More and more commentators are complaining about the lack of defensive players in the Hall of Fame, including CHFF, Peter King, and Jason Cole (via Fanhouse).
Dr. Z comments on the new HOF class (I've always liked that there are a few of the selectors that are very candid about the process).
A lot of people have been raving about Michael Irvin's HOF speech (such as Jeff Pearlman, the HCIC, and even PFT), and I'm glad. Irvin was one of my favorite players growing up, and I hope people can look to Irvin and see that a human being is always multi-dimensional. There's a lot about Irvin to admire, as a man and as a football player, and I hope people can see that.
The Pioneer Press looks at Adrian Peterson's practice performance thus far.
And the Pioneer Press looks at the Vikings' attempt to improve the pass rush this season (a huge need).
Pro-football-reference.com looks at some fun QB stats.
An excellent Viking blog took much of the summer off (and why not?), but The Ragnarok is back with posts on Tarvaris Jackson and the Viking offensive line.
Football Outsiders takes a look at screen plays.
FreeDarko takes a look at the Timberwolves.
I Heart KG is still all over any Garnett or T-Wolves news.
Ballers, Gamers, and Scoundrels comments on Nike suspending Michael Vick, and I'd like to add my own comment. The companies that hired Vick to endorse their products/services are not wrong to release him now. Nor are they right. Advertising works entirely on perception and image. Some companies hired Vick to endorse their products/services because perception of his image was good; now that perception of his image is bad, these companies no longer wish Vick to endorse their products/services. It has nothing to do with substance (such as, is Vick actually innocent or guilty, or whether he should be considered innocent until proven guilty, which of course legally he should); it has only to do with image. Such is the world of advertising (If you're interested in analysis of the ways advertising often uses negative and harmful imagery, particularly in its gender representations, check out GenderAds.com, which I'm planning on incorporating into my classes this fall. Oh, and remember to spay or neuter your pets, which controls the pet population, which helps prevent animal suffering).
Completely agree with your comments on Vick. Right or wrong, it's their call. And in this case, with the public perception of Vick lower than its opinion of our president, it was wise to drop the endorsement like a bad habit.ReplyDelete
i think an animal rights activist should not be pimping speying or neutering.....how about we snip your pecker and see what happens.ReplyDelete
As far as I know, every major animal welfare group promotes spaying and neutering of pets. There is a pet population control problem--too many unwanted pets leads to strays and overpopulated shelters, which leads to euthanizations. As a practical matter, spaying and neutering is a method for preventing animal suffering, not creating it. I only mentioned it on my promise to refer to another animal welfare issue whenever referring to the Vick story.ReplyDelete
Well how about you take a knife to your pecker and tell me that it isnt suffering.ReplyDelete
Heck humans are overpopulating the planet maybe we should be spaying and neutering our next generation to help control the human population. There are too many homeless people and it would help limit human suffering.
Makes sense to me. You are a genius Pacifist Viking.
Well, anon, when my cat was spayed, the ovaries were removed surgically. When male animals are neutered, I don't believe their "peckers" are cut off, but their testicles removed surgically.ReplyDelete
Regarding your second paragraph, do you have an opposition to humans using birth control? The Roman Catholic Church does, so I suppose it's possible. Obviously forced sterilization of people is a disgusting idea, but people using birth control by choice is not a bad idea.
But do you really know or care anything at all about this issue, or are you just being antagonistic? I take it from your last paragraph that you're just being antagonistic. Well, go ahead. All comments are welcome.
Anon, I find it interesting that you went with an argument paralleling treatment of animals with treatment of people; usually an animal rights advocate using such an argument is lambasted for "equating" humans and animals. Shall I take it from your argument that you consider humans and animals morally equivalent entities?ReplyDelete
And it may seem strange to you that animal rights activists advocate spaying and neutering pets; after all, it is clear human interference into the life of an animal. However, the more humane solution to pet overpopulation (creating urban environments with enough space, food, and shelter to allow animals to thrive) does not appear possible.
And so most prominent animal welfare organizations, such as PETA and the Humane Society, advocate spaying and neutering pets. It is pretty standard for animal welfare organizations and advocates (like Bob Barker!) to promote spaying and neutering as an effort to control the pet population.
Let me explain why the comparison between human overpopulation and pet overpopulation is a faulty comparison. When humans are overpopulated, we don't round them up, confine them in a prison, and euthanize them if they are not adopted. We do that with animals. So we shouldn't talk about pet overpopulation and human overpopulation as if they are the same thing; they are clearly not. Society is already using a method to deal with animal overpopulation (euthanization) that it would never use to deal with human overpopulation (at least I hope it wouldn't!).ReplyDelete
Spaying and neutering of pets offers an alternative to confining then euthanizing; human overpopulation, while a problem, does not require such an alternative, because we are not currently confining and euthanizing people.
Furthermore, anon, if you have an alternative method for dealing with the problem of pet overpopulation, I'm sure a lot of people would love to hear it. There are some alternatives (encouraging people to adopt pets from shelters rather than breeders, for example, or encouraging more people to adopt pets), but these are only partial solutions. If you have another solution that elimanate the need for either spaying/neutering or euthanization, I would be happy to hear it.
Animals and People are moral equivalent in my opinion and therefore unless one is willing to subject their kids to having their testicles surgically removed against their demands then they should not do the same to animals. Fact is animals aren't threating our ecosystem with their overpopulation, humans and their dominance of the land is causing the problem. It isn't that their is a population boom of animals it is their natural environment has been shrunk down further and further as humans "own" the land.ReplyDelete
Animal activists should be against spaying and neutering and for alternative options of caring for pets and making sure they arent euthanized...perhaps a natural refuge place where animals could be released and allowed to be set free.
Anon 8, I mostly agree with you: it's the human encroachment into nature that is the problem, not animal encroachment into our cities (I was rather sad when St. Paul had a controlled hunting to cut down the wild deer population in Battle Creek park a few years ago. Why were the deer a problem?).ReplyDelete
Perhaps I'm more utilitarian than idealist here: other solutions don't seem possible or plausible right now (I don't think funding for such a refuge is a priority right now), so as a practical matter I, like many animal welfare advocates, support spaying and neutering. The reality is thousands of unwanted animals are euthanized. Spaying/neutering is a solution to limit/prevent this. I would support such a refuge if it were likely.