The cleverly orchestrated charade about whether criminal dog abuser Michael Vick would be reinstated in the National Football League, and once he was whether some team would employ him, has finally played out. Last week, the felon Vick was signed by the Philadelphia Eagles.
Nationally, ISAR had taken the anti-Vick lead by obtaining numerous signatures in our petition campaign in support of our effort to deny Vick economic and other benefits which he might enjoy as a result of the "celebrity" he acquired from his criminal acts.
To this day, ISAR continues collecting many signatures from supporters.
When in May 2009, ISAR received an e-bulletin from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) stating that it was going to "provide an opportunity for Michael Vick to get involved in some of their anti-dogfighting outreach programs." ISAR immediately sent not one letter, but two letters to HSUS President Wayne Pacelle questioning the humane society's latest move to paper over what Vick had done.
When it became apparent to ISAR that Vick and his handlers were engaged in a sophisticated campaign to have him reinstated and re-employed in the NFL, we wrote to league Commissioner Goodell registering in the strongest terms our disapproval. Our letter can be found here.
Lest any of ISAR's supporters, let alone Vick, think that we're finished with him, here's what happens next.
ISAR is putting together a program to use our billboard campaign to keep after Vick by continuing to remind the football-going public about the horrendous crimes he committed in abusing pit bulls and other dogs.
Because our plans are in the formative stage we need to keep them close to the vest, so we can't say much yet.
But what we can tell you is that we are going to use billboards to carry the anti-Vick message, and that those billboards will be as close to the Philadelphia Eagles' stadium as we can afford to place them.
Which brings us to the ever-sensitive subject of money.
Designing, printing, installing and paying for billboard rental is costly. ISAR can bear some of the expenses, but we surely can use some help.
Please donate to ISAR's anti-Michael Vick billboard campaign. Even as little as a $10.00 contribution will help, and if you request that we use your contribution for only billboards we'll be happy to oblige.
We must continue to get out the word about this monster, who fakes contrition and remorse to get himself back on the NFL gravy train.
Please help ISAR--in public, and in his face--keep fighting Michael Vick!!
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Animals Today Radio Show
Animals Today Radio, the show ISAR has been sponsoring, has moved to a new station and a new time. You can now listen to Animals Today Radio on KPSI 920 AM on Sundays from 8:00AM to 9:00AM beginning on August 30th.
For more information about the Animals Today Radio show, please visit www.animalstodayradio.com.
For more information about the Animals Today Radio show, please visit www.animalstodayradio.com.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Veterinarians Are Running Scared
In ISAR’s monograph Harming Companion Animals: Liability and Damages we make the categorical statement that “Even though most of the harm to companion animals results from veterinary malpractice [obviously we were not talking about breeders], Harming Companion Animals should not be taken as a criticism (let alone a condemnation) of all veterinarians. On the contrary. Although among the thousands and thousands of veterinarians in the United States there are some bad apples—just as in the medical, legal, and all other professions—the vast majority of veterinarians and their staffs are caring, dedicated, competent, healers who feel deeply about the animals they treat. For them, all of us who share our lives with companion animals are eternally grateful.” (Page 7. Emphasis in original.)
Apparently the issue of veterinarian “bad apples” which ISAR addressed in our “Harming” monograph, and which is a sore spot for all custodians of companion animals, has finally gotten the attention of the American Veterinary Medical Association.
Here, under date of August 1, 2009, is an article from the “javma news”:
The AVMA will turn a fledgling veterinary outreach program to law schools and the legal community into an ongoing activity.
The Executive Board approved the State Advocacy Committee's recommendation to continue the Legal Outreach Program.
The program has been around since April 2008 when the board approved its creation. It provides a veterinary perspective to the legal community on animal law issues. Veterinarians who have practiced in a clinical setting and attorneys familiar with this area provide law students, lawyers, and veterinary students with background information on the unintended consequences of awarding noneconomic damages.
Background information provided with the recommendation states that many of the law school and continuing education programs for lawyers are taught or presented by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, The Humane Society of the United States, or other animal rights proponents. The veterinary perspective in these courses has been almost nonexistent. Most of the time, law students and lawyers are not aware that there may be another side to the story on complicated issues such as pet guardianship and noneconomic damages.
The state legislative and regulatory affairs department in the AVMA Communications Division has contacted 19 law schools so far, developed a PowerPoint presentation, assembled a roster of 20 speakers, and conducted a training webinar for speakers. In all, the program coordinated eight presentations in fall 2008 and spring 2009, with several planned for this fall.
Originally, the board allocated $5,400 for 2008 and $16,250 for 2009 to cover speaker compensation, travel expenses, and speaker training for the program. Adrian Hochstadt, JD, assistant director for state legislative and regulatory affairs, said the cost was not as great as anticipated, and the program will be under budget for both years. Savings were realized as a result of using AVMA staff or local speakers and holding a webinar instead of in-person training sessions.
The board approved funding the program now at a cost of about $7,000 annually. (Emphasis supplied.)
When ISAR learned of this program—which the American Veterinary Medical Association has every right to present—an ISAR staffer sought additional information: “I read that you have assembled a roster of 20 speakers for your program. Can you direct me to where I might find that list and when they will be speaking? Do you have an itinerary that you can email?”
An AVMA lawyer responded by asking whether we were “interested in a program at a particular school?”
Our response: “I interpreted this to mean that this coming fall you will have speakers presenting your point of view at several law schools, and I'm wondering what law schools and who are the speakers.”
AVMA: “I would need to know what is the purpose of the request.”
At that point, ISAR broke off “communication” with the AVMA’s lawyer, even though our intention was to open a dialogue about the issue of non-economic damages for the intentional and negligent harm to companion animals. We wanted to know the organization’s official position.
Own research has obtained that information.
In the July/August 2009 issue of the General Practice, Solo & Small Firm Division magazine of the American Bar Association there appears an article by the AVMA’s president and the lawyer with whom ISAR had been in contact, from the organization’s State Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Department.
They ask: “What’s wrong . . . with recognizing an owner’s claim for pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of companionship—in short ‘non–economic’ damages—arising from a wrongful pet loss in cases of professional negligence?”
Excellent question. Actually a question we wanted to ask the AVMA before it began to treat ISAR like someone trying to ferret out a military secret.
Their answer cites “unintended negative consequences” and “harm [to] the very animals we seek to protect.”
The argument the authors develop is lengthy. Some of it is persuasive, some specious. ISAR encourages its supporters to read the article http://www.abanet.org/genpractice/magazine/2009/jul_aug/petlawsuits.html because it is obviously an opening salvo in organized veterinary medicine’s current campaign against state legislatures allowing non-economic damages for harming companion animals.
This is a hot subject and ISAR will have a lot to say about it in the future, because the “animals-as-property” problem is among those at the core of the animal rights philosophy.
Apparently the issue of veterinarian “bad apples” which ISAR addressed in our “Harming” monograph, and which is a sore spot for all custodians of companion animals, has finally gotten the attention of the American Veterinary Medical Association.
Here, under date of August 1, 2009, is an article from the “javma news”:
The AVMA will turn a fledgling veterinary outreach program to law schools and the legal community into an ongoing activity.
The Executive Board approved the State Advocacy Committee's recommendation to continue the Legal Outreach Program.
The program has been around since April 2008 when the board approved its creation. It provides a veterinary perspective to the legal community on animal law issues. Veterinarians who have practiced in a clinical setting and attorneys familiar with this area provide law students, lawyers, and veterinary students with background information on the unintended consequences of awarding noneconomic damages.
Background information provided with the recommendation states that many of the law school and continuing education programs for lawyers are taught or presented by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, The Humane Society of the United States, or other animal rights proponents. The veterinary perspective in these courses has been almost nonexistent. Most of the time, law students and lawyers are not aware that there may be another side to the story on complicated issues such as pet guardianship and noneconomic damages.
The state legislative and regulatory affairs department in the AVMA Communications Division has contacted 19 law schools so far, developed a PowerPoint presentation, assembled a roster of 20 speakers, and conducted a training webinar for speakers. In all, the program coordinated eight presentations in fall 2008 and spring 2009, with several planned for this fall.
Originally, the board allocated $5,400 for 2008 and $16,250 for 2009 to cover speaker compensation, travel expenses, and speaker training for the program. Adrian Hochstadt, JD, assistant director for state legislative and regulatory affairs, said the cost was not as great as anticipated, and the program will be under budget for both years. Savings were realized as a result of using AVMA staff or local speakers and holding a webinar instead of in-person training sessions.
The board approved funding the program now at a cost of about $7,000 annually. (Emphasis supplied.)
When ISAR learned of this program—which the American Veterinary Medical Association has every right to present—an ISAR staffer sought additional information: “I read that you have assembled a roster of 20 speakers for your program. Can you direct me to where I might find that list and when they will be speaking? Do you have an itinerary that you can email?”
An AVMA lawyer responded by asking whether we were “interested in a program at a particular school?”
Our response: “I interpreted this to mean that this coming fall you will have speakers presenting your point of view at several law schools, and I'm wondering what law schools and who are the speakers.”
AVMA: “I would need to know what is the purpose of the request.”
At that point, ISAR broke off “communication” with the AVMA’s lawyer, even though our intention was to open a dialogue about the issue of non-economic damages for the intentional and negligent harm to companion animals. We wanted to know the organization’s official position.
Own research has obtained that information.
In the July/August 2009 issue of the General Practice, Solo & Small Firm Division magazine of the American Bar Association there appears an article by the AVMA’s president and the lawyer with whom ISAR had been in contact, from the organization’s State Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Department.
They ask: “What’s wrong . . . with recognizing an owner’s claim for pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of companionship—in short ‘non–economic’ damages—arising from a wrongful pet loss in cases of professional negligence?”
Excellent question. Actually a question we wanted to ask the AVMA before it began to treat ISAR like someone trying to ferret out a military secret.
Their answer cites “unintended negative consequences” and “harm [to] the very animals we seek to protect.”
The argument the authors develop is lengthy. Some of it is persuasive, some specious. ISAR encourages its supporters to read the article http://www.abanet.org/genpractice/magazine/2009/jul_aug/petlawsuits.html because it is obviously an opening salvo in organized veterinary medicine’s current campaign against state legislatures allowing non-economic damages for harming companion animals.
This is a hot subject and ISAR will have a lot to say about it in the future, because the “animals-as-property” problem is among those at the core of the animal rights philosophy.
Monday, August 3, 2009
ISAR Seeks Twenty-First Century "Coast Watchers"
During World War II, courageous Australians, American guerillas, and indigenous inhabitants of enemy-occupied South Pacific islands provided essential intelligence about the Japanese to General MacArthur’s forces as they fought their way across the ocean en route to the Philippines. They were the Twentieth Century “coast watchers.”
In order to launch an ambitious amicus curiae program (see ISAR's Amicus Curiae Program), ISAR is seeking to recruit fifty lawyers—for much less hazardous duty.
We are asking one lawyer from each state to monitor the courts in his or her state for animal protection cases about to go up on appeal--cases which raise questions of law (not simple fact disputes). (Large states may have to be divided.)
Then, all ISAR’s “case watchers” have to do is send Professor Holzer a link to an appeal which might warrant the submission of an amicus brief. Please email the links here amicus@isaronline.org.
Professor Holzer will screen the incoming information. If an amicus brief is warranted, ISAR will try to recruit a lawyer to work with Professor Holzer to prepare and file one—just as ISAR did with the recent Stevens case in the Supreme Court of the United States.
There are important animal protection cases in appellate courts around the country which are not being handled as effectively as they could be, and ISAR would like to rectify that situation. In this regard, see our recent blog about the Stevens case.
We know that most of the thousands of ISAR supporters who receive this blog are not lawyers, so we earnestly ask you to forward it to any lawyer you think might be interested in becoming, on behalf of the animals, a Twenty-First Century Case Watcher.
In order to launch an ambitious amicus curiae program (see ISAR's Amicus Curiae Program), ISAR is seeking to recruit fifty lawyers—for much less hazardous duty.
We are asking one lawyer from each state to monitor the courts in his or her state for animal protection cases about to go up on appeal--cases which raise questions of law (not simple fact disputes). (Large states may have to be divided.)
Then, all ISAR’s “case watchers” have to do is send Professor Holzer a link to an appeal which might warrant the submission of an amicus brief. Please email the links here amicus@isaronline.org.
Professor Holzer will screen the incoming information. If an amicus brief is warranted, ISAR will try to recruit a lawyer to work with Professor Holzer to prepare and file one—just as ISAR did with the recent Stevens case in the Supreme Court of the United States.
There are important animal protection cases in appellate courts around the country which are not being handled as effectively as they could be, and ISAR would like to rectify that situation. In this regard, see our recent blog about the Stevens case.
We know that most of the thousands of ISAR supporters who receive this blog are not lawyers, so we earnestly ask you to forward it to any lawyer you think might be interested in becoming, on behalf of the animals, a Twenty-First Century Case Watcher.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Animals In Court
We have often written about the importance of the legal system to the fight for animal rights (ISAR's Amicus Curiae Brief Has Been Filed In The Supreme Court, ISAR Amicus Curiae Brief in U.S. v. Stevens, ISAR In The Supreme Court Of The United States, Free Speech and Cruelty to Animals), and most recently about the case of United States v. Stevens now pending in the Supreme Court of the United States and scheduled for argument on October 6, 2009.
As ISAR supporters know, we have submitted an amicus curiae (“friend-of-the-court”) brief in that case on behalf of the government, in an effort to save the federal statute which makes it a crime to create, possess or sell videos of animal cruelty.
In our various essays about the importance of the Stevens case to the cause of animal rights, we have expressly and by implication stressed even the greater importance of using the courts in the name of animal protection, and doing so by taking advantage of court rules which allow the submission of amicus curiae briefs.
In the Stevens case, the “Petitioner” is the United States government, represented by the Solicitor General of the United States, which lost in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit when it declared the “crush video” statute to be an unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment.
The “Respondent” is Robert J. Stevens, who was convicted in the federal trial court of trafficking in the illegal videos.
Below you will find a list of individuals and organizations who have filed amicus curiae briefs, and on whose behalf—and live links to their actual briefs.
ISAR encourages you to open each brief to its Table of Contents. There you will find an outline of each argument. Apart from the constitutional and other arguments, we want you to focus on a separate, but extremely important, question: who has supported the animals, and who has supported the complicit animal abuser?
Supporting the government are a few “criminal justice” interests. They understand the importance of the statute for law enforcement. Another brief focuses on technical constitutional analysis, and argues that the statute is constitutional and applies to Stevens.
That leaves only five briefs from animal protection organizations—NWARN, HSUS, ALDF, ISAR, ASPCA—in support of constitutionality, and thus for the animals. Putting aside the obvious differences in approach among the briefs, the fact is that these five organizations have stood up for the animals. ISAR’s question is: where is everyone else?
Our answer is that they’re either indifferent or asleep at the switch, and we don’t know which is worse.
That’s not true of the other side, supporting the monstrous Mr. Stevens. Weighing in are the hunters, booksellers, entertainers, reporters, media, photographers, hikers—you name them (and you can read not only their arguments, but their stated interests in this case, which include everything from “freedom of expression” to “enjoying the outdoors”).
You will note from the covers of these briefs that the amici are represented by some of the brand names of the First Amendment bar, lawyers and professors alike, and some of America’s largest law firms.
The Stevens case is thus both an example and a microcosm of what the animal protection movement is up against in the courts of America.
Unless many more participants in this movement understand the importance of using the courts to help animals, and begin to act accordingly, we will continue to fight on an unequal playing field and the real losers will be the animals.
Amicus briefs
For the Petitioner, and the statute
Brief for The Center on the Administration of Criminal Law in Support of Petitioner
Brief for The Northwest Animal Rights Network in Support of Petitioner
Brief for The Humane Society of the United States in Support of Petitioner
Brief for The Animal Legal Defense Fund in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia, in Support of Petitioner
Brief for International Society for Animal Rights in Support of Petitioner
Brief for American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Washington Legal Foundation and the Allied Education Foundation in Support of Petitioner
For the Respondent, and against the statute
Brief for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Association of American Publishers, Inc., the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the Association of American University Presses, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, Entertainment Consumers Association, Entertainment Merchants Association, Film Independent, Freedom to Read Foundation, Independent Book Publishers Association, Independent Filmmakers Project, Independent Film & Television Alliance, The International Documentary Association, the National Association of Recording Merchandisers, the National Association of Theater Owners, Inc., and Pen American Center, in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Thirteen News Media Organizations in Support of Respondent
Brief for The Professional Outdoor Media Association, the American Society of Media Photographers, the North American Nature Photography Association, the Pennsylvania Outdoor Writers Association, the Southeastern Outdoor Press Association, and the Texas Outdoor Writers Association in Support of Respondent
Brief for the National Rife Association of America, Inc., in Support of Respondent
Brief for the 1st Amendment Lawyers in Support of Respondent
Brief for the the DKT Liberty Project, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Center for Democracy and Technology in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Safari Club International and the Congressional Sportsmen Foundation in Support of Respondent
Brief for the National Coalition Against Censorship and the College Art Association in Support of Respondent
Brief for the CATO Institute in Support of Respondent
Brief for A Group of American Law Professors in Support of Neither Party
As ISAR supporters know, we have submitted an amicus curiae (“friend-of-the-court”) brief in that case on behalf of the government, in an effort to save the federal statute which makes it a crime to create, possess or sell videos of animal cruelty.
In our various essays about the importance of the Stevens case to the cause of animal rights, we have expressly and by implication stressed even the greater importance of using the courts in the name of animal protection, and doing so by taking advantage of court rules which allow the submission of amicus curiae briefs.
In the Stevens case, the “Petitioner” is the United States government, represented by the Solicitor General of the United States, which lost in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit when it declared the “crush video” statute to be an unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment.
The “Respondent” is Robert J. Stevens, who was convicted in the federal trial court of trafficking in the illegal videos.
Below you will find a list of individuals and organizations who have filed amicus curiae briefs, and on whose behalf—and live links to their actual briefs.
ISAR encourages you to open each brief to its Table of Contents. There you will find an outline of each argument. Apart from the constitutional and other arguments, we want you to focus on a separate, but extremely important, question: who has supported the animals, and who has supported the complicit animal abuser?
Supporting the government are a few “criminal justice” interests. They understand the importance of the statute for law enforcement. Another brief focuses on technical constitutional analysis, and argues that the statute is constitutional and applies to Stevens.
That leaves only five briefs from animal protection organizations—NWARN, HSUS, ALDF, ISAR, ASPCA—in support of constitutionality, and thus for the animals. Putting aside the obvious differences in approach among the briefs, the fact is that these five organizations have stood up for the animals. ISAR’s question is: where is everyone else?
Our answer is that they’re either indifferent or asleep at the switch, and we don’t know which is worse.
That’s not true of the other side, supporting the monstrous Mr. Stevens. Weighing in are the hunters, booksellers, entertainers, reporters, media, photographers, hikers—you name them (and you can read not only their arguments, but their stated interests in this case, which include everything from “freedom of expression” to “enjoying the outdoors”).
You will note from the covers of these briefs that the amici are represented by some of the brand names of the First Amendment bar, lawyers and professors alike, and some of America’s largest law firms.
The Stevens case is thus both an example and a microcosm of what the animal protection movement is up against in the courts of America.
Unless many more participants in this movement understand the importance of using the courts to help animals, and begin to act accordingly, we will continue to fight on an unequal playing field and the real losers will be the animals.
Amicus briefs
For the Petitioner, and the statute
Brief for The Center on the Administration of Criminal Law in Support of Petitioner
Brief for The Northwest Animal Rights Network in Support of Petitioner
Brief for The Humane Society of the United States in Support of Petitioner
Brief for The Animal Legal Defense Fund in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia, in Support of Petitioner
Brief for International Society for Animal Rights in Support of Petitioner
Brief for American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Washington Legal Foundation and the Allied Education Foundation in Support of Petitioner
For the Respondent, and against the statute
Brief for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Association of American Publishers, Inc., the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the Association of American University Presses, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, Entertainment Consumers Association, Entertainment Merchants Association, Film Independent, Freedom to Read Foundation, Independent Book Publishers Association, Independent Filmmakers Project, Independent Film & Television Alliance, The International Documentary Association, the National Association of Recording Merchandisers, the National Association of Theater Owners, Inc., and Pen American Center, in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Thirteen News Media Organizations in Support of Respondent
Brief for The Professional Outdoor Media Association, the American Society of Media Photographers, the North American Nature Photography Association, the Pennsylvania Outdoor Writers Association, the Southeastern Outdoor Press Association, and the Texas Outdoor Writers Association in Support of Respondent
Brief for the National Rife Association of America, Inc., in Support of Respondent
Brief for the 1st Amendment Lawyers in Support of Respondent
Brief for the the DKT Liberty Project, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Center for Democracy and Technology in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Safari Club International and the Congressional Sportsmen Foundation in Support of Respondent
Brief for the National Coalition Against Censorship and the College Art Association in Support of Respondent
Brief for the CATO Institute in Support of Respondent
Brief for A Group of American Law Professors in Support of Neither Party
Monday, July 27, 2009
Vick Scores Again
Convicted dog abuser Michael Vick—who bankrolled a dog fighting ring operating on his property, and lied to National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell about it—has once again crossed into the end zone. But instead of scoring points in a football game, this time he has been the catalyst for exposing yet again the dirty underside of professional football and the amoral pragmatism of America’s largest animal protection organization.
There’s no need to reiterate for ISAR’s supporters the obscene cruelty to animals in which Vick participated, to which he pleaded guilty, and for which he went to prison.
While there, ISAR undertook to collect petition signatures in support of our effort to deny Vick economic and other benefits which he might enjoy as a result of the “celebrity” he acquired from his criminal acts.
When it recently became apparent to ISAR that Vick and his handlers were engaged in a drive to have him reinstated in the NFL, we wrote to Commissioner Goodell registering in the strongest terms our disapproval. Our letter can be found HERE.
Goodell ignored us and the many, many ISAR supporters and others who signed our petitions.
And now we learn that Vick has been reinstated in the NFL, subject to minimum conditions which are of no importance compared to what Goodell has done.
As ISAR has said repeatedly, Vick’s conduct was not only illegal. It was immoral. While his advocates and sycophants have stressed that Vick “has paid his debt to society—a truism because there’s no doubt he has served his sentence—they miss the point. ISAR asks: Is there no moral price to be paid by Vick for committing horrific animal abuse—and laughing when household pets are savagely dismembered by inherently non-violent dogs who have themselves been tortured into becoming vicious killers?
Obviously the NFL believes not only is there no moral price to be paid, but instead the perpetrator is to be rewarded for his crime. To paraphrase the show business cliché, “the game must go on.” All that’s left for ISAR to do—and do it we will!—is to continue exposing Vick for the animal abusing con-man he is, and encourage football fans to boycott every game he appears in.
A final word—about how Vick was able to pull off his reinstatement. He did it with the aiding and abetting of the publicity hungry HSUS and its chief salesman, Wayne Pacelle. HSUS does some good work, and ISAR respects it for that. But enabling Vick to reenter moral society based on the rationalizations HSUS has propounded, reflects not Vick’s immorality, which everyone knows about and is a given, but something worse: HSUS’s pragmatic amorality, a complete disinterest in whether a moral principle is even involved.
Well, it is.
ISAR knows that.
And we can only hope that football fans know it, too.
There’s no need to reiterate for ISAR’s supporters the obscene cruelty to animals in which Vick participated, to which he pleaded guilty, and for which he went to prison.
While there, ISAR undertook to collect petition signatures in support of our effort to deny Vick economic and other benefits which he might enjoy as a result of the “celebrity” he acquired from his criminal acts.
When it recently became apparent to ISAR that Vick and his handlers were engaged in a drive to have him reinstated in the NFL, we wrote to Commissioner Goodell registering in the strongest terms our disapproval. Our letter can be found HERE.
Goodell ignored us and the many, many ISAR supporters and others who signed our petitions.
And now we learn that Vick has been reinstated in the NFL, subject to minimum conditions which are of no importance compared to what Goodell has done.
As ISAR has said repeatedly, Vick’s conduct was not only illegal. It was immoral. While his advocates and sycophants have stressed that Vick “has paid his debt to society—a truism because there’s no doubt he has served his sentence—they miss the point. ISAR asks: Is there no moral price to be paid by Vick for committing horrific animal abuse—and laughing when household pets are savagely dismembered by inherently non-violent dogs who have themselves been tortured into becoming vicious killers?
Obviously the NFL believes not only is there no moral price to be paid, but instead the perpetrator is to be rewarded for his crime. To paraphrase the show business cliché, “the game must go on.” All that’s left for ISAR to do—and do it we will!—is to continue exposing Vick for the animal abusing con-man he is, and encourage football fans to boycott every game he appears in.
A final word—about how Vick was able to pull off his reinstatement. He did it with the aiding and abetting of the publicity hungry HSUS and its chief salesman, Wayne Pacelle. HSUS does some good work, and ISAR respects it for that. But enabling Vick to reenter moral society based on the rationalizations HSUS has propounded, reflects not Vick’s immorality, which everyone knows about and is a given, but something worse: HSUS’s pragmatic amorality, a complete disinterest in whether a moral principle is even involved.
Well, it is.
ISAR knows that.
And we can only hope that football fans know it, too.
Friday, July 24, 2009
"Animals Today" Announcement
Program of July 26, 2009
This Sunday's 2:00-3:00 PM Pacific Daylight Savings Time segment will feature Craig C. Downer, Wildlife Ecologist, to discuss Bureau of Land Management proposals and wild horses. In the broadcast's second hour, Dr. Kirshner will be speaking with Michael Schaffer, author of One Nation Under Dog - Adventures in the New World of Prozac-Popping Puppies, Dog Park Politics, and Organic Pet Food. Also in the second half, Dr. Peter Borchelt will be available to answer your pet behavior questions.
For more information on how you can participate in the ISAR-sponsored "Animals Today" radio show, please visit our blog ISAR and "Animals Today" Radio Show.
In case you have missed any of the "Animals Today" radio shows, previous broadcasts are now archived at the show's website: http://www.animalstodayradio.com/. At the top of the page, the link "Click here to listen" will take you to a new screen showing the dates and guests of previous shows. Click on the links to listen to a particular show.
This Sunday's 2:00-3:00 PM Pacific Daylight Savings Time segment will feature Craig C. Downer, Wildlife Ecologist, to discuss Bureau of Land Management proposals and wild horses. In the broadcast's second hour, Dr. Kirshner will be speaking with Michael Schaffer, author of One Nation Under Dog - Adventures in the New World of Prozac-Popping Puppies, Dog Park Politics, and Organic Pet Food. Also in the second half, Dr. Peter Borchelt will be available to answer your pet behavior questions.
For more information on how you can participate in the ISAR-sponsored "Animals Today" radio show, please visit our blog ISAR and "Animals Today" Radio Show.
In case you have missed any of the "Animals Today" radio shows, previous broadcasts are now archived at the show's website: http://www.animalstodayradio.com/. At the top of the page, the link "Click here to listen" will take you to a new screen showing the dates and guests of previous shows. Click on the links to listen to a particular show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
