Read by the judiciary?

A big hat tip to Grits for pointing to this article about blogs judges read. It was published in "Case-in-Point" the publication of the national judicial conference and lists, you guessed it, INDEFENSIBLE as one of the blogs judges interviewed for the article read.

Well thanks, and I have to say, I'm a bit surprised.

In other legal news, Michael Vick pled guilty today, insuring a prison sentence and risking a lengthy if not permanent ban from the NFL. Vick, of course is accused of hanging and beating weak fighting dogs to death. Now many of my opinions are wildly unpopular, but this may be even more so than usual.


Here's the thing: Almost everyone I talk to gets insane when they discuss this case. They want him in prison, they think a ban from the NFL is just. They seem to have less sympathy for a guy who tortures little doggies than even for some pedophiles. And yet, the irony of this position never seems to come up. I had a conversation about the case today over meatloaf. Really, with a group of lovely people, many of them wearing animal hides, and all of them scooping tortured animal into their mouths as they fulminated against evil Michael Vick.

Now sure, we're eating the animals we tortured and he was just beating the crap out of them for almost no reason at all, still, I can't help thinking that, once again, this guy is just the latest casualty of a puritanical culture of prosecution that is, ultimately, about what the Juvenal called way back in the first century, "bread and circuses."


Anonymous said...

Lay off the meatloaf. You're twice the size of when you worked at Brooklyn CDD. Have a salad, go for a walk or to the gym instead of spending all of your time shamelessly self-promoting yourself.

Anonymous said...

I and many others would also object to the meatloaf and leather.

But, strictly speaking, the cows weren't tortured. They were killed. And there lies the difference, I suppose.