Good news for some of Michael Vick’s dogs. Ten of the dogs have been taken in by a dog rescue group in San Francisco called Bad Rap. All ten dogs on well on their way to transitioning from a short brutal lives as warriors under a brutal and sadistic man to lives as happy family dogs.

His back resting comfortably against her chest, Hector nestles his massive canine head into Leslie Nuccio’s shoulder, high-fiving pit bull paws against human hands.

The big dog — 52 pounds — is social, people-focused, happy now, it seems, wearing a rhinestone collar in his new home in sunny California.

But as Hector sits up, deep scars stand out on his chest, and his eyes are imploring.

Hector ought to be dead, Nuccio knows — killed in a staged fight, executed for not winning or euthanized by those who see pit bulls seized in busts as “kennel trash,” unsuited to any kind of normal life.

Instead, Hector is learning how to be a pet.[...]

The animals barrel around the house, with 4-year-old Hector leading the puppy-like antics — stealth underwear grabs from the laundry basket, dashes across the living room, food heists from the coffee table — until it’s “love time” and he decelerates and engulfs the women in a hug.

Here is a video of the dogs at Bad Rap,

Each dog was evaluated as an individual. Huss recalled the good-natured-but-quiet Rose, whose overbreeding had led to mammary tumors. In the end, needing surgery but unable to tolerate anesthesia, Rose was mercifully put down, just days after being transferred to a foster home.

[...]

Weekly “canine good citizen” classes are correcting his social ineptitude. And he’s taking cues on good manners from patient Pandora, a female pit bull mix who’s queen of the household’s dogs. Once Hector graduates, he’ll take classes to become a certified therapy dog, helping at nursing homes and the like.

From the sounds of it, these dogs would have all died rather quickly as none of them sound like ideal fighting material. An American Pit Bull Terrier that is dog friendly isn’t going to make a good fighter, and will either be put down during testing, after losing a fight or worst of all used as bait dogs, and we know how sadistic Vick’s methods of disposing of “undesirable” dogs were.

Michael Vick has been transferred to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons minimum security facility in Leavenworth, KS. There he will participate in Bureau of Prisons drug treatment program, which would make him eligible for early release before the end of 2008.

Vick, who failed a drug test while awaiting sentencing in the dogfighting case, is eligible for a federal drug treatment program known as the Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP). Inmates are involved in intensive treatment that lasts six to 12 months, with a minimum of 500 hours of treatment.Program (RDAP). Inmates are involved in intensive treatment that lasts six to 12 months, with a minimum of 500 hours of treatment.

Upon completion of the program, the inmate’s eligibility for early release based on previous criminal convictions is determined. Vick did not have any previous convictions before his dogfighting case.

The RDAP accepts inmates, and they are eligible for early release even if they have not been convicted of drug-related offenses provided they meet a series of qualifications. Vick meets those requirements.

He still faces an April 2 trial on state charges in Virginia, however.

Two stars of the NFL’s Seattle Seahawks got a little more than they bargained for

Are you still fans of Matt Hasselbeck and Mack Strong after they visited President Bush last week in Bellevue? Or have their political leanings turned you against them?

The Seahawks quarterback and fullback gave the 43rd president a No. 43 jersey with his name on it at a $1,000-a-plate fundraiser for Rep. Dave Reichert at the Hyatt.

At the time, Hasselbeck called it a thrill and said it was a win-win, this opportunity to meet the president and get out of a team meeting. But as soon as he saw the picture of the two players with Bush, Gary Wright, the team’s vice president of administration, said he was concerned about negative reaction.

Maybe in really red Republican states, it would not have been a big deal. But Washington is a blue state, and deep, deep Democratic blue in King County. So objections were raised, and Hasselbeck heard them and read them. He got nasty voice mails, e-mails and text messages.

“I had no idea,” Hasselbeck said. One guy told him: “I hate you, I’ll never wear your jersey, I’ll never like the Seahawks again.” “Huh?” Hasselbeck thought. “Seriously?”

“Politics can be very mean and dirty,” he said. “The things politicians say about each other, and what activists say, I had a brief glimpse of that for a couple of days. If I ever had any questions about whether I wanted to run for office, I now know the answer — I don’t.” As a quarterback, he’s used to getting booed. “But this was a whole new level,” he said. “I was very surprised how mean (they were).”

As evidence were these responses to Angelo Bruscas’ blog posting on seattlepi.com: “How dare Hasselbeck declare Bush an honorary Seahawk,” wrote one. “Who is Matt speaking for? Bush is no Seahawk. He is the worst president of my lifetime, and I’m almost 60. Shame on you, Matt.” “To learn that two of the most popular Seahawks are strong (Bush) supporters ruins the season for me and my family,” wrote another.

People are very strange.

One can understand some fan backlash against celebrities who go out of their way to politicize their craft. One doesn’t want to go to a concert to hear the singers’ political views, for example. For that matter, it would be very hard to root for Michael Vick at this point, knowing what we do about his character.

But meeting with the president and giving him a jersey? The Dallas Cowboys, Atlanta Braves, and Alabama Crimson Tide football team all met with Bill Clinton — at times, very controversial — after winning championships during the 1990s. I don’t recall any controversy over that and, certainly, it didn’t stop me from rooting for those teams.

The next episode of OTB Radio, our BlogTalkRadio program, will record and air live tonight from 7-8 Eastern.

I’ll be joined tonight by Chris Lawrence, Dave Schuler, and Dodd Harris. We’ll be talking about why Americans don’t read and whether it really matters; California’s plans to shake up the Electoral College; Washington Monthly’s alternative college rankings; and the Michael Vick case.

We’ll also take your calls at (646) 716-7030.

UPDATE: Dodd joined us a few minutes into the show. I think we covered the topics nicely and everyone was able to get their thoughts in.

If you missed it live (or, for some odd reason, want to hear it again) you can click the link above. Alternatively, the embedded media player below will play the show for you.

Michael Vick’s NFL career may well be over, as he is going to plead guilty to felony charges and faces up to five years in prison.

Michael Vick’s lawyer said Monday the NFL star will plead guilty to federal dogfighting conspiracy charges, putting the Atlanta Falcons quarterback’s career in jeopardy and leaving him subject to a possible prison term. The offense is punishable by up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, although federal sentencing guidelines most likely would call for less. Vick’s plea hearing is Aug. 27.

“After consulting with his family over the weekend, Michael Vick asked that I announce today that he has reached an agreement with federal prosecutors regarding the charges pending against him,” lead defense attorney Billy Martin said in a statement. “Mr. Vick has agreed to enter a plea of guilty to those charges and to accept full responsibility for his actions and the mistakes he has made. Michael wishes to apologize again to everyone who has been hurt by this matter.”

[...]

Martin’s announcement came as a grand jury that could add new charges met in private. Prosecutors had said that a superseding indictment was in the works, but Vick’s plea most likely means he will not face additional charges.

Three of Vick’s original co-defendants already have pleaded guilty and agreed to testify against him if the case went to trial. Quanis Phillips of Atlanta and Purnell Peace of Virginia Beach signed statements saying the 27-year-old quarterback participated in executing at least eight underperforming dogs by various means, including drowning and hanging. Phillips, Peace and Tony Taylor, who pleaded guilty last month, also said Vick provided virtually all of the gambling and operating funds for his “Bad Newz Kennels” operation in rural Virginia, not far from Vick’s hometown of Newport News.

The gambling allegations alone could trigger a lifetime ban under the NFL’s personal conduct policy.

ESPN adds:

The Falcons will not release Vick immediately; rather, they will wait to see what Goodell does and what is in the statement of facts when Vick enters the plea on Monday, Falcons officials told ESPN’s Sal Paolantonio. If the league suspends Vick, the Falcons could then go after Vick’s signing bonus of approximately $22 million, because if suspended, then Vick would be in default of his contract.

Sports law prof Michael McCann looks at the factors that would cause Vick to throw away tens of millions of dollars rather than risk trial:

There are myriad factors for Vick to consider, including that his co-defendants have already agreed to plead guilty, but also that it can be hard for the government to convince every member of a jury that a defendant is “beyond a reasonable doubt” guilty, particularly when the defendant has almost limitless litigation resources at his disposal and a top legal team to utilize them. And, as we have discussed on this blog, there are potential questions as to how the evidence against Vick was obtained.

Also, he believes it almost a certainty that Vick will play again. He cites Gary Meyers of the NY Daily News.

His anticipated plea agreement in the dogfighting scandal could send him to jail for 12 to 18 months. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell could then tack on a one-year suspension, or more, even a lifetime ban, depending on any illegal-gambling revelations that may emerge in the case. The Falcons are running away from Vick faster than he escapes the pocket; the odds of him playing for Atlanta again ranks only slightly higher than the ASPCA naming him doglover of the year.

It’s conceivable Vick may not be back on the field until 2010 — if he makes it back at all. He’s fighting to save his career.

The question, of course, is this: When he is out of jail and his suspension has been served, will any team have the courage to sign him? His alleged affinity for the underground and his role in the despicable world of dogfighting makes him a public-relations liability/disaster for any team that signs him.

It will take an owner secure of his standing in the community to sign Vick if he pleads guilty, as expected, or he goes to trial and is convicted. Still, several team officials contacted last week all anticipated that Vick will get a chance to resume his career once his legal problems are over.

“If he gets out in eight months and the league suspends him for one year, why wouldn’t he be able to come back into the league?” one general manager says. “If it’s two years that he hasn’t played football, why wouldn’t he play? He served his time. In America, if someone serves his time, are they allowed to come back with the freedom to work? Why is it different for a football player?”

NFL owners and GMs have certainly shown a willingness to take their chances with character problems if they have enough talent and the price is right. One could argue, certainly, that Ray Lewis and others were involved in crimes more serious thank Vick’s. Still, the image of what he did to those dogs will be a hard sell to even the hungriest fans.

Of course, if Al Davis is still around in 2010, anything’s possible.

Looks like Michael Vick will face additional charges as the Virginia Commonwealth Attorney Gerald Poindexter says that he will be submitting his case to a grand jury on Sept. 25th.

He has not determined which charges he would file but said he would aggressively prosecute based on previously acquired evidence and some of the evidence presented in the federal case. Dogfighting and animal cruelty are felonies in Virginia with animal cruelty charges holding penalties of up to five years in jail for each animal killed.

“The execution of these animals — and the manner in which they were executed — is startlingly offensive and demanding of prosecution,” Poindexter said.

Statements made in the guilty pleas reached by Phillips and Peace that they accompanied Vick in the execution of eight dogs this April and fought dogs on Vick’s Surry County, Va., property solidified Poindexter’s decision to move forward with prosecution.

Well, let me see, we know that 8 dogs were killed so it is possible that Vick could be facing upto 40 years in prison. Now I’m not familiar with the law nor am I a lawyer, so that is an upper-bound and depending on what charges are actually broght and how many could radically change that number.

This article brings up an interesting point: one can be banned from the NFL for life if one is either gambling or associated with gambling. Again, I’m not familiar with this rule and if gambling on dog fights would be sufficient to trigger this kind of discipline.

If this article is accurate in the claims by Vick’s co-defendants then Vick might be a bit more worried about what will happen with the NFL than with the prosecutors and judicial system.

Specifically, they say that the Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting ring’s “operation and gambling monies were almost exclusively funded by Vick.”

The animal cruelty angle of the Vick investigation is the reason it has drawn so much public outrage, but it’s the gambling angle that could easily cost Vick his NFL career. The NFL’s rules couldn’t be clearer when it comes to gambling: The contract that Vick and every NFL player signs says that “Associating with gamblers or with gambling activities in a manner tending to bring discredit to the NFL” can lead to a lifetime ban.

Whoops.

Just when you thought things couldn’t get any worse for Michael Vick:

Embattled NFL quarterback Michael Vick, facing federal charges related to his alleged participation in dogfighting, has been hit with a “$63,000,000,000 billion dollar” lawsuit filed by a South Carolina inmate who alleges the Atlanta Falcons star stole his pit bulls and sold them on eBay to buy “missiles from Iran,” FOX News has learned.

[...]

The complaint also alleges that Vick would need those missiles because he pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda in February of this year.

“Michael Vick has to stop physically hurting my feelings and dashing my hopes,” Riches writes in the complaint. Riches wants $63 billion dollars “backed by gold and silver “ delivered to the front gates to the Williamsburg Federal Correctional facility in South Carolina. Riches is an inmate at the facility serving out a wire fraud conviction.

Developing . . .

(See an image of the handwritten complaint, which includes other charges such as identity theft and copyright violations, here. A PDF is available here.)

One of the issues I sometimes have with Libertarianism is when it is taken to an extreme. They take the either/or view when it comes to many intelligent animals. Consider this post by Skip Olivia over at the Misses blog. In that post and many of the comments we get variations on the “animals have no rights, they are simply property.” In short treating an intelligent animal like a dog just like a table is just peachy with them, or if it isn’t then they have a serious consistency problem. Most people would not flinch if I dragged my dinner table into my drive way and chain sawed it in half. If I dragged one of my dogs into the drive way and did the same thing, all of my neighbors would likely view me as somebody who is profoundly disturbed.

What about children? Children can’t vote, and it isn’t at all clear that the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness even apply to children at least to the same level as with adults. I sure know that my son would argue that making him do his homework constitutes and infringement on both his liberty and pursuit of happiness. If he were really precocious he might also argue that my sending to his room for some infraction violates due process and constitutes some sort of illegal confinement. So, are children the property of the adults? If so, how come I can’t treat my son like a table or a car? If a child is not the property of the adult, then how does one reconcile the lack of full rights for children?

One could argue that a child’s mentally faculties are still forming and as such the parents should act as custodians and do things that often have a short term cost but long term benefit (education, teaching responsibility, etc.). Fine, but why not something similar to animals like the dog or other intelligent animals? I admit that there isn’t some clear cut line here and that some could argue that this is possibly a slipper slope, but it seems clear that wantonly killing an animal for enjoyment and profit and doing so in a grisly manner (dog fighting) is different that killing an animal for profit an to feed others and doing so in as pain free a manner as possible (killing a cow for food).

Who cares what happened to this dog, it was just a piece of property…like a table

Clearly there is some sort of spectrum here, and is it unreasonable to consider that animals “lower” than humans, but that still possesses some level of intelligence be given some moral consideration such as not being tortured to death, forced into fighting, and summarily executed for failing to fight/fight well? Radley Balko, whose comments on the Michael Vick case sparked the post by Skip Olivia writes,

My approach to animal cruelty laws would be about the same as my approach to the abortion issue. Most people would agree that many animals deserve more moral consideration than, say, a table. Exactly what animals have what rights, and how those rights should be protected, are matters of line-drawing–police powers. And police powers are best left up to as local a jurisdiction as possible, so they can write laws that best reflect each state or community’s values.

Skip Oliva also writes,

This is really a case where a majority is trying to punish the minority–which includes the people who watch and wager on dog racing–for holding an unpopular economic preference.

I find this just ridiculous. Suppose we have an individual who decides that there is a lucrative market in trafficking in child pornography? He doesn’t make, he doesn’t like it, but he likes the money he earns from selling it. Are we to turn a blind eye to this fellow and argue, “Hey, this is just a case where the majority is trying to punish the minority for holding an unpopular economic preference. He isn’t actually making the pornography. He isn’t even victimizing the children.”? Seems like a stretch. Further, this might actually be a case where even having federal laws might be a good idea. Granted, there might not be language in the Constitution to currently cover such laws, but the Constitution can be changed.

Note: I don’t intend to hide the picture of Gypsy below the fold. I want everyone to see the results of dog fighting.