Me: “So, tell me about your relationship with Mike. Did he ever, y’know –”
Hush Puppies: “– If it’s all the same to you, I’d rather not talk about that asshole right now. Okay?”*
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | |||||
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
The ones ya eat? Or the ones ya wear? Both?
I’m a huge, giggly-crazy fan of malt vinegar. There, I said it.
I confess.
I’ve pitted dog against dog for most of my life and I’ve put down many a dog in my time.
I’ve boiled them.
Skewered them on sharpened sticks and burned them over open flames.
I’ve thrown them in the oven.
Locked them in the microwave and cooked them til they burst..
Even Smothered them in mustard, kraut or chili.
And those that didn’t measure up or got too old I simply threw in the hefty bag and disposed of like so much spoiled garbage.
This Michael Vic thing has shown me the error in my ways.. I deserve to be punished..I’ll just wait here for the feds to arrive…
Oh, but FYI..if you’re betting on them, go with Hebrew Nationals.. They beat the hell outta the others every time…
At least you got a response. Buster Brown’s companion Tige could not be reached for comment. Hmmmm…
Vick had to cop a plea. A black man can’t get a fair trial. Not one who didn’t live up to on-field expectations, anyway.
I wonder how his family reacts to this. Last time I saw them, granted it’s been a few years, they were cheering when Chris Chandler was carted off the field. Oh yeah, and then throwing stuff at Chandler’s wife for taking exception to their cheers.
“go with Hebrew Nationals.. “
Hey – Nathan’s can kick HN butt most days. A little leaner, maybe, but it’s the flavor that counts. Besides, those HN boys wouldn’t know a shochet if he chopped ’em up.
“I wonder how his family reacts to this.”
You know it’s never easy when one of your family members gets busted for running a huge dog fighting operation and electrocuting or hanging dogs and burying about 40 of them in their back yard.
Is dogfighting manly?
I suppose we will see conservatives rush to defend the guy, while liberals will offer no excuses.
Are hush puppies manly?
They are with steamed crab and a corn cob pipe.
I would be a lot more concerned about his present plight if he could have consistently hit a deep out to a wide out… or ever picked up a secondary reciever.
That’s what I’m talkin’ ’bout Willis.
Michael Vick is going to pay a heavier price than he should for his transgressions. And yes, Dr. Ric, I marinate and BBQ losing bulldogs on my backyard grill.
A heavier price than he should, eh? It’s not like he needed the money from the dogfighting operation to take care of his dying grandmother…
No, he didn’t need the money, and his actions were morally reprehensible. Having been exposed as the brutal and disgusting cretin that he is, he should be shunned by society. He should be booted out of the NFL, and no one who knows what he is should be willing to employ him.
But…
Should he go to jail? Do dogs have rights that ought to be protected by law? What about cows? Pigs? Chickens? Snail darters?
Well said Ardsgaine…
I took the same tack on another site and was shouted down by the animal lovers..
I heard on some news show that his choice was to cut a plea deal with the feds or face up to 40 years on state charges…40 years ??!! That’s longer than he’d face for a manslaughter or even murder charge..
Yes he’s an asshole and deserves the just punishment due an asshole.. but something befitting the crime not dictated by the anger of the public whipped into a frenzy by the media.
Is the law against animal cruelty really a matter of animal rights? Seems to me we had such laws long before the theory of animal rights reared its ugly and microcephalic head.
Ho, boy! Let’s stick with a clear separation of Animal Cruelty and Animal Rights! Please! The next thing you know those PETA gumballs will be trying to convince us that fish are sentient and deserving of protection.
Oh, Crap! Too late! http://www.breakingnewsenglish.com/0411/18.fishAreFriends.html
Anyone else find any delicious irony in the fact that no one has made an attempt to call this a “hate crime?” Animals are people too!!!!! (heh)
PS: Ardsgaine! Where ya been ya heathen heretic apostate godless Aristole apologist? Missed ya!
I’ll bet they were pretty sure they could get convictions at trial for about enough to net him 30 days. It’s called negotiating.
There are also laws against cruelty to PETA types, which I think proves the point. ;-)
“Ho, boy! Let’s stick with a clear separation of Animal Cruelty and Animal Rights! Please!”
You will have to make the distinction for me, then, because I don’t see it. What’s the philosophical basis of making cruelty to animals illegal? Isn’t killing them and eating them a bit cruel? What about testing chemicals on them? I believe that the sort of cruelty that Vicks was engaged in was gratuitous, but PETA makes the same argument about testing chemicals on animals, eating them, and wearing their hides/pelts. If they are wrong that animals have rights, what gives humans the right to say that this cruelty over here is okay, but that cruelty over there isn’t.
Response to PS. Hey, BJ! I get full to the gills with politics periodically and have to take a sabbatical. I just got back from a week at the beach, though, and I’m feeling tanned and rested.
Um, the fact that we humans do have rights?
“Um, the fact that we humans do have rights?”
One of them being the right to make moral decisions for other people? Cause if the guy is shooting his own dog, how does that violate my rights?
So, Ardsgaine, you would also be comfortable letting some religious cult members deny their own children medical treatment, on the basis that such denial does not affect your personal rights?
I so called this dogfight. : ) (Good boy!) Vick, true, is a turd but even turd’s get un-fairly stepped on, Animal rights apostles pose as much risk to rationality and freedom as Mick Vick poses to a bulldog born with Dr. Ric’s personality. It’s sick, I tell ya, this whole mess.
thor – Has your unrequited man-love for Vick faded ? ;-)
You’ve answered your own question. Since law is pretty much leaglized morality, the law has determined that gratuitous cruelty against animals is illegal and punishable. I’m OK with that, just as I’m not OK with PETA’s position on animal testing (or just about every other position that PETA takes) that having been determined as legal and in our, humans’, best interests.
I know this straddles the line of my personal liberty beliefs but the gratuitous and or for illegal profit area works for me. I think we are a better society when we balance our use of animals with a stand against gratuitous cruelty as long as we don’t go too far and start with the “animals are people, too!” baloney.
As far as Vick is concerned I’m assuming that in addition to the dog fighting charges he would be looking at racketeering, illegal interstate gambling and lying to investigators. Putting the dog cruelty stuff aside for the moment, if he gets out of this with 6-18 months he should count himself blessed.
Arf!
“So, Ardsgaine, you would also be comfortable letting some religious cult members deny their own children medical treatment, on the basis that such denial does not affect your personal rights?”
No, because children are humans, and have rights. Some of those rights are limited because they are minors, but the right to life isn’t.
In case it needs clarifying, I didn’t mean that animal cruelty shouldn’t be illegal because it doesn’t affect my rights, but because it doesn’t affect the individual rights of any human.
“Since law is pretty much leaglized morality, the law has determined that gratuitous cruelty against animals is illegal and punishable.”
I disagree with that notion of law. I don’t believe that everything which is immoral ought to be illegal. I don’t think that you would take that position either. I’m sure we could come up with examples of things you consider immoral, but would not want to make illegal. It seems to me that cruelty to (certain) animals is illegal more because it violates the majority’s esthetics than because it violates their ethics. Isn’t that why so many places still outlaw strip joints?
I’m not arguing that point in the least. The statement “Law is legalized morality” does not, in and of itself, declare that everything immoral is thus illegal. Morality is too mutable and subject to regional, no, better still, state differences in establishing what I’ll call “common good morality.” The trap is that that the permutations for defining “immoral” are almost infinite. Trans fats? Strip clubs? Guns? Hate Speech? Bars? “bitch”? Window Puppet shows? Helmets?
Laws are, by their nature, legislated morality, ethics, standards of behavior, etc. You and I have significantly different frameworks for establishing moral “truths”, yet we agree on many. The many agreements result in legislation to recognise a society’s maturation (development) over time. Some laws are eliminated as unnecessary or out dated (sodomy, restrictions on birth control, prohibition, etc.) while others are passed to reflect newfound concerns.
While I remain a strong supporter of individual liberties and limited government, I’m content that our society has progressed to the point that gratuitous cruelty to animals can be an actionable offense. The last time I checked there weren’t alot of people pleading for the legalization of dueling (well, maybe you ya wack job.) I’m concerned that this crime not be sentenced like armed robbery or rape (which I’m sure some of the animals=people crowd would love to see) but I didn’t see any real probability that Vick, even if convicted, would have spent 20 or 30 years in prison. Besides, the other aspects of the charges (interstate gambling, lying to investigators, racketeering) were the ones that would have really kicked up his time with Bubba.
Like mighty thor you might argue that there should not be laws against animal cruelty on liberty grounds. That’s a reasonable discussion area. I’d say let the states take care of it and let the legislatures decide. I’ll be putting my time into fighting bans on immoral trans fats, smoking and hate speech.
“The last time I checked there weren’t alot of people pleading for the legalization of dueling (well, maybe you ya wack job.)”
LOL. No, not me. Ritualized murder is not on my list of causes. Indeed, I wouldn’t put in much effort to help dog-killers escape jail time. It was just one of those things I thought needed saying. If I were going to tackle massive government interference with personal morality in a serious way, I would go after the drug laws. They are doing far more damage. You should think of that too. I mean, if they legalize smack, who’s going to worry about banning trans fats?
Me, I go with the feeeeeeeeling that it’s our duty to protect the otherwise weak and/or defenseless. Even a lion is defenseless if you have and use an elephant gun, or a machine gun, or a bunch of grenades…
Admitedly, as a social con and Christfascist, that’s a subject that I struggle with. I don’t see a lot of good being done expending the countless billions of dollars to lock up (mostly) low level dealers and users. On the other hand, legalised drugs scares the crap out of me.
I’ve heard both sides of the argument and I’m no better than a ping pong ball on this one. Just so that you understand that I’m not an “animals=people” guy in the least. I love em and am contemptuous of those who are cruel to them for no reason, but they are not raised to the human level of life.
The way I see it, I don’t think the law is deterring very many people from doing drugs. Those who want to do them, do them. So I don’t believe that legalization is going to cause a sudden upsurge in drug useage. We’re just wasting valuable resources, and putting people in jail to no good effect.
The notion that the majority of people would zombify themselves on drugs is a scary one. Looking around at some of what goes on, I can see why it would be a worry. If we lived in a society that valued the human mind, though, this wouldn’t be a problem either way. Few people would be tempted to destroy their brains with drugs, and even fewer would be tempted to resort to government force to win an argument over ethics. I don’t think either problem will be solved until we’ve gone through a revolution in our moral thinking.
Well that’s pretty insightful and I agree. I suspect, though, that you and I would have very different concepts of the “revolution in our moral thinking.” Yea, good luck at us finding middle ground on that!
I am concerned with the ease of availability of drugs under a legalized system. I’m not confident in the societal moral structures to provide a limiting framework for widespread zombiefication. At the same time, the proliferation of guns and shootings that are gang/drug related (check out the horrific statistics to date in Philly) lend another imperative to the legalization question.
Man, it might be easier to work on that “revolution” that we’re going to disagree on. :-)
I love the man’s foot speed, and that type of love has nothing to do with why I sleep in a Michael Vick jersey naked and oft aroused in nocturnal bliss. You’re just connecting far flung dots, JD, hoping to paint my world as some sort of Dr. Ric-ian/Jean Genet, Broadway show tunes, hyper-weenie-boy masculine dual parallel of man-prisoner coital constructs. Stop it, now, or I’ll lock myself in my powder room and quietly sniffle, or wail, or worse.
Holy shit, you are funny. Thor, I am roaring with laughter.
A good while later, and I am still chuckling. Our dinner companions looked at me like I was an idiot every time I started chuckling for no apparent reason.
I copied and pasted this just so the beauty of it could be read twice.
A truly rational society would, of course, allow gratuitous animal cruelty. Also allowed would be murder. Since rationally life is meaningless, the murder victim has not been harmed. His spouse and children perhaps have lost his income, if he was so stupid he didn’t have insurance. So rational justice would be to just make sure that income is replaced. If you’re a wealthy member of your truly rational society, thor, you can kill anyone you want and just pay off the survivors. Kind of like OJ Simpson, who as I recall had pretty quick feet, too.
After very brief contemplation, I’m sure the current animal cruelty laws are just a holdover from Christian morality. God gave Christians dominion over the beasts so Christians deciding to make some but not all animal cruelty illegal would, of course, follow. Do you expect rationality from people who believe in an invisible person that knows everything? At least you’re now in agreement with the ACLU, thor, who also wants to remove all remaining vestiges of Christianity from America.
Tell me why cannibalism is illegal again, Daddy?
It’s a rhetorical question, Cynn.
First of all OJ didn’t pay off any survivors. And why, unless you’re a nappy-headed racist cracker, would you inject OJ Simpson’s name when speaking of Sir Michael Vick? OJ ran upright, knees high, ball tucked tight, used a stiff arm and mostly hip fakes. OJ was not known for his unfathomable bursts of acceleration. OJ was not known for his carelessness with the football nor could he outrun the strike point of defender’s pre-judged angles. It’s un-Godly foot speed successfully converted to on-field pad speed that separates Michael Vick from all others playing the position of Quarterback (OJ was a Runningback!) you libelous all-men-who-carry-a-football-look-just-alike honky.
Why do you invoke OJ’s name where it doesn’t belong, Daddy?