Fugs and Pieces, August 19, 2011



– Are you in Los Angeles? Do you like pretty things? How do you feel about drinks, and Karl Lagerfeld? Come hang out with us at the Macy’s in the Beverly Center on August 30th and buy his new diffusion line — early!  We can’t wait to meet you guys. (And if you have a copy of SPOILED that you’d like us to sign while we’re there shopping, bring it!)

– This obituary — of a woman who was a British spy during WWII — is going to make you wonder if you’re doing enough with your life.  Because she was straight-up awesome. (Washington Post)

–  I passionately love this essay about dollhouses. J Courtney Sullivan, I FEEL YOU. I totally want a dollhouse again. And I recognize that might be kind of weird? But I am 36. I’ve embraced the fact that sometimes I am kind of weird. (NY Times)

– Taylor Momsen QUITS ACTING FOREVER, designs her own line of boob tape. One of those statements is true. (Elle)

– The best part of this Ron Swanson-theme TV dinner is his “endorsement” on the front. (Vulture)

– This piece on RHoBH’s Russell Armstrong’s sad suicide this week, and what it may mean for Bravo, is very interesting. (Daily Beast)

– Whereas this essay about going to The Gathering of the Juggalos is a) really interesting AND b) confirms that I DO NOT WANT to go to the Gathering of the Juggalos.  (Deadspin)

– This is a really good article about Michael Vick, even if you’re not a football fan. (GQ) [Editor's note: I want to quote here what I put in the comments, because some people are -- unfairly -- extrapolating that us linking to this article means that we support dogfighting and/or are cheerleading for Michael Vick. I'm not sure how anyone came to that conclusion, considering the article itself, which is a well-written attempt to present every side of Vick the author witnessed, calls into question the sincerity of Vick's new image. Let me quote myself: "We weren’t saying we support Michael Vick. We were saying it’s a good article. And it IS a good article... The information in that article is fascinating, because it reopens the question of whether Michael Vick is being sincere, or whether Michael Vick is playing the role he thinks he has to play. And I think that is a really valuable question to ask." -- H]

–These photos of New York going from day time to night time in one frame are seriously cool. (Flavorwire)

Does the cover of Rolling Stone mean anything any more? Dudes, they put J. Simp on the cover. (Grantland)

Francis Bean Cobain turned out awfully pretty. Somehow she looks like her dad, AND her mom, AND Madonna? (Celebitchy)

– I love DanRad. (Lainey Gossip)

– Big thanks to Figment for this interview about Spoiled! (Figment)

Leave a reply

Comments (51):

  1. Karen

    Did you see Zap2It’s History of Taylor Momsen? It is hilarious and profoundly depressing:

  2. liz

    Perhaps I am misinterpreting Michael Vick’s words but it seems to me that he is justifying his involvement in dog-fighting. Lots of people grow up in poverty but they don’t participate in inhumane activities. And by “A lot of people got out of it after my situation, not because I went to prison but because it was sad for them to see me go through something that was so pointless, that could have been avoided.” Does he mean that the something that was pointless and could have been avoided was his involvement in dog-fighting or does he mean that it was pointless to bust him for it? He goes on to say it was unfortunate that he had to take the heat for it which leads me to believe that he feels martyred by going to prison and remorseful for the horrific crime in which he participated. And seriously: “it was people trying to make some money”?! When Michael Vick was busted for dog-fighting he was in a multi-year, multi-million dollar contract with Atlanta. I think his entourage was probably well taken care of without the money that this “sport” brought in. So, after all of that, what I am getting to is that I disagree with your assessment “this is a really good article about Michael Vick” – he has been punished for his crime but I don’t think he actually learned anything from it. He’s just surrounded himself with a bunch of paid mouthpieces that are putting up a public image for him. It’s all about the money. Still.

  3. liz

    Oops – meant NOT remorseful about his crime.

  4. Gabby

    I’m going to have to take issue with the description of Nancy Wake as British – she was born in NZ and grew up in Australia. Don’t be denying us colonials our due!

  5. Miranda

    Frances Bean has her dad’s eyes and cheekbones, a toned-down version of her mother’s jawline and lips, and apparently that equation = slight Madonna resemblance. She’s beautiful, and so far she seems relatively well-adjusted, considering. Hopefully it stays that way.

  6. DanerKebab

    In the second picture, Frannie Beanie also looks like Kate Winslet.

  7. candice

    i always love your link collections. the articles about the balloon journey across the North Pole from last week, and the obituary above, are just stupendous. A+ for continuing to represent us smart ladies who like clothes.

  8. Heather

    I wholeheartedly agree with every point Liz makes.

    Michael Vick isn’t sorry. He’s sorry *he* got caught.
    He IS, however, a sorry excuse for a human being.

  9. Becky

    I love the doll house article. I consider it one of the key bonuses of having children. I have a nearly four year old daughter who, up until now, has only had an ugly plastic Playskool doll house.

    For her birthday this year, I’m buying a real doll house — one that I will likely need to assemble (with her help). And I’ll help her furnish it and whatnot. It’ll still be a kids’ toy that she can use and abuse, but at least I’ll get to play along. :)

  10. sbfren

    OK, also loved the dollhouse article. And felt less weird… I just recently rescued the dollhouse my (long deceased) father made me when I was three and updated with wallpaper, better furniture, and even electricity as I got older. Now it’s got pride of place in the guestroom/study. Because if you’re not going to give it space, why keep it?

  11. annieb

    Nancy Wake – absolute legend.

    Everyone should read her biography by Peter Fitzsimmons (a well known Aussie ex-rubgy player)

  12. EC

    I’m so, SO disappointed in you two. Systematic TORTURE (I’m talking drowning, electrocution, and mutilation) of dogs is not a mistake. It is not an instance of poor judgment. Someone who enjoys watching innocent creatures tear at each other until one or both are dead is a sick, evil motherfucker. He built a mini-empire of it. He drowned and electrocuted dogs that lost. He cut the ears off of dogs to make them better fighters. If you want to post something in Fugs and Pieces, why don’t you post this article about the group that rescued the dogs he tortured and mutilated:


    But, hey, he’s a great football player and that’s the most important thing.

  13. lisa

    I honestly thought you wrote “Francis Bean Cobain turned out pretty awful.”

    And of course, I clicked the link.

    The glamorized cigarettes are lame.

  14. Emily

    I’m pretty certain Francis Bean got plastic surgery. Take a look at photos of her over the last 3-4 years. But yes, she’s quite lovely now.

  15. trib

    As an Aussie, Nacy Wake is super-high in our cultural conscience. Nice to see you Yanks giving her the recognition she deserves.

  16. trib

    And even nicer if I could spell *Nancy*.

  17. Eden

    Nancy Wake – RIP

    Off for a gin and tonic in her honour!

  18. mandasant

    Thank you, Liz and EC, for putting into words that which I was too angry to articulate. I’m incredibly disappointed that an article about Michael Vick was linked to from this site.

  19. JessBee

    Regarding Francis Bean – I looked at the pics from three or four years ago and while I think she MAY have gotten a nose job, I think mostly she just lost a TONNE of weight. She had high cheekbones and a round face/long chin even when she was younger.

    Regarding the Michael Vick article – he committed a crime and paid the price for it. I’m not condoning dog-fighting, but the nature of the crime, combined with his celebrity status means that people are going to be curious about why he did it, what he’s doing now, etc. That isn’t wrong and the Fug Girls had every right to link to article about him that they found interesting. Good grief, it’s not like they linked to website with tips on how to become a better dog-fighter. I mean, I can read an article about Michael Vick and NOT think to myself: “Huh. Well I guess dog-fighting isn’t so bad. I wonder how I get involved.”

    Just because we don’t like something, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t learn about it – and learning about it is not the same as endorsing it.

  20. Nancy

    I love animals. I do dog rescue, and sometimes, I get dogs from the south who have been used as bait in pitbull fights. Many of these are pits, themselves. Sweetest dogs ever.

    I hate Michael Vick. His karma will get him.

  21. Heather

    Wait a minute — we weren’t saying we support Michael Vick. We were saying it’s a good article. And it IS a good article. It’s valuable to read about subjects that appall and shock us and teach us how to be better. And the information in that article is fascinating, because it reopens the question of whether Michael Vick is being sincere, or whether Michael Vick is playing the role he thinks he has to play. And I think that is a really valuable question to ask. Nowhere in this post did we say we are fans of Michael Vick, or that we think Michael Vick is a role model. You are extrapolating that, grossly unfairly.

  22. Jessica

    “Good article” means “interesting,” “thought-provoking,” “well-written,” and “worth a read.” I’ve said the same thing about articles about unsolved murders. AT NO POINT did I say I support Michael Vick — and at no point did that article, actually, make that argument either.

    I have NEVER excused someone’s behavior on the basis that they’re good at sports. Do not assume that I am a proponent of dog-fighting (!) simply because I offered an interesting read – in a major publication, by one of my favorite writers about sports – about a man who went to jail for it. I have had dogs my entire life, I am a generous donor to the Pasadena Humane Society, and I would never, EVER, EVER condone such disgusting behavior.

    In fact, I’d argue that NOT discussing the aftermath of Vick’s criminal activity actually makes it easier for people, especially sports fans, to pretend it never happened; the fact that GQ is asking these questions at all may make a lot of people — especially men, who are the primarily demo for the publication — think about more than just Vick’s prowess on the field. I can’t see how that’s a bad thing. Continuing to talk about what he did doesn’t help him AT ALL. It helps everyone else.

  23. katie

    I want a dollhouse so bad. This quote perfectly sums up why:

    I understood completely. But if we had an actual house, I’m pretty sure my desire for a dollhouse would slip away. Perhaps my interest has something to do with the fact that I have spent my 20s living in no more than two rooms at a time. As a little girl, my dollhouse allowed me to imagine a big, perfect, grown-up life in which I’d be effortlessly domestic. Today, it serves a similar purpose. It’s like my personal version of fantasy baseball camp.

    Plus, I watch so much HGTV and I can’t do any of those things in my little apartment.

  24. jennifer

    I think some people *coff* EC *coff* liz *coff* owe you an apology…

    I have to agree with you that it does need to be talked about. It would be much more convenient for Vick if it just went away. And I agree too that Vick seems very insincere and to be playing a role the public wants to see.

  25. Alicey

    Holy crap at that last photo of Frances Bean Cobain. I’m a big Nirvana fan, and it’s like her daddy’s staring right at me.

  26. Brooke

    I agree that the Michael Vick article was fascinating. I was left thinking about the questions the author brought up for quite awhile–and I agree that they are important questions to ask. I also foster dogs from high-kill shelters. That doesn’t mean I or others who love dogs like I do should shut out learning about the people or the instances of cruelty that we don’t approve of. Thank you for providing the link. I wouldn’t have come across it otherwise.

  27. Karen

    Irrespective of whether or not the article about Vick is well-written, the question I have is why give this monster any of our attention? It hurts my heart and my soul to hear his name and I hate that I had to read it here, a place I come for fun and enjoyment.

    I have met some of the surviving Vick dogs and I wish that any further attention given to this matter would be directed away from Vick and to the surviving dogs and the rescue groups and individuals who are working to help these dogs have better lives.

    Is there really any value to pondering whether an amoral sociopath has changed or – SHOCKING!!!! — he’s just pretending to change so he can have his old life back? Not to put too fine a point on it but DUH. Did we need an article to tell us that?

    You can’t unlearn being evil, violent and cruel. You can’t teach somone not to take pleasure out of slamming a dog against a concrete floor or watching a living creature be mauled to death. Either those things repluse you or they don’t. If they don’t, you were born with something missing and no amount of therapy and/or spiritual rehab can build that into you. You can call it evil or sick but it’s permanent. Talk to any mental health professional about the efficacy of trying to teach empathy if it’s not already present.

    The time has passed for sports fans to show their mettle by rejecting Vick. They embraced his return. He has endorsements back, his NFL contract back and the fans in Philadelphia and other cities are content to pay money to watch him play. I understand the desite to hope that if these people only learned about what he ‘really” is, they would reject him – I believed that once too. It’s not the case. There is no educational value in further attention paid to him because sports fans have already proven they don’t give a shit about what he did – they may think they love animals, they mave dogs that they love but when push comes to shove, they aren’t willing to give up watching football in order to demonstrate their contempt. Enjoying football means way more to them than disassociating themselves from a sport that employs a monster. I have talked to Phily fans and they say the abhor Vick but regardless they will continue to support the team. They love football too much to give it up. That’s the bottom line.

    I disagree that there is any value to continuing to talk about him. People have had their opportunity to make choices based on his behavior, which has been throughly documented already. It’s tough to swallow but they have chosen him. And 1000 more articles coudl be written and that would not change.

  28. Linney

    I absolutely think the article on Michael Vick is interesting and I am glad you brought it to my attention. My husband watches a lot of football, and often, I overhear the commentators talk about what a dramatic change Michael Vick has made to his life and I always rolled my eyes listening to them claim he’s not a bad guy. I’ll be the first to admit I heard about his actions (supporting the Humane Society and throwing his encouragement behind anti-animal cruelty bills) and took it with a giant boulder of salt. And now I know my instincts were correct in mistrusting his motivations. The handlers, the “woe is me and nobody loves me and it was culture” attitude sounds like a whole lot of bullshit to me. He continues to disgust me. And he’s right-I don’t like him and I barely consider him human. Of course, I wonder how he could think he deserves more when he treated living beings as fire kindling.

  29. EC

    Liz and I should apologize? Really?! I presume there is a comment function on this site for the purpose of allowing people to comment, and I further presume that comments are not limited to the sycophantic. It’s acceptable to write, “I find this article interesting and informative, thank you for sharing it” but not, “I find this article disgusting and apologist and am disappointed that you shared it”? That’s too bad. (But thanks anyway to Karen, who posted a much better written and better thought-out piece representing the latter perspective than I did.)

  30. Jessica

    Of course you are entitled to your opinion — you’re allowed to be disappointed in whatever you like. Just as I am entitled to be surprised that you would jump to the conclusion that I support Vick just because I posted an article which actually calls his sincerity into question and wonders if we SHOULD support him. That article, to my mind, was not at all apologetic — the final paragraph of it is essentially a condemnation of the very people who DON’T care that he’s just saying he’s sorry for PR. To my mind, it’s neither disgusting NOR apologist, but rather completely the contrary.

  31. Tifanny

    pitbulls has that masculine physique.. It makes them look stronger than most of their kind.

  32. liz

    In no way did I suggest that you support dog-fighting. However, every click to that article sends a message to GQ and it’s advertisers (as does every Nike purchase) and that message is that Michael Vick sells. And we absolutely need to have conversations about animal cruelty and dog-fighting but Michael Vick should in no way profit from those conversations. His pockets will continue to be lined so long as WE the consumers indicate, whether intentionally or not, that we have an interest in bastards such as Michael Vick.

  33. EC

    I am not the only one who found offensive the “[R]eally good article about Michael Vick” comment, followed by a link to an article that lets him rant about how unfairly he’s been treated (without the author ever *really* calling him on it). But whatever. I’m the bad guy. Fine.

    It’s not interesting or enlightening for me (and at least a decent chunk of your readers, if the comments serve as a microcosm for your readership, as I think they do) to listen to a psychopath defend himself. For those who found this article enlightening, great. But many of use didn’t, and I don’t think we should be dismissed or condemned for voicing that.

    I think what offends so many of us are these repeated references over the past years in numerous journalistic pieces to Vick’s “involvement in dog fighting,” full stop. I have yet to see a mainstream publication delve into the details, and I fear that most American dismiss what he did as throwing a couple bucks down on the canine equivalent of a boxing match. That would be bad enough, but for those of you who don’t know this already: According to the federal indictment, he “tested the dogs in fights, then shot, electrocuted, or hung [sic] dogs who did not perform well … Vick executed approximately 8 dogs that did not perform well in ‘testing’ sessions … by various methods, including hanging, drowning, and slamming at least one dog’s body to the ground.” That he “h[anged] approximately three dogs ‘by placing a nylon cord over a 2 X 4 that was nailed to two trees located next to the big shed. They also drowned approximately three dogs by putting the dogs’ heads in a five gallon bucket of water.” They killed one dog by “slamming it to the ground several times before it died, breaking the dog’s back or neck” and “executed the losing dog by wetting the dog down with water and electrocuting the animal.” It should scare the hell out of all of you that he’s out walking the streets a free man, let alone that he’s hero worshipped.

    I think you two are hilarious and great writers. But, for a lot of us, this article is one in a line of many (and we are tired of them!) that concentrate on whether or not he’s convincingly making the PR rounds of pretending to be sorry for what he did (and whether or not that’s “interesting”), rather than where we think the focus should be: on the HORROR of what he did. What has touched a nerve here, I think, is that, of all the things at your disposal to share, you would choose this. I think many of us feel that if you are going to give attention to the Michael Vick issue it should be to something that focuses on the poor, wretched creatures he tortured and killed or on the organizations that have tried to save the ones who survived. NOT ON HIM. Obviously it’s your site and you may post whatever you like. I’m just surprised at YOUR surprise that your link has generate as much vitriol as it has.

  34. Andrea

    Second annieb’s call for everyone to read the biography on Nancy Wake. She was an amazing person and the book really gets into what made her tick.

  35. Genevieve Johnson Heinrich

    @Karen – Wow. You know what “repulses” me? The idea that you can just shave off vast swathes of humanity as amoral and unworthy of further effort. The self-obsessed moral absolutist high ground from which you can pass judgment on who is “righteous” and who is “evil” and declare that those designations will remain with them throughout their lives. Those things repulse me.

    I didn’t read the article, because I don’t give a crap about football or the folks who play it, regardless of what they do in their personal lives. I am, however, a bit passionate about criminal justice, and it is utterly unjust to unilaterally decide that someone’s crimes make them beyond redemption and incapable of learning compassion. Maybe it’s just because I’ve watched “A Christmas Carol” more often than “Law & Order: SVU,” but I’m pretty certain that an intrinsic part of what makes us human is our ability to learn from our mistakes, to grow and change and to evolve. That’s not to say he has – that’s just to say that it’s possible, no matter your crime, to rehabilitate yourself and to become a better person.

  36. Amz

    For a second I honestly believed that Taylor Momsen had designed her own line of boob tape.

  37. liz

    Genevieve, yes, it is possible to rehabilitate yourself. Rehabilitation takes a lot of effort, a lot of introspection, accepting that you have done something horrendous, believing that what you did was wrong, and truly wanting to change those things about your character. Michael Vick possesses none of those. Not everyone can or wants to be rehabilitated.

  38. Annie

    I’m really surprised that linking to a GQ article, regardless of it’s subject, has caused so much controversy.

    I think the bottom line here is – if you don’t want to read/contribute to/or otherwise boost MV’s google trend numbers, then don’t read the article.

    The Fug Girls consistently present varied content on their fugs and pieces section, and you have the ultimate last say as to whether or not you want to interact with that content.

    Voice your opinion all you want, but the inclusion of a link has now become a shame-able offense?

  39. Karen

    @ Genivieve
    Right back at you. People like you who refuse to take a moral stand because “everyone deserves a second chance” sicken me. Not everyone deserves a second chance. Some acts are so sickening and inhuman that they mean that the person who committed them is beyond redemption and forgiveness. I have zero problem making that judgement. The man who kidnapped Jaycee Dugard is beyond redemption and foregiveness. He should not get a second chance. A second chance is for people who make mistakes. Monsters who kidnap and rape children are not making a mistake that they can bounce back from and move on to become a healthy functioning member of society, regardless of how many people want to believe in that fantasy view of the world.

  40. silly philly

    Thank you Heather and Jessicia–that Vick article IS a good one. Good to find a reasonable take since I’ve become damned irrational about the topic. Also nice to hear something relatively unbiased because, good grief, he has a family member on city council here.
    While I know his saga was national news, it’s local news for me and got to the point I tuned his name out because I could not listen to one more yutz make excuses for him. A couple coworkers toured the former dog-fighting compound and delighted in reporting back how disgusting and appalling it was–yeah? No shit, I could have told you that without driving out there and feeding the “Vick Estate Opens to Public!” media frenzy.

    I do hate the abuse he caused/allowed and hold him responsible, but he was never alone in it. His “buddies” should that their lucky stars he didn’t start naming names…

  41. megs283

    love the links, ladies. Thank you for directing me to new and interesting sites every week! My bookmarks toolbar is growing. :-)

  42. megs283

    love the links! Thank you for directing me to new and interesting sites every week! My bookmarks toolbar is growing. :-)

  43. Noire

    Wow! I’m honestly surprised at the accusations flying left and right here, especially at Heather and Jessica! I fail to understand how saying that an article is “interesting” is, in any capacity, supporting the actions of Michael Vick, or animal torture in general. If you don’t want to read an article because you don’t agree with Michael Vick’s actions, then don’t read it! By the same token, if you don’t want to give Michael Vick any of your attention because you understand what he did was inhumane, evil, and sociopathic, then don’t click on the link! But to accuse people WHO YOU DON’T KNOW of supporting animal torture, that’s just wrong. For the record, I do agree with many of you that Michael Vick is an incredibly sick sadist who potentially has no remorse for what he did. But denoting interest in something does not also indicate that a person agrees with the content. To me thats really a no-brainer.

    For the record, I am the proud owner of four rescue dogs, I am a vegetarian, and my life long goal is to open a no-kill dog rescue for abandoned animals. I do think what Michael Vick did was disgusting, and I chose not to read the article because I dont really care what he has to say in his defense. Because I have been granted free-will when it comes to the articles I choose to read or not, I simply did not read it. End of story.

  44. Jessica

    Regardless of what you think of the Vick link, please be civil to one another.

    Thank you.

  45. GFY Heather

    Here is why I don’t mind giving GQ my clicks: Because I don’t see anyone else writing a profile that does anything other than praise Michael Vick, and I have always thought there had to be more to the story than that. Will Leitch looked deeper and i think it’s worth pointing people to that. And it’s valuable because kids look up to pro athletes, and kids are being told to look up to Vick. In my mind, anything that paints a fuller picture of him — whatever that picture may be — is worth reading for that reason. Because kids may not care about the non-sports stuff, and it’s our job to make sure THEY see more than just the touchdowns.

  46. Katie

    I avoid football with as much passion as I attack sandwiches. And I love dogs even MORE than I love sandwiches. So I have no love in my heart for Michael Vick. Couldn’t care less about his football stats. Hate that he killed those dogs. Am physically sickened by it. As I’m sure the author of the GQ piece was when he had to engage Vick in conversation about it. And I would say that he makes a pretty good showing of his contempt for the “performance” that is Vick’s current life.

    If you want to withhold your hard-earned dollars and cents from supporting Michael Vick’s paycheck, fine. I support that. But don’t be naive in thinking it makes a difference. As Leitch mentions at the end of the article, this is a $9 billion business. You are not going to take it down. How many jobs are provided by this industry? Would you really want to destroy it?

    The damn-the-man, Vick-is-Voldemort-don’t-mention-his-name bit is tired and ineffective. This attitude that we can’t even discuss that Vick’s performance is so clearly insincere for fear of further feeding the PR machine does. not. work. These machines are too big for that. If anything, I will be sending this article to everyone in my contact list. More people should be clicking on this article… otherwise, we have no way to support an author who is clearly dissenting. I will be posting a similar comment on the GQ article. I encourage you all to do the same.

    Thank you, Jessica and Heather. Your links are always the best. I savor them. And this one was really, really interesting.

  47. vandalfan

    Dear, dear, to see hostility here at jolly ol’ GFY is sad and so unusual.

    Some things, for some folks, are simply unforgivable. I ignore Michael Vik information, and will never support his team. I didn’t, and still can’t, endorse anything about South Africa, either, or the rapist Mike Tyson, or whatsisnuts the murderer of John Lennon. Nor Robert E. Lee and any other supporter of slavery for that matter. Those don’t deserve a singe nanosecond of our precious time or thought. Let’s just focus on the positive.

  48. liz

    Katie, I am not naive enough to think that I alone can make that difference. And certainly if everyone adopts your attitude, then you’re right, it doesn’t matter and so we should all just continue to live in our little lives and not consider that if the many, many readers of this blog were to contact Nike and say ENOUGH, we will not support a corporation that hires Michael Vick as its representative, then perhaps we could make a difference. Change is effected by people joining together to make a difference. Whether it’s about standing up and saying, no, Michael Vick is not a role model; or standing up and saying that all men are created equal; or standing up and saying, hell no, you can’t beat your spouse and children; it all started with someone saying NO. But you’re right, I alone cannot make enough of a difference to make Nike or anyone else notice. The power is in people standing together and saying, you know what, we care enough to make a difference. So send the article on to your people and then move on to the next thing in your life and in a couple of days this will be a non-topic and Vick will still be held out as a role model. Unless, perhaps, enough people believe he should not be held out as such and they decide to make some noise.

  49. Erin

    article about Nancy Wake is fantastic! Thank you for reminding us you can be a bad ass and still rock some Chanel lipstick.

  50. magpie

    This debate is getting old now, but for what it’s worth, I’m Australian and I’d never heard of Michael Vick in my life. I thought it was an interesting article and I’m glad I am now aware of him and his actions.

    In Australia, we have many social problems associated with high-profile footballers who are generally poorly educated, grossly overpaid, treated like heroes, and who think they are above the law. Football is their identity and a huge source of popularity at school so they often put no effort into their education, then get straight out of school and into earning big money in the football leagues. The amount of scandals this country has had to live through in recent years is disgusting and incredibly tedious: rape; sexual assault of young women in nightclub toilets; drink driving; drug use; footballers cheating on wives/girlfriends with teammates wives/girlfriends; one very high-profile footballer was photographed pretending to allow a dog to fellate him; violence and fighting; public nuisance; self portraits of footballers showing off their genitalia; 17yo girls pretending to fall pregnant by footballers; urinating/defecating in public; threesomes, foursomes, who-cares-somes… These are just some examples from the very high profile national leagues.

    In saying this, I think that the football codes offer so much to the community. Football codes promote physical activity in an increasingly obese society – junior leagues playing their games on a Saturday morning are a delight to see. Watching football on television or live is low-cost and can be enjoyed and shared by children, families, men and women of all ages, races, cultures, political and socioeconomic backgrounds. Football creates a sense of community. Football allows children and young people to dream about their future and strive for goals. Many intelligent, articulate, caring, good people are involved in football, from junior through to local and all the way up to elite/international.

    There are many benefits of football and sport in general, and I personally think that these important benefits should never be downplayed or disregarded because the unfortunate fools who commit despicable actions towards others are the ones who get all the attention.

  51. Lori

    Michael Vick is a souless sociopath, and I refuse to read any article that gives him even the slightest benefit of the doubt. There’s no way on God’s green earth that going to prison changed him. He is a sick *expletive redacted* and I hope that when he dies and goes to hell, he dies every day for eternity in a manner in which he killed one of those poor, sweet dogs. And don’t even get me started on how *expletive redacted* like him make people terrified of my poor, sweet, lovey dog. *Expletive* *expletive* *expletive*