Obama's Public Support of Michael Vick

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by suebee

I haven't seen anybody here propose that either. But believe it or not, (and I hope I've got the right organization here - I'll come back and correct myself if I find out otherwise) the ASPCA has spoken up as feeling that Vick is ready to own another dog. Obviously this greatly upsets many in the rescue community.

As for employment: the man CERTAINLY has a right to provide for himself and his family. Should social stigma follow him and perhaps prevent him from working in some jobs? It depends upon your personal values. The severity of his crimes were the reason why I posted the article. I abhor people who buy a dog and then tie it out in the back yard and throw food at it once a day. But THAT is negligence, and ignorance. Michael Vick tortured and killed HUNDREDS of dogs. He knew full well that it was illegal. He hid his crimes. In my world that makes him a dispicable human being. He has the right to gainful employment, but I wouldn't hire him, nor would I support any business that did. That's freedom of expression.

ETA: Obviously there are many people who ARE ready to support him, or at least forget about his crimes, as I haven't heard anything about the Eagles stands being empty for their games.

Certainly, that is freedom of expression but your expression, in this instance, actually demonstrates my point. I don't think that the uproar is about Mr. Vick being back in the NFL, I think it is Mr. Vick being *employed* full stop! I think that the only *possible* job that Mr. Vick could take that would not generate howls of protest is if he were to have to walk across a mine field and find--and detonate by stepping on one--buried mines. PERHAPS that might not generate a hue and cry but anything short of a job where his death was certain, I doubt would be acceptable.

I am, as I've said before, not defending Mr. Vick because I don't defend criminals who have been convicted. I am, however, interested in this situation as a cultural situation because--and I was talking with my nephew about this yesterday--I think that if it were a white man, the general societal consensus would be 'he did the crime, he did the time, let the man get his life back'. I think that part of why so many people are just SO intense that he shouldn't be able to lead something remotely resembling a normal life is the *same* social psychology that says that if a black man breaks into a home and kills a white family his life is forfeit and the only question is whether he is electrocuted or shot up with drugs while if a white man breaks into a home and kills a black family he's looking at the life behind bars with a possibility of parole in 15 or 20 years. I am NOT saying that this is your motivation nor am I saying that anyone here is consciously working off that idea. However, there is a psychology behind the legal reality I just described and that psychology is pre-existing to ANY courtroom experience of a lawyer, judge or juror.

It is simply the case that in the United States of America, the general gestalt is to view the actions of a black man more harshly than the actions of a white man. If, for instance, Mr. Obama were a white man people would be making comparisons with Washington at this point but he's not and so he's been written off as a failed President while Mr. Bush--who was, in fact, actually a real and true disaster for this nation--will be rehabilitated into an Eisenhower-esque figure long before I die of old age.

Cheers
Aj