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.

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

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.

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 on animals. The long term human health effects of which have long been a concern for doctors.

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.

Now, due to specialization between broilers and layers... all male chicks born as layers are "disposed of" because they are economically worthless.

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 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.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwJgGEqa2xI"]YouTube - Earthlings 5 of 9 (dolphins, clothing industry, india cows, leather, fur farms)[/nomedia] (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. [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7TiSkBLoPM&feature=BF&list=PLEC5CD974D672 9FC1&index=1"]YouTube - Earthlings 1 of 9 (CC Subtitled)[/nomedia]. It is also available (in it's entirety) on Netflix.

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.

My .02, like it or lump it
 

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

Can you find the pitbull?

In 2008 pitbulls ranked 8th overall for aggressive behavior, 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.

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

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??

I take in strays.

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