Sunday, July 29, 2007

On Dogs and Liberals

Normally when a black person is accused of or convicted of a crime, many liberals will attempt to minimize the severity of the crime, lament the racism in the justice system, dispute the evidence, and otherwise enable the criminal in any way possible. Not so with Michael Vick, the black professional football player accused of involvement with a dog fighting business and the gruesome torture and deaths of numerous dogs. Vick has essentially been tried and convicted in the media already with nary a whisper of support from the usual suspects. I suspect he would have had far more support had he been accused of rape and murder.


Anonymous said...

It depends...had Law Enforcement found caged up women that were raped or a bunch of dead bodies buried on his property I highly doubt anyone would be sympathetic or defending Vick just because of his race.

You can't argue with the video agents took of abused dogs and the unearthing of dead dogs and the blood and the rape stand, and etc...from Vick's property.

Denis Navratil said...

Thanks for your comment anon. I admit that I haven't looked too deeply into the charges against Vick. Even so, I am surprised by the piling on that I am seeing, coupled with the total absence of support of any kind for Vick.

Caledonication said...

I can't escape the impression that there are probably some liberals who feel that the crimes against these poor animals are greater atrocities, than if they were commited against humans.

(Call me cynical.)

Anonymous said...

You don't have to be a liberal to feel for animals who are at our mercy and have been tortured to death. It seems like it is the conservatives who keep trying to make the comparison which is ridiculous.

Denis Navratil said...

Nice try anon. The crimes allegedly committed by Mr. Vick are appalling. I don't think anyone on either side of the political divide would argue otherwise. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that some among us would elevate their concern for animal welfare above their concern for humans.

Anonymous said...

Nice try??? What did I try??

Look, you may not be able to appreciate the beauty of animals, but I do, and I am conservative. I don't get why other conservatives are trying to make it sound like it is only liberals who care about dogs, cats, etc. As far as I am concerned...we are all God's creatures and deserve to be treated in the most humane way possible.

Trying to make this into a polictical issue or making a comparison between humans and animals distracts from what is important. The issue at hand is there were many beautiful dogs tortured and killed on Vick's property and those responsible need to be punished.

Anonymous said...

Oh...and one more thing...if we (people) don't fight to protect animals from such cruelity who will? We have to because they can't do it for themselves. People on the other hand, aside from children, can pretty much stand up and fight for their own rights. They don't necessarily need others to do it for them. As I stated in my first comment... animals are at our mercy.

Denis Navratil said...

I am not sure why I wrote "nice try" anon. Actually I was a bit confused by your sentence "It seems like it is the conservatives who keep trying to make the comparison which is ridiculous." So I apologize for being a bit pissy. I don't disagree with your last two posts. Caring about animals should not be a partisan issue. My observations are only that it seems that liberals are elevating their concern for animals above their concern for humans. This would be bad in my view. This view in no way should suggest that I endorse or am indifferent to the problem of animal cruelty.

Young Republican said...

I feel the need to respond to comments made by caledonication. I don't think that just liberals care about animals. I think anyone can appreciate nature and animals without being liberal. Yes, there are a few cooks out there who want people to spend life in prison because they accidently hit a squirrel or forgot to pet their dog or cat the minute they woke up in the morning.

That said, I think that what Vick did was horrific. I don't think that the usual suspects can defend Vick becuase the evidence against him is so great. I don't think you can say that people are outraged at what Vick did only because he was black. I think most people would be outraged by what he did even if he was white.

I do have to say though that the usual suspects would come to his defense if this was rape or murder. Look at what happened with Ray Lewis. This guy helped in a murder, and all the leaders in the black community came rushing to his defense. Look at what is currently happening in the Junior McGee trial in Milwaukee. All the blacks are outraged becuase he is still in prison and how unfairly the justice system treats blacks. What Vick did was wrong, and I am glad to see the leaders of the black community not come to his defense. I know they are doing this because he abused animals, but I hope that in the future they won't defend other so quickly as well.

In the Know said...

It is interesting that the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton have not spun this issue making Mr. Vick out to be the poor victim.

Could it be that "Man's Best Friend" wins out over "Atlanta's former starting QB"? That kinship and support of an animal supercedes that of a "Brutha"?

I would be most interested in knowing why the black community leaders are silent on this incident.

TO YR - Could you have meant "kooks" instead of cooks? I can just smell of aroma of tasty Squirrel Roadkill Stew!

Caledonication said...

I was going to simply let Denis respond for two reasons.

1. Because it is his blog and as he indicated in a previous post, he prefers to debate and hopefully convert those who have a liberal slant over "preaching to the choir", which probably describes me.

2. I really don't care to respond to individuals who post anonymously and apparently don't understand the original thread or the “gist” of my comment. I don’t feel like spending the time to “explain it word for word” if you don’t get it.

But in this case I will… Why?

One of my friends said something recently that I was quite moved by. It’s basically a take on the Golden Rule, but this version is profoundly more helpful to me. Instead of “treating others as you wish to be treated”. He said, “Treat others as you would have them treat your kids”. This doesn’t mean to be condescending by any means. It means to support, educate, reinforce, uplift and care for (or love) others, whomever they may be. So, I am going to take the time and try to explain my comments to anyone reading this thread who may have taken them for something other than what I meant.

I also think that when Denis said “Nice try”, he was assuming that you (anonymous) were baiting me for an argument. What I think however, is that you actually didn’t understand the original post or my comment.

First of all, the original post is titled "On Dogs and Liberals". The “gist” of the post as I understand it (and I believe that I do) is that many Liberals tend to blame racism when a black man is charged with and / or convicted of a crime; and that many Liberals may also tend to try to downplay the severity of that crime. Denis is pointing out that this seems to not be the case for Michael Vick. Denis is doing this as a way to stimulate discussion as to the reason for this apparent variation from the stereotypical response by Liberals in such a case. Denis then closes his post by indicating that he suspects this atypical response may have something to do with the fact that the crime was not actually committed against a human.

Let me know if I didn’t understand the original post Denis.

Now, I admit that my comment was short, but there is a lot going on in that single sentence. The first thing to point out is that I specifically stated that what happened to these poor animals was a crime. As a matter of fact, I referred to it as an atrocity. Go ahead, look at my post. The second thing to point out is that this thread (and if you look at the title of the original post) is also about Liberals. I suggested in my post that some Liberals may consider a crime worse or more atrocious, if it were perpetrated against animals, than if perpetrated again humans. The reasoning behind this is that animal activist (like PETA for example) tend to feel that animal life is more important than human life. They also tend to consider themselves Liberals.

Anonymous you say:
Look, you may not be able to appreciate the beauty of animals, but I do, and I am conservative. I don't get why other conservatives are trying to make it sound like it is only liberals who care about dogs, cats, etc. As far as I am concerned...we are all God's creatures and deserve to be treated in the most humane way possible.

My response:
I don’t know of any conservatives who are trying to make it sound like it is only liberals who care about animals. I’m certain that I appreciate the beauty of animals as much as you or anyone else does. I probably contribute more to the conservation of wild animals than most of the people you know. I also love my many pets.

Anonymous you say:
Trying to make this into a polictical issue or making a comparison between humans and animals distracts from what is important. The issue at hand is there were many beautiful dogs tortured and killed on Vick's property and those responsible need to be punished.

My response:
I’m not trying to make “this” into anything, you are. If you read Denis’ original post, this “is” a comparison of how some political types view crimes against animals and humans. That’s what “this” thread is all about. This thread is not about the issue of torturing dogs and whether or not those that do should be punished. “That” is a given. We ALL agree that Vick should be punished. No one has even questioned that in this entire thread. No one. The issue of criminality is not political, but the original post is and was from the start, political. Look at the title again, "On Dogs and Liberals". How is that not a political subject?

Anonymous you say:
Oh...and one more thing...if we (people) don't fight to protect animals from such cruelity who will? We have to because they can't do it for themselves. People on the other hand, aside from children, can pretty much stand up and fight for their own rights. They don't necessarily need others to do it for them. As I stated in my first comment... animals are at our mercy.

My response:
I believe that it is natural for the vast majority of people to want to protect animals from cruelty. I also believe that the vast majority of people find beauty and awe in animals. People do stand up when they see crimes committed against animals and there are laws to protect animals from this very thing. No one, at anytime has stated otherwise in this thread.

And one final thought Anonymous. I am a Libertarian and I don’t believe you are a conservative for a single minute.

Caledonication said...

Was that too much?

Denis Navratil said...

No that was not too much. Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

I think you have it all wrong...

My I suggest that all of you who believe that liberals groups such as the NAACP aren't backing (or at least giving Vick the benefit of the doubt) do a google search on the subject. They are indeed supporting his presumption of innocence, which is what they do in most cases involving black defendants. I see no difference in their standing with Vick and other cases, except they may not be as vocal. I don't think this is a reflection on how they feel, but rather on how others feel about animals. I think they know if they were to be obnoxious about this particular case they will find that animal rights groups, such as PETA, will be even more obnoxious. That never happens in other cases because people are too afraid to go against groups like the NAACP out of fear they will be label a racists. PETA and other animal rights groups don't play that game. If an act of cruelty is done to an animal they will call you out, regardless of what skin color you have. I think what you all are seeing is a more subdued NAACP because they don't have a chance against the numerous animal rights groups. That is my take on the issue anyways...

About the two of you (Denis and caledonication) implying that I am some sort of liar when I state that I am a conservative. What is the big idea?? How rude. You two must be cynical. First, Denis comments "nice try", as if, I am trying to do something sneaking or bad by giving my opinion. Second, I state that I am conservative and caledonication comments that I am not a conservative. What gives with you two? I am definitely a conservative and I can't imagine why you would be so arrogant to assume anything different about me.

Caledonication said...

Anonymous, in the first paragraph of your last post you are actually giving your perspective on the subject of the original post and you make some good points. Congratulations. It’s almost as if someone else entirely posted it.

About your second paragraph, nice try…

Part of the issue I have with posters commenting as anonymous, is that one can’t tell very well if someone is the same person from post to post. It seems to me that the poster is hiding behind the anonymous name, but I guess that it’s neither here nor there. Maybe some folks don’t want to create an account, I can respect that. That said, I don’t think you made the very first anonymous post in this thread at 5:29 AM.

However, there are clues in your posts at 12:10 AM, 7:49 AM and 7:54 AM that contain certain indictors (probably injected subconsciously) that lead me (and likely others) to believe you are not actually conservative. Just because you say you are conservative or associate yourself with those who may be conservative, doesn’t make you conservative. You may actually be conservative to some extent or at least really believe that you are, but my opinion is that you are not. Also, having that opinion does not make me (or anyone else) arrogant or rude; it means I have an opinion. I don’t apologize for that. You suggest they Denis and I are cynical. We may be a bit cynical. How can one read the paper or watch the news and not get a bit cynical after some years? Besides, I would rather be cynical and protective, than idealistic and naive.

That said. I’m done responding to you off topic. If Denis would like to start a thread about how you can spot a Liberal a mile away, then I’d be happy to continue. Maybe you’ll show up with an account name.

Anonymous said... if you aren't anonymous. Anyone can get numerous accounts and post numerous comments and we wouldn't be none the wiser.... Heck, for all we know you could also be "young republican". So, you see, you aren't any better unless you post your real name like Denis, and until you do that you are actually anonymous...get it smarty pants??

I scrolled through the comments and I am responsible for all the anonymous comments on this thread. I guess you aren't as good as you think second guessing people's comments and deciphering all the hidden messages... Oh, by the way, if I make a comment (anonymously) and there has already been a comment posted anonymously I usually will number my comment as anonymous #2.

It really doesn't matter what you think you know about me....especially since what I am thinking about you isn't exactly nice. I'd share but I am sure Denis would delete the comment. But, yes, arrogant and cynical is a good beginning.

Denis, nice way to wimp out. I think I made some excellent points on this topic and instead of trying to converse with me you have allowed this thread become some sort of paranoid "liberal" witch hunt. Are you really that fearful or worried that liberals are posting on your blog that you feel the need to label everyone who may have a different viewpoint than you a liberal, and by doing so, basically dismissing them and their opinions? That is pretty weak Denis.

Caledonication said...

Well, well, well Denis. Looks like anonymous here is the same troll from the "On Race and Retail" and "For Your Amusement" blog entries (probably other entries as well). I stand corrected, it was bait. I should have used those instincts which always serve me so well. Maybe she is an ex-girfriend of yours?

Ha ha!

Anonymous said...

It is a shame caledonication (aka: anonymous poster) that you seem to have a strange need to go on paranoid "liberal" witch hunts and now you have switched to "troll" hunting on someone else's blog. If you don't like or agree with what I have said about this topic great...who cares. The last time I looked this blog had Denis' name on it not yours. I have posted many comments on Denis' blog and most of them have been received respectfully....until now. You really need to get a grip and then some professional help.

Denis, I understand that caledonication has said everything you want to hear, so it might take a bit of courage for you to ask him to chill and maintain some sort of respectfullness on YOUR blog, but you really should. Honestly, if what you want is the same cookie cutter comments without any original thoughts caledonication is your guy.

Denis Navratil said...

I have a few thoughts on anonymous blogging. There are two kinds of anonymous bloggers. Caledonication represents one kind of anonymous blogger while "anonymous" represents another. Even though I know next to nothing about Caledonication, I am reasonably assured that it is the same person blogging with the same nickname each time I see Caledonication on my screen. Thus over time I can learn certain things about Caledonication and it makes it more enjoyable as you might be able to build on previous interactions. With "anonymous" posters, we never know what we are dealing with. A flaming liberal could represent him/herself as a conservative for who knows what reason and readers will have no track record with the "anonymous" in order to discern the truthfullness of that claim or others. Thus being a serial "anonymous" poster suggests to me that said poster prefers not to build any history of thought/argument/viewpoint which might therafter be challenged. Why an anonymous poster would choose to do this, rather than be Doug or Treehugger or DamnCapitalists or whatever, is beyond me. How about it anon, why not choose a nickname and stick with it? Are you afraid that your points of view will be exposed as inconsistent over time or are you simply trying to create havoc on this site? Please explain yourself if you would. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

So, Denis, by making a comment and choosing the "Anonymous" option I have now created "havoc" on your blog??

If you read my comments on this thread I definintely was responding to your post. I didn't stray off topic except to defend myself after being called names by caledonication.

Yes, I can see YOUR point about building rapport with those who blog, however there are quite a few people who seem to comment by using the "Anonymous" option, and I have never noticed a problem until caledonication went off the deep end with me. If you would prefer that I use a name I will honor your request the next time I make a comment.

By the way...I have been posting on your blog occasionally on topics that interest me for about two years now without any problems. I think it is too bad that you allow someone who obviously has problems with being a bully run the show on your blog. I didn't disrespect anyone, so I certainly don't expect to be disrespected. If you feel there was "havoc" on this thread it didn't start with me. However, I am certainly not going to let someone go off half cocked without standing up for myself, especially, since, you refused to do so.

eric said...

1. Hey Anon, I respect your opinions on the original topic, but, using the anonymous moniker does create confusion. There have been times on this blog when 3 different "annons" have been commenting on the same topics at the same time - it can be a problem. The heated discussion with Caledonication got your dander up - don't let it affect your judgement. Denis' reasons for consistently using a nickname make great sense in my experience.
2. You can't win the more conservative than thou arguments - for reasons that were operative in 3rd grade and for academic/ historic reasons arguing over the liberal/conservative labels is pretty much pointless. Most American conservatives don't claim lineage from Edmind Burke and instead have identies rooted in both liberal and consevative movements inside the USA.
3. The original point about eveyone agreeing, even the liberals, that animal cruelty was the priority subject in the Vick case left me wondering about something, is everybody out there a vegetarian? The media seemed to totally blast Vick and we seem to be competing to provide testament on how much we each admire and appreciate animals. I don't know about you guys, but I've eaten steak, pork, chicken, and fish in the last week. We used to live in Korea where dog was sometimes on the menu. I've got plenty of buddies that hunt and clean kills don't always result. My point is there's a lot of animals killed all around us all the time. Vick was execessively cruel and should be punished to the extent the law provides - but I'm having a hard time seeing him as the devil incarnate he's being made out to be - as I sit eating a hot dog while watching Vick play a game where men are encouraged to knock the s*@! out of each other, there seems to be a disconnect to me.

Denis Navratil said...

anon, I noticed you didn't answer my question. Why not pick a nickname? You will still have your cherished anonymity, but readers can begin to evaluate your points over time. Thus you would be able to prove to us over time that you are the conservative that you claim to be.

Anonymous said...

Denis...did I not say I would pick a name if that is what you prefer? I am not interested in getting into a pissing contest with you and I certainly do not feel as if I have to "prove" that I am conservative to you or caledonication. Think what you like but if you or anyone else chooses to imply that I am a liar, or a liberal, or anything else that I do not agree with I will correct you.

It really amazes me you are more concerned over the fact I used the anonymous option YOU provide to post my comment than someone being a rude SOB to one of your readers.

So, now, why don't you give me a name and I will use the one you pick for me from now on when I comment on your blog....

Eric...I appreciate your comments and I do understand it can cause some confusion if more than one person is using the Anonymous options, although that really wasn't the problem on this thread. In any case, Denis asked me to use a name so I will respect his request and use a name from now on.

However, I can't call the exchange between me and caledonication a heated discussion, because it went beyond a discussion. Caledonication has intolerace issues and he thought that I was an easy target to take out his intolerance on because in his mind I am a liberal, but he found out he was wrong. He was from the onset rude and he got progressively worse. I do not appreciate his bullying and I really think Denis should have said something instead of focusing on a non-issue like my using the Anonymous option he provides to post my comment.

Denis Navratil said...

anon, I would rather you choose your own nickname, as I know nothing about you other than what I might gleen from your entries on this thread. If I had to pick a nickname based on those entries, I would have to pick something like Touchy or Thinskin, but like I said, I would rather you pick your own nickname.

Caledonication said...

I’d like to mention a few things (to no one in particular).

I’ll refer to Anonymous in the female context until it is determined at some point (if ever), otherwise.

Anonymous has accused me of calling her names. In fact I’ve never called her “names”. I suggested that she is of a Liberal perspective. However, Anonymous has called both Denis and I several “names’. For example; disrespectful (please don’t tell my mom), half-cocked, cynical, rude, arrogant, wimp, weak, intolerant, bully and (my personal favorite) SOB (please don’t tell my mom about this one either). Apparently anonymous feels that it is ok for her “imply” these things about others, but it is not ok for someone to imply that she may be of a particular political persuasion.

Anonymous is still posting anonymously, after stating that she would not post again without having a name to distinguish her comments from others.

It has been suggested that the discussion had become heated between Anonymous and I. I can only speak for myself, but at no time have I become heated or angry regarding this discussion. I have never considered this thread to be anything more than a discussion. Why one would want to get their “panties all up in a bunch” over an online discussion is beyond me.

Also, I would like to apologize to Anonymous for “suggesting” that she may not have posted the first anonymous comment. After careful review, I am convinced that she posted that anonymous comment, as well as all the other anonymous comments on this thread.

Anonymous said...

Some interesting observations...

It is funny how caledonication showed up for the first time on this blog when Denis was talking about not blogging anymore.

Now, he comes to Denis defense and seems to mirror what Denis says and can do no wrong in Denis' eyes.

It would only stand to reason that Denis would be able to recognize caledonication was rude by implying I was a liar, a liberal (after I clearly stated I am a conservative), and a troll for doing nothing but posting a comment and voicing an opinion on this blog.

If anyone else can tell me where I made a comment that was out of line before Denis stated "nice try" and caledonication stated "...I don’t believe you are a conservative for a single minute" please let me know.

Denis, I hate to say this but I am beginning to believe you are caledonication....

Denis Navratil said...

That's a good one Touchy.

Caledonication said...

Dear Anonymous,

I'm sorry for hurting your feelings. I hope that you can find it in your heart to forgive me.