I didn't say that Michael's post was pro Michael Vick or pro animal fighting. My criticism is that he somehow found a political connection: "kneejerk liberal" and that there are certainly more worthy targets of his satire: i.e., those who feel the issue is detracting from the abortion "crisis," those who have turned it into a political issue (Michael for instance) and those who see a racial connection such as Al Sharpton or "Hymietown." (Actually, I'm not sure if either has come to Vick's defense yet, but I'm assuming it's a matter of time). I was confused as to Hadar's argument because at first he criticized the extreme media coverage and the hypocrisy, yet in a later post said he understands it, but didn't like the tone of my posts. In any case, I think the article was some misguided B.S. and also think it's scary that nobody aside from myself and Shaun felt the need to disagree, which says something about your readership. If it's not about Israel, politics or arguing some abstract concept, fuck it. The only way for Michael to prove me wrong about the article and the accompanying picture making light of the situation, would be to post an article making fun of those who speak out against kiddie porn along with a picture of two naked kids with lipstick.