Moodspins | Hodgepodgeatorium - Animal Cruelty, Animal Schmuelty

Politics

Hodgepodgeatorium - Animal Cruelty, Animal Schmuelty

By mathan erhardt ⋅ July 30, 2007 ⋅ Post a comment | Email the author

So apparently Michael Vick is a really bad guy. I mean that’s what I’ve been hearing from coworkers and all of those protestors that ESPN News keeps flashing on the screen every 15 minutes. And y’know what? I’d take all of those calling for Michael Vick’s head seriously, if they weren’t such hypocrites.

Y’see, they don’t really care about “animals” they care about dogs.

I’m willing to wager that 99% of the people who are completely offended by the charges filed against Michael Vick are carnivores who probably purchase items that are tested on animals. And I’m pretty sure it was Jesus who said, “Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”

Don’t get me wrong; I’ve got no problem with people criticizing others for engaging in behavior that they don’t engage in. You’re a Republican who doesn’t like gaysâ€¦getting married; you’re entitled to your (ignorant) opinion. But you’re a Republican who doesn’t like gay marriage, who happens to be an extremely closeted homosexual? That I’ve got a problem with.

Those people with their signs or opinions about Michael Vick, are pet lovers, specifically dog lovers. They don’t care about “animal cruelty”, they just don’t like the thought of Snoopy being abused. And while that’s kind of admirable, when they attack someone for having a dirty house and their house isn’t in order, it tends to rile me up.

I like animals. In fact I love them. I think they’re delicious. Animals are for eating and occasionally wearing. Then again I think it’s fundamentally wrong for people to invest in pets and ignore the homeless. But that’s just me. Apparently I’m in the minority.

Unless you’re a vegan, you probably shouldn’t be criticizing Michael Vick.

Pet owners, who shop at Petsmart, shouldn’t open their bloody mouth on the subject.

People who use anything affiliated with Arm & Hammer, Ponds, Vaseline, Clairol, Playtex, Pfizer, Clorox, Clogate-Palmolive, Dial, Cover Girl, Softsoap, SC Johnson, Helene Curtis, Max Factor, Lever, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oreal, Mead, Olay, Pantene, Suave or Proctor & Gamble really should stay out of the debate.

And folks who buy Iams might want to stay off the anti-Michael Vick bandwagon.

I mean, that is, unless we want to admit that dogs are atop the hierarchy of animals. And we probably should. I mean as George Carlin pointed out, they’re got those ridges above the eyes that seem to resemble eyebrows, which makes for a more expressive face, thus endearing them to us.

But again, as a guy who sees all animals as equal, I don’t see what the big deal is and certainly don’t see the need to make a Federal case out of Michael Vick’s alleged crimes.

Wait, did I say “alleged?” I don’t know why I said that. I mean that would seem to imply that he hasn’t been convicted of anything. Oh, that’s right; he hasn’t.

And I mean really when was the last time there was a rush to judgment that involved an athlete? That kind of stuff never happens.

I’m sure that there’s probably a fish lover who would be appalled at the sushi that ate on Thursday night. I’m guessing that salmon, eel, tuna and yellowtail probably faced an excruciating final moments as they suffocated and I’m completely fine with that. KFC breaks the legs of the chickens that it uses, but man those new teriyaki boneless wings are enjoyable.

The accounts of what Michael Vick allegedly oversaw might be horrific and shocking, but they’re pretty much par for the course for what happens to animals en mass, in this country. Sure we enjoy fast food, but does that make what happens to the animals it’s made from any less cruel?

I’ve checked out the charges and I don’t really see “animal cruelty” among them. It seems to me that the charges stem from dog fighting but fall under gambling and interstate commerce.

So, in theory, Michael Vick would have still been charged if the putting down of animals hadn’t happened. Because it’s not how the animals were treated that got the charges filed, it was the enterprise itself. But releasing those details about the treatment of the animals is a good way to a) create public outcry and b) taint the jury pool by causing people to confuse conspiracy charges with animal cruelty charges.

Speaking of putting down animals, I’d really like those people who are outraged about how the animals were killed to, oh I don’t know, adopt a dog trained to fight. I hear they make great family pets.

Hopefully the Michael Vick case has caused you to examine your lifestyle choices and resolve to live a life where you personally don’t support animal cruelty. If not, then perhaps you shouldn’t speak on the issue at all.