[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really not that bad.

[/ QUOTE ]
The article? No, it is really bad.

First of all, it's horribly written. But the point it makes is non sequitur. Just because the media hasn't made as big a production of other supposedly more serious crime does not make what Vick did better, or lessen punishment. I'm upset, theoretically, about the lack of progress in the Darrent Williams case, but that has no impact on the Vick case.

If this parallel is ever brought up, it can only be to crucify the media. Any other implications just don't hold water.

[/ QUOTE ]

The various errors in the writing are quite obvious, obvious enough that it's not that hard to overlook -- look who's writing it. But the pervading points he touches on are quite worthy of discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which points are those? That other crimes occur? That certain types of people don't think dogfighting is bad, so it should be ok?