Obama's Public Support of Michael Vick

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by BullDog

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

http://www.thenation.com/article/ben...ustice-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.

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by Corkey

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]

Originally Posted by BullDog

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.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by June

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

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)

Originally Posted by blush

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.

[blush]

Originally Posted by 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)

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.

[Sachita]

Originally Posted by blush

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]

Originally Posted by Sachita

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]

Originally Posted by blush

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

[julieisafemme]

Originally Posted by June

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.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by June

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?????

[JustJo]

Thought this was interesting... the link to the Humane Society's FAQ about their End Dogfighting program and Vick's involvement...

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by JustJo

Thought this was interesting... the link to the Humane Society's FAQ about their End Dogfighting program and Vick's involvement...

Thank you.

Cheers
Aj

[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.

[Sachita]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by Toughy

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??

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by Waldo

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!!!!)