Loser of the Week*

How many 260lb linebackers are dog lovers?

Miguel
http://diocuore.blogtownhall.com/

penalty meted out to Michael Vick for dog fighting
a. too lenient?
b. about right?
c. infinitely too harsh?

I didn't ask whether Vick's actions were "offensive" or "distasteful" or "horrendous". My question has to do with the rule of law, the basis of our country's founding.

Correct answer? c.

'C' might be the correct answer for you, but it certainly isn't for me. What Vick did was despicable and cruel beyond words. It also showed that there is something very wrong with his brain. Serial killers usually started out killing animals. Michael Vick purposely inflicted pain on man's best friend, and he enjoyed it. He should be forever removed from society.

Having said that, however, considering the world in which we live, I'm not surprised if people don't care what he did. After all, we live in a country where it's a constitutional "right" to murder babies in a cruel and barbaric fashion, as well as a country that is about to impose euthanasia on the eldery, the sick, and the handicapped.

The federal government imprisoned Michael Vick because it (they) didn't like how he used HIS property, that despite the government's sole power and responsibility being the protection and defense of your, my, and Vick's unalienable right to liberty (and, thus, by definition, property).

What the federal government did was unconstitutional. And that is germane to my question.

I didn't claim that Vick's actions weren't "offensive" or "distasteful" or "horrendous" or "despicable" or "cruel" or "wrong-headed". You and I, Rocks, do NOT have an unalienable right to be unoffended.

One can take a human life in this country and get away with probation. One can rape someone and get less than two years. I think Vick should have the opportunity to continue with his life without harassment having served his time.