Best riff: Sexism isn't the reason she lost. She lost to a black guy nobody heard of. She didn't lose to "The Power." Oooh The Power got her. LOL.
UPDATE: More context here for Chris Rock's takedown of Clinton. Apparently Chris Rock did this immediately after Bill Clinton offered only tepid support for Obama--on the same show. Ballsy, to say the least. Gonna try and find full video of both. If anyone gets please link in comments and I'll post.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I feel like he was about to get into Nat X on the "moose killing/dog fighting" bit right before the commercial break.
Hahahaaaaahaha, that was genius. Also, Palin vs. Michael Vick cracked me up.
"Chablis" drinker Chris Rock?? Now now!
Chris Rock is proud of getting his GED few years ago, not an elitist, unless oyu being ironic?
He was on point there!
chris rock touches on a subject no one else wants to touch.
it's pretty obvious that hillary is already running for 2012.
i watched bill's "the view" interview, and i've seen several hillary interviews over the last couple of days and it could not be more obvious.
they are laying the rhetorical groundwork for her 2012 run, right now.
the day after the election, if barack loses - which seems more and more likely - she will be in front of the cameras with a few not too subtle, "i told you so's..."
both will perfunctorily "support" the ticket, but any thinking person will be able to see through the insincere public performance.
they are proving, once again, that they only care about themselves, and not the party.
Oh man, I'm gonna have to start handing out the sarcasm detectors at the door. An epidemic of the unfunny is upon us!
As an Alaskan, I particularly liked; "It's like the Road Warrior with snow."
(hey, if you can't laugh at yourself...)
"You let a white lady shoot a moose...
A black man want to kill a dog, that's a crime!"
Ha!
Chablis is America's most popular wine. Orson Welles told me so:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITDcf06OUYo
He had me up until Vick. Rock is funny-- why does he have to conjure the Cedric the Entertainer voice? It must take all of his 152 pounds to channel "wino shouting on the corner."
Chris is too funny. Dave seems uncomfortable though. When he finally lets the Clintons go you can almost hear Dave go "Thank You. Now please talk about something that won't get me in trouble."
I followed Andrew's link and loved the contrast--there's Bill, rambling on about how people will go into the booth, reflect on McCain's awesome heroism and all he has done for the country, then vote for the other guy, whatsisname. The audience was identifying with Chris Rock a lot more.
Brilliant cross-booking, Mr. Letterman. If the Clintons are going all in to the the extent of saying "we greatly admire John McCain's heroism and sacrifice, and we think Palin is gosh darned terrific, but we hope you'll vote for that other guy, whatsisname" then time to wave politely and move on. (I'm serious, incidentally--this election needs to be won regardless of what the two Clintons get up to, and fussing about how it all rests in their mighty hands is silly.)
During the primaries they seemed to feel that John admired Hillary so much he would pretty much get out of the way, providing her with a debating partner. This is so wildly at odds with reality that it's hard to fathom, but maybe they still feel that way.
I've been told that Pabst is the preferred beer of hipsters these days. So the Pabst-drinking whites are probably voting Obama anyway, if they're voting at all.
I almost peed my pants watching this...just too funny. Agree with Deborah...Brilliant cross-booking on the part of Letterman.
I think Bill is in trouble. Wonder what Larry King will be like tomorrow (you know he's going to roll that tape...)
Yikes.
Given the audience reaction, I think Rock knew he was in for the kill. The audience could tell Clinton was doing whatever he could to avoid saying Obama's name, and was waiting for Rock to state the obvious. As for the Palin-Vick joke, Rock was not saying that Vick should be let go, but that people need to a bit consistent in their outrage. Why is shooting a moose with a shotgun, then having your picture taken with the carcass, more humane?
"Why is shooting a moose with a shotgun, then having your picture taken with the carcass, more humane?"
Americans aren't too good with spotting their own hypocrisy. Especially when they're dressing their dogs up in Christmas sweaters while eating a bucket of KFC.
Bill's really the problem child here, not Hillary.
I caught Hillary this morning being interviewed on GMA. She was excellent, and on point, and said all the right things (even sincerely so) about Obama. I really do believe she's doing everything she should be to get Obama elected.
Bill? Yeah, not so much.
"You let a white lady shoot a moose...
A black man want to kill a dog, that's a crime!"
That's a good one! Its even worse when you think about aerial hunting.
I agree with Deborah as well. At first I thought it was too much for one show, but having Chris come out and say what I was thinking was as Hillary would say a cathartic moment.
"Would somebody tell him that she's not running?!" LOL.
Bill Clinton was a great president and is a smart man, but he is really how petty he can be. Alot of people have said that he is not the same person after the heart surgery.
Chris Rock really nailed the former president. It was a wake-em-up slap in the face sorely needed by Bill and Hillary. Obviously he shouldn't have equated moose hunting with dog fighting, but he was on a roll - not a lot of self-editing when you're out on the high wire. Rock is pretty genius. I feel lucky to have seen it as it went down last night.
He lost me at the Vick line. Hunting and dog fighting are not parallels.
The moose/deer/antelope is in the wild living its life and the goal of the hunter is a quick, painless kill.
The fighting dog's life, in contrast is full of unspeakably malicious and ongoing acts of cruelty, culminating in the dog having to fight or die, or be hung, drowned or slamned to the ground until dead if its owner is displeased.
Total bullshit. Why do people keep on trying to make excuses for Michael Vick?
Nah, Libertarian, what you are saying is total bullshit. Unless you're a vegan, spare me. Its not about making excuses for Michael Vick. Its about being able to recognize the hypocrisy in our society. And when it comes to animals, we are disgustingly hypocritcal.
Dogs are domesticated pets who look to their owners for their survival. If you honestly cannot see the difference in ongoing abuse of an animal and shooting the animal so it dies instantly, then I can't help you. Hopefully, you don't own any pets yourself.
Mother nature is a cruel mistress, but you don't have to be a vegan to recognize the difference between hunting and dog fighting.
And yes, it is exactly about making excuses for Michael Vick. What else would "see the white lady got away with killing a moose" be except an excuse.
"The moose/deer/antelope is in the wild living its life and the goal of the hunter is a quick, painless kill."
No one is excusing Vick, but people do wonder why promoting the shooting of animals from a plane is considered OK, but dog fighting crosses some invisible line of ethics. As Rock joked in his 2004 HBO special Never Scared, "Americans are the only people that go hunting on a full stomach."
Who said shooitng animals from airplanes is okay? Not me. I think its disgusting.
It crosses the line from "hunting" in it's traditional sense..man in wilderness with weapon up against beast into something quite different and unsavory.
But Sarah Palin didn't shoot a moose from an airplane, and it is my opinion that Rock's joke absolutely is a way of excusing Michael Vick and dog fighting in general. But, I guess its okay as long as its done at the expense of a white conservative Republican.
"Who said shooting animals from airplans is okay?"
Palin did - she promoted aerial wolf hunting as a more effective means of controlling the wolf population that the "traditional" sense of hunting on foot. Not only that, for their efforts, hunters could get $150 from the State of Alaska for a severed wolf leg. How much money was won in a dog-fight?
The whole notion of hunting in its traditional sense is largely Madison Avenue mythmaking, like the Marlboro Man. Unless you're driving a Canostoga wagon, most people, even Alaskans, do not hunt for survival - they hunt for pleasure. And since one's man pleasures can be another man's vices, hunters should need to do a little better than throw a hissy fit when they are reasonably compared to the sadistic personalities that would promote dog fighting.
"What else would "see the white lady got away with killing a moose" be except an excuse."
Umm, a joke? Idiot?
I'm not even really concerned about hunting v. dogfighting. I'm talking about the way that animals are killed and processed for food in this country. I eat the shit out of pork, beef, and chicken, but I also don't cry about Michael Vick. I'm sure that's difficult for you to see since you probably consider your dog a "part of the family." But that doesn't make you any less wrong.
Like I said, you either get the difference between hunting and dog fighting or you don't. If you don't I urge you to refrain from having pets and to give away any that you already have!
Awe, Stacy, did you never hear of humor being used to convey political and cultural messages? The fact that you have to resort to calling me an idiot is pretty indicative of your own um, level of intelligence or lack thereof.
Libertarian,
So we can clarify something - are you saying that every moose Palin shot was killed with the intention of eating it afterwards?
Did you even read my post? You didn't even address my point. You can't even defend it.
If you're saying things that make you sound idiotic, I'm going to call you an idiot. I don't need to waste words to do it. You are not any less of an idiot just because you put "lack thereof" at the end of your insult. Idiot.
Libertarian:
I really don't think Chris Rock was trying to excuse Michael Vick in any way. He, as several other commmenters have already said, was pointing out the irony and the hypocrisy of the situation. Gov. Palin shoots moose and other animals for sport, in addition to practicing aerial wolf hunting (shooting defenseless wolves on the ground while she flies overhead in a helicopter). Also, as Governor, she is fighting legislation to put polar bears on the endangered species list. Whether you consider one to be more barbaric than the other is your personal opinion, but Chris was just pointing out the fact that they both kill animals *inhumanely* for sport, yet Michael Vick is the one who is/was vilified for it.
I still love you and your objective "libertarian" ways, though.
"The whole notion of hunting in its traditional sense is largely Madison Avenue mythmaking, like the Marlboro Man. Unless you're driving a Canostoga wagon, most people, even Alaskans, do not hunt for survival - they hunt for pleasure. "
Wow. Do you ever get west of the Hudson, KXB? Ever been to America? There really are places where people hunt to stretch their incomes. Really. Out where the tooth-to-tattoo ratio is about 1-1. Don't go check for yourself though; you'd last about a day.
".........is largely Madison Avenue mythmaking...."
That was the giveaway, that New York-centric cluelessness. You need to get out a little more.
"Like I said, you either get the difference between hunting and dog fighting or you don't"
Yes - the difference is a matter of degree. Evidently, raising dogs to tear each other's flesh off is considered disgusting, but blowing a giant hole in the side of a moose in its natural habitat is family fun. Like Stacy, I am an unapologetic omnivore, but that does not blind me to animal cruelty. Just cause a pretty girl in glasses is holding a gun does not make her less of a sadist than a football star breeding dogs for fighting.
"Wow. Do you ever get west of the Hudson, KXB? Ever been to America? There really are places where people hunt to stretch their incomes."
KXB said most Americans hunt for pleasure and not survival. You disagree with this? Seriously? And that means KXB needs to get out more? Interesting.
So you're more upset at Palin being depicted as she has proudly stated she is rather than the animals killed?
Why are you even pretending that you are anything but Republican? It's not subtle, even to the dead moose.
"Wow. Do you ever get west of the Hudson, KXB? Ever been to America? There really are places where people hunt to stretch their incomes. Really. Out where the tooth-to-tattoo ratio is about 1-1. Don't go check for yourself though; you'd last about a day."
Well, I live in Chicago. I don't have a map on me - so I'll get back to you if that is west of the Hudson. I shot rifles and shotguns when I was a Boy Scout - of course hitting a tiny bullseye requires a certain degree of skill that is a bit more than required for hitting a large moose. I will readily admit that I was far better with a bow and arrow than with a rifle.
As for the idea that hunting continues to be a wonderful working class pastime:
"Ready, Fire, Aim" - The Economist, 2/16/2006
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VVNPNRS
Some extend select quotes:
"The biggest decline in hunters is taking place among the working class—among the “Deer Hunter” crowd in the small towns of the north-east, the rednecks of the South and the cowboys of the West. Their places are being taken by moneyed professionals, the sort of people who weren't brought up to hunt but who discovered that it is a good way to flash their money and make connections. The number of hunters with household incomes above $100,000 increased by more than a quarter in the 1990s. There are so many nouveaux chasseurs strutting around the canyons of Manhattan that both Holland & Holland and Barbour have opened shops there."
"Mr Cheney's own expedition was a lot closer to “Gosford Park” than “The Deer Hunter”—a group of fat old toffs waiting for wildlife to be flushed towards them at huge expense. There has also been a big increase in so-called “exotic hunting”, where guests not only go after indigenous species such as wolves and bears, but also blast away at imported zebras and giraffes. Convenience is essential for the hedge-fund crowd. Most exotic hunts take place in ranches from which the animals can't escape (Texas has 600). Exotic hunters can shoot elephants from cars or from the backs of other elephants, sometimes the orphaned calves of the victims of previous hunts. For the truly lazy there is “just-in-time shooting”, where animals are trained to turn up at certain hours, and “internet shooting”, where you can guide the gun from your desk. All this removes much of the inconvenience from hunting. It also removes its main justification—that it is the most natural way of culling local wildlife."
Moose: Living in its natural habitat until instantly killed by the bullet of a hunter. Good life until shot.
Dog: Tied to car axil, caged, given drugs, starved, beaten and forced to fight for its life, drowned/hung/beaten to death if it fails to please its master. Horrible life from beginning to end.
Get the difference now?
"Living in its natural habitat until instantly killed by the bullet of a hunter. Good life until shot."
This is a peculiar line of reasoning - that a violent death to a quiet life is an OK thing. Yes, when you compare it to the barbarity of dog-fighting. But again, the savagery is only a matter of degree.
Libertarian,
Perhaps you should have read the post above you before pretending it's so clear cut.
Every hunter is a perfect shot are they? Or just Sarah Palin? Some don't get wounded and have periods of intense pain and (probably) fear before they die?
And again, are we are defining hunting as killing for food, or just for the heck of it?
What is peculiar about it? We have the death penalty, we "humanely" put to death human beings.
Okay, so the animal is dead either way, but that isn't really the point.
Would you rather live your life as you choose and be shot in the head, dying instantly or be kept for several years in a cage where you were tortured to death?
You'd be dead either way, so I guess its just a matter of "degree"...or is it?
@ Stacy:
Is it too much to ask for you to stop calling people "idiot"? Seriously. I'm a little surprised TNC has not yet stepped in, given his clearly stated desire to maintain a civil environment, and since this is his house I may be out of line in speaking up.
Nevertheless: I haven't seen any provocation to justify all this namecalling over the last couple of days. I've got no particular brief for the guy you're yelling at, but it's rude, and it reflects poorly on you.
Would it be too much to answer neither? Not that Palin would hear you, as she flies by blowing your limbs off while Wagner fills the air.
I'm not sure the McCain points are worth this level of inanity.
"Would you rather live your life as you choose and be shot in the head, dying instantly or be kept for several years in a cage where you were tortured to death?"
Those are the only two options that any animal can look forward to? I guess being left alone is not an option in your world.
James,
I already gave you my definition of hunting..which is man in nature with a weapon where some degree of skill is required and the animal has a fighting chance. My definition of hunting does not include helicopters or cars or 'game preserves' where the game is tame.
It is true that not all animals are going to be shot and killed by every hunter, but that is the express purpose: a quick kill.
The express purpose of dog fighting is to inflict pain on the dogs over a long period of time.
I don't hunt, never have, never will unless it is necessary to keep from starving.
That doesn't mean I don't know the difference between hunting and dog fighting.
It's not the express purpose - it's a byproduct of idiocy and macho bullshit the way cock fighting is, but I think it's despicable.
The point is, so are Palin's actions - and you've brought a whole heap of comments on you for apparently not seeing the obvious comparison.
And yes, one may be worse than the other - but not sufficiently so that one is imprisoned and the other lauded.
"Is it too much to ask for you to stop calling people "idiot"?
Yes. You act as though insulting people in a condescending tone is any better as long as you're not actually "name-calling." I don't buy it. Juan is a troll. He deserves to be called names. If you think me using the word "idiot" says something about me, feel free to continue to think that.
I disagree, vehemently so.
All these comments do is show me again that liberals will defend anything that a fellow liberal says or does no matter what....you guys have now been reduced to arguing that dog fighting and hunting are morally equivalent and its unfair that one is legal and one is illegal. That is truly pathetic.
Libertarian,
The point of the joke was that both are animal murdering scumbags - not that all hunters were.
And you knew that.
Ditto what James said. How is one animal cruelty worthy of being sent to jail, yet the other form of animal cruelty marks one as "a real American"?
BTW - does anyone know what the reaction would be if we saw footage of Obama shooting animals from a helicopter, with a big smile on his face?
"All these comments do is show me again that liberals will defend anything that a fellow liberal says or does no matter what...."
I've always argued that dogfighting shouldn't be illegal. At least not until horse racing, dog racing, Tyson chicken, KFC, etc., are also made illegal. But you don't get it. However, this probably has more to do with you treating your dog like a human than it does me sticking up for any liberal.
Libertarian makes silly post after silly post on here. All under the guise of some rational objectivity. Well its bullshit, and he deserves to be called names. I won't do it anymore, though, because I know that's not how TNC wants it.
xoxo,
Stacy
However, this probably has more to do with you treating your dog like a human than it does me sticking up for any liberal.
---------------------------------------
LOL, since when is refraining from beating, starving, chaining, torturing or forcing a dog to fight means its being 'treated like a human'
Stacy, you're starting to really creep me out.
For the last time: the PURPOSE of dog fighting is that the animals are harmed over an extended period of time. The PRACTICE of dog fighting is inherently cruel.
While I agree that dog racing and horse racing should be illegal or at least much more strictly regulated, the PURPOSE is racing them, not harming them or killing them.
Libertarian,
Let's get back on track - if Palin is merely a hunter like many others, and like a very large number of presidential and VP nominees before her, why is it The Humane Society has made a public position for the first time ever?
Perhaps she's worse than most hunters, based not merely on hunting, but on policy, attitude etc.
And what do you think is the PURPOSE when Sarah Palin goes hunting?
"LOL, since when is refraining from beating, starving, chaining, torturing or forcing a dog to fight means its being 'treated like a human'"
You still don't get it, huh? I'm saying that the reason you are unable to see the hypocrisy is because you love your dog like a family member. That is obvious. Killing other animals doesn't bother you as much because you probably grew up with dogs, and you probably love the dog(s) you have now. Therefore, you are blind to the point that everyone is trying to make. You knit your dog sweaters and throw him birthday parties. You know what his favorite food is, and you love the way he cuddles with you when you watch Hannity and Colmes. You just can't imagine that anyone might view a dog and a pig the same.
I haven't stepped in because this debate--though a complete thread-jacking--is actually sort of interesting, if a little repetitive.
I hope my Rams sign Michael Vick as soon as he's released.
Stacy,
You actually do yourself a disservice with the name-calling, because readers will only remember the insult, not the argument.
The fault in Libertarian's argument, as I see it, is that he sees no relation between hunting and dog-fighting. Others, such as myself, argue that it is a matter of degree, and that while dog-fighting is worthy of condemnation, it does not somehow make modern-day hunting, which is done for fun and not for survival, somehow morally better. It's just a more acceptable form of cruelty. The idea that every animal that is shot dies instantly is absurd on its face.
For a point of view of a former hunter:
"To Hunt or Not to Hunt"
National Review
12/6/02
"The big buck burst out of a thicket, running right in front of us. His rack was magnificent. I was frozen. "Shoot him! Shoot him!" my father said. Or maybe he didn't. I don't know. I did finally fire, as he ran past, and my dad followed with his rifle. The buck kept flying. We thought we'd missed him, but when we found blood spots on the ground, we kept tracking him. A bit further ahead, we found him lying on a ridge, not dead. I took careful aim, then when he leaped up, I fired again. He didn't go far this time. We found him dead in a dirt road running alongside the Mississippi. He was trying to make the water, and swim out to an island to safety."
"The buck was gorgeous, a 13-pointer, as I recall. He lay there dead in the road, and all the men and boys came running to see what I'd done. This should have been the happiest day of my life to that point. Not many 13-year-olds kill a deer, and fewer kill such a trophy. After he gutted him, my dad brushed my cheeks with the deer's blood, which was a blessedly modest version of the standard initiation ritual (covering the rookie deer slayer's entire head in the blood of his prey). Everyone congratulated me, and I tried to be proud and excited, but I was sick inside. I felt horrible about what I'd done. That fine animal died because I was too afraid to tell my father that I didn't want to do this, that I didn't want to hunt deer for sport (I didn't eat venison), that there was no pleasure in it for me."
Dreher ends with the following:
"My dad, who is 68, doesn't hunt anymore. After a lifetime of sport hunting, with over 30 whitetail bucks, and countless squirrels, rabbits, ducks, and doves on his tally sheet, he gave it up years ago. His closet full of rifles and shotguns hasn't been opened for ages. I hadn't noticed. How come you quit? I asked him.
"I don't know," he mused. "I just got to the point where I couldn't stand killing."
I doubt very much the Humane Society took a public position because Sarah Palin hunts moose.
More than likely they took it because she heartily approves of shooting wolves from helicopters, probably thinks wolves becoming extinct would be a good thing and is suing, yes indeed, George Bush's Administration for listing polar bears as threatened, because even though she can see the effects of global warming and watch the ice sheets dissolving out her window, she doesn't care, doesn't want ANYTHING, especially some pesky animals getting in the way of energy development.
All those are good reasons to dislike Palin's policies, but NONE of that is relevant to Chris Rock's "joke" which equated hunting moose with dog fighting.
I already said the purpose of hunting is to shoot the animal and kill it, as opposed to the purpose of dog fighting which is to sit around and place bets on which dog will inflict more harm on the other dog.
Fine, well I will go back to work with my tail between my legs.
Peace!!!
Weighing in on this side conversation here:
1) I agree with Libertarian that dog fighting is not equivalent to hunting. Absolutely not. I also think that Chris Rock was trying to make a racial comparison. That (one line out of many) was a weak point. But his overarching point about Bill Clinton's tepid public support of Obama (and the narcissistic egoism that it stems from) is absolutely right.
2) My future father-in-law is a hunter. He was bred for hunting but many of his hunting companions are posers, for lack of a better word. The reality is that hunting is too expensive for most poor people, who live too far from places with edible food sources. Government subsidized, industrially-produced meat costs a whole lot less for pretty much everyone in the United States. You might bag a hundred pounds from a deer (and risk botulism and other food-borne illness) but its not going to pay off when you figure in the time, effort, and money (gas, vehicles, guns, bullets).
Unless you're scarfing down pigeons and squirrels, you're not stretching your income by hunting.
No, Libertarian, no.
He equated Vick with Palin.
Big difference.
And if you had bothered to read my post properly I pointed out that it's not because she hunts, but because she's an animal abusing scumbag.
But that would spoil your message.
Bullshit.
So now you're telling me that an over-rated, former NFL quarterback dog fighting thug doing time in federal prison is to be 'equated' with the sitting governor of Alaska and VP candidate for the Republican Party? That's rich.
Hunting moose does not make one an 'animal abusing scumbag'...dog fighting does. That's the difference as I see it. And it is a huge, huge difference.
Chris Rock couldn't resist going for the easy laugh with his audience...pitting the red neck white woman doing something legal against the poor, downtrodden black man, unfairly penalized and sent to jail for doing 'exactly the same thing'...
Black people being penalized for the 'same' thing that white people do is a long time Chris Rock staple.
Libertarian,
I didn't say hunting moose alone made Palin a scumbag.
Try to read before the whole thread gets taken down.
And try to find a coherent argument and stick to it - you're twitching about like that one in a million moose who doesn't get a clean, blissful instant death.
The "joke" referenced moose hunting, so Sarah Palin's views on polar bears or wolves are really irrelevant to the discusssion of what Chris Rock actually said and the comparison that was actually made. It feels to me like its you who keeps changing your rationale for why the joke/comparison is accurate.
I disagree. Period.
Hunting and dog fighting are not 'the same' or simply different degrees of animal abuse. They are universes apart and comparing them is based on flawed and specious reasoning.
In my opinion Rock degrades everything else in the piece by dredging up Michael Vick and dog fighting in a sympathetic manner.
How many dogs do you have Libertarian? You seem to have lost all rational thinking in this matter.
There is no degree which separates humans making animals fight, and humans killing solely for fun, which some hunters do?
Did you hate losing an argument as a child or something? You are going to ridiculous lengths to win something here which you don't even understand.
"Hunting and dog fighting are not 'the same' or simply different degrees of animal abuse. They are universes apart and comparing them is based on flawed and specious reasoning."
Both involve the actions of human to either harm or end the life of an animal. In a fight between two dogs - one will survive to fight another day. Between hunter and animal - no such odds.
I'm never going to "win" this argument..as I said earlier, either you get it or you don't.
You're never going to admit that hunting and dog fighting aren't equivalent, no matter what I say.
A lot of people, even some on this board, think all animal cruelty laws are stupid. They're "just_____" and nobody should ever go to jail for harming an animal.
Humans can invent any number of rationalizations for whatever it is they want to believe at any given time.
The difference isn't what is in the mind of the hunter, it doesn't matter if they're hunting for sport or food, what matters is that the goal of the hunter is to immediately kill the animal...which is, one more time TOTALLY DIFFERENT than the goal of the dog fighter, which is to sit around and watch two dogs tear each other apart for a couple of hours until one is dead or almost dead...when you add in the "training" that goes into dog fighting...bait animals, and all the rest of it...the comparison is ridiculous. Ridiculous.
Libertarian,
You really don't read.
I did not say they were equivalent.
But you however say that there is no degree which connects them on any level whatsoever.
Who is kidding themselves really?
And how suddenly are you entering the mind of every single hunter to know what they are thinking?
I'm amazed at how you simply choose an argument which no one is making and yet still end up on the losing side of it.
baffling.
"You're never going to admit that hunting and dog fighting aren't equivalent, no matter what I say."
Where has anyone argued equivalency? People have argued that hunting and dog fighting run along a spectrum that views animals as being there for our amusement. Baseball and football are both sports, but they are not equivalent. So stop slamming an argument that no one is making.
"The difference isn't what is in the mind of the hunter, it doesn't matter if they're hunting for sport or food, what matters is that the goal of the hunter is to immediately kill the animal"
Again, why is an instant death of an animal, when it is not for one's survival, such a wonderful thing? It's already been pointed out that hunting is not something Americans do to survive, and increasingly, it is not something that is done to control animal populations. Increasingly, it is done simply killing for the sake of killing.
Let's see.
Do hunters starve their prey to make them show more "game"? Feed them drugs?
Do hunters use smaller animals as bait, e.g. as practice to make their pray more game?
Do hunters use rape stands?
Do hunters, when they are displeased with their prey, drown, stab, hang, shoot, drag from the back of a truck or otherwise torture the animal?
Do hunters throw their injured but still alive prey out in alleys, garbage cans or out of cars?
Do hunters keep their prey chained up on a car axil or in a cage?
Do hunters mistreat and abuse their prey to make them show more game?
The answer to all of these questions is NO, and that is the difference.
I'm outa here. Please, people...don't get any pets of your own!
Libertarian,
It's a shame you're using the 'outa here' excuse. I'd just got you a water bowl and kennel in matching colors.
I'm less concerned by the moose than the $150 bounty for a wolf's left leg.
In general I find Palin's creationism less of a concern than her destructionism.
Do modern American hunters engage in hunting in order to survive? Do hunters find themselves under constant deer attack? You said it best:
"The answer to all of these questions is NO, and that is the difference."
All those are good reasons to dislike Palin's policies, but NONE of that is relevant to Chris Rock's "joke" which equated hunting moose with dog fighting.
I agree with you, Libertarian, but c'mon....it was a joke. Go have a glass wine, or a joint or something, and try to regain your sense of humor.
Bill Clinton... that cracker didn't go crazy...THAT CRACKA WENT CRACKA!
Bill Clinton... that cracker didn't go crazy...THAT CRACKA WENT CRACKA!
Now, THIS was funny.
I am amused by folks debating Palin's hunting and Vick's dogfighting.
As someone who doesn't give a rat's ass about animals in any way, I see no dilineation between what either one did. They are on the same level to me, so I thought Rock's joke about Michael Vick was on point.
Count me in the number of folks who doesn't see any significant difference in dogfghting and hunting, except that, well, at least the dog has a shot of coming out alive...
Sure there's a lot of other things that are not dogfighting per se- things how they're housed or executed whatever else, but dogfighting to hunting straight up, I dunno, the comparison is a pretty good one in my eyes.
Doesn't excuse Mike Vick, breaking the law is breaking the law, even if I dont think the law makes a lot of sense... In fact id been more inclined to suggest getting rid of hunting than allowing dogfighting.
The comparison is about the hypocrisy of the law and the associated outrage/adoration, not so much excusing mike vick.
But I'm also one who's not particularly sympathetic to animals. I've had pets, dogs etc., loved em, but those were my pets
any random cow,mink, moose, wolf, whatever, are little skin off my back given all the stuff real live humans deal with on the daily. eat em, wear em, whatever.
Has nothing to do with Hillary. Bubba is the first black president and don't you forget it!
"So now you're telling me that an over-rated, former NFL quarterback dog fighting thug doing time in federal prison is to be 'equated' with the sitting governor of Alaska and VP candidate for the Republican Party?"
Posted by Libertarian | September 23, 2008 4:16 PM
Certainly not, Libby. It would be grossly unfair. Michael Vick has more foreign policy experience (he has visited more states than Palin ever dreamed of),has no ties to secessionists who hate America, is not a religious nut-job, and has been far more willing to talk to the press about his various misdemeanors. The comparison is, if anything, vastly flattering to Palin.
Now, now, kids, don't go defending Michael Vick and making him seem like a human just because Libertarian has gotten a bee in his bonnet.
let me recapture what this was about.
Bill Clinton can't let the primaries go. Chris Rock is mad at him and says so. Chris Rock feels that Sarah Palin is an evil human for hunting. He equates her to a really bad person, Michael Vick. This is perhaps a bit over the top, since Michael Vick is a horrible slime bag and Sarah Palin is merely stupid and irritating. However, Chris Rock has a made a career of pointing out double standards. he is also a _comedian_ not a newsreporter. He is required by the comedian's bylaws to be over the top.
Let's all get nice cup of tea now, shall we?
lebecka, I think you underestimate the malignant evil that Palin represents. Sure, Vick is an unpleasant scumbag at best - but Palin is willing to cozy up to the hardcore right-wing headbangers to get ahead. She's an infinitely greater threat to civilization than the former Falcon.
"As someone who doesn't give a rat's ass about animals in any way, I see no dilineation between what either one did. They are on the same level to me, so I thought Rock's joke about Michael Vick was on point."
I'm with rikyrah & Green on this one. I'm no animal lover, far from it. Still, there's no difference between what Palin does by hunting & what Vick did in terms of cruelty to animals, UNNECESSARY cruelty to animals, it's all the same thing. To rationalize it any other way, is just hypocrisy...
I had to check a lot of White people I knew when the whole Vick thing was going on. And I'm making that distinction because no one Black I knew got half as worked up about Vick as far as acting like he was the Anti-Christ. And which is why Chris Rock made the comment re:Black man kills a dog & goes to prison, a white woman shoots a moose & nobody cares...
Bottom line: Whether you're hunting down an animal or fighting it or whatever, it's all mean as hell & it's all animal abuse, since hunting, dog racing, horse racing, dog fighting, etc. is totally for sport, not serving any real purpose.
It's just that different societies deem some forms of animal mistreatment as more acceptable than others, based on how the animal in question is regarded in their culture.
Look at parts of Asia, where they eat dogs. You can actually go to the markets & there are dog carcasses hanging, waiting to be bought, taken home & cooked up for Sunday dinner. Do you think that's cruel? What about Spain? Bullfighting is horrendous, it's brutal, but over there, they consider it an art.
Just depends on where you're at.
And in this country, Americans love the hell out of their damn dogs, that's why everyone vilified Michael Vick with such vigor...among other reasons...
Like that one sportswriter said, Vick would've been better off raping someone, he would've gotten a lot less grief for it...
Rock's comparison of these two characters isn't just a dramatic exaggeration nor is it "over the top". He's pointing out the hypocrisy of our society & he's dead on ...
The "respect" we have for hunting moose as opposed to torturing dogs through dog fighting rests on a simple fiction, that the moose that are shot die a quick and comparatively painless death. Er, no. Inevitably, some moose, some deer, some bears, whatever get shot and maimed, but don't die right away. They go into the woods and bleed to death, or they get an infection then die. Why that reality is somehow more acceptable than having one dog tear another one's throat out is beyond me. I say both are barbaric and, not surprisingly, generally engaged in by people of lower educational and socioeconomic status, just as with cock fighting and "mixed martial arts" -- human cock fighting.
"He lost me at the Vick line. Hunting and dog fighting are not parallels."
I don't think they are either, but I sort-of got where he was coming from. I think when it comes to things involving animals we may have a bit of a double-standard, even if an understandable one, when it comes to region and culture and to an extent race too. Her "Wild West" image likely meant even if she had been involved in dog-fighting it could make her, to some, sound more like a character out of a Jack London novel than one out of crime series.
Or possibly he meant that it's wrong to kill animals for reasons other than food regardless of the particulars. Granted some state she did make use of the animal for pelts and food, but even if this is the case I think it's unlikely she had to do so. She's not exactly rich, but she's not impoverished either and she lived in a town which I assume has a grocery store. I have known people who lived "off the land", but they're usually wildly eccentric or live in a shack in the country. (I still don't know much about her, maybe she has an ethos against eating "demoralized factory farm animals" and prefers hunting. Somehow I doubt that)
I find it amusing that so many people think it's impossible that some hunters do actually hunt for food. My husband worked on a movie in Montana and we met a lot of people that had a freezer full of poached deer and antelope that they relied on to get them through the winters when the seasonal work dries up.
There are still country places in America where people have little money and little work and they actually grow and hunt their food.
I knew people in Alaska, homesteaders, who hunt moose and canned the meat. They live like the pioneers of the old West. Sarah Palin is obviously not one of them but this way of life is a norm in Alaska.
Libertarian, I am one who understands the point you have been trying to make.
I already gave you my definition of hunting..which is man in nature with a weapon where some degree of skill is required and the animal has a fighting chance.
'Hunting' moose is like shooting cows in a field.
I knew people in Alaska, homesteaders, who hunt moose and canned the meat. They live like the pioneers of the old West.
What's the term that Philip Goureyvich used in his New Yorker piece? Oh, yeah: subsidized subsistence. They get money shipped up in wheelbarrows from DC and in exchange they get to pretend it's the 1890s Wild West, and the rest of conservative America gets to think it's kinda neat, because 'hunting culture' (aka 2% genuine subsistence hunters, 96% fat fucks shooting animals for kicks, 2% Sarah Palins) is privileged in America.
Vick's scum, Palin's scum, the joke was funny.