As I was reading the news this morning I stumbled across this little gem, courtesy of Tucker Carlson at Fox News.
In case you don't feel like reading it, Tucker says that NFL quaterback Michael Vick should have received the death penalty instead of time in jail for dog fighting charges from a few years ago.
Where, oh where, do I begin?
Let's say first & foremost, I am one of the biggest animal lovers you will ever meet in your life. I have a page on my blog dedicated to my pets. I have to change the channel when the sad SPCA commercials come on. I have to shield my eyes when I see an animal that's been hit by a car. And growing up with a dad who hunted constantly was a challenge for me.
I'll also cop to the fact that when the Eagles signed Michael Vick I wasn't all warm & fuzzy about him getting a second chance at being a millionaire. I said, on more than one occasion, that he should have had to work a 9-5 everyday like the rest of us instead of living a lavish life. However, as time has gone on, I've realized that he's paid his debt for his actions & 19 months of confinement from his family & his freedom was enough of a punishment.
But for as angry as I was (& trust me, I can get pretty angry), I never would have suggested that he deserved to die for that behavior - and that is because I am a rational person. What normal person would come to the conclusion that animal abuse warrants death, even when there's such debate about whether or not it's fair punishment for murdering a person? And even if you think it, who goes on TV & says it to the world?
Again, please understand that I am not excusing Michael Vick's actions at all. What he did was totally unacceptable, & there is no excuse for his behavior.
But let's call this what it is, Fox News. This is not about Michael Vick. This is one more reason to disagree with the president.
"I'm a Christian. I've made mistakes myself. I believe fervently in second chances," Carlson said. "But Michael Vick killed dogs, and he did in a heartless and cruel way. And I think, personally, he should've been executed for that. He wasn't, but the idea that the president of the United States would be getting behind someone who murdered dogs? Kind of beyond the pale."
It's hard for you to believe the president would stand behind someone who killed dogs? The president - the most powerful man in the free world, who at times has to make decisions that mean innocent people will be killed.
My question to Tucker is this: where do we draw the line on second chances? Who decides what is forgivable, & what is punishable by death? You? I surely hope not, because it's obvious that your judgement is somewhat lacking.