Regarding Mike Vick....

Gregg Easterbrook of ESPN's TMQ lays out my argument...much better than I could:

...But the punishment expected to be imposed on Vick -- one to two years in federal prison, and perhaps never playing in the NFL again -- seems out of proportion to his actions and his status as a first-time offender. The situation is confusing because the federal crimes to which Vick pleaded guilty turn as much on gambling and racketeering as dogfighting; gambling and racketeering concern federal prosecutors because of their relationship to organized crime. Racketeering can lead to jail terms even for nonviolent first-time offenders not involved with drug sales, such as Vick. The NFL, for its part, has very strong reasons to detest gambling, and elaborately warns players they will be harshly penalized for associating with gamblers. Yet I can't help feeling there is overkill in the social, media and legal reactions to Vick, and that the overkill originates in hypocrisy about animals.
Thousands of animals are mistreated or killed in the United States every day without the killers so much as being criticized, let alone imprisoned. Ranchers and farmers kill stock animals or horses that are sick or injured. Some ranchers kill stock animals as gently as possible, others callously; in either case, prosecution is nearly unheard of. As Derek Jackson pointed out last week in the Boston Globe, greyhound tracks routinely race dogs to exhaustion and injury, then kill the losers, or simply eliminate less-strong pups: "184,604 greyhound puppies judged to be inferior for racing" were killed, legally, in the past 20 years.
Hunters shoot animals for sport. They do so lawfully, while the manner in which Vick harmed his dogs was unlawful. But from the perspective of the animal, there seems little difference between a hunter with a state game license zipped in his vest pocket shooting a deer as part of something the hunter views as really fun sport, and Vick shooting a dog as part of something Vick views as really fun sport. In both cases, animals suffer for human entertainment. The animal-ethics distinction between Vick's actions and lawful game hunting are murky at best. A first-time offender should go to prison over a murky distinction?
Much more troubling is that the overwhelming majority of Americans who eat meat and poultry -- I'm enthusiastically among them -- are complicit in the systematic cruel treatment of huge numbers of animals. Snickering about this, or saying you're tired of hearing about it, doesn't make it go away. Most animals used for meat experience miserable lives under cruel conditions, including confinement for extended periods in pits of excrement. (Michael Pollan, who enthusiastically consumes meat and fowl, describes the mistreatment in his important new book The Omnivore's Dilemma.) Meat animals don't magically stop living when it's time to become a product; they suffer as they die. One of Vick's dogs was shot, another electrocuted. Gunshots and electrocution are federally approved methods of livestock slaughter, sanctioned by the Department of Agriculture for the killing of cows and pigs. Regulations under the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958 give federal sanction to shooting cows or pigs, or running electrical current through their bodies. Shooting and electrocution are viewed by federal law as humane ways to kill animals that will be consumed. Federal rules also allow slaughterhouses to hit cows in the head with a fast-moving piston that stuns them into semiconsciousness before they are sliced up. Being hit in the head with a powerful piston -- does that sound a bit painful, a bit cruel? It's done to tens of thousands of steers per year, lawfully.
Don't say "eew, gross" about how meat animals are butchered, then return to denouncing Vick. If you're eating a cheeseburger or BLT or steak or pot roast today, there's a good chance you are dining on an animal that was shot or electrocuted. You are complicit. You freely bought the meat, you did not demand Congress strengthen the Humane Slaughter Act. Livestock can be calmed and drugged before being slain. A few slaughterhouses do this, but most don't because it raises costs, and you, the consumer, demand the lowest possible price for your meal. Now about your turkey sub or coq au vin. Federal slaughter regulations apply mainly to large animals, leaving considerable freedom in the killing of fowl. Many poultry slaughterhouses kill chickens by slashing their throats rather than snapping their necks. Snapping the neck kills the bird quickly, ending suffering, but then the heart dies quickly, too. Slashing the throat causes the bird to live in agony for several minutes, heart still beating and pumping blood out of the slash -- and consumers prefer bloodless chicken meat.
Further, the Humane Slaughter Act exempts kosher and halal slaughter. In both traditions, the cow or lamb must be conscious when killed by having its carotid artery, or esophagus and trachea, slashed. The animal bleeds to death, convulsing in agony, as its heart pumps blood, which is viewed as unclean, out of the slashed openings. The delicious pastrami we consumed at a kosher deli, or the wonderfully good beef we could buy at a halal butcher, comes from an animal that suffered as it died.
Yes, Vick broke the law; yes, he arrogantly lied and refused to apologize when first caught; and yes, his actions before and after the dog killings indicate he is one stupid, stupid man. But Vick's lawbreaking was relatively minor compared to animal mistreatment that happens continuously, within the law, at nearly all levels of the meat production industry, and with which all but vegetarians are complicit. There is some kind of mass neurosis at work in the rush to denounce Vick, wag fingers and say he deserved even worse. Society wants to scapegoat Vick to avoid contemplating its own routine, systematic killing of animals. We couldn't all become vegetarians tomorrow: that is not practical. But American society is not even attempting to make the handling of meat animals less brutal, let alone working to transition away from a food-production order in which huge numbers of animals are systematically mistreated, then killed in ways that inflict terror and pain. We won't lift a finger to change the way animals die for us. But we will demand Michael Vick serve prison time to atone for our sins.

A rant from one of my homies....

When speaking of his desire to peace out the US for the goodness of Canada, another friend claimed he'd be running and teaching his child to run from a challenging problem. The response from The Good Doctor: Your definition of "challenging problem" is clearly miles away from mine.
What we have in this country is not a challenging problem. We have a failing democracy on the verge of becoming a corporate consumerist police state where the middle class is dissolving, poverty and joblessness is rising, health care is out of reach for a huge percentage of the population, celebrity has reached godlike status and products/technology/consumption/entertainment/tv are taking the place of meaningful human relationships and true social interactions. This nation has become a cultural and intellectual vacuum where ignorance, greed, and narrow mindedness have become "cool." We are now and will continue to be in a perpetual, self-created state of "war" against whatever the government tells us we are supposed to be fighting, be it drugs, terrorists, liberal thinking or obesity. Remember, this is a nation where a huge percentage of the population doesn't even believe in evolution! (40-some percent at last
poll) That's enough to make me move right there--religious fundamentalists who take the bible literally. What the fuck?! Try to govern ME and my family with your fucking religious mythology instead of rational humanism?
Fuck that. And these people now have HUGE lobbying power with the Govt.
Separation between church and state is dissolving fast and will continue to do so. These are people who can't be reasoned with and thus they are people I don't want to be around. I plan to encourage my child to be a global citizen and a rational humanist. These days those types of people happen to be few and far between here in America--they're plentiful in Canada and in many other countries with the obvious exceptions (i.e., the middle east and any place where too many obsessed fanatics, afterlife seekers/sky godders dwell). The conservative religious right corporate greed heads are clearly running the show here. Why would I want her to be part of that or to live under its influence? If you lived in a place you thought sucked would you go somewhere better or stay there so your daughter could absorb all the shitty influences under the guise of claiming you were developing her character by teaching her how to not "run" (i.e. avoid) fucked up people and fucked up situations? Sounds like sacrificing someone else's development for the sake of one's own misguided ideals to me, kind of like purposefully staying in a ghetto when you have the chance to leave just so your child could build her "character" by "rising above" it. Why would I want her to hang around the kind of people I see this culture creating: arrogant, self-entitled, materially obsessed, historically/culturally/socially ignorant self-righteous religious zealot idiots? I suppose she can choose to be part of that kind of thinking later if she wants, but when I see a festering pile of shit, I'm not the kind of parent who'll set his kid into the middle of it so she can learn how to face with the "problem" she didn't create, doesn't need, and shouldn't contribute to. That's not good parenting, that's taking the history of this nation's fuck ups and throwing their consequences into her face. And I will do everything I can to avoid that. Positive environments equal positive feedback which leads to positive thinking which leads to a well-rounded human being. If she wants to fight for social justice when she grows up, more power to her--but first she has to have been raised in a way that makes her see the world for what it is, with it's injustices and inequities, not through the bullshit of American indoctrination--otherwise she'll become just like what far too many americans are: pathetically mis-informed sheep struggling to simply make
the bills. Rational humanism, man. Objectivity. Opinions based on facts
and evidence. Social responsibility. Respect for self others and nature.
That is what I am charged with showing her through example--and that kind of thinking/action is scarce here.
I'll put it simply: I plan on continuing to live in such a way that I am constantly detecting, calling out, and avoiding assholes and the ideas/attitudes that create them while doing things the right/responsible way within my own sphere of influence. You can call it teaching my kid to run away, but I call it creating your own solution and leading the way to a better future by example. When she's old enough, my daughter will judge this approach, and my character, for herself and choose her own path accordingly.

What now for tha' funk?

I type in this space thoughts and such? add pics and things so everyone can see it? and I am a blogger? Ha Ha! Look out world! How do I bookmark my stuff???