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

[Mister Bent]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Why don't people get all up in arms when football players physically and sexually abuse women? I've been on butch femme websites for like 11 or 12 years now and never seen anything, but I've seen multiple threads about Vick.

Feel free to start one.

Before our President calls an NFL team and congratulates them on hiring a player recently released from prison on a domestic abuse or rape conviction.



Meanwhile, here's something I didn't know about. Lip service?

NFL Players Association Joins Justice Department Effort to Raise Awareness Around Violence Against Women

February 4, 2010

The Justice Department today announced that the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) has joined its year-long campaign to commemorate the 15 year anniversary of President Bill Clinton signing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) into law. The NFLPA has "Joined the List," a group of more than 100 celebrities including actors, musicians and athletes, who have lent their names to raise awareness with their fans, through Web and fan sites, and social networking profiles.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Bingo!

I didn't see lots of uproar over Ben Roethlisberger (except people were bummed he was going to miss 6 games- which got cut down to 4 games for "good behavior").

Absolutely...and I think the blind eye that our society and media turn when powerful, successful, rich, celebrity, *fill in the blank* men abuse women is revolting.....and frequent.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by Mister Bent

Meanwhile, here's something I didn't know about. Lip service?

NFL Players Association Joins Justice Department Effort to Raise Awareness Around Violence Against Women

February 4, 2010

The Justice Department today announced that the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) has joined its year-long campaign to commemorate the 15 year anniversary of President Bill Clinton signing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) into law. The NFLPA has "Joined the List," a group of more than 100 celebrities including actors, musicians and athletes, who have lent their names to raise awareness with their fans, through Web and fan sites, and social networking profiles.

Oh good grief.

I don't even know how to respond to that.

I guess it's easier to put your name on a list and "raise awareness" than to actually demonstrate commitment through action.

[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.

[suebee]

Originally Posted by JustJo

I get that Suebee...and I'm not trying to pick on you by any means. I totally agree that what Vick did was barbaric, and criminal, and should be punished.

I've got a couple things going on in my head about this thread though....

First, Vick was convicted and punished. We may or may not agree with the judge's decision...but that's a separate issue. I do believe that once people have served their sentence, then they need to be given an opportunity to rebuild their lives and not be stigmatized forever.

Second, I tend to stay out of race discussions here because...as a white person...I get that I don't get the reality of what it's like to be a person of color in our (or any) society. However, I totally get that we lock up POC in this society at a disgusting rate....and that white (men usually) who are convicted of far worse acts get a slap on the wrist or a fine. So, our tendency to label ex-convicts as somehow "less than" the rest of us impacts POC far more than it does whites as a group.

Third, I do love animals....and I have a houseful of them at any given time. However, I've also been involved in the raising of animals for food most of my life....having lived and worked on a dairy, raised beef cattle (in Australia not the US), had an ex who worked in a slaughterhouse, etc. I truly think we need to extend our protection and humane treatment to all animals....and think that dogs get an inordinate amount of our attention while cattle and poultry and pigs are treated in a pretty horrific manner. (And, no, I'm not vegetarian or vegan and don't object to raising and slaughtering animals for food....but do believe that we can be at least humane in the process).

And fourth, I'm with Snow. I put children before animals...every time. I'm astounded at a culture that defends animals and ignores the needs of children (and we do).

Oh, I think we're doing a pretty good job of ignoring the needs of children, animals, seniors..... There's certainly enough to go around!

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by betenoire

IF - you can't deny that within some circles (queer females and young urban hipsters specifically come to mind) that it is currently VERY cool to be vegan/vegetarian yadda yadda yadda.

I am not criticizing that. I myself am a big fan/lover of animals (as you know, I'm sure, all of the cats I've had since I was an adult (except for my orange tabby) have been strays or rescued (stolen in one case) from abusive/neglectful situations). My parents took in abandoned dogs while I was in highschool. I still have nightmares about the fur farm video from China that Rhon posted on livejournal fucking YEARS ago.

That said: there is no ignoring the fact that -many- of the hipsters I mentioned above postulate about what friends of the animal they are (oh, and the environment. recycling is also hip.) but completely ignore issues around HUMANS who also need our defense.

First... as a member of the vegan brigade I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of my fellow vegans are straight. And there's a good number of men in the mix too. It's in the spotlight now not because it's hip... cause it's still not. But because animal welfare and factory farming is in the spotlight and that makes it much easier to draw the conclusions that eating meat is neither necessary nor sustainable for our planet. Being vegan is still so uncool that many people who go vegan are ridiculed for their choices, are screwed with by cooks and servers, are left off party invitations because hosts feel at a loss for what to serve (even when we're happy to bring something) or aren't invited out for meals as often because people freak out about where to go.

But what REALLY upsets me about your post is that you fail to see the reason why there's a need for animal advocates which is distinct and different from anti-violence advocates:

Humans have the ability to communicate atrocities, specific and en masse, which animals lack.

I've yet to meet a vegan who doesn't feel passionately about the welfare of all beings. We just feel it's important that we act as a proxy voice for animals, who have none.

Originally Posted by Medusa

I can get behind this thought process to a large degree!

I agree that there is a somewhat pervasive "right now" groove to animal rights, PETA, The Trevor Project, Barefoot running shoes, etc. among young hipster-type Queers. The thinking that to "be" the right kind of Queer or to attract the "right" kind of Queer, that those things are prerequisite.

I used to have a friend who viewed herself as a staunch animal rights advocate and who was vegetarian but wore leather shoes every day, owned a ton of leather furniture, had a purebred dog that she bought from a puppy mill, and loved going to the zoo.

It seemed like she was an animal advocate only to the degree that it wouldn't affect her tastes, comfort, or entertainment value.

This isn't an either/or issue, but rather multi-layered. I see some intersections of race and class with Eurocentric idealization of pet animals. Interesting discussion to say the least.

Medusa, I feel strongly that you've either missed something in your own argument or I have and in further readings, maybe I'm just confused and are actually saying something I agree with.

You agree with what's being said that veg*nism is en vogue and seem to be dissing people who have chosen not only to talk the talk, but the walk the walk of eschewing all animal products and then follow it up with an example where you diss someone who claimed to be an animal advocate but missed the fact that she continued to use animal products regularly.

Again, humans can consent. Animals cannot, nor are they afforded the option to.

I think Vick has been demonized to a greater extent because of the color of his skin and I think he's been forgiven to a great deal because of his prowess on the football field. He's lauded by some as a hero because he's both male and an athlete. All of these things bring intersection from class, race, privilege and money.

Had he (and who knows if he does/doesn't or has/hasn't) raped or abused women... those women had the physical capability to tell someone else, a friend, the authorities, the news. Whether they felt strong enough to do so or not is another issue.

The dogs that Vick abused had to rely on a human being (an advocate) to do the right thing. To realize that what Vick did was heinous and report it.

I've stepped in front of man with a knife who was beating his girlfriend senseless. I still can't hear out of one ear as a result of that. I call the cops when I hear screams. I've even run out of the house (like a moron) when I hear gun shots. All because I give a shit about my fellow humans.

I've also stopped in the middle of a busy intersection during a nor'easter to shepherd a lost dog safely back to his owner. I've jumped into a lake in order to save a cat who was FREAKING out. I've put out food and water for innumerable neighborhood cats and I've even rescued a "stray" rooster in Chicago.

I don't make distinctions about whether another living being deserves my compassion or not. I know they do and all I need to know is that I have the capability to help.

I make no representations that I am better than anyone else. We all make our choices. I wish that everyone would reduce their dependence on animal products. I wish that everyone would at least educate themselves about factory farming. My decision to be vegan wasn't based on it's coolness factor, it was based around living a more purposeful and aware life where my decisions about what to put in my body and what products to use match my stated/voiced ethos. I'm still imperfect in my veganism. I slipped up just about two weeks ago and forgot that pork came in a dish I ordered. I still own some leather shoes. Is it sensible to throw them out or to wear them until they are unusable? I'll probably split the difference and donate them this year as I move further and further toward my vegan ideal.

/soapbox

[Waldo]

And if I didn't have to run off to a lunch date I would be opening a new thread on animal welfare/veganism so I can stop derailing this one. Maybe tonight.

[suebee]

To me Terry Fox was a hero. Maybe this is a totally Canadian reference, but many of you will know who I'm talking about. I don't get this sports hero or celebrity hero thing either, UNLESS they show extraordinary character in other areas of their lives. But it's a reality in our culture.

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by suebee

To me Terry Fox was a hero. Maybe this is a totally Canadian reference, but many of you will know who I'm talking about. I don't get this sports hero or celebrity hero thing either, UNLESS they show extraordinary character in other areas of their lives. But it's a reality in our culture.

I'm familiar with Terry Fox. I'm not sure I'd say hero there either, in the classi sense of the word. Extraordinary human? Certainly. Humanitarian? You bet. But I'm not sure that he did anything "heroic".

Then again I have a short list of "personal heroes" which includes Aimee Mullins because of the work that she's done to change the assumption that being differently abled means that you give up on beauty. If you haven't seen her TED talks, I encourage you to do so. They are amazing, as is she. So I think "hero" means different things to different people.

Okay, no, really... I gotta shower and get going.

[Medusa]

Originally Posted by Waldo

Medusa, I feel strongly that you've either missed something in your own argument or I have and in further readings, maybe I'm just confused and are actually saying something I agree with.

You agree with what's being said that veg*nism is en vogue and seem to be dissing people who have chosen not only to talk the talk, but the walk the walk of eschewing all animal products and then follow it up with an example where you diss someone who claimed to be an animal advocate but missed the fact that she continued to use animal products regularly.

Again, humans can consent. Animals cannot, nor are they afforded the option to.

/soapbox

I think maybe I wasn't clear - Not at all dissing folks who are vegetarian or vegan. I actually have huge respect for anyone who can maintain an anti-harm process with food, entertainment, etc. That takes an incredible amount of dedication and self-control, and thus far, isn't something I have been able to fully accomplish in my own life. (much as I try!)

I was more speaking to the elevation of veganism as a "popular" trend and not an actual lifestyle choice within certain "hipster" circles. (something that is picked up as a means to enter social circles, gain respect as "anti-harm", etc. and not because they have personally evaluated their part in the commercialization of animal harm) I think it takes money to do that in a lot of cases and, in turn, can be fleeting at best. (and I'm totally owning my personalization with this, btw)

I have encountered several vegans and vegetarians who don't eat animal products but who do wear leather, smoke bidis, and have furniture or clothing in their homes that are not harm-free. I don't know their personal reasons for choosing to do one but not the other and get that it might not be practical to throw out a house full of leather furniture in favor of buying stuff made from synthetic materials.
I was just kinda publically scratching my head about the polarity of it all.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by 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.

To be honest, I doubt that most American *adults* know who any of those people are except Einstein (who is the one scientist everyone knows). I would be shocked if most American women know who Franklin was or if most American queers know about Turing. I think that we, as parents, have to do a better job at teaching our children what traits are worthy of honor and emulation and what are not.

So let's say that Mr. Vick--not by NFL dictate but by public pressure--were never allowed to play football again. What then? Is there anyone here who doubts that no matter WHAT job he obtained someone would say "they hired Michael Vick, I'm never shopping/eating/patronizing that company ever again"? I am entirely unconvinced--based solely on what I have been reading here and on news sites--that there is any job that Mr. Vick could hold that would not result in a hue and cry. Notwithstanding some job that was so dangerous that to take it was to make one's death a certainty--clearing minefields with a sledgehammer, cleaning out the inside of hot nuclear reactors without the benefit of a suit, testing for gas fumes with a Zippo lighter--I doubt there's any kind or class of job for which people would say that Mr. Vick's crimes were not prima facie evidence of his unfitness.

Cheers
Aj

[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.

[katsarecool]

Originally Posted by June

I keep going back to this post, Jo -- Can you explain what you mean by this? Who are the last people who should own pitbulls?

Thanks,

June

June, I know in my experience with breeding my Rottie many years ago I had many people who I would describe as thugs and very possible drug dealers wanting to buy one of the puppies in order to protect their "property". I did not sell them one. And the people that thought having a Rottie would be an extension of their "manhood" didn't get a puppy either. It was a very small town so it was easy to know who was who and who had good intentions.