Obama's Public Support of Michael Vick

[Corkey]

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 Rothlisberger is the starting (white) quarterback of the Pittsburgh Steelers- one of the leading teams in the NFL. Rothlisberger 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 Rothlisberger 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.

Just to put this into perspective. Rothlisberger wasn't convicted of anything, whereas Vick was. See the difference? What ever the commissioner did to Rothlisberger was for breaking the league rules, not for rape, which was never proven in a court of law. Vick was brought to court, found guilty sentenced and served, now playing. In both of these cases the only two similarities are; 1. They are men, and 2, they are football players.

I don't care if Vick is playing again at this point because he served his time, I do care that he never get another dog. I don't care if Rothlesbsrger plays this year or any other as ..you guessed it, not a fan. But he will go to another bar, he will pick up another woman and yes he will be accused again, this will happen through out his career, it comes with the territory.
Is he guilty, no idea wasn't there and neither were any of us, so because we weren't there it is nothing more than speculation on our parts. Yet Vick was convicted, there was proof of his crimes, he went to federal prison, and while there he said he realized the error of his ways. Fine, but that man should never again have access to dogs.
Are there inequities, certainly, this is just a really poor example of it.

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by Corkey

Just to put this into perspective. Rothlisberger wasn't convicted of anything, whereas Vick was. See the difference? What ever the commissioner did to Rothlisberger was for breaking the league rules, not for rape, which was never proven in a court of law. Vick was brought to court, found guilty sentenced and served, now playing. In both of these cases the only two similarities are; 1. They are men, and 2, they are football players.

I don't care if Vick is playing again at this point because he served his time, I do care that he never get another dog. I don't care if Rothlesbsrger plays this year or any other as ..you guessed it, not a fan. But he will go to another bar, he will pick up another woman and yes he will be accused again, this will happen through out his career, it comes with the territory.
Is he guilty, no idea wasn't there and neither were any of us, so because we weren't there it is nothing more than speculation on our parts. Yet Vick was convicted, there was proof of his crimes, he went to federal prison, and while there he said he realized the error of his ways. Fine, but that man should never again have access to dogs.
Are there inequities, certainly, this is just a really poor example of it.

The article I quoted details all of this. This isn't a he said/she said case at all.

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by BullDog

The article I quoted details all of this. This isn't a he said/she said case at all.

Not in the mood to argue with you.

[Blade]

I think had Obama called "Joe the plumber" and thanked him for hiring, "Jim the felon" and giving a convicted felon a chance to be a productive member of society it would have meant more to the people. I don't think he is trying to get votes, I think he was trying to encourage others to give people a second chance.

As for Vick, yes he abused dogs and blah blah blah, whatever he did his time for his crime and financially has lost or is paying for his crime and poor choices. I liked someones comparison to Pete Rose. I never particularly liked Pete Rose, he was mouthy, over cocky, rude and obnoxious as was Reggie Jackson, never liked him either. However they were DAMN good ball players and just as Vick is a good ball player, had the NFL not let him back in some other football venue would have.

As for NFL players being abusive or assaulting women....well I think the reasons that slides are varied. To begin with the evidence was over whelming in Vick's case, his case had multiple victims and it pulled at the heart strings of the nation.

Women on the other hand, people are suspicious of. What was she doing there? Why was she alone with him? She knows he's married etc....Society tries to blame women for a mans transgressions. It always has to be a woman's fault. What she had on or didn't for that matter. Always casting stones at women. Not only that but, this....evidence.......unless a woman goes straight to the ER and files a complaint and a rape kit is done, most all of the evidence is gone in 2 weeks or 3 months or whenever she comes forward. Then there's money, money talks and bullshit walks......not implying that assault or rape is bullshit I'm saying there's probably a lot of this that goes on that we don't know about, that is paid off.

[Martina]

What chills me are comments like he should be allowed to work, but not in football. i understand not allowing pedophiles to be near children after their release from prison. i can understand not allowing Michael Vick to own a dog. That is a means of protecting potential victims.

But it amazes me that people think that they should have any other rights over someone who has already served their time, paid their fines, whatever.

Because someone committed crime, they have not lost their status as a fellow adult human. They get to be that. No one can tell them how to make a living, who to have a relationship with, where to go out for dinner. i am serious.

Is this an American thing? A conservative thing? It's not the reality of fear or prejudice towards those who have been convicted of crimes that weirds me out. It's this belief that one has the right to tell these people how to live their lives after they have paid for their crimes. That is CHILLING. Effing scary.

Break it down. It's the not on my block, not around MY children kind of thinking. It's shunning. Creating a category of person who has no right to live and work among us? What is he supposed to do, blind himself and wander outside the the city limits? What would be good enough? If he is a monster, then he needs to be incarcerated and kept away from us. Hopefully, there he will be treated humanely so that WE don't have to carry the burden of hurting and humiliating other creatures. If he is not shown to be a monster, then he is free to live among us. That's it. The end. He is one of us. He is part of our community, our world. He has a right to be.

The idea that he has to live in shame forever, to not be able to do the best for himself and his family, and that anybody has the right to limit his prospects is dehumanizing to all people. All of us. If you are here among us, and do not pose a clear danger, then you are one of us. Not to welcome this person is to create a category of people that we feel free to discriminate against. That's the slippery slope that leads to abuses of all kinds. No. He has a right to be here and do what he does. If it upsets you, look to changing the law.

[Blade]

Originally Posted by Martina

What chills me are comments like he should be allowed to work, but not in football. i understand not allowing pedophiles to be near children after their release from prison. i can understand not allowing Michael Vick to own a dog. That is a means of protecting potential victims.

But it amazes me that people think that they should have any other rights over someone who has already served their time, paid their fines, whatever.

Because someone committed crime, they have not lost their status as a fellow adult human. They get to be that. No one can tell them how to make a living, who to have a relationship with, where to go out for dinner. i am serious.

Is this an American thing? A conservative thing? It's not the reality of fear or prejudice towards those who have been convicted of crimes that weirds me out. It's this belief that one has the right to tell these people how to live their lives after they have paid for their crimes. That is CHILLING. Effing scary.

Break it down. It's the not on my block, not around MY children kind of thinking. It's shunning. Creating a category of person who has no right to live and work among us? What is he supposed to do, blind himself and wander outside the the city limits? What would be good enough? If he is a monster, then he needs to be incarcerated and kept away from us. Hopefully, there he will be treated humanely so that WE don't have to carry the burden of hurting and humiliating other creatures. If he is not shown to be a monster, then he is free to live among us. That's it. The end. He is one of us. He is part of our community, our world. He has a right to be.

The idea that he has to live in shame forever, to not be able to do the best for himself and his family, and that anybody has the right to limit his prospects is dehumanizing to all people. All of us. If you are here among us, and do not pose a clear danger, then you are one of us. Not to welcome this person is to create a category of people that we feel free to discriminate against. That's the slippery slope that leads to abuses of all kinds. No. He has a right to be here and do what he does. If it upsets you, look to changing the law.

Loved your post Martina!

Is this an American thing? A conservative thing? No this is a vigilante type thing, some people don't think anyone is punished good enough for whatever their crime and would like to have the title of the great equalizer . I'd say many of us (people in general) are guilty of something at some point in our lives that society deems unacceptable. I say let him without sin cast the first stone.