I was very pleased when I read on your blog that you would be on Bill Maher's show Friday night. I always record it to watch it later. When I learn you would be on I watched it live. I won't go on and on about the value of your comments. However, I appreciated your attempt to bring some balance into the show. His show can be a bit one-sided, due to the audience, and his own bent. I'll admit to not making notes, therefore, I cannot comment specifically on subject matter. That environment, has to be quite heady, even for broadcaster, like yourself. I was also pleased to read your behind the scenes commentary. Did you get to meet Bill Maher on a personal basis?

Thank you, how

Sent by Larry Jordan | 9:13 PM ET | 08-28-2007

You were teriffic on Maher. I admired the fact that you didn't play to an archtype, which is easy to do on his show. You had facts at your command that were amazing (like knowing Richard Stickler's background!), and you played it straight even when the audience didn't want it straight. I'm rarely impressed by "experts" on shows like that, but I admit I'm hoping you start showing up on the Sunday shows - you certainly have a command of the facts and an independent point-of-view that cuts across traditional party lines.

This sounds ridiculously gushing, but I thought you deserved the complements.

(Also, I'm a different Chris than the one from another post, who apparently was equally impressed.)

Sent by Chris Wildermuth | 1:47 AM ET | 08-29-2007

I too was impressed with you on the Maher show. I liked how you held your own to Bill and also when cutoff by Mr. Robbins. I was mostly impressed with your expert knowledge on a variety of topics. This was my first time watching his show but it was NPR I was searching to so I could find out when you air!! Thanks, you have a new fan!!

Sent by Katie O'Brien Mathis | 1:35 PM ET | 08-29-2007

I was very disappointed in your comments on Real Time relating the Michael Vick case. This case is about crimes against living creatures, not about race. Further, while you did disclose your relationship to the case, you should have refrained from commenting altogether given your obviously biased position.

The very worst offense, however, was tallying the murder rate in Philadelphia, Baltimore and Newark in response to questions about Vick and dogfighting. This was an obvious attempt to change the subject and delegitimize vicious and disgusting crimes. Plus, the very cities you mentioned have serious gang problems, and dogfighting goes hand in hand with gangs. Dogfighting is a celebration of violence and directly correlates with violence against other human beings.

Sent by Maureen Keene | 2:39 PM ET | 08-29-2007

You all are too kind! I'm blushing...

Sent by Michel, Host | 11:02 PM ET | 08-29-2007

I just saw a bit of the Bill Maher show, and was impressed by what I saw of you -- enough to land here. I thought Maher proved that he had no idea what it means to be a deeply spiritual person (and can I just add that I am myself an atheist?). I thought you handled it extremely well. Also impressed with the facts you had on the mine thing.

Sent by Irene R | 12:18 AM ET | 08-30-2007

I should start with an apology... My first thought when I saw you on the pannel was, "great another pissed off black lady ready to rant and rave". After watching and listening to your clear and concise argument and discussion, I must say I am sorry. I felt so conflicted that I got myself out off bed, logged back onto the net and searched for a way to get this to you... Your deminer and tact were impeckable. Your knowledge and insight almost took the "Cheney" author right out of the conversations and by far they over shadowed "Robbin's Rants". This made me realize once more that even the most "nonracist" individuals have some ammount of societal predigous with in them. Again, wonderful job and thank you for a great show. When ever I see you as a guest on any show I'll be sure to tune in. Einstien couldn't spell either ;-)

Sent by Guy J Boudreaux, Jr | 12:24 AM ET | 08-30-2007

I love Maher - most of the time. I learned some things from you on the show and appreciated your not taking a pass when it would have been easy to do.

While a npr fan, I was unaware of your show on the radio. I have added to my podcast routine and look forward to your work.

Sent by Tracy Currie | 1:24 AM ET | 08-30-2007

Mrs. Martin, I recently posted to my blog (http://www.crueltyisacrime.com) my impressions of your performance on Real Time and, unlike the previous comments, it was not a raving review.

I took exception to you diminishing the value of the coverage of the Michael Vick story because of the escalating homicide rate in several of our major cities. Our cities are plagued by a multitude of violent crimes. Likewise, dog fighting is a crime of violence. The participants in an urban environment are typically linked to street gangs, and associated with the guns and drug dealing that go with them. There participation desensitizes them to suffering, and it has been proven that violence toward animals often times escalates to violence toward humans. My own experience as a Chicago Police Officer tells me that those I arrested for dog fighting and animal abuse more often than not already had previously been arrested (usually for battery, weapon and/or drug charges).

To address your comments directly, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington D.C., and Newark are not only experiencing an increase in homicides but, as these article show, they are coming to realize that they have serious problems with dog fighting.

My belief is that in the absence of a consistent, nationwide, law enforcement response to dog fighting the cycle of violence will only continue to spin out of control. Until citizens realize that dog fighting and animal abuse are not simply about the animals but about addressing violence at an earlier stage, we will ALL continue to suffer.

And this is where I believe it is appropriate to bring race into the discussion because it is in the inner cities where this violence is most pronounced. As I'm sure you know, for young African American men more deaths are caused by homicide that any other. It only makes sense to try to break the cycle of violence, by enforcing dog fighting and animal abuse laws, as early as possible.

As I am skeptical that this post will be published on the NPR site, the text will be simultaneously posted to my blog.

Sent by John Keene | 2:00 AM ET | 08-30-2007

I too felt your otherwise balanced commentary was sullied by your comments about the Vick case. Why should we take animal abuse as seriously as any other violent crime? A Northeastern University study found that a person who has committed animal abuse is:
* 5 times more likely to commit violence against people
* 4 times more likely to commit property crimes
* 3 times more likely to be involved in drunken or disorderly offenses

The link between animal and human violence is so strong that the Boston Police, Family Services and MSPCA have come together through the Link-up Education Network to help these professionals to recognize and break the link between animal and human abuse.

Sent by Diane T | 2:28 PM ET | 08-30-2007

I think Mr. Keene and Mrs. Keene are missing Michel's point. And you obviously missed her numerous disclaimers (she repeatedly spoke of her husband's involvement in the case). Were Mr. Vick's crimes brutal? Yes. Should he be punished? Of course. But the vitriol with which he has been persecuted (yes persecuted) is insane. Children are abused, people are murdered, women are beaten EVERY DAY and we do not lambaste their abusers in such a manner. I have never defended Vick and never will. He deserves to be punished, but it seems like some will not be satisfied with any punishment. Let's not forget that we should defend ALL victims of cruelty and not use a single abuser as a scapegoat for all the ills of the world.

Sent by Tameika | 11:15 AM ET | 08-31-2007

I just want to tell you how much I enjoyed your performance on "Live with Bill Maher". I'm embarrased to say this, but I didn't know a thing about you until the show recently aired. Your comments on a variety of subjects -such as education, the W. Virginia event and the war in Iraq - were thoughtful, intelligent and well formed. While the rest of the panel spoke in varying degrees of unrest, you calmly laid out your ideas/positions.

Nicely done.

Sent by Justin D'Joseph | 9:52 PM ET | 09-06-2007

Back to Maher and dogfighting -

Once again, I am not troubled by points of view that differ from mine, or information that brings to light new insights.

So, in response to John Keene, feel free to post away. But you don't give us enough credit -- we block posts that are offensive and beneath the standards of appropriate discourse. Yours' is clearly not that.

You don't have to like everything I say in order to participate on our blog, and you don't need to employ the cheap trick of trying to bait us to get on our blog.

C'mon, people.

Additionally, I still think some folks are confused about what reporters do. One can report a point of view without having it as one's own. Maher asked me a direct question about why some people see a racial angle to Vick. I ansewered it as best I knew based on my read of the facts -- with the appropriate disclaimer about the obvious conflict (hubby).

And finally, I do not understand people who insist on being "disappointed" when made aware of opinions held by others, which happen to differ from his or her own. I am not "disappointed" to discover that some people may minimize something I care deeply about; it's important to know.

I think people's perceptions of all journalists are being shaped by a few who are more interested in their own opinions than they are in reporting. I am not among them. When I tell you something, I am attempting to communicate what I have seen, or what I know, from reporting. I also try to offer points of view that may not have previously been considered. I may not always succeed, but that's what I'm after.

It's what I like about the blog and its sense of community -- it opens up new ways to think, representative of all (of us) who contribute.

Sent by Michel Martin, host | 12:42 AM ET | 09-07-2007

I thought you were sharp, decisive, and handle it with great aplomb. Tim Robbins wanted to start a fight, and because you didn't react, it helped level that out. I thought he was a little inappropriate. Being Volatile, even if inside you know what you are saying is correct, never serves to create consensus. Anyway, I just found this this morning, and I was pleased to see that it was you.

Sent by Pat | 9:56 AM ET | 09-08-2007