an awesome pit posted on my facebook right now needing a home. He's an awesome dog for a one on one owner he can feel safe and bond with. He would not be good with other dogs, cats or children because he was abused- kicked, left to starve and neglected. The lady that has him now says he fights to be near her because she probably is the only person in his life that has ever shown him any affection. He's an awesome dog for the right person. It makes me cry.

I've seen so much abuse and crap these past few years. Its probably the industry I'm in and my work in adoptions. I think its great to be concerned, love animals and definitely talk about it but its awesome when you are proactive and helping to find solutions. It doesnt have to cost a lot of money or even time. just a consistent plan and commitment.

As I type this I wait for a quote on programming to build that foster pet connection site I keep talking about. Its going to help so many people and animals. I hope you'll all support me.

[Sachita]

Tucker is an idiot... I remember when this all hit the news. My initial response to him and what he did...

Kill the FUCKER! Throw him to the most brutal inmates - strip him down and let them at him. But do it slow and be calculating about it.

Emotional response!

I am more offended he referred to himself as a Christian - as if he is a Supreme being. I am a Christian (yeah so) and I have made mistakes (yeah so).

Do I think he should have been executed? No, because I do not believe in the death penalty. However... What he did is unforgivable. I have no tolerance for those who pray on the weak. Be it animals, children, women, elderly. I have no tolerance and cannot think beyond my emotional self, which is why I try to stay out of these conversation! This replaces every single logical cell in my body.




lol - oh girl you sound like me now!

[Sachita]

doesn't surprise me it's Fox News. There should be a law against them being allowed to call themselves news. Anytime a news caster adds their own personal opinion to the news it becomes their own personal opinion. MSNBC does the same thing but for liberals.

fuck the news. I mean really. Oh wait you mean the venue that feeds our mind a bunch of bullshit to condition and herd the human race? lol Oh hell thats a major derail! lol But I totally agree with you Organic.

I'm going back to work!

[Waldo]

doesn't surprise me it's Fox News. There should be a law against them being allowed to call themselves news. Anytime a news caster adds their own personal opinion to the news it becomes their own personal opinion. MSNBC does the same thing but for liberals.

Actually, that's the difference between a news caster and a news analyst. Neither Fox, nor MSNBC are known for their newscasters. I can't name a single newscaster from either network. But they both have a plethora of news analysts. And those analysts are paid for their opinion and to apply it to what is making news that day.

[dreadgeek]

Did anyone see the article this morning with that Tucker idiot saying that Michael Vick should have gotten the death penalty?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/29/tucker-carlson-michael-vi_n_802192.html

Does anyone see the mental illness in that?

A conservative white guy calling for the death of a black man over a breach of the law? Say it ain't so, Medusa! Say it ain't so!

Cheers
Aj

[suebee]

Interesting article on the legal considerations of Michael Vick's ban on owning animals. CLICK HERE (http://ourcompass.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/michael-vick-banned-from-dog-ownership-ask-an-attorney/)

In regards to the severity of Vick's crimes, I found the following part of the article to be particularily interesting:
"The ongoing nature of his conduct remains serious cause for concern and understandably contributes to the enduring distrust of his repeated public assertions of remorse and reformation. Some additional yet basic risk factors one should consider in assessing Mr. Vick’s case and the continuing threat convicted abusers present to society include:

1.The vulnerability of his victims;
2.The large number of his victims;
3.The number of victimizing incidents;
4.The severity of the injury and methods used to kill;
5.The duration of the abuse;
6.The degree of pre-planning or premeditation;
7.The existence of other criminal conduct at the scene of the animal abuse (e.g., drugs, gun law violations, gambling);
8.The fact that this offender served as an instigator of criminal acts involving multiple other perpetrators; and
9.The offender’s history of positive interactions with the victim animal(s) prior to the abuse.
In light of these factors, it is difficult to discern how Mr. Vick’s supporters could reasonably believe that he should be allowed to exercise control over another dog. The Animal Legal Defense Fund strongly disagrees with that view and recommends the longest possible ban on ownership be maintained. Whether his supporters are truly concerned about animal welfare or just too invested in Mr. Vick’s “comeback” to give a damn about the fate of the next dog who comes under Mr. Vick’s control—you will have to decide for yourself."

[dreadgeek]

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that Mr. Vick be allowed to own another dog. I just don't think that he should spend the rest of his life in jail, be completely unemployable or, as Mr. Carlson suggested on TV, be executed. That is a far cry from suggesting that the man should own pets.

While I know that some here might think I'm being hyperbolic about the employment, I am willing to bet that if Mr. Vick were banned from playing in the NFL for life and got a job coaching at, say, a high school the same people here who want to see him continually punished would then say "how can he be allowed to teach at a high school?!" If he got a job as a street sweeper, a hue and cry would be raised. Once you've decided that someone should pay and pay and pay there is very little that will be granted to that person in the future. If the best Mr. Vick could do was working the grill at McDonald's there would be people who would say that they would NEVER AGAIN patronize a McDonald's because of his employment there.

Cheers
Aj


Interesting article on the legal considerations of Michael Vick's ban on owning animals. CLICK HERE (http://ourcompass.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/michael-vick-banned-from-dog-ownership-ask-an-attorney/)

In regards to the severity of Vick's crimes, I found the following part of the article to be particularily interesting:
"The ongoing nature of his conduct remains serious cause for concern and understandably contributes to the enduring distrust of his repeated public assertions of remorse and reformation. Some additional yet basic risk factors one should consider in assessing Mr. Vick’s case and the continuing threat convicted abusers present to society include:

1.The vulnerability of his victims;
2.The large number of his victims;
3.The number of victimizing incidents;
4.The severity of the injury and methods used to kill;
5.The duration of the abuse;
6.The degree of pre-planning or premeditation;
7.The existence of other criminal conduct at the scene of the animal abuse (e.g., drugs, gun law violations, gambling);
8.The fact that this offender served as an instigator of criminal acts involving multiple other perpetrators; and
9.The offender’s history of positive interactions with the victim animal(s) prior to the abuse.
In light of these factors, it is difficult to discern how Mr. Vick’s supporters could reasonably believe that he should be allowed to exercise control over another dog. The Animal Legal Defense Fund strongly disagrees with that view and recommends the longest possible ban on ownership be maintained. Whether his supporters are truly concerned about animal welfare or just too invested in Mr. Vick’s “comeback” to give a damn about the fate of the next dog who comes under Mr. Vick’s control—you will have to decide for yourself."

[suebee]

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that Mr. Vick be allowed to own another dog. I just don't think that he should spend the rest of his life in jail, be completely unemployable or, as Mr. Carlson suggested on TV, be executed. That is a far cry from suggesting that the man should own pets.

While I know that some here might think I'm being hyperbolic about the employment, I am willing to bet that if Mr. Vick were banned from playing in the NFL for life and got a job coaching at, say, a high school the same people here who want to see him continually punished would then say "how can he be allowed to teach at a high school?!" If he got a job as a street sweeper, a hue and cry would be raised. Once you've decided that someone should pay and pay and pay there is very little that will be granted to that person in the future. If the best Mr. Vick could do was working the grill at McDonald's there would be people who would say that they would NEVER AGAIN patronize a McDonald's because of his employment there.

Cheers
Aj

I haven't seen anybody here propose that either. But believe it or not, (and I hope I've got the right organization here - I'll come back and correct myself if I find out otherwise) the ASPCA has spoken up as feeling that Vick is ready to own another dog. Obviously this greatly upsets many in the rescue community.

As for employment: the man CERTAINLY has a right to provide for himself and his family. Should social stigma follow him and perhaps prevent him from working in some jobs? It depends upon your personal values. The severity of his crimes were the reason why I posted the article. I abhor people who buy a dog and then tie it out in the back yard and throw food at it once a day. But THAT is negligence, and ignorance. Michael Vick tortured and killed HUNDREDS of dogs. He knew full well that it was illegal. He hid his crimes. In my world that makes him a dispicable human being. He has the right to gainful employment, but I wouldn't hire him, nor would I support any business that did. That's freedom of expression.

ETA: Obviously there are many people who ARE ready to support him, or at least forget about his crimes, as I haven't heard anything about the Eagles stands being empty for their games.

[BullDog]

Why don't people get all up in arms when football players physically and sexually abuse women? I've been on butch femme websites for like 11 or 12 years now and never seen anything, but I've seen multiple threads about Vick.

[Daywalker]

Actually there have been threads about that Bully.
But they were not specifically Football players.
ie~ Mike Tyson, etc.
:hangloose:

:daywalker:

[Just_G]

He has the right to gainful employment, but I wouldn't hire him, nor would I support any business that did. That's freedom of expression.


So if everyone quit supporting wherever criminals that have served time worked, there would be a LOT of people at that same place of employment that would feel the impact. Not just the one that was hired. (who could really have turned their life around after serving their time) So I am not one to say I will NEVER support a business that has hired someone because of their record or what they did....others are impacted by that.

What people don't realize is that there are people like Michael Vick working in places we shop and support on a daily basis....how can you pick and choose where to spend your money? You can't ask for EVERYONE'S criminal record and then decide not to shop there.

When 9/11 happened, MY family business was affected because of the terrorists. The ignorance of people never fails to amaze me. We sell oriental rugs from India....a peaceful country that had NOTHING to do with what happened that day. But, people decided not to support OUR business because we sold a product that "the terrorists made and our money would be going to support more terrorism." That affected MY livelihood...still does to this day.

I believe in the good of people and hope that he learned something from his stint in Leavenworth. I still watch the NFL, even if they did let him play again. I even watched the Eagles get their asses kicked last night. No harm, no foul in my opinion. If by chance he gets another dog, I am sure there will be so many eyes on him it won't even be funny! Hopefully he has changed and become a better person through all of this. It will haunt him for the rest of his life, no matter how many good things he does or tries to do. He has a life sentence in THAT alone.

Just my little opinion on this topic....

[betenoire]

Why don't people get all up in arms when football players physically and sexually abuse women? I've been on butch femme websites for like 11 or 12 years now and never seen anything, but I've seen multiple threads about Vick.

Because people are fucked up and have zero priorities.

Because animal rights are very en vogue right now.

[Julie]

Actually...
PETA was founded in 1980 - It was very UnVogue!

I was part of the movement in the early 80's in NYC - though I did not personally throw RED paint on fur wearers (My father refused to bail me out of jail). I wanted to!

Though after watching a documentary on Mink Farms - he refused to own another fur and threw my mothers coats away! (Thank you Daddy!) It was very UnVogue.

There is nothing VOGUE about caring about the treatment of animals. It is about respecting LIFE!

Have you ever visited a mink farm?
It will change your life forever.
See a baby cow get slaughtered?
It will change your life forever.

(feeling a bit derailing - sorry)

[BullDog]

Actually there have been threads about that Bully.
But they were not specifically Football players.
ie~ Mike Tyson, etc.
:hangloose:

:daywalker:


Well I am glad if people spoke out about Mike Tyson mistreating women. I am, however, talking about something systemic- something that happens over and over and over again (i.e. football players abusing women). Since it's in the news on a fairly frequent basis and there's lots of football fans here, I find it a bit strange that people put so much focus on Vick but I haven't seen discussions about things that happen much more frequently to women at the hands of many players and not just one.

[suebee]

So if everyone quit supporting wherever criminals that have served time worked, there would be a LOT of people at that same place of employment that would feel the impact. Not just the one that was hired. (who could really have turned their life around after serving their time) So I am not one to say I will NEVER support a business that has hired someone because of their record or what they did....others are impacted by that.

What people don't realize is that there are people like Michael Vick working in places we shop and support on a daily basis....how can you pick and choose where to spend your money? You can't ask for EVERYONE'S criminal record and then decide not to shop there.

When 9/11 happened, MY family business was affected because of the terrorists. The ignorance of people never fails to amaze me. We sell oriental rugs from India....a peaceful country that had NOTHING to do with what happened that day. But, people decided not to support OUR business because we sold a product that "the terrorists made and our money would be going to support more terrorism." That affected MY livelihood...still does to this day.

I believe in the good of people and hope that he learned something from his stint in Leavenworth. I still watch the NFL, even if they did let him play again. I even watched the Eagles get their asses kicked last night. No harm, no foul in my opinion. If by chance he gets another dog, I am sure there will be so many eyes on him it won't even be funny! Hopefully he has changed and become a better person through all of this. It will haunt him for the rest of his life, no matter how many good things he does or tries to do. He has a life sentence in THAT alone.

Just my little opinion on this topic....





I'm not saying that I wouldn't support ANY business that hired ANYBODY who had a criminal record. I'm saying that this man - in what I have seen of HIS public statements, does not yet "get it". He doesn't get that animals are beings that have every right to a peaceful existance, without suffering beyond words at the hands of people like him and his cohorts.

Let's make a comparison. Bully has brought up the topic of abuse of women. Would you support a team that re-hired a quarterback that had beat up his wife or girlfriend? What about if he had beaten up HUNDREDS of women? What if he'd tortured them, had a "rape machine" so that they could be immobilized for sexual intercourse, electrocuted them, and then killed them when they were no longer of use to him? THIS is the magnitude of Vick's crimes. I don't use the same paint brush for everyone - I don't boycott every man who has a criminal record. But I'd be willing to make an exception for the likes of Mr. Vick.

[BullDog]

Suebee, unfortunately there are quite a few football players playing in the NFL today who have beaten up their wives, girlfriends, or women they have met somewhere. Some have been suspended by the league for certain periods of time and some have not.

[Medusa]

Well I am glad if people spoke out about Mike Tyson mistreating women. I am, however, talking about something systemic- something that happens over and over and over again (i.e. football players abusing women). Since it's in the news on a fairly frequent basis and there's lots of football fans here, I find it a bit strange that people put so much focus on Vick but I haven't seen discussions about things that happen much more frequently to women at the hands of many players and not just one.


But then we'd have to have the discussion about how Fame/Professional Sports/The Music Industry supports behavior in men that it would never support in women (and then inherent ingrained sexism as the root of it all):hangloose:

[RockOn]

Hey Gang, you people are really rocking in here. Maybe tonight or over the holiday I can get time to come and read everyone's contributions and opinions. Hope so. I have not had much time to be online lately.

Lunch hours go by too quickly ... back to work now and you later.


:byebye:

[suebee]

Suebee, unfortunately there are quite a few football players playing in the NFL today who have beaten up their wives, girlfriends, or women they have met somewhere. Some have been suspended by the league for certain periods of time and some have not.

Absolutely. I'm not trying to negate the impact spousal abuse has. I'm just talking about Vick right now.

[JustJo]

Let's make a comparison. Bully has brought up the topic of abuse of women. Would you support a team that re-hired a quarterback that had beat up his wife or girlfriend? What about if he had beaten up HUNDREDS of women? What if he'd tortured them, had a "rape machine" so that they could be immobilized for sexual intercourse, electrocuted them, and then killed them when they were no longer of use to him? THIS is the magnitude of Vick's crimes. I don't use the same paint brush for everyone - I don't boycott every man who has a criminal record. But I'd be willing to make an exception for the likes of Mr. Vick.

Suebee...I get what you're saying, but I really don't think we can compare humans and animals...I really don't.

We employ horrible, barbaric acts against animals in the process of raising them and slaughtering them for meat...and it isn't even considered a crime.

We feel differently (as a culture) about dogs than we do about cows or turkeys or pigs...so we criminalize those acts. And, no, I'm not objecting to that...I think those acts are rightly classified as criminal.

But, honestly, to compare forced breeding of dogs (which we do all the time with all kinds of animals) to the rape of women? Sorry...it doesn't fly for me.

The rape of a woman, to me, is infinitely more serious than the forced breeding of an animal...as horrible as that may be.

[betenoire]

IF - you can't deny that within some circles (queer females and young urban hipsters specifically come to mind) that it is currently VERY cool to be vegan/vegetarian yadda yadda yadda.

I am not criticizing that. I myself am a big fan/lover of animals (as you know, I'm sure, all of the cats I've had since I was an adult (except for my orange tabby) have been strays or rescued (stolen in one case) from abusive/neglectful situations). My parents took in abandoned dogs while I was in highschool. I still have nightmares about the fur farm video from China that Rhon posted on livejournal fucking YEARS ago.

That said: there is no ignoring the fact that -many- of the hipsters I mentioned above postulate about what friends of the animal they are (oh, and the environment. recycling is also hip.) but completely ignore issues around HUMANS who also need our defense.

[Tucker]

http://blogs.bestfriends.org/index.php/2010/12/29/when-the-president-calls-about-the-vick-dogs/

[The_Lady_Snow]

The system gives children back to abusive parents or households back, I have to ask why an animal has priority over our countries kids. You can see a child be slapped at a Target- that happens at Pet Smart the cops are called & your dog is taken away.

I pray he changed but this witch hunt on a black man and now death is wished upon him is just as gross if not even MORE gross than what he's done.


Why?

It's been done in this country since it's start.

[betenoire]

Let's make a comparison. Bully has brought up the topic of abuse of women. Would you support a team that re-hired a quarterback that had beat up his wife or girlfriend? What about if he had beaten up HUNDREDS of women? What if he'd tortured them, had a "rape machine" so that they could be immobilized for sexual intercourse, electrocuted them, and then killed them when they were no longer of use to him? THIS is the magnitude of Vick's crimes.

Now you're reaching.

I love dogs. But certainly I feel that the assault of one woman is more important than the abuse of hundreds of dogs. It doesn't have to be hundred of women by one man for it to be abhorrent.

We -are- more important (to me) than dogs are.

But, honestly, to compare forced breeding of dogs (which we do all the time with all kinds of animals) to the rape of women? Sorry...it doesn't fly for me.


For fucking real.

[suebee]

Suebee...I get what you're saying, but I really don't think we can compare humans and animals...I really don't.

We employ horrible, barbaric acts against animals in the process of raising them and slaughtering them for meat...and it isn't even considered a crime.

We feel differently (as a culture) about dogs than we do about cows or turkeys or pigs...so we criminalize those acts. And, no, I'm not objecting to that...I think those acts are rightly classified as criminal.

But, honestly, to compare forced breeding of dogs (which we do all the time with all kinds of animals) to the rape of women? Sorry...it doesn't fly for me.

The rape of a woman, to me, is infinitely more serious than the forced breeding of an animal...as horrible as that may be.

Just making a comparison Jo. It's obvious we as a species are going to be more affected by what happens to our own. However it doesn't in any way make what happened right. Though most of us - to take June's example at the beginning of the thread - would most certainly save our child before we saved an animal if we could only do one - some of us believe that animals have every right to be protected from harm. Laws may be made by man for man, but animals should have the same RIGHT to protection as we do. If we are such an evolved species we should be able to care about and for more than just our own.

[Daywalker]

Well I am glad if people spoke out about Mike Tyson mistreating women. I am, however, talking about something systemic- something that happens over and over and over again (i.e. football players abusing women). Since it's in the news on a fairly frequent basis and there's lots of football fans here, I find it a bit strange that people put so much focus on Vick but I haven't seen discussions about things that happen much more frequently to women at the hands of many players and not just one.

I get that.

But I don't find it strange.

It was a biggo Headline Media deal ~ hence a thread was birthed.
:aslpeacelove:

:daywalker:

[Medusa]

IF - you can't deny that within some circles (queer females and young urban hipsters specifically come to mind) that it is currently VERY cool to be vegan/vegetarian yadda yadda yadda.

I am not criticizing that. I myself am a big fan/lover of animals (as you know, I'm sure, all of the cats I've had since I was an adult (except for my orange tabby) have been strays or rescued (stolen in one case) from abusive/neglectful situations). My parents took in abandoned dogs while I was in highschool. I still have nightmares about the fur farm video from China that Rhon posted on livejournal fucking YEARS ago.

That said: there is no ignoring the fact that -many- of the hipsters I mentioned above postulate about what friends of the animal they are (oh, and the environment. recycling is also hip.) but completely ignore issues around HUMANS who also need our defense.


I can get behind this thought process to a large degree!

I agree that there is a somewhat pervasive "right now" groove to animal rights, PETA, The Trevor Project, Barefoot running shoes, etc. among young hipster-type Queers. The thinking that to "be" the right kind of Queer or to attract the "right" kind of Queer, that those things are prerequisite.

I used to have a friend who viewed herself as a staunch animal rights advocate and who was vegetarian but wore leather shoes every day, owned a ton of leather furniture, had a purebred dog that she bought from a puppy mill, and loved going to the zoo.

It seemed like she was an animal advocate only to the degree that it wouldn't affect her tastes, comfort, or entertainment value.

This isn't an either/or issue, but rather multi-layered. I see some intersections of race and class with Eurocentric idealization of pet animals. Interesting discussion to say the least. :rubberducky:

[Julie]

IF - you can't deny that within some circles (queer females and young urban hipsters specifically come to mind) that it is currently VERY cool to be vegan/vegetarian yadda yadda yadda.

I am not criticizing that. I myself am a big fan/lover of animals (as you know, I'm sure, all of the cats I've had since I was an adult (except for my orange tabby) have been strays or rescued (stolen in one case) from abusive/neglectful situations). My parents took in abandoned dogs while I was in highschool. I still have nightmares about the fur farm video from China that Rhon posted on livejournal fucking YEARS ago.

That said: there is no ignoring the fact that -many- of the hipsters I mentioned above postulate about what friends of the animal they are (oh, and the environment. recycling is also hip.) but completely ignore issues around HUMANS who also need our defense.

Bete...

Actually - While I was not directing it at you... You were the perfect response.

YES I cannot agree more with you. It is COOL to be all of the above. I do believe people jump on the band wagon for a variety of reasons. Acceptance or whatever! I am glad they do. I do not really care if they are doing it because it is the thing to do or not. I just want results.

I do know how you love animals... And I absolutely KNOW you DO NOT support any of this.

It's not that different than the surge of lesbianism (lol love that word). It's cool!

Sadly, something else will come up - Vick will be out of the spotlight and something new will come up. It is how our world works - but for now... I am glad this is in the spotlight. Maybe this will force our law enforcement (in this fucking country) to close more of these rings down.

[BullDog]

I think it's a multi-layered discussion too, that's why I don't see why I am supposed to go start a separate thread.

[betenoire]

It was a biggo Headline Media deal ~ hence a thread was birthed.
:aslpeacelove:

:daywalker:


The fact that the Vick thing got tonnes of media attention and the other crimes of NFL players didn't is symptomatic of a bigger problem.

Anyway! You kids have fun! I gotta get offline because I'm ignoring my spouse and playing on BFP which is impolite of me.

[BullDog]

The fact that the Vick thing got tonnes of media attention and the other crimes of NFL players didn't is symptomatic of a bigger problem.

Anyway! You kids have fun! I gotta get offline because I'm ignoring my spouse and playing on BFP which is impolite of me.

Bingo!

I didn't see lots of uproar over Ben Roethlisberger (except people were bummed he was going to miss 6 games- which got cut down to 4 games for "good behavior").

[suebee]

[QUOTE=betenoire;255473]Now you're reaching.

I love dogs. But certainly I feel that the assault of one woman is more important than the abuse of hundreds of dogs. It doesn't have to be hundred of women by one man for it to be abhorrent.

We -are- more important (to me) than dogs are.
QUOTE]


I don't know that we're more important than animals. I know we're more important to US than animals are. And I mean that seriously. (but that's a whole 'nother discussion) My point is that a man who systematically abused women to the extent that Vick and others have and continue to systematically abuse animals would not so easily slip back into the stature of hero. This is NOT a man who kicked his dog because it peed on the carpet! As if his actions weren't horrendous enough, he's done this to HUNDREDS of animals! Isn't that serious enough?

[Daywalker]

The fact that the Vick thing got tonnes of media attention and the other crimes of NFL players didn't is symptomatic of a bigger problem.

Anyway! You kids have fun! I gotta get offline because I'm ignoring my spouse and playing on BFP which is impolite of me.

I already said...I get that.

Thanks for taking a snip of my quote though.
Makes me feel special.
:|

My simple point was,
a thread was spawned because Obama was involved.

Anyways, my Original response in this thread focused on Forgiveness.
I should have left it at that.

:coffee:

Over n Out

:daywalker:

[JustJo]

Just making a comparison Jo. It's obvious we as a species are going to be more affected by what happens to our own. However it doesn't in any way make what happened right. Though most of us - to take June's example at the beginning of the thread - would most certainly save our child before we saved an animal if we could only do one - some of us believe that animals have every right to be protected from harm. Laws may be made by man for man, but animals should have the same RIGHT to protection as we do. If we are such an evolved species we should be able to care about and for more than just our own.

I get that Suebee...and I'm not trying to pick on you by any means. I totally agree that what Vick did was barbaric, and criminal, and should be punished.

I've got a couple things going on in my head about this thread though....

First, Vick was convicted and punished. We may or may not agree with the judge's decision...but that's a separate issue. I do believe that once people have served their sentence, then they need to be given an opportunity to rebuild their lives and not be stigmatized forever.

Second, I tend to stay out of race discussions here because...as a white person...I get that I don't get the reality of what it's like to be a person of color in our (or any) society. However, I totally get that we lock up POC in this society at a disgusting rate....and that white (men usually) who are convicted of far worse acts get a slap on the wrist or a fine. So, our tendency to label ex-convicts as somehow "less than" the rest of us impacts POC far more than it does whites as a group.

Third, I do love animals....and I have a houseful of them at any given time. However, I've also been involved in the raising of animals for food most of my life....having lived and worked on a dairy, raised beef cattle (in Australia not the US), had an ex who worked in a slaughterhouse, etc. I truly think we need to extend our protection and humane treatment to all animals....and think that dogs get an inordinate amount of our attention while cattle and poultry and pigs are treated in a pretty horrific manner. (And, no, I'm not vegetarian or vegan and don't object to raising and slaughtering animals for food....but do believe that we can be at least humane in the process).

And fourth, I'm with Snow. I put children before animals...every time. I'm astounded at a culture that defends animals and ignores the needs of children (and we do).

[dreadgeek]

I haven't seen anybody here propose that either. But believe it or not, (and I hope I've got the right organization here - I'll come back and correct myself if I find out otherwise) the ASPCA has spoken up as feeling that Vick is ready to own another dog. Obviously this greatly upsets many in the rescue community.

As for employment: the man CERTAINLY has a right to provide for himself and his family. Should social stigma follow him and perhaps prevent him from working in some jobs? It depends upon your personal values. The severity of his crimes were the reason why I posted the article. I abhor people who buy a dog and then tie it out in the back yard and throw food at it once a day. But THAT is negligence, and ignorance. Michael Vick tortured and killed HUNDREDS of dogs. He knew full well that it was illegal. He hid his crimes. In my world that makes him a dispicable human being. He has the right to gainful employment, but I wouldn't hire him, nor would I support any business that did. That's freedom of expression.

ETA: Obviously there are many people who ARE ready to support him, or at least forget about his crimes, as I haven't heard anything about the Eagles stands being empty for their games.

Certainly, that is freedom of expression but your expression, in this instance, actually demonstrates my point. I don't think that the uproar is about Mr. Vick being back in the NFL, I think it is Mr. Vick being *employed* full stop! I think that the only *possible* job that Mr. Vick could take that would not generate howls of protest is if he were to have to walk across a mine field and find--and detonate by stepping on one--buried mines. PERHAPS that might not generate a hue and cry but anything short of a job where his death was certain, I doubt would be acceptable.

I am, as I've said before, not defending Mr. Vick because I don't defend criminals who have been convicted. I am, however, interested in this situation as a cultural situation because--and I was talking with my nephew about this yesterday--I think that if it were a white man, the general societal consensus would be 'he did the crime, he did the time, let the man get his life back'. I think that part of why so many people are just SO intense that he shouldn't be able to lead something remotely resembling a normal life is the *same* social psychology that says that if a black man breaks into a home and kills a white family his life is forfeit and the only question is whether he is electrocuted or shot up with drugs while if a white man breaks into a home and kills a black family he's looking at the life behind bars with a possibility of parole in 15 or 20 years. I am NOT saying that this is your motivation nor am I saying that anyone here is consciously working off that idea. However, there is a psychology behind the legal reality I just described and that psychology is pre-existing to ANY courtroom experience of a lawyer, judge or juror.

It is simply the case that in the United States of America, the general gestalt is to view the actions of a black man more harshly than the actions of a white man. If, for instance, Mr. Obama were a white man people would be making comparisons with Washington at this point but he's not and so he's been written off as a failed President while Mr. Bush--who was, in fact, actually a real and true disaster for this nation--will be rehabilitated into an Eisenhower-esque figure long before I die of old age.

Cheers
Aj

[Mister Bent]

Why don't people get all up in arms when football players physically and sexually abuse women? I've been on butch femme websites for like 11 or 12 years now and never seen anything, but I've seen multiple threads about Vick.

Feel free to start one.

Before our President calls an NFL team and congratulates them on hiring a player recently released from prison on a domestic abuse or rape conviction.



Meanwhile, here's (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/February/10-ag-122.html) something I didn't know about. Lip service?

NFL Players Association Joins Justice Department Effort to Raise Awareness Around Violence Against Women

February 4, 2010

The Justice Department today announced that the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) has joined its year-long campaign to commemorate the 15 year anniversary of President Bill Clinton signing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) into law. The NFLPA has "Joined the List," a group of more than 100 celebrities including actors, musicians and athletes, who have lent their names to raise awareness with their fans, through Web and fan sites, and social networking profiles.

[JustJo]

Bingo!

I didn't see lots of uproar over Ben Roethlisberger (except people were bummed he was going to miss 6 games- which got cut down to 4 games for "good behavior").

Absolutely...and I think the blind eye that our society and media turn when powerful, successful, rich, celebrity, *fill in the blank* men abuse women is revolting.....and frequent.

[JustJo]

Meanwhile, here's (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/February/10-ag-122.html) something I didn't know about. Lip service?

NFL Players Association Joins Justice Department Effort to Raise Awareness Around Violence Against Women

February 4, 2010

The Justice Department today announced that the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) has joined its year-long campaign to commemorate the 15 year anniversary of President Bill Clinton signing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) into law. The NFLPA has "Joined the List," a group of more than 100 celebrities including actors, musicians and athletes, who have lent their names to raise awareness with their fans, through Web and fan sites, and social networking profiles.

Oh good grief. :|

I don't even know how to respond to that.

I guess it's easier to put your name on a list and "raise awareness" than to actually demonstrate commitment through action.

[suebee]

Certainly, that is freedom of expression but your expression, in this instance, actually demonstrates my point. I don't think that the uproar is about Mr. Vick being back in the NFL, I think it is Mr. Vick being *employed* full stop! I think that the only *possible* job that Mr. Vick could take that would not generate howls of protest is if he were to have to walk across a mine field and find--and detonate by stepping on one--buried mines. PERHAPS that might not generate a hue and cry but anything short of a job where his death was certain, I doubt would be acceptable.

I am, as I've said before, not defending Mr. Vick because I don't defend criminals who have been convicted. I am, however, interested in this situation as a cultural situation because--and I was talking with my nephew about this yesterday--I think that if it were a white man, the general societal consensus would be 'he did the crime, he did the time, let the man get his life back'. I think that part of why so many people are just SO intense that he shouldn't be able to lead something remotely resembling a normal life is the *same* social psychology that says that if a black man breaks into a home and kills a white family his life is forfeit and the only question is whether he is electrocuted or shot up with drugs while if a white man breaks into a home and kills a black family he's looking at the life behind bars with a possibility of parole in 15 or 20 years. I am NOT saying that this is your motivation nor am I saying that anyone here is consciously working off that idea. However, there is a psychology behind the legal reality I just described and that psychology is pre-existing to ANY courtroom experience of a lawyer, judge or juror.

It is simply the case that in the United States of America, the general gestalt is to view the actions of a black man more harshly than the actions of a white man. If, for instance, Mr. Obama were a white man people would be making comparisons with Washington at this point but he's not and so he's been written off as a failed President while Mr. Bush--who was, in fact, actually a real and true disaster for this nation--will be rehabilitated into an Eisenhower-esque figure long before I die of old age.

Cheers
Aj

I can only speak to what I would do. Michael Vick isn't just employed - he's an American hero. I'm not a sports fan, nor am I an American, so I don't get that whole sports hero thing. But *I* would certainly not support him: and here's why - I've already said it, but I'll say it again. I do not think the man has "gotten" that animals have the right to NOT be abused. He's coming out with the right words to try and polish his image. HELL! He's got millions of dollars riding on him buffing up his tarnished image! But I have not yet heard anything indicating anything other than the man got caught and is now having to placate the masses. I know not everyone will agree with this, but when you are a celebrity in the U.S. you have a lot of influence. I think that WITH that influence comes a GREAT responsibility to be a good role model. IMO Vick accepted the responsibilty when he took on the role of professional athelete.

[suebee]

I get that Suebee...and I'm not trying to pick on you by any means. I totally agree that what Vick did was barbaric, and criminal, and should be punished.

I've got a couple things going on in my head about this thread though....

First, Vick was convicted and punished. We may or may not agree with the judge's decision...but that's a separate issue. I do believe that once people have served their sentence, then they need to be given an opportunity to rebuild their lives and not be stigmatized forever.

Second, I tend to stay out of race discussions here because...as a white person...I get that I don't get the reality of what it's like to be a person of color in our (or any) society. However, I totally get that we lock up POC in this society at a disgusting rate....and that white (men usually) who are convicted of far worse acts get a slap on the wrist or a fine. So, our tendency to label ex-convicts as somehow "less than" the rest of us impacts POC far more than it does whites as a group.

Third, I do love animals....and I have a houseful of them at any given time. However, I've also been involved in the raising of animals for food most of my life....having lived and worked on a dairy, raised beef cattle (in Australia not the US), had an ex who worked in a slaughterhouse, etc. I truly think we need to extend our protection and humane treatment to all animals....and think that dogs get an inordinate amount of our attention while cattle and poultry and pigs are treated in a pretty horrific manner. (And, no, I'm not vegetarian or vegan and don't object to raising and slaughtering animals for food....but do believe that we can be at least humane in the process).

And fourth, I'm with Snow. I put children before animals...every time. I'm astounded at a culture that defends animals and ignores the needs of children (and we do).

Oh, I think we're doing a pretty good job of ignoring the needs of children, animals, seniors..... There's certainly enough to go around!

[The_Lady_Snow]

It is our jobs as parents, mentors, aunts, uncles etc. To BECOME the role models and heros. Vick is NOT my hero nor my kids, high prilofile folks should not be who we EXPECT to be this. That's on us.

[Julie]

It is our jobs as parents, mentors, aunts, uncles etc. To BECOME the role models and heros. Vick is NOT my hero nor my kids, high prilofile folks should not be who we EXPECT to be this. That's on us.

AMEN!
..........................Amen

[Medusa]

AJ brings up a great point.

The average black man's life is much more automatically expendable than the average white man's in lots of (if not all) scenarios.

Bernie Madoff comes to mind. Here is a man who bilked a crapload of people out of Billions of dollars - He's in prison. Although his crime wasn't necessarily a violent one, I think of all the people who were close to suicide because of what he did.

How about Dick Cheney, who shot his friend during a hunting "accident". Was he ever punished for that?

What about Phil Spector? How many people did he kill before his butt was finally sent to prison?

Don't even get me started on the war crimes of George W. Bush.

[suebee]

It is our jobs as parents, mentors, aunts, uncles etc. To BECOME the role models and heros. Vick is NOT my hero nor my kids, high prilofile folks should not be who we EXPECT to be this. That's on us.

While I applaud your belief system Snowy, I just don't think it's the reality for a lot of kids. They get a lot of clues as to how to behave from the media. We all know that. Vick being front and centre again gives a message. We can argue nuances, but all a football-crazy teen sees is Vick back in the spotlight. Presidential candidates lose their only chance at office because of a long-past extra marital affair. And Vick's in the spotlight again? Sorry. I just don't get it.

[dreadgeek]

I can only speak to what I would do. Michael Vick isn't just employed - he's an American hero. I'm not a sports fan, nor am I an American, so I don't get that whole sports hero thing. But *I* would certainly not support him: and here's why - I've already said it, but I'll say it again. I do not think the man has "gotten" that animals have the right to NOT be abused. He's coming out with the right words to try and polish his image. HELL! He's got millions of dollars riding on him buffing up his tarnished image! But I have not yet heard anything indicating anything other than the man got caught and is now having to placate the masses. I know not everyone will agree with this, but when you are a celebrity in the U.S. you have a lot of influence. I think that WITH that influence comes a GREAT responsibility to be a good role model. IMO Vick accepted the responsibilty when he took on the role of professional athelete.

See, I don't get that he's a hero. A hero, to me, is someone TRULY extraordinary. All of the players of the NFL are talented, lucky and wealthy but that does not make him a hero. A hero is, to my way of thinking, someone who either does something so singularly superlative as to inspire awe or someone who is able to keep their head and perform their function under extreme circumstances. For the former, I think of a figure like Einstein or, even more poignantly, Rosalind Franklin or Alan Turing.* For the latter think of the airline pilot, Capt. Sullenberger. His plane has lost its engines, he's over a major metropolitan area, there are 150 some other people whose lives are, quite literally, in his hands, he can see an alternate airport in Jersey. A lesser pilot might have tried to make it to Jersey, do a one-take approach and probably would have crashed. Capt. Sullenberger calmly (and the zen-like calm is what I admired) tells the area ATC that he's going to put the plane down in the Hudson River and does so. THAT is a hero. People who run into burning buildings when everyone is running the other way are heroes. Most pilots aren't heroes in the same way that most scientists aren't heroes.

To me sports figures aren't heroes, they are people who are paid truly obscene amounts of money to play sports. That's it. So to me, Mr. Vick returning to the NFL is the same as him returning to, say, some cubical farm as a system admin.

I think that we, as a culture, would be well-served thinking about what a hero is, what a role model is and what qualities we think are worthy of emulation. Most of my heroes or role models were deeply flawed people who managed to obtain a level of virtuosity in their chosen field and I admire them because of their commitment to excellence in that field and the power of their intellect. So that might explain why I am rather ho-hum on the prospect of Mr. Vick returning to the NFL--I don't see him as a hero or a role-model. He's a guy who has a job where he makes riches beyond the dreams of avarice and not much more.


*Franklin was an X-ray crystallographer whose work was what Watson and Crick used in their work on the structure of DNA, Turing was a mathematician and brilliant cryptographer who broke the German ENIGMA code which was crucial for helping the Allies win WW II and particularly helped Britain in surviving the Blitz. Franklin died of, I believe, breast cancer the year *before* Watson and Crick won the Nobel and Turing killed himself after the War as he languished in prison on charges of homosexuality).

[JustJo]

I agree with you Aj about what constitutes a hero, but I venture to guess that suebee is right...and that most teenagers in the US know who Vick is, but have no clue about those you named.

I cringe that the "celebrities" I see teens emulating are (to my thinking) overpaid, arrogant, narcissists who contribute nothing of real value to our society.

[Waldo]

IF - you can't deny that within some circles (queer females and young urban hipsters specifically come to mind) that it is currently VERY cool to be vegan/vegetarian yadda yadda yadda.

I am not criticizing that. I myself am a big fan/lover of animals (as you know, I'm sure, all of the cats I've had since I was an adult (except for my orange tabby) have been strays or rescued (stolen in one case) from abusive/neglectful situations). My parents took in abandoned dogs while I was in highschool. I still have nightmares about the fur farm video from China that Rhon posted on livejournal fucking YEARS ago.

That said: there is no ignoring the fact that -many- of the hipsters I mentioned above postulate about what friends of the animal they are (oh, and the environment. recycling is also hip.) but completely ignore issues around HUMANS who also need our defense.

First... as a member of the vegan brigade I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of my fellow vegans are straight. And there's a good number of men in the mix too. It's in the spotlight now not because it's hip... cause it's still not. But because animal welfare and factory farming is in the spotlight and that makes it much easier to draw the conclusions that eating meat is neither necessary nor sustainable for our planet. Being vegan is still so uncool that many people who go vegan are ridiculed for their choices, are screwed with by cooks and servers, are left off party invitations because hosts feel at a loss for what to serve (even when we're happy to bring something) or aren't invited out for meals as often because people freak out about where to go.

But what REALLY upsets me about your post is that you fail to see the reason why there's a need for animal advocates which is distinct and different from anti-violence advocates:

Humans have the ability to communicate atrocities, specific and en masse, which animals lack.

I've yet to meet a vegan who doesn't feel passionately about the welfare of all beings. We just feel it's important that we act as a proxy voice for animals, who have none.

I can get behind this thought process to a large degree!

I agree that there is a somewhat pervasive "right now" groove to animal rights, PETA, The Trevor Project, Barefoot running shoes, etc. among young hipster-type Queers. The thinking that to "be" the right kind of Queer or to attract the "right" kind of Queer, that those things are prerequisite.

I used to have a friend who viewed herself as a staunch animal rights advocate and who was vegetarian but wore leather shoes every day, owned a ton of leather furniture, had a purebred dog that she bought from a puppy mill, and loved going to the zoo.

It seemed like she was an animal advocate only to the degree that it wouldn't affect her tastes, comfort, or entertainment value.

This isn't an either/or issue, but rather multi-layered. I see some intersections of race and class with Eurocentric idealization of pet animals. Interesting discussion to say the least. :rubberducky:

Medusa, I feel strongly that you've either missed something in your own argument or I have and in further readings, maybe I'm just confused and are actually saying something I agree with.

You agree with what's being said that veg*nism is en vogue and seem to be dissing people who have chosen not only to talk the talk, but the walk the walk of eschewing all animal products and then follow it up with an example where you diss someone who claimed to be an animal advocate but missed the fact that she continued to use animal products regularly.

Again, humans can consent. Animals cannot, nor are they afforded the option to.

I think Vick has been demonized to a greater extent because of the color of his skin and I think he's been forgiven to a great deal because of his prowess on the football field. He's lauded by some as a hero because he's both male and an athlete. All of these things bring intersection from class, race, privilege and money.

Had he (and who knows if he does/doesn't or has/hasn't) raped or abused women... those women had the physical capability to tell someone else, a friend, the authorities, the news. Whether they felt strong enough to do so or not is another issue.

The dogs that Vick abused had to rely on a human being (an advocate) to do the right thing. To realize that what Vick did was heinous and report it.

I've stepped in front of man with a knife who was beating his girlfriend senseless. I still can't hear out of one ear as a result of that. I call the cops when I hear screams. I've even run out of the house (like a moron) when I hear gun shots. All because I give a shit about my fellow humans.

I've also stopped in the middle of a busy intersection during a nor'easter to shepherd a lost dog safely back to his owner. I've jumped into a lake in order to save a cat who was FREAKING out. I've put out food and water for innumerable neighborhood cats and I've even rescued a "stray" rooster in Chicago.

I don't make distinctions about whether another living being deserves my compassion or not. I know they do and all I need to know is that I have the capability to help.

I make no representations that I am better than anyone else. We all make our choices. I wish that everyone would reduce their dependence on animal products. I wish that everyone would at least educate themselves about factory farming. My decision to be vegan wasn't based on it's coolness factor, it was based around living a more purposeful and aware life where my decisions about what to put in my body and what products to use match my stated/voiced ethos. I'm still imperfect in my veganism. I slipped up just about two weeks ago and forgot that pork came in a dish I ordered. I still own some leather shoes. Is it sensible to throw them out or to wear them until they are unusable? I'll probably split the difference and donate them this year as I move further and further toward my vegan ideal.

/soapbox

[Waldo]

And if I didn't have to run off to a lunch date I would be opening a new thread on animal welfare/veganism so I can stop derailing this one. Maybe tonight.

[suebee]

To me Terry Fox was a hero. Maybe this is a totally Canadian reference, but many of you will know who I'm talking about. I don't get this sports hero or celebrity hero thing either, UNLESS they show extraordinary character in other areas of their lives. But it's a reality in our culture.

[Waldo]

To me Terry Fox was a hero. Maybe this is a totally Canadian reference, but many of you will know who I'm talking about. I don't get this sports hero or celebrity hero thing either, UNLESS they show extraordinary character in other areas of their lives. But it's a reality in our culture.

I'm familiar with Terry Fox. I'm not sure I'd say hero there either, in the classi sense of the word. Extraordinary human? Certainly. Humanitarian? You bet. But I'm not sure that he did anything "heroic".

Then again I have a short list of "personal heroes" which includes Aimee Mullins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimee_Mullins) because of the work that she's done to change the assumption that being differently abled means that you give up on beauty. If you haven't seen her TED talks (http://www.ted.com/talks/aimee_mullins_prosthetic_aesthetics.html), I encourage you to do so. They are amazing, as is she. So I think "hero" means different things to different people.

Okay, no, really... I gotta shower and get going.

[Medusa]

Medusa, I feel strongly that you've either missed something in your own argument or I have and in further readings, maybe I'm just confused and are actually saying something I agree with.

You agree with what's being said that veg*nism is en vogue and seem to be dissing people who have chosen not only to talk the talk, but the walk the walk of eschewing all animal products and then follow it up with an example where you diss someone who claimed to be an animal advocate but missed the fact that she continued to use animal products regularly.

Again, humans can consent. Animals cannot, nor are they afforded the option to.

/soapbox


I think maybe I wasn't clear - Not at all dissing folks who are vegetarian or vegan. I actually have huge respect for anyone who can maintain an anti-harm process with food, entertainment, etc. That takes an incredible amount of dedication and self-control, and thus far, isn't something I have been able to fully accomplish in my own life. (much as I try!)

I was more speaking to the elevation of veganism as a "popular" trend and not an actual lifestyle choice within certain "hipster" circles. (something that is picked up as a means to enter social circles, gain respect as "anti-harm", etc. and not because they have personally evaluated their part in the commercialization of animal harm) I think it takes money to do that in a lot of cases and, in turn, can be fleeting at best. (and I'm totally owning my personalization with this, btw)

I have encountered several vegans and vegetarians who don't eat animal products but who do wear leather, smoke bidis, and have furniture or clothing in their homes that are not harm-free. I don't know their personal reasons for choosing to do one but not the other and get that it might not be practical to throw out a house full of leather furniture in favor of buying stuff made from synthetic materials.
I was just kinda publically scratching my head about the polarity of it all.

[dreadgeek]

I agree with you Aj about what constitutes a hero, but I venture to guess that suebee is right...and that most teenagers in the US know who Vick is, but have no clue about those you named.

I cringe that the "celebrities" I see teens emulating are (to my thinking) overpaid, arrogant, narcissists who contribute nothing of real value to our society.

To be honest, I doubt that most American *adults* know who any of those people are except Einstein (who is the one scientist everyone knows). I would be shocked if most American women know who Franklin was or if most American queers know about Turing. I think that we, as parents, have to do a better job at teaching our children what traits are worthy of honor and emulation and what are not.

So let's say that Mr. Vick--not by NFL dictate but by public pressure--were never allowed to play football again. What then? Is there anyone here who doubts that no matter WHAT job he obtained someone would say "they hired Michael Vick, I'm never shopping/eating/patronizing that company ever again"? I am entirely unconvinced--based solely on what I have been reading here and on news sites--that there is any job that Mr. Vick could hold that would not result in a hue and cry. Notwithstanding some job that was so dangerous that to take it was to make one's death a certainty--clearing minefields with a sledgehammer, cleaning out the inside of hot nuclear reactors without the benefit of a suit, testing for gas fumes with a Zippo lighter--I doubt there's any kind or class of job for which people would say that Mr. Vick's crimes were not prima facie evidence of his unfitness.

Cheers
Aj

[julieisafemme]

Suebee...I get what you're saying, but I really don't think we can compare humans and animals...I really don't.We employ horrible, barbaric acts against animals in the process of raising them and slaughtering them for meat...and it isn't even considered a crime.

We feel differently (as a culture) about dogs than we do about cows or turkeys or pigs...so we criminalize those acts. And, no, I'm not objecting to that...I think those acts are rightly classified as criminal.

But, honestly, to compare forced breeding of dogs (which we do all the time with all kinds of animals) to the rape of women? Sorry...it doesn't fly for me.

The rape of a woman, to me, is infinitely more serious than the forced breeding of an animal...as horrible as that may be.

I don't see this as a black/white, either/or kind of conversation. The abuse of animals or any living thing is equally abhorrent to me. Someone who abuses an animal is equally as likely to abuse a human being. It is part of the human pathology of othering someone or thing in order to justify, sanctify or allow mistreatment.

I hope that we can allow that there is a lot we do not know about the workings of animals. I am not talking about anthropomorphizing or a Eurocentric view of animals. I am talking about the complex lives of animals. I have loved Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson's books on animal emotions.

In order for the abuse of humans to stop and our behavior to evolve it seems to me that we need to understand and treat all living things with compassion.

[katsarecool]

I keep going back to this post, Jo -- Can you explain what you mean by this? Who are the last people who should own pitbulls?

Thanks,

JuneJune, I know in my experience with breeding my Rottie many years ago I had many people who I would describe as thugs and very possible drug dealers wanting to buy one of the puppies in order to protect their "property". I did not sell them one. And the people that thought having a Rottie would be an extension of their "manhood" didn't get a puppy either. It was a very small town so it was easy to know who was who and who had good intentions.

[BullDog]

I think this articles ties many of the themes discussed in this thread together quite well.

http://www.thenation.com/article/ben-roethlisberger-no-justice-no-play

For those not familiar, Ben Roethlisberger is the starting (white) quarterback of the Pittsburgh Steelers- one of the leading teams in the NFL. Roethlisberger is one of the biggest stars in the NFL and has helped the Steelers win 2 Super Bowls. He was originally suspended for 6 games at the beginning of this season, but it was cut down to 4 games for his "good behavior." The Steelers are in the playoffs once again this year with Big Ben at the helm.

I think the differences between how Ben Roethlisberger and Michael Vick have been treated in the media and the reaction by the general public is very much connected. One is white, one is black. One concerned the alleged rape of a 20 year old woman (the second accusation of rape brought against him) and one against the abuse of animals. I don't think the difference in the reactions and treatment are based purely on race or purely on what people get all up in arms about- I think it is both of those things, among others.

[JustJo]

I keep going back to this post, Jo -- Can you explain what you mean by this? Who are the last people who should own pitbulls?

Thanks,

June

Hi June,

I have known several people who own pitbulls because of their negative reputation...and who do everything they can to foster that image of a vicious, tough dog by encouraging that behavior. For me, those are the last people who should own them. (Sorry I didn't explain that better).

I think that anyone who owns an animal has a responsibility to make certain that they are well-cared for, but also that they are good "doggy citizens."

Example...we take our mini-doxie to the local dog beach. The sign clearly states that only well-behaved, well-controlled dogs should be allowed off leash. Dogs that don't fit that description are still welcome, but have to remain on leash. Dogs that are not controllable with a leash should not be there at all. Pretty basic.

We let Shadow run off leash. He's tiny. He's not aggressive. He loves everyone. And he plays well with other dogs. If pushed, he goes passive, belly up, and let's other dogs be the boss. No problem.

A couple weeks ago, we were leaving the beach...Shadow trotting along ahead of me off leash towards the parking lot. Suddenly, he's hurtling back towards me as fast as his little legs can carry him....with what appeared to be a half-grown pitbull or pitbull mix in hot pursuit. Behind the other dog is his owner...drunk, swearing, swinging a leather leash and striking the dog while cussing at him...his effort at "controlling" his dog. Shadow, perfectly aware that he is squeaky-toy-sized, hides between my legs....with the other dog lunging at him and snapping.

It was almost funny....half-grown pitbull racing in circles around my legs, with drunk man running loopier circles in deep sand around behind him. The problem, of course, is that his dog is snapping at mine (and close to my ankles). When his dog connected and bit my dog's ear, on about the 8th or 10th circle....with crowd gathering....I'd had enough. I picked up my dog and, when his dog jumped up to snap at Shadow in my arms, gave him a solid knee to the chest and told him "get down" in a stern voice.

The pit stopped and looked at me like I was crazy, but he also stopped what he was doing. Clearly, this wasn't a bad dog. This was a bad owner. However, I would bet that in a few years, after being beaten and chased and yanked around by a drunken idiot...might be a different story.

And, yes, I would have preferred to knee the guy in the chest instead of the dog.

[blush]

The biggest problem with pits and dogs like rotties is the power of their jaw. Any dog can turn aggressive. Some breeds, like pits are just more capable of killing quickly and thats what makes this a dangerous breed. My rottie Bear (RIP) was the most gentle animal I ever met and 120 pounds but there was no doubt in my mind he could kill a human within seconds. Could a lab do this? Probably not. I've broken up dog fights before and I've been bitten by dogs (as well as many other animals). I would not, under any circumstances break up a fight with a pit, rottie, etc. I would scream like a crazy person, pick up objects and throw it.

another thing and you can disagree as much as you want- I would never leave a jaw strong breed or any dog for that matter alone with a child. I've seen the most calm breeds become scared and turn into monsters.

I board pits and most all dogs. I am more cautious and supervise them around other dogs because I know what they are capable of. This doesnt mean a human has the right to abuse them in any way

Actually, a pit bull's bite pressure per square inch is the one of the lowest of all the breeds. Their jaw morphology isn't capable of locking.

But it brings up an interesting point, we have created a mythology and moralization around uses for dogs. Herding or farm dogs are morally acceptable. Service dogs are morally acceptable. Designer-type dogs are annoying, but acceptable. "Fighting" dogs are not acceptable, unless these dogs are used as members of the family that just happen to be able to kill an intruder.

If I made the argument that a breed like pit bull was "born to" fight, and it was in their nature, I would have my ass handed to me. Yet we are very comfortable assigning herding qualities to sheep dogs(as an example).

It seems to be all in the eye of the beholder. What we value or need in dogs we suddenly "see" in them, whether it is there or not.

[dreadgeek]

Bulldog:

Thank you for posting this. The difference could not be more clear. In fact, the light of the Sun is less obvious than this. One thing the author says--and I'm glad he put it in there--was this:

"Ben Roethlisberger should be thanking the heavens that he is white. If he was Ben the black guy accused of sexual assault in Georgia, he might not even make it to trial."

I'm going to say something now that will probably make a lot of people here VERY uncomfortable, but I think it has to be said.

I was harsh on my son because the last thing I EVER want is for him to have to deal with the police or the court systems. The police because one wrong word--not a movement, not a gesture, a word--and I would be attending his funeral. I don't want him to have to deal with the court system because--well, look at this discussion--I don't know a woman of color who would want her son left to the tender mercies of the sentiments expressed here.

I think that there are people--and I'm talking about people on this site--who would gladly and on very little evidence, happily send my son or any other random black man, to his death or prison for the rest of his natural days and sleep the sleep of the righteous that very evening.

Again, what Michael Vick did was inexcusable and certainly a crime. I do not know how long his sentence should have been but there is no lack of posts here expressing the sentiment that he should never be forgiven (e.g. no parole, no second chance) or that his punishment should be unending or that he shouldn't be allowed to return to his livelihood. I am TRYING--without much success--to see it from the point of view of people on the other side.

I love animals--what's more, I respect them. As some of you know, I am a biologist by training studying more so that I can actually practice that science in a lab somewhere. I look at each living thing as an absolute *marvel* of evolution--a work of natural art. As an evolutionary biologist, I recognize that there is a continuum from, say, rotifers (very simple aquatic animals) at one extreme and us at the other. I recognize that within the mammals that continuum starts to get VERY fuzzy and the more recent the mammal, the fuzzier it gets. I am willing to go pretty far--farther than most people here probably would go--and say that instead of speaking of *human* rights it might be useful to speak of *chimpanzee* rights with us as just another species of chimp. (Thus granting to chimps the full suite of rights we expect) Because outside of language and art, I'm not sure that there are enough cognitive or emotional differences between us and the other two chimp species to matter. My issue with the sentiments expressed here are not born out of disdain for other animals (notice I say other because we are just a specific case of animal) but because I believe that a non-trivial part of the energy behind this issue is driven by race (and possibly/probably class).

I believe in redemption. I believe that people make mistakes--sometimes truly egregious mistakes--that they live to regret. Do I think that Mr. Vick should be allowed to own pets? No, in much the same way that I would not want my daughter-in-law or my wife alone with Mr. Roethlisberger. But I disagree, strenuously, with this idea that Mr. Vick should not be able to make a living and, as I've said a number of times now, I doubt that there is any non-suicidal job he could take that people would not be up-in-arms about.

Cheers
Aj


I think this articles ties many of the themes discussed in this thread together quite well.

http://www.thenation.com/article/ben-roethlisberger-no-justice-no-play

For those not familiar, Ben Roethlisberger is the starting (white) quarterback of the Pittsburgh Steelers- one of the leading teams in the NFL. Roethlisberger is one of the biggest stars in the NFL and has helped the Steelers win 2 Super Bowls. He was originally suspended for 6 games at the beginning of this season, but it was cut down to 4 games for his "good behavior." The Steelers are in the playoffs once again this year with Big Ben at the helm.

I think the differences between how Ben Roethlisberger and Michael Vick have been treated in the media and the reaction by the general public is very much connected. One is white, one is black. One concerned the alleged rape of a 20 year old woman (the second accusation of rape brought against him) and one against the abuse of animals. I don't think the difference in the reactions and treatment are based purely on race or purely on what people get all up in arms about- I think it is both of those things, among others.

[BullDog]

Absolutely Aj. I am also quite certain that if the crimes had been reversed, that Ben Roethlisberger would have been treated less harshly than Michael Vick- by the media, general public, the NFL and police- for the exact same crime that Michael Vick committed.

[dreadgeek]

Blush:

I would also like to point out that when we are talking about dogs what we actually talking about are wolf puppies. What we have done, in the process of domesticating wolves and transmuting them into dogs, is take wolves and prevent them from growing up. Every single dog behavior can be observed in wolves. Even the herding behavior is really stalking behavior. Keep in mind that, from a biological point of view, dogs are a subspecies of wolf they are not their own species. Biologists define a species as a reproductively isolated population--meaning that it cannot interbreed with another population and produce viable, fertile offspring. Now, the mechanics of some dog breeds mixing with wolves would be, to say the least, interesting if not comical* but given that you are dealing with any of your larger breeds of dogs and any random grey wolf, they would produce offspring and that offspring could then go off and produce more offspring.

Those of us who have dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are living with wolves that will never grow up (Canis lupus). Now, if a chihuahua has what I call a 'wolf moment' and bits you, you're getting some stitches maybe. If my dog, Angus, has a wolf moment and bites you you may very well be on your way to the hospital (he has very powerful jaws).

Cheers
Aj

((one can only imagine a wolf bitch in heat and some male shi tzu doing the dog equivalent of "hey, what's your name. You got a friend? I could be your friend" to get the idea)

Actually, a pit bull's bite pressure per square inch is the one of the lowest of all the breeds. Their jaw morphology isn't capable of locking.

But it brings up an interesting point, we have created a mythology and moralization around uses for dogs. Herding or farm dogs are morally acceptable. Service dogs are morally acceptable. Designer-type dogs are annoying, but acceptable. "Fighting" dogs are not acceptable, unless these dogs are used as members of the family that just happen to be able to kill an intruder.

If I made the argument that a breed like pit bull was "born to" fight, and it was in their nature, I would have my ass handed to me. Yet we are very comfortable assigning herding qualities to sheep dogs(as an example).

It seems to be all in the eye of the beholder. What we value or need in dogs we suddenly "see" in them, whether it is there or not.

[Corkey]

I think this articles ties many of the themes discussed in this thread together quite well.

http://www.thenation.com/article/ben-roethlisberger-no-justice-no-play

For those not familiar, Ben Rothlisberger is the starting (white) quarterback of the Pittsburgh Steelers- one of the leading teams in the NFL. Rothlisberger is one of the biggest stars in the NFL and has helped the Steelers win 2 Super Bowls. He was originally suspended for 6 games at the beginning of this season, but it was cut down to 4 games for his "good behavior." The Steelers are in the playoffs once again this year with Big Ben at the helm.

I think the differences between how Ben Rothlisberger and Michael Vick have been treated in the media and the reaction by the general public is very much connected. One is white, one is black. One concerned the alleged rape of a 20 year old woman (the second accusation of rape brought against him) and one against the abuse of animals. I don't think the difference in the reactions and treatment are based purely on race or purely on what people get all up in arms about- I think it is both of those things, among others.

Just to put this into perspective. Rothlisberger wasn't convicted of anything, whereas Vick was. See the difference? What ever the commissioner did to Rothlisberger was for breaking the league rules, not for rape, which was never proven in a court of law. Vick was brought to court, found guilty sentenced and served, now playing. In both of these cases the only two similarities are; 1. They are men, and 2, they are football players.

I don't care if Vick is playing again at this point because he served his time, I do care that he never get another dog. I don't care if Rothlesbsrger plays this year or any other as ..you guessed it, not a fan. But he will go to another bar, he will pick up another woman and yes he will be accused again, this will happen through out his career, it comes with the territory.
Is he guilty, no idea wasn't there and neither were any of us, so because we weren't there it is nothing more than speculation on our parts. Yet Vick was convicted, there was proof of his crimes, he went to federal prison, and while there he said he realized the error of his ways. Fine, but that man should never again have access to dogs.
Are there inequities, certainly, this is just a really poor example of it.

[Medusa]

AJ nailed it again.

I was sitting here trying to visualize a world where we have backyards full of plasmodial slime molds and children frolicking through the park with their pet snails on leashes. Or perhaps a trained mosquito. Or a sea urchin named "Fluffy".

How everything is assigned a "value" based on how we tend to perceive it, not necessarily on how it really is. Hence, a dog is given more heart-space than a snail. We might kill a spider by stomping on it faster than we would a kitten. We would share our bed with a puppy but not necessarily a pig (which might be just as intelligent).

And even in the human world, we "other" human beings based on what we perceive to be their value as evidenced by racism, ableism, sizism, sexism, etc.

[BullDog]

Just to put this into perspective. Rothlisberger wasn't convicted of anything, whereas Vick was. See the difference? What ever the commissioner did to Rothlisberger was for breaking the league rules, not for rape, which was never proven in a court of law. Vick was brought to court, found guilty sentenced and served, now playing. In both of these cases the only two similarities are; 1. They are men, and 2, they are football players.

I don't care if Vick is playing again at this point because he served his time, I do care that he never get another dog. I don't care if Rothlesbsrger plays this year or any other as ..you guessed it, not a fan. But he will go to another bar, he will pick up another woman and yes he will be accused again, this will happen through out his career, it comes with the territory.
Is he guilty, no idea wasn't there and neither were any of us, so because we weren't there it is nothing more than speculation on our parts. Yet Vick was convicted, there was proof of his crimes, he went to federal prison, and while there he said he realized the error of his ways. Fine, but that man should never again have access to dogs.
Are there inequities, certainly, this is just a really poor example of it.



The article I quoted details all of this. This isn't a he said/she said case at all.

[Corkey]

The article I quoted details all of this. This isn't a he said/she said case at all.

Not in the mood to argue with you.

[julieisafemme]

I have a herd of small dogs. A Westie and two Shih Tzu's. They are clearly not meant to be any kind of protection at all, except for perhaps an early warning system.

Protecting humans is a tall order to place on dogs. My Westie might attack someone trying to hurt me, but he would be easily dispatched by a kick to the head. I go on the presumption that someone that intent on getting into my house would be armed, thereby rendering my dog(s) an unreliable source of protection, and putting them at risk.

I never considered it necessary to have dog as protection when walking down the street, and the same presumption for me exists, if someone wanted to harm me, they are probably going to be armed and will be able to overcome both myself and my dog.

For me, dogs are companions. If I lived on a sheep farm, I might get a herding dog. Under no circumstances would I get a dog that was considered any kind of risk to myself or my visitors. That's my choice. I know lots of Rottie and Pit owners that think differently.

I don't expect my current dogs to *do* anything for me except provide companionship and cost a lot of money to maintain annually with their vet and food expenses.

I'm a white, middle class woman. My experience and expectation of dogs is formed by that. I did not grow up an environment where dogs were not treated well, or thought of as part of an arsenal for personal protection. My family, to the best of my knowledge never engaged in fighting dogs as a form of recreation. Sadly, I cannot with assurance say that they did not, a couple of generations ago engage in race baiting and lynchings.

Why am I talking about this? Because I am very sure that that a lot of this discussion is about both race and class on a lot of levels.

'We' are so willing to crucify Michael Vick for his former behavior and deny him redemption of any kind, when seriously, if we are white, it is extremely likely that our recent ancestors have committed even graver acts of "inhumanity" and never been punished for it at all. In fact, they were probably rewarded for it in some way because it was okay. And yet, 'we' decry restitution as "Not our fault".

I am seeing some of this residual belief system being played out here as well. In almost 2011 by "Liberal" Queers.

Let me tell you what I am hearing between the lines in some cases:

Poor people shouldn't be allowed to own dogs because they are irresponsible pet owners. (What this means to me is that the people who are likely to be poor, are also more likely to be people of color, especially in the USA).

Does anyone else besides me see how this thought process should be examined?

I am interested in knowing, but may never know -- How people of all races can justify dog, bull and cock fighting for sport. What makes them devalue another life so much? In the same way I often wonder how hundreds thousands of Germans (and others) were able to justify killing Jews, Romas, Gays and anyone else who was different.

In the same way that a vast number of white citizens of the United States are immediately suspect of Muslims and have no qualms about wishing them dead, don't care that when the bombs fall in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan that hundreds and thousands of civilians are being killed. They will get all worked up about a house of worship being built several blocks away from a site where people of all nationalities and religions were killed by a predominately Arab group of religious zealots, and huh, we're not even at war with Saudi Arabia because we don't want to compromise our ability to get oil from them.

Feel things, then think about why you feel them. Even if it hurts.

That is the human pathology I was talking about. Othering allows us to make all sorts of distinctions that we use to justify our behavior. That is why reducing the discussion down to dogs vs. pigs misses the bigger conversation as to what we are going to do about how we treat one another and this planet. All the "isms" are part of this othering. They are all distinct and separate but are part of the bigger problem. We do it to humans, we do it to animals, we even do it to plants.

I don't think Michael Vick is beyond redemption. I am more concerned with and passionate about how we can stop humans from hurting one another and other living things.

[Blade]

I think had Obama called "Joe the plumber" and thanked him for hiring, "Jim the felon" and giving a convicted felon a chance to be a productive member of society it would have meant more to the people. I don't think he is trying to get votes, I think he was trying to encourage others to give people a second chance.

As for Vick, yes he abused dogs and blah blah blah, whatever he did his time for his crime and financially has lost or is paying for his crime and poor choices. I liked someones comparison to Pete Rose. I never particularly liked Pete Rose, he was mouthy, over cocky, rude and obnoxious as was Reggie Jackson, never liked him either. However they were DAMN good ball players and just as Vick is a good ball player, had the NFL not let him back in some other football venue would have.

As for NFL players being abusive or assaulting women....well I think the reasons that slides are varied. To begin with the evidence was over whelming in Vick's case, his case had multiple victims and it pulled at the heart strings of the nation.

Women on the other hand, people are suspicious of. What was she doing there? Why was she alone with him? She knows he's married etc....Society tries to blame women for a mans transgressions. It always has to be a woman's fault. What she had on or didn't for that matter. Always casting stones at women. Not only that but, this....evidence.......unless a woman goes straight to the ER and files a complaint and a rape kit is done, most all of the evidence is gone in 2 weeks or 3 months or whenever she comes forward. Then there's money, money talks and bullshit walks......not implying that assault or rape is bullshit I'm saying there's probably a lot of this that goes on that we don't know about, that is paid off.

[Martina]

What chills me are comments like he should be allowed to work, but not in football. i understand not allowing pedophiles to be near children after their release from prison. i can understand not allowing Michael Vick to own a dog. That is a means of protecting potential victims.

But it amazes me that people think that they should have any other rights over someone who has already served their time, paid their fines, whatever.

Because someone committed crime, they have not lost their status as a fellow adult human. They get to be that. No one can tell them how to make a living, who to have a relationship with, where to go out for dinner. i am serious.

Is this an American thing? A conservative thing? It's not the reality of fear or prejudice towards those who have been convicted of crimes that weirds me out. It's this belief that one has the right to tell these people how to live their lives after they have paid for their crimes. That is CHILLING. Effing scary.

Break it down. It's the not on my block, not around MY children kind of thinking. It's shunning. Creating a category of person who has no right to live and work among us? What is he supposed to do, blind himself and wander outside the the city limits? What would be good enough? If he is a monster, then he needs to be incarcerated and kept away from us. Hopefully, there he will be treated humanely so that WE don't have to carry the burden of hurting and humiliating other creatures. If he is not shown to be a monster, then he is free to live among us. That's it. The end. He is one of us. He is part of our community, our world. He has a right to be.

The idea that he has to live in shame forever, to not be able to do the best for himself and his family, and that anybody has the right to limit his prospects is dehumanizing to all people. All of us. If you are here among us, and do not pose a clear danger, then you are one of us. Not to welcome this person is to create a category of people that we feel free to discriminate against. That's the slippery slope that leads to abuses of all kinds. No. He has a right to be here and do what he does. If it upsets you, look to changing the law.

[dreadgeek]

This is something that I try to keep in mind with ALL domesticated animals--that what we have done, whether we are comfortable with this fact or not--is taken some creature that was on its own evolutionary path and doing very nice, thank-you-very-much, and modified it to suit our own interests. Now, at this point, I think that it gives us a *responsibility* to these animals--a special responsibility above and beyond any kind of stewardship responsibilities we may or may not feel toward, say, polar bears or snails.

Dogs, cats, chickens, sheep, turkeys, goats, cows, pigs, some species of duck, horses and some species of rodents are OUR creations and we are obliged to make certain that they are taken care of. The only ones on that non-exhaustive list I would give any chance at all without us would be cats, dogs, possibly pigs (but probably not) and some of the rodents (because they're not really domesticated, I think, they're just accustomed to our presence and more than happy to let us feed them and keep them safe from predators). The rest on that list wouldn't last a year without us around. Cows, sheep, chickens and turkeys would certainly be gone without us. Most smaller dogs would be gone and the non-fixed large breeds would revert back to wolf-like behavior surprisingly quickly.

Now, I'll admit that I have this continuum with other animals. The metric I use is, well, let's call it an encephalitic index or neurological complexity index. The more complex the neurological system, the more 'rights' I think a given animal species is entitled to. So chimps, as I said above, may very well deserve the FULL set of legal rights we grant to one another even though they are not capable of human speech (lacking some circuitry). Large swaths of the cetaceans (dolphins, porpoises, whales) and cephalopods (squid and octopi) are sufficiently neurologically complex (based upon their behavior) to be granted some kinds of rights. The animals we use for food should be killed in the most humane way devisable. NO animal should be treated with cruelty or put to pain for our entertainment.

However, with the possible exception of the other Great Apes, I do not think that we should necessarily put other animals in the same moral circle as humans. The only reason I have the exception for the other Apes is that, as I said, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the *primary* differences between us and chimps are that the latter lack the hardware in the throat and the wetware in the cranium for full human speech. Other than that, I see them and I see--well, us.

I'll try to illustrate with a story:

Years ago, I was babysitting for my landladies in San Francisco to pay off the deposit on the apartment I rented from them. Their daughter, Emma, loved Koko the Gorilla (her moms had taken her to the San Diego zoo) and so twice a week we would go to the SF Zoo to see the gorillas. Something that struck me on one of our early visits, was how *recognizable* everything happening was. I watched the silverback as one of his grandsons played in front of (and on) him. His patience was obvious even though this young gorilla was being obnoxious in a way that only juvenile primates can be! Every interaction I could recognize and understand with just a little observation. I didn't get *every* nuance, I didn't understand every precipitating gesture but there was nothing there that I didn't recognize from my own family experiences.

The silverback got used to our presence and would come over to greet us after a while. One day we were there and he was not his usual self. He would look at me, make eye contact (which was odd in itself) and then look at his family. This went on for a while. I got the feeling he was trying to tell me something. A day or two later, I picked up the paper and read that he had died of old age and in that moment, I realized what was going on. He KNEW, at some level, that this was it and he wanted to know that there was a witness who had seen what he had done. This was his troupe, his family, they were his legacy. I was his witness. As I write this, I get choked up.

Some would say that he was 'just a stupid gorilla' but gorillas have very large brains and pretty complex social structures. When I look at chimps I see something SO familiar that it is eerie. I try to not anthropomorphize too much because I know that roughly 9 million years separate me and a gorilla and about seven million years separate me and a chimp. But it is obvious that we are all in the same family.

Cheers
Aj

AJ nailed it again.

I was sitting here trying to visualize a world where we have backyards full of plasmodial slime molds and children frolicking through the park with their pet snails on leashes. Or perhaps a trained mosquito. Or a sea urchin named "Fluffy".

How everything is assigned a "value" based on how we tend to perceive it, not necessarily on how it really is. Hence, a dog is given more heart-space than a snail. We might kill a spider by stomping on it faster than we would a kitten. We would share our bed with a puppy but not necessarily a pig (which might be just as intelligent).

And even in the human world, we "other" human beings based on what we perceive to be their value as evidenced by racism, ableism, sizism, sexism, etc.

[Blade]

What chills me are comments like he should be allowed to work, but not in football. i understand not allowing pedophiles to be near children after their release from prison. i can understand not allowing Michael Vick to own a dog. That is a means of protecting potential victims.

But it amazes me that people think that they should have any other rights over someone who has already served their time, paid their fines, whatever.

Because someone committed crime, they have not lost their status as a fellow adult human. They get to be that. No one can tell them how to make a living, who to have a relationship with, where to go out for dinner. i am serious.

Is this an American thing? A conservative thing? It's not the reality of fear or prejudice towards those who have been convicted of crimes that weirds me out. It's this belief that one has the right to tell these people how to live their lives after they have paid for their crimes. That is CHILLING. Effing scary.

Break it down. It's the not on my block, not around MY children kind of thinking. It's shunning. Creating a category of person who has no right to live and work among us? What is he supposed to do, blind himself and wander outside the the city limits? What would be good enough? If he is a monster, then he needs to be incarcerated and kept away from us. Hopefully, there he will be treated humanely so that WE don't have to carry the burden of hurting and humiliating other creatures. If he is not shown to be a monster, then he is free to live among us. That's it. The end. He is one of us. He is part of our community, our world. He has a right to be.

The idea that he has to live in shame forever, to not be able to do the best for himself and his family, and that anybody has the right to limit his prospects is dehumanizing to all people. All of us. If you are here among us, and do not pose a clear danger, then you are one of us. Not to welcome this person is to create a category of people that we feel free to discriminate against. That's the slippery slope that leads to abuses of all kinds. No. He has a right to be here and do what he does. If it upsets you, look to changing the law.

Loved your post Martina!

Is this an American thing? A conservative thing? No this is a vigilante type thing, some people don't think anyone is punished good enough for whatever their crime and would like to have the title of the great equalizer . I'd say many of us (people in general) are guilty of something at some point in our lives that society deems unacceptable. I say let him without sin cast the first stone.

[blush]

Blush:

I would also like to point out that when we are talking about dogs what we actually talking about are wolf puppies. What we have done, in the process of domesticating wolves and transmuting them into dogs, is take wolves and prevent them from growing up. Every single dog behavior can be observed in wolves. Even the herding behavior is really stalking behavior. Keep in mind that, from a biological point of view, dogs are a subspecies of wolf they are not their own species. Biologists define a species as a reproductively isolated population--meaning that it cannot interbreed with another population and produce viable, fertile offspring. Now, the mechanics of some dog breeds mixing with wolves would be, to say the least, interesting if not comical* but given that you are dealing with any of your larger breeds of dogs and any random grey wolf, they would produce offspring and that offspring could then go off and produce more offspring.

Those of us who have dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are living with wolves that will never grow up (Canis lupus). Now, if a chihuahua has what I call a 'wolf moment' and bits you, you're getting some stitches maybe. If my dog, Angus, has a wolf moment and bites you you may very well be on your way to the hospital (he has very powerful jaws).

Cheers
Aj

((one can only imagine a wolf bitch in heat and some male shi tzu doing the dog equivalent of "hey, what's your name. You got a friend? I could be your friend" to get the idea)

Yes, but is ALL dog behavior emulated from wolf infantile behaviors, or just the roots of dog behavior?

Oh, to remain somewhat on topic, I think Michael Vicks served his time. His crime also didn't exist in a vacuum, yet he became the poster boy for it. That seems unfair. He should continue his career. Obama's phone call was, to me, a leader reaching out and giving hope and support to someone who has paid his debt. Isn't that refreshing? I think much can be made of a phone call.

[DapperButch]

What the hell are you doing to those cats??

I take in strays.

Maybe they don't want you to take them in ?

[Blade]

((one can only imagine a wolf bitch in heat and some male shi tzu doing the dog equivalent of "hey, what's your name. You got a friend? I could be your friend" to get the idea)

Liked your whole post Aj but pulled this little part off the bottom. While I did get tickled at the thought of this image....it brings to mind, the "bitch hitch" which people use to make a bitch stand for a dog. That way they can make her breed to whatever dog they want her to breed with and not harm either of them supposedly. The other thought that came to mind is horses. I've seen people dig holes for a mare to stand in so a shorter stud could reach her to breed. Yep crazy but true.

[Sachita]

Yes, but is ALL dog behavior emulated from wolf infantile behaviors, or just the roots of dog behavior?

Oh, to remain somewhat on topic, I think Michael Vicks served his time. His crime also didn't exist in a vacuum, yet he became the poster boy for it. That seems unfair. He should continue his career. Obama's phone call was, to me, a leader reaching out and giving hope and support to someone who has paid his debt. Isn't that refreshing? I think much can be made of a phone call.

considering the crime? no. no. no

if he is a poster boy then its the repercussion of fame. If your in the public eye you should be even more accountable for your actions imo.

[The_Lady_Snow]

considering the crime? no. no. no

if he is a poster boy then its the repercussion of fame. If your in the public eye you should be even more accountable for your actions imo.


He was, time served.

[dreadgeek]

Yes, but is it ALL dog behavior is emulated from wolf infantile behaviors, or just the roots of dog behavior?

As I understand it (and neither wolves or dogs are my speciality nor my special interest) ALL dog behavior can be observed in wolves. However, for dogs the behavior may be vestigial.

For example:

Tail position isn't vestigial and neither is gaze. Those are *really* communicating something. Shaking actually helps in thermoregulation.

Scent rolling and cache burying, on the other hand, are largely vestigial behaviors. Scent rolling is probably a way of camouflaging their own scent when hunting and cache burying is, of course, a way of storing up food for lean times. However, with modern dogs neither circumstance really obtains under normal (for domestic pet dogs) circumstances.

Here's the thing, at the outside domestication of wolves started around 30,000 years ago. We know that by 9,000 years ago (7000 BCE) dogs had been domesticated. Even if we accept the outer timeline, 30K years seems, to us, like FOREVER but in an evolutionary time frame that *just* happened.

Behaviorally modern Homo sapiens date to probably no earlier than 50 - 70K years ago and anatomically modern humans date to probably no earlier than 150,000 years ago. All modern Homo sapiens are descended from a population of no larger than about 10 - 15K breeding individuals living in Africa around 75,000 years ago. That 75K years has been enough time for us to evolve the different racial groups, some interesting mutations like red and blonde hair and blue and green eyes. The only other major adaptations that I can think of that have happened since then was lactose tolerance--which almost certainly cannot predate, by much, the invention of agriculture.

Our brains, however haven't changed very much in the last 25,000 years. If someone built a time machine, went back in time to 25K years ago and grabbed any dozen random infants and then came back to 2011 there is NOTHING that those children could not learn. Most likely, something very similar is operating with dogs. The thing is, we selected for immaturity (mature wolves being kind of dangerous), and friendliness to humans. But I doubt that your average dog brain is THAT different from the average wolf brain. They've had maybe 20 or 30K years with us, compared to the *millions* of years of evolution before they adopted us or we adopted them. Their brains are running an extraordinarily successful program and since almost NONE of the vestigial behaviors have any kind of costs in terms of reproductive fitness (the only currency evolution gives a damn about) I doubt that most of those wolf-like behaviors will disappear anytime soon.

Cheers
Aj

[JustJo]

Let me tell you what I am hearing between the lines in some cases:

Poor people shouldn't be allowed to own dogs because they are irresponsible pet owners. (What this means to me is that the people who are likely to be poor, are also more likely to be people of color, especially in the USA).



I guess I'm not seeing where you're getting this part June...

I don't think that income has anything to do with responsible pet ownership (other than the fact that vet bills can be expensive).

On the subject of dogs for protection...having grown up in a dangerous neighborhood, I also think that protection is a viable reason for having a dog. Certainly, anyone looking for a dog to provide protection isn't going to have a mini-doxie like we do. They're going to want something bigger, that will give an intruder pause. I don't have a problem with that either. For me, dogs can serve a number of purposes...and companionship is only one of those.

For me, there's a huge difference between an individual that chooses a doberman or a pit or a rottie and handles it intelligently, trains it, cares for it...and also expects it to provide protection....and the individual that gets that same breed and then goads and baits the dog into being actively aggressive at every opportunity because it feeds their ego or image or whatever.

[Glenn]

I Agree Jo.
.
A trained fighter will tear off your face and organs and not stop until death. Vick and others trained killers. Huge difference in criminal behavior. I was attacked twice just standing around my house all because somehow one was loose... And I tell you folks, nothing short of a gun can stop them. Luckily, I was able to grab a 2x4 and a brick and that worked one time just enough to escape.

[Toughy]

German Shepherds have the strongest bite pressure of all dogs. As Blush pointed out, pits are way down on the list.

I have broken up plenty o dog fights, with pits and shepards and danes and labs............don't let labs fool you folks........Labs are in dog fights far more than pits at my work.....rotties, dobies and danes fight the least. I will break up a dog fight regardless of the breeds involved. The worst bite I have had came from one of those drop kick ankle biters......a mixed breed wirey white/grey little shit.....laughin....that was trying to attack a new dog (a bichon) to the pack.....

It's not the dog that is dangerous....it's the idiot that owns the dog that is dangerous.

Vick is doing a lot of work in inner cities.....he is using his 'hero' status to work with those who participate in dog fighting. A little research will show that Vick does get it and he is working with folks who are in dog fighting. He is doing what he can to change inner city dog fighting culture. He is just not making the news for his work.

suebee..........what does Vick need to do to 'prove he gets it'?

As to Obama............what the hell was he thinking?????

[dixie]

I Agree Jo.
.
A trained fighter will tear off your face and organs and not stop until death. Vick and others trained killers. Huge difference in criminal behavior. I was attacked twice just standing around my house all because somehow one was loose... And I tell you folks, nothing short of a gun can stop them. Luckily, I was able to grab a 2x4 and a brick and that worked one time just enough to escape.

I'm sorry you had to go thru this experience and am thankful you made it out safely. However, it is another misconception that ALL fighting dogs have human aggression as well. Once again, depends on how that dog is trained, handled and treated. As I said before, I've been around fighting dogs and former fighting dogs who have been completely gentle even with children. I've seen former fighting dogs of more variety than just pits, such as presa canario,cane corso, rottie and even malamutes that have been "rehabilitated" so to speak. No, I would not trust them entirely around other dogs because that was what they were trained to attack. The majority of fighting dogs are not trained to attack humans and in fact are trained to obey every command, even in the heat of a fight. Security dogs however usually ARE trained to be human aggressive. This is why not only a lot of drug dealers/gang members (statistics, not accusatory) but also misguided (IMO) family figures choose these animals and train them to be "on guard" and "protective". It literally is ALL about how these animals are TRAINED AND TREATED, whether they are for fighting, protection, or family pets. And sadly, sometimes no matter how good an animal is treated it has the capability to still turn on someone. What we seem to forget in our love for these animals is that they are in fact, STILL ANIMALS. They may have hundreds and even thousands of years of domestication in their bloodlines but those bloodlines STILL have some of the wild and free flowing in them also.

I mentioned early that my best friend had her face and fingers ripped off by a schnauzer. It was not a malnurished, abused animal. This was a wealthy neighbor's prize show dog and family pet. It had never before shown a single agressive trait or act before the incident. It was not provoked. My best friend was sitting at a table eating a cookie and talking to her mother and the neighbor when they dog attacked her. There was no warning, no indication. No animal's behavior can be totally predictive nor totally safe. This is the chance that we take when we open our homes and hearts to ANY creature. I say this as an animal lover, pet owner and realist.

[JustJo]

Thought this was interesting... the link (http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/dogfighting/qa/vick_faq.html)to the Humane Society's FAQ about their End Dogfighting program and Vick's involvement...

[katsarecool]

I was the proud owner of Rottweilers for over twenty years. My last one passed away over a year ago. Originally I purchased his grandfather for protection after being sexually assaulted in Atlanta back in 1988. He was protective of me from day one as a seven week old puppy.

My vet told me that "we" must be obedienced trained. LOL He said the dog would listen to my commands up to a point; the point where he felt I was being threatened and then the dog would take over. Luckily, it never came to pass. Just the site of that 120 pound dog sitting on my feet facing a person he felt threatened by growling at him and baring his teeth was enough.

Many vets told me that the personality of dogs was determined by more than one factor. The breed somewhat. The amound of breeding with a dog with a gentle personality with another dog of similar traits. Or visa versa. He always advised gentle with gentle dogs. And the last is how the dog is treated by its owner. All comes into play.

My Rottie family were the most gentle and loveable of dogs. They were from a reputable breeder and when I bred my dogs I made sure the stud was a kind soul. We treated them like the little kings and queens they were.

I would however remind everyone that they should never allow a small child to be alone with any dog no matter how much you trust them. My nephew was left alone with his Rottie; began pulling the dogs whiskers out one by one was warned repeatedly by the dog it hurt(he was four) and the family dog did bite him in the face. My brother in law is a bit of a jerk like that; left the child alone with the dog despite repeated warnings.

[Waldo]

The worst bite I have had came from one of those drop kick ankle biters......a mixed breed wirey white/grey little shit.....laughin....that was trying to attack a new dog (a bichon) to the pack.....

Hey Toughy, don't you think it's a little um, uncomfortable, that you use the phrase "drop kick dog" in a thread about animal abuse??

[dreadgeek]

Thought this was interesting... the link (http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/dogfighting/qa/vick_faq.html)to the Humane Society's FAQ about their End Dogfighting program and Vick's involvement...

Thank you.

Cheers
Aj

[Sachita]

[QUOTE=betenoire;255473]Now you're reaching.

I love dogs. But certainly I feel that the assault of one woman is more important than the abuse of hundreds of dogs. It doesn't have to be hundred of women by one man for it to be abhorrent.

We -are- more important (to me) than dogs are.
QUOTE]


I don't know that we're more important than animals. I know we're more important to US than animals are. And I mean that seriously. (but that's a whole 'nother discussion) My point is that a man who systematically abused women to the extent that Vick and others have and continue to systematically abuse animals would not so easily slip back into the stature of hero. This is NOT a man who kicked his dog because it peed on the carpet! As if his actions weren't horrendous enough, he's done this to HUNDREDS of animals! Isn't that serious enough?

I don't know how a topic about animal abuse can turn into domestic abuse. They are two completely different agendas and can't be compared. Since the beginning of time human hold dominion and domesticated animals. Somewhere in that we should be held responsible and accountable for doing this. Laws can eventually be created and people become more conscious enough to take action. We all have our moral passions. Some more passionate about animal abuse then others.

The bottom line, for me is this..

should a public figure earning millions of dollars be publically forgiven by our President for animal abuse? My answer will always be no. We're not talking a few chained dogs or a dog that died in is care but premeditated cruelty. He knew damn well what he was doing. He had no compassion for all those animals whatsoever. It's clearly obvious and *that* is the reason he should not be forgiven. Regardless if he is a celebrity or not it should be an example and severely punished to make people think & prompt new laws not the continued banishment of a breed.

[Sachita]

I was the proud owner of Rottweilers for over twenty years. My last one passed away over a year ago. Originally I purchased his grandfather for protection after being sexually assaulted in Atlanta back in 1988. He was protective of me from day one as a seven week old puppy.

My vet told me that "we" must be obedienced trained. LOL He said the dog would listen to my commands up to a point; the point where he felt I was being threatened and then the dog would take over. Luckily, it never came to pass. Just the site of that 120 pound dog sitting on my feet facing a person he felt threatened by growling at him and baring his teeth was enough.

Many vets told me that the personality of dogs was determined by more than one factor. The breed somewhat. The amound of breeding with a dog with a gentle personality with another dog of similar traits. Or visa versa. He always advised gentle with gentle dogs. And the last is how the dog is treated by its owner. All comes into play.

My Rottie family were the most gentle and loveable of dogs. They were from a reputable breeder and when I bred my dogs I made sure the stud was a kind soul. We treated them like the little kings and queens they were.

I would however remind everyone that they should never allow a small child to be alone with any dog no matter how much you trust them. My nephew was left alone with his Rottie; began pulling the dogs whiskers out one by one was warned repeatedly by the dog it hurt(he was four) and the family dog did bite him in the face. My brother in law is a bit of a jerk like that; left the child alone with the dog despite repeated warnings.

I lost my rottie just a few months ago. I would love to have another but can't pay for a dog when so many need homes. It's my own thing. He was a gentle giant.

My advice to people who get specific breed is to research carefully the breed and what they instinctual enjoy or need. If they are a herding dog then stimulate his nature with herding play, etc. I don't think there is anything wrong with a dog protecting his family IF the dog owner takes the proper steps to train and protect the public from their pet.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Michael Vick WAS punished & served his time, WTF more does he have to do, go through to make y'all see that. What would satisfy you Sachita? A public punishment? Him living on the streets? Working @ a Waffle House? Don't you see that shit enough??

That is just as GROSS wanting this man to PAY more than he already has. I'm no fan but damn could it be he knows he did wrong?

[Sachita]

Michael Vick WAS punished & served his time, WTF more does he have to do, go through to make y'all see that. What would satisfy you Sachita? A public punishment? Him living on the streets? Working @ a Waffle House? Don't you see that shit enough??

That is just as GROSS wanting this man to PAY more than he already has. I'm no fan but damn could it be he knows he did wrong?

No one is asking him to pay any more. I'm just saying that I can't forgive him. The fact that he went to prison and paid a fine for what he did does not make it go away and I'm sorry but I won't, can't and don't think Obama should have been involved.

Look you have your opinion and I have mine. I'm sticking with mine. If it were up to me, and its not, I would have taken illegal measures against him. Animal abuse, for me, ranks as high as child abuse, in my book. A violent act against innocence. If I could legally punish him and not go to jail then you bet your ass I would. oh yeah.

So its cool. Thats your opinion- gross, like it or not. I'm firm on this.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Michael Vick WAS punished by the system this country has set up, and yes you amongst others would have him pay in other forms, the lynch mob mentality I've come across on this thread is just as gross if not even more considering his time was served. I'm at work so I will come back later and point out where Vick's time served has not been punishment enough. It's even MORE gross considering the Favre, Sheen, Gibson, Rothlesberger pig pen going on. No one calls for their heads or lives, then again they're WHITE misunderstood men.

[Sachita]

Michael Vick WAS punished by the system this country has set up, and yes you amongst others would have him pay in other forms, the lynch mob mentality I've come across on this thread is just as gross if not even more considering his time was served. I'm at work so I will come back later and point out where Vick's time served has not been punishment enough. It's even MORE gross considering the Favre, Sheen, Gibson, Rothlesberger pig pen going on. No one calls for their heads or lives, then again they're WHITE misunderstood men.

wow.. hmmmm its not a lynch mob mentality or a racial issue. Look you can keep on and on, insult me because of my point of view but it won't change my mind one single bit and never have I stood more firmly on an issue. Don't even get me started on "this country" because I'd surely piss a lot of people off. lol

I'm just not going to toss this all over the place turning it into a bunch of non-constructive action. If you'd like to then have at it!

[dreadgeek]

No one is asking him to pay any more. I'm just saying that I can't forgive him. The fact that he went to prison and paid a fine for what he did does not make it go away and I'm sorry but I won't, can't and don't think Obama should have been involved.

Look you have your opinion and I have mine. I'm sticking with mine. If it were up to me, and its not, I would have taken illegal measures against him. Animal abuse, for me, ranks as high as child abuse, in my book. A violent act against innocence. If I could legally punish him and not go to jail then you bet your ass I would. oh yeah.

So its cool. Thats your opinion- gross, like it or not. I'm firm on this.

Sachita:

I have no doubt about what you say. None what-so-ever. I'm glad it's not up to you. I'm glad that the chances of my ever being in a position where you would be deciding MY fate is not up to you or a number of others here. I know that it is uncomfortable, and I’m not comfortable saying it, but I think that more than a lot of folks want to admit this is because Mr. Vick is a scary black man. I think that what members of the American majority see when they look at Mr. Vick is the nightmare monster they have been taught, from pretty much the first time someone sat them down in front of a TV until last night, is the most dangerous creature in their midst--the black man.

I'm glad it's not up to you because of your statement that if it were you would have taken illegal measures. I'm glad that it isn't 60 years ago, hell, I’m glad it isn't 50 years ago because probably as late as 1970 you could have reasonably walked up to Mr. Vick, shot him on the courthouse steps in a small Alabama town, in full-view of the local TV cameras and paid no penalty.

I know you would like to see Mr. Vick punished in perpetuity but this is why we have a legal system--flawed as it is--it is to make the system tilt toward justice and not vengeance. What you want is vengeance, what I want is punishment. Mr. Vick committed a crime. Mr. Vick served a prison sentence for his crime. Mr. Vick is now going back to doing a job he is, I presume, nominally competent at. I am not concerned about Mr. Obama's making a phone call, that concern drifted away on the tide of 'teach the black man a lesson' that I've been reading the last few days.

I'm curious, how destroyed do you think his life should be?

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

wow.. hmmmm its not a lynch mob mentality or a racial issue. Look you can keep on and on, insult me because of my point of view but it won't change my mind one single bit and never have I stood more firmly on an issue. Don't even get me started on "this country" because I'd surely piss a lot of people off. lol

I'm just not going to toss this all over the place turning it into a bunch of non-constructive action. If you'd like to then have at it!

It's not a lynch mob mentality? You would take illegal measures if you had access to him and could get away with it but that's NOT a lynching? What, precisely, do you think a lynching WAS if not illegal measures taken with impunity?

[Sachita]

It's not a lynch mob mentality? You would take illegal measures if you had access to him and could get away with it but that's NOT a lynching? What, precisely, do you think a lynching WAS if not illegal measures taken with impunity?

It's called my vigilante fantasy. Sorry but I can't change how I think or feel on this. It's not up to me, you're right and glad, thats cool. Now why not respect my viewpoint as I have yours? Because its based on a personal agenda or what "this country" allows?

Still not changing my mind. Nor would I change my mind about a predator that abuses children. To me they are almost the same or at least the emotion it invokes and its truly how I feel. But don't worry, I'm not running for office. lol

[Sachita]

oh AJ also you keep wanting to make this a black issue and for me it has nothing to do with that at all. I don't care what color or sex a person is. If they committed the crimes he cleared did against helpless animals I'd feel exactly the same way.

[The_Lady_Snow]

oh AJ also you keep wanting to make this a black issue and for me it has nothing to do with that at all. I don't care what color or sex a person is. If they committed the crimes he cleared did against helpless animals I'd feel exactly the same way.


Of course it's a race issue, FFS we all know that men of color do not get tried the same as white men. Vick is a money maker, he serves the man a purpose, the cash cow privilege allowed him that second chance. Your fantasies are one step from the good ol boy hang 'em mentality that I truly believe would happen if people could get away with it. As passionate as you are about dogs, I've that same passion when it comes to our men being given a chance and not incarcerated.

[Diva]

Sachita:

I have no doubt about what you say. None what-so-ever. I'm glad it's not up to you. I'm glad that the chances of my ever being in a position where you would be deciding MY fate is not up to you or a number of others here. I know that it is uncomfortable, and I’m not comfortable saying it, but I think that more than a lot of folks want to admit this is because Mr. Vick is a scary black man. I think that what members of the American majority see when they look at Mr. Vick is the nightmare monster they have been taught, from pretty much the first time someone sat them down in front of a TV until last night, is the most dangerous creature in their midst--the black man.

I'm glad it's not up to you because of your statement that if it were you would have taken illegal measures. I'm glad that it isn't 60 years ago, hell, I’m glad it isn't 50 years ago because probably as late as 1970 you could have reasonably walked up to Mr. Vick, shot him on the courthouse steps in a small Alabama town, in full-view of the local TV cameras and paid no penalty.

I know you would like to see Mr. Vick punished in perpetuity but this is why we have a legal system--flawed as it is--it is to make the system tilt toward justice and not vengeance. What you want is vengeance, what I want is punishment. Mr. Vick committed a crime. Mr. Vick served a prison sentence for his crime. Mr. Vick is now going back to doing a job he is, I presume, nominally competent at. I am not concerned about Mr. Obama's making a phone call, that concern drifted away on the tide of 'teach the black man a lesson' that I've been reading the last few days.

I'm curious, how destroyed do you think his life should be?
Cheers
Aj


I wish we could ask the dogs.

I was going back and forth on this matter until I read this (highlighted). He could have been purple, for all I care. What he did was wrong. And then I think, 'he paid for his crime, he did his time'. And then I think, I wonder how those dogs are fairing? But never once did I think, "I wonder how those dogs are fairing because of that big, scary black man."

[The_Lady_Snow]

Oh for the next time you may wanna say race issue

We aren't crayons.

P.O.C. works well too.

Oh and there are no purple people.

[Diva]

I meant no disrespect whatsoever. And You know me well enough to know that, Snow.

Edited to say: I don't think this is a race issue. I think it's a dog cruelty issue. (in my opinion) And President Obama is certainly free to feel the way he feels...as we all are. His opinion carries a lot of weight. Mine does not (except maybe with me). And I'm ok with that, too.

[The_Lady_Snow]

I meant no disrespect whatsoever. And You know me well enough to know that, Snow.




I know that it's a deflective statement used often when we discuss issues regarding race. That's where my post came from. We are at a point where it seems people are not happy with the punishment given.

What would you all want done to him so you all feel happy. He went to jail, prison is NO trip to the spa.

[Medusa]

Curious - Sincere question, for the folks who think that Michael Vick should not be forgiven for what he did. Are you pro-abortion or anti-abortion?
How do you feel about the death penalty?

[Diva]

Well, like I said....I'm torn. He did his time. I just hurt for the animals he hurt, some of whom had to be put down. That hurts my heart.

[Diva]

Curious - Sincere question, for the folks who think that Michael Vick should not be forgiven for what he did. Are you pro-abortion or anti-abortion?
How do you feel about the death penalty?

I have no problem forgiving anyone.
I believe women should have the choice over what they do with their own bodies. And the death penalty won't bring anyone back.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Well, like I said....I'm torn. He did his time. I just hurt for the animals he hurt, some of whom had to be put down. That hurts my heart.




You know what breaks mine, that I'm a mom if a man of color. God help him he ever fuck up, cause seeing the lynch mentality in this very thread is a clear view of what and how he would be looked down upon if not killed if left up to some.

[Diva]

You know what breaks mine, that I'm a mom if a man of color. God help him he ever fuck up, cause seeing the lynch mentality in this very thread is a clear view of what and how he would be looked down upon if not killed if left up to some.


That hurts my heart, too.

[dreadgeek]

It's called my vigilante fantasy. Sorry but I can't change how I think or feel on this. It's not up to me, you're right and glad, thats cool. Now why not respect my viewpoint as I have yours? Because its based on a personal agenda or what "this country" allows?

Look, I'm not trying to change your mind. I don't think I can and I wouldn't bother to try. I'm glad you are willing to own that it's your vigilante fantasy. I'm not going to pretend, however, that what I'm reading from you does not have real-world consequences NOR am I going to pretend that you aren't a citizen, capable of serving on a jury. As I said the other day, the fact that if a black man and a white man are convicted for the same crime and you hold every other single factor constant, the black man is much more likely to get death than the white man, is based upon a pre-existing conception that is present in the minds of participants in the judicial system LONG before they see the inside of a courtroom. I am sure you are passionate about this subject and I’m equally certain that if it were my son and he stood accused--not convicted but accused--and even if the evidence was flimsy that you would have no problems voting to convict him and would sleep the sleep of the righteous that very evening. That doesn't mean I think you are a bad person, it means I think you are an white American who, if you were born 10 - 15 years either side of me, were trained in ways overt and subtle to fear the following in more or less this order:

Black men
Nuclear weapons
Communists
Russians
Arabs
Muslims

If you were born anywhere between the late 50's and mid 70's, we grew up with about the same media. I remember that media and I cannot get out of my head all the images of black man as threat.


Still not changing my mind. Nor would I change my mind about a predator that abuses children. To me they are almost the same or at least the emotion it invokes and its truly how I feel. But don't worry, I'm not running for office. lol

I know it's how I feel which is why I'm glad that it is vanishingly improbable I will ever have to rely on your tender mercies and the ability to keep your vigilante fantasies and/or other feelings in check.


oh AJ also you keep wanting to make this a black issue and for me it has nothing to do with that at all. I don't care what color or sex a person is. If they committed the crimes he cleared did against helpless animals I'd feel exactly the same way.

Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't. The fact of the matter, Sachita, is that the same crime committed by a black man is ROUTINELY treated as being far more severe than one committed by a white man. It goes farther than that. If I had paddled my son in public, I'd be an abusive mother. If my wife paddled my son in public, she'd be a strict disciplinarian. We could do the *precise* same action but the downstream consequences would be highly disparate. She would most likely not have a visit from CPS, I would almost certainly wind up in a courtroom and ordered to take parenting classes. What's more, given your statements, I have every reason to believe that if you were sitting in that jury box you would, without hesitation, vote to convict me of child abuse and then, when talking about why you did, state (and believe) that race NEVER entered your mind. Again, I'm not calling you a racist, I'm calling you a white American raised in a particular time with a particular media zeitgeist. In that zeitgeist, blacks--male and female--are just this side of untamed creatures who sometimes need harsh discipline so that we'll act right. We are incorrigible by assumption.

The assumptions that I am trying to shine a bright light are just *there*, Sachita. They are in the background, it is the substrate upon which we have discussions of crime and punishment, law and order in this society. Most people will no more notice them than a fish notices water. They would be conspicuous ONLY in their absence. This is why I keep reiterating that I do not think you are a racist, simply an American. I am willing to bet that if you did a survey of every DA, every judge, every juror who has EVER been in the courtroom and part of the process that sent a black man to prison or to death row, you would not find one in a hundred who would say that race had ANYTHING to do with it. I'm sure that every single one of those people would say they were colorblind and didn't see color. I'm sure that every one of those people would invoke their black friends, neighbors or coworkers as proof of their commitment to racial harmony. I'm absolutely certain that every single one of those people would claim, swearing on the graves of their parents, the lives of their children and their own honor, that if the defendant had been a white man their voting behavior would have been PRECISELY the same.

And then, when the next case came to court, and it was similar but the defendant was white and he was given life or a long sentence with the possibility of parole and you asked them to explain how they could come up with such wildly disparate outcomes given the similarities of the case not a one of them would be able to explain it satisfactorily. There would be some hemming and hawing about some minor point of forensic or circumstantial trivia but at the end of the day, what we would have is an outcome that LOOKS based upon race and which no one involved in the process would be able to ever satisfactorily explain.

For the last two days, Sachita, that is the point I have been trying to get people to really grapple with here. I do not think that this is going to change your mind much less your feelings about this. But I cannot just sit by while this conversation goes on and pretend, for the rhetorical convenience of those that disagree with me, that there is not something deep in the American psyche that says that a black man who commits a crime is FAR MORE dangerous than a white man who commits a crime and is thus deserving of MUCH harsher and longer penalties. I can't because it's not true. When I want to pretend, I will put in a game in my Xbox, play D&D, watch some sci-fi movie or do something else to take my mind into the land of the fantastic. This isn't a time or subject where I think that maintaining pretense is reasonable.

And again, I'm not trying to change your mind or your feelings about this. I'm just trying to point out and shine a light on what I see happening. It has nothing to do with disrespect, in fact, it is BECAUSE I respect your opinion enough to take what you are saying seriously, to assume that this is a well-thought out position that you would be unlikely to hold, and to presume that your thoughts have actual consequences in the real world if the circumstances are right. I assume that you have meant every word that you have posted on this thread. I assume that you have thought about them before you clicked "submit reply" and that, therefore, there is nothing that you have posted that you do not mean.


Cheers
Aj

[Nat]

From Bill Burton:

The President did place a call to Mr. Lurie to discuss plans for the use of alternative energy at Lincoln Financial Field, during which they spoke about that and other issues. He of course condemns the crimes that Michael Vick was convicted of but, as he's said previously, he does think that individuals who have paid for their crimes should have an opportunity to contribute to society again.

Also, did anybody hear Melissa Harris-Perry's comments on msnbc last night? She clarified later through twitter that she thought she had 3 more minutes to talk. I couldn't find a YouTube, but here is her blog post (http://www.thenation.com/blog/157372/michael-vick-racial-history-and-animal-rights) about it:


Last night I had one of those awful television moments that sometimes afflict those of us who spend part of our life in classroom where we have 90 minutes to discuss a topic and the other part of our life on television where we are constrained to four-minute analyses.* On Wednesday evening I joined The Rachel Maddow Show to discuss the current flap surrounding Michael Vick and President Obama.

My goal was to offer some historical context for understanding the vastly different responses to Vick’s crime, to the severity of his punishment, and to the sense that he should be given a second chance to earn a living as a professional football player. I believe that to understand these different public responses we need to know how the Vick case evokes often unspoken, but nonetheless powerful, and deeply emotional interconnections between the rights of black Americans and of animals. Instead, having vastly underestimated the allotted time for the segment I instead seemed to argue that Vick’s acts were justified by the history of American racism.* This touched off quite a flood of hate mail to my email inbox last night. So I’ve decided to make one more effort to discuss this complicated issue.

Last year I was teaching an introductory politics course at Princeton University when a campus animal rights group brought to campus a fascinating and provocative exhibit that linked animal cruelty to human degradation, imprisonment and slavery. The images in the exhibit were part of a larger international PETA effort. They were disturbing, but also very powerful.

Many African American students on campus were deeply offended, hurt and angry about the exhibit's comparison of animal suffering to the realities of the slave trade and lynching. The Organization of Black Students organized a protest and boycott. *The campus animal rights group organized a teach-in. *I had leaders from both student organizations in my class that semester. The tension, emotion, and analytic challenges raised by the exhibit became an important aspect of the class. A group of students even made a film about the issue for the final class project. As I sought to help guide my students through these interactions I opened up a new line of research on the politics of race and animal rights.*

Recall that North American slavery of the 17th and 18th century is distinguished by its "chattel" element. *New World slavery did not consider enslaved Africans to be conquered persons, but to be chattel, beast of burden, fully subhuman and therefore not requiring the basic rights of humans. By defining slaves as animals and then abusing them horribly the American slave system degraded both black people and animals. By equating black people to animals it both asserted the superiority of humans to animals, arrayed some humans (black people) as closer to animals and therefore less human, and implied that all subjugated persons and all animals could be used and abused at the will of those who were *more powerful. The effects were pernicious for both black people and for animals.*

Equating black people to animals was a practice that continued after emancipation.*Consider the image below. *It is a picture of an Alabama store during the Jim Crow era. The sign reads: No Negro or Ape Allowed in the Building.*

When the abuse and oppression of an entire group of people is justified as acceptable because they are defined as animals, then it stands to reason the society is suggesting that abuse and oppression are acceptable ways to treat animals. Michael Vick committed horrendous acts of cruelty. I have had dogs as pets for my entire life. I am sickened by his actions. At the same time I recognize that he is one indivudal in a larger society that is profoundly complicit in the abuse and mistreatment of animals. *Ideologies of white supremacy have particular culpability in that attitude toward animals because it was part of the governing ideologiy of slavery and segregation.*

Givent this history we might think that African Americans would be particulalry strident animal rights activists, seeing their interests as profoundly linked. But the relationship between races, right and and animals is more complicated. Dogs, for example, were used by enslavers to catch, trap and return those who were trying to escape to freedom. Dogs were used to terrorize Civil Rights demonstrators. In short, animals have been weapons used against black bodies and black interests in ways that have deep historical ressonace.

Not only have animals been used as weapons against black people, but many African Americans feel that the suffering of animals evokes more empathy and concern among whites than does the suffering of black people. *For example, in the days immediately following Hurricane Katrina dozens of people sent me a link to an image of pets being evacuated on an air conditioned bus. This image was a sickening juxtaposition to the conditions faced by tens of thousands of black residents trapped by the storm and it provoked great anger and pain for those who sent it to me.

I sensed that same outrage in the responses of many black people who heard Tucker Carlson call for Vick's execution as punishment for his crimes. *It was a contrast made more raw by the recent decision to give relatively light sentences to the men responsible for the death of Oscar Grant. *Despite agreeing that Vick's acts were horrendous, somehow the Carlson's moral outrage seemed misplaced. It also seemed profoundly racialized. For example, Carlson did not call for the execution of BP executives despite their culpability in the devastation of Gulf wildlife. He did not denounce the Supreme Court for their decision in*US v. Stevens (April 2010) which overturned a portion of the 1999 Act Punishing Depictions of Animal Cruelty. After all with this "crush" decision the Court seems to have validated a marketplace for exactly the kinds of crimes Vick was convicted of committing. *For many observers, the decision to demonize Vick seems motivated by something more pernicious than concern for animal welfare. It seems to be about race.*

It is into this murky racial history that President Obama inadvertently waded this week. Whatever the quality (or lack thereof)*of his argument about incarceration and its lifelong effects on those who serve time, I suspect President could not be heard over the din of emotion, anxiety, and history around race and animals in this country. Last night I found myself similarly unable to articulate the difficult and complex relationships that can make it so difficult to hear one another across this divide. My goal was not to defend Vick nor to condemn him, but to try to understand our very different national reactions to him.*

[Sachita]

.
Last night I found myself similarly unable to articulate the difficult and complex relationships that can make it so difficult to hear one another across this divide. My goal was not to defend Vick nor to condemn him, but to try to understand our very different national reactions to him.*

Ok yes, I see what you mean, really. Thank you for taking the time to post all that. I can see where some people would take issue. For me it really is just about the animals and the degree of cruelty. But I do see your point.

[dreadgeek]

I wish we could ask the dogs.

I was going back and forth on this matter until I read this (highlighted). He could have been purple, for all I care. What he did was wrong. And then I think, 'he paid for his crime, he did his time'. And then I think, I wonder how those dogs are fairing? But never once did I think, "I wonder how those dogs are fairing because of that big, scary black man."



Diva:

Please see my post above regarding your last sentence. You can have the reaction that this man should be sent to, say, Egypt where there ARE no laws against torture and that he should be given a full and complete tour through the meaning of 'medieval torture methods' before being allowed to die and never ONCE have a single conscious thought about a 'big, scary black man'. I don't think you, Sachita, or anyone else involved in this discussion is consciously thinking "big scary black man" or "teach blacks a lesson about cruelty" but I DO think that it is reflexive for members of the American ethnic majority to view blacks and Latinos as more dangerous.

Now, since you mention the dogs, I'll say something else. Had it turned out that one of the dogs had turned on Mr. Vick and taken a bite out of his neck severing his jugular and causing his death, I would shrug my shoulders and say that he got what he deserved. If he were only maimed or disfigured, I'd still shrug and say that he got what he deserved.

But that's not what we are talking about. What we're talking about is what *society* should do with or about Mr. Vick and that is what my concern is--that and what our motivations are for wanting to do or not do something to, with or about him.

Cheers
Aj

[Sachita]

But you know, folks are stubborn and it's easier to rely on their knee-jerk reactions rather than try to figure out why.

Ok I'm guilty of this when it comes to certain things. I also had a light go off inside. We all have something we're passionate about and things that are very personal. As much as I try to leave emotion out of reaction I admit I fall short.

These issues are in my face on a regular basis because of my involvement with dogs/animals and rescue groups. I can't watch an ASPCA commercial without breaking down and crying. I am on craigslist several hours a week trying to match dogs with people seeking dogs, with some success but with that i also see a lot of shit that saddens me. After a while you become enraged and a rebel for the fight against animal cruelty. My stance on Vick is the degree of cruelty and the amount of animals. Even one would have been awful but it was so large and so much suffering. I don't care if he's famous, black, green- etc.

thanks again

[nowandthen]

Here is a link to a man who Killed his two dogs to go on vacation. I had not heard about this until someone pointed it out to me yesterday.
http://www.care2.com/news/member/100041282/1178124

I have a pit/mix who has been attack 3 times by little dogs running up and trying to bite her. So I agree with many here. 1. dogs will act like dogs trained or not. 2. owners must understand the breed. 3. Racism is involved in everything, right or wrong. 4. using not relative situations to make a universal statement always backfires, nothing is universal. 5. If you go to the store and buy food including vegetables you participate in system of food. (truck delivery,water)

Yes, even if you are a vegan, you participate less and I support your choice, but we live in a first world country with a different value system that exploits other countries for our food systems as well as our own.
Anyway, my point is this, Animal abuse/Dog fighting is wrong.
He did his time, for me he lost the right to own a dog. He has a right to make a living. Racism is at play in the redemption narrative, who gets it who does not.
I for one do not know what is in another's heart or mind, or what pain looks like or how anyone but myself looks like. This media age gives a false sense of what is real or felt, I have misread many e-mails,post,pictures through my own lens and narrative and have been way wrong.
If we want to talk about football start a football thread.
and Last and probable the most controversial thing I am going to say is this, as a white american it becomes more and more important for me to unlearn the first world white privilege narrative ( colonialism), by this I mean fitting everything into how I have been trained to hear,read,and think. For me, animal abuse is wrong simple, but I do not grow or raise my food so I by my complicity abuse animals. I own leather, drive a truck, and buy plastic that ends up in the ocean or around a Sea-lions neck. Not long ago White folks had picnics at lynchings, I may have a relative that watched, just so you know the Irish were the most lynched prior to the civil war. There are those who believe BDSM is violent and abusive, I lived through the 80's. The War machine. Again, We all are complicate and participated in some form that is contributing to violence against both people and animals,
So the glass house and rock story seems to need review.
:praying:

[dreadgeek]

Ok I'm guilty of this when it comes to certain things. I also had a light go off inside. We all have something we're passionate about and things that are very personal. As much as I try to leave emotion out of reaction I admit I fall short.

These issues are in my face on a regular basis because of my involvement with dogs/animals and rescue groups. I can't watch an ASPCA commercial without breaking down and crying. I am on craigslist several hours a week trying to match dogs with people seeking dogs, with some success but with that i also see a lot of shit that saddens me. After a while you become enraged and a rebel for the fight against animal cruelty. My stance on Vick is the degree of cruelty and the amount of animals. Even one would have been awful but it was so large and so much suffering. I don't care if he's famous, black, green- etc.

thanks again

So what level of pain would be enough? If he were turned over to the mercies of the mukhabarat in Egypt (the Egyptian secret police) and given, as I said before, a full and complete tour through the meaning of 'getting medieval on you' would that be enough? If it were mixed up a bit and he was given the very BEST in medieval torture married with the very BEST of Western medical intervention so that he would stay alive and--more to the point--conscious through every single excruciating moment and if this were allowed to continue for, say, a year. Would THAT be enough?

I keep hearing "I can't forgive him" or "it wasn't enough" well that means that somewhere there must be some line at which you would have to say "okay, enough". I'm curious what that line is.

In a less extreme vein, if he spent the rest of his days in prison would that be enough or would he need to spend the rest of his days in solitary? Or would you just prefer he were taken out and shot without delay?

You must have SOME punishment in mind, what is it?

Cheers
Aj

[suebee]

Diva:

Please see my post above regarding your last sentence. You can have the reaction that this man should be sent to, say, Egypt where there ARE no laws against torture and that he should be given a full and complete tour through the meaning of 'medieval torture methods' before being allowed to die and never ONCE have a single conscious thought about a 'big, scary black man'. I don't think you, Sachita, or anyone else involved in this discussion is consciously thinking "big scary black man" or "teach blacks a lesson about cruelty" but I DO think that it is reflexive for members of the American ethnic majority to view blacks and Latinos as more dangerous.

Now, since you mention the dogs, I'll say something else. Had it turned out that one of the dogs had turned on Mr. Vick and taken a bite out of his neck severing his jugular and causing his death, I would shrug my shoulders and say that he got what he deserved. If he were only maimed or disfigured, I'd still shrug and say that he got what he deserved.

But that's not what we are talking about. What we're talking about is what *society* should do with or about Mr. Vick and that is what my concern is--that and what our motivations are for wanting to do or not do something to, with or about him.

Cheers
Aj

Aj, I've missed the last several pages, but the first thing I saw when I logged on was the above comment. I know you can't necessarily separate the man's reality from his story. Obviously he's black, and that carries with it a whole complicated set of dynamics that wouldn't be the same if he'd been a white man. However, what YOU'VE been talking about is what society should do with or about Mr. Vick in the context of dealing with a black man. As a white woman in another country, while I may have some understanding of those dynamics, I see the situation through the eyes of a different reality. That doesn't in any way negate what you're saying. But since the man was convicted of a number of absolutely heinous crimes towards animals, my animal activist self sees THAT as the central point of the story. My belief system perhaps sees animals in a somewhat different light than others, but that doesn't mean that one set of beliefs/perception, what-have-you is any less important than any other. My belief system sees humans as PART of the world, not the centre of the world, and certainly not the only life form that counts. While it may be perfectly natural for us to give preference to matters involving our own species, if we don't come to an appreciation of the world of which we ar part of WE will (and I believe, already ARE) face the consequences of our arrogance.

I don't think that we need to have ONE conversation here. There are different aspects to this story that are important. It depends upon one's personal values/filter which part of the story we prioritize. But I AM sure that we can learn from each other in the process.

[dreadgeek]

Okay, I'll ask you the SAME question that I've asked others: what level of punishment would be enough? Please let us know.

Cheers
Aj

Aj, I've missed the last several pages, but the first thing I saw when I logged on was the above comment. I know you can't necessarily separate the man's reality from his story. Obviously he's black, and that carries with it a whole complicated set of dynamics that wouldn't be the same if he'd been a white man. However, what YOU'VE been talking about is what society should do with or about Mr. Vick. As a white woman in another country, while I may have some understanding of those dynamics, I see the situation through the eyes of a different reality. That doesn't in any way negate what you're saying. But since the man was convicted of a number of absolutely heinous crimes towards animals, my animal activist self sees THAT as the central point of the story. My belief system perhaps sees animals in a somewhat different light than others, but that doesn't mean that one set of beliefs/perception, what-have-you is any less important than any other. My belief system sees humans as PART of the world, not the centre of the world, and certainly not the only life form that counts. While it may be perfectly natural for us to give preference to matters involving our own species, if we don't come to an appreciation of the world of which we ar part of WE will (and I believe, already ARE) face the consequences of our arrogance.

I don't think that we need to have ONE conversation here. There are different aspects to this story that are important. It depends upon one's personal values/filter which part of the story we prioritize. But I AM sure that we can learn from each other in the process.

[nowandthen]

Here is a link to a man who Killed his two dogs to go on vacation. I had not heard about this until someone pointed it out to me yesterday.
http://www.care2.com/news/member/100041282/1178124

I have a pit/mix who has been attack 3 times by little dogs running up and trying to bite her. So I agree with many here. 1. dogs will act like dogs trained or not. 2. owners must understand the breed. 3. Racism is involved in everything, right or wrong. 4. using not relative situations to make a universal statement always backfires, nothing is universal. 5. If you go to the store and buy food including vegetables you participate in system of food. (truck delivery,water)

Yes, even if you are a vegan, you participate less and I support your choice, but we live in a first world country with a different value system that exploits other countries for our food systems as well as our own.
Anyway, my point is this, Animal abuse/Dog fighting is wrong.
He did his time, for me he lost the right to own a dog. He has a right to make a living. Racism is at play in the redemption narrative, who gets it who does not.
I for one do not know what is in another's heart or mind, or what pain looks like or how anyone but myself looks like. This media age gives a false sense of what is real or felt, I have misread many e-mails,post,pictures through my own lens and narrative and have been way wrong.
If we want to talk about football start a football thread.
and Last and probable the most controversial thing I am going to say is this, as a white american it becomes more and more important for me to unlearn the first world white privilege narrative ( colonialism), by this I mean fitting everything into how I have been trained to hear,read,and think. For me, animal abuse is wrong simple, but I do not grow or raise my food so I by my complicity abuse animals. I own leather, drive a truck, and buy plastic that ends up in the ocean or around a Sea-lions neck. Not long ago White folks had picnics at lynchings, I may have a relative that watched, just so you know the Irish were the most lynched prior to the civil war. There are those who believe BDSM is violent and abusive, I lived through the 80's. The War machine. Again, We all are complicate and participated in some form that is contributing to violence against both people and animals,
So the glass house and rock story seems to need review.
:praying:
A friend just sent me this on face book after I hit sent on here.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/157372/michael-vick-racial-history-and-animal-rights

[Ebon]

Someone asked me why this had to turn into a black and white issue. MOST people that are not a "person of color" (I have to say that term makes me twitch but that's just me) would not understand what Vicks race has to do to people's reaction to this whole thing. I can understand that you see the world in a different way. Your color has never been an issue. Although I think the race card is pretty much maxed out some people do still feel like we are sub-human and they do react in that way. I can tell the difference, some people can't. I always question it due to my walk in life and my "color" being an issue all of my life. I make color jokes all the time just to make people uncomfortable on purpose because I'm evil like that. But when it comes down to it first and foremost I'm human. Second I'm a brown color due to the environment that my ancestors come from. Until we ALL realize that color is just a social construct that keeps us apart and fighting with each other and we tried to understand where another person is coming from there is always going to be that "color" issue. Try not to get offended if someone of "color" see's a black and white issue when you do not. Maybe try to understand why they feel that way.

[Diva]

Diva:

Please see my post above regarding your last sentence. You can have the reaction that this man should be sent to, say, Egypt where there ARE no laws against torture and that he should be given a full and complete tour through the meaning of 'medieval torture methods' before being allowed to die and never ONCE have a single conscious thought about a 'big, scary black man'. I don't think you, Sachita, or anyone else involved in this discussion is consciously thinking "big scary black man" or "teach blacks a lesson about cruelty" but I DO think that it is reflexive for members of the American ethnic majority to view blacks and Latinos as more dangerous.

And I defend Your right to say this. But I just don't think that way.

Now, since you mention the dogs, I'll say something else. Had it turned out that one of the dogs had turned on Mr. Vick and taken a bite out of his neck severing his jugular and causing his death, I would shrug my shoulders and say that he got what he deserved. If he were only maimed or disfigured, I'd still shrug and say that he got what he deserved.

But that's not what we are talking about. What we're talking about is what *society* should do with or about Mr. Vick and that is what my concern is--that and what our motivations are for wanting to do or not do something to, with or about him.

I realize the thread sort of 'evolved'....and forgive me....I was talking about the dogs as that's what was really concerning me. I derailed. My apologies.

And thanks for posting. I enjoy reading You, whether I always agree with You or not.....Your words stretch my brain. :)


Cheers
Aj
........................................

[Nat]

A few years back, I might have said very similar things to what Sachita has posted here. Honestly I had a lot more sympathy for animals than I did for a single human being. I had this idea that animals were defenseless and that humans were brutal toward them and unless there were people willing to stand up for animal rights, then there was no hope against senseless human-caused misery, death and extinction among animals. I still feel a bit of that in my innermost core, though my feelings have changed to accept that nature is brutal and people are part of nature.

At some point, I stopped crossing humans off the list when it came to "beings that matter" in my own heart and mind. I think it happened around the time I decided that I mattered - maybe about 8 years ago. I think it was the week when I realized that my vegetarian diet had left me so weak that I could no longer pick up cinder blocks and both my knees were always in pain. Or maybe it was the week after, when I ate meat again for the first time in a year and a half (?).

During my vegetarian years, I went to a lecture by Carol J Adams called "The Sexual Politics of Meat" which really emphasized how women and animals are equated in our culture. She gave lots of examples which can still be found on her website. I do believe she touched once or twice on the intersection of race, women and animals within advertising, but she didn't go into great depth.

Anyway, not sure where I'm going with this, so I am going to make a jump into my present. I understand now that "not seeing race" in an issue where many others do is most likely an act of willful ignorance on my part. I am allowed to participate in this type of ignorance because it is supported by the majority (white) culture. To acknowledge the race issues here would be to "commit a crime against the collective." To acknowledge that most of our hands are bloody when it comes to animal cruelty is another one of those crimes. When I say, "Crime against the collective," I mean in this sense:

"Any step in individuation is experienced as a crime against the collective because it challenges the individual's identification with some representative of the collective - whether it be a family, party, church or nation. At the same time, each step - since it is truly an inflated act - is not only accompanied by guilt but also runs the very real risk that one will get caught in an inflation that carries the consequences of a fall."

- Edward F Edinger

I heard this quote in the Jungian podcast yesterday during a discussion of what happened in Nazi Germany among the relatively well-educated German citizens that ended up supporting the Nazi movement. It's very dangerous to take advantage of the ignorance afforded us by our individual sets of privilege, because it allows us to be mindless and therefore oppressive toward others. It's hard to break the spoken or unspoken rules of the collective, but I think it's worth it.

[nowandthen]

A friend just sent me this on face book after I hit sent on here.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/157372...-animal-rights

I find my brain can not always express clearly what I am trying to convey. to be clear I was trying to express some of what the Professor here is speaking to and trying not to derail the conversation. I mostly likely failed in my articulation, but I agree that doing it wrong or badly teaches me more than when I do it right. :praying:

[Sachita]

So what level of pain would be enough? If he were turned over to the mercies of the mukhabarat in Egypt (the Egyptian secret police) and given, as I said before, a full and complete tour through the meaning of 'getting medieval on you' would that be enough? If it were mixed up a bit and he was given the very BEST in medieval torture married with the very BEST of Western medical intervention so that he would stay alive and--more to the point--conscious through every single excruciating moment and if this were allowed to continue for, say, a year. Would THAT be enough?

I keep hearing "I can't forgive him" or "it wasn't enough" well that means that somewhere there must be some line at which you would have to say "okay, enough". I'm curious what that line is.

In a less extreme vein, if he spent the rest of his days in prison would that be enough or would he need to spend the rest of his days in solitary? Or would you just prefer he were taken out and shot without delay?

You must have SOME punishment in mind, what is it?

Cheers
Aj

I would need to think about that otherwise my response may seem insane or it could excite a few here. lol- I'm kidding, sort of. I think it may involve torture which I know is insane and illegal but again it's emotional & stimulates the vigilante sadist in me.

Exploring my feelings about this I recalled an awful child abuse case in Missouri everyone has heard about Debra Luptak. It was considered the worse child abuse case in history. I know *this* isn't about that but if I use it as a comparison, and to me animal abuse is as bad a crime IMO, should her mother been allowed to serve time and then be let out and forgiven? This is the most extreme case and I view Vick's case to be extreme although not the worse.

I might not be making sense right now. I have some crazy ass dogs today. I might need to get back to this.

[suebee]

Okay, I'll ask you the SAME question that I've asked others: what level of punishment would be enough? Please let us know.

Cheers
Aj

I don't think I've ever broached the subject of his state-sanctioned punishment. I worked in systems parallel to the justice systems long enough to know that the manner in which "punishments" (in "correctional" institutions :|) are doled out is pretty much a crock. And I don't doubt that him being a black man entered into his sentence. But I also don't doubt that him being a sports celebrity entered into it either!

I'll say it again: what I'm talking about is how *I* perceive Michael Vick's so-called "change". Does he really "get it"? What I've seen of his statements tells me that he doesn't. Toughy came on last night and said that she has seen things about Vicks' efforts that says otherwise. I sent her a rep saying I'd love to see those statements/efforts; that maybe I'd change my mind if I was more informed.

As I said in my last post: how we see this is a matter of values. I'm certainly not saying that the issue of inequality in the justice system is NOT an important aspect, only that my focus is on the magnitude of his crimes against animals. Sachita already said that she sees his crimes as equal to crimes involving child abuse. I agree. Furthermore, considering the absolutely astounding degree of the abuse AND the number of victims, I would think this issue would concern more than just those who are animal-lovers. His involvement in dog-fighting may stem from cultural elements, but systemic abuse of animals is a BIG red flag for many other pathologies.

Again, I'm not talking about societal sentencing. I have no doubt that many on this site would boycott a convicted child abuser, or sexual offender. I feel the same way about Vick.

[julieisafemme]

Curious - Sincere question, for the folks who think that Michael Vick should not be forgiven for what he did. Are you pro-abortion or anti-abortion?
How do you feel about the death penalty?

This is an excellent question for all of us.

I believe it is not my place to forgive Michael Vick. That is between him and his G-d or not.

I am anti-death penalty. It is wrong morally and I think has been proven not to be much a deterrant. Also it is not applied justly in our system.

I am personally against abortion but support 100% a woman's sovereignty over her own body.

I am curious Medusa what people's answers would mean? What is the correct answer to these questions for those who will not forgive him?

[Ebon]

From the article nowandthen posted a link to. So, how is this different? It was only two dogs? This fucker "rescued" two dogs, then dispatched them when they became an inconvenience. Look at his sentence. Look at his motives. Shall we forgo the justice system for him too? String him up? Make sure he never works again? Do you get the same visceral feelings? -- June

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_GGAmzDRA_BY/SkRoPoe8JOI/AAAAAAAAGm8/O80uEtQxkOk/s400/david%2Bsantuomo.jpg

The POS pictured on the right is David Santuomo, 43, a Columbus, OH, firefighter who last December wanted to go on a cruise with his girlfriend but did want to pay for boarding for his two adopted dogs, Sloopy and Skeeter. So to save himself some money, he took his dogs into the basement, tie them to a pipe suspending their bodies and shot them both numerous times. He then dumped their bodies on the plastic he had already laid out, wrapped them up and dumped them in a trash bin behind the fire station where he worked. What makes this even sadder is that at least two neighbors had offered to watch the dogs while he was away.

This week, as part of a plea deal, Santuomo pleaded guilty to two counts of animal cruelty and one count of possessing a criminal tool a homemade silencer, all three misdemeanors. Franklin County Municipal Judge Harland H. Hale sentenced him to 90 days, to be served over 2 years, $4,500 in restitution, $150 fine, 200 hours of community service and he cannot possess any pets or firearms for 5 years. He also has to write a letter of apology to a firefighters magazine and to readers of The Dispatch newspaper. He has yet to face an internal disciplinary hearing with Fire Chief Ned Pettus Jr.

Felony charges were not pursued because there is no felony animal cruelty law in Ohio!!

After shooting and killing the two dogs he had adopted from the humane society, Santuomo was actually so proud of himself that he bragged to fellow firefighters. Thankfully, they were were not amused, but disgusted by his actions and his bragging.

“He later bragged about killing his pets to fellow firefighters, and he showed no remorse, even joking about it,” Assistant County Prosecutor Heather Robinson said. “Fellow firefighters were disgusted by what he did, and the Capital Area Humane Society was called to investigate.”

His lawyer calls his actions an isolated case and out of character but it seems Santuomo showed his character quite clearly when he gave courtroom reporters the finger.

And this waste of human life is still working as a firefighter!! Is this someone you would want to trust your life, or the lives of your precious furry family members to in the case of an emergency?? After pleading guilty he should have been removed from his position immediately! Fired!! And I’d also like to know what this business is of him being allowed to serve his measly 90 day sentence over a period of 2 years?? What makes him so special?

I wonder if that guy Tucker will call for his death.

[JustJo]

From the article nowandthen posted a link to. So, how is this different? It was only two dogs? This fucker "rescued" two dogs, then dispatched them when they became an inconvenience. Look at his sentence. Look at his motives. Shall we forgo the justice system for him too? String him up? Make sure he never works again? Do you get the same visceral feelings? -- June



An absolute POS indeed...and a perfect example of the inherent unfairness of our "justice" system. I also find it absolutely disturbing that there is no such thing as felony animal abuse in the state. So...no matter how disgusting, how massive, how horrible the abuse is...it's not a felony. That's outrageous...and a pretty horrific failure of the legislature.

Honestly, since there's no way to convict him of a felony...I'd love to see the Humane Society sue his ass off...so they can use those funds to help animals. Seems like his adoption of the animals probably included some kind of agreement to take responsible care of them...

[The_Lady_Snow]

Well June.

He's white, he gets a second chance.

[JustJo]

I wonder if that guy Tucker will call for his death.

Of course not...cuz...ummmmm....he's a firefighter. :|

[BullDog]

Why don't people put their passion and energy into all the women and children that white men abuse? Why not focus on the white male power system that makes people of color, women, children, animals and the environment instruments of their control? That's where the locus of the mis-use and abuse of power is.

If ALL people (not just white men) were treated with respect, dignity and as equals maybe collectively we would treat our animals better too. How can you expect animals to be treated well in such a fucked up world with such fucked up value systems? Get to the root of the problems. People abuse animals because they think they have the right to.

[dreadgeek]

I wonder if that guy Tucker will call for his death.

I wouldn't put the change in my pocket on Tucker calling for his death. Hell, I'm willing to bet that someone on FOX will excuse the man!

Cheers
Aj

[julieisafemme]

Why don't people their passion and energy into all the women and children that white men abuse? Why not focus on the white male power system that makes people of color, women, children, animals and the environment instruments of their control? That's where the locus of the mis-use and abuse of power is.

If ALL people (not just white men) were treated with respect, dignity and as equals maybe collectively we would treat our animals better too. How can you expect animals to be treated well in such a fucked up world with such fucked up value systems? Get to the root of the problems. People abuse animals because they think they have the right to.


That's exactly what I have been saying BullDog. The root of the problem is the othering which allows us to view animals and other human beings as less than and therefore not worthy of decent treatment. I think others have been saying this too. So that is where my passion and energy is going.

Fighting for the rights of animals is not overlooking or not fighting for the rights of women and children. And the reverse is true as well. Anytime someone fights for the rights of queers, POC, women, animals, children and so on they are helping to fight for all of us. At least that is how I see it.

[BullDog]

When people get all upset over Michael Vick and have multiple threads about it, but there is no discussion of women being abused by multiple football players over and over and over, I think women are being ignored. It's been all over the news. Some of the biggest football stars have done it.

[suebee]

Why don't people their passion and energy into all the women and children that white men abuse? Why not focus on the white male power system that makes people of color, women, children, animals and the environment instruments of their control? That's where the locus of the mis-use and abuse of power is.

If ALL people (not just white men) were treated with respect, dignity and as equals maybe collectively we would treat our animals better too. How can you expect animals to be treated well in such a fucked up world with such fucked up value systems? Get to the root of the problems. People abuse animals because they think they have the right to.


That's exactly what I have been saying BullDog. The root of the problem is the othering which allows us to view animals and other human beings as less than and therefore not worthy of decent treatment. I think others have been saying this too. So that is where my passion and energy is going.

Fighting for the rights of animals is not overlooking or not fighting for the rights of women and children. And the reverse is true as well. Anytime someone fights for the rights of queers, POC, women, animals, children and so on they are helping to fight for all of us. At least that is how I see it.

Each issue is a piece of the puzzle. If you leave out any one, the picture will be incomplete. None of us can take care of ALL of the issues, but if we focus on the ones that speak the loudest to us and respect the efforts of others who speak on the other issues, we might actually get somewhere as a society.

[suebee]

When people get all upset over Michael Vick and have multiple threads about it, but there is no discussion of women being abused by multiple football players over and over and over, I think women are being ignored. It's been all over the news. Some of the biggest football stars have done it.

Bully, I don't think anybody has said that women's issues are NOT important. Personally I think we as a species are capable of caring about more than one thing at a time. I honestly don't understand why you persist in saying that the Michael Vick story isn't important on a thread ABOUT Michael Vick!

[julieisafemme]

When people get all upset over Michael Vick and have multiple threads about it, but there is no discussion of women being abused by multiple football players over and over and over, I think women are being ignored. It's been all over the news. Some of the biggest football stars have done it.

I am here to tell you I am NOT ignoring the abuse of women. Not now. Not ever. As a survivor of abuse it filters into and affects EVERYTHING I touch in this world. Ignoring the abuse of women is ignoring me and I do not do that anymore.

This thread is about animal abuse and what Obama said to a football coach. I am thinking about that and trying to link it to the bigger picture as I see it. That includes the abuse of human beings as I have mentioned in all of my posts.

I am tired of being lumped into some group who does not care about, advocate for or passionately fight the abuse of women.

[BullDog]

I am here to tell you I am NOT ignoring the abuse of women. Not now. Not ever. As a survivor of abuse it fliters into and affects EVERYTHING I touch in this world. Igonoring the abuse of women is ignoring me and I do not do that anymore.

This thread is about aninal abuse and what Obama said to a football coach. I am thinking about that and trying to link it to the bigger picture as I see it. That includes the abuse of human beings as I have mentioned in all of my posts.

I am tired of being lumped into some group who does not care about, advocate for or passionately fight the abuse of women.

I have no idea why you think I am lumping you in with anything.

[julieisafemme]

I have no idea why you think I am lumping you in with anything.


Then who are you talking to? You do not quote posts of specific people. You paint these broad brush strokes and we are supposed to figure out if we fit or not??? I will NOT sit by and let any woman be abused. I will NOT sit by and let another woman or girl go through what I went through and still do this day! Now I am riled up and so I will take a break from this thread. I do appreciate your voice in defense of women. I wish you would use it to support us here instead of what feels like to me tearing us down.

[BullDog]

So we're not supposed to bring up things like racism and sexism? This thread was placed in the politics section and the OP said they weren't going to vote for Obama because of his remarks. Some of us are looking at this from a much broader picture than others.

[dreadgeek]

And before I get back to rewiring my lamps, I want to say that how you, Sachita are feeling about taking the law into your own hands? That's how a lot of people feel about Queers, too. I am pretty sure you would be horrified if someone you knew (or didn't know) publicly stated "I think that Queer should be shot for fucking his partner up the ass" or "All those goddamn rug munchers need to die".

Broaden the spectrum of your internal justice system. :)

You make a good point. Because people were talking about taking justice into their own hands or expressing fantasies about what that would be like, I thought it might be useful to post some links about what happened the LAST time that was allowed in this country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States

http://withoutsanctuary.org/ (this is a slideshow of lynching images, they are VERY disturbing)

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingyear.html

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/Lynchcauses.html

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingsstate.html

http://www.umass.edu/complit/aclanet/ACLAText/USLynch.html

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/2/79.02.04.x.html

Now, I want to say this. I get it about revenge and vengeance fantasies. I understand why people have them. But when you *indulge* in them and give voice to them, I think one should be fully and completely cognizant of what one is talking about. When one is fantasizing about the cathartic glories of vigilante justice, one should know that the reality of vigilante justice is not what you see in an old movie with Chuck Norris or Charles Bronson. Vigilante justice is brutal, it is violent and while it might seem that someone like Michael Vick would only be 'getting what he did to those dogs back' keep in mind that this is the SAME mentality that inspired the Billy Holiday song 'Strange Fruit'. To the minds of the mob, those that were hung from trees were just getting what they deserved.

Reading this thread I had a most ironic moment. Perhaps the most ironic I've had on this site so far. A justice system that I do not trust and which I KNOW is stacked against me, is also the only real protection I have against the sentiments expressed here. My only hope, irony of ironies, is that if *I* were accused of a crime the courts would get to me first and then I could get a lawyer and hopefully something resembling a fair trial (class would be my ace in the hole here).

As I said at the head of this post, I get the fantasies of righteous vengeance visited upon the deserving. But I also get it that I cannot--and most certainly should not--indulge in such fantasies. In 1998, a man named James Byrd was murdered by three white men in Texas. Not just murdered. They slit his throat, beat him with a bat, and then tied him to a truck and dragged him just to be certain. When I first heard about that, or about Matthew Sheppard or Brandon Teena, I certainly had feelings that were of vengeance visited upon those criminals. But then I thought "if I indulge this, if I let myself think that I am righteous for this stance, what POSSIBLE moral distinction can I draw between myself and the people of a small Alabama town who lynched one of my uncles in the late 20s?" I realized that there was none. I would be no better than them--lacking in a mob, I would not have the means to carry out my vengeance--but as Organicbutch's tagline says "thoughts become things, choose the good ones". I am the niece of a man who was lynched 40 years before I ever drew my first breath of air and yet his death stabs through the heart of my family to this day and it has been the best part of a century.

I am not trying to change anyone's mind or make anyone feel anything differently about this issue. Indulge your vengeance fantasies in expression here. Sleep well at night knowing that you are on the side of righteousness. But know what it is you are fantasizing about. Know what side you have chosen.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Toughy posted a link, did you go and read that page? So you're talking about YOUR personal feelings about Michael Vick, okay. I’m not sure I have anything to say about your personal feelings about anything--in fact, I can't imagine why I should say anything about your personal feelings so I won't.

Cheers
Aj


I don't think I've ever broached the subject of his state-sanctioned punishment. I worked in systems parallel to the justice systems long enough to know that the manner in which "punishments" (in "correctional" institutions :|) are doled out is pretty much a crock. And I don't doubt that him being a black man entered into his sentence. But I also don't doubt that him being a sports celebrity entered into it either!

I'll say it again: what I'm talking about is how *I* perceive Michael Vick's so-called "change". Does he really "get it"? What I've seen of his statements tells me that he doesn't. Toughy came on last night and said that she has seen things about Vicks' efforts that says otherwise. I sent her a rep saying I'd love to see those statements/efforts; that maybe I'd change my mind if I was more informed.

As I said in my last post: how we see this is a matter of values. I'm certainly not saying that the issue of inequality in the justice system is NOT an important aspect, only that my focus is on the magnitude of his crimes against animals. Sachita already said that she sees his crimes as equal to crimes involving child abuse. I agree. Furthermore, considering the absolutely astounding degree of the abuse AND the number of victims, I would think this issue would concern more than just those who are animal-lovers. His involvement in dog-fighting may stem from cultural elements, but systemic abuse of animals is a BIG red flag for many other pathologies.

Again, I'm not talking about societal sentencing. I have no doubt that many on this site would boycott a convicted child abuser, or sexual offender. I feel the same way about Vick.

[Sachita]

And before I get back to rewiring my lamps, I want to say that how you, Sachita are feeling about taking the law into your own hands? That's how a lot of people feel about Queers, too. I am pretty sure you would be horrified if someone you knew (or didn't know) publicly stated "I think that Queer should be shot for fucking his partner up the ass" or "All those goddamn rug munchers need to die".

Broaden the spectrum of your internal justice system. :)

I might have sadistic fantasies about torturing him and taking the law into my own hands but I would not. thats the big difference. Instead of stalking him, sending hate letters and contemplating ways to make his life miserable I'll use my time constructively helping animals.

[betenoire]

For the people who haven't heard the song that Aj mentioned:

h4ZyuULy9zs

[julieisafemme]

I think for myself it might sometimes be easier to talk about, dissect and express outrage about mistreatment of animals than to touch on the mistreatment of women and my own abuse. I don't know if this is true for others. That does not though mean that I am ignoring the discussion.

Happy New Year to you all and thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. I'll be thinking about in the days to come.

[Dude]

I've been chomping at the bit trying to get online to post.
Sometimes a big pause to really think about it all backwards and forwards is
the only damn way I can really see shit for what it is.

I am disgusted to say neither my sisters or father could serve impartially on a trial of a POC person for any crime. I have worked internally very hard on many levels for a hell of a lot of years to not be anything like them. I think we as white people gotta pull out the mirror look in it and most importantly feel where POC people are coming from.
Our brains absorb all types of bull shit. At some point though there must come a time when people make a choice to be fuckin rigid in their thinking because that's easier than examining under that ugly layer.

I wonder what a good lawyer's eliminating juror questions must be when defending
a POC in this world?
In all honesty would I be eliminated?
Have I deprogrammed enough ugly yet?

[Nat]

For the people who haven't heard the song that Aj mentioned:

h4ZyuULy9zs

In addition -

http://www.theamericanmuseum.org/february.10.fifth.html


Strange Fruit

First Published In
The New York Teacher
1936

Abel Meeropol, under the pseudonym Lewis Allan
(1903 – 1986)

Southern trees bear strange fruit:
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze;
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.

Pastoral scene of the gallant south:
The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,
Scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh,
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh.

Here is fruit for the crows to pluck,
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop.
Here is a strange and bitter crop.

"On August 7, 1930, in Marion, Indiana, Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith, black men arrested the previous day on robbery, rape, and murder charges, were forcibly taken from their jail cells by a white mob, beaten savagely [possibly to death], then hanged [or hung] from a tree. Marion police officers took part in the kidnapping and murders. The photograph was taken by Lawrence Beitler. Beitler worked almost around the clock for ten straight days, printing thousands of copies of the picture, which he sold for fifty cents each. Abel Meeropol was moved to write Strange Fruit when he saw a copy of the photograph. The poem was set to music, and became the piece Billie Holiday sang to close her performances. Samuel Grafton said of the song, in 1939, "If the anger of the exploited ever mounts high enough in the South, it now has its Marseillaise." In 1999, Time Magazine named Strange Fruit the song of the century.
...
[Editor's note: Marion was not in the South. Indiana was not a Confederate state, nor did it even share a border with any of the states that seceded or remained neutral 70 years before the lynchings. Although it is comforting to believe that the demon of savagery borne of hatred lies only in the Southern character, in fact, Marion, Indiana, lies farther north than New York City.]"

NPR recently took a retrospective look at these events - worth listening to.

Strange Fruit: Anniversary Of A Lynching (http://www.npr.org/templates/text/s.php?sId=129025516&m=1)

[Nat]

I wonder what a good lawyer's eliminating juror questions must be when defending
a POC in this world?
In all honesty would I be eliminated?
Have I deprogrammed enough ugly yet?

One lawyer will want the ugly because it will help the case. The other won't be able to eliminate the ugly because it's so pervasive. To be picked for a jury, I think you have to seem generic, bland, open but trusting of the justice system and at least a little reluctant to be there. Jury selection isn't a question of worthiness, sadly.

Ps. I would love to see more public debate about what a jury of one's peers actually should be.

[Corkey]

From the article nowandthen posted a link to. So, how is this different? It was only two dogs? This fucker "rescued" two dogs, then dispatched them when they became an inconvenience. Look at his sentence. Look at his motives. Shall we forgo the justice system for him too? String him up? Make sure he never works again? Do you get the same visceral feelings? -- June

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_GGAmzDRA_BY/SkRoPoe8JOI/AAAAAAAAGm8/O80uEtQxkOk/s400/david%2Bsantuomo.jpg

The POS pictured on the right is David Santuomo, 43, a Columbus, OH, firefighter who last December wanted to go on a cruise with his girlfriend but did want to pay for boarding for his two adopted dogs, Sloopy and Skeeter. So to save himself some money, he took his dogs into the basement, tie them to a pipe suspending their bodies and shot them both numerous times. He then dumped their bodies on the plastic he had already laid out, wrapped them up and dumped them in a trash bin behind the fire station where he worked. What makes this even sadder is that at least two neighbors had offered to watch the dogs while he was away.

This week, as part of a plea deal, Santuomo pleaded guilty to two counts of animal cruelty and one count of possessing a criminal tool a homemade silencer, all three misdemeanors. Franklin County Municipal Judge Harland H. Hale sentenced him to 90 days, to be served over 2 years, $4,500 in restitution, $150 fine, 200 hours of community service and he cannot possess any pets or firearms for 5 years. He also has to write a letter of apology to a firefighters magazine and to readers of The Dispatch newspaper. He has yet to face an internal disciplinary hearing with Fire Chief Ned Pettus Jr.

Felony charges were not pursued because there is no felony animal cruelty law in Ohio!!

After shooting and killing the two dogs he had adopted from the humane society, Santuomo was actually so proud of himself that he bragged to fellow firefighters. Thankfully, they were were not amused, but disgusted by his actions and his bragging.

“He later bragged about killing his pets to fellow firefighters, and he showed no remorse, even joking about it,” Assistant County Prosecutor Heather Robinson said. “Fellow firefighters were disgusted by what he did, and the Capital Area Humane Society was called to investigate.”

His lawyer calls his actions an isolated case and out of character but it seems Santuomo showed his character quite clearly when he gave courtroom reporters the finger.

And this waste of human life is still working as a firefighter!! Is this someone you would want to trust your life, or the lives of your precious furry family members to in the case of an emergency?? After pleading guilty he should have been removed from his position immediately! Fired!! And I’d also like to know what this business is of him being allowed to serve his measly 90 day sentence over a period of 2 years?? What makes him so special?

I do think the POS should face exactly the same punishment that Vick got, and he should be fired, and he should have no further contact with dogs. After serving time he should be able to get a job, just like Vick, but have no further contact with dogs. That the state of Ohio doesn't have felony charges as an option, and he can't be found guilty of a felony, he should face the maximum sentence there is for this crime in this state. Same way I feel about Vick I feel about this asswipe, useless to me, perhaps in the future he can regain employment as Vick has. There is NO Distinction in my mind between the two of them, race isn't the issue FOR ME. The crime IS. I am not pleased that society is fucked up, but it is. Same crime, equal punnishment.
You could ask me to forgive, but with out knowing them I could not, for I don't know if they were telling me the truth. I can live and let live, and I think that is the difference.

[dreadgeek]

I do think the POS should face exactly the same punishment that Vick got, and he should be fired, and he should have no further contact with dogs. After serving time he should be able to get a job, just like Vick, but have no further contact with dogs. That the state of Ohio doesn't have felony charges as an option, and he can't be found guilty of a felony, he should face the maximum sentence there is for this crime in this state. Same way I feel about Vick I feel about this asswipe, useless to me, perhaps in the future he can regain employment as Vick has. There is NO Distinction in my mind between the two of them, race isn't the issue FOR ME. The crime IS. I am not pleased that society is fucked up, but it is. Same crime, equal punnishment.
You could ask me to forgive, but with out knowing them I could not, for I don't know if they were telling me the truth. I can live and let live, and I think that is the difference.

You bring up a salient point here, Corkey--you'll notice that nothing I have said in the last three days of talking about this can be read as me forgiving Vick or proclaiming him my new best friend and boon companion through thick-and-thin. I don't know Mr. Vick and the odds-on chances are that I will never meet him since he lives in an orbit that, quite honestly, I don't aspire to. Blessedly, it is not up to me to forgive him.

I'm a sucker for redemption stories. Maybe because of my own manifest flaws and the ways in which I have lived below my potential or made just mind-numblingly stupid choices. I want to believe that Michael Vick truly feels remorse. Because even though some people--perhaps with good reason--believe that he doesn't feel remorse or doubt it, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. I want to because it would be a better world by a small increment if he felt remorse and was truly determined to go down a different road. I want to because I want to believe my own self-redemption--from something I will not bore you with the details with--was genuine. I hope it was. Everyday I wake up and strive to be a little better than I was yesterday--a little more the woman I dreamt of being, the woman my son saw when he was only six months old, the woman my wife fell in love with, the person I sold myself to my employer as being, etc. I don't believe in any kind of divine beings or afterlife, as far as I can tell, this is It. You have one take at life, there are no rehearsals, and the director said "Action!" the moment you took your first breath we have a limited amount of time in which to figure out how we are going to live. The consequences we wreak on other's lives are very, very real. None of the things I've done that were stupid in galactic proportions were done out of malice or a desire to do evil. Most were done out of selfishness and within a reasonable amount of time, I realized how horribly I'd fucked up. Then I only wanted to make things better. Absent other evidence, I feel bound to give Mr. Vick the benefit of the doubt because I've been a complete fuck-up at times in my life.

That might be pure sentiment on my part. It probably is. I still want to believe that he understands that what he did was wrong, that he only wants to make things right and I hope that his example inspires others to turn away from cruelty. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. I know I would mean it and for all the right reasons. I want to believe that he would to.

Cheers
Aj

[julieisafemme]

You bring up a salient point here, Corkey--you'll notice that nothing I have said in the last three days of talking about this can be read as me forgiving Vick or proclaiming him my new best friend and boon companion through thick-and-thin. I don't know Mr. Vick and the odds-on chances are that I will never meet him since he lives in an orbit that, quite honestly, I don't aspire to. Blessedly, it is not up to me to forgive him.

I'm a sucker for redemption stories. Maybe because of my own manifest flaws and the ways in which I have lived below my potential or made just mind-numblingly stupid choices. I want to believe that Michael Vick truly feels remorse. Because even though some people--perhaps with good reason--believe that he doesn't feel remorse or doubt it, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. I want to because it would be a better world by a small increment if he felt remorse and was truly determined to go down a different road. I want to because I want to believe my own self-redemption--from something I will not bore you with the details with--was genuine. I hope it was. Everyday I wake up and strive to be a little better than I was yesterday--a little more the woman I dreamt of being, the woman my son saw when he was only six months old, the woman my wife fell in love with, the person I sold myself to my employer as being, etc. I don't believe in any kind of divine beings or afterlife, as far as I can tell, this is It. You have one take at life, there are no rehearsals, and the director said "Action!" the moment you took your first breath we have a limited amount of time in which to figure out how we are going to live. The consequences we wreak on other's lives are very, very real. None of the things I've done that were stupid in galactic proportions were done out of malice or a desire to do evil. Most were done out of selfishness and within a reasonable amount of time, I realized how horribly I'd fucked up. Then I only wanted to make things better. Absent other evidence, I feel bound to give Mr. Vick the benefit of the doubt because I've been a complete fuck-up at times in my life.

That might be pure sentiment on my part. It probably is. I still want to believe that he understands that what he did was wrong, that he only wants to make things right and I hope that his example inspires others to turn away from cruelty. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. I know I would mean it and for all the right reasons. I want to believe that he would to.

Cheers
Aj

Yasher Koach or continuing strength to you! Thank you for sharing this. What I find resonates the most with me is that you have found a way to forgive yourself. I have found this very difficult to do and it is the key to being able to forgive others or if not in the position to forgive, to at least believe in the potential for redemption.

[dreadgeek]

Saw this at HuffPo and thought it makes a very, very good point.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-zirin/on-dimples-and-dog-whistl_b_802821.html

Pundits, man your stations. It seems that the Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson yipped that Eagles quarterback Michael Vick should have been executed three years ago when convicted on dog-fighting charges.

Many are now getting hot and bothered expressing shock that Carlson would actually call for Vick's execution -- a tad extreme even for Fox.

Frankly I was shocked that Carlson, humiliated so thoroughly by Jon Stewart many years ago, still is on the air. The guy has been on more canceled programs than Jennifer Love Hewitt.

In full, the paunchy, lipless, chinless, porcelain man-boy with the ubiquitous bow-tie said, "I'm a Christian, I've made mistakes myself, I believe fervently in second chances. But Michael Vick killed dogs, and he did in a heartless and cruel way. And I think, personally, he should've been executed for that."

I know it's hardly news for a Murdoch-owned, right-wing shock jock to say something shocking. It's like receiving word of a celebrity sex tape. The thrill is gone. I am also well aware that in the current media set up, it's Carlson's job to say something utterly outrageous and the job of people like myself to respond. We make statements about Carlson's peculiar brand of bloodthirsty Christianity. Maybe we point out how easy it is for Carlson to call for the death of an African-American athlete, always the low-hanging fruit for his race-baiting ilk.

We bat this particular ball back and forth like -- as one writer once said to me -- "two hookers working opposite sides of the street." The ensuing hothouse debate becomes an entertainment option for people soured on American Idol.

But there is actually a serious problem with this kind of 24-hour cable performance art when the subject is Michael Vick. It's that pesky entity pecking at the window of reality television known as "reality."

Dostoevsky said famously,"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." By that standard, the United States exists in a barbaric state. Enter a prison -- something I sincerely doubt Carlson has ever done -- and you see the daily, dreary reality for the 2.3 million people who live behind bars. In what's become the largest prison system on earth -- take that China! -- you see the herded poor stacked on top of one another. You see a world disproportionately black and brown with African-American men six times as likely to go to prison as whites, with one in nine black men between 20-34 living in a state of incarceration.

It's a country that through its addiction to privatized prisons and "tough on crime" legislation, has created what writer Michelle Alexander's calls "The New Jim Crow." In Alexander's book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness she details the way the prison system robs its present and past and even future inhabitants of voting rights, citizenship, and any semblance of political power. She points that the United States now imprisons a higher percentage of black men than South Africa at the height of apartheid. As she writes:

Jarvious Cotton's great-great-grandfather could not vote as a slave. His great-grandfather was beaten to death by the Klu Klux Klan for attempting to vote. His grandfather was prevented from voting by Klan intimidation; his father was barred by poll taxes and literacy tests. Today, Cotton cannot vote because he, like many black men in the United States, has been labeled a felon and is currently on parole.

Michael Vick, whether he likes it or not, is humanizing the struggle to find redemption after serving time in a maximum security prison. After all, if a star quarterback doing hours of community surface can't regain a foothold in society, who could? Tucker Carlson's efforts to dehumanize Vick and paint him as a disposable, killable individual cuts in a way that transcends the idiocy of Murdoch's 50-state southern strategy of dimples and dog whistles. I'd love for Carlson to spend even a week in Leavenworth and then make an effort to rebuild his nerfy little life. Then we'd see how a man without callouses could be so callous. This is why Michael Vick's story matters, and really another example -- as if more were needed -- of how Fox News has become a cancerous boil on the political soul of this country.

[suebee]

Aj was kind enough to send me a link to the American Humane Society (http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/.../vick_faq.html) in regards to the work that Michael Vick has done with them. The part that was most pertenant to what I've been talking about was the following:

Has Vick acknowledged that what he did to dogs was wrong?
Yes. Over the course of several face-to-face meetings and during appearances at our End Dogfighting programs, Vick has apologized and acknowledged the suffering he caused. He has expressed his remorse and his desire to help more animals than he harmed by being an advocate for the humane treatment of animals. We only agreed to give him an opportunity to speak with kids if he was committed to the goal of ending dogfighting and recognized that his past actions were cruel and unacceptable.

The article that has influenced my opinion of Vick the most was in fact reported widely in the media, and stemmed from a Dec 12/10 interview with him, which can be found here (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20025938-504083.html).

From this second article, these words most affected me:

The convicted dog-fighting ring operator, who spent 18 months in prison after being convicted in 2007, says he genuinely cares about animals and would love to have a dog as a household pet...again.

"I think it would be a big step for me in the rehabilitation process," he told TheGrio.com, a website that focuses on African-American issues. "I think just to have a pet in my household and to show people that I genuinely care, and my love, and my passion for animals."Unfortunately for the born-again animal lover, a federal judge overseeing Vick's case barred him from owning a dog during his three years of supervised release after prison, which does not end until 2012.

His latest comments to TheGrio.com have generated outrage, as well as support.

Many people believe that Vick, who has returned to the top of his profession, has redeemed himself and should be allowed to adopt or own a pet if he so chooses. On the other end of the spectrum are those who feel Vick should be banned from owning dogs for eternity.

Vick asserts that he is not a crazy person or a psychopath and that his criminal behavior was merely a product of his upbringing.

"What happened in my past and what I did in the culture I grew up in doesn't shape and mold me as the person I am now," he said. Vick continued, "I said it before that I wish I can own a dog and I'll continue to say it. I'm not allowed to, but I'm just saying I wish I could because my kids ask me every day. It's more so for them than for me."

Now I'm not going to say that I am capable of knowing what a man has in his heart simply by reading his words, but while he apparently DID acknowledge that his actions were wrong to the Humane Society officials, I suspect that he was asked specific questions. He'd have to be pretty damned stupid to say that he had no remorse for his actions. I don't know, maybe he changed his way of thinking and truly found a conscience. This is just where I'm a Doubting Susie.

In the second article - an interview, his reasons for owning another dog were to "show people that I genuinely care, and my love and passion for animals." and "because my kids ask me every day". (if they can have a dog). What I find missing from this is any reference to what a dog could bring to his family, or how he sees pet ownership differently than he used to.

These are only words in print. I don't know under what circumstances they were made, nor do I know what was left out of the interview. Maybe Vick has changed, but I guess I'll still have doubts until I see him say something that addresses what *I* think any abuser has to change within themself before they can really say they've changed: and that's their attitude and their belief system.

I hope he's changed. Not only were those innocent animals his victims, but he's let his family down horribly. But you'll all excuse me if I have lingering doubts. This isn't shoplifting we're talking about. It's multiple and systematic acts of horrible cruelty. The best I can do is to keep an open mind. Nothing says I have to like the guy, but on the other hand NOTHING I can do or say or think or feel is going to impact Michael Vick's life. I just hope he can use the rest of his life to positively affect others.

[JustJo]

The consequences we wreak on other's lives are very, very real. None of the things I've done that were stupid in galactic proportions were done out of malice or a desire to do evil. Most were done out of selfishness and within a reasonable amount of time, I realized how horribly I'd fucked up. Then I only wanted to make things better. Absent other evidence, I feel bound to give Mr. Vick the benefit of the doubt because I've been a complete fuck-up at times in my life.



Yes, this exactly. I believe in redemption and second chances. I have screwed up more than I care to share...and my own life would look very different if there were no opportunities to redeem myself, to learn, to grow and to do better the next time around.

I found it interesting that Vick is working with the Humane Society to change the thinking about dog fighting...not with animal advocates, but with those that are participating or at risk of it. He's doing it voluntarily...not because he was ordered to. He's not being paid...in fact he's paying his own expenses as he does this.

Could he be doing this for PR? Sure. Could he have an ulterior motive? Sure.

But could he also be doing this because somewhere in the middle of that prison sentence he had an epiphany, or grew, and realized that he wanted to make up for what he'd done and keep others from going down the same path? Sure.

I don't know which it is. I can't know. But I have to give him the opportunity to redeem himself without judgment.

[dreadgeek]

In the second article - an interview, his reasons for owning another dog were to "show people that I genuinely care, and my love and passion for animals." and "because my kids ask me every day". (if they can have a dog). What I find missing from this is any reference to what a dog could bring to his family, or how he sees pet ownership differently than he used to.

I just want to say that this could just as easily be an artifact of editing rather than an artifact of either sentiment or writing. I'm not saying that is the case, simply saying that the parts of the interview that might be most germane here are not necessarily the parts that the editor thought would be most germane for the audience of the web site.

Cheers
Aj

[Martina]

You all have touched on the same point re the Ohio case. This is a quote from the article from The Nation that someone linked to.

Carlson did not call for the execution of BP executives despite their culpability in the devastation of Gulf wildlife. He did not denounce the Supreme Court for their decision in US v. Stevens (April 2010) which overturned a portion of the 1999 Act Punishing Depictions of Animal Cruelty. After all with this "crush" decision the Court seems to have validated a marketplace for exactly the kinds of crimes Vick was convicted of committing. For many observers, the decision to demonize Vick seems motivated by something more pernicious than concern for animal welfare. It seems to be about race.

[blush]

Why don't people put their passion and energy into all the women and children that white men abuse? Why not focus on the white male power system that makes people of color, women, children, animals and the environment instruments of their control? That's where the locus of the mis-use and abuse of power is.

If ALL people (not just white men) were treated with respect, dignity and as equals maybe collectively we would treat our animals better too. How can you expect animals to be treated well in such a fucked up world with such fucked up value systems? Get to the root of the problems. People abuse animals because they think they have the right to.

I don't disagree with you, but to be fair, this thread is mostly about the repercussions of Michael Vick's phone call from Obama. It isn't shocking to me that posters are focusing more on that aspect. Awareness and discussions about any type of abuse doesn't detract from or "waste space" about other types of abuse. It's not like we have an empathy threshold.

I'd love to see a thread about the intersection of football and domestic violence.

[Toughy]

Hey Toughy, don't you think it's a little um, uncomfortable, that you use the phrase "drop kick dog" in a thread about animal abuse??

Hey Waldo....

um.....no I don't find it uncomfortable.....I do have a sense of humor and I believe I inserted "laughin" in that thought to indicate the tone of the comment.

----------------
suebee (and others)............truly I get the idea that nothing will change your mind about Vick. I don't think you (and several other folks) actually 'grok' the inner city/rural culture that breeds dog fighting and/or cock fighting. Do you really think he should take a camera crew with him when goes to the 'hood to have those one on one conversations with those who still do this? If he did that, would you then say he is not sincere cuz he is just doing it for the publicity?

Would y'all be as outraged if he had been involved in cock fighting and not dog fighting............I'd bet the odds are greatly in favor of a resounding no...............

happy new year.......

(besides I need go and call my UConn friends and rub it in that Stanford destroyed the winning streak and spanked them the whole game......GO STANFORD!!!!)

[BullDog]

I don't disagree with you, but to be fair, this thread is mostly about the repercussions of Michael Vick's phone call from Obama. It isn't shocking to me that posters are focusing more on that aspect. Awareness and discussions about any type of abuse doesn't detract from or "waste space" about other types of abuse. It's not like we have an empathy threshold.

I'd love to see a thread about the intersection of football and domestic violence.

I'm very well aware that people can care about the abuse of animals and the abuse of women. I am one of them. Like I have already said people have brought up Vick time and time again- here and in the media. When do they ever talk about the systemic violence against women perpetuated by football players?

The Ben Roethlisberger incident just happened this year, yet most don't even seem to be familiar with it. He's one of the most famous figures in all of sports. He's also a white quarterback. Michael Vick is a black quarterback. They both play for sports teams in the State of Pennsylvania. Why is one getting so much air time and the other one doesn't? Because of Obama's phone call? Really I don't think so.

I don't know why I am supposed to take this to another thread. The over obsession of Vick has lots of racist tones to it which are being discussed here- quite appropriately. There's other big aspects to this story as well. Why are people so obsessed with one player who has been convicted and served his time?

[katsarecool]

I am from Georgia and the press gave this story lots of coverage. After charges were dropped by the victim the story died. So he was not tried and convicted big difference.

[I'mOneToo]

I am from Georgia and the press gave this story lots of coverage. After charges were dropped by the victim the story died. So he was not tried and convicted big difference.

Ben's case has been widely reported (although from a biased standpoint) in the locality where his first alleged offense occurred. It is NOT a closed case.


7/21/2009 A woman waits a year to accuse him of rape *a year after the fact* and files a lawsuit against him: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20090721/NEWS/907219995

7/22/2009 The Douglas county sheriff counters saying they cannot investigate a lawsuit: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20090722/NEWS/907229996

7/23/2009 Big Ben says he did not commit rape (but, he also does not state that the encounter never occurred): http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20090723/NEWS/907239998

8/1/2009 Ben turns the tables and accuses the supposed victim of wrongdoing: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20090801/NEWS/907319993

8/15/2009 Ben's attorneys want a change of venue to a more favorable county: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20090815/NEWS/908149980

8/18/2009 motion to dismiss a suit (doesn't state WHAT suit and there's no statement by the victim in the article, but her "best friend" and co-worker states it's baseless): http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20090818/NEWS/908189997

8/20/2009 Ben's lawyers say they have proof the accuser is lying: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20090820/NEWS/908199996 - comment calls her "McNutty"

8/21/2009 Both sides claim extortion: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20090821/NEWS/908219977

9/8/2009 Accuser's attorney says they'll drop it if he admits to rape: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20090908/NEWS/909089985

9/9/2009 Ben's lawyer refuses that offer: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20090909/NEWS/909099995

9/10/2009 Victim's lawyer wants list of everyone Ben has bedded, and Ben's attorney calls his accuser "mentally unstable": http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20090910/NEWS/909109995

9/14/2009 Ben's lawyer moves to have victim's statement struck: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20090914/NEWS/909149992

9/16/2009 (third judge since the lawsuit began) Refuses favorable change of venue for Ben: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20090916/NEWS/909169988

9/18/2009 Now Ben's lawyers say victim filed suit because she was trying not to get laid off: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20090918/NEWS/909189998

9/30/2009 Judge denies motion to dismiss: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20090930/NEWS/909309995

10/4/2009 more mud slinging, and a new lawsuit: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20091004/NEWS/910059996

11/8/2009 Ben's first accuser quits her job: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20091108/NEWS/911089994

3/5/2010 FRESH ASSAULT ACCUSATIONS against Ben, new locale:http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20100305/NEWS/100309877

3/8/2010 Ben's lawyers say it never happened (again): http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20100308/NEWS/100309833

3/9/2010 Second accuser's attorney asks for privacy: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20100309/NEWS/100309787

3/10/2010 Off-duty officers say second alleged assault never happened: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20100310/NEWS/100319993

3/23/2010 DNA request withdrawn in Georgia case: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20100323/NEWS/100329939

4/9/2010 DA to decide whether or not to charge Ben in Georgia: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20100409/NEWS/100409760

4/9/2010 NBC hasn't said if he's invited back to the ACC golf tournament next summer (golf tournament/scene of the crime): http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20100409/NEWS/100409763

4/12/2010 No charges against Ben in Georgia (one can only guess as to how that was decided): http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20100412/NEWS/100419962

4/15/2010 Goodell: Decision on Roethlisberger in near future (in NFL): http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20100415/NEWS/100419908

4/16/2010 Police ties to Ben (in Georgia) still questioned: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20100416/NEWS/100419813

4/19/2010 Goodell: Roethlisberger violated NFL policy (with bad judgments): http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20100419/NEWS/100419753

4/21/2010 Trooper can't keep working for Ben: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20100421/NEWS/100429951\

4/21/2010 Ben suspended for six games for bad behavior: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20100421/NEWS/100429953

4/23/2010 Goodell can INCREASE suspension if more bad behavior: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20100423/NEWS/100429885

4/26/2010 Ben will not appeal suspension: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20100426/NEWS/100429795

4/29/2010 Ben's police buddies under more scrutiny: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20100429/NEWS/100429649

6/3/2010 Ben makes the best of his second chance (and makes no apologies): http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20100603/NEWS/100609880

9/3/2010 Ben's suspension REDUCED to four games (did not commit any alleged rapes for 4 months): http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20100903/NEWS/100909922

12/27/2010 More mud on the first accuser's face, from Caesar's: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20101227/NEWS/101229819

It is still an ongoing situation. The first suit has not been settled in any way. Ben's reduction of his suspension for "good behavior" (not being alleged of any rapes for four months) seems preposterous. His remorseless comments on the 3rd of June just six months ago speak for themselves. He's claimed that he's reformed and convinced the NFL commissioner, even if his legal case is not resolved, and even if he did not get a call from Obama welcoming him back to the NFL.

Apologies if any omissions or incomplete links, ain't the best cut 'n paster on earth.

[dreadgeek]

Hey Waldo....

um.....no I don't find it uncomfortable.....I do have a sense of humor and I believe I inserted "laughin" in that thought to indicate the tone of the comment.

----------------
suebee (and others)............truly I get the idea that nothing will change your mind about Vick. I don't think you (and several other folks) actually 'grok' the inner city/rural culture that breeds dog fighting and/or cock fighting. Do you really think he should take a camera crew with him when goes to the 'hood to have those one on one conversations with those who still do this? If he did that, would you then say he is not sincere cuz he is just doing it for the publicity?
Would y'all be as outraged if he had been involved in cock fighting and not dog fighting............I'd bet the odds are greatly in favor of a resounding no...............

happy new year.......

(besides I need go and call my UConn friends and rub it in that Stanford destroyed the winning streak and spanked them the whole game......GO STANFORD!!!!)

Stanford, Schmanford. Bears STILL eat Cardinals! :) Go Bears!

Sorry, Toughy, family tradition couldn't be helped. (My sister went to Stanford, I went to Cal)

Cheers
Aj

[suebee]

[QUOTE=Toughy;256627]suebee (and others)............truly I get the idea that nothing will change your mind about Vick. I don't think you (and several other folks) actually 'grok' the inner city/rural culture that breeds dog fighting and/or cock fighting. Do you really think he should take a camera crew with him when goes to the 'hood to have those one on one conversations with those who still do this? If he did that, would you then say he is not sincere cuz he is just doing it for the publicity?

Would y'all be as outraged if he had been involved in cock fighting and not dog fighting............I'd bet the odds are greatly in favor of a resounding no...............
QUOTE]SIZE][/FONT][/I][/B]

You can get whatever idea you want Toughy. I'm sure there is a big list of what other people would never consider forgivable. Your idea isn't based on my words - if you read my words, that is. Everything you've said here is presumptuous, at best. Do you have anything to say about Vick, or just the other members who are posting?

[blush]

I'm very well aware that people can care about the abuse of animals and the abuse of women. I am one of them. Like I have already said people have brought up Vick time and time again- here and in the media. When do they ever talk about the systemic violence against women perpetuated by football players?

The Ben Roethlisberger incident just happened this year, yet most don't even seem to be familiar with it. He's one of the most famous figures in all of sports. He's also a white quarterback. Michael Vick is a black quarterback. They both play for sports teams in the State of Pennsylvania. Why is one getting so much air time and the other one doesn't? Because of Obama's phone call? Really I don't think so.

I don't know why I am supposed to take this to another thread. The over obsession of Vick has lots of racist tones to it which are being discussed here- quite appropriately. There's other big aspects to this story as well. Why are people so obsessed with one player who has been convicted and served his time?

Well, my lack of knowledge about both Ben and Michael Vick has more to do with my dislike of football than anything else.

[Toughy]

Stanford, Schmanford. Bears STILL eat Cardinals! :) Go Bears!

Sorry, Toughy, family tradition couldn't be helped. (My sister went to Stanford, I went to Cal)

Cheers
Aj

laughing..............actually I'm a Baylor fan for the next couple of years............gotta love Griner.........so I agree.........laughin..........Go Bears!!

Originally posted by suebee
You can get whatever idea you want Toughy. I'm sure there is a big list of what other people would never consider forgivable. Your idea isn't based on my words - if you read my words, that is. Everything you've said here is presumptuous, at best. Do you have anything to say about Vick, or just the other members who are posting?

laughin............why the snark????? Obviously I read what you (and others) wrote and formed my opinion based on that. I also believe I did state my opinion about Vick. I also asked some questions for clarification and you didn't answer them...........soooooooooooooo.............I'm just saying without that clarification I am left with my stated opinion that you and some others don't see redemption for Vick under any circumstances.

-----------------------------------------------
(the above line means I am making a general comment here and not directing the comment to any specific person)

I also think unexamined racism is at play with Vick. There is no redemption for this black man, however several white men can get away with anything.

[BullDog]

Well, my lack of knowledge about both Ben and Michael Vick has more to do with my dislike of football than anything else.

My point wasn't about taking anyone to task for not knowing. The Vick case has been much more widely publicized outside of sports circles.

[suebee]

laughin............why the snark????? Obviously I read what you (and others) wrote and formed my opinion based on that. I also believe I did state my opinion about Vick. I also asked some questions for clarification and you didn't answer them...........soooooooooooooo.............I'm just saying without that clarification I am left with my stated opinion that you and some others don't see redemption for Vick under any circumstances.



I've explained my position in great detail, and the only thing you have to say is that you get the "impression that.....". If you'd like to engage in a conversation with me I'd be glad to clarify. The only place where I've found any mention of Vick having any remorse about causing these animals pain and suffering was on the link that Aj sent me - and I addressed that. Do you have anything else to add?

[suebee]

I just came across this on my facebook page. It details some of what Vick did to the dogs. I don't have any words to describe my feelings about him anymore. Article from the S.F. Chronicle. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/11/03/petscol110309.DTL)

Here's something else I didn't know: Vick pled not guilty to the animal cruelty charges, which were later dropped in a plea bargain. Therefore none of the details of the abuse ever came out in court.

Again, I don't know what is in the man's heart now, but I find it hard to believe he's changed so radically in such a short time. Don't know what else to say.

Sue

[Martina]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ingrid-newkirk/did-president-obama-play-_b_803194.html

This kind of thing bothers me more -- because it's us -- the government, people in meetings making heartless decisions.

It doesn't matter what we think of Vick. i mean it might matter to you personally. It would matter if you were on his jury. But your lack of confidence in his ability to change is irrelevant. And it doesn't, in my opinion, give you the right to harrass him.

Strengthen the laws. That's worth doing. Harrassing Vick? Why? For publicity, to feel better? i don't get it.

[suebee]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ingrid-newkirk/did-president-obama-play-_b_803194.html

This kind of thing bothers me more -- because it's us -- the government, people in meetings making heartless decisions.

It doesn't matter what we think of Vick. i mean it might matter to you personally. It would matter if you were on his jury. But your lack of confidence in his ability to change is irrelevant. And it doesn't, in my opinion, give you the right to harrass him.

Strengthen the laws. That's worth doing. Harrassing Vick? Why? For publicity, to feel better? i don't get it.

I'm not sure who you're referring to when you talk about harassing Vick. I seriously doubt he comes on this site to read this thread. I think that in order for people to comprehend the magnitude of the problem of animal abuse, and realize that the laws do not adequately address it, they have to know some of the details. As is stated in the article I posted, Vick pled not guilty to animal cruelty, and those charges were later dropped in a plea bargain. He was convicted of bankrolling a dogfighting conspiracy. For those who are fond of saying he did his time - he did NOT - not for animal cruelty. And from what I read there isn't much else he could have done do to those animals.

[Martina]

I'm not sure who you're referring to when you talk about harassing Vick. I seriously doubt he comes on this site to read this thread.

From the article you linked to --
His recent reception in the Bay Area was far cooler -- at last month's game between the Eagles and the Oakland Raiders, he was greeted with protestors, picket signs and a plane flying over the stadium with a banner reading "Dogfighter Go Home!"

[suebee]

From the article you linked to --

Thanks for the clarification.

[The_Lady_Snow]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ingrid-newkirk/did-president-obama-play-_b_803194.html

This kind of thing bothers me more -- because it's us -- the government, people in meetings making heartless decisions.

It doesn't matter what we think of Vick. i mean it might matter to you personally. It would matter if you were on his jury. But your lack of confidence in his ability to change is irrelevant. And it doesn't, in my opinion, give you the right to harrass him.

Strengthen the laws. That's worth doing. Harrassing Vick? Why? For publicity, to feel better? i don't get it.

This is what gave me that ickey feeling in this thread, the lynch mob mentality for this guy. I'm no fan, and I was torn when he did it cause I liked his skills, then he did what he did and I was like *great*. It's hard for us to see this, POC get this (I do at least) feeling of impending doom when we see our people in bad light, press, arrest reports. The media paints them in such a horrid light, they are convicted before they stand trial,. I don't know if you notice this when a POC does wrong, voices are altered it's more dramatized, a white man does something and voices are more sad, people seem shocked and have that sense of "wow not him, he's so homegrown or guy next door"

So when I read the responses I was wow, people are more angry that Obama called Vick than that idiots rants about Michael Vick dying for what he did. A white man calls for a black mans death and *silence* a bunch of people angrily ask he be killed, punished more, sadistic fantasies are confessed and no one is shocked or disgusted.

I don't get it, then again I do because no one calls for a white man's blood like they do that of a MOC.

AND THAT's what made this whole thread oogey and STILL does......


I hope he proves you all wrong, and that you all can see, sometimes POC fuck up, but yeah if given a chance some of us do change, I hope he is one of them, then again even then I don't think folks would be happy.
Gross.


P.S.

If any of you have not gone into the Racism thread in the Red Zone, you really really should, maybe then you would *get* why we feel this IS about...

Race...

Thank you for the dialogue.

[suebee]

This is what gave me that ickey feeling in this thread, the lynch mob mentality for this guy. I'm no fan, and I was torn when he did it cause I liked his skills, then he did what he did and I was like *great*. It's hard for us to see this, POC get this (I do at least) feeling of impending doom when we see our people in bad light, press, arrest reports. The media paints them in such a horrid light, they are convicted before they stand trial,. I don't know if you notice this when a POC does wrong, voices are altered it's more dramatized, a white man does something and voices are more sad, people seem shocked and have that sense of "wow not him, he's so homegrown or guy next door"

So when I read the responses I was wow, people are more angry that Obama called Vick than that idiots rants about Michael Vick dying for what he did. A white man calls for a black mans death and *silence* a bunch of people angrily ask he be killed, punished more, sadistic fantasies are confessed and no one is shocked or disgusted.

I don't get it, then again I do because no one calls for a white man's blood like they do that of a MOC.

AND THAT's what made this whole thread oogey and STILL does......


I hope he proves you all wrong, and that you all can see, sometimes POC fuck up, but yeah if given a chance some of us do change, I hope he is one of them, then again even then I don't think folks would be happy.
Gross.


P.S.

If any of you have not gone into the Racism thread in the Red Zone, you really really should, maybe then you would *get* why we feel this IS about...

Race...

Thank you for the dialogue.

I can only speak for myself Snowy, and I've said that race is surely an issue. However, as a woman who is passionate about the welfare of animals what am I to do? NOT comment because he is a black man? It's certainly a rock and a hard place. He committed HORRENDOUS acts of cruelty. I'm at a loss as to what to say here.

[CrankyOldGuy]

you can download the book:

The Lost Dogs: Michael Vick's Dogs and Their Tale of Rescue and Redemption (http://ebooklink.net/g/detail/1592405509/The%20Lost%20Dogs:%20Michael%20Vick's%20Dogs%20and %20Their%20Tale%20of%20Rescue%20and%20Redemption/)

[dreadgeek]

Snow;

A couple of things:

1) A white man calls for the death of a black man. In other breaking news, the surface of the Sun is hot. Just another day, so of course there is silence.

2) Part of why many POC face-palm whenever some person of color does something that makes headlines in a negative fashion is because we know--not think but know--that at some point we are going to be asked some question along the lines of "why do black people love dog fighting". In the eyes of the majority, Michael Vick--a man who is incidentally black--isn't guilty of animal cruelty. A black man--who is incidentally named Michael Vick--is guilty of animal cruelty and since blacks, particularly black men, are held to be something just this side of a wild beast a clear and strong message must be sent. So that other blacks--men and women--will know where the boundaries are.

You and I both know that this is how the game is played in this country.

Cheers
Aj

This is what gave me that ickey feeling in this thread, the lynch mob mentality for this guy. I'm no fan, and I was torn when he did it cause I liked his skills, then he did what he did and I was like *great*. It's hard for us to see this, POC get this (I do at least) feeling of impending doom when we see our people in bad light, press, arrest reports. The media paints them in such a horrid light, they are convicted before they stand trial,. I don't know if you notice this when a POC does wrong, voices are altered it's more dramatized, a white man does something and voices are more sad, people seem shocked and have that sense of "wow not him, he's so homegrown or guy next door"

So when I read the responses I was wow, people are more angry that Obama called Vick than that idiots rants about Michael Vick dying for what he did. A white man calls for a black mans death and *silence* a bunch of people angrily ask he be killed, punished more, sadistic fantasies are confessed and no one is shocked or disgusted.

I don't get it, then again I do because no one calls for a white man's blood like they do that of a MOC.

AND THAT's what made this whole thread oogey and STILL does......


I hope he proves you all wrong, and that you all can see, sometimes POC fuck up, but yeah if given a chance some of us do change, I hope he is one of them, then again even then I don't think folks would be happy.
Gross.


P.S.

If any of you have not gone into the Racism thread in the Red Zone, you really really should, maybe then you would *get* why we feel this IS about...

Race...

Thank you for the dialogue.

[suebee]

Best Friends permanently shelters a number of Michael Vicks' pit bulls. In his blog, Francis Battista, the co-founder of Best Friends addresses the topic of forgiving Michael Vick. He does a much better job than I have so far.

".....He could begin with an apology to the animals. He would acknowledge that he found within himself something horrific and frightening — something that he can’t explain, excuse or defend, something that no amount of jail time or loss of public stature can offset.

It’s much easier to forgive someone who can’t forgive himself.

Francis Battista

Co-Founder, Best Friends Animal Society"


Full blog entry can be found here (http://blogs.bestfriends.org/index.php/2011/01/06/never-say-never-the-bigger-issues-regarding-vick/).

[The_Lady_Snow]

Jesus Fucking Christ how many times does he have to apologize???

Should he go to EVERY dog owner's house???

[The_Lady_Snow]

He apologized here are some of his OWN words from his blog..

"What I did was horrendous. Awful. Inhumane. And I've no excuses for my actions. It makes my heart hurt now to think about what I've done. And I'm gonna be real honest, it took a while for me to get to this place. Sitting in a prison cell didn't make me feel remorse. It was meeting so many animal lovers, speaking with them and looking them in their eyes. Staring at them. Looking so deep into their eyes that I began to feel their pain. Allowing that pain to enter into my body is when I started to understand how bad it really was. I have been trying hard to connect with people who feel this pain,because for my whole life I was disconnected from the suffering of animals. And you might say, "come on Mike, how could you do those things to those dogs?" And you're right...I
ask myself those questions every day. What kind of person does this? How does a human-being treat dogs or any animal with such pain and cruelty? And the hard part for me is the answer to these questions. Because the answer is ME. And I am trying so hard right now to become a better person, because who I was, I am ashamed of."

[suebee]

He apologized here are some of his OWN words from his blog..

"What I did was horrendous. Awful. Inhumane. And I've no excuses for my actions. It makes my heart hurt now to think about what I've done. And I'm gonna be real honest, it took a while for me to get to this place. Sitting in a prison cell didn't make me feel remorse. It was meeting so many animal lovers, speaking with them and looking them in their eyes. Staring at them. Looking so deep into their eyes that I began to feel their pain. Allowing that pain to enter into my body is when I started to understand how bad it really was. I have been trying hard to connect with people who feel this pain,because for my whole life I was disconnected from the suffering of animals. And you might say, "come on Mike, how could you do those things to those dogs?" And you're right...I
ask myself those questions every day. What kind of person does this? How does a human-being treat dogs or any animal with such pain and cruelty? And the hard part for me is the answer to these questions. Because the answer is ME. And I am trying so hard right now to become a better person, because who I was, I am ashamed of."





THIS is what I've said several times that I had never seen - Vick "getting it".

And I agree that it's "Ickey" Snowy. But my ickey may not be your ickey. That doesn't mean either is more important or one or the other is wrong.

[The_Lady_Snow]

THIS is what I've said several times that I had never seen - Vick "getting it".

And I agree that it's "Ickey" Snowy. But my ickey may not be your ickey. That doesn't mean either is more important or one or the other is wrong.



*You* don't think Vick has gotten it, but in all honesty how do *you* know? like I said in my bolded post, he could prove ya'll wrong it ain't gonna matter, it's pretty fucking obvious cause a call for his death was voiced I don't see you having as much passion about it as you do an animal.

So yeah we aren't gonna agree.


Read his blog (I forgot to post it in my post)


http://globalgrind.com/channel/news/content/912587/michael-vick-blogs-my-heart-hurtsto-think-of-what-ive-done/


Maybe then just maybe (I doubt it) you will be satisfied with his regrets.

[suebee]

*You* don't think Vick has gotten it, but in all honesty how do *you* know? like I said in my bolded post, he could prove ya'll wrong it ain't gonna matter, it's pretty fucking obvious cause a call for his death was voiced I don't see you having as much passion about it as you do an animal.

So yeah we aren't gonna agree.


Read his blog (I forgot to post it in my post)


http://globalgrind.com/channel/news/content/912587/michael-vick-blogs-my-heart-hurtsto-think-of-what-ive-done/


Maybe then just maybe (I doubt it) you will be satisfied with his regrets.

I have made no bones about my posts being MY opinions. I've repeatedly asked if anybody had seen him say anything that indicated that he really got it. I also asked you if I should ignore the matter BECAUSE he was a black man - no response to either.

As to whether or not I will be "satisfied" with his regrets.....you know nothing of me nor of my personal values - obviously.

Thanks for posting the link. I'll read it with interest.

Sue

[The_Lady_Snow]

I have made no bones about my posts being MY opinions. I've repeatedly asked if anybody had seen him say anything that indicated that he really got it. I also asked you if I should ignore the matter BECAUSE he was a black man - no response to either.

As to whether or not I will be "satisfied" with his regrets.....you know nothing of me nor of my personal values - obviously.

Thanks for posting the link. I'll read it with interest.

Sue

Tell you what I will answer your question when you answer ours..

What would be an a good enough punishment for Vick?

You seem to have skipped over that particular question as well, as for ignoring this I am not advocating his heinous crimes, but I sure damn well am not gonna sit here quietly and watch the grossness that has happened in this thread and if you say that grossness has not happened I will point each and everyone out.

[suebee]

Tell you what I will answer your question when you answer ours..

What would be an a good enough punishment for Vick?

You seem to have skipped over that particular question as well, as for ignoring this I am not advocating his heinous crimes, but I sure damn well am not gonna sit here quietly and watch the grossness that has happened in this thread and if you say that grossness has not happened I will point each and everyone out.

I've never spoken to the criminal punishment for several reasons: I don't believe it works, and for crimes such as animal abuse I don't think it comes close to changing something. There has to be a change in attitude - in core belief systems, before somebody gets it. I'm not judge or jury. I'd hate to be involved in the process because it's a system that is so far out of date, and continues because we as a society feel that we have to see something DONE. It's almost a moot point in my opinion, except some people actually NEED to be locked up for the protection of others.

Of course Vick was in prison for bankrolling dog fights, NOT animal abuse. But the fact that he never admitted to animal abuse during the trial process - and I read that the judge was actually harder on him because of his lack of apparent remorse - is easy to understand in that he grew up in that culture, and hadn't yet come to terms with the absolute horror of his actions.

I read the blog, and that's EXACTLY what *I* needed to hear from him. I asked several times if anybody had seen him apologize - thanks for finally posting it.

[Julie]

I am feeling a bit quiet in my soul right now after reading Vick's blog.

When he was first charged with this, the outrage we all felt was great. Of course it was - what has been going on for a hundred plus years and something we have all known exists, was being brought into the light. We were faced with gruesome images of the atrocities these dogs faced. We had to look at ourselves and and even ask ourselves... Do we perpetuate crimes against animals?

Vick served his time. The president made a phone call and we all came in here to share our views on the subject. Some of us could be objective (though I cannot imagine how) and some of us wrote with deep emotions.

I am not a cynic. I never have been. I have always believed there is good in everybody. I have always believed people can change. It is what has gotten me through some of my darkest moments in my life. Perhaps some think, I live in a bubble. Perhaps I do.

This man (Vick) spoke about something none of us even thought of. His childhood - where he grew up - now, do not think for a moment I am making excuses for his actions, I am not. BUT - I have not lived in a neighborhood filled with guns and violence. I do not know what it is like as a little child to hear gun shots all night. I do not know. He spoke of being numb! How many of us have gone through parts of our lives, where we were numb? Where we did not feel any emotion?

Again, I am not making excuses for him. For me, it answers some questions - perhaps questions I should have been asking when all of this happened. What could possibly make a person do this? Again, no excuses for his behavior. But, we all know behavior comes from some place.

Some of us are stronger than others - Some of us will never go to these lengths. Some of us value life from the beginning of time. But some of us, well... Some of us have never experienced what he or others have experienced. What about the little boy who is sexually abused throughout his life by a pedophile, only to turn into a pedophile! Now, not all do - but some do and what about us as a society? Is it our responsibility as a society to help people?

Who helped Vick when he was a kid? Who is helping all those children out there who live and experience violence in their lives on a day to day basis?

Again... I am not making excuses for Vick's behavior - but again... It answers some of my questions.

I only hope and pray that Vick will as he says... Reach just ONE person by his own experience, and that person will reach one person and so on and so on. It is how we stop the madness.

Dog fighting has been going on for a long time. Perhaps, just perhaps - This man can make a difference.

Thank you for posting his blog. I am going to follow his journey.

And Sue... I disagree with the quote you posted.

It’s much easier to forgive someone who can’t forgive himself.

Francis Battista

Co-Founder, Best Friends Animal Society"

Because really... One must be able to forgive themselves, before they can expect the rest of the world to forgive them. To be able to forgive yourself for such an atrocity, to be able to dig so deep within your soul and honestly forgive yourself, only shows me that this person has done some deep soul searching. I hope Vick can and will forgive himself, because what he did and if he has in fact changed... That is one HUGE cross to bear for the rest of your life. And only a soul which has been cleansed of the bad, can do good in this world.

Julie

[dykeumentary]

Not meant to de-rail, but rather to talk about community recognition of punishment completed, and the different standards "we" seem to have about repentance/rehabilitation:

Paula Poundstone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Poundstone
"In 2001, Poundstone was arrested on a felony warrant for three counts of committing a lewd act on an unidentified girl under age 14. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's office also stated that Poundstone was charged with endangering two other unidentified girls and two boys.[11] Few details were released, but the prosecutor indicated that the charges were a result of an incident in which Poundstone was driving her children while intoxicated. She accepted a plea agreement and pleaded "no contest" to felony child endangerment and a misdemeanor charge of inflicting injury on a child. In exchange, the three charges of lewd conduct were dropped by prosecutors....
Since then she has used the incident—and the resulting publicity—as the source for some of her comedic material." (my bolds)

She's on a national tour right now. Are there protests? What would the community response look like if she wasn't white? She isn't apologizing, apparently she thinks its funny?

[Toughy]

I found this article this morning......it is a blog that was originally in The Nation

Michael Vick, Racial History and Animal Rights

Melissa Harris-Perry – Thu Dec 30, 11:29 am ET

Last night I had one of those awful television moments that sometimes afflict those of us who spend part of our life in classroom where we have 90 minutes to discuss a topic and the other part of our life on television where we are constrained to four-minute analyses. On Wednesday evening I joined The Rachel Maddow Show to discuss the current flap surrounding Michael Vick and President Obama.

My goal was to offer some historical context for understanding the vastly different responses to Vick’s crime, to the severity of his punishment, and to the sense that he should be given a second chance to earn a living as a professional football player. I believe that to understand these different public responses we need to know how the Vick case evokes often unspoken, but nonetheless powerful, and deeply emotional interconnections between the rights of black Americans and of animals. Instead, having vastly underestimated the allotted time for the segment I instead seemed to argue that Vick’s acts were justified by the history of American racism. This touched off quite a flood of hate mail to my email inbox last night. So I’ve decided to make one more effort to discuss this complicated issue.

Last year I was teaching an introductory politics course at Princeton University when a campus animal rights group brought to campus a fascinating and provocative exhibit that linked animal cruelty to human degradation, imprisonment and slavery. The images in the exhibit were part of a larger international PETA effort. They were disturbing, but also very powerful.

Many African American students on campus were deeply offended, hurt and angry about the exhibit's comparison of animal suffering to the realities of the slave trade and lynching. The Organization of Black Students organized a protest and boycott. The campus animal rights group organized a teach-in. I had leaders from both student organizations in my class that semester. The tension, emotion, and analytic challenges raised by the exhibit became an important aspect of the class. A group of students even made a film about the issue for the final class project. As I sought to help guide my students through these interactions I opened up a new line of research on the politics of race and animal rights.

Recall that North American slavery of the 17th and 18th century is distinguished by its "chattel" element. New World slavery did not consider enslaved Africans to be conquered persons, but to be chattel, beast of burden, fully subhuman and therefore not requiring the basic rights of humans. By defining slaves as animals and then abusing them horribly the American slave system degraded both black people and animals. By equating black people to animals it both asserted the superiority of humans to animals, arrayed some humans (black people) as closer to animals and therefore less human, and implied that all subjugated persons and all animals could be used and abused at the will of those who were more powerful. The effects were pernicious for both black people and for animals.

Equating black people to animals was a practice that continued after emancipation. Consider the image below. It is a picture of an Alabama store during the Jim Crow era. The sign reads: No Negro or Ape Allowed in the Building.

This pair of images reminds that these comparisons continue in contemporary popular culture and often with particular relevance to American sports.

When the abuse and oppression of an entire group of people is justified as acceptable because they are defined as animals, then it stands to reason the society is suggesting that abuse and oppression are acceptable ways to treat animals. Michael Vick committed horrendous acts of cruelty. I have had dogs as pets for my entire life. I am sickened by his actions. At the same time I recognize that he is one individual in a larger society that is profoundly complicit in the abuse and mistreatment of animals. Ideologies of white supremacy have particular culpability in that attitude toward animals because it was part of the governing ideology of slavery and segregation.

Given this history we might think that African Americans would be particulalry strident animal rights activists, seeing their interests as profoundly linked. But the relationship between race, rights, and animals is more complicated. Dogs, for example, were used by enslavers to catch, trap and return those who were trying to escape to freedom. Dogs were used to terrorize Civil Rights demonstrators. In short, animals have been weapons used against black bodies and black interests in ways that have deep historical resonace.

Not only have animals been used as weapons against black people, but many African Americans feel that the suffering of animals evokes more empathy and concern among whites than does the suffering of black people. For example, in the days immediately following Hurricane Katrina dozens of people sent me a link to an image of pets being evacuated on an air conditioned bus. This image was a sickening juxtaposition to the conditions faced by tens of thousands of black residents trapped by the storm and it provoked great anger and pain for those who sent it to me.

I sensed that same outrage in the responses of many black people who heard Tucker Carlson call for Vick's execution as punishment for his crimes. It was a contrast made more raw by the recent decision to give relatively light sentences to the men responsible for the death of Oscar Grant. Despite agreeing that Vick's acts were horrendous, somehow Carlson's moral outrage seemed misplaced. It also seemed profoundly racialized. For example, Carlson did not call for the execution of BP executives despite their culpability in the devastation of Gulf wildlife. He did not denounce the Supreme Court for their decision in US v. Stevens (April 2010) which overturned a portion of the 1999 Act Punishing Depictions of Animal Cruelty. After all with this "crush" decision the Court seems to have validated a marketplace for exactly the kinds of crimes Vick was convicted of committing. For many observers, the decision to demonize Vick seems motivated by something more pernicious than concern for animal welfare. It seems to be about race.

It is into this murky racial history that President Obama inadvertently waded this week. Whatever the quality (or lack thereof) of his argument about incarceration and its lifelong effects on those who serve time, I suspect the President could not be heard over the din of emotion, anxiety, and history around race and animals in this country. Last night I found myself similarly unable to articulate the difficult and complex relationships that can make it so difficult to hear one another across this divide. My goal was not to defend Vick nor to condemn him, but to try to understand our very different national reactions to him.

[blush]

Of course Vick was in prison for bankrolling dog fights, NOT animal abuse. But the fact that he never admitted to animal abuse during the trial process - and I read that the judge was actually harder on him because of his lack of apparent remorse - is easy to understand in that he grew up in that culture, and hadn't yet come to terms with the absolute horror of his actions.

I read the blog, and that's EXACTLY what *I* needed to hear from him. I asked several times if anybody had seen him apologize - thanks for finally posting it.


You used the term "that culture?" Could you define "that culture?" I'm not sure what culture you're referring to, and I don't want to make assumptions.

[DapperButch]

You used the term "that culture?" Could you define "that culture?" I'm not sure what culture you're referring to, and I don't want to make assumptions.

I think she means grew up around dog fighting. Subsequently, the dog fighting was "normalized" and he was desensitized to it. It would make sense then that he would have no remorse. (however, I think that some personality types would never become accustomed to this...especially since the message from the larger culture is that this is not acceptable behavior...so there is a place where a counter message is being presented that could make a difference).

P.S. I actually have no knowledge if Vick grew up around dog fighting...I am assuming he did based on suebee's statement.

[sharkchomp]

For many years I rooted for Vick. He was/is so talented. He started changing things for Atlanta (football wise) for the better. He became a role model for many people. Then he got busted and I was crushed. And then I watched a nat geo special on what happened to the dogs that were found on his property and the depth of cruelty they endured. I was angry. It bothered me to my core. But this wasn't just about Michael Vick but the depravity of men. So what I'm saying here is that it bothered me on a deep level.

I've never looked at as a race thing but perhaps more of a gender thing. How many times have you heard one of your gal friends saying, "hey, there's dog fights at Sally's Saturday night, we should go!"

I didn't look at it as 'oh no, he's a POC (as Snow stated) but I did think what a shame WE have lost a great role model because a lot of kids really looked up to him.

With his recent success it didn't bother me that the President called him. But I do struggle internally. I don't want to root for him. I am no longer a fan, all the respect I had for him is gone. But I think I'm flawed in my thinking because I should root for him - perhaps not the football player, but for the man. Truth is, the more successful he is, the louder his voice. Perhaps he can make a difference for the better. That is my hope, that is my prayer.

~~~shark~~~~~~~