Stephon Marbury of the New York Knicks recently stated concerning the Michael Vick dogfighting case....." I think it's tough. I think, you know, we don't say anything about people who shoot deer or shoot other animals. You know, from what I hear, dogfighting is a sport. It's just behind closed doors"
Then he went on to say " I think it's tough that we build Michael Vick up and then we break him down. I think he's one of the superb atheletes, and he's a good human being. I just think he fell into a bad situation "
Now lets look at a couple of comments by Marbury where he contradicts himself.
" Dog fighting is a sport "
In this comment, Marbury is attempting to justify illegal dogfighting as a sport as well as justifying Michael Vick's admitted envlovement in the illegal sport. According to his attitude in this comment, dogfighting isn't bad at all.
Then Marbury turns around and says " I just think he fell into a bad situation "
So considering Marbury' comment here, it seems that Vick fell into a bad situation, being the illegal dogfighting case. However in his above comment, he attempts to justify illegal dogfighting as a ' Sport ' as well as Vick's envolvement in the so called ' Sport '
So if illegal dogfighting is a ' Sport ' just held behind closed doors, which Marbury is attempting to justify, then how did Vick, according to Marbury, fall into a bad situation?
Now let's consider Marbury's analogy that deer hunting is just as bad as illegal dogfighting. It's not very clear where Marbury was going with his analogy in this case.
1. Was he trying to say that deer hunters should serve time in prison for shooting deer?
2. Was he trying to say that dogfighting should be legalized because hunting deer is legal?
3. Was he trying to say that Vick should be let off the hook because people hunt deer?
4. Or was he trying to say that deer hunting, or any hunting for that matter, should be illegal because dogfighting is illegal ?
Again, it's not really clear where Marbury was going with his analogy. However I have eaten deer meat and I've never eaten " Pit Bull " nor have I witnessed it being served or eaten anywhere in the U.S.
I can't wait for Ted Nugent to get wind of this!
Coming soon " Fishing Is Just As Bad As Illegal Rooster Fighting "
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 48
Krissy and Dave..thanks for your input!
Vick "fell into a bad situation"? Bull!(*^*(&%^! The man knew what he was doing when he did it. He got caught and now he has to pay. Just because he is an overpaid professional football player means he should be any different than the rest of the world?
I think this is proof of what happens when you give athletes money and a cushy time in college instead of giving them an education and the ability to make intelligent statements.
DOG FIGHTING:
AN HISTORICAL NOTE
The modern 'sport' of dog fighting has its origins in the Coliseum combats of ancient Rome. Emperor Lucullus was reputedly the first to initiate the practice of pitting dogs against other animals: a group of dogs would be thrown into the Coliseum, doomed to be trampled to death by wild elephants.
Following the fall of Rome, the practice of fighting dogs made its reappearance in medieval England. Beginning in at least the 12th Century, such practices as bull and bear baiting, in addition to mortal combats between dogs and lions or elephants, became increasingly popular. In Elizabethan London, on the south banks of the Thames, a popular attraction was the Bear Gardens – an attraction that even Queen Elizabeth graced. Indeed, royal approval of bear baiting included the appointment of an official 'Master of the Bears and Dogs.'
By the middle of the 17th Century, the popularity in England of baiting sports with at least the nobility had declined rather dramatically; by 1835, humane groups succeeded in outlawing all baiting sports in an act of Parliament known as the Humane Act of 1835.
The growing costliness and scarcity of bears and bulls in the 1700s for baiting purposes had encouraged the practice of fighting dogs against each other for sporting exhibition purposes. The passage of the Humane Act of 1835 however provided the chief incentive for the growth of dog fighting: with the baiting of larger animals illegal, dog fighting became the primary alternative for animal fighting fanciers.
Rest of Story
.....
Killings of race dogs spur probe
Possibly 3,000 greyhounds found destroyed at Lillian farm
Brett Norman
@PensacolaNewsJournal.com
During the last 40 years, Robert Rhodes figures he has shot and buried maybe 2,000 greyhounds on his 18-acre farm in Lillian, Ala.
It was not until earlier this month the 68-year-old farmhand learned he might have been doing something wrong.
Rhodes and Pensacola Greyhound Track kennel operator Clarence Ray Patterson are under investigation for transporting the past-prime animals across state lines and inhumanely destroying them.
Baldwin County District Attorney David Whetstone said investigators served a search warrant Tuesday morning and unearthed 40 freshly killed canines. A veterinarian autopsied four.
"It was bizarre, almost like a Dachau (concentration camp) for dogs," Whetstone said. "Three of the four (autopsied) dogs appeared to be shot in places that would not cause instant death, not through the brain but through the neck or mouth. We don't know how long they may have suffered, or if they were alive when they were buried. ... We're going to pursue it hard. Really what I'm after is the person who is profiting off this; (Rhodes) isn't making much money. The question is: `Where is this investigation going to lead?"'
PensacolaNewsJournal
The Crucifixion of Michael Vick
By Earl Ofari Hutchinson, AlterNet
Posted on August 21, 2007, Printed on August 30, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/60372/
Soon to be former Atlanta Falcons star quarterback Michael Vick never had a chance. The instant word publicly leaked out that he'd be slapped with an indictment by the feds, he could kiss his football cleats good-bye. The indictment was just a formality. Those good government high school civics courses feed us the myth of the little Constitutional admonition: innocent until proven guilty. But Vick was tried, convicted, and sentenced in the only court that counts in the big money world of sports and celebrity-hood -- and that's the court of public opinion.
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and Falcons owner Arthur Blank heard Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) lambaste Vick in the Senate, and saw those picket signs, and heard the screams and taunts and jeers from the PETA orchestrated pack outside the Richmond, Virginia courthouse when Vick surrendered. They listened and watched as sports writers and TV commentators angrily denounced Vick. They heard sports talk jocks saber-rattle against Vick on sports shows and fans burn up Internet chat rooms screaming for his head. They watched as Nike and other firms that Vick had endorsement deals with melt away like hot butter. They watched the NAACP issue a tepid and cautious statement pleading against a rush to judgment against him and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference quickly withdraw their invitation for him to appear and be honored at their annual conference. When Vick's pals fingered him as being knee deep in the dog battering that did it. No pads, scrimmages, training camp, and definitely no games for Vick. If he hadn't had a bonafide multi-year contract with the Falcons after Goodell barred him from the Falcons' training camp he wouldn't have gotten a nickel in pay.
As far as celebrity athletes go, even the deal that federal prosecutors offered Vick is anything but generous. He won't wear an ankle bracelet, be allowed to tool around his estate under house watch, or get a walk-around-the-street probation stint. He'll do time, and, it may not be in a cushy country club fed prison. Prosecutors tipped that when they said they'd make an object lesson of him that animal abuse won't be tolerated and will be severely punished. That of course is bluster. The breeding, training, and even killing of dog gladiators won't grind to a halt, the dozens of magazines that prep the "sport" will continue to do brisk sales, and thousands will continue to toss hefty cash into the ring at the dog matches. Vick will just be a bare footnote to all of that.
However, he is an object lesson for a far different reason than what the prosecutors had in mind. More often than not, celebs and sports superstars, even black ones, get cut a lot of slack for their boorish, stupid, arrogant acts and misdeeds, and in some cases even criminal behavior. They are after all the repository of the fantasies and delusions of a public as well as advertisers, sportswriters, and TV executives that are in desperate need of vicarious escape, titillation, excitement, and profits. The sports hero fulfills all of that. He or she seduces, strokes, and comforts those fantasies. They are expected to operate above the fray of human problems, while raising society's expectation of what's good and pure. He or she is rewarded handsomely for what he or she does as a fantasy filler, not for who the often terribly flawed person they actually are. That's a false, phony, and horrible burden to dump on anyone.
Vick had the double misfortune of standing on the rarified perch of the football icon. Football more than any other sport mirrors the best and the worst in American society -- competition, greed, selfishness, and violence. Vick typified all of those qualities on and off the field. But he also typified the good side of the sport -- cooperation, organization, achievement, and heroism. That crept through in his public statement after the announcement was made of a pending plea deal. He talked about respecting the league, took responsibility for his actions, and apologized to friends and teammates.
Should we feel pity for Michael Vick? Yes and No. No: He did the crime and as the old cliché goes he should do the time. He'll still have what the average Joe and Jane that yelled their lungs off for him on the field won't have and that's memories of the adulation he received from a fawning public, sports writers, and his megabuck contract and lucrative endorsement deals. Yes: Vick is yet another reminder that sports icons are the fragile creations of an indulgent, sports-crazed, hero-worshipping, and celebrity-idolatrous public. When they take a tumble from their lofty perch, those same fans, sportswriters, and league officials that cheered and back-patted their idols turn vicious and unforgiving. They can never cobble the broken pieces of their name and reputation back together again. Vick, in the end, waved the ugly issues of wealth, race, celebrity hype, fan idolatry, and animal cruelty in the public's face. Poor Vick, poor us.
courtesy of Marjani
Michael Vick Perspective on America
Cock fighting, dog fighting, as some suggest... these are not the typical animal-abuse scenarios generally associated with the historic pathology of people who go on to be serial killers. Michael apparently grew up in an environment, a subculture if you will, where such things were quite common.
Every time a human being eats a hamburger, he or she is participating in a horribly cruel scenario to an animal that pretty much has your very same central nervous system, able to feel fear and experience pain and suffering. Now imagine yourself as having been born a slave where you were treated like a farm animal. That was the choice made by many priests in the early colonial days of the Americas and Africa, on behalf of huge groups of people. People who were judged by priests to not have a soul, were then dismissed as having the type of emotional circuitry the Conquistadors, for example, had, and could be slaughtered, raped and abused like cows.
I have seen how in some far east cultures, in our modern day where dogs are commonly eaten, that there is often a belief within some of these cultures that the dog meat needs to be "softened" prior to the butchering. So they viciously beat the dog prior to killing it. It is disgusting to see, and makes me quite angry.
When I studied anthropology long ago, one of my professors told the story of his family's prized pony. They were living on an island, where he had been working, and had had a pony for a long time; one loved by his two children. When they had to return to mainland America, the pony could not come, so it was advertised locally. A traditional family from further out in the Pacific came by, checked out the pony in a seemingly normal way. The deal was struck, the pony was led by the father to a rather small, open trailer and the anthropologist asked, "Where's the horse trailer?"
Before he had a chance to react anymore, the traditional father, to his family's acceptance lifted a ceremonial club out of the small trailer and rammed it down hard over the head of the anthropologist family's beloved pony.
He said he really learned about cultural relativity and how easy it is to judge in the days and discussions at home with his kids after that incident.
I love dogs, often far more than people. I have had four of them in my life. All of them have been my closest and dearest allies in life. One I even trained to help the police track missing kids and go backpacking with me in high mountains. I have also been right up close to the severest forms of child abuse and its dysfunctional results. I've studied human violence a lot. Americans and many Europeans have in the past six years, through their taxes, participated in the cruel abuse, actually torture, of several million families in a distant region due often, to not willingly seeing up close the intense suffering of each and every child who has seen a parent or entire life and community bloodily explode into extinction. Where is the justification in that. Violence to preempt violence, much like the Romans salted regions antithetical to their philosophy, fosters only more violence.
Should all those millions judge America in the way you would judge a Michael Vick? Unless we begin working on what causes human beings to be blind to the suffering of others, even animals, but especially in how we can so easily cause intense suffering far away to other human beings simply because a commander in chief states it must be so due to national security, how are we ever going to survive ourselves? Every time a human being is hurt far away by a bullet you paid for with your tax dollars, you are participating in a game, a very cruel game, of young American boys learning that it is fine to shoot lead into the flesh of other human beings, and then to learn how to deal with the incredible mix of conflicting hormonal and neurotransmitter cocktail of chemicals, as these American "children" far away in a desert learn the game of avoiding lead and explosives from being launched back into their court.
Yes, my daily life is filled with the results of parents who frequently freely feel the need to violently abuse their children. I am often called in the middle of the night by some of my clients who are on the edge of suicide due to trying to survive child abuse. I have accepted doing this type of service in Denmark because no one else, not even the Danish government that authorizes such PTSD treatment, seems willing to actually do what it takes to heal the wounds of child abuse. A recent study in America suggests that 95% of Americans actually perpetrate emotional and physical abuse on their children. When asked to respond to the 700 page study that looked at some 75 million American children between 3 years old and adolescence, the National Parents Association had only this to say: *No comment.*
http://media-files.gather.com/images/d983/d341/d744/d224/d96/f3/full.jpg
But one can so easily transform, and still participate in society in such a way, as to be more "Chistian," more "Buddhist," more "agnostic/atheist"... more "human" rather than a reactive animal in a jungle... either judging or doing the deeds which the judging can activate or reinforce. We can participate in the healing. It is our choices to look inside prior to acting on our emotions.
courtesy of Bent Lorentzen
It seems odd to me that we have a very loud very vocal group of people who protests all these things, the war, animal cruelty, and we have the other side of a bunch of brutish people who do this and more and worse.
If the nature of people, or men, is to do these things, and it is a minority of us who do not, what does that say about any aspirations of society? The phrase herding cats comes to mind. Maybe after all this is the function of war, to give an outlet to those people who do things like this, but then there are those who are not stupid either.
And for anyone who has the belief that Vick didn't think he was doing anything wrong, just why did he deny his envolvement in the illegal dogfighting?
Blood sports should all be banned, but a lot of agressive males of the human species would still find a way to satisfy their blood lust and bet on the outcome.
Breeding fighting dogs should be banned.
Without animal predators like lions, wolves and bears, deer overpopulate areas and I think it's better they be hunted for meat than starve or degenerate. Deer aren't a bit plentiful here in these desert mountains where I live, and I see no reason for a deer hunting season. Here the deer often hide among herds of cattle during hunting season, and ranchers who see hunters approaching their cattle get out their guns and hunt the hunters.
There should be a lot more oversight into the slaughtering of cattle, sheep, hogs and chickens, and for meat. I worked in a meat packing plant once, and saw deliberate cruelty in killing animals. I should be a vegetarian, but I'm a hypocrite who was introduced to steak and hooked too early to kick the habit.
Bent, I would rather not review the cruelties of the Romans and other 'civilized' monsters.
As for Vick, he may have been a deprived city boy who didn't know better, but I don't believe his protests that he now sees the error of his ways and is sorry. I think it's an act for a lighter sentence, and an excuse so fans can let him resume his place in sports some day. I think he should be confined to a lower level in football participation. He should never regain his high salary in a sport where he is a roll model for young people.
There are some barbarians who will take this dog, that so greatly excels man in capacity for friendship, who will nail him to a table, and dissect him alive. And what you discover in him are the same organs of sensation you have in yourself.'--Voltaire (1694-1778).
We really ought to look at the nurturing attributes of the other sex and add that into the male sense of shooting off to great horizons with power.
We should all just get a life
As Deb alluded, there is a social good and a practical purpose in hunting; population control. This is not to say that there are not bone-headed hunters out there. A couple of years ago, I reported, then help track down a pair on nimrods who were road-hunting deer then dumping the carcasses in a ditch.
Food does not come from packages, and humans are alpha predators...however, there is no room in a civilized society for cruelty - under any circumstances.
Now I have never heard of a deer hunter rubbing fawns heads together until they fought eachother.
Sorry..but Marbury's analogy is weak.
And darn it girl..you've been watching too much South Park again! LOL
We'll all get a better clue if we were to better live by our own faith.
Faith.... the final frontier.
What is it that drives humanity from one moment to the next?
What is it that gets us to wonder where we come from, why here, and where to after here?
I've studied all the evolutionary/neurological science reasons for that, and studied also the science of top-down consciousness theories, where virtually all scientific models for what *awareness* within the brain might be, indicates a bottom-up model, ie, sensory feedback stuff. In a recent research paper done by a Harvard neuroscientist, he found mostly bottom-up clues in his research to better understand the complexity of "awareness" or consciousness, but he stated the unfinished research being done right now to better explore a top-down model for consciousness.
And here we get into a region I also studied a lot when working towards a PhD in anthropology... Jungian theory. This neuroscientist from Harvard also has a background in Ayurvedic science, wherein one finds a theory very similar to the one Jung postulated for the collective unconscious, ie: the proposition that all life, even at the organic levels, is interconnected at the subtle but pervasive regions where the whole history of not only human biological evolution exists, but that of the entire universe, right down to where we might speculate about a "creator," which in the Ayurvedic science notion, is but *us." This may be too weird science for some, or antithetical to some Christian fundamentalist beliefs, but when Jung studied the phenomenon, when looking at the remarkable correspondences everywhere he looked at various cultures, isolated by time or geography or even fundamental ideas on the surface, he found the same story over and over again. He also found this same story in people's dreaming and in holy texts from all cultures, in fairy tales and sagas from all cultures now and in the past, and then when he studied embryology (the stages of development of a fetus) he again found correspondence, in this case a few billion years of biological evolution in the span of nine months.
D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson, a biologist from 100 years ago, wrote a book called "Of Shape and Form," where he looked at the morphology and function of all sorts of various things in nature, and found an underlying correspondence between the forces of nature and the shapes and functions that things, including human beings, evolve into. He theorized that there was an underlying shaping force to all things in the universe, and here he looked mostly at organic life, where he speculated of an underlying and universal force that patterned the way things developed their shapes and their functions. He often looked at forces of nature, like bilaterally symmetrical helixes (when DNA was not even an idea) and physical phenomena, like a drop of water that hits the surface of a pond and looks like an ancient hydra type organism. He also drew these beautiful shapes of the early 20th century limited paleontological precursor notions science had to modern day lifeforms, like birds, humans, horses etc. on Cartesian graphs with X and Y axis, and using a bit of math, curved the two axis, and voila, the modern day species-representation came up. Most contemporary scientists see that as his being clueless to the principles of DNA and the deeper biomolecular components to natural selection. But Jung also looked at all this from another angle, an angle he actually perceived when he studied both the hard sciences of biology and the softer sciences of culture... that there is a spiritual element to all this "what is consciousness?"
So how does this relate to Michael Vicks?
In a nutshell, Jung's theory looks rather similar to the mathematical models I have studied that describes the quantum probability curve (Psi... not to be confused with Pi) of the tiniest wave/perturbation/particle that can emerge with ever higher probabilities of coming into a dualistic universe from where *all that* only sits as a probability when *beneath* the *singularity* horizon of all *stuff* (the italics are my own words to transmit the idea of what Schrödinger and many of his contemporaries now speculate about *Schrödinger's Cat's* paradox, that Einstein hated so much, in current quantum relativity thinking.)
In other words, in the top-down model of human consciousness, or awareness, sits the repository of all potentials that can ever be, ever were, in the here and now of our present day decisions. In psychology, this means that to heal a problem that makes one act against others or him/herself, one can, if willing to go that mile, access places in one's *soul* where all possibilities for healing and integration of the self into a solid citizen of the world and of the spirit, the Self that Martin Luther spoke of in 1536, is possible. This sense of endless possibility can perhaps be remembered when we were children and dreamed of a future unfettered by the boundaries or boundary-crossing behaviors of even our primary caretakers. As adults, we experience that thrilling sense of *I can do/be anything* whenever we are captivated by a great story filled with the archetypes of good and evil duking it out, until the hero emerges victorious, even if it is Bruce Willis. We experience it when our *Faith* in *God* supersedes all other models of what science may define as the limits of one's corporal existence. But then we collapse and utterly limit that when we insist that our idea of this *God* is the only right one, or that an agnostic or atheist is *doomed.* That kind of stuff is like two male chimpanzees duking it out for the harem of females in the group, or like the archetypes of Bush vs. bin Ladin, which battle rests actually in every human being in conflict with something or other in him/herself or the world out there.
Most Jungians in today's world have gone away from the original thoughts of Jung, where he actually was deeply affected by Gnostic and Buddhist and shamanist esoteric philosophies. In my own work now with people suffering from chronic forms of PTSD, I do not shy away from the idea of a soul, for I think the biggest mistake psychologists make is to deny the healing capacity of a sufferer's soul.
The problem with *scientifically* engaging one's soul in healing the mind, just as with the political/theocratic BS that is now destroying our world in a way so classical reminiscent of a great JRR Tolkien saga, is that how does one do that without upsetting those who either are absolutely stuck in their various *religious* models of a *soul* of a *god/goddess* or of the denial of that non-dual state of *consciously* endless potential, ie: bringing the entire landscape of the *unconscious* into one's conscious frame of reference, for here sits the real healing of the mind, in my opinion.
So it is a matter of personal choice on my part to help severely traumatized people from the angle of an endless soul, while being very grounded in the hard stuff of neuroscience and the psychoanalytical tools I am familiar with.
And this is the basic reason I am telling you guys to knock it off with bashing a guy like Michael Vick. Give the dude a chance to find what sits within him to heal from the stuff which his life, his cultural stuff - and our often WASPish cultural relativity of pushing down anyone not WASPish enough - and his personal engagement of all that - which resulted in his doing the illegal and hurtful things with the dogs. For crying out loud, give the guy a chance to heal, which is also how then we will all heal a serious mismanagement of what we are becoming in our Western culture, which in truth gives rise to such things as what Michael experienced in childhood and is now enduring the consequences of.
Remember Christ's wise words of who shall cast the first stone? Jung loved that phrase. If it were a serious biological brain defect that caused him to be a sociopathic danger to others - like a predatory serial killer, pedophile, rapist or whatever - I'd instantly withdraw my kindness in giving Michael the space, time and will to heal and integrate himself better (which in effect helps heal our entire screwed up world a bit more, for we have all participated in bringing about the racist scenario Michael found himself in as a child.) I'd be far more concerned with protecting society - mostly defenseless people, like children and women - from the likes of such *predatory personalities.*
But my god, that is not at all what Michael Vick is about, from everything I've observed so far. There are people in the White House now whom I would be far more concerned about, in terms of a clear and present danger to society.
But by making blanket statements such as some above have made, you actually are only limiting your own abilities to have a better future for yourselves and your children. So my advice to the naysayers is this: *Grow up and get a life...* and I say this without sarcasm. I really mean it.
As far as the Vick vs. Dogs issue is concerned, I don't ever want this man living in my neighborhood. Marbury? Sounds like an idiot. Yet we're willing to pay millions to be entertained by these "trained dogs" as they are cast onto a field for sport.
Mr. Lorentzen ~ I agree wholeheartedly with you; far greater crimes against humanity are being committed before our very eyes by our "Executive Branch". Those crimes continue to be supported by others that we've elected in our immediate communities. We can only pray that justice will someday come to those criminals and their supporters.
Deer hunting, even if just for sport, if done in season, with a license in areas where it is allowed is LEGAL. Not saying I approve of hunting for sport. It makes me think they are going to start running this on tv or in stadiums where you pay bookoo dollars (notice I refrained from saying bucks) to go watch this. Everyone I have personally known who hunts utilize the animal and not just a trophy. I don't participate in the hunting, but I don't criticize them either. Besides it makes for some really good sausage!
> recently made parking on the grass in your front yard illegal.
Those idiots don't want the other idiots who would park
their broken pick-up trucks in the front yard to lower their
property values and thus tax revenues. Maybe they are
really idiots, just bad legislators for not being able to
sort you out from the low-class rednecks.
I would just like to add that these people have no conscience about their wrong doings. They are sociopaths and they usually start out torturing animals. They move on to other things after they get bored with animals. How could anyone say he's not a threat to society? If he doesn't see the harm in torturing these animals, what could he move on to next?
I think dogfighting is just still considered illegal because there is not yet a dogfighting license (like deer hunting license) and the dog tags are confusing in relation to the doe tags
What amazes me is just how far people will go in an attempt to defend wrong doing and/ or illegal activity. As far as I'm concerned, this isn't all just about Vick or Marbury. It's a common theme in today's society. Everytime someone does something wrong or breaks the law..there are always those who try to gain sympathy for the wrong doer or the law breaker, where the sympathy should be for the victims of the wrong doer or the law breaker.
Here's a little fall-out from the Michael Vick alternative role model.
In today's San Antonio Express News three boys (ages 12, 14 & 16) are being charged with a heinous crime. It seems that they lured a happy little six month old puppy from his home to an abandoned house. First they threw the puppy from the second floor twice to break its legs. Then they hung it up by one of it's broke legs and cut of its genitals and followed this up by driving a couple of nails through a piece of would and using it to open the puppy up like a pinata. Finally the three cut off the puppy's head and it is not known at what point the puppy succumbed and died.
The article in the paper went on to say the DA now has a dilemma. He would like to try the boys as adults but the max they could get is two years. As juveniles they would only go to a juvie home but would be locked up there until they are 19 - a longer period of time. Personally, I don't think boys that could do this crap offer much hope for rehabilitation. I would never want them walking down my street, would you?
But of course, they probably make Marbury & Vick proud. Way to go Vick. You're an idiot.
No one in our immediate family are hunters. (I know, we don't hunt, hate the Packers, detest winter, don't drink beer, don't play golf and we live in Wisconsin-Go figure!) We certainly aren't against it just don't do it ourselves. How in the hell can they compare the two? I agree with Lloyd up there. Put it on a plate and eat it then we'll talk about it being okay or not. Illegal is illegal, period!!