WHAT???

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/08/22/bc.fbn.vick.naacp.ap/index.html

I particularly like the last two lines of the story.

Why on earth would the NAACP be involved in this and why would they allow for the appearance of defending Michael Vick. The idea that this is some kind of racial issue is held by a number of insane sports talk radio callers and by several ridiculously stupid sounding athletes that have gotten on the air in Vick's defense, but I would think that the NAACP would be able to exercise better judgment.

Mr. White (and I do find it humorous that that is his name - makes me think of the old SNL video in which Eddie Murphy plays a white man and tries to get a loan under that assumed name), his crime is not that the dog was a dog. Dogs are dogs every day and people don't get indicted for it. Perhaps there's more to this story than "it was a dog." That's like saying a bank robber's crime is that the building was a bank. Jackass.