I hope that as Vick develops a relationship with any of his future dogs, he finally and truly understands the gravity of what he did before. If he learns to truly love a pet, he'll understand the horrors he inflicted. Anyway, it's what I hope. I am quite obviously extremely biased as an unrepentant dog-lover and protector.

I hope that as Vick develops a relationship with any of his future dogs, he finally and truly understands the gravity of what he did before.

I truly believe he's incapable of this. He has no reason to change as he was allowed to come back into Football and have all his millions and adulation back. Plus, I just think he's irredeemable. Anybody that had a conscience in the first place wouldn't have done what he did. He won't grow one now.

Do you believe in essential unredeemability, Hec? Or just past a certain threshold of original deviation?

There's not supposed to be boring background TV. Clash of the Titans? Is that.

I almost had a kitchen accident with one of my fizzy water bottles. The cap shot off and hit the ceiling. Not entirely sure how I achieved that, and how to duplicate it.

Do you believe in essential unredeemability, Hec?

I don't believe in anyone being unredeemable. On the other hand, I don't see why the court should take that risk: Michael Vick shouldn't be allowed to have any other dogs. It's not a fundamental human right, owning pets. And hell, we take away the right to vote when someone commits a felony--why should the right to own a dog be more protected than the right to participate in the democratic process?

I have a gift-giving problem. Namely, my sister. Which is just because I haven't started for my father yet. And my sister won't even help me with that one.

I just got a Community mug which made me very happy. I can't seem to find any official AD stuff lying around. Does anyone know of good tribute T-shirts or anything?

Also, find my father a gift, will you?

An ex-relative of mine got deferred adjudication and finally had embezzlement charges dismissed, on condition that she never work in a bank again. I father that once charges were dismissed, they could not have been reinstated, but she could have been subject to contempt charges if she broke her agreement. So your point on Vicks is reasonable.

your point on Vicks is reasonable

Whose?

Do you believe in essential unredeemability, Hec? Or just past a certain threshold of original deviation?

I hadn't thought of it in those terms, but I'd probably side on the notion of a threshold. Then again, I suspect he might be a bit sociopathic considering his lack of empathy, and that would be an essentialist trait.

Ooh! I found some new crazy on the internets!

You May Kiss the Other Bride: Girl-on-Girl “Feminist Marriage” will destroy America, apparently.

Forget the adjectives “same sex” and “gay” as prepends to marriage. These are victim-based marketing ploys invented by NOW to send us off into a heated debate about homosexuality and equal rights – distracting us from seeing their real goal of establishing “feminist marriage.”

Feminists … intend to convert marriage into a feminist-controlled government enterprise and subordinate the rest of America to fund it.

Feminist marriage is a three-way contract between two women and government. Most women will have children, and few women can afford or will go to the extreme of using artificial insemination to achieve pregnancy. Government is the automatic third party collecting “child support” entitlements for children born in these marriages.

Feminist marriage will be far more attractive to women than heterosexual marriage. Sexual orientation does not matter when two women marry and become “married room-mates.” They can still have as many boyfriends as they want and capture the richest ones for baby-daddies by “forgetting” to use their invisible forms of birth control. On average, a feminist marriage will have at least four income sources, two of them tax-free, plus backup welfare entitlements.

Consuela's that Vick could reasonably have the right to own dogs taken away. I don't know if the law allows it, but if it does it would be OK with me. If my ex-relative could be told never to work in a bank again in return for not having a criminal conviction, Vick could be told never to own a dog again. Even if he is totally redeemed, it would be fair because no one could know for sure and it is reasonable to keep him away from the temptation. Again talking in terms of fairness - don't know the law on this.