I'll start this first by saying that I am a dog lover and was absolutely appalled by what Michael Vick was involved in and/or allowed to happen on his property and that I don't think that he got nearly harsh enough of a punishment for the crimes he was involved in. I have been rather confounded lately by all of the positive press that he has been receiving from various sources including the President. More than this, I am absolutely in shock that people are actually saying that he should be allowed to own dogs again. I understand that for most people the thinking is that they were dogs not people. And I get that. If the choice came down to saving my dog or my kids, it's adios fido. But I do not understand how anyone can, in good conscience, endorse him being responsible for any animal after what he did or was complicit in allowing to happen. It saddens me that organizations/people throwing around cash gets someone convicted of horrendous acts an endorsement and Presidential support.