I haven't posted all month - how is that possible. I am so so sorry! I have had a million things I wanted to share, but could never get to a computer before a million new thoughts took over (smile)!
Alright. Point #1. Michael Vick. Can I say it again. Michael Vick. Now, it is obvious I have a tremendous crush on Mr. Sexy Chocolate. But I won't bore you with the details of that and other fantasies right now. Let's talk about the dogfighting.
I love animals, simply adore dogs. Do I love dogs more than humans. No? Do I want to see Mr. Vicks entire life be streipped because of his "cruel and inhumane" activity. No. Let me back up:
The first question I want to address is the one I hear by many of my black professionals, who seem repulsed by Mike's very name now. "How could he be so cruel?" They ask. Let me answer from my own experience.
When dealing with someone who lived in extreme poverty, their baseline for unsavory activity may differ slightly from the sterile suburban America. Most people, innercity poor or suburban wealthy abhor dogfighting, as do I. However, I know for a fact that many young black men who are attempting to live life without selling drugs turn to dogfighting as a more honest way of living. I'll stop and let that one marinate. Now, I am not saying I agree with it, it just is the way it is. That said, I know the area Mr. Vick grew up in, and I can tell you that dogfighting is, undoubtedly, another hustle for some trying to stay out of the game.
For that reason, I don't turn up my nose that he may not be as sensitive to it as most of us. However, once he became a millionaire, why stay involved? Is it really that impossible to leave the ghetto in the ghetto? I don't know. And I don't want to speak to that. What I do know is that I hate to see this young black man lose everything over this. Are we attempting to rehabilitate him, or simply strip him of everything he has? And why? Why is he banned from the league prior to having ever made a plea or having his case tried. Why is he guilty before being proven innocent?
You know how this goes. When they questioned his buddies they said, in any variety of terms, "we don't want you, we want Vick. So you should plea." And plea they did. But prior to both Mr. Vick's plea and the pleas filed by his "friends," the media and the league already determined his guilt, labelled him filth, and set about to destroy everything that he has accomplished. I think it is a bit much for dog fighting charges.
If he fought dogs and ruthlessly killed them once he was a multmillionaire, then there is an issue there that needs to be addressed. As far as I am concerned, he can handle that with his psychologist. He should probably be fined and have to serve some community service. Dog related, of course. Also, dog fighters love their dogs, so I doubt that Mike is an animal hater.
I really don't understand why it goes much farther than that. High profile pedophiles (Woody Allen), wife beaters (random athletes that I won't name), child molesters, etc...just seem to be a different level of criminal than a dog fighter, don't they? Why is the NFL treating Michael Vick like he is Ray Caruth? Lets see, have your pregnant girlfriend shot in the stomach and attempt to make it look like random violence, fight dogs. Hmmmmm. Maybe I am missing something here, please feel free to add your two cents....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Oh my, I couldn't disagree more. First, as to Vick's guilt -- he is pleading guilty to a variety of charges, so there's no question that he participated in vicious and brutal acts. Second, as to the NFL's reaction - the NFL can determine who represents it and who doesn't. This is not a garden club; the NFL exists to make money for its owners. Suspending a person who hasn't been convicted misses the point entirely. While of course a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW, the public doesn't sit in a court of law. We make decisions all the time about who we'll watch and what we'll do and who we support. We don't have to wait until guilt to decide those things. That's why he was suspended. While it may be understandable to a tiny minority of the public, the pure torture that those dogs were subjected to turns the stomach of most and the images that are evoked by the indictment are enough to merit suspension.
Saying Vick loves animals, to me, is like saying the spouse abuser loves his (usually a man, sorry guys) wife. Maybe so, I guess, in some kind of sick, perverted way. But so what? Do we still allow the abuser to abuse? Do we say, oh shucks, let's just forget about the victim(s) and go about our merry business? No, of course, we don't do that. Yes, the prosecution offered deals to the other defendants. Why does this trouble you? According to the indictment, Vick was the person who supported these activities financially, provided the land on which the fights were held, and in short, owned and operated this entire network of cruetly and torture; why wouldn't he then be the kingpin of it all? Why wouldn't he be the target of the investigation? Vick is not going to come forward on his own; indeed, the first statements he made were that his friends/family had abused his trust by having the fights on his property.
Vick may have grown up in a very difficult environment, to say the least. But once he has the resources to transcend that environment, through his own talent and effort, no doubt, he has to be held accountable. (And even if he didn't have the resources, he should still be held accountable in my book.) It is not just an issue for his psychologist that he takes a harmless dog (and they are as harmless as any other), trains it for stamina, files its teeth while it is sedated to make it more deadly, relentlessly brutalizes it (often through physical torture like burning it, etc.) until it is so aggressive that it wants to kill for its owner. It is not just an issue for his psychologist that after investing all this time and money into an animal that Vick brutally kills the animals that don't perform well. Can you imagine the agony of the animal to first be defeated in a fight, be bloody and gored, and then look to its owner for whatever comfort it can find, only to be electrocuted or beaten to death? It is not just an issue for his pschologist that Vick trains his dogs to fight, using weak and "starter dogs' to build his dog's killing instincts. It is not just an issue for his psychologist that there were dozens of dogs found on the property that will now have to be euthanized because they are too aggressive to ever be re-programmed. He has committed criminal acts, and we ought to consider them criminal, acts that ought to receive a hefty punishment. Community service would be a joke.
Now, I've heard many, not just you, ask, well, what about crimes against humans? Seriously, what about them? First, I am capable about caring about more than one issue at the same time. I can consider wife abuse a crime while also thinking animal abuse is. And second, your comments are less an argument for treating Vick's actions less seriously than for treating those actions more harshly. I agree wholeheartedly. Wife-beaters, etc. should also be jailed and banned, at least for some period of time. And as for Woody Allen, well I have to point out that unlike Vick, he committed no crime. But even though he hasn't been charged with anything, hasn't been found guilty in a court of law (the standard by which you seem to determine whether the public has a right to judge), I still choose not to watch Allen's films. I don't watch because I don't approve of his conduct. Same goes for R. Kelly. And I'm entitled to have the same reaction to Mr. Vick.
Do I think Vick should be banned for life? No, I don't. Like you, I believe in second chances. Being banned for life seems extreme for a first offense. But slapping him on the wrist for such horrible offenses would do nothing and might even re-enforce his own conduct, b/c no one takes it that seriously. And I simply cannot agree with that result.
Post a Comment