Obama's Public Support of Michael Vick

[BullDog]

Suebee, unfortunately there are quite a few football players playing in the NFL today who have beaten up their wives, girlfriends, or women they have met somewhere. Some have been suspended by the league for certain periods of time and some have not.

[suebee]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Suebee, unfortunately there are quite a few football players playing in the NFL today who have beaten up their wives, girlfriends, or women they have met somewhere. Some have been suspended by the league for certain periods of time and some have not.

Absolutely. I'm not trying to negate the impact spousal abuse has. I'm just talking about Vick right now.

[RockOn]

Hey Gang, you people are really rocking in here. Maybe tonight or over the holiday I can get time to come and read everyone's contributions and opinions. Hope so. I have not had much time to be online lately.

Lunch hours go by too quickly ... back to work now and you later.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by suebee

Let's make a comparison. Bully has brought up the topic of abuse of women. Would you support a team that re-hired a quarterback that had beat up his wife or girlfriend? What about if he had beaten up HUNDREDS of women? What if he'd tortured them, had a "rape machine" so that they could be immobilized for sexual intercourse, electrocuted them, and then killed them when they were no longer of use to him? THIS is the magnitude of Vick's crimes. I don't use the same paint brush for everyone - I don't boycott every man who has a criminal record. But I'd be willing to make an exception for the likes of Mr. Vick.

Suebee...I get what you're saying, but I really don't think we can compare humans and animals...I really don't.

We employ horrible, barbaric acts against animals in the process of raising them and slaughtering them for meat...and it isn't even considered a crime.

We feel differently (as a culture) about dogs than we do about cows or turkeys or pigs...so we criminalize those acts. And, no, I'm not objecting to that...I think those acts are rightly classified as criminal.

But, honestly, to compare forced breeding of dogs (which we do all the time with all kinds of animals) to the rape of women? Sorry...it doesn't fly for me.

The rape of a woman, to me, is infinitely more serious than the forced breeding of an animal...as horrible as that may be.

[suebee]

Originally Posted by JustJo

Suebee...I get what you're saying, but I really don't think we can compare humans and animals...I really don't.

We employ horrible, barbaric acts against animals in the process of raising them and slaughtering them for meat...and it isn't even considered a crime.

We feel differently (as a culture) about dogs than we do about cows or turkeys or pigs...so we criminalize those acts. And, no, I'm not objecting to that...I think those acts are rightly classified as criminal.

But, honestly, to compare forced breeding of dogs (which we do all the time with all kinds of animals) to the rape of women? Sorry...it doesn't fly for me.

The rape of a woman, to me, is infinitely more serious than the forced breeding of an animal...as horrible as that may be.

Just making a comparison Jo. It's obvious we as a species are going to be more affected by what happens to our own. However it doesn't in any way make what happened right. Though most of us - to take June's example at the beginning of the thread - would most certainly save our child before we saved an animal if we could only do one - some of us believe that animals have every right to be protected from harm. Laws may be made by man for man, but animals should have the same RIGHT to protection as we do. If we are such an evolved species we should be able to care about and for more than just our own.

[julieisafemme]

Originally Posted by JustJo

Suebee...I get what you're saying, but I really don't think we can compare humans and animals...I really don't.We employ horrible, barbaric acts against animals in the process of raising them and slaughtering them for meat...and it isn't even considered a crime.

We feel differently (as a culture) about dogs than we do about cows or turkeys or pigs...so we criminalize those acts. And, no, I'm not objecting to that...I think those acts are rightly classified as criminal.

But, honestly, to compare forced breeding of dogs (which we do all the time with all kinds of animals) to the rape of women? Sorry...it doesn't fly for me.

The rape of a woman, to me, is infinitely more serious than the forced breeding of an animal...as horrible as that may be.

I don't see this as a black/white, either/or kind of conversation. The abuse of animals or any living thing is equally abhorrent to me. Someone who abuses an animal is equally as likely to abuse a human being. It is part of the human pathology of othering someone or thing in order to justify, sanctify or allow mistreatment.

I hope that we can allow that there is a lot we do not know about the workings of animals. I am not talking about anthropomorphizing or a Eurocentric view of animals. I am talking about the complex lives of animals. I have loved Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson's books on animal emotions.

In order for the abuse of humans to stop and our behavior to evolve it seems to me that we need to understand and treat all living things with compassion.

[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

[suebee]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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

I can only speak to what I would do. Michael Vick isn't just employed - he's an American hero. I'm not a sports fan, nor am I an American, so I don't get that whole sports hero thing. But *I* would certainly not support him: and here's why - I've already said it, but I'll say it again. I do not think the man has "gotten" that animals have the right to NOT be abused. He's coming out with the right words to try and polish his image. HELL! He's got millions of dollars riding on him buffing up his tarnished image! But I have not yet heard anything indicating anything other than the man got caught and is now having to placate the masses. I know not everyone will agree with this, but when you are a celebrity in the U.S. you have a lot of influence. I think that WITH that influence comes a GREAT responsibility to be a good role model. IMO Vick accepted the responsibilty when he took on the role of professional athelete.

[The_Lady_Snow]

It is our jobs as parents, mentors, aunts, uncles etc. To BECOME the role models and heros. Vick is NOT my hero nor my kids, high prilofile folks should not be who we EXPECT to be this. That's on us.

[Julie]

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

It is our jobs as parents, mentors, aunts, uncles etc. To BECOME the role models and heros. Vick is NOT my hero nor my kids, high prilofile folks should not be who we EXPECT to be this. That's on us.

AMEN!
..........................Amen

[suebee]

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

It is our jobs as parents, mentors, aunts, uncles etc. To BECOME the role models and heros. Vick is NOT my hero nor my kids, high prilofile folks should not be who we EXPECT to be this. That's on us.

While I applaud your belief system Snowy, I just don't think it's the reality for a lot of kids. They get a lot of clues as to how to behave from the media. We all know that. Vick being front and centre again gives a message. We can argue nuances, but all a football-crazy teen sees is Vick back in the spotlight. Presidential candidates lose their only chance at office because of a long-past extra marital affair. And Vick's in the spotlight again? Sorry. I just don't get it.

[Medusa]

AJ brings up a great point.

The average black man's life is much more automatically expendable than the average white man's in lots of (if not all) scenarios.

Bernie Madoff comes to mind. Here is a man who bilked a crapload of people out of Billions of dollars - He's in prison. Although his crime wasn't necessarily a violent one, I think of all the people who were close to suicide because of what he did.

How about Dick Cheney, who shot his friend during a hunting "accident". Was he ever punished for that?

What about Phil Spector? How many people did he kill before his butt was finally sent to prison?

Don't even get me started on the war crimes of George W. Bush.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by suebee

I can only speak to what I would do. Michael Vick isn't just employed - he's an American hero. I'm not a sports fan, nor am I an American, so I don't get that whole sports hero thing. But *I* would certainly not support him: and here's why - I've already said it, but I'll say it again. I do not think the man has "gotten" that animals have the right to NOT be abused. He's coming out with the right words to try and polish his image. HELL! He's got millions of dollars riding on him buffing up his tarnished image! But I have not yet heard anything indicating anything other than the man got caught and is now having to placate the masses. I know not everyone will agree with this, but when you are a celebrity in the U.S. you have a lot of influence. I think that WITH that influence comes a GREAT responsibility to be a good role model. IMO Vick accepted the responsibilty when he took on the role of professional athelete.

See, I don't get that he's a hero. A hero, to me, is someone TRULY extraordinary. All of the players of the NFL are talented, lucky and wealthy but that does not make him a hero. A hero is, to my way of thinking, someone who either does something so singularly superlative as to inspire awe or someone who is able to keep their head and perform their function under extreme circumstances. For the former, I think of a figure like Einstein or, even more poignantly, Rosalind Franklin or Alan Turing.* For the latter think of the airline pilot, Capt. Sullenberger. His plane has lost its engines, he's over a major metropolitan area, there are 150 some other people whose lives are, quite literally, in his hands, he can see an alternate airport in Jersey. A lesser pilot might have tried to make it to Jersey, do a one-take approach and probably would have crashed. Capt. Sullenberger calmly (and the zen-like calm is what I admired) tells the area ATC that he's going to put the plane down in the Hudson River and does so. THAT is a hero. People who run into burning buildings when everyone is running the other way are heroes. Most pilots aren't heroes in the same way that most scientists aren't heroes.

To me sports figures aren't heroes, they are people who are paid truly obscene amounts of money to play sports. That's it. So to me, Mr. Vick returning to the NFL is the same as him returning to, say, some cubical farm as a system admin.

I think that we, as a culture, would be well-served thinking about what a hero is, what a role model is and what qualities we think are worthy of emulation. Most of my heroes or role models were deeply flawed people who managed to obtain a level of virtuosity in their chosen field and I admire them because of their commitment to excellence in that field and the power of their intellect. So that might explain why I am rather ho-hum on the prospect of Mr. Vick returning to the NFL--I don't see him as a hero or a role-model. He's a guy who has a job where he makes riches beyond the dreams of avarice and not much more.


*Franklin was an X-ray crystallographer whose work was what Watson and Crick used in their work on the structure of DNA, Turing was a mathematician and brilliant cryptographer who broke the German ENIGMA code which was crucial for helping the Allies win WW II and particularly helped Britain in surviving the Blitz. Franklin died of, I believe, breast cancer the year *before* Watson and Crick won the Nobel and Turing killed himself after the War as he languished in prison on charges of homosexuality).

[JustJo]

I agree with you Aj about what constitutes a hero, but I venture to guess that suebee is right...and that most teenagers in the US know who Vick is, but have no clue about those you named.

I cringe that the "celebrities" I see teens emulating are (to my thinking) overpaid, arrogant, narcissists who contribute nothing of real value to our society.