1. james wrote:

mr lee, i think it’s fairly obvious that boiling lobster is not a crime.

yes, in general, our relationships with animals need improvement, but the level of cruelty that vick was responsible for is reprehensible, particularly with how much americans revere dogs as pets, which vick was clearly aware of when he committed his crime. i don’t see that status changing anytime soon, despite provocative/stupid articles such as mr lee’s.

should he be allowed to play football again? no, vick’s not even that good of a quarterback, and he’s already proven what kind of man he is.

2. DCI74 wrote:

Why shouldn’t he be allowed to pursue whatever career choice he so desires James if that in fact means a return to football? Once he is no longer in federal custody after July 20th his debt to society will be paid in full. If he can return to game shape, hasn’t completely lost all of his athletic ability and can fit on a team where his role is clearly defined why do you feel he shouldn’t be allowed to do so?

3. james wrote:

dci74, if you committed the same crime as vick, wouldn’t you be just a little bit embarrassed to return to your place of employment, especially if it was so prominent a job as an nfl quarterback. (please keep in mind, in america, animal abusers are probably about as popular as sex offenders).

also, would you expect your place of employment to hold your job for you while you did your time for a federal crime.

4. Clif Soulo wrote:

Lets not talk foolish James. Just as you said boiling lobsters isn’t a crime, being an NFL quarterback is not the same as a job at the bank. So the “place of employment” point doesn’t hold water, in my opinion.

Secondly, what does Mike Vick’s level of embarrassment have to do with him being allowed to have a career in the NFL?

Third, I don’t think the article is stupid, I think the author is trying to help Americans remember that as much as they love dogs, they still are animals. Plain and simple. It’s fact, not opinion.

And finally, to try an talk about what kind of man he is, based off of this situation is pretty small minded. I’m assuming You don’t know Mike Vick, never spent a day in his shoes, or even talked to him, so you really have no frame of reference to state “what kind of man he is”. And you also don’t know football, if you claim he isn’t a good quarterback…but that’s an entirely different debate

5. FBI-CIA wrote:

I couldn’t have said it better. If the people critizing him eat meat, you have no right to open your mouth. If you witness what was done to the meat you eat, you would leave Vic alone. Children are dying, families starving and people are getting their panties in a bunch over some dogs. Dogs that Vic paid for with his own money, mind you.

6. DCI74 wrote:

James, sure I would be embarrassed but that would be for me to deal with and if my prospective employer would be able to handle that and still is willing to let me work then I would man up and deal but just because a person may be embarrassed about committing and being convicted of a crime doesn’t mean he/she shouldn’t be allowed to pursue whatever career they want. It’s up to the prospective employer to tell me yes or no but I should not lose the opportunity to simply apply if I have paid my debt for said crime.

No one is holding a job for Michael Vick in the NFL. His rights are still owned by the Falcons and they have already decided that he will never wear that uniform again, so technically the only job Vick has now is the construction one has lined up. But again its up to the discretion of the employer to decide if they want to hire someone with a criminal record, felony or misdemeanor that’s why that section is on every job application. If I had a record it’s up to me be honestly disclose it and in turn up to the employer to decide if I am still eligible for a job but I should not be denied the opportunity to apply for the job just because I have a record.

7. james wrote:

okay, dci74, with the competition for jobs being as fierce as it is, honestly, who would you rather hire? the prospect with or without the criminal record?

8. DCI74 wrote:

Regardless of the job market a hypothetical scenario like that is far too general for me to give you an answer james. It really depends on the job, the company and what each candidate is bringing to the table. If both applicants are equally qualified and the only difference is one has a record and the other doesn’t again it would depend on the situation. For example right now I am working on a project and I am going to need some talented graphic designers, I know 2 in particular that are interested and both have spent time in prison but are incredibly talented self-taught artists. I would be a fool to not consider them and instead seek out an inexperienced recent college grad simply because he/she doesn’t have a rap sheet. But I have never gone with the rule that any prospective employee with a criminal record is immediately ruled out because of that record. I don’t believe in a cut-and-paste, one-size-fits motto for every scenario because each one is different and presents its own set of variables.

9. james wrote:

okay, dci74, let’s say michael vick applied to you for a job; he’s qualified, might fit the bill, and seems like he really wants to do the job. would you hire vick over an equally qualified applicant who doesn’t have nfl experience or a criminal record?

10. DCI74 wrote:

Based on your question james, no I would not hire him because as you put it he “might fit the bill” which tells me that in fact they aren’t equally qualified. I don’t want any employee that might fit the bill, I want the best qualified candidate for the position, period. If both “might fit the bill” neither would get an offer because I’m not looking for who might be the best candidate I want that actual best candidate of all applicants.

11. Just me wrote:

Marc….how embarassing! Do people not know what the Federal charges were against Vick? Do we not know what he pleaded guilty to and how lucky he is that he only got the time he did? He pled guilty to “Conspiracy to Travel in Interstate Commerce in Aid of Unlawful Activities and to Sponsor a Dog in an Animal Fighting Venture”. That’s Mafia stuff man….gambling across state lines….racketeering…..and then to top it off, failed his drug test! I don’t want to see him out on the football field….I don’t want young men wearing his number…paying his debt to society would be to get into the schools and tell young men that …yes you can have it all and be stupid enough to blow it all because you think you won’t get jail time or that you are above the law. The message being wrong is not just wrong because you got caught!

12. Bitter Brother wrote:

To simply dismiss the contention made by the writer as “provocative/stupid” only shows your inability to extrapolate the point made within his argument. Furthermore, it shows that you are fully acculturated into this bias Western ethos that accepts one injustice in lieu of another. Here in South Carolina, at the very same time that Mike Vick was being crucified by the media for partaking in an indisputably unspoken American past time, our legislators were entrenched in a bitter campaign to preserve cockfighting on grounds that it was our state’s tradition. Mike Vick was wrong, but his punishment isn’t consistent with precedents. He was made an example of by a nation with historically shifty moral priorities…What about GWB being responsible for the state-sanctioned human-fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan on dubious grounds? Wake the fuck up and inveigh against real injustice. Meanwhile, let Mike Vick be.

And Im glad you aren’t a scout since you think Mike Vick wasn’t great at what he did!

13. Bitter Brother wrote:

That was directed toward James.

14. Mario wrote:

I think humans should be held accountable for treatment of animals. I do think Michael and anyone else who fights and kills animals for sport should be punished but not to the extent that Vick was. Like Lee said animal abuse should never be punished more harshly than the abuse of humans. Also we need to quit acting like this crime is so much worse than baseball players and steroids. The WWE has shown that steroid use can be lethal to humans and sets a horrible example for our kids (since people like to argue athletes are role models), yet baseball players are only suspended for part of the season. If they can come back to play their sport so can Vick.

15. james wrote:

bitter brother, which legislators were trying to legalize cockfighting in south carolina? from my research, all i could find was articles indicating legislators successfully strenghthened existing laws prohibiting cockfighting.

16. R.oB. wrote:

The firestorm over Vick was both hyperbolic and hypocritical. The point that Lee makes is clear and correct. We mistreat animals on the regular, and we turn a social blind eye when it suits us. Dogs are pets (mostly). So we gross and lament. Lobsters are food. No one outside of vegetarians thinks twice about eating something that spent it’s last moments of life in agony.

17. Bitter Brother wrote:

James,

What you found James is the legal result of the cultural fray surrounding the issue. I doubt that Google, even with its infinite utility, can familiarize you with the rhetoric and mood involved in the debate. NOTICE: Nowhere do I say that cockfighting was legalized, just that there were politicians who were at the vanguard of a campaign that sought to preserve the sport, attributing it to culture. That is a fact! Remember that absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence. If you desperately require empirical evidence of my point, look no further than racehorse euthanasia or primate research.

18. jazzy wrote:

While I don’t believe that what Vick did is not much worse than they way we treat animals for food and clothes, I do believe that what he did was cruel and has no redeeming value (no food or gator boots:). When the story first broke I just shrugged and thought that he deserved whatever he got, but now Vick’s critics are pissing me off. The man went to freaking jail and lost his job. He doesn’t have to prove he is sorry and he doesn’t have to grovel for PETA’s or anyone else acceptance. He did his time and has no further obligations to society in regards to this matter. Let the man get on with his life and Vick’s critics need to move on with theirs.

19. james wrote:

jazzy, vick lied about the allegations when roger goodell, head of the nfl, asked him about the charges. i’d say vick needs acceptance from him in order to get reinstated into the nfl. i would also say that sport fans/dog lovers have an obligation to make sure goodell thinks long and hard about his decision to reinstate vick.

bitter brother, cockfighting is more widely accepted in north america than dogfighting (even jerry seinfeld had an episode dedicated to it). in south carolina, the gamecocks represent the university of south carolina. the difference between dog and chickens is obvious: most americans eat chickens; most americans don’t eat dogs.

as for racehorses, when lose a race, they are generally not starved and electrocuted to death as the dogs at vick’s kennels were.

and animal research also works within certain ethical constraints that are constantly subjected to reevaluation due to the efforts of animal rights activists.

lastly, because of the association of most dog fights to gang and other illegal activity, i believe vick’s crime to be particularly scandalous and do not want to see him reinstated to the nfl. i don’t want thim to feel entitled to that player’s lifestyle again. i want him permanently ostracized, much in the way that my boyhood hero, pete rose, has been denied access to major league baseball for the rest of his life.

let vick work construction; might build some much needed character in him….

20. truth wrote:

James, I really think you are missing the point. NO ONE is trying to defend Vick’s actions, what they are saying is that he paid his debt to soceity, why isn’t that enough? You can list all the horrible acts practiced against animals in this county and compare them to what he did, but that doesn’t make it right. Dogs are pets, but why are their lives so much more valuable than the other animals you discuss? Why shouldn’t he be allowed to go back to his job after serving his jail time, wasn’t that his punishment?! Your thought process is shocking to me. Aren’t there enough convicted men and women who can’t find work because of their prison records. Why do you think that so many of them go back to lives of crime, because society leaves them no other choice. You think Vick need’s to learn character? I can’t imagine an experience that could humble him more than what he’s been through.

21. james wrote:

truth, in america, we have certain degrees of acceptibility, and very complex legal and moral visions that support our various lifestyles, desires, and freedoms. call it hypocrisy if you like, but our society has outlawed bloodsports between animals because of the cruelty and criminal activities that usually surround these venues.

vick is a public sports figure who has proven himself to be severely lacking in character, if not entirely psychotic. just because he has apologized and served his time in prison does not indicate to me that he has been humbled in any manner. a truly humble mike vick would just go about his business and not set his sights on quarterbacking ever again. professional quarterbacks, by their very natures and job assignments, are not humble people. if mike vick is truly humbled he would take that 10 dollar construction job and build himself some character and a new career in obscurity.

22. DCI74 wrote:

james unless you know Vick personally how can you realistically expect him to demonstrate to you his level of humility when that really only has to be shown to his future employer? All these crackpots talking about Vick being humble and showing remorse are completely ridiculous. The man lost most of his fortune, most of his friends, all of his endorsements, his job, missed the birth of his daughter, and lost significant athletic ability, lost his previously felony-free record and time he can never get back but none of that is enough, for people like you he has to be further scrutinized and ostracized and that is ridiculous. As “truth” pointed out its that same belief you have that many others share that is a factor in recidivism because what you fail to get is the sentence is the penalty, its not supposed to continue once a person has paid their debt which will be the case for Vick on July 20th. Clearly that doesn’t sit well with you and its a good thing your opinion won’t matter in the final decision making process.

23. Bardamu wrote:

I suppose I have a right to criticize as a vegan who does not wear leather and won’t even consume dairy or honey. I don’t believe in any exploitation of animals for our purposes. Their will is violated, they do not assent to what we do to them, some can’t, but when they experience pain and they scream or try to escape that his a demonstration of non-compliance. Anyway, I understand what you say w/ respect to the media’s treatment of his case in particular and indeed most people are hypocrites who bet on horses, wear leather jackets, and casually dine on filet mignon and lobster without giving a thought to what these animals must endure. The primary issue in this case, is the prolonged savagery of the fight itself, the blood and the guts and all of the associated cruelty, e.g. bait dogs, cats, and God only knows what else and the apparent blatant disregard for all of the prolonged, conscious infliction of suffering on these animals just for entertainment value and pecuniary gain. But you are correct, people need to turn that lens on themselves.

24. Clif Soulo wrote:

game, set, match.

25. james wrote:

dci74, vick doesn’t go free on july 20th. he’s got like 3 more years of probation. most people commit crimes again because they are criminals. o.j. is a prime example of this. so is mike vick. he didn’t need to get involved in felonius activities, but did. i don’t need to know mike vick personally; i know him publically. mike vick doesn’t belong in the national football league. when you are such public figure such as vick, the penalty phase is only part of your sentence. there is also an atonement process which requires serious time of out the public eye.

26. DCI74 wrote:

So james if you feel so strongly about this did you express the same outrage for Leonard Little or is it ok for him to kill a woman while driving drunk because he’s not a QB? Are you outraged that Cedric Benson, Odell Thurman, Chris Henry and countless other convicted players are still in the league?

27. marland wrote:

Speaking of penalties that never end – I feel so bad for Mike Tyson.

28. james wrote:

dci74, those fellas are the not the issue here and you know it. but i just googled little for kicks. honestly, to me, involuntary manslaughter does not rise anywhere near the sadistic level of criminal activity that michael vick has been involved in. anybody could have a tragic accident while driving drunk. intent does make a difference, and i believe it takes a special kind of scumbag to torture dogs to death, which is why vick served way more jail-time than little.

yes, the fact that my son had a vick jersey at one point does go along with me wanting goodell to make an example of him.

regardless, i’m not actually outraged. it’s not like i’m writing letters to goodell. i’m simply having a discussion with you.

29. DCI74 wrote:

“honestly, to me involuntary manslaughter does not rise anywhere near the sadistic level of criminal activity that michael vick has been involved in.” And with that ridiculous statement james I am done with this discussion.

If you believe that a human being killed by another drunk human being that was selfish and insensitive while driving a machine weighing well over a ton who carelessly put many lives in danger is less sadistic than a person who killed a dog then I have nothing more to discuss with you. Driving drunk just like killing dogs is not an accident or a mistake it is a conscious, careless and selfish choice. Every single bottle of liquor has the same warning, don’t operate heavy machinery but apparently for you that doesn’t matter because a selfish drunk driving a thousand pound weapon is not as bad as drowning a dog. I seriously doubt if Leonard Little killed your mother, sister, daughter, wife or friend you would have no problem seeing him happily playing football every Sunday.

30. james wrote:

drugs and alcohol, by their very natures, are designed to promote bad judgement, and yet alcohol use is widely promoted in this country. the notion of responsible drinking is a pipedream, especially amongst the younger party sets.

furthermore, i know for a fact that most of my friends and family have probably driven drunk at some point their lives. in fact, because i’ve never been caught, i still drive drunk on occasion. if i were to kill somebody, it would have been completely accidental.

i really don’t know what i would do if little had killed somebody in my immediate family by accident. if he’d run over my mother, i might have thanked him.

31. Clif Soulo wrote:

smh…..

32. DCI74 wrote:

“in fact, because i’ve never been caught, i still drive drunk on occasion”, and so the insanity continues and ironically that jaded perspective is how many viewed Vick’s situation, that he only showed remorse because he got caught. See that logic doesn’t even pass the “say it out loud” test, absolutely inexcusable and ridiculous. Great example your setting for your family james, you are a tragedy waiting to happen because according to you as long as you don’t get caught it’s no big deal, stunningly willfull ignorance at its best.

33. james wrote:

dci74, my kids know i drink to excess on occasion. in fact, they’ve been with me on some occassions when i don’t remember which route i’ve taken home. i’ve apologized for my behavior more than once, and have explained to my children that drinking and driving is a dangerous crime.

still, i grew up quite differently from them and have my own issues to deal with. and just because drinking is and will always be a small part of my life does not mean that my children will drink the same way that i do. i will be expecting better behavior from them, which already looks to be the case, but i could be wrong about that. you don’t really know, but you do the best you can.

however, if either of my children were ever convicted of torturing and killing animals–or if i suspected them of being involved in any kind of organized crime–i would, quite simply, disown them.

34. ChgoSista wrote:

James, darlin’, with each rant you post, the hole you’re diggin’ is getting bigger than a MF…

35. Clif Soulo wrote:

I believed James has stooped down to what i call; “tanya logic”

Now, “tanya logic” isn’t exclusive to the originator, it can be adapted and used by anyone who is close-minded and hell-bent on winning a debate/argument. the topic can be anything, from waterboarding, to use of certain controversial words, or NFL quarterbacks (as we have seen in this comment thread). The only way to stop the terrible use of the “tanya logic” is to take a step back from the computer, stand up, and say to yourself these 6 words;

“I am wrong, lets move on”.

36. james wrote:

clif, what exactly am i wrong about? i’m neither closed-minded nor hell-bent. i’m not even ranting, as chicago sissta seems to believe. i’m simply presenting my very honest views here.

37. DCI74 wrote:

james rule #1 in hole digging, when you’re standing in the whole stop digging.

“dci74, my kids know i drink to excess on occasion. in fact, they’ve been with me on some occassions when i don’t remember which route i’ve taken home. i’ve apologized for my behavior more than once, and have explained to my children that drinking and driving is a dangerous crime.” Really? How do you know you even apologized if you couldn’t even remember how to get home??? Hello???

What a great father you are!! You apologize to your kids after endangering their lives, give them the ‘do as I say not as I do’ speech and you admit to continuing the same destructive behavior, kudos james you are well on your way to a Father of the Year Award! The fact that you can type such ludicrous comments and actually post them comfortably is amazing. You present yourself an a smart, grown-ass man with kids but you’re not smart enough to get a designated driver or here’s a thought, put the damn beer down. So instead of exercising the skills of a good and caring father like self control and selflessness you just throw caution to the wind and put yourself and your children in dangerous situations because like you said, you haven’t been caught yet. It’s crazy, you threw all those stones at Vick meanwhile you’re living in glass mansion, on a crystal cliff right across the street from a rock quarry! If you really value your life and your kids you should check yourself with the quickness but apparently you don’t give a shit and your selfish, I wonder how your wife or in-laws feel about your obvious carelessness when it comes to your kids. Do you tell your kids it’s ok to break laws as long as you don’t get caught since that’s how you view drunk driving? Sad very, very sad.

38. jazzy wrote:

James please explain to me how you expect understanding and forgiveness from your family for driving drunk with your kids in the car (and thus endangering their lives and the lives of other innocent bystanders) but assert that society and the NFL should shun Vick for life for a crime aganist animals even after he has served time in jail. In your mind do you seriously believe that harming and killing animals is a bigger offense than endangering children?! Good grief man you can’t be serious. I understand how you can get caught up in an arguement and fall in love with your initial position but as some point you have to remove the blinders and really listen to what you are saying. By the way, i may be reading more into your post then what is actually there but it seems as if you have a drinking problem and if that’s the case I do understand that it is a disease but you are still are ultimately responsible for your actions.

39. DCI74 wrote:

“drugs and alcohol, by their very natures, are designed to promote bad judgement, and yet alcohol use is widely promoted in this country. the notion of responsible drinking is a pipedream, especially amongst the younger party sets.”

“anybody could have a tragic accident while driving drunk.” True but you know that drinking increases your chances of having a fatal accident but you do it anyway. What does that say about you and your feelings toward the rest of the sober drivers on the road wanting to get home to their loved ones safely? What gives you the right to endanger everybody else including your kids by driving a thousand-pound machine completely drunk?

You know this yet you drink and drive anyway and since you’re not young, what’s your excuse? james your perspective completely disgusts me and if you have a drinking problem man you really need to get some help if not for your sake for the sake of your kids. Every time you consciously make the decision to drive knowing you have been drinking is not a mistake or an accident it’s a display of selfishness and willful ignorance. It makes me think of the intense pain and agony I went through many years ago when my fiancee’s twins were killed by a drunk driver like you. You can’t just apologize that kind of pain and loss away, you can’t justify it by saying ‘I’ve never been caught so it’s all good.’ Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that if your employer knew you were regularly engaging in destructive behavior like this that you would keep your job as long as you don’t get into a fatal accident? Is this watercooler fodder in your office, the latest wild drunken episode featuring james? Maybe you really are just sick and if so please, please get some help before you kill your kids, someone else or yourself.

40. james wrote:

folks, for the record, i don’t have a drinking problem, but i do enjoy alcohol, and, on some occasions, and on purpose, i drink to excess. can’t really believe i have to explain this to adults. i’m still father of the year every year–personality flaws and all.

on average, i drink anywhere between 1-2 drinks every evening, and some times more on the weekend. since they outlawed smoking in bars, i generally drink alone at home, but i do occasionally attend parties or weddings which require me to drive. i don’t always drive home from these events, but i have, on occasion gotten behind the wheel while intoxicated. it is a common crime, but never committed with the intention of hurting any person, place, thing, or animal, which is why the penalties for it are relatively light.

statistically speaking, most car accidents are not even related to alcohol intoxication, and the numbers have dropped significantly throughout the past 20 years or so, probably due to greater awareness and stronger penalties.

again, i believe getting involved in dog fighting takes highly a conscious and concentrated effort to be involved in what probably amounts to organized crime; and, in the case of vick, we get the added sickness of him torturing and killing his canine competitors.

now, for those of you who don’t believe that dogs are people too, i suggest you watch “marley and me” this weekend. if you’re not crying by the end of it, y’all as heartless as michael vick. but what do i know, i’m just a sentimental drunk.

41. Clif Soulo wrote:

“now, for those of you who don’t believe that dogs are people too, i suggest you watch “marley and me” this weekend”

If you don’t understand that dogs are not, i repeat, ARE NOT people, then I don’t think there’s anything you can say DC, (or anyone else for that matter), that will help James understand, not only the flaw in his argument about Michael Vick, but also the dangerous, and very ignorant beliefs about drinking and driving.

I suggest instead of watching a hollywood romanticized movie about a man an his dog, you go check out a documentary about drunk driving.

42. DCI74 wrote:

Cosign Clif.

Ok james now you’re just lying because you aren’t even being consistent with your previous comments.
Let’s review: “drugs and alcohol, by their very natures, are designed to promote bad judgment, and yet alcohol use is widely promoted in this country. the notion of responsible drinking is a pipedream, especially amongst the younger party sets.” So since you’re not young and apart the party set, what’s your excuse? The notion of responsible drinking is not a pipedream to responsible drinkers, of which you clearly are not. If you’re too much of lame to get a designated driver or control your drinking is that the fault of someone else? Apparently so in your bizarro world.

“in fact, because i’ve never been caught, i still drive drunk on occasion. if i were to kill somebody, it would have been completely accidental.” You know alcohol impairs a person’s judgment yet you still believe a drunk driver that causes a fatal crash is simply accidental? What planet are you on? So the driver that willingly drinks to the point of impairment is not responsible for how said impairment affects everyone around him/her? See if you really believed that there would be no impetus to apologize to your kids, instead it would be another episode of daddy being daddy.

“i don’t always drive home from these events, but i have, on occasion gotten behind the wheel while intoxicated.” So not only don’t you give a shit about your life or that of your children but you don’t give a damn about anyone else on the road either. Yeah what a great guy you are.

“now, for those of you who don’t believe that dogs are people too, i suggest you watch “marley and me” this weekend.” Dumbest statement I’ve read all month, you’re using a freaking fiction movie to strengthen your weak-ass swiss cheese argument. Dogs are people? What???? How many dogs do you know with people as pets? Did your German Shephard walk you before going to work today?? Is the receptionist in your office a Cocker Spaniel?? Where in the hell are all these people-dogs??

What a damn fool you are james! You are lost; you are danger to yourself, your children and everyone in your city when you make the ignorant choice to drive drunk. That is a sign of outright selfishness that your enjoyment of alcohol is more important than providing a safe environment for yourself, your children and your neighbors. I don’t feel shit for you but I do feel bad for your kids. Your statistics mean nothing when you clearly don’t give a shit about your own kid’s welfare. You have clearly conditioned yourself to justify your behavior as acceptable even though deep down you know its unacceptable otherwise you would feel no compulsion to apologize to your children for getting lost on the way home and telling them that drinking and driving is wrong. Your willful ignorance is baffling. All I can say is this, I know what it feels like to lose someone close to a bitchass drunk driver like you and that makes me furious so I swear on everything, be very glad this is just the internet for real.

43. james wrote:

clif, there is nothing ignorant about my knowledge of drunk driving. perhaps you are put off by my brazen ability to discuss it honestly. i’ve been drinking for 25 years. i’ve been driving for 24 years. these two legal, normal and well promoted american activities are bound to cross over once in a while. dog fighting, and the torturing and killing of animals is part of the underworld activities of career criminals, which is neither normal or promoted in america. this is why i believe vick deserves to remain outside of football, a sport where many people drink and drive home from the stadiums.

but you bring up another interesting topic, would a documentary about drunk-driving really involve less romance or spin than a hollywood movie?

44. james wrote:

dci74, seriously dude, i was being provocative/stupid about the dogs are people bit, but they surely are an important part of many american families.

45. james wrote:

also, dci74, i’m sorry my honesty on this topic is so upsetting to you, but it was, after all, you, who brought up drunk-driving via leonard little. honestly, i’d never heard of him until you brought him up. i will refrain from discussing this topic any further with you.

46. DCI74 wrote:

Save your apologies and provocative/stupid statements for someone else james, your honesty is ignorant plain and simple. Did you completely skip over me telling you that I have personally experienced loss via the exact same actions you are trying to justify? Have you ever seen the casket of a 4-year-old? Its one of the smallest, scariest looking boxes I have ever seen. Do you have any idea what it’s like to see a mother completely fall apart burying her twins after only enjoying 4 years of their life? Let’s just pause for one second and look at this from your perspective as a father, would you have this same lame argument of justification if a drunk driver killed your kids? You may only be 25 but I can’t believe that you are that heartless and callous but youngin you have a lot of growing up and maturing to do. Since you are only 25 the impulse control part of your brain isn’t even fully developed and won’t be until you’re 27 so maybe just maybe common sense will finally hit you in a couple of years. Just because drinking is a societal norm doesn’t make drinking and driving less reprehensible than dog fighting so the excuse that most car accidents aren’t alcohol-related is irrelevant and both are illegal. The numbers of teen pregnancy are also down so should society now stop advocating that young people practice safe sex? Of course not. The numbers should have zero impact on common sense, an impaired driver is more of a danger than one that is sober; there are no ifs, ands, or buts about that, its completely cut and dry and by your own admission you’ve confirmed that very thing. You are a grown man, you are responsible for everything you put in your body and you are responsible when what you put in your body affects everyone around you. If you don’t get that or simply don’t want to then that’s something that will eventually catch up to you. Hopefully you won’t have to bury any of your children because of people like you. Two counts of felony vehicular manslaughter due to DUI got him a sentence of 25 to life, does that register with you? If you love your kids so much why on earth would you risk your freedom and them growing up without a father for a few drinks or your inability to simply call a cab or someone else for a ride?

47. ~JJG~ wrote:

DC, I’m sorry for you loss.

James, I am disturbed that you are so cavalier about driving drunk. I have my own experience of being hit by a drunk driver. Fortunately, I survived the accident, but that’s not the outcome for many people who encounter someone like you. I feel for your children. I pray that you change your actions and sentiment on this subject. I really do.

48. ChgoSista wrote:

James, really–there is no shovel ON EARTH long enough to dig you out!!!!!!!!!!!!

49. DCI74 wrote:

Thanks JJG and the truth is I had no intentions of bringing this up and sharing it with the blogosphere but I have such an allergic reaction to ignorance that it’s hard to not scratch it when I see/hear it. I am just so tired of people who refuse to take responsibility for their actions and instead have every illogical excuse in the book to justify blatant stupidity. Like I said before james and let me be clear, I wish no ill will towards anyone so I really do hope your kids never suffer based on other people that share your beliefs about drunk driving. There are so many things that are beyond our control but what we drink and how that affects how we drive is directly within our control. It just boggles my mind that a father would not only willingly drive drunk with his kids in the car but admit to doing it repeatedly simply because he hasn’t been caught and no tragedy has occurred. By that logic no one should ever wear a seatbelt until they are in accident and are thrown from the car but by then its probably too late because you may not even have the chance to wear a seatbelt again.

50. econwhat wrote:

James is 25 years old? Word? I thought he said he has been drinking for 25 years and driving for 24 of those years (began drinking one year before driving)….”i’ve been drinking for 25 years. i’ve been driving for 24 years.” I think his kids are pre-teens or teens which makes his revelation/confession about drinking and lack of remorse or willingness to reform his drunken habits that much more troubling, IMO. No, James ain’t no 25 year old, believe that!

Sorry for your loss DCI74…but hey I’m expecting to celebrate my 26th birthday in 2009 and believe me, my impulses are fully under control so your statement/excuse for James behavior in your statement…”Since you are only 25 the impulse control part of your brain isn’t even fully developed and won’t be until you’re 27 so maybe just maybe common sense will finally hit you in a couple of years.” do not apply to me or many of my friends in any way sir. But I get the flow of your convo with James and your experiences within your sphere…all good right here.

51. DCI74 wrote:

Thanks econ. I just realized what you said so I definitely read that part wrong my bad.

I’m not denying that you can make reasonable decisions in your early 20s but its a medical fact regarding the pre-frontal cortex part of the brain, it is not fully developed until about the age of 27 maturity and experience aside and its certainly not a slight against you or your friends. Experiences and attitudes don’t speed up or delay brain development in a healthy person. Now certainly your experiences shape the future choices you make but those decisions take more than a fleeting thought and wouldn’t be considered impulsive behavior. At 25 you can resist the impulse to run around the house naked after a bath whereas a toddler cannot much like a 15-year-old won’t likely stick his finger in a fan while its on but a 4-year-old might. I work with adolescents and we’ve done some projects around neuroscience and teenage brain development, very interesting stuff but for many years scientists thought the pre-frontal cortex was fully developed by the age of 14 but that turned out to be incorrect. Take a look at some research papers by Dr. Jay Giedd or Paul Thompson if you’re interested.

52. Cheryl wrote:

Didn’t Europeans say “dogs are mans best friend”? In their culture it is….not in African culture! Remember they suckeled at the breast of a wolf ” Romulus & Remus”…..Greece & Roman mythology! Dogs are domesticated wolves & they were Europeans best friends in the caves ……they had plenty of uses, some you don’t want to know about! That’s why they have such an affinity to dogs in particular! You can kill people,elephants, birds etc. etc.but don’t mess with Lassie! LOL

53. Charles wrote:

The question was are we wrong to Critique Vick. So, lets critique Vick. 2002 A civil suit against him for a STD. 2004 Investigated for distribution of Marijuna, and also accused of stealing a watch at Airport Security. 2006 Tax evasion. 2007 Marijuana, the water bottle in Miami airpot, 2007 FBI bust for dog fighting. 2007 Tested postive for Marijuana. Now pending actions against Vick 1. 3 bank sued him for loans owed. 2 The Falcons are trying to get their money back. 3. Investigation connected to dogs and death of Roy Melton. Now since the NFL knew all this, and still let him back in, maybe we should Critique the NFL.