Obama's Public Support of Michael Vick

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Brock

*********** 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?

Originally Posted by betenoire

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!

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by suebee

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]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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.

[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.

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.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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).

[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.

[Ebon]

Originally Posted by 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.

Absofuckinglutely!!

[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

[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.

[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.