IMHO Lawrence O'Donnel is a total a$$ for suggesting Michael Vick did nothing wrong.

posted by Bill Arnett @ 12:44 PM Permalink

I am not going to do a point-by-point rebuttal to this article at the Huffington Post by Lawrence O'Donnell, someone I used to read and thought was reasonable intelligent.

His post today has forever disabused me of any notion that he is intelligent enough, or, worse, compassionate enough to understand why people are so upset about Michael Vick's despicable acts. Sample:

So it's a federal crime to be mean to dogs? Who knew?

What's wrong with what Michael Vick did? I have no inclination to do what he did with dogs, but I have no comprehension of what all the fuss is about. Most people who are upset about killing dogs or letting them attack each other have at some point in their lives caught a fish, which is as extreme a form of murderous torture of an animal as I can imagine. Not only have most of them caught a fish, they have actually eaten many more of them than they've caught. Which is weirder, killing an animal or eating its dead flesh? Most of us have never eaten dog meat, but in some countries it is a delicacy.…[…]

What is the moral basis -- the natural law, if you will -- that accords special respect and protection to dogs in our written laws?…[…]

Our reverence for dog life resembles our reverence for human life. Up to a point. It's okay to kill your dog if you think your dog is too sick to go on living much longer or if you just can't afford medical help for your dog. And, don't worry, no legal authority is ever going to ask you to prove that your dog was really sick enough to kill or even sick at all. If you don't have the stomach for killing your dog yourself, you contract with a dog killer -- otherwise known as a veterinarian -- to do the dirty work for you. No federal law against that yet. Our dog reverence is so shot full of loopholes that there is no describable moral order to it at all.

I have to quit quoting this insensitive and ignorant idiot before I start blowing chunks on my keyboard.

Man's relationship with dogs is indeed a curious and, I would say, a miraculous thing. At some point in history long, long ago, thousands of years, the ancient ancestors of modern dogs voluntarily came in from the wild to become a companion of man. They threw their lot in with man and gave many gifts in return: 1) They became hunters for man, tracking or bringing down game that otherwise may have eluded man and caused him to suffer hunger. 2) They still hunt with man and seek nothing in return but some food scraps, a little love, and a pat on the head. 3) They went to war with their masters and many a dog has sacrificed his life in service to man. 4) They provide protection for man and his families by providing warnings and/or actually fighting off trespassers. 5) They give their master their unqualified love and expect little in return. 6) Dogs are still the most efficient way to locate hidden drugs, missing people, dead bodies (as in earthquakes), detect bombs, disarm and temporarily disable attackers for our police, and, quite incredibly, some dogs can follow a days old trail, invisible to the eye, and lead rescuers to kidnap victims, lost children, lost hikers, or the criminals that are being sought that could not be found any other way, and they do so for that pat on the head, a little food, and the love they receive from their master. 7) Study after study has shown that dog owners outlive, in general, non-dog owners or cat owners. 8) Let's not forget seeing-eye dogs or those dogs trained to call for help with a telephone if their master can't.

I could probably go on about this for page after page, but let's just suffice it to say that dog has truly been one of man's best friends for century after century, yet a supposedly intelligent jerk like O'Donnell tries to argue that Vick, a man who willfully engaged in terrible cruelties against dogs, has done nothing wrong by falsely equating and comparing dogs to fish, chickens, cows, and racehorses.

O'Donnell asks the ridiculous question, "What is the moral basis -- the natural law, if you will -- that accords special respect and protection to dogs in our written laws?", I only bothered to name eight for now, but if those things listed do not provide a moral basis or natural law that quite deservedly accords special respect and protection to dogs, then I don't know what could provide a greater impetus for our laws protecting them from cruel, sub-human, and nasty people like Vick.

Just how many fish, chickens, cows, and racehorses have protected their master's domain, to the death if necessary? How many fish, chickens, cows, and racehorses have saved earthquake victims, confounded drug-dealers, kept a sick child company and provided that child unconditional love? How many of the elderly have not only lengthened their lives, but also enriched the quality of their lives with a dog, not fish, chickens, cows, and racehorses? How many police do you see on patrol enhancing their crime fighting capability with fish, chickens, cows, and racehorses? How many hospital patients heal faster and/or have their spirit revived after a visit from fish, chickens, cows, and racehorses? How many seeing-eye fish, chickens, cows, and racehorses have you ever seen?

All of his comparisons of dogs with fish, chickens, cows, and racehorses are false dichotomies from a man I now consider to be either very ignorant of man's centuries long history with dogs and the intelligence, compassion, and love dogs possess in spades compared to fish, chickens, cows, and racehorses. Or Lawrence O'Donnell.

In short, the man's an a$$, and his references to vets as "dog-killers", as if that were their sole function, is an insult to veterinarians and commonsense. I believe any person killing healthy dogs should be reported for animal abuse with an exception for vicious dogs that are irredeemable. And as to when they have grown old and infirm, when they are living in pain, when the quality of their life is destroyed by the ravages of disease and time, you are darn right I would help my friend, my dog, to escape their suffering, JUST AS I HAVE A "DO NOT RESUSCITATE ORDER" in my medical files. I would rather be euthanized than remain a vegetable or too incapacitated to ever again enjoy my life.

People who would denigrate or deny the role of dogs in society are just ignorant, which can be excused in many instances, but anyone stating so clearly that Vick did nothing wrong by torturing and killings dogs that weren't vicious enough for him to use as fighting dogs is absolutely asinine. Abnormally so.

Labels: animal cruelty, dogs, Vick