Mike Vick or Iraq?
By: Matt H
Published On: 7/26/2007 11:03:03 AM
Few are bigger canine lovers than I am, and the actions of Mike Vick are horrific. PETA correctly has effectively organized a campaign to pressure the NFL and the general public to side against Vick's barbaric actions.
Yet, I wonder why after years of bloodshed in Iraq, and the thousands of Iraqi families that we have permanently destroyed (through no fault of their own), that we can't garner the same type of effective support to end the immoral mess that we've made in Iraq?
Our priorities, as a people, are as misplaced as the stupid actions of Mike Vick.
Comments
I strongly disagree. (Lowell - 7/26/2007 5:46:03 PM)
We can and SHOULD oppose cruelty to animals while also opposing cruelty to people.
My Point Is (Matt H - 7/27/2007 10:23:21 AM)
Why can't the war get the same coverage and reaction out of reticent people, and get them to act?
The real reason is because most of us really don't feel the effects of this supposed "war" in our personal lives (thanks to W), but most of us do have dogs and cats and see them daily.
Exactly right on the "real reason" (Lowell - 7/27/2007 10:38:00 AM)
There are lots of horrible human tragedies out there that get ZERO or next to zero coverage. For instance, the Cambodian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, the crushing poverty that still exists in this country, etc., etc. Basically, it's "out of sight, out of mind." And yes, what's "news" is also what the MSM thinks people can "relate to." In this case, people can definitely relate to dogs, football, and outrageously despicable behavior by a celebrity they feel like they "know." Usually, things going on overseas are harder because people don't "know" Cambodia, Rwanda...or Iraq. I'm not saying this is a good thing, just the way things are.