King, I usually come to your column for spot-on sports analysis that goes beyond the endless stream of cliches and rehashed sanctimony of the mainstream sports media. Ironic that the paragraph where you mention what you're not going to talk about is exactly what King Kaufman normally talks about.

This is not a simple issue of "stupidity." This has many, many layers to it, involving race and class and the exploitation of our athletes, among many, many others. I was struck by something Deion Sanders said, that maybe Vick somehow identified with these dogs. Maybe he felt like one of them, being shoved off onto the gridiron to engage in an violent battle with other men who are bred to inflict pain and paid dearly to try to end his career. I certainly don't claim to know what's going on in Michael Vick's head, but I know better than to cast this off as simple "stupidity."

It bears mentioning further - more than just a throwaway line - that Vick certainly would have been better off if he had beaten his girlfriend, or fathered illegitimate children, or stood there and watched his 2 buddies knife a guy to death. This is what's sick and depraved about our current culture and the things over which we choose to be outraged.

At the end, I wind up feeling very sad for Mr. Vick. His whole life has been spent trying to live up to our expectations for his "potential," just because he happened to be born with exceptional athletic ability. Our knee-jerk reaction, as middle class white guys who wish we could do the things he does on a football field, is to castigate him for his waste of talent and money through his "stupidity" - but it goes much deeper than that. You normally get this, King. Today, you missed.

So having consensual sex before marriage and then choosing not to get married for any number of reasons while still having the child is worse than raising dogs for deathfights and then painfully torturing those who did not win or who failed to live up to your expectations? Wow.

I should have elaborated more, but I was trying to make a quick point. I was talking about the Shawn Kemps of the world, who go around impregnating women and then abandoning or disavowing the children. I was not talking about a couple that has a child and decides not to marry. I thought the context of the line made that clear, but apparently not.

The larger point is that Vick absolutely would have been better off if he had abused a human being than he is having abused dogs. I don't know why this is, but I have a guess. We're pretty used to hearing stories about domestic abuse, assault, and even murder - and athletes are often involved. We're not so used to hearing stories about cute little Rover being strung up and electrocuted. Nevermind that this happens every day throughout the country at animal shelters. Sure, not to the same degree of depravity, but unwanted dogs suffer and are killed by the millions every year in this country alone. I'm not saying what he did was commendable ... just to keep in perspective that we're talking about dogs here, not human beings.

Democrat: Turn on, Tune in, GOP out!

GOP: Change just brings problems

(admittedly stolen from Doug Wilson on Weeds)

people, this is far simpler than you're making it. context and irony--age old comic tools--are the reasons this is funny. the hilarity and cringeworthiness of this clip is that the answer was given as part of a contest that she voluntarily entered, and that she knew would include a portion that required her to answer very easy questions. and she blew it gloriously! it was as if she had misspelled her name in a spelling bee.

but the deliciously ironic icing on the cake is, as another poster astutely noted, that her ridiculously inane answer to the question and subsequent high-showing in the pageant was perfect evidence of the real answer to the question - because ignorance and stupidity are not considered hurdles to social acceptance (and often even inspire reverence) in america, many americans are ignorant and stupid. like ms. upton, for example. delicious, delicious irony.

i agree with one of wesley powell's 15 posts - that the phenomenon of fans thinking their superstitious actions actually impact the game is a pathetic attempt to inject themselves into proceedings that otherwise don't involve them. it's a natural human instinct - we want to be involved. and it's especially true in sports, where the overwleming majority of fans' relationships with their teams are entirely one sided, i.e.: fan spends boatloads of money and emotional capital supporting team - team does not know individual fan exists.

in our demented subconscious mind, superstition allows us to feel that the relationship with the team is not so one sided. if i sit in this chair a certain way with my legs crossed in a certain fashion, the cubs will score a run - and it's because of ME. most of it is silly fun, but the fun ends and the crazy begins the moment someone ACTUALLY BELIEVES in this crap. it's the exact same phenomenon observed in people who think they have a personal relationship with god. nobody wants to admit to themselves that they're as small and insignificant in the grand scheme as they actually are.