Hello All,
I have never written a blog before, as there are few issues about which i feel strongly enough to feel a need to publicize my thoughts via the internet. However, the current media and legal frenzy associated with the Michael Vick dogfighting/cruelty allegations, plea bargain, etc. have given me much cause for concern, both as an American, and as a sports fan. For the sake of full disclosure I will classify myself as a moderate football fan, with no particular position on Michael Vick as a player or as a person, beyond my knowledge of his abilities as a football player.
A brief search on Google, a cursory perusal of the many blogs out there, or even just watching the news, reveals an overwhelming amount of popular support for the following assertions:
1. That Michael Vick is guilty of horrific crimes, to the degree that many assert he should "burn in hell," "be tortured," etc.
2. That Michael Vick should be sentenced to a multi-year jail sentence, even under the terms of his upcoming plea bargain.
3. That Michael Vick should be permanently banned from the NFL.
These widely held beliefs deeply trouble me for a number of reasons. Firstly, let it be known that I do not in any way condone Vick's dogfighting/torture involvement, no matter what it was. Vick's behavior in this regard is certainly deplorable, and he should certainly be held accountable for his actions.
However, I am deeply troubled by what I view as a gross lack of perspective by the mass media and the greater American public in regard to this matter. It is unquestionable that many American's love their pets, and most of all, their dogs. Commonly known as 'man's best friend,' dog owners will tell you that their dogs provide then with"companionship" and unconditional "love." However, because of these popular notions, Americans seem to have lost sight of the fact that dogs, lovable and caring as they may be, are still animals - not humans.
Let's think for a minute about some similar (although admittedly, not 100% identical) scenarios that Michael Vick could have been involved in instead:
1. What if Michael Vick had gone on a hunting trip with the Vice President to kill ducks, deer, etc? What is hunting if not killing an animal for man's entertainment? Surely, we would not be having this discussion right now.
2. What if Michael Vick had gone on a fishing trip? Something tells me that while some of Michael Vick's critics may never have gone hunting, I'm guessing that many of them have been fishing (personally, I have never been fishing or hunting). Again, what is fishing if not killing an animal for man's enjoyment and entertainment?
3. What if Michael Vick, while vacationing in Spain, had attended (as thousands of tourists do each year) a bullfight? Again, bullfighting is nothing more than the torture and killing of an animal for human entertainment. While many Americans (myself included) would probably support American imposing economic sanctions against Spain if these were Gladiator-style human fights to the death, should America similarly impose economic sanctions on Spain for their allowance of such heinous displays of animal cruelty?
4. What if Michael Vick had attended (as he very well may have) a boxing match? What about a boxing match (as has occurred several times recently) after which one of the fighters died of his injuries? Is this really so different from dogfighting? Aren't the two boxers killing each other for our entertainment? Should the NFL ban players who go to boxing matches?
5. Trying to contend with PETA's positions opens up a whole new can of worms, but briefly, are all of Michael Vick's critics vegetarians? Are they aware of what goes on in a slaughterhouse? What if, instead of dogfighting, Michael Vick had owned an operated a cattle ranch or a slaughterhouse? Or, what if, during the off-season, Vick had worked as a butcher? More than any of the above examples, the treatment of animals in a slaughterhouse closely parallels many of the claims made against Vick. Yet I don't hear anyone swearing off meat.
As I stated before, I fully admit that none of these examples are exact parallels, although I do believe that the hunting and bullfighting examples are nearly indistinguishable from dogfighting. My point is that most of these examples are very close to the behavior Vick is accused of, yet it would be laughable (rightfully so) to suggest that Vick serve jail time or be banned from the NFL for his involvement in them.
In my upcoming post(s), I will attempt to investigate the other side of the coin - that is, how members of society (especially well known members, such as Michael Vick) are viewed by the media and by most Americans, when accused of crimed against humans (i.e., assault, murder, rape, etc.). The most recent case that comes to mind off of the top of my head is Mary Winkler, the wife of the Tennessee preacher who admitted to shooting and killing her husband at point blank range. She was just released this week after serving a 7 month sentence, and the media outlets report that she plans to resume her job at the dry cleaners at which she worked before her trial. I don't recall a mass public outcry calling for a more severe sentence for her due to her 'human cruelty,' nor was their any call for the dry cleaners to impose a lifetime employment ban on her....
