Comments on: Michael Vick’s apology

By: david foster

david foster — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:08:05 +0000

“America’s agricultural foundations mean that we treat animals as property rather than creatures deserving protection”…as opposed to countries that *don’t* have agricultural foundations? Are there such countries?

By: Reginleif

Reginleif — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:38:03 +0000

I despise animal abusers. Almost as much, I despise various people I've seen or encountered online, claiming that animal abuse shouldn't be a felony because "it's valuing human life above animal life." I don't have the patience to try to explain matters to such jerks anymore. Incidentally, Meryl, I saw this story about Norman Finkelstein and figured I'd pass it along.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:13:42 +0000

Meryl my money (and hope) is on truth and justice !

By: John M

John M — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:38:45 +0000

I think he’ll get a slap on the wrist. America’s agricultural foundations mean that we treat animals as property rather than creatures deserving protection.

And you’re right, this is a total CYA apology, penned and coached by some high-dollar lawyer that the NFL probably picked to whitewash the situation so Sleazeball can get back on the field.

In his own mind, he merely sees himself as a victim of persecution by “the man”.

Scumbag.

By: Sabba Hillel

Sabba Hillel — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:36:59 +0000

I would concentrate on the tough but fair part of the description. A judge who is not fair would throw the book at Vick because of the dog that he owns. A judge that is fair would sentence Vick not because of the money that he will lose and not because he himself owns a dog, but because of the heinous actions themselves.