notes from the dog-watch

At this point I'm wondering if they'll take his pension, 'cause the boy look through.

Yesterday, the two other defendants in the Mike Vick dog fighting case took plea deals that stated they had to testify against the alleged ringleader, Vick. They will undoubtedly corroborate the story of the other defendant who'd already agreed to co-operate with the authorities in late July. I'm not one to cast doubt on one's aspersions of innocence, but this does not look good.

What prompted this missive was reading the "fray" postings that accompanied an article indicating that Vick's lawyers were "in talks" about a plea deal of their own. This came from my reading of the AJC.com's Talk of the Town semi-blog.

By BlackGirl August 14, 2007 11:45 AM
Should Vick be punished…yes. Is he a thug because he killed some dogs, well, what about those that kill deer for fun and call it hunting? Are they too thugs or is that word just saved for young black men?

By hellooooo August 14, 2007 11:58 AM
If Vick is either found guilty or pleads guilty, then he should be punished accordingly. If the NFL has a rule that felons cannot play, then he shouldn’t be allowed to play. I don’t care if he’s pink with purple polkadots, rules is rules. And BG, if a hunter is killing for fun, yes, he or she is a thug… if they kill and then have the meat processed etc., then, no, they are not thugs, they are providers. (I don’t think that particular question is color-coded, personally :-)

I found this bit of dialogue particularly interesting. It's been clear that the division on Vick has run along racial lines, whites condemning him and blacks adopting a innocent until proven guilty attitude, in a throwback to the old south that is at once revealing and disturbing.

The word Thug has been bandied about with great frequency on this issue. And for those who don't see it for what it is, a code for the N-word, that's clearly what it is. Oddly, the aptly named "blackgirl" does not cry for patience...but merely at the usage of the word Thug. It's the answer from "helloooo" which demonstrates the gulf of understanding between the races. Killing and having the meat processed makes it okay? So if Vick can prove he had dog burgers, would it be alright? Dog is eaten in many parts of the world with no outcry, so it's not a crazy notion.

Simply having the meat processed hardly makes it fair or just. Meat is available from other sources, so the hunting isn't necessary. Not any more necessary than putting two dogs in a pit so that money can be wagered. At least the dog had a fighting chance.

It's not a real popular opinion I know. If he broke the law he should go to jail. But I'm going to wait and see if he really broke the law. Innocent until proven guilty, call me crazy.

Bartender...a little hair of the dog. Yes, that means Jager.