Friday, July 27, 2007

Your Mother's A Drunken Astronaut



This day in sport...

Vick was suspended by Nike. It took this long?

I believe in due process and the rule of law. Innocent until proven guilty. Right now, Vick's not guilty of anything. But there's no question in my mind that he did it.

And the fact that he did makes him a spectacularly bad person.



I admit that my prejudgment is colored by emotion. I think that those who abuse animals are less than human. But look at the facts as we know 'em--why would the feds get involved unless there was some multi-state felony action going on? They've obviously got a strong case, and a timeline showing how Vick and his boys built the Bad Newz Kennels. There was also a mention of further superseding indictments, which are supposedly (I thank the legal beagle Munson on the Leader) almost always extra charges, rather than vice versa.

Whatever the end result, Vick is a glowing chunk of Plutonium to the corporate world right now. His sponsors, with their fingers eternally to the wind, know that people like dogs more than they like Mike.

So g'bye, Nike. See you never, Reebok (who stopped making Vick jerseys).

And it couldn't have happened soon enough. Fuck this bloodthirsty moron. Instead of prison, they should let rabid hyenas gnaw his face off.

And this just in as I write: one of his boys is gonna cop a plea. Say goodnight, Gracie.

6 comments:

Nathan said...

Hey there Cecil,

You like veal?

It tastes good.

Cheers,

TLR

Cecil said...

Don't be so oblique, LR.

If you want to engage in that kind of moral relativism--that fighting dogs (animals bred for human interaction) and eating beef (animal that literally only exists to be eaten) are basically the same thing, than not only have you barked up the wrong tree in starting this argument but you're showing your ass.

I'm no supporter o' veal. But to equate eating it to murdering animals with your own hands? I thought you were better than that. That's Skip Bayless territory.

Cecil said...

Sigh. I hate that I can't edit posts in this format...

I'd like to remove the "moral relativism" sentence. Or at least that first clause.

I'm acually slowly moving towards a nearly meatless existence, unless you count bacon, chicken, steak and fish.

Nathan said...

I don't count bacon.

I'm pretty sure it's a separate food group.

-- TLR

Nathan said...

P.S. I'm not sure that dogs have always been bred for "human interaction." Being that all dogs are actually one species, with multiple breeds, they are an excellent example of the genetic and phenotypic variation that is likely inherent in all organisms. What, I ask you, do you think has been humankind's purpose in creating all of these breeds? Do you suppose they were all well-intentioned?

Hmmmm ...

Cecil said...

The phrase "human interaction" is, in this regard, all-encompassing. And true. There has been no dog bred that doesn't have interaction with humans on some level.

Some were bred to watch the door, some dogs were bred to drag badgers outta their holes. Some were bred to fight--but does that make it right?

Is that what you're saying? Are you just playing--and I hate this phrase, by the way--Devil's Advocate? Or are you with Deion? Come outta your hole and make your point, LR.

(And don't think for a moment that you zapped me with "phenotypic." If we're in a vocab war, I'll bring the fucking Big Red One and burn your jungle hut to a crisp.)