Here's the official statement from PETA on the Birds' signing of Michael Vick:

PETA and millions of decent football fans around the world are disappointed that the Philadelphia Eagles have chosen to sign a man who hanged dogs from trees, electrocuted them with jumper cables, held them underwater until they drowned in his swimming pool, and even threw his own family dogs into the fighting pit to be torn to shreds while he laughed. What sort of message does this send to young fans who care about animals and don't want to see them be harmed?

PETA certainly hopes that Vick has learned his lesson and feels truly remorseful for his crimes—but since he's given no public indication that that's the case, only time will tell. At this point, all Eagles fans can do is cross their fingers and hope that they won't ever have to explain to their sons and daughters what a "rape rack" is and why their favorite player was using one, as Falcons fans once had to.

They sound furious. But I wonder if animal rights groups should be secretly thanking the Eagles. If I worked for the Philadelphia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, I'd be thinking that this Vick thing is a goddam PR goldmine. The hubbub has the potential to (and should) spike donations;  nothing makes it easier to push your cause than a clear "bad guy." I know there's another side to this argument — we're gonna make a hero out of a guy who did all this bad stuff, etc. But seriously, how much did people talk about the problem of dog-fighting in Philly (and it's a real problem) last week, and how much will they talk about it now?

Could the Eagles signing Vick be good for animal rights in Philly?