After listening to the round table discussion about Michael Vick I feel as an African American very isolated. Can one not be black and an advocate for animal welfare? Is being a member of the Humane Society being an "idiot' radical? Dog fighting stains our community and it's is a predominately black past time. I hope Michael Vick gets a fair trial and a fair sentence, but it still raises the issue of dog fighitng in our community. The line of reasoning about "blacks aren't treated better than dogs" has no logic - is that suppose to justify anything this man has done? Please consider discussing the dog fighting culture that infest our beloved culture.

m.d.

Sent by m.d. | 10:45 AM ET | 08-23-2007

The Vick situation was discussed today (8/22) in the context of media treatment of other Black performers ("Nat King Cole got less TV network time than Lassie" - then likening this to Jim Crow treatment of Blacks). This is a pretty wild stretch, IMHO.

The fact is Nat Cole, Sarah Vaughan, Ella, Satch, Lena, Dinah, the Duke and the Count made excellent money from their record sales, and I for one believe they made more from sales to White audiences than to Black.

TV has always been a fickle medium, and many a fine talent lasted less than a season there.

Sent by Tom Emmert | 10:47 AM ET | 08-23-2007

Let me first say I'm black; which doesn't mean an automatic support for Michael Vick. However, I do believe the premise of the law to see a person as innocent until proven guilty no matter how damning the evidence (as in Vick's dogfighting). That's what I chose to do until Vick's plea agreement.

Now my stand implied to some that I supported Vick; even over a month ago when a petition for Vick's suspension from the NFL circulated my office (where I'm one of two blacks) and I chose not to sign. My reasoning was he hasn't been found guilty.

So does my action (or inaction for not signing the petition) show I support dogfighting? Absolutely Not! I not only see it as an illegal but a heinous activity for those people, who I think are quite sick to participate in such "sport."

But I understood where the guests were coming from and I don't think they were making excuses for Vick but fair coverage of blacks and their issues in the media. There have been issues related to lives in the black community been cut short in their youth or altered that didn't spark this kind of outrage as Vick's dogfighting charges.

Sent by Moji | 11:48 AM ET | 08-23-2007

Conversations like those surrounding the Michael Vick fiasco and the differing reactions by blacks and whites make me nuts!

It is true that poor black and brown folks have had an unfair shake in the justice system. It is true that there is a kind of negative cultural reinforcing effect each time a black person is involved in a high profile crime. After all, how many of us chant just before the perp walk, "For the love of Mike don't let him be black." But, it is also true that the black community has a growing problem with a fractured image.

There is a staggering class divide in this country that goes unexamined, and it is growing. The mindset that minimizes criminal behavior just floors me. A reporter is gunned down on the streets of Oakland. Where is the outrage from black folks? When those shining examples of youth, the Duke Lacrosse players were accused of rape where was the cautions against rushing to judgement.

I have more empathy for the poor black or brown man sitting in prison for a crime he didn't commit with no access to proper legal representation. Yet, where is the ground swell of support in the black community in those cases. Or for that matter in stemming the alarming numbers of abused black women or the black on black youth crime numbers that seem to rise as crime elsewhere declines. Is the lack of action on these fronts the result of the defense of the black criminal.

This attitude that black people lifted out of poverty, given money, and access don't really know any better is utterly insulting. We have a problem people.

I will end with this question. When was the last time you heard these sorts of stories involving high profile white sports figures caught in a dog fighting/gambling, shot dead after leaving a club, chased out of the house by a pistol packing wife or baby's momma?

WE HAVE A PROBLEM MY PEOPLE!

P.S. Michel I admire your restraint. Your laser like questions would have added hugely to the conversation.

Sent by reginald mcdonald | 12:31 PM ET | 08-23-2007

Once again a bunch of excuses and mumbo jumbo flawed comparisons with no mention of personal responsibility. We are pathetic as a group today and our ancestors, that stood up for "right" would be ashamed of us. We should not be using our collective voice to stick up for this man when other individuals in our community don't get the same consideration. African Americans need to seriously push the "reset" button before it is too late. Remember our children are watching us.

Sent by Leah Coulter | 4:33 PM ET | 08-23-2007

Dog fighting is so atrocious an activity that any athlete (white or black) would be despised for doing what Vick allegedly has done. As a 64-year-old white woman who likes football and fondly remembers stars such as Paul Hornung and Joe Montana it is a pity that an outstanding athlete like Michael Vick brought this on himself. I wish he had it in him to make amends.

Sent by Mary A. Regier | 7:39 PM ET | 08-23-2007

I think Michel is such a wonderful role model to all women, and as a white woman, I was just totally bummed out that she inferred that race was an issue regarding the Vick "scandal o' the week". I mean, come on people! Can the races be on the same team every once in a while. The guy did something that was not cool, not to mention not legal. Stupidity is an equal opportunity trait. Still love ya Michel, but the comment about "white people" holding protest signs was way off base. Wish I could chat about it over coffee.

Sent by Nancy Barick | 12:29 AM ET | 08-25-2007

As a white person, I'm not going to comment on whether Michael Vicks unfortunate troubles are "culturally" or "racially" motivated. However, I will comment as to what I see as the reasons for such a clamor and media blitz
surrounding the Vick case.

For the last five years, others and myself in NJ have rigorously fought for the banning of pit bulls and pit bull mix dogs, statewide. No, it's not because they are involved in dog-fighting.

Dog bite injuries and deaths caused by dogs are pandemic. Over 5 million dog bites per year and close to 5 fatalities a month in the U.S. Children are the victims of dog bites 50% of the time. 75% of the time the bite is to the face. The economic loss from dog bites is over $1 BILLION annually. 33% of all insurance claims are for dog bites.

You would think getting NJ legislators to pass laws protecting the health, safety and well being of children would be a no-brainer. This is not the case!

Animal "rights" activists and terrorist (like the SHAC 7) and domestic pet kooks, crackpot and loons have infiltrated the NJ statehouse and many more around the country. Any attempt to "regulate" irresponsible dog ownership is shouted down by these "activists" and far left. NJ now has an "Office on Domestic Pet Welfare" - funded by taxpayers - pet owning or not!

The agenda of these pet-loving groups is clear - more "rights" for animals.

If you want to test this theory, suggest your local police department crack down on unregistered dogs and cats. If you don't mind receiving death threats, suggest raising the cost for dog registration to cover the cost of operating shelters for abandoned pets. After all, if you don't own a pet, it only stands to reason that your taxes shouldn't increase to pay for a problem created solely by irresponsible domestic pet hobbyists!

These animal "rights" groups paint with a black and very broad brush. Soon after your concerned and rational suggestions, you will be labeled the town "animal hater". They may even toss in a little "child hater" because they claim all children love animals! Well, at the least the ones who aren't viciously attacked by a dog.

If you haven't noticed, the American with Disabilities Association (ADA) has been working overtime with these radical fanatical groups. The Americans with Disabilities Act reads like it was crafted by the American Kennel Club.

Just about everywhere you go these days, pet owners will have their pets in tow. Whether it's a restaurant, where animals are strictly prohibited due to health and safety concerns, the movies, hotels street fairs and festivals and just about everywhere else, the "family" pet isn't far behind.

According to the ADA and the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division -Disability Rights Section: " Businesses may ask if an animal is a service animal or ask what tasks the animal has been trained to perform, but cannot require special ID cards for the animal or ASK ABOUT THE PERSON'S DISABILITY."

Sounds like Clinton's failed "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy to me!

I guess it's a scientific fact that anyone holding a leash doesn't lie.

Don't be surprised when you're forced to eat dinner with the "family" pit bull under the table next to you!

Legislators in NJ are even considering a bill that would regulate the housing of "veal calves". What NJ legislators don't seem to know is that NJ doesn't even have a viable "veal calve" industry! The laundry list for new and improved animal protection laws is endless in NJ.

So what does all of this have to do with Michael Vick?

Well, Michael Vick is nothing more than a scapegoat and springboard for radical, fanatical animal "rights" groups to push their agenda a equal "rights" for animals. Blacks and minorities take note!

Ever since the Vick story broke, the media is abound with "tortured" pit bull puppy stories, animal abuse and any other other so-called "horrific", "despicable" crimes against animals.

No, I don't believe Vick is immune from punishment.

However, elevating the status of "crimes" against animals to crimes against humans must not be taken lightly nor tolerated. Vick's crime should be no more than a misdemeanor accompanied by a hefty fine - period!

Michael Vick's dilemma is arguable a "race" issue. But, there is little doubt that it's more an animal "rights" issue. The perfect storm for animal" rights" loons and crackpots to push their dangerous agenda down the throats of the American public and, sadly, our legislators. Add to this, the media's constant and relentless attempt to frame pit bulls as "victims" rather than the killer dogs they can be!

Don't be surprised if your neighbor decides to take a trip to the local animal shelter and "rescue" one or two of these "victims"! When that happens, you better keep the kids inside.

According to a Reader's Digest article, "Bred to Die " by Barry Cartwright, in 1998 "shelters in Philadelphia put down more than 3,300 Pit Bull terriers and some 300 were found dead on the streets???. Almost all major cities clock these numbers and in some cities even more pit bulls are put down and found dead on the streets. One can only imagine how much these numbers have increased since 1998.

We didn't hear much about this then, nor did we hear much about it - until 9 years later - at least until Michael Vick!

As a result of Vick's misfortune, you will see continued attempts by animal "rights" loons in every state to strengthen animal cruelty laws. It's very possible we'll be seeing a federal "Animal Welfare" law in the near future. Animal "rights" nuts are chopping at the bit to increase the penalties for animal abuse to that of child molestation and other serious crimes against people. On second thought, I'll retract that statement. In some states, like NJ that doesn't have Jessica's Law on the books, first time child molesters possibly could get less time than an animal abuser!

Animal "rights" have surpassed human rights years ago in NJ!

Yet, our NJ legislators, Assemblyman Jeff "Doggie-Do-Right" Van Drew in particular, will continue to mollycoddle and pander to animal "rights" fanatics and pass laws that will further enhance animal "rights" as a direct result of Vicks indiscretion.

Whenever concerned groups attempt to increase the penalties for irresponsible dog ownership by increasing fines and penalties for not registering a dog, requiring owners to neuter their dogs and even attempt to hold the owner criminally responsible when their dog brutally attacks or kills a child, they are told by the pet loving public that INCREASED FINES AND PENALTIES SIMPLY DON'T WORK.

SEEMS LIKE THEY'VE CHANGED THEIR TUNE SINCE MICHAEL VICK ENTERED THE PICTURE!

If you still consider Vick's plight a "race" issue, here's an interesting story that came out of Atlanta.

"Pit Bulls Chew Through Fence, Attack Man"
"ATLANTA -- defensive back DeAngelo Hall will not be cited after his pit bulls attacked a man while walking his dog. Three pit bulls literally chewed through their fence to escape -- you can see teeth marks in the wood.
Tyrone (his brother) just built a $4,000 fence to keep the dogs in -- but they got out anyway and viciously attacked a man who lives in the neighborhood -- seriously injuring him and one of his dogs as they walked down the street.
Animal control officers say DeAngelo Hall is not at fault, because he was not in control of the dogs when the attack happened".

One may want to ask, THEN, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE IF NOT HALL?

How did the animal control officer decide that "DeAngelo Hall is not at fault"? That's an easy one to answer.

Animal control officers are cut from the same cloth as "pet lovers" and animal "rights" activists. They no longer are in the business of protecting people - especially children from vicious animals. They are now the keepers of the animal "rights" torch!

Face it, it's not about race, it's about "DOGS"!

As one pet food commercial proudly boasts, "Dogs Rule!"

Still not convinced?

A few weeks ago, in Cumberland County NJ, two pit bulls viciously mauled their blind owner. The two dogs were seized by animal control authorities - along with the dog's puppies. Two weeks later, the headlines read: " Puppies of dogs that mauled blind woman return home". According to the newspaper's story, Bev Greco, director of the Cumberland County SPCA stated, "Considering the puppies' parents, there was no way that they could be adopted." She also admits that the SPCA's liability for adopting out these potentially vicious dogs would put the whole organization legally "at risk".

Yet, she has no qualms or concerns about releasing these dogs back to their owner and back into our community!

Can you remember back to when Tom Ridge, Homeland Security Secretary, was giving the nation an explanation and instructions on the newly devised color-coded terrorism alter system?

Do you also remember that suddenly you were watching a split-screen broadcast of a dog being "rescued" from standing atop a frozen river?

Keep in mind, the pet supply industry takes in a cool 31 BILLION DOLLARS per year. They do lots of TV ads and pay big bucks for it.

Do you think they have any say over story content and placement?

How about the special dog and cat food for MULTIPLE pets?

More pets people own, the more money pet product makers and suppliers make - at the expense of health, safety and well being of everyone in the community!

NO, we shouldn't support Michael Vick's actions.

However, we must support the sanctity of human life and the right for people to live in safe and healthy environments. Giving "rights" to animals undermines the value of human life.

History has shown us that the only modern society to give "rights" to animals was the Nazis.

The National Socialist German Workers' Party press release in 1933 stated:

"The Prussian minister-president Goering has released a statement stating that starting 16 August 1933 vivisection of animals of all kinds is forbidden in Prussia. He has requested that the concerned ministries draft a law after which vivisection will be punished with a high penalty . Until the law goes into effect, persons who, despite this prohibition, order, participate or perform vivisections on animals of any kind will be deported to concentration camps."

Among all civilized nations, Germany is thus the first to put an end to the cultural shame of vivisection! The New Germany not only frees man from the curse of materialism, sadism, and cultural Bolshevism, but gives the cruelly persecuted, tortured, and until now, wholly defenseless animals their rights. Animal friends and anti-vivisectionists of all states will joyfully welcome this action of the National Socialist government of the New Germany!

What Reichschancellor Adolph Hitler and Minister-president Goering have done and will do for the protection of animals should set the course for the leaders of all civilized nations! It is a deed which will bring the New Germany innumerable new elated friends in all nations. Millions of friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists of all civilized nations thank these two leaders from their hearts for this exemplary civil deed!"

AS WE SADLY FOUND OUT, THE NAZIS WERE NOT A MORE COMPASSIONATE, KINDER AND GENTLER NATION BECAUSE OF THEIR "KINDNESS" TO ANIMALS!

I may not be black. But, I do know something and feel very comfortable commenting about human genocide!

It would be extremely unfortunate if Vick decides to make amends for his actions by donating time and money to groups like PETA and the Humane Society. These groups are directly responsible for perpetuating the cycle of dog violence against people - especially defenseless children.

VICK MAY WANT TO CONSIDER DONATING HIS MONEY TO CHILDREN WHO HAVE BEEN BRUTALLY AND VICIOUSLY ATTACKED BY PIT BULLS. RECONSTRUCTIVE PLASTIC SURGERY IS VERY EXPENSIVE AND MUCH HELP IS NEEDED IN MAKING THESE CHILDREN WHOLE AGAIN.

SUPPORTING DANGEROUS ANIMAL "RIGHTS" KOOKS AND CRACKPOTS WOULD JUST BE ANOTHER CRIME!

Sent by D. Ocean | 5:29 PM ET | 08-26-2007

You might be over doing the Michael Vick dog fighting case just a bit ....

What happened to the segments with NPR & other correspondent kinda a Reporters note book ..

There are a lot of other things to cover that are much more important to me .. it is a big world out there ..

Sent by Charles C Stirk Jr | 12:36 PM ET | 08-28-2007

I appreciate the conversation about why these kinds of actions might be viewed differently by different races or cultural groups, but the comparisons sometimes fall short. Hunting is not comparison that I feel is valid. If you are really hunting, you are going out in the wilderness to see if you can find a deer or a bird to shoot and eat or whatever, not that I am a big fan of that either. My problem is that no one ever seems to mention that these dogs were bred specifically for violence, and if they didn't adequately provide that violence, that violence was done to them. This isn't some man against beast exercise. This is making animals to destroy and abuse them. It doesn't matter if it is a person or a fish. Creating a living thing for your own sick jollies is abhorrent. Bottom Line.

Sent by Megen Ellis | 2:22 PM ET | 08-31-2007

"However, we must support the sanctity of human life and the right for people to live in safe and healthy environments. Giving "rights" to animals undermines the value of human life."

"History has shown us that the only modern society to give "rights" to animals was the Nazis."

I completely concur, this is nothing but a left-wing animal rights group conspiracy! Showing compassion towards animals is foolish and sentimental!

"the pet supply industry takes in a cool 31 BILLION DOLLARS per year."

Yes, another apt point. Pet store owners have their D.C. lobbyists working overtime to squeeze out pro-animal legislation, so as to sell more Kibbles and Bits; thus furthering their plans of world domination by human\animal DNA mixing, making hybrid lifeforms and creating a misconceived notion of an Utopian society.

"These groups are directly responsible for perpetuating the cycle of dog violence against people - especially defenseless children."

I am also in agreement here. Obviously, there is a quiet, but dangerous underground movement of canine militants, planning o destroy all of human kind starting with the children!

Sent by D, Sea | 12:45 PM ET | 09-04-2007