Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

America's Wildly Overblown Vick Hysteria

By Earl Ofari Hutchinson, AlterNet. Posted August 23, 2007.


The moment the public got wind that the feds had their eyes on Michael Vick and that the issue was dog fighting, he was dog meat.
Advertisement

Countless numbers of pro football players have committed rape, physical assaults and armed robberies. They have been inveterate spouse and girlfriend abusers, and have even been accused of a double murder (no not O.J., more on him later). Yet none of them have ever had an airplane fly over their training camp with a banner that read abuser, killer, robber, assailant or thug. None have ever been taunted, jeered and harangued by packs of sign-waving demonstrators screaming for their blood when they showed up at the courthouse. None of them have ever brought the wrath of the entire sports world -- sportswriters, fans, league officials, advertisers, sports talk jocks and bloggers down on their heads. None have ever had senators, congresspersons and packs of advocacy groups publicly demand that they be drummed out of their profession.

Even America's favorite former football celeb turned pariah, O.J. Simpson for a time had legions of fans, advocacy groups, some writers and commentators, and the majority of blacks, passionately defend him, or at least the presumption of his innocence. Even after Simpson brought the wrath of the nation down on his head following his acquittal, some still cut him some slack. That included rabid O.J. haters who said that the jury had spoken.

With disgraced Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick none of this applies. The moment the public got wind that the feds had their eyes on him and the issue was dog fighting, Vick was dog meat. With the sole exception of the Atlanta branch of the NAACP, which held a brief, perfunctory press conference, and lightly urged the public not to rush to judgment, Vick quickly snatched the pariah mantle from O.J.

So why have Americans wildly overblown him? There are three reasons. Americans pay devoted, emotional and hypocritical lip service to their love of animals. I say hypocritical because many of the individuals that work themselves into a lather at the hint of a cross word or look at an animal won't utter a peep in protest to stop the killing and maiming of old men, women, and children in Iraq. They won't send a letter, fax or email to protest the genocide in Darfur and the Congo, or that occurred in Rwanda. They were stone-silent on the hundreds of men that rotted on America's death row for years and came within a hairs breath of having their lives snuffed out but were later exonerated. But animals are different the animal rights defenders say. They can't defend themselves. The inference is that humans can. Try selling that tired, self-serving line to the victims of war, genocide and the injustices in the criminal justice system. They are dead, precisely because they were defenseless.

Vick had the misfortune of being rich and famous. In years gone by that combination virtually guaranteed celebrity criminals a never go to jail card. If they had enough cash, name ID and publicity, the public, police and prosecutors would step gingerly around them, or even openly cheer them on. Not anymore. If their name is Paris, Lohan, Simpson, Tyson, Michael Jackson, and now Vick, a public sick to death of the outrageous legal double standard that hand slaps celebrities for their criminal deeds, screams even louder for tossing the book at them. The double standard hasn't completely evaporated in the legal system. There are prosecutors and judges that are still thrilled at the thought of getting an autograph from or mugging for a photo with a badly behaving celeb. It's just not fashionable to say they are.

Then there's race. The feds didn't go after Vick because of his race. But the court of public opinion is a far different matter. It is the height of naiveté to think that the vitriol that many spew at Vick or any other rich, famous black athlete or celebrity that gets in hot water isn't fueled by hidden racial bias and ill feeling. There's simply no evidence to back up the shout from some that they'll hammer a white athlete or celeb as hard when they are guilty of a crime or bad behavior. This is more ostrich-like pretense that race has no bearing on anything in America. Yet for me to even dare whisper the R word about Vick insures that I will be royally lambasted for playing the race card. In fact, I was accused of screaming racism in a previous piece on Vick when I never once mentioned the word race in the piece.

The supreme irony in the Vick saga is that he had everything going for him; fame, riches, fan and sportswriter adulation and fawning sponsors. In the end those assets turned out to be a vicious double edged sword that hacked him apart. They stoked public anger, hostility and vengeance. Vick is as much a victim of the ugly passions of the times as for his crimes. Vick and hysteria for now are horrible synonyms for those passions.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: animal rights, celebrity, football

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York) in English and Spanish will be out in October.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Another hypocrisy
Posted by: jeeves22 on Aug 23, 2007 1:54 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You forgot hypocrisy of people who eat cow burgers and get all hot and bothered at dog killing. Why is it OK to kill and eat cows and not OK to kill dogs ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Another hypocrisy Posted by: rg
» RE: Another hypocrisy Posted by: HF1304
Michael Vick ain't the man he thought he was
Posted by: dagzine on Aug 23, 2007 2:47 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Though I agree with your concern about racism in the US, the rest of your piece is a bit ridiculous.

I posted a longer response on dagZine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

False, ridiculous statements
Posted by: kevred on Aug 23, 2007 3:12 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a stupid, unsubstantiated statement:

"... many of the individuals that work themselves into a lather at the hint of a cross word or look at an animal won't utter a peep in protest to stop the killing and maiming of old men, women, and children in Iraq. They won't send a letter, fax or email to protest the genocide in Darfur and the Congo, or that occurred in Rwanda. They were stone-silent on the hundreds of men that rotted on America's death row for years and came within a hairs breath of having their lives snuffed out but were later exonerated."

Hutchinson doesn't know what he's talking about here, at all--it's an absurd claim. I, for one, am outraged about all these things, and know other people who are outraged about all of these things, and have made that outrage known, repeatedly. He's just venting here, and slandering millions of people in the process.

Instead of a real analysis of this issue, he seems to be on a personal mission to tear down everyone who cares about anything other than--or in addition to--his pet causes. That is a sure-fire way to fail to increase anyone's concern, sympathy, or understanding about what you care about.

My advice: pick better heroes next time, sir. The reason your pet cause is being thrown out like yesterday's garbage is because he deserves it. Sometimes, it's just that simple.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: False, ridiculous statements Posted by: Camilla Cracchiolo
In the greater scheme of things
Posted by: francomef on Aug 23, 2007 3:26 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes it was terrible. I remember a few years back when they found a pile of dead grey hounds. No one wants a washed up racing dog. I have always had an issue how America puts so much importance on their pets yet people starve everywhere. For you Christians when judgement comes and God asks you why you were able to feed your pet and not your fellow man I would not want to be near you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: In the greater scheme of things Posted by: anonymous black writer
Neither hand washes (excuses) the other..it's all filth......
Posted by: ekipnrut on Aug 23, 2007 3:46 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Michael Vick is one of a handful of hyper inflated sports
industry 'celebs' manufactured and pimped by MSM as a
'mega image',floating above the
fields of schemes of the latter like a humongous bloated dirigible in the Thanksgiving parade to the ooohhhs and awwwws of the fawning adoring masses. In other words he is a (could be) made 'only in america' uber freak paid far beyond all rhyme and reason only because there is no reason to the madness of narcissistic capitalist commodification(s) gone berserk. The fickle ,desultory,unreliable , venomous reaction of many of his former 'fans' and the public at large...this is a surprise??? This is EXACTLY WTF one would expect from masses themselves 'crazy' enough to celebrate tens of millions 'rewarded' to a few sports figures where the average fan can't even afford health insurance if their mate is cancer diagnosed or their child with leukemia or the 'fan' himself needs a critical bypass.A corrupt syndication of nonproductive parasitic , entirely derivative of entertainment/leisure diversion driven concerns , i.e. the american sports/msm infotainment/merchandising industries.
For anyone to feign surprise at the public's reaction to Vick's predicament is silly more than anything else.Your 'best friends'
will, in a New York minute, become your worst enemies, especially if they were never your friends to begin with and were KNOWN to be phony as a 'psychic dog whistle' and bat shit nutty as a generic RP supporter...i.e. the 'fans' :O)
C'mon now..you're looking to the 'fans' for emotional stability and consistency???....Umm Hmmmm. Furthermore the moral shortcomings or character failings of the 'fans', however profound and blatant, simply don't bear any relationship to Vick's culpability for what he did. When mom is getting ready to throw a serious ass beating on ya' for sassin her at the mall and running away from her ...one doesn't offer as defense....
"but mom YOU were drunk last night on the phone and cursed at Aunt Judy and you KNOW she hasn't been feeling good"..
Ummm..wrong strategy... :O) As for the assertion that
Vick had the misfortune[this doesn't even merit comment] of being rich and famous. In years gone by that combination virtually guaranteed celebrity criminals a never go to jail card.If they had enough cash,name ID and publicity, the public, police and prosecutors would step gingerly around them, or even openly cheer themfollowed byThere's simply no evidence to back up the shout from some that they'll hammer a white athlete or celeb as hard when they are guilty of a crime or bad behavior.
Both are just flat out false: [read it ALL carefully!!]
FA.. (Is Mr. Vick ready for his closeup?)
I agree that it is pointless to continue to demonize Vick with hyperbole of rhetoric,as has been the case with some of the posts on this matter. No doubt some of that IS based in white racism..no argument there.As I tried to point out (supra) the entirety of the milieu in which Vick thrived is based on fundamentally misplaced priorities, degenerate/debauched self indulgence and as usual..capitalist exploitative bullshit. Within that essentially flawed universe, he DID take it upon himself to royally fuck up all the more so..again within that admittedly fucked up, to begin with, American Circus Maximus . As stewards of the planet (independent of PETA) we have a clear and absolute obligation to look out for the animals.. yes realistically as animals...but certainly NOT to abuse them. There are NO winners here..game over.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No, but you can teach a pig to ...
Posted by: cheressemm on Aug 23, 2007 4:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
fetch a newspaper, and we still treat these animals horribly in our current food-supply system. We are definitely hypocrites about that ... look up factory farming on You-Tube, go to farmsactuary.org, and read up about sow gestation crates and current slaughterhouse practices, which are dangerous to the humans who work there (the most dangerous job in the U.S.)--mostly illegal immigrants--and horrendously cruel to the animals that are killed by the thousands upon the hour ... read about pigs that are not even stunned prooperly before being dunked in vats of boiling water ... and then tell me that you don't see the hypocricy of which this article speaks when it comes to how much we supposedly love animals and don't want to see them abused.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The distinguished Pretzel Award for Logic has been awarded.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Aug 23, 2007 7:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Vick is as much a victim of the ugly passions of the times as for his crimes.

Someone translate what EOH is trying to say for me? Poor Vick has been victimized twice for choosing to break the law?

Eh?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

These kinds of arguments
Posted by: bg41 on Aug 23, 2007 10:17 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
are ridiculous. I can't stand that method of diffusing blame by criticizing Vick's detractors via the vague (and completely presumptuous and unsupported) generalization regarding whether or not we would "utter a word of protest regarding the genocide in Darfur" and so on. How on earth does Mr. Hutchinson know what we do regarding other social issues? These kinds of pathetic straw man arguments rely on completely fabricated generalizations in an attempt to distract our attention away from the issue being discussed and put us on the defensive because we are apparently not vocal enough in our opposition to other atrocities. This is pure crap, and no person with an atom of debating skill or logical reasoning should fall for it.

Secondly, he's ignoring a key difference between the wars, genocides and similar worldwide horrors he lists and the Vick case. For general discussion, those issues, while obviously just as (and in many cases far more) serious and horrifying than the Vick case, are just too big and multifaceted to elicit the kind of directed anger and criticism that occurs when a crime is allegedly committed by one or a few individuals. Vick is the target of what may seem to be more venomous attacks than the perpetrators of genocide because he has a name and a face that we are familiar with and can recognize, and thus we have a more universally understood point of discussion. Incidentally, I can't help but the find any sentence that claims an individual "had the misfortune of being rich and famous" extremely funny. For an article to first extend a panegyric to the powerless masses and then turn around and call a multimillionaire a "victim" of his wealth is some pretty nimble stuff.

Genocide and wars are obviously among the most despicable legacies of humankind. No one here debates that, and indeed the fact that we are reading this site in the first place implies that we at least make an effort to educate ourselves about these events. But pointing to the most horrible things in the world and then saying that what Michael Vick is accused of pales in comparison is just stupid. You can downplay the importance of ANY crime by doing that, but you've accomplished nothing of substance. You've just demonstrated that you're so bereft of ideas you've been reduced to saying the equivalent of, "Well, it's not as bad as the Holocaust," which is essentially saying that you have no argument of any actual merit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So suffering folks in Darfur make dog fighting OK?
Posted by: Camilla Cracchiolo on Aug 23, 2007 11:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I call this the "Joey Down the Street Argument". As in:

Your mother catches you doing something bad and you say "But Joey down the street does it! He does worse things!"

To which our moms, sensible, moral ladies that most of them were, usually replied: "If Joey jumped off a bridge, you would too??"

So, if I can't save all the people I deperately want to save, I should just shut up when I see animal abuse? We can't stop one wrong until every single human being has what they need? Personally, I go on the "I do what I can where I can NOW" principle.

I'm NOT happy about celebs who beat their wives & girlfriends. I care very much about Darfur. I used to be an activist but then I got very sick and today live on disablity. Since I AM sick & disabled, I can't DO much about Darfur or anywhere except send money to relief organizations (among which I have to pick between for my limited money) and write letters (which the government proceeds to ignore). But I CAN do something about somebody abusing an animal.

Dog fighting is just low.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Animals vs people reminds me of "After the Revolution"...
Posted by: Camilla Cracchiolo on Aug 24, 2007 12:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This isn't just about Vick and dog fighting or animals vs. people. We need to think about some of the far reaching implications of ignoring animal suffering.

Allowing the idea that it's OK to ignore an immediate evil has significant consquences, to our personal characters, to the practical nature of our movement and in the end, to the type of society our movement is able to create. Because as the saying goes, "Means are just ends in the making."

Back in the day, in the early 70s, it was common for leftists, usually doctrinaire Marxists or Maoists, to come around and tell women, gay people, people with disabilitites, environmental activists and (sometimes) people of color, that our issues were not as important as the great, overarching class struggle. Never mind that together we are the vast majority of humanity. We should all just wait until "After The Revolution" and all our problems would be solved. So does it really surprise anyone that many of the places that these folks looked to a models of revoutionary, just societies actually turned out to be pretty bad?

That these were usually white guys of pretty privileged backgrounds shouldn't surprise anyone. The left of the 70's had some real problems with racism, sexism and all the other isms. The result was that the rest of us felt driven out; we left and formed what are now sometimes called "identity politics"...the women's movement, gay liberation, etc. In fact, the left didn't really deal with it's white male elitism until nobody was left to make the coffee or do the scutwork that the Marxist theoreticians felt they were too good for.

In the end, most decent people in the left and in these movements concluded that it's wrong to just walk by suffering. If you see an injustice being done, you have to stop and fight it here and now. If someone is in pain, you help them. Now, not later. I think this was a Good Thing(tm) and we made tremendous reforms and raised a lot of consciousness. But it also led to the decimation of class based politics and a division among social movements that are only now beginning to come together again. Let's try to avoid this again by NOT driving out the people who love animals!

So tell me, Earl. Do the doggies and kitties and those of us who care about them have to wait until After The Revolution? And do we really want to build a movement that accepts the abuse of animals? Can we really build a society that is decent to all human beings if we harden our hearts to the suffering of animals? Once we start accepting that any suffering is OK, it's a short step to not giving a shit about human suffering either. And loving animals is about LOVE. Which seems to me to be a pretty good place for a movement to start from.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

not so fast Earl
Posted by: johnwallis42 on Aug 24, 2007 6:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Vick is as much a victim of the ugly passions of the times as for his crimes. Vick and hysteria for now are horrible synonyms for those passions."
Umm no I don't think so, firstly Vick is not a victim, he is a criminal, he doesn't even have the defense of poverty for his actions. Secondly just what are the ugly passions here if they aren't torturing and murdering animals for sport. Thirdly your assertion that the public reaction to Michael Vick's crimes are hysteria smacks of a disingenuous attempt to mitigate on his behalf. Don't go there Earl and if you're so concerned about the "hysteria" why have you written two articles on this subject the first depicting Michael Vick as "Crucified". As for racism yup right back at you when you state that "There's simply no evidence to back up the shout from some that they'll hammer a white athlete or celeb as hard when they are guilty of a crime or bad behavior" The fact is that there's no evidence to the contrary so you are essentially stating a racist opinion. I have to ask if Michael Vick was white would you have written this article? My personal opinion about this matter is that frankly I abhor racism, animal cruelty and the way the world is run, I much prefer the company of my dogs to the company of humans and you have said nothing that would change that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Let me quote Shakespseare Posted by: The Populist
» RE: Let me quote Shakespseare Posted by: johnwallis42
» RE: not so fast Earl Posted by: helenwheels
MSM culpable
Posted by: scott balogh on Aug 24, 2007 6:49 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please, MSM, take this story off the headlines. It is not as if Vick lied the US into attacking another country. If Vick did what he is accused of, his crime should be considered despicable. As for racism, please try not to pull that out as some sort of indictment against protesters. Look at all the MSM press white folks get for their stupid stunts, for example Paris Hilton, Michael Jackson, Anna Nichole Smith. Shit people, let us do something about the insane, vicious crimes OUR government and the puppeteer corporations are committing IN OUR NAME. Why the heck are Bush and Uncle Dick running free and approved of by millions of US citizens?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: MSM culpable Posted by: helenwheels
Beat it to death....
Posted by: The Populist on Aug 24, 2007 7:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the dog and the subject! Hutchinson grinds this into the same ground that will bury Vick!!!

The culture of drugs, gangs and the pro sports is paraded for all to see!! Shaq has a multi million dollar birthday party in place made to look like Scarface's palace. Athlete's competing for how "stooopid" they can look during interviews!!

They yell "HATE ME" at the top of their lungs and Hutchinson is their little MsM cheerleader!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hutchinson has a knack for gliding over the details
Posted by: frankt on Aug 24, 2007 8:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Earl Ofari hutchinson doesn't mention how the dogs were tortured and These dogs were tortured in very unusual ways. Mr Hutchinson likes to talk in circles but we soon see his motive and his motive is race. Hutchinson's articles about his support for Tookie Williams and a very long winded article about Louis Farrakhan is Like the Vic article. Hutchinson forgets to mention the bad things. All one has to do is read what happened to those dogs[all of what happened] and Ofari's story falls a part like a house of cards. All one has to do is read the official doctrine of the Nation of Islam and Ofari's story collapses like a souffl'e in a earthquake. Furthermore, it is amazing how Hutchinson does an about face and glosses over the black on white race crimes like the one in Knoxville where a white couple were raped, tortured and murdered. Hutchinson sure does have a knack for leaving out all the nightmarish details.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks Hutchinson
Posted by: noway2 on Aug 24, 2007 9:05 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you, Hutchinson, for expressing many of my own thoughts and feelings on this matter.

But it's time to go much further. It's time to go on the offensive and to ask how we got to the point where abuse of animals gets a far stronger emotional reaction than abuse of people does, and to stop accepting the lame and specious moralistic arguments of the animal rights movement, which is increasingly sounding like the anti-abortion movement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What a stupid idea Posted by: kevred
The Hypocrisy
Posted by: mobile68 on Aug 24, 2007 11:14 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the point Mr. Hutchinson is trying to make here is how once again the black man is demonized in the rich white controlled media.

I find it so funny that it’s ok for rich white people to go into other people’s lands (usually people of color) to kill a whole elephant just for their ivory tusks, kill endangered tigers just for their skins, hunt deer just for sport, constantly picking on the great white sharks, using dolphins for military spying, and yet it’s not being broadcasted by the MSM as being inhumane, wasteful or simply mindless. In fact there shows on t.v, and dvds showing how to go about hunting these animals for sport and/or profit! Then you have the white mass murderers such as John Wayne Gacy and Jeffery Dahmer who took pleasure in torturing and killing animals before going on to become mass murderers, went hardly mentioned in the MSM when their crimes came to light.

Sorry Mr. Hutchinson, even though you do have a good point about how America should be outraged about Darfur, Rwanda, and the Congo, it will never happen in this country because like with Hurricane Katrina, police brutality, and the Jena 6, a black human being life is not as sacrosanct as a white persons life here in ameriKKKa, even though we’re all human beings. And to take it a step further, even a woman’s life is valued less than a dog’s. But a dog’s life is far more precious because white people can relate to them better than they can to black people? And you know what dog is spelled backwards.
Let’s see how many people replying to this post get upset about this story:
Housing Pygmies at zoo sparks uproar

How you get white people riled up to react to anything, is to put something or someone affiliated with being an African-African. It’s funny how since Ronald Regan, that the black man is scapegoated close enough to a presidential election to be used in campaigns (particularly by the repug party) to justify white America’s fear and hate of the black man, and why blacks should never be trusted to control anything in this country.

And that’s why I’m upset with Mr. Vick. It’s black folk, particularly, African-American males, tend to forget that while they have not been officially appointed the “role model” of black America, it is their status and having been born black in this racist society that unfortunately had this “burden” placed upon them.

What I want to say to Mr. Vick that probably hasn’t been reiterated to him enough is: despite the greater prospects, opportunities and privileges earned for and by many of us over the decades, the default has remained the same: The power dynamics that exist in this country at any given time may render us niggers. The problems that you are facing may or may not be of your doing, but it is up to you to find a solution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» OK!!!! Posted by: ekipnrut
» RE: The Hypocrisy Posted by: johnwallis42
Boy, playing the victim must be more addictive than heroin
Posted by: bg41 on Aug 24, 2007 11:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find this immediate need to classify the Vick case as one hinging on race beyond stupid. He is accused of committing a crime of heinous cruelty - a CRIME, which means that anyone doing it would be in trouble. People who whine that he is now the symbol of this crime because he is black are, it seems to me, just looking for another way to play the victim themselves - note how every claim that this is racial discrimination then moves on to a broader indictment of society at large, which allows the individual posting the comment to throw him- or herself in with the oppressed. Let's face it, there's no better way to inflate yourself than by claiming that you are where you are in spite of worldwide opposition. Hence we have every sports team in the world playing the "no one believed in us" game whenever they win a championship so as to inflate the magnitude of their victories all the more, and now we have people looking for ways to feel that this issue is all about them. You're not a dogfighter? Okay, so you can't feel victimized that way. Not a star athlete? Nope, can't share in the victimhood that way either. Well, since Vick's black and blacks have historically (and equally heinously) been discriminated against, let's make it about that!

Please. People are digusted by this story because of the cruelty perpetrated against animals. That's it. They may be further flabbergasted by the fact that a multimillionaire would do something so stupid as to jeopardize his celebrity and wealth by engaging in established illegal activity, but that's no different than the puzzlement we feel when anyone throws away a good thing. Categorizing this incident as some kind of proof of white oppression is beyond moronic - and what's far worse, it's an insult to those who actually HAVE been racially discriminated against. Not every case in which a black man is charged with a crime is one of racial discrimination. No one denies (well, at least I don't deny) that race is still an issue in this country, because people apparently will always be small-minded and insular in their outlook, and it's sad and pathetic that there still is valid reason for us to be worried about African Americans not being treated equally. But this? This has nothing to do with him being black, and everything to do with him being accused of a crime that shocked people because of its graphic and cruel nature. Calling this a matter of race strikes me as another attempt to feel vicariously sorry for ourselves by making the issue big enough to include us as victims.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Vick?
Posted by: zengei on Aug 24, 2007 12:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who is Michael Vick and what did he do?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

VICK IS SICK AND IT AINT NOT COLOR THANG!
Posted by: kunndunn on Aug 24, 2007 12:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Man, you missed the entire problem of Sick Vick's sadistic torture of animals! I don't care if he was the color purple or green---he's a symbol of admiration for millions of young people. When I worked with gang leaders they modeled their "coolness" after celebraties and pit bull fights became the anthem of "badness." We must speak out loud against cruelty to animals in any sport: that it is henceforth a taboo in our society! If there is not a heavy penalty, ''aniamls cruelty gambling as a sport" will never be stopped. Vick Do The Time. You only pled guilty because you had too. You couldn't buy your way out of this one. Man, you disappointed all of us in your indecency in this blood-lust sick thrill.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article bugs me
Posted by: helenwheels on Aug 24, 2007 12:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's why. Where he says that the same people who revile Vick don't do anything about the human atrocities in the world... WRONG. WTF?? What a rotten assumption to make.

I am a huge animal-lover-dog-rescue person, but I don't spend nearly as much time doing that as I do blogging, screaming, signing petitions, fretting, not being heard, about the genocide in Darfur, the Iraq war atrocities, etc. And if you're going to blame people for THAT, blame the fucking MSM!!! What do they have BLASTED across TV screens ad nauseum? The Vick thing. The Lohan thing. The Hilton thing. Would there be more outrage about Darfur and Iraq if people actually could SEE it? You bet there would! But our gov't won't allow it, many people don't realize that you can only get real news on the internet, and the MSM presents what the gov't wants us to see.

What Vick did was sickening and maybe he's a victim of our times. Too fucking bad!! The MSM have created it and we all live in it. Sorry, I have ZERO sympathy for someone who had it all and decided to torture and murder dogs for financial gain. In some ways, I see his crime as worse than OJ's. Here's why: OJ killed for passion and jealousy. Vick killed for greed. To me that is somehow more sociopathic. Call me crazy.

When people compare the spousal abuse, etc. to the dog killing, I don't get it. People here love their dogs, Americans treat dogs like a family member - at least many of them do. And no matter how Ofari wants to spin it, people do have MORE of a voice than dogs do. Do the victims of genocide have no voice? No. What can I do about that? NOTHING, but send $$ or sign petitions, or write on my blog. What could I do about Vick killing and torturing dogs? Make damn sure I tell the NFL and his sponsors that I don't condone it. That's what was done here.

The bottom line is that ANYONE who does something as horrid as what Vick and his cohorts did for GREED should be reviled. And I hope he rots in prison, although that probably won't happen because that's not what happens to rich celebrities in this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

D Julian Terry
Posted by: D. Julian Terry on Aug 24, 2007 12:29 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that this whole episode has been overblown and that the hypocracy has a stench all it's own. When one animal is abused, it's called a crime. When thousands of animals are abused, it's called medical research, or industrial research, or factory farming, or recreational hunting. When caged, defenseless birds are released just so the V.P. and his friends can shoot out their guts at point blank range- just for the sport of it, I guess that's OK. I don't eat animals or wear animals or knowingly use animal products. That's just my thing. But I'd like to see just a bit more consistancy and honesty as to the way animals are treated in our society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: D Julian Terry Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: D Julian Terry Posted by: blitzmesser
PETA
Posted by: sfischo on Aug 24, 2007 12:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Earl,

There'snothing hypocritical about caring more about the brutalization of animals than the brutalization of humans (although it's not a "matter of fact" that those who care for animals don't care for humans. My surmise is that many of the anit-Vick people are also anti-war people). It's a perfectly legitimate decision to care more for less intelligent or verbal beings than more intelligent, verbal beings; our society cares more deeply about the abuse of children, sexual and physical and emotional, than the comparable abuse of adults.

It's also possible that the hypocrisy we're discussing is about you than about Vick. But that's another issue. Vick invites so much outrage in part because he is so gifted, so wealthy that the need for $ is clearly not the issue here; it's something about him, his character, his values, his priorities and the callous attitude he shows toward these dogs and how the "losers" are treated. Vick ain't OJ, he's my brother and I'm the lesser for it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: PETA Posted by: mnlefty
Bottom Line
Posted by: beemadj on Aug 24, 2007 1:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is that Vick tortured and killed in incredibly painful manner, a number of dogs who just didnt fight and kill enough other dogs to make him any money. He bought land for the sole purpose to raise dogs to kill or be killed so he and others could get jollies off of it and make some money in illegal gambling. why should his actions be defended or he get any pity at all??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bottom Line Posted by: UnderTheSea
smart person
Posted by: sandifehr on Aug 24, 2007 1:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These players are paid too much money, have too little brains, too much time on their hands, and if they are not killing animals they are beating or rapeing someone's
wife or girlfriend. We adore them, think they are wonderful in spite of what they do, I tell you, no foreign person can take us down we are so stupid as a culture and a people we will do in ourselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

kclementi
Posted by: kclementi on Aug 24, 2007 1:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oviously our justice is a joke when anyone, especially high profile individuals get away with beating their wives/sig others, murder etc. However, they get away with it because they can afford high priced lawyers. Our justice system has turned into the market place, justice to the highest bidder. I do not condone the incidents you mention in your article, ie people getting off for worse crimes than dog fighting and abuse of animals. But those you mention are RICH whether they are white or black. What Vick has done is a an abomination to creatures who are helpless, did not ask to be brought into this world to "fight" and having failed their owners to win their owners MONEY are then put to death. Can you not see that this whole system is the result of market place values? Which (dare I speak the word) boils down to capitalism money, money and more money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: kclementi Posted by: blitzmesser
Sociopathic Behavior
Posted by: Slaps on Aug 24, 2007 1:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A progressive blog has no reason to defend a heartless, sociopathic beast like Mike Vick. Shame on you!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two wrongs don't make a right!
Posted by: nim on Aug 24, 2007 2:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Hutchinson, your begin your article with this: "Countless numbers of pro football players have committed rape, physical assaults and armed robberies."

Do I really have to tell you? Two wrongs don't make a right! You can't prove Michael Vick is a swell guy by pointing at the sins and crimes of others. Hitler, Stalin, and Bush are responsible for the deaths of the defenseless. Is it OK then for we too, as soon as we become powerful enough to have the power of life and death over the innocent and defenseless, to cause awful grief and pain upon whoever we please?

.....and are you one of the reported 80% of the population who declare they are Christians? Do you follow the teachings of the Prince of Peace?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thinker
Posted by: rionf on Aug 24, 2007 2:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What point is Earl Ofari Hutchinson trying to make? He's grinding an ax, albeit very unsuccessfully, about the supposed hypocrisy of a nation of dog lovers who turn a blind eye to genocide, racism, and the killing of innocent Iraqis. I've worked on various animal rights campaigns and I've yet to meet a person who admonishes dog fighting, while remaining blind to the killing of innocent humans.

Hutchinson's idea that it is somehow indefensible to hold the life of a non-human animal over the lives of the thousands of humans killed in battle reeks of ethical blindness. For example, how might he react, if I was to point out that nearly ten-billion animals were slaughtered in the United States last year and another twenty million were killed in laboratories? Is it not hypocritical to oppose the killing of humans, while ignoring the mass slaughter of animals that provides foundation for much of modern society, on the ground that "their just animals?" Theodor Adorno writes “Auschwitz begins when someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks: they’re only animals.” It’s time for our society to look at oppression for what it is, rather than prioritizing the suffering of its victims.


Should Michael Vick be exonerated because his victims were dogs? Why doesn't Earl Ofari Hutchinson mention Roy Jones Jr.? Roy Jones is African American, raises "fighting" roosters, and has bankrolled a lucrative cockfighting enterprise for years. He has not been prosecuted for his crimes, although cockfighting is a violation of the law in 48 states. If Hutchison's thesis is correct, why has Roy Jones not been treated like Michael Vick?

It seems that dog fighting generates public upheaval because dogs have become fixtures in human households. Humans have developed bonds with dogs, more so than chickens, and pigs, etc. It seems that the outrage in the Vick case stems more from this familiarity, than racism and cultural blindness.
This is why there are few protests of the killing of animals in industrial food systems and the killing of Iraqis and other marginalized peoples in the globe. For some, this distance precludes a sense of care and ethical responsibility. Is this right, no, but it's our sad reality. If Michael Vick had sponsored cock fights and raised fighting roosters, would he be in our cultural crosshairs?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why defend the indefensible?
Posted by: bobbyw on Aug 24, 2007 2:30 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've done what I'm able to do when it comes to the insanity of the Iraq war and will continue to, but why, after Michael Vick pleads guilty (albeit with qualification) defend him? Does the writer of this article believe Vick should get a break? Yeh, there are plenty of ignorant, asleep people in our country and eventually they'll pay the price for their sleep walk through life but when a quy gets to play a game and get paid a fortune I think it's correct to hold him responsible. I mean all of us regular cats wouldn't be able to make bail. Although Charles Barkley made "I'm not a role model" a war cry for every athlete to abdigate any responsibility for their actions, the truth is there are thousands of kids who look up to these guys. I think he should admit to his complicity and deeply apologize by working with animals for a couple years sending the message that it's o.k. to admit your wrong rather than deny everything like a child would with their mother.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a load.
Posted by: Libsrule on Aug 24, 2007 3:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry but your commentary is just so much smoke being blown where the sun don't shine.

Vick is not a victim under any circumstance anyone can imagine. Sure racism exists, but he is not a victim of racism. He was hired to play on a professional football team and was given MILLIONS of dollars to play and endorse products.

So where is the racism? Oh yeah, he's black and therefore if anyone attacks him for runnng a dogfighting compound, for killing dogs in an inhuman manner, or lying about it and somehow HE'S THE VICTIM?

What a load.

The "hysteria" as you claim it to be is nothing more than the fact that now we see a man of wealth and privilege showing himself to be a barbaric insensitive human being with no more morals than the barbarians of a thousand years ago and we now have a face to hate. The outcry would have been no different if he had been white, brown or purple.

AND yes there are MILLIONS of people who are outraged at the killings that are going on in our country's name. Missed all of the protests and news reports, and millions of people voting AGAINST Shrub? Think about this fact, FIFTY SIX MILLION people voted AGAINST the president.

So spare us that BS as well.

Vick isn't getting half of what he deserves and I hope he is ruined for life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

M Sovacool
Posted by: Sovacool on Aug 24, 2007 3:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whatever evils human beings perform, none justify dog fighting. Vick has just been suspended indefinitely by the NFL. Should all NFL players be suspended because they have not stopped Bush's war in Iraq?

[« Reply to this comment] [