|
Posted by adam.dada on August 28th, 2007
Zion, IL
by A.B. Dada
—
Michael Vick is being villified in every mainstream and blog news and opinion piece I’ve found, other than a few rare pieces at the LRC it seems. He’s being tossed out for being cruel to animals, and he’s plead guilty on Federal charges with a chance that the state will also toss in some criminal charges, to boot. From what we can see in the media and blogosphere, Vick has no friends. I’ll be the first to stand behind him and offer not just my friendship, but my defense of an extremely talented entertainer with a long history of poverty and restraint by the State that says they’re only there to help.
Vick was raised in one of the worst ghettos in the U.S. — the Hampton Roads East End section in Virginia. Hampton Roads is a pure ghetto with subsidized housing, a lack of public protection by the police, and could be one of the worst places in the country to try to raise a family. His parents both were hard workers, and it is evident that even with all the odds against Vick, he succeeded in exiting an area where infinite welfare is the most common life of the typical resident. He went on to becoming one of the highest paid sports entertainers in the industry, with massive sponsorships, endorsements and fan support. I don’t have many heroes in my life, but I know how to pick them out after researching them. I’d rather have my future son want to be dedicated to succeeding like Vick than like Paris Hilton, that’s for sure.
Now Vick is on the verge of losing his career forever: Federal charges (felony and misdemeanor) on actions where I see no Federal power to make laws over. From what I can tell, Vick is being charged using a variety of RICO-era statutes. A quick browse of the Constitution shows that Congress can only pass crime laws covering piracy, counterfeiting and treason — Vick’s actions fall under none of these. RICO is an unconstitutional law, originally intended to go after the Mafia, but now used against common citizens for actions that should only be regulated (if at all) at the state and local level. I see no power of the Federal Government to judge actions against animals, or even actions against humans, in terms of murder or abuse. For the same reason I am against any abortion policy at the Federal level, I am also against any violent-crime laws at the Federal level.
What exactly did Vick do? He bred dogs to kill each other for sport. It sounds awful. I have 6 cats, and I am definitely an animal lover, but I am also an animal hater. I love a big, raw steak. I eat crawdads out of the river fresh and live. I’ll be the first to chomp on locally-gamed venison jerky, and I’ve hunted pheasant and turkey in my years. I’ve skinned squirrel and catfish, and I’ve run over more than one animal while speeding down US 41. It’s gruesome, but we’re humans, bred to survive and live healthily, and that includes the consumption of animals for both pleasure and sustenance. I even like to spend the day at the horsetrack, marveling at man’s ability to wage dominion over the lesser beings.
Do I support animal abuse? Absolutely not, but I also don’t support forcing my definition (or anyone else’s) of animal abuse on others. Our moral judgment allows us to withdraw from markets where we feel there is an injustice committed. Some people won’t eat meat, or even honey, because of the their stance on what defines animal abuse. Would you want hot dogs and bologna to be withdrawn from the shelves because of how animals are treated? Then do so by not buying it, and telling others your side of the story on your blog. Ever been to a chicken ranch or a turkey farm? You’be surprised at how vicious animals may be treated at the average meat-generating farm. It’s a fact of life, one that we’re quick to ignore when it comes to our own consumption. Again, I love to eat meat, so I accept that animals are not treated with the same respect as humans.
Again, we don’t just chase and kill animals for sustenance — we also do it for fun. On pheasant hunting trips, we always had dogs who were trained to chase and kill the birds, even if we didn’t slay them with a bullet. The dogs’ training sessions were not unlike what Vick did between dog and dog — these dogs were trained to kill the birds on sight and command. Away from the hunt, the dogs were surprisingly docile, and even friendly to other animals. But their sole purpose was the killing of another animal. I’m glad it isn’t a crime to hunt pheasant in that way, and the bonding relationships I formed with other humans was a rarity in my life.
While I don’t support dog fighting, I also don’t understand why it is all of a sudden a big news issue. In the area I live in (Zion, Illinois), there is a large African American population, and I’ve seen a few amateur dog fights taking place while driving past an alley in the primarily black parts of town. It happens. It may be cultural, it might be something that a particular segment of society sees no problem with. For me, the idea of a unanimocracy encompasses the ability of individuals within a group to decide what is right and what is wrong. If a bunch of retirees decide they want to sit in an alley and pummel each other for sport, it is not my place to set laws on that group as long as it is voluntary. Many will say that I am wrong in comparing this to dog fighting, but dogs are not humans. They are animals, with a history of being trained to kill, maim and defend themselves against other beasts. Sure, we’ve domiciled dogs as pets, but in many countries they’re still dinner, too. Is it wrong for a man to go and kill a dog, drain its blood, skin it, salt it, and hang it out to dry to serve dinner to his family? Again, sustenance. Is it wrong for a man to go hunting in the woods for wild dogs? How is it different from turkeys or squirrels?
After all my thinking, I still can’t think of what Vick did that was so terrible. His dog fighting business, while mostly disgusting to me, still had a market of willing participants who engaged in the fights. These people voted with their time and their dollars in what they thought was morally acceptable, and they hurt no humans in doing so. Our Constitution was written to protect the rights of the PEOPLE, not to give government endless power or protect the rights of beasts. For me, the best way to eradicate the market of dog fighting is to not partake in it, and don’t support those who do. You are free to start a blog and try to convince people like Vick that dog fighting is wrong, but sending this man to jail and ending his career makes no sense from a freedom perspective.
He hurt no human. He violated no human’s rights. He stole from no one, defrauded no one, and violated no contracts or agreements with anyone. To me, that is called a victimless crime, no more horrific than slaying a pig for pork sausages. Speaking of pork sausages, I’m off to my grocery store to pick up a fresh pound of bacon — and my body and soul will be pleased at the sustenance, the flavor, the entertainment of eating and the fun I’ll have inviting my friends over for a bacon BBQ. Maybe I’m just as evil as Michael Vick, but it is not your right to judge me as long as I’m not harming you directly, or taking away your freedoms.
Michael Vick: I wish I could tell you to scream “Get off my lawn” to the monsters who wish to enslave you and steal from you your livelihood. Slavery in America hasn’t ended, it just changed its name to “The Court, the Jail, and the Powers that be.”
August 28th, 2007 at 11:06 am
funny fellow.
if a person forces another creature to hurt each other just for his fun then it is evil.this cannot be compared with eating bacon or hotdogs which is sustenance. even for food if the animals are killed painlessly as possible then no prob otherwise they are prosecutable too.
people who hunt and kill animals for fun are sick too. hunting for food is fine. so basically you were defending your guilty self by defending him?
August 28th, 2007 at 11:11 am
people who hunt and kill animals for fun are sick too. hunting for food is fine. so basically you were defending your guilty self by defending him?
Well, we’re supposedly living in a Republic of Freedom, not a Democracy of Socialism. Freedom means not harming another individual human being’s freedoms, and not allowing the State/government to take away your ability to perform consenting actions with others, as long as you harm no other human being.
Animals were never written in the Constitution, but the individuals are free to set their own personal laws for their lives.
I love meat, and I love entertainment, and both can be considered disgusting or immoral by others, who are free to live their lives without either, but they are NOT free to harm my ability to decide what is moral or immoral for myself as long as I harm NO human beings or their rights in the process.
Thanks for your input.
August 28th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
My husband grew up down the street from Mike Vick. He hasn’t throttled any animals so far.
August 28th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Great post.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:01 am
I agree that the media coverage of Mr. Vick has been obnoxious and overwhelming, to say the least. There are many more important matters going on in the world.
I can even appreciate your comments and stance on federal law. However if laws were broken (against dog-fighting, against gambling, against cruelty to animals, whatever), then Mr. Vick, and anyone who worked with him, should be punished accordingly. No more, no less than any other citizen.
I do take exception with your comment: “Hampton Roads is a pure ghetto with subsidized housing, a lack of public protection by the police, and could be one of the worst places in the country to try to raise a family.”
Perhaps certain sections of HR could be considered as such, the same as any other metropolitan area in the U.S. However, we have found that HR for the most part is made up of intelligent, hard-working people who are proud of where they live. We have a strong military presence here, and one of the most culturally diverse areas that I have ever had the pleasure to visit or live. We have so many cultural and arts events here…and many free and open to the public… that it forces us to decide among them. I have met many outstanding constituents of the African-American portion of our community, too, recently enjoying a wonderful evening at the Attucks Theatre in Norfolk and the 2007 Mid. Atlantic Black Film Festival.
Don’t give Mr. Vick credit because you think, and I quote: “he succeeded in exiting an area where infinite welfare is the most common life of the typical resident”. That is simply not true and an affront to the people (including me) who live here.
Thanks for the post and your viewpoint.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Missy:
Thanks for your reply — and you’re right, I was wrong to make the assumption that ALL of Hampton Roads is a ghetto. The part I saw, in East End, was definitely a ghetto, one far worse than any I’ve visited in Chicago, LA or Miami. When I travel the country, I always visit the “best” and “worst” areas, and I was shocked at what I saw in Virginia. It reminded me of the worst parts of DC, but in an area very close to amazingly fruitful and sustaining areas. It is obvious from looking at the State spending in Virginia why these folks can’t build up past the poverty level they’re at.
Again, I do apologize for lumping all of Hampton Roads into the same pool, and I will adjust my article accordingly in the next day or two.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
As an owner of a beautiful German Shephard and an equally spiritied Mini-Schnauzer, I was really upset initially with Mr. Vick’s decisions. Then I thought that in some countries dogs are domesticated, farmed and eaten as food. Wow! Talk about terrible! Then I thought, what about the animals we in the U.S.A. domesticate, farm and eat. Who is standing up for the plight of the helpless chickens and cows…what about the pigs and turkeys? Yeah, yeah, I know what you are going to say…it was just a thought anyway.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
I’m sorry, I have to take issue with post. I understand that the value for the life of dogs is purely cultural. However, there is a major difference between being merely complicit or a consumer of food animals, hunting for food or pleasure and the charges to which Michael Vick pled guilty. For Michael Vick, one brutal means of exterminating the dogs was simply not enough. If he just killed all of them by shooting them, that would be one thing. You could suggest that’s just the way he had always done it and there was a cultural value to that end. He used a variety of brutal methods, meaning he did not select a manner of killing dogs in a way consistent with his culture. Furthermore, of none of these methods could he have believe for one second to be the least painful or most ethical. To me, that speaks to a character of depravity and cruelty.
Also, let’s clear up a mistake in your original post. The only problem with your statement that Vick “defrauded no one, and violated no contracts or agreements with anyone” is that is completely incorrect. He defrauded everyone. He defrauded his employer, his union, his teammates, his coaches, the National Football League, and the fans of the NFL, whom, last I checked, are the ones ultimately responsible for his success when he initially flat out denied any involvement whatsoever and continued to do so until the federal government handed down their indictment. He mentioned this lying in his apology. Also, you may want to check yourself on the bit about contracts. The Atlanta Falcons are seeking a refund from Vick of much of the value of his contract. What’s more, is that they are likely to get it because he almost certainly violated a stipulation in his $130 million dollar contract about conduct detrimental to the team.
Finally, I wouldn’t go blaming the Federal Government too much on this one. Even should he not spend one night in prison, he will still be out of work, out of money, and without too many doors open to him when he completes his certainly pending suspension by the NFL. You mentioned it first, he is an entertainer. Entertainers are only as successful as their image and with his actions, which are by his own admission are immature, he may have irreparably damaged his. Even given his right to his livelihood, his livelihood depends on the public’s perception of him. I have more of a right to play in the NFL, because at least I never violated league policy while a player.
So, Adam, your new “friend” Mike? Yeah, he’s a dirtbag.
September 27th, 2007 at 10:31 am
if laws were broken … then Mr. Vick, and anyone who worked with him, should be punished accordingly.
Not so, since some laws were unjust. I used to believe this, because I believed in what I called “the rule of law,” meaning we should enforce the laws we have even where they are flawed and instead be constantly adjusting the laws.
Now I realize that legislative law is not law at all. It calls good things evil and evil things good. Laws that are voted on are not worth enforcing. The only law that should be enforced is the universal prohibition against infringing the rights to life, liberty, and property of others, and that law never changes. According to the Bible in Romans 13, anyone who does no wrong to a neighbor has fulfilled the law, and therefore such a person should not be punished, even if others want to use the government as a bludgeon to change his behavior, using the legislature to call his harmless acts “evil.”
I was struck from a jury pool on Monday because of my religious convictions. I was literally trembling with fear as I contemplated all the possibilities for me to sin against a neighbor, the accused, a man I had never met who had never done any wrong to me. I wasn’t sure I could ever judge or find anyone guilty, but I realized concretely some basic situations when I knew I could not: I could not find a man guilty to be punished unless he’d committed a real crime, harming a real victim by infringing his right to life, liberty, and/or property. I couldn’t find a man guilty if his guilt wasn’t certain, and not just by some vague “that’s good enough” state standard, because I’ll give an account to God, not the state, for my actions. And I couldn’t find a man guilty if I knew he’d receive a punishment that did not fit his crime.
The state attorneys realized it was less likely that I would cooperate with them than that any of the other jurors would, and after questioning me privately, they sent me home.
No more, no less than any other citizen.
I definitely agree with that, on the surface, but if some citizens are being punished unjustly, the solution is not to punish other citizens for the same offense, but to stop punishing anyone unjustly. If it’s a choice between keeping a bad (sinful) law and unevenly enforcing it, so that some people go free and others or punished, versus punishing everyone for violating the unjust law, I would prefer to let at least some people go unpunished.
October 14th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Good call, i too have cats and love animals, i could never harm an animal myself but totally stand by what you say. I never thought too much into the Vick case but im stealing your argument next time the topic comes up. Its interesting how many of the replies are about what you said for the quality of the town he’s from. Thats not the point of the article just a filler, he could have been born in the richest most wholesome town in the world, been white or asian, been at any economic status. The point of the article to me was:
You cant (let the fed) pick and choose whats ok when it comes to your property and your entertainment so long as it doest hurt any other person. Plain and simple, its a rights violation.
October 14th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Thanks, Jon.
When I see dog fighting in the alleys of my home town, I think about more than just the dogs — I think about the families destroyed by the system that lets them live in absolute poverty because it is easier to get a government check — and do whatever black market task it takes to add a few more bucks to the till.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Ok… killing dogs is bad. Make them kill each other, for sport no less, is worse. But does the punishment fit the crime? Is the punishment “just”? I don’t think so. People get less time for a whole variety of crimes that, in my view, are way worse than what Vick did. The problem is that we have laws on the books that unfairly punish activities that, historically, minorities or poor people are more likely to take place in such as dogfighting or smoking pot. I’m white and I do not partake of either activity but I can see the bias. In Macon, GA where I live I tested out my bias theory at Christmas last year - three cops had pulled a black guy over and were heckling him, or so it seemed to me. So when I went to leave the stoplight I peeled out, big time, and then kept going. They did pull me over but despite my blatant boldness and disregard for the law I got off scott-free. No tickets, nothing… Sure I was happy to get off free but sad knowing that if I was a minority in the same situation I probably would have spent the night in jail. Vick is losing a great career and his freedom and millions of dollars over what I would call a small-potatoes matter, and that is definitely not “just”.