Buffett's Game

I think we have been had, but don't confuse my disgust in Warren Buffet with the "rich".

I know most people are not knee deep into politics, but I am. I follow it pretty close but sometimes you miss the obvious.

Warren Buffett wants a tax on the rich - the one percent - or whatever qualifies today or the next day for being rich. He wants to raise the income tax - something that he does not pay because his entire income and his vast fortune are built on interest income - playing markets. He pays the capital gains rate, which sits right now at 15%. President Obama wanted initially  to raise this rate - that is what he campaigned for in 08. Not until after Obama was elected did Buffett call for an increase tax, but it wasn't the Capital Gains tax, it was on income tax. Obama changed course as well, and increasing Capital Gains is never mentioned again, but Buffett's support for an increased income tax is constantly mentioned anytime the Main Strean Media outlets get the chance.

I am surprised Bob Costas did not call for the same increase at half-time on some nationally televised NFL game

Keep in mind as well, Buffett's persona, which is well crafted by the very best of the best of Public Relations  Firms - something you would not need if you simply did the right thing at the right time for the right reason.The impression crafted by the creme de la creme of these firms is that of  your kind Grandpa type. If you have one you loved him, if you didn't, you always wanted one because they seemed so cool. An old guy  that always has a few extra bucks and if you pass the ice cream stand - you know he is going to get you ice cream - on the other hand you wonder why he doesn't tap into the stash and spoil you with cool shit. You still like him though and will take what you can get. Not a bad guy.

That is the professionally crafted image displayed in public - whatever he does behind close doors or his "real" personality is anyone's guess. I don't think it is a stretch to conclude he his driven by greed. He is worth 46 Billion and still puts in a full work week - what other conclusion is there to draw?

If it leads to hard work and success, it is a good thing. If it leads to dishonest and ruthlessness, it is an evil thing.

Warren Buffett is greedy and ruthless. No? Just a kindly old gentleman who knows how to read the markets? Right. Public Relation Firms are good.

If I were fortunate enough to have amassed his kind of money, I would have retired quite awhile back as would have most of us. More than enough money to enjoy life. Maybe still played around with E-trade or what have you but I am going to enjoy at least a decade or two of the good life. Certainly not die at work.

Yes, he is that greedy old man that will be still trying to move around and make money on his death bed. Actually, pretty pathetic.

The man is driven by money. That's why he still works more than 40 hours a week - greed. You can't quit your job if your job is being Warren Buffett and you are Warren Buffett.

Playing the market is a game to Buffett and also his full time job, just like a professional poker player. Those middle class families who have money tied up in the market have decided to play the game to make a little extra cash, help pay for kid's college, help fund their retirement. That middle class money is chips on the table and Buffett sees them as potentially his.  Proffessional poker players feast of the amateurs and so does Buffett. Poker by any other name is still a game.

He does not care how the Federal Government raises revenue unless it takes chips off the table where he is one of the big stacks. Whatever Obama takes out of the uber-rich, they will still keep their chips in the game. The middle class won't. The middle class, whose large majority of income is taxed at the earned income rate, won't have enough to risk at 28 percent in the market and/or as much to put into the game - that money is going elsewhere. That's a huge chunk of chips being held by the collective middle class. A  28 percent capital gains tax disturbs the middle class stack of chips.The cannot afford to play anymore. Buffett wants as many chips on the table that he can get. Keeping capital gains at 15 percent while increasing income tax - does that.

And while he likes making money - he probably loves the thrill just as much. Whatever time he is awake I am sure he is fixated on the markets - he obviously loves it or we would not even know his name. He aint' out playing shuffleboard somwhere or constructing the most impresive crib at "The Villages."

You would have to suspend common sense to deny at least the possibility that a man whose life has been fueled and rewarded by greed would be above lending his name to the Democrat Party - something he merely sees as a vehicle to keep as many chips in his game as possible - it has nothing to do with the "common good". Not to mention he public image is boosted more so, as the generous old man calling a tax on the rich. Makes him seem above politics, doesn't it? Most people assume he is calling for a tax on himself, they do not realize he does not pay income tax, so he doesn't income tax - he pays the Capital Gains rate - which is left at 15 percent. Even more beneficial is all the middle class money will stay in the game. That was his only purpose for supporting increased taxes - it was to his complete benefit.

Consider that he was not out promoting taxing the  ich, until along came Obama, and he knew increased taxes were imminent. Why was he not calling for increase taxes the previous few years?
I mean - I heard he is pretty good at economics - maybe he should have been calling for this tax a few years earlier. Of course, Bush wasn't going to raise taxes so his game was undisturbed by the Feds. Obama's election meant higher taxes -and along came Bufett.  Low and behold, Buffett now wants to increase income tax - not the capital gains.

As far as the Democrat push for higher taxes - they are merely looking for increased revenue. They do not really care where the money comes from - it will spend anywhere. Whatever is more sellable to the public with an assist to the MSM, will do. The private sector is doing - "fine".

The depth of addiction to spending can truly be compared to a heroin addict. You have hit rock bottom when you are willing to  perform fellatio on anyone who can help get your next fix. Greedy old men included.

Oh, and Buffett scores even more political points by appearing to be on the tax the rich side. If he does not turn up dead with a shovel in his hand, burying gold in his backyard first, he will push Republican economic ideas - whenever that opportunity rolls around as long as it benefits him. And he will appear to be non-partisan!!

Warren Buffet is the Grandpa type guy alright - with more than enough money to buy you that ice cream - except he wouldn't - he would walk right by.

Grandpa's got a poker game to get too.

PS. Spare me about any money given to charity - it just well spent public relations cash. It pays dividends.

Plain as day:

Being Honest About Abe

Abraham Lincoln is a towering figure in American History, literally. A 60 foot likeness of his head is chiseled into the side of a mountain in North Dakota. A giant statue of him sits above the Abraham Lincoln Reflecting Pool, prominently displayed in our nation’s capital. Countless schools, cities, and other tributes are scattered across the country. Yet, much of the history of this President is misunderstood and certain actions and decisions he made while navigating the nation through its most tumultuous time, the Civil War are misrepresented in our culture, and most disturbingly, our educational system. It is dangerous not to know and understand history but even more dangerous to learn incorrect history. Maybe even more important, to have honest and critical thought and discussion about Lincoln and the Civil War is honorable to the 650,000 men killed in the service of their country.  The canonization of Lincoln by the public school system and culture has led to a misunderstanding of him and the Civil War.

                As usually taught and promoted, Lincoln waged the war to “Save the Union”, which is a euphemism for the one thing actually settled by the Civil War – if sovereign States have the right to secede.

 The tenth amendment of the Constitution states: “The powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  As James Madison stated, state’s rights contained in this amendment are “innumerable.”  Presumably, the right to peacefully remove their participation in the Union would be one of those rights. It is hard to imagine the States ratifying a Constitution which delegated the right to forcibly coerce States to remain in the Union. Thomas Jefferson agreed.  Jefferson defended the right of secession in his first inaugural address by declaring, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."  Jefferson later commented on the New England Federalists secession movement. “If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation…to a continuance in Union….I have no hesitation in saying, let us separate.”  Jefferson was intimately familiar with the matter; he authored the most famous secessionist statement in history when he penned Declaration of Independence.

                On the contrary, Lincoln’s stated justification for saving the Union made secession next to impossible. Lincoln stated in his inaugural address “It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever – it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.” As well as, “Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contracts merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it – break it, so to speak; but does it not require all too lawfully rescind it?”  In other words, to break away from a tyrannical government, one must have the permission of that same tyrannical government. Good luck with that. It is not hard to imagine King George III shouting a hardy “Hear, Hear!” and nodding approvingly.

                Prior to using his gift of rhetoric to justify forcibly maintaining  the Union, his opinion of the issue could have been used as an opening statement by a defense lawyer in a treason trial  of a secessionist:

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.”

- Abraham Lincoln January 12, 1848

                Lincoln’s war to save the Union was a war to end the secessionist movement and with it the political tradition of states’ rights as a check on the tyrannical proclivities of the central government. He succeeded in saving the Union, but only geographically. Philosophically he destroyed it and it was replaced with a consolidated empire instead of a constitutional republic of sovereign states. From the ashes rose a bloated bureaucracy so powerful it dictates the size of fruit cup medleys on school lunch menus from Freedom, Wyoming to Liberty, Arizona and all points in between.

                The safeguard provided by the Constitution to citizens by guaranteeing due process is of paramount importance. The ability to throw a man in jail without recourse, without being informed of alleged crimes indefinitely should not be trifled with. Lincoln trifled and as a result, weakened this cherished protection. Less than two months after assuming office, Lincoln authorized General Scott to suspend  habeas corpus for reasons of “public safety” in locations between “the City of Philadelphia and the City of Washington” he then extended the suspension to Florida by unilateral proclamation.  Additional suspensions of the writ were authorized by Lincoln throughout the remainder of the war.

                This resulted in the imprisonment of thousands of anti-war protestors. This included newspaper editors and owners and even priests and preachers.  A secret police force was established by Secretary of State Seward which arrested thousands of citizens for disloyalty – broadly defined as disagreement with Lincoln’s war policies. The Legislature of Maryland was of questionable loyalty and Lincoln had many of them arrested. One can see by the various professions of those thrown in jail, his suspension of the writ also assaulted the freedom of the press, speech and assembly.

                It is unquestionable the Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution states “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”  Article 1, Section 1 stipulates “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”  Article 1 is exclusively dedicated to the Legislative Branch. Article 2, pertains to the Executive Branch. Any plain reading of the text leads to the conclusion that Congress has the power to suspend habeas corpus and not the President.

                Lincoln addressed Congress on July 4^th, 1861 and stated “Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power. But the Constitution itself, is silent as to which, or who, is to exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it cannot be believed the framers of the instrument intended, that, in every case, the danger should run its course, until Congress could be called together; the very assembling of which might be prevented ... by the rebellion.”  Lincoln's argument here is flawed, as the Constitution extends the power to call Congress back into session, which Lincoln could have done in 1861, nullifying his argument. Instead of exercising a power granted to him to call Congress back in session, he overstepped his presidential power and failed to allow Congress to consider the suspension. According to Lincoln, the framers of the constitution failed to consider what a “dangerous emergency” might entail. On the contrary, the framers knew one man’s interpretation of a “dangerous emergency” provides an easy route into an abuse of power and worse, tyranny. Because of this, they placed it specifically under the Legislative Branch.  At the time, the most unconstitutional power grab in American history went unchallenged by legislators and journalist. The thought of rotting in the American Bastille no doubt contributed to their silence, which in and of itself is just another example why founders did not give this power to the Executive.

                Further evidence that supports Lincoln acted unconstitutionally is evidenced by the arrest of John Merryman. Merryman was arrested and imprisoned near Fort McHenry by federal authorities. Merryman petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus and his case was heard by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland. Chief Justice Taney was serving in his circuit capacity and his ruling declared:

"With such provisions in the constitution, expressed in language too clear to be misunderstood by any one, I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the president, in any emergency, or in any state of things, can authorize the suspension of the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus, or the arrest of a citizen, except in aid of the judicial power. He certainly does not faithfully execute the laws, if he takes upon himself legislative power, by suspending the writ of habeas corpus, and the judicial power also, by arresting and imprisoning a person without due process of law."

                Indeed, the language is too clear to be misunderstood by anyone – the language of the constitution and Taney’s ruling - except Lincoln, who contemplated issuing an arrest warrant for the Supreme Court Justice.  

One can make the argument that Lincoln was justified and eventually, the legislature did suspend the writ. It does not diminish the fact his actions weakened the protection, as future Executives may use Lincoln to justify their own suspension of the writ.

                Another misrepresented act of Lincoln is the Emancipation Proclamation. It is often heralded as a great document of freedom written by the Great Emancipator himself with the stroke of a pen. In reality, it emancipated hardly anyone and reinforced slavery in certain areas. Lincoln’s words are useful in understanding his actions. In a letter to newspaper editor Horace Greely in 1862, Lincoln wrote:

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.”

                The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to states that were in rebellion. These States would not recognize it and Lincoln knew it. In border States such as Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky as well as other areas under Union control slavery was still legal. If a state was loyal to the Union, then slavery was fine by Lincoln.  Lincoln’s Secretary of State William Seward put the proclamation into perspective. “"We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

                History is distorted when the Emancipation Proclamation is not taught and understood as it was actually used by Lincoln. This results in a failure to recognize the true significance of the document. It was a masterful nuanced diplomatic move and a brilliant war time measure. Lincoln himself admitted the proclamation was a “war measure.”

                Diplomatically, it prevented European powers from recognizing the Confederate States of America. After having achieved emancipation peacefully, European powers would not want to be seen as siding with the Confederacy. This was a major concern of Lincoln. With the Industrial Revolution in full swing, the lack of trade with the southern states, most notably cotton, was severely hindering the European economy. It was a legitimate concern that European powers would recognize the Confederates as a means to speed the return of commerce with the region.

                Militarily, it was a cause for concern for Confederate soldiers fighting far from home, as the possibility of slave revolts were of serious concern. It also accelerated the integration of black soldiers to join the fight for the Union. As the war raged on, manpower was becoming an increasingly crucial issue and the additional troops were vital to continuing the war effort.  

                The Border States were always troublesome for Lincoln, as evident by his tossing many Maryland state legislatures into military prisons without due process. By maintaining the status quo, Lincoln hoped to keep a lid on the legitimate possibility of more rebellion in these areas. The writing on the wall was clear, slavery’s days were numbered, but Lincoln masterfully kept more trouble at arm’s length. One pitch, three strikes. Not to mention, it signaled real emancipation was on the horizon.

                If one does not learn and understand Lincoln’s actions and motivations accurately, it is impossible to understand our government and how it has evolved into its present day form. Neglecting the  unconstitutional  power grab he exercised in suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus is to deny the possibility of tyranny that could result in the future from a less benevolent leader, one who no doubt would invoke Lincoln as justification. Not placing the Emancipation Proclamation in proper context fails to recognize the political, military, and diplomatic brilliance of the maneuver and a valuable lesson is lost. Lincoln’s legacy is cemented as a great President. We could further his legacy by assessing, learning, and teaching what he did wrong as well as what he did right – as long as his successes are taught in the correct context. The American Bastille created by Lincoln has long been closed. There is no reason not to. 

Dogs Deserve Better Than That

Thru the social media innovation of Facebook, I learned an old friend had to put her dog, Sadie, to sleep. I have my issues with Facebook but if it is good for one thing, it is for keeping in touch with old friends – real friends. Without Facebook, I would have lost contact with her but I would have always remembered her nonetheless. She is one of my favorite people I have crossed paths with.  That I can keep in remote contact with her and watch her grow a family and enjoy life, both its highs and lows – such as saying goodbye to a member of the family, I believe is a good thing. Like most things in our life, the value of Facebook is dependent upon how we use it. Susan is a special person. Nothing I could write could convey her charms, strength, humor and personality. She was going to lose a close friend and that bothered me. 

I really didn’t know what to say (or message to her). Nothing I could say would capture how I really felt. I understood her pain and I know from experience how hard it is.  

It did lead me to start to contemplate why dogs are so important to most of us. It is fascinating to me. If, as a planet we do not annihilate ourselves, when future scholars study America, they will recognize the unique bond we have with dogs.  It is true they have been a part of mankind’s history from the beginning, but American’s have elevated them to a unique and special place in our culture. 

They helped us conquer a continent, which was wild and untamed. They have been by our side in every conflict.  From warning us of Indians creeping in the edge of the wood line to sniffing out IED’s in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have been with us and fearless. My personal favorite is the black and white picture of a Doberman somewhere in the vast Pacific, sitting alert while a young Marine sleeps. Lewis and Clark’s crew ate over 240 of them but the Captain’s performed emergency surgery on Seaman to stop arterial bleeding when he was bitten by a beaver. That proves to me Seaman was just as much a part of that expedition as any other member of the Corps of Discovery. You don’t waste limited life-saving resources for just anyone. Every step of the way, as Americans, they have been right by our side.

                

They find explosives for us and chase down fleeing bad guys for law enforcement. They are companions who help the handicapped by giving them a friend who does not judge, all the while helping them navigate life.  

                

They help our wounded warriors heal with their companionship and as we seen all too recently, school children from Sandy Hook. From grizzled vets who have seen unimaginable deaths and experienced the loss of brothers in combat to the most innocent among us, they help us heal. That is amazing diversity.

                

I have read where they now detect the presence of cancer on our sick.  

                

To some couples, they are surrogate children. They fill the place until they are able, either biologically or financially, to start a family. Arguably, this has saved marriages, probably more than all the  75 dollar an hour Master’s credentialed therapist combined. I don’t advocate treating dogs like people. People that do that creep me out.  I think they prefer to be treated like dogs and that is how I treat them. A sweater on a brisk winter’s walk is acceptable though.

               

  Not to be forgotten, their most prominent role, as members of our households, part of the family.

                

They are valuable to us in so many ways and they rise to a level of endearment not quite reaching the love we have for our family. So putting one to sleep is naturally difficult. Not exactly the same as losing a family member or loved one, but the next closest thing.

               

  Not surprising, dogs have always been a part of my life. My first memories are of crawling around the floor in a diaper, eye level to a dog. Throughout my life I have almost always had one, except when military circumstances determined I couldn’t. When I did not have one, something was missing. They have always been special to me.

Thinking about dogs led me to think about Michael Vick and his horrific dog fighting ring. I came to the conclusion that something is not quite right in this nation. We have lost our way. We are barreling at warp speed to something and I think only a select few know exactly what. I don’t think it is for the better. I don’t understand how Mike Vick could do that to dogs. Some say it is a culturally accepted behavior where he is from. In whatever culture that breeds monsters, I suppose. What is even harder to understand is how he his cheered, pushed as redemptive story, and used in multi-million dollar advertising campaigns to peddle goods. In whatever culture that breeds monsters, I suppose. 

My conclusion is that our culture is rotten, and the Vick saga is just one example. I have many more examples, but I guess this is as good of a place as any to start.  

                

The story of Michael Vick goes something like this: He was one of the brightest stars in professional football. He was on the cover of Madden. To the say the least, athletically gifted, and the type of ability to lift a franchise and carry it for a decade or so. He was arrested and convicted on dog fighting charges. The descriptions of what occurred to those animals at “Bad Newz” Kennels were hard to listen to. Torture is the only way to describe it. Electrocutions, drowning, and horrific fights that only ended when one of the animals was dead - all the while being cheered by gangs of thugs. Whatever good I saw, and most of us realize in dogs, he did not. He is lacking as a man in so many ways. 

He served his sentence, paid his fines, was subjected to a little public embarrassment and was released. He was signed by another franchise and won back the starting job and played as well, if not better than ever.

 The overwhelming sentiment from sports journalists was that it was an incredible accomplishment. The message of the media was: Vick was not only an amazing athlete, but he overcame the odds of a man released from prison and regained success and glory. He should be held up as a model for others whose circumstances lead to incarceration. He was cheered as a hero.  That is what we were led to believe. I was sucked into it for a while and I rooted for him. I wanted to see a comeback.

I have changed my opinion. I am not buying that propaganda, which is what it is. Honestly, Vick making it back is not amazing and he should not be a role model. How could he not make it back? He had a multimillion dollar gig waiting for him to play in the NFL. Advertisers in the wings waiting to sign him to endorse their product, because evidently, wearing the same shoes as him is something people want. In a culture, completely absent of right and wrong, with its moral compass spinning constantly, it should not be a surprise.

                His parole stipulated that he could not own a dog for three years. Not too long ago, media reports indicated Vick was upset because he could not get a family pet for his little girl. Somehow, we were supposed to have empathy for his plight. Don't attempt to figure out how  a man who sees the love and value a dog provides to a family yet, if it were not for pesky laws he would be fighting them to the death and torturing them.

                I have no problem with him earning whatever he his worth on the free market and in a free society. I hope he is able to piece his life back together but let me make some things clear.

                He should be booed, not cheered. His story is not amazing, it was predictable. If he had to take a job  sacking groceries and worked his way to General Manager of the Piggly Wiggly,  that would be amazing, regardless of his skin color.

                He is not a role model, unless you want to embrace the thug and gang culture. Football skills, fine, speak highly of him. As someone to emulate in everyday life, such as wearing his shoes, iis insane. Everyone steps around the issue, but honestly, isn’t booing what any sane people would do? 

Come full circle, and you have comments made by ESPN analyst Rob Parker about Robert Griffin III, or RG3.

RG3 is a man who has stated he wants to be defined by his work ethic and character, not his skin color. He has a white girlfriend. His personality fills up my big screen high-def TV. The first interview I saw of him was while he was at Baylor. I had heard his name and saw his highlights. After that interview I turned to my son and said simply “I like that guy.”  The internet is a crazy thing, but rumors are already swirling of a political future for a guy that has only played a few NFL games. He has our nation’s capital buzzing. He is the toast of the town and as a rookie all reports are he has done what rookies are supposed to do. Work hard and learn. He seems to be a natural leader as well.

 

Robert Parker is black, and he made comments to another black ESPN talking head that he has issues with RG III. Namely, rumors that he is “not down with the cause” and somehow, having a white girlfriend takes away from his blackness. A "cornball brother". Worst of all, he might embrace values that are normally associated with decency. Almost unspeakably, he may be a Republican. Steven Smith, the other analyst said “I don’t think I am comfortable going where you are going right now.” I don’t know if it is because he disagreed with where he was going or worried about the possible controversy.

I don’t know what “the cause” is. In the context it was used, it seems that everyone knows. My assumption would be that exercising your God given talent and ability to think freely and live your life according to morals and standards you feel are appropriate and will lead to a life of happiness and success is not part of “the cause”. I can only draw further upon that by assuming that living your life as a role model for our youth – of any skin color –  hurts the “cause”. Embracing a culture that peddles  sewer filth on cable, internet, music, Hollywood and the “arts”, by contrast is part of the cause.   Imitating the clothing and language of the thug life while degrading women must therefore be part of the “cause” as well.   Call me old fashioned, I find it a compliment, but I want nothing to do with the “cause.” The message pushed by the media reaches our youth. It is everywhere and unstoppable. 

I am certain that the “cause” should not be that because of your skin color, as if you were chained to a certain pattern of thought, behavior and standards. It is directly opposite of what our “cause” is, or so I thought.

Not to mention, if say perhaps, a white NFL talking head, let’s suppose Terry Bradshaw, would have said, “I’m not too sure of RG3, he’s got a white girlfriend, you know.” The fallout would have been of nuclear proportion. “Back in chains”, segregation, racism, all would have been brought forth and Bradshaw would be rightfully chastised into oblivion. That kind of talk breeds hate is and has no place in our society would be what we are told and I would not disagree.  Mix and match whatever skin color you want to any of the people in the story and it comes across just as racially charged and vile. If Brahdshaw's comment would stir up resentment in the "white community", wouldn't Parker's do the same in the "black community"? Either way, it is equally deplorable, right? I guess not. 

The story is buried and Parker not severely chastised and not ran of the business. He will be back grinning in front of the cameras in no time. Who determined that?

Somehow, in our twisted culture, the salvation of Vick is promoted as good and RG 3 is suspect at best. It is a warped and twisted message which your children soak in, as do you. Sometimes it is merley background noise while we go about life.  

Whatever the message of the collective culture, it led me to cheer a psychopathic dog killer. For reasons stated above, what I experienced with dogs in my life led to me to a healthy respect and love for them - and they deserve better than that - cheering that pyschopath.

 I was completely hoodwinked to abandon what I had discovered on my own - that dogs are remarkable animal and deserve special respect from us, was slowly deteriorated by a media driven campaign that help repair Vick's image and I was sucked into. I was pulling for a guy who just simply did not deserve it. The media barrage changed my values and I did not even realize it. It has done the same to you and your children.

If you actively participate in society it is unavoidable. Be careful of the message you embrace.