OK, so guess I deserve it for listening to the whole show (via download last night), but I found Dan completely annoying with his extreme parsing of the word “deserve.” As in “Michael Vick deserves a second chance.”
I think I’m like most in feeling that people deserve a second chance after making a mistake, breaking a law, etc. Sure, there are extreme situations (e.g., mass murder, child molestation) that make us stop and reconsider our position. But for the most part people are willing to give a person a second chance, assuming that the transgressor admits guilt, shows remorse, pays a penalty, and vows to change his/her ways.
Dan got into STEPHEN A. SMITH MODE (plus did you ever notice how many octaves his voice goes up when he gets riled?) so it was difficult to follow his train of thought throughout the course of the show. (DP, I love ya, but it’s really hard to listen to the show when you are ranting.) I believe the gist of his argument is that Vick does not deserve a second chance to return to the NFL, but could possibly earn a second chance depending on his behavior while in prison. Yet he didn’t always repeat his complete argument; a few times he simply said “Michael Vick does not deserve a second chance,” which made him sound particularly hard-nosed and unmerciful. Depending on when you tuned in or what segment of the show you listened to Dan either wanted Vick to earn a second chance to play in the NFL or just plum does not deserve a second chance.
It was rather confusing.
I felt sorry for the poor guy who called in (towards the end of the show, I think), puzzled why DP doesn’t feel that Vick deserves a second chance, and DP started howling again about EARNING a second chance.
Dan had a reasonable point to make, he just wasn’t very articulate in making it.
I haven’t yet listened to the Wednesday or Thursday shows, although I heard the very end of today’s show and he was still fielding calls on the Vick case. Oy. Michael Vick is to sports radio as Britney Spears is to gossip rags.
