Thursday, August 20, 2009

Though I'm the last one to feel charitably toward someone who was mean to pit bulls...

I don't demand that Vick not be allowed to play or anything.

That said, I'm certainly not getting Justice Ginsburg (my dog) one of these.


Ps. In happier news, here's a nice story about what is happening with the pit bulls seized from Vick's dogfighting ring. The dog in the picture looks very much like Justice Ginsburg, down to her "look how nonthreatening I am" pink collar.


nkjvcjs said...

The, the NFL letting Vick back in kills me. If Pete Rose was banned from baseball for life, Vick should have been banned from even watching football, or talking about football, let alone playing it, for life. Then again so should Tank Johnson, Randy Moss, PacMan Jones.....
I guess that is why they call it the National Felons League. Sigh.

ogre said...

Rose, as I recall, was banned for something related to the sport (gambling). There's enough history of cheating related to gambling on games -- throwing games -- that the ban on gambling made complete sense. Rose violated it and was banned. But I don't think he committed a crime for which he was convicted, as well.

Vick's crime--for which he was convicted and punished--wasn't related to the sport.

Barring him from playing is adding a punishment for his crime--which is fundamentally unjust. You don't have to like him or approve of him (I don't), or watch him.

But letting him get on with his life... that's just.

hafidha said...

I'm not in favor of dog fighting, but I don't understand what that has to do with playing sports.

I mean, if someone was convicted of dog fighting, should they NEVER have a job again? I don't get it ... is there some commonality between NFL playing and dog fighting that I don't understand? Is it because gambling was involved?

Joel Monka said...

Pete Rose bet on baseball, not once, but repeatedly, even after he became a manager- that makes him a problem for the sport itself. Vick was tried, plead guilty, convicted, got more time than the average for the offense, and lost $200,000,000. If that doesn't constitute taking responsibility and paying for the crime, I don't know what does. His offense was personal in nature, having nothing to do with the sport. But what logic can you ban him? *I* would never pay to watch him play, but that's a different kettle of fish altogether.

Bill Baar said...

OK, where does HR3200 describe the CMS pilot that it would make into law?

It doesn't. In fact HR3200 never even bothered to wait to see if the pilot works or not. (The way agencies are supposed to use their authority from Congress to pilot new programs as a way for Congress to see how things workout).

HR3200 just denies reimbursement for preventable readmissions without waiting for any experience from the pilot as to whom is supposed to be responsible for preventing avoidable readmissions.

That $17 billion to be saved per Jenks in the NEJM was just too tempting.

How that $19 billion hit gets allocated going to be an interesting thing to watch unfold (should HR3200 pass).