Michael Vick: Dogged By Stupidity… And Questions…
Sunday, May 17, 2009 19:58
Howls of protest will resound from animal rights groups and much of the American public when disgraced NFL quarterback, Michael Vick is released from prison into home confinement later this month. (Notice how Vick has attained the height of infamy—his name and/or position must be preceded by the word disgraced—like hapless Pittsburgh Pirates or legendary Vince Lombardi.)
Some responsible animal activists will correctly vilify Mr. Vick’s minimal expressions of remorse for the heinous crimes he committed. Others will demand a public display of contrition to the animal rights movement, i.e. building a shelter for Pitt Bulls, funding rescue efforts, etc. More frightening fanatics have even called for his public execution.
Wonder how much Rupert Murdoch would pay for the rights to that event?
The most sadistic zealots insist Vick be drawn and quartered, dipped in boiling tar, covered with crushed glass and bludgeoned with a sledge hammer, to make him justly pay for his disgusting cruelty to animals—probably the same psychos who will make the networks rich should Vick return as an NFL quarterback.
Let’s review, shall we?
Vick financed and was the shadow overseer of a brazen Pit-Bull fighting enterprise. He and his ilk tortured and murdered “under-performing dogs,” sanctioned mass “raping” of bitches and proved themselves to be punk-assed bitches—not to mention incredibly stupid.
Since he was nabbed and plea-bargained a deal on conspiracy charges, Vick has spent nearly two years in jail, lost most of his seven figure fortune, and will be lucky to ever accept another paycheck as an NFL player.
The question is, should he be able to?
Before I go on—full disclosure: I own two rescued Pit-mix dogs. My wife has rescued every species from cats to squirrels—including your humble columnist. She belongs to every ink-throwing, sign waving, animal loving organization there is.
I am going to pay a high price for what you are about to read…
Michael Vick has paid the heavy debt he owed society. He may never recover from that payment. That is precisely why Mr. Vick should not only be able to play football again, but we should root for him to win a Super Bowl.
Any guesses as to how high the ratings will be for that game? I mean people just cannot get enough of the guy.
You can go to almost any website discussing the Vick situation and see protesters holding signs reading “ELECTROCUTE VICK!” or “DOGS NEED JUSTICE TOO!”
Here are a couple of the more tame comments from the blogosphere, just two of literally thousands—unedited so we get the whole picture of just who (what?) the writers represent:
Ok this guy is shuch a fucking basterd he needs to be treated like he treaded these dogs i sware if i was the judge i would have sent him to death row!!!!!!!!!!!! its cruel and dangerous i never want to hear about something like that again!!!!!!!!
well i for one will never watch an nfl game ever again if hes reinstated..he should have been put in a pin with the dogs to see how well he would have faired…now thats one i would be happy to bet on
I’m not kidding. These posts are typical of what you will read on any given site. The logic is beautiful, huh. They justifiably condemn a psychopath for torture and abuse of dogs—by pining for his mutilation and execution.
Oh, the humane-ity…
Seriously, how is that different from Vick’s arrogance and stupidity?
No one can defend what Michael Vick did, but these fanatics baying at the stained window of vengeance are laughable. Their extremism begs another salient question: What is worse, being inhumane to an animal or being inhuman to other people?
What’s a more heinous crime? Renditioning innocent people to foreign countries to torture them or pitting bull dogs in a fight to the death? It’s close, but I gotta side with the people being more important than dogs. Yes, that’s right, if my wife and my dog were drowning, I would step on my dog to save my wife. If it meant he had to drown, I would be heartbroken, but I’d still be married. (I could make a great joke here…nah…)
Perspective is the issue. Have these very whack-jobs, who call for Vick’s physical destruction, ever held a sign in support of police brutality victims documented in the media on, at least, a monthly basis? Have they ever marched in anger to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for their trampling of the Constitution? Have they ever protested about how many HUMAN BEINGS have died, suffered torture, were raped in prison, or lost appendages while America wages the insipid War on Drugs or the unwinnable War on Terror?
Do these animal-loving extremists ever take time to consider there are much more serious crimes worthy of causing hyperactive hackles?
Where were these fanatics after our government abandoned the victims of Katrina? Funny, I saw more heart warming stories about the rescue of family pets than I saw gripping accounts about saving men, women, or children.
Answers to the above questions require rational, analysis. I am not sure the average fanatic who howls for Michael Vick’s death is willing to do that kind of mental work. It takes genuine effort to give a flying fork about concepts like proportionality, context, or reason.
Of course fanatics, extremists, whack-jobs, psychos, they are on the fringe of society, not in the mainstream, you know, like us…
Right?
So, say ol’ Rupert pays the license fee. What do you think Fox’s ratings would be if Michael Vick were to be executed on national television?
Just asking.
Could the reason we want so badly to see Michael Vick suffer and die be to purge ourselves of the same evil we see in him?
Is it just me, or are the questions getting much too hard?
18 Responses to “Michael Vick: Dogged By Stupidity… And Questions…”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Virginia Hull
says:
May 18th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
I heard that Vick was attempting to play football again. He had paid his debt and I say Yes. After all anyone who plays or supports football is the owner of a small IQ, no more than 75. So why not let this idiot make more money off all the stupid people. They deserve it.
Nate Barlow
says:
May 18th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Michael Vick has not paid his debt to society. His sentence was light and a joke. He should not be let back into the NFL any more than Pacman Jones should have been allowed to return, but just because the latter was given a break doesn't mean Vick should be. He caused intense pain and suffering to defenseless animals. The man is a monster and should be treated as such. But I believe we should treat every murderer and rapist in just as hard a way as Vick; I don't see them as any better or worse. Malicious, sadistic acts are malicious, sadistic acts, whether directed at people or animals (and one could argue that most animals are a heck of a lot more innocent than most people, save for kids). We're too light on all these scumbags and it's time we nail them to the wall and actually make them pay for their crimes. His prison time is a joke, and as for losing his fortune, he has no one to blame but himself. Our entire legal system, from trials and plea bargains to punishment, is a farce.
Nate Barlow
says:
May 18th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Wow, talk about generalization and narrow-mindedness! Such broad, unfounded statements such as "anyone who plays or supports football is the owner of a small IQ" prove nothing more than that your own IQ is less than that of anybody you excuse of having said low intelligence. Pathetic. If you're going to make such moronic and inflammatory statements (let me know if I'm using words too long for you), at least have the class to do so from a full-fledged account. What are you afraid we're going to see? Coward.
Gairzo
says:
May 18th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Why the broad brush when it comes to football fans? And , no offense, but who died and made you the IQ Queen?
Must be nice to be so superior.
Gairzo
says:
May 18th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
I agree with your general point about punishing people appropriately for what they do.
But, be fair to the issue, Nate. If Jimmy Bob McNeil from Selma Alabama were caught doing exactly what Vick was caught for, it would never have made the headlines and PETA and their ilk wouldn't give it a thought. Without the media pouncing on it and thereby contributing to much of the public frothing at the mouth, a normal redneck dick brain and his buddies wouldn't have spent a month in jail.
Your point about the psychology of Vick's act and other sadistic, malicious, acts is definitely valid as is the point about most animals being defenseless.
However, aren't cows, chickens, pigs, lobsters, and crabs just as innocent? Every day we kill thousands of those animals so we can eat. The only difference is our PERCEPTION of what those animals represent in our particular culture. In China, cats are a delicacy. They eat dogs in Vietnam.
For your reasoning to have consistency you must be a vegan who doesn't wear leather, use pesticides, rat traps or snake repellant.
I also agree our justice system is far too often unjust.
The rich get less severe punishment, in many cases, than those repped by public defenders. One exception, interestingly are cases involving animals. Very often perspective and rational thought take a back seat to our desire to humanize our house pets–and then project that attitude to everyone else's approach to animals.
Different context, but still perfect example was Barbaro, last year's Kentucky Derby winner. Shattered his leg at Pimlico and should have been euthanized on the spot.
Instead, his "accident" and "rehab" became a cause celeb. I read daily accounts about how brave he was, how noble, how strong. Bullshit. The entire charade was about all the "horse lovers" expiating their guilt over misguided breeding techniques and inhumane workloads on animals.
Barbaro suffered as much during his failed recovery as any pitted Bull dog or fighting cock ever did. Where were all the PETAs and animal worshippers then? When PETA should have been kicking and screaming to euthanize an animal with a catastrophic injury, they were mostly silent.
You and I may have wished Vick paid a steeper price for what he did, but the inarguable fact is the Feds negotiated a plea they thought was appropriate. Therefore his debt to the society he injured is, indeed, paid.
I simply don't subscribe to the theory that crimes against animals are more contemptible than crimes against people. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld did more harm to this country, the people in it, and to their many victims around the world than a jag-off idiot, dog abuser like Michael Vick could in ten centuries.
Nate Barlow
says:
May 18th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Your point about "Jimmy Bob McNeil" is only partially true. It would not have made headlines. I am not a PETA person–they are far too radical–but I do receive emails from the ASPCA and The Humane Society, and they are constantly pushing for action on such issues. So it's definitely on their radar, even if it isn't on the self-serving hypocritical media's radar.
I am a meat-eater. The eating of animals to me is part of the circle of life. If I wonder in the forest, I'm a potential meal to any carnivore there. As much as I would never want to eat a cat or dog (and I'll try almost any meat, and have had insects), I respect that they may be delicacies in other cultures. I don't draw a line as to what kind of animal is right to eat.
Regardless, we should not abuse the animals we raise for food here. Pitting animals against each other in violent bloodsport is an entirely different thing altogether.
Vick may have paid he debt from a legal standpoint. Doesn't mean he has from a societal standpoint. And those two are different matters altogether. That's why wrongful death civil lawsuits can be won even when a criminal case is lost (hear that, OJ? Oh, wait, they finally got you on a criminal case, too).
Playing in the NFL is a privilege, not a right. His actions have cost him that privilege. There's no reason why he should be granted it again.
I'm not saying that crimes against animals are more contemptible than those against people. I'm saying they are equally as bad. As far as the guilty are concerned, whether against people or animals, no mercy. Bring down the iron fist!
And you can throw in every last bastard in Washington–no one there is without blame (except maybe a first term representative, and his or her hands will be dirty soon enough).
Sophie P.
says:
May 18th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
I agree with the fact that most of these animal activists were absent during many of the horrors we've seen being done to humans but as Nate said, animals are innocent and defenseless. They had no way out and no way of voicing any objection to what was being done to them. However, who ever said that life is fair and that people get what they justly deserve. We can only get those we can catch and a just punishment is a just punishment whether or not that person gets it…Vick did NOT get a just punsiment. It's total BS to say that we should root for Vick to win the Super Bowl because he's already done his time. True, he has paid somewhat for what he has done but not even close to what it should have been. Thus far I have not seen a single ounce of remorse or even a slight understanding of what he did was wrong. He has simply done what was required to get himself out of jail and back to playing football. He should be sentenced to community service at animal shelters for a EXTENDED period of time so that he can slowly realize the suffering that he has caused and that these are not just stupid and unfeeling animals but rather beings that can feel pain and suffer just like a human being.
Nate Barlow
says:
May 18th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Well said, Sophie! Where's the contrition? Everything he's said or done has been in the most self-serving way possible to limit his prison time and possibly play football again.
Sophie P.
says:
May 19th, 2009 at 1:12 am
Nate, it's very insightful what you just said about paying a debt from a societal standpoint as opposed to a legal standpoint. In fact, it sounds like Gairzo and others I've talked to have tried to defend Vick buy saying just that, that he has already paid his debt because whatever he was sentenced to must have been just because it was what was determined by the court system. I'll believe that defense when I see Bush and his cronies serve a just prison term for everything they've done in the last eight years. That will be the ultimate test of our judicial system.
Nate Barlow
says:
May 19th, 2009 at 4:26 am
Thank you! Ideally, the legal debt would be the societal debt, if the judicial and political systems worked as they should. But, alas, they don't.
Gairzo
says:
May 19th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Guys,
I never once defended Vic. What he did is indefensible.
Sophie and Nate’s point about animals being defenseless and able to suffer is well said and that is why Vick is so vilified today—probably forever.
Nate also differentiates between the ”circle of life” and the brazen cruelty of what Vick and his cohorts did. Obviously, Vicks deviance from cultural norms is what makes his actions criminal.
To me, however, comparing what Vick did to what goes on in slaughterhouses every day reveals a distinction without a significant difference.
Let’s say the beautiful, sweet Sophie is correct—as she always is—that animals are sentient beings capable of suffering and emotion.
Everyday, around the world, excepting India, cows are tortured before they are murdered. Cute little baby cows are made to live in tiny cages to restrict movement and get fat so we can enjoy yummy veal Parmesean.
Darling little piggies—a species domesticated as pets, and known to be equal in intelligence to dogs—are cruelly tortured and murdered by the thousands. Remember Arnold the Pig? Babe?.
I love the smell of bacon in the morning; it smells like breakfast.
Point is, we don’t use the same language—“torture” “murder” “cruelty” when discussing Elsie and Arnold. I had to consciously make an effort to do so.
That speaks to a cultural acceptance, a sanctioning of some animals’—sentient, innocent, and capable of feeling—torture and murder while we condemn the same treatment to other species. You can semantic your way out of it, you can skirt the issue, but you cannot refute that fact.
I understand we need shoes and leather purses and I can bet Sophie won’t let her husband barbecue their dog, but, our need to accessorize or protect our feet is barely less self-indulgent than Vick’s need to entertain himself and gamble.
The hypocrisy inherent in the animal rights movement is undeniable. Vick’s crime and punishment allows a wise-ass rabble-rouser like me to point that hypocrisy out.
The very definition of “a debt paid to society” is a prison term or state administered punishment We all hate what Vick did and we hate him for doing it, and he probably won’t have to face state charges pending against him. We may all hate that, too. But, the debt society has required him to pay has been paid.
Nate, playing in the NFL is no more a privilege than being a landscaper. If Michael Vick wants to seek employment there or anywhere else, he has a right to do so. None of us has the right to deny him employment.
Totally agree Vick’s lack of genuine remorse should be the thing that makes the NFL say “NO!” This guy is so utterly stupid. Instead of trying to rebuild his image, he ought to apologize and demonstrate genuine remorse for his inhumane crimes.
I hope he wins a Super Bowl. It’ll be a nice comeback story.
Nate Barlow
says:
May 20th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
I believe you err greatly in saying its all about the animal involved. For me, it's the activity. It does not bother me that people in China eat cats. It would bother me if two pigs were pitted against each other in violent sport to sate some sicko's bloodlust.
If "debt to society" is always paid after time is served, then why are there registered sex offenders. Prison's over, that should be it, according to your rationale. But it isn't. And you've already admitted to shortcomings in the legal system. As long as no laws are broken, the rest of society has every right to hold someone to task where the government fails.
You say that "playing in the NFL is no more a privilege than being a landscaper", but every job is a privilege. Most jobs require you to disclose whether you've been convicted of a felony. That comes into the decision of whether you are hired. You're right, Vick has a right to SEEK employment. But you're wrong in saying that none of us has the right to deny him employment. Any potential employer or governing organization has the right to deny him that opportunity. The NFL is no different, regardless of the inconsistency in the League's policies–it is their right to choose whatever line the so desire.
The right to seek employment is not the same as a right actually to having that employment. Big difference. Every job involves privilege.
Gairzo
says:
May 20th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Again, your point about Vick's bloodlust is obviously why what he did was criminal. That point was not being argued; it can't be.
The point was, we torture and murder animals every day. The activity isn't for the purpose of bloodlust, but it only varies from Vick's torture and murder by a degree or two. Anyway you cut it, keeping baby cows and chickens caged so all they do is produce more fattening food for our consumption is torture. We in society sanction that torture while we villify other torture.
NATE: If "debt to society" is always paid after time is served, then why are there registered sex offenders.
Because registered sex offenders are born the way they are born. They are driven to have sex with children just as you and I are driven to have sex with adult women–at least that's what behaviorists tell us. I don't think anyone would say someone who did what Vick did has that same innate drive. God, I hope not. Anyway, he'll be on probation for a very long while.
On Vick's reinstatement. I should have clarified–me or you has no right to deny Vick employment in the NFL–ONLY the NFL has that power.
I guarantee you Vick is hoping Goodell will deny him reinstatement. Might be a perfect vehicle to make poor misunderstood Michael the victim–just what he wants and needs. The NFL has given convicted felons second and third chances many times. Don't be surprised if Roger loses that lawsuit. (It'll never get to court. Goodell will back down. We'll see.)
Legally, a privilege is a special right granted to a specific group of people. Employment is not a privilege. The NBA used to deny entry into the league to high scholl grads that hadn't been to college. Was it Kobe who sued? You cannot discriminate in the employment area. Vick is qualified, a member of the union, and no matter how much more you and I believe he ought to be punished, has paid the debt society demanded he pay.
If Goodell keeps Vick out, his legal argument will hinge on the arbitrary and capricious nature of the league's conduct policy. "You're gonna let gun-wielding thugs back into the leage and not a dog abuser?"
See you in court Roger.
Nate Barlow
says:
May 20th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
From http://www.lsnjlaw.org/english/crime/investigatec... (a New Jersey law site, but enough that touches on federal):
"There are no New Jersey or federal laws that specifically protect people with criminal records from employment discrimination. (Some states, such as New York, do have such laws.) However, federal law, while not explicitly protecting people from employment discrimination based on arrest or criminal convictions, offers some protections.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency, has taken the position that employers who, by policy or practice, automatically exclude people from employment on the basis of an arrest or criminal record are in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Denying employment on the basis of an arrest or conviction record has an adverse impact on Blacks and Hispanics, because they are convicted in greater numbers than Whites and other nationalities.
The EEOC has developed guidelines that employers must follow when denying a job to an applicant because of his or her criminal background…
If the employer discovers that you have a criminal history, the employer may not deny you employment because of your criminal history unless the employer conducts some type of investigation in order to gather more information. The employer must consider (1) the nature and gravity of the offense or offenses; (2) how much time has passed since your offense and/or the completion of the sentence; and (3) the nature of the job for which you are applying.
After considering these factors, if the employer still feels that your criminal background makes you an unacceptable applicant, he or she may deny you the position. "
In other words, there are limits to refusing to hire due to criminal record, but no outright ban. To an extent, you can be discriminated on based on your criminal past.
I did not know the legal definition of privilege. However, my point that having a right to seek employment does not mean you have a right to said employment stands, because of all the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not hiring someone–the most obvious being lack of qualification, although that is of course not the case in Vick's situation. Regardless, Vick does not have a right to be employed by the NFL. And, as the above shows, criminal record, with some limits, can be a reason to refuse employment.
As for registered sex offenders, you only talk about those who have sex with children, but there are many other crimes which garner you the label that are not (or not always) considered as "innate" or as having evolved from being born that way–rape (usually a crime of violence) and sexual battery, among others. But you still have to register as a sex offender, and thus the debt to society carries on after prison time. No matter how well you live your life afterwards, you have that stigma.
(The rightness or wrongness of this is a whole other discussion. It is a travesty of justice when a high-school senior is convicted of statutory rape for consensual sex with his high-school, but underage, sophomore girlfriend, serves time, and then has to register as a sex offender and deal with all of those problems for the rest of his life. Wrong, but it happens. The point is, the sex offender tag continues the debt to society after time served. If that's the case, then the debt to society can continue in other cases as well.)
Nate Barlow
says:
May 20th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Oh, totally agree with you about the NFL's double standards and inconsistency of application. I say ban 'em all!
ernessa
says:
May 21st, 2009 at 1:10 am
Wow, what great arguments on both sides. Sadly, I feel that I have nothing to add, except that I don't think sex offenders (in the cases of underage rape) are born that way — I think the majority of them are abused as children and grow up to abuse children themselves. It's a vicious cycle that will only be stopped when we make therapy free and mandatory for both the abused and the abuser in these cases. I could go on about this subject at length, but I won't since this is a sports blog.
As for animal cruelty, I'm very interested in the psychology of this. When I was a child, my sister and I collected bugs. It never even occurred to us to put a magnifying glass to them. But I know that there are plenty of children who did do this, who grew up to be perfectly nice adults.
Is Michael Vick evil or just raised wrong as some have argued? Also, I doubt we'll ever know for sure if he is truly repentant. I think he probably feels victimized by an overreating public, since stars/athletes often don't have the greatest sense of personal responsibility. I don't even know if he's psychologically capable of truly taking responsibility for his heinous actions. That takes a level of self-awareness and emotional intelligence that quite frankly I don't think he has.
So I guess my answer to this question is that I don't have any answers, just more questions.
But c'mon, Gary, I definitely won't be cheering him on at the SuperBowl. :)
Gairzo
says:
May 21st, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Ernessa, I can't lie. I was a kid who would pull the wings off a fly and burn him with a magnifying glass.
However, I quit doing anything against insects the day my buddy Alan Weaver was trying to make a play on a Wiffle ball pop-up and landed nose first in a wasp nest. He comes runnin' up the hill screaming for help with about five pissed off wasps stuck to his face.
Why I burst out laughing, I still don't know.
Cracked me up to see him tear around in circles crying. It was my first lesson in Karma. About 300 of their buddies were right behind him and I guess they thought I was laughin' at them. They swarmed my ass good..
It was the end of my days as an insect abuser.
Couple years later, I killled a bird with a BB gun and never have taken another shot at an animal since.
Your point about Vick's psychology was right on. If he lacks the emotional maturity or the psychic awareness to understand what he did…How dangerous is that?
He'll be back in jail on murder charges. What a waste of talent.
Nate Barlow
says:
May 22nd, 2009 at 3:27 am
Scary, and sad.