Michael Vick Released

Link: http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?id=15553766&ps=973&cat=&cps=0&lang=en&page=1

After reading this article I was aggravated by its portrayal of Michael Vick, the former NFL star who served a sentence in jail and is now on probation for dogfighting charges. If you were basically unawares of the case, reading this article you would basically think the whole thing was overblown and Vick was pretty much just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Most of the quotes are sympathetic towards Vick, the only critical ones falling at the end of the article, which let's face it, most readers won't get to.
To me the article is very pro-Vick, including quotes such as "I think that from a legal standpoint and financially and personally, he has [paid his debt to society]," and "'There's the expression 'you are what you eat.' To some extent, you are who you hang with too, and that does have an effect on lives for all of us'" These quotes make it seem like Vick was there by accident but he wasn't. It was his dogfighting operation, or "kennels", and he was very largely invested in the fights, and in more ways than just financing them.

What this article also left out was that it wasn't only dogfighting that went on at the Vick operation, though that is certainly horrible enough. The "Vick dogs" were often forced to fight to the death, and dogs that did not look promising for fighting were killed by hanging, drowning, electrocution, shooting and "slamming at least one dog's body to the ground." (CNN.com and The United States Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). Vick himself participated actively in at least eight of these deaths according to investigation and a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) report revealed that Viuck "enjoyed placing family pets in the ring with fighting pit bulls and that he laughed as dogs ripped each other apart." Vick's operation also included bait dogs, weak animals used in fights to build up the confidence of stronger dogs.

One quote in the article particularly angered me. A representative from the NFL Players Association was quoted as saying they supported Vick and his family "as he works to rebuild his life." Talk about missing the point. Vick's the one that ruined his life by being violent and cruel. His actions were desipicable.

I've seen the Vick's former fighting dogs on various programs on TV. Organizations such as "Dog Town" have taken on many of the dogs to work to rehabilitate them. These dogs are scarred beyond belief, missing teeth, have poorly healed broken bones, and countless mental issues stemming from their time in the fighting ring. When they came they were scared and trusted no one. Miraculously, with the help of kind-hearted people these dogs are healing, but there are some scars that can never be healed from their past. People who say Vick has "paid his debt to society" really should take a look at what he did to those dogs and think again. Vick has a very, very long way to go before he even begins to repent for his crime, and truly, I believe he can never fully atone for his sins. You don't do that to an innocent animal and just say "I'm sorry" and then hand over a bunch of money. It's not enough, and I don't think anything ever ever can be enough.

Neque Ego Haer Intellegere Possum

This is an interesting op-ed column on the use of Latin on diplomas. The author, despite being a "Latin scholar" (for those of you who take Latin :) ) themselves, strongly believes that diplomas should be written in English.
To be honest, I have never really given much thought to this issue. However, I do have to agree with the author that the Latin on diplomas is clearly intended to impress rather than serve any educational purpose. Even so, I don't really think it's that big of a deal. Latin script on diplomas is a tradition, and it looks kind of neat. Even though I doubt most people can read the Latin on their diploma, this shouldn't really matter, after all they are the ones graduating and I sincerely hope they know what degree they are graduating with without having to read a piece of paper. I suppose it would be nice to be able to display a diploma without having to explain to everyone what it means, so in a way the author has a point. But to me at least, saying "Why, then, celebrate that education with a document that prizes grandiosity over communication?" is going a little far. Does it really matter all that much? If it's that vital, why not print a translation and hang it underneath the original?

Seriously? What are the Odds?

Link: http://cavett.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/seriously-what-are-the-odds/?ref=opinion

This is just a short but funny column on a common aspect of life, coincidence. Coincidences are oftentimes amusing, but as the author points out, just as often embarassing. I loved the little anecdotes Cavett uses to personalize the phenomenon and his use of humour and self-humiliation to relate to the readers.
In the matter of Freud's theory of "no accidents" I'd have to disagree. I'm pretty sure coincidences exist, I mean how can you explain the matching license plates described at the beginning of the column? The families had never met before, lived far away, and just happened to have the same license registration. Sure, you could say it was fate but I'm pretty sure Freud didn't believe in that either.

Mr. Darcy Woos Elizabeth Bennet While Zombies Attack

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/opinion/14tue4.html

I have to admit that when I saw the headline of this op-ed I immediately did a double take and then clicked on it. What on earth? I thought, though I was sure it must be some gimmick by the author, a sort of play on the topic to interest readers. No such luck. Unfortunately the piece is actually written about a "mash-up" of the classic "Pride and Prejudice" and, yes really, zombies. All I can say is "WHY???!" Personally, I hate so-called "mash-ups," whether they are books, music or movies. I mean honestly, can't writers come up with their own original content?
As far as the article goes, I found it to be quite confusing,very jumpy and noticeably hard to follow. If I hadn't been determined to comment on it for my blog than I probably wouldn't have read past the first few paragraphs, interesting subject matter or not.

Life Lesson's From the Family Dog

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/life-lessons-from-the-family-dog/

I thought this column was a beautifully written and very moving piece addressing the importance of dogs in humans' lives. It demonstrated how inspiring dogs can be to their human companions, and how we should all really take a leaf out of a dog's book and live in the moment. Even when dogs get older they still find time to enjoy the simple pleasures in life.
Any pet owner who has lost an animal understands the horrible process of watching their beloved creature begin to fail and knowing there is nothing they can do about it. Animals are such big parts of the lives of people who love them. To the author, Dana Jennings, Bijou is not really "just a dog." No truly loved pet could ever be "just" an animal.
Animals can also be healers, not only physically but, even mostly, mentally. They give love unconditionally. And caring for an animal can give a sick person purpose as Jennings describes.
There really isn't much more I can say, the article pretty much says it all for itself. It was very sincere and heartfelt, Jennings' last sentence brought tears to my eyes.
I wish both Jennings and Bijou the best of health.

Madonna's Adoption Struggles

http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD97C6AH80%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=101
6&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCL3_UNEWS

This case is an interesting one, made all the more noteworthy in the public's
eyes because it involves a well-known celebrity. As far as I'm concerned, I know
Madonna is trying to help the child, but I think that if she really wants to
support Malawi in general she should probably follow their adoption laws.The way
I see it, there is a reason why these laws are in place. If Madonna thinks they
are too harsh and will prevent other suitable prospective, adoptive, parents
from adopting in the future then perhaps that is an issue she can address at a
later date. For now though, I think she should probably just comply and do what
it is they are asking of her. Obviously the rules are meant to be in the best
interest of the child. Besides, does her whole family really need to be dragged
into the spotlight becaue of this one issue? She may be used to it or not care,
but her other children are surely going to get their share of publicity.
I am tired of hearing of rules and laws being "bent" for celebrities. Many of
them say they want to be viewed "just like anyone else" but if that's the case
then they need to learn to deal with not getting everything they want simply
because of their social status. A little patience can't hurt and if Madonna
truly cares about this child, Mercy, then she should be content to wait.

To pun or not to pun?

This op-ed seriously made me laugh out loud. I thought it was cleverly and
humourously written. Part of the appeal in this op-ed is that it is
lighthearted, as I have said in previous posts it was nice to read something
that wasn't about war, the economy or death. The author, Joseph Tartakovsky,
took a regular, every day concept and wrote an entire piece about it.
Tartakovsky related well to his audience, providing personal anecdotes and
asking them to draw on their own experiences. I mean who hasn't groaned at the
corniest pun? I know I am constantly rolling my eyes at my father when he
decides it might be fun to quote something like Wigler's Bakery slogan ""Look
deep into our ryes." So. Cheesy. Tartakovsky even makes use of his subject
matter, the ever-contreversial pun, in his own piece.
On the matter of puns I have to say I am mostly inclined to agree with Dryden,
who called them the “lowest and most groveling kind of wit.” Especially if it
wasn't even thought up by the speaker.
I recognize that puns can have be useful in literature, particularly
rhetorically or to lighten the mood of the text, but it seems to me they still
add a certain cheapness. I am not a huge fan of puns, one or two is ok I guess
but when they get overwhelming I sort of tune them out and they become
redundant.

In some cases puns can be fun, such as in the novel "Night Mare," whose title
itself is a play on words. In this novel the puns and wordplay serve to keep the
reader on their toes, constantly sorting our the double entendres from the
literal statements. Still, puns can always be overdone.

Finally, I thought it was really interesting how Shakespeare's writing would not
have been considered full of puns but *word play* in his time. I had always
wondered why he would use a technique that is intended to be humouress when
talking about something serious. Because of the puns or wordplay, I would often
take the situation less seriously. However, if I were to now go back and reread
some of his works I would think differently.

Anyways, here's the link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/opinion/28Tartakovsky.html?_r=2&em