Obama's Public Support of Michael Vick

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Medusa]

AJ nailed it again.

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

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

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

[BullDog]

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.

[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.

[Blade]

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

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

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

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

[Martina]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dreadgeek]

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

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

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

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

I'll try to illustrate with a story:

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

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

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

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by 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.

[Blade]

Originally Posted by Martina

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loved your post Martina!

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

[blush]

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.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by Waldo

What the hell are you doing to those cats??

Originally Posted by betenoire

I take in strays.

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

[Blade]

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

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

[Sachita]

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.