Obama's Public Support of Michael Vick

[JustJo]

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

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/2010/1..._n_802192.html

Does anyone see the mental illness in that?

[Julie]

Originally Posted by 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/2010/1..._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.

[Sachita]

Originally Posted by InfiniteFemme

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!

[Ebon]

Originally Posted by Medusa

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]

Originally Posted by Organicbutch

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]

Originally Posted by Organicbutch

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]

Originally Posted by 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/2010/1..._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

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

Originally Posted by suebee

Interesting article on the legal considerations of Michael Vick's ban on owning animals. CLICK HERE

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[Just_G]

Originally Posted by suebee

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....

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by suebee

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

[Sachita]

Originally Posted by JustJo

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.

[katsarecool]

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

June, 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...ustice-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.

[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

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 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.

[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.