From our Whiskey Tango Foxtrot desk

So, wait . . .

Mike Tyson has his own op-ed piece in the New York Times on Saturday in which he gets to natter about overcoming drug and alcohol addiction through his “incredible discipline” and “developed conscience” (and, as the hardworking staff pointed out, gets to say nothing about his 1992 rape conviction).

But today, Michael Vick gets blowtorched in Juliet Macur’s Times column (tip o’ the pixel to FishbowlNY) that chronicles his reprehensible involvement with bankrolling and running a dogfighting ring and decries the lack of any NFL repercussions in terms of employment or remuneration.

Does that make sense?

This is not to say that anyone should forgive or forget what Vick did – as Macur details, it was truly horrifying. But Vick has to all appearances make a good-faith effort to rehabilitate himself and make at least some amends for his crimes.

Macur:

Vick told me on Saturday that he had grown up since serving time in prison and had done a lot to redeem himself in the eyes of the public . . .

He donated $200,000 to help renovate a football field in Philadelphia. He has worked with the Humane Society of the United States — the same organization that said all of Vick’s fighting dogs should be euthanized — to warn children of the evils of dogfighting.

He supported a bill on Capitol Hill that would make it a felony to bring a child to a dogfight, because he said going to fights as a boy was what set him on his misguided path.

Maybe it’s an act, maybe it isn’t. We’re not saying the Times should have gone easy on Vick.

We’re saying (again) the Times should have been tougher with Tyson.