Obama's Public Support of Michael Vick

[dreadgeek]

Bulldog:

Thank you for posting this. The difference could not be more clear. In fact, the light of the Sun is less obvious than this. One thing the author says--and I'm glad he put it in there--was this:

"Ben Roethlisberger should be thanking the heavens that he is white. If he was Ben the black guy accused of sexual assault in Georgia, he might not even make it to trial."

I'm going to say something now that will probably make a lot of people here VERY uncomfortable, but I think it has to be said.

I was harsh on my son because the last thing I EVER want is for him to have to deal with the police or the court systems. The police because one wrong word--not a movement, not a gesture, a word--and I would be attending his funeral. I don't want him to have to deal with the court system because--well, look at this discussion--I don't know a woman of color who would want her son left to the tender mercies of the sentiments expressed here.

I think that there are people--and I'm talking about people on this site--who would gladly and on very little evidence, happily send my son or any other random black man, to his death or prison for the rest of his natural days and sleep the sleep of the righteous that very evening.

Again, what Michael Vick did was inexcusable and certainly a crime. I do not know how long his sentence should have been but there is no lack of posts here expressing the sentiment that he should never be forgiven (e.g. no parole, no second chance) or that his punishment should be unending or that he shouldn't be allowed to return to his livelihood. I am TRYING--without much success--to see it from the point of view of people on the other side.

I love animals--what's more, I respect them. As some of you know, I am a biologist by training studying more so that I can actually practice that science in a lab somewhere. I look at each living thing as an absolute *marvel* of evolution--a work of natural art. As an evolutionary biologist, I recognize that there is a continuum from, say, rotifers (very simple aquatic animals) at one extreme and us at the other. I recognize that within the mammals that continuum starts to get VERY fuzzy and the more recent the mammal, the fuzzier it gets. I am willing to go pretty far--farther than most people here probably would go--and say that instead of speaking of *human* rights it might be useful to speak of *chimpanzee* rights with us as just another species of chimp. (Thus granting to chimps the full suite of rights we expect) Because outside of language and art, I'm not sure that there are enough cognitive or emotional differences between us and the other two chimp species to matter. My issue with the sentiments expressed here are not born out of disdain for other animals (notice I say other because we are just a specific case of animal) but because I believe that a non-trivial part of the energy behind this issue is driven by race (and possibly/probably class).

I believe in redemption. I believe that people make mistakes--sometimes truly egregious mistakes--that they live to regret. Do I think that Mr. Vick should be allowed to own pets? No, in much the same way that I would not want my daughter-in-law or my wife alone with Mr. Roethlisberger. But I disagree, strenuously, with this idea that Mr. Vick should not be able to make a living and, as I've said a number of times now, I doubt that there is any non-suicidal job he could take that people would not be up-in-arms about.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by BullDog

I think this articles ties many of the themes discussed in this thread together quite well.

http://www.thenation.com/article/ben...ustice-no-play

For those not familiar, Ben Roethlisberger is the starting (white) quarterback of the Pittsburgh Steelers- one of the leading teams in the NFL. Roethlisberger is one of the biggest stars in the NFL and has helped the Steelers win 2 Super Bowls. He was originally suspended for 6 games at the beginning of this season, but it was cut down to 4 games for his "good behavior." The Steelers are in the playoffs once again this year with Big Ben at the helm.

I think the differences between how Ben Roethlisberger and Michael Vick have been treated in the media and the reaction by the general public is very much connected. One is white, one is black. One concerned the alleged rape of a 20 year old woman (the second accusation of rape brought against him) and one against the abuse of animals. I don't think the difference in the reactions and treatment are based purely on race or purely on what people get all up in arms about- I think it is both of those things, among others.

[BullDog]

Absolutely Aj. I am also quite certain that if the crimes had been reversed, that Ben Roethlisberger would have been treated less harshly than Michael Vick- by the media, general public, the NFL and police- for the exact same crime that Michael Vick committed.

[Medusa]

AJ nailed it again.

I was sitting here trying to visualize a world where we have backyards full of plasmodial slime molds and children frolicking through the park with their pet snails on leashes. Or perhaps a trained mosquito. Or a sea urchin named "Fluffy".

How everything is assigned a "value" based on how we tend to perceive it, not necessarily on how it really is. Hence, a dog is given more heart-space than a snail. We might kill a spider by stomping on it faster than we would a kitten. We would share our bed with a puppy but not necessarily a pig (which might be just as intelligent).

And even in the human world, we "other" human beings based on what we perceive to be their value as evidenced by racism, ableism, sizism, sexism, etc.

[dreadgeek]

This is something that I try to keep in mind with ALL domesticated animals--that what we have done, whether we are comfortable with this fact or not--is taken some creature that was on its own evolutionary path and doing very nice, thank-you-very-much, and modified it to suit our own interests. Now, at this point, I think that it gives us a *responsibility* to these animals--a special responsibility above and beyond any kind of stewardship responsibilities we may or may not feel toward, say, polar bears or snails.

Dogs, cats, chickens, sheep, turkeys, goats, cows, pigs, some species of duck, horses and some species of rodents are OUR creations and we are obliged to make certain that they are taken care of. The only ones on that non-exhaustive list I would give any chance at all without us would be cats, dogs, possibly pigs (but probably not) and some of the rodents (because they're not really domesticated, I think, they're just accustomed to our presence and more than happy to let us feed them and keep them safe from predators). The rest on that list wouldn't last a year without us around. Cows, sheep, chickens and turkeys would certainly be gone without us. Most smaller dogs would be gone and the non-fixed large breeds would revert back to wolf-like behavior surprisingly quickly.

Now, I'll admit that I have this continuum with other animals. The metric I use is, well, let's call it an encephalitic index or neurological complexity index. The more complex the neurological system, the more 'rights' I think a given animal species is entitled to. So chimps, as I said above, may very well deserve the FULL set of legal rights we grant to one another even though they are not capable of human speech (lacking some circuitry). Large swaths of the cetaceans (dolphins, porpoises, whales) and cephalopods (squid and octopi) are sufficiently neurologically complex (based upon their behavior) to be granted some kinds of rights. The animals we use for food should be killed in the most humane way devisable. NO animal should be treated with cruelty or put to pain for our entertainment.

However, with the possible exception of the other Great Apes, I do not think that we should necessarily put other animals in the same moral circle as humans. The only reason I have the exception for the other Apes is that, as I said, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the *primary* differences between us and chimps are that the latter lack the hardware in the throat and the wetware in the cranium for full human speech. Other than that, I see them and I see--well, us.

I'll try to illustrate with a story:

Years ago, I was babysitting for my landladies in San Francisco to pay off the deposit on the apartment I rented from them. Their daughter, Emma, loved Koko the Gorilla (her moms had taken her to the San Diego zoo) and so twice a week we would go to the SF Zoo to see the gorillas. Something that struck me on one of our early visits, was how *recognizable* everything happening was. I watched the silverback as one of his grandsons played in front of (and on) him. His patience was obvious even though this young gorilla was being obnoxious in a way that only juvenile primates can be! Every interaction I could recognize and understand with just a little observation. I didn't get *every* nuance, I didn't understand every precipitating gesture but there was nothing there that I didn't recognize from my own family experiences.

The silverback got used to our presence and would come over to greet us after a while. One day we were there and he was not his usual self. He would look at me, make eye contact (which was odd in itself) and then look at his family. This went on for a while. I got the feeling he was trying to tell me something. A day or two later, I picked up the paper and read that he had died of old age and in that moment, I realized what was going on. He KNEW, at some level, that this was it and he wanted to know that there was a witness who had seen what he had done. This was his troupe, his family, they were his legacy. I was his witness. As I write this, I get choked up.

Some would say that he was 'just a stupid gorilla' but gorillas have very large brains and pretty complex social structures. When I look at chimps I see something SO familiar that it is eerie. I try to not anthropomorphize too much because I know that roughly 9 million years separate me and a gorilla and about seven million years separate me and a chimp. But it is obvious that we are all in the same family.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by Medusa

AJ nailed it again.

I was sitting here trying to visualize a world where we have backyards full of plasmodial slime molds and children frolicking through the park with their pet snails on leashes. Or perhaps a trained mosquito. Or a sea urchin named "Fluffy".

How everything is assigned a "value" based on how we tend to perceive it, not necessarily on how it really is. Hence, a dog is given more heart-space than a snail. We might kill a spider by stomping on it faster than we would a kitten. We would share our bed with a puppy but not necessarily a pig (which might be just as intelligent).

And even in the human world, we "other" human beings based on what we perceive to be their value as evidenced by racism, ableism, sizism, sexism, etc.