Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Thursday, July 16, 2009

No Way

Posted by on Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:46 AM

USA Today reports: f94f/1247755975-dog.jpg

On Monday, Vick will become a free man as he completes a two-month home confinement that followed about 18 months behind bars, most of that period at the federal prison in Leavenworth, Kan. The electronic monitoring device Vick has worn since returning to his home in Hampton, Va., will be removed, and the former Atlanta Falcons quarterback once considered one of pro football's most exciting players will be legally cleared to resume his career after being out of the game for two seasons, suspended indefinitely.

For the NFL — namely commissioner Roger Goodell— the main question is this: Does Vick, a former Pro Bowler, deserve a second chance in the league? The underlying question: Is Vick — who pleaded guilty to taking part in an operation that used pit bulls for fighting and executed dogs who didn't measure up — really a changed man?

It is easier to find a needle in a haystack than to find a dog lover in America who has the power or ability to forgive Vick. Their hate for this man is bottomless because their love for these domesticated animals is bottomless. But as Chris Rock pointed out, who is actually worse: Palin or Vick?


From Salon.com:

Wildlife activists thought they had seen the worst in 2003 when Frank Murkowski, then the Republican governor of Alaska, signed a bill ramping up state programs to gun down wild wolves from airplanes, inviting average citizens to participate. Wolves, Murkowski believed, were clearly better than humans at killing elk and moose, and humans needed to even the playing field.

But that was before Sarah Palin took Murkowski's job at the end of 2006. She went one step, or paw, further. Palin didn't think Alaskans should be allowed to chase wolves from aircraft and shoot them — they should be encouraged to do so. Palin's administration put a bounty on wolves' heads, or to be more precise, on their mitts.

In early 2007, Palin's administration approved an initiative to pay a $150 bounty to hunters who killed a wolf from an airplane in certain areas, hacked off the left foreleg, and brought in the appendage. Ruling that the Palin administration didn't have the authority to offer payments, a state judge quickly put a halt to them but not to the shooting of wolves from aircraft.

How is this any better than running a dogfighting operation? What is the real difference? In actuality, in the terms of flesh and bone, there is none. And yet Palin (stupid Palin) is running for president and Vick (stupid Vick) is walking out of prison.

 

Comments (36) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Matt from Denver 1
Charles, I agree with you totally. You ask "what's the difference?" Unfortunately, the difference is in people's heads. Many people, particularly but not exclusively frontier-mentality people, view nature as an adversary, especially in regard to animals that can't be tamed.
Posted by Matt from Denver on July 16, 2009 at 7:49 AM
lizzie 2
I don't know whether the Vick or Palin stories is worse in regards to cruelty -- both are incredibly heartless and both stories are terribly sad.

I do know that these people are worse than either of them, in regards to both the volume and severity of their everyday cruelty:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
Posted by lizzie on July 16, 2009 at 7:51 AM
Roscoe 3
Sarah Palin is a white woman and a member of the Republican Party. Thus, she can do whatever she wants with total impunity.

Michael Vick is an African American man. He'll be the first to go to prison for his misdeeds, famous NFL star or not.

Clear enough, folks?
Posted by Roscoe on July 16, 2009 at 7:54 AM
4
I hate both of them equally for what they have done to animals. However I think Vick should get a second chance, I am curious to see if he has changed at all.
Posted by Pluto2 on July 16, 2009 at 7:56 AM
Loveschild 5
3 nailed it. But you knew the answer all along mr Mudede. A dogs life has more value than that of a black man in the eyes of some "animal lovers", so Vick's life will forever be made much harder because of their hatred.
Posted by Loveschild http://www.samaritanspurse.org/index.php/articles/responding_to_haiti_earthquake/ on July 16, 2009 at 8:04 AM
Vince 6
Find a way to make a positive for good to combat the bad in both. Donate to worldwildlifefund.org.
Posted by Vince on July 16, 2009 at 8:08 AM
Matt from Denver 7
@ 3, um, no. The fact that 5 agrees with you ought to make that clear enough.
Posted by Matt from Denver on July 16, 2009 at 8:16 AM
Betsy Ross 8
I'm guessing Vick will be back in the NFL, assuming he still has the skills.
Posted by Betsy Ross on July 16, 2009 at 8:16 AM
Matt from Denver 9
Oh, and lizzie, another fail. You're batting 1.000 girl!
Posted by Matt from Denver on July 16, 2009 at 8:17 AM
Simac 10
Fallacy: dog lovers hate Vick but love Sarah Palin.

Fallacy: dog lovers think dog fighting is worse than wolf hunting from aircraft.

Fallacy: dog lovers are insane and unreasonable and incapable of rational thought about topics related to the political, the social, and/or the species Canis lupus and its subspecies.

Fallacy: students of philosophy easily avoid fallacies in their writing due to their academic training.
Posted by Simac on July 16, 2009 at 8:18 AM
eric (the other one) 11
I'm uncomfortable defending either of these individuals. Both are dreadful people, but Vick admitted to literal torture: drowning, electrocuting, and otherwise sadistically harming the animals over a period of time. Further, you only have to Google "bait dog", "rape stand" or any of a dozen other dogfighting terms to understand the barbarism of the practice. Of course I have a bias since I spend time with Vick's dogs and I know them as sweet companion animals that seek companionship and kindness. You can track their progress here: http://www.bestfriends.org/

I realize the Stranger is basically anti-animal--any of a hundred Slog posts would bear that out--but any reasoning person can recognize that there is a difference between a domesticated animal that relies on human compassion and care for basic quality of life, and a wild animal.
Posted by eric (the other one) on July 16, 2009 at 8:23 AM
lizzie 12
Why is that? Would you forgive Palin if she required aerial hunters to cook and sell parts of their dead wolves? Would you forgive Vick if he cooked and sold parts of his dead dogs? Comment #1 and comment #9 are complete opposites.
Posted by lizzie on July 16, 2009 at 8:24 AM
13
While both deserve to go to prison and be shunned from polite society, I'd say that an evening following around "hunters" shooting wolves from helicopters (how many people can afford that?) and an evening at well-attended dog fight and the after-fight "cleanup" operation would make everything clear.
Posted by tiktok on July 16, 2009 at 8:38 AM
Matt from Denver 14
No, lizzie, because you're equating the quite natural and morally right activity of killing prey animals for food with the quite unnatural and morally wrong activity of breeding dogs to kill each other for sport, and the somewhat morally ambivalent activity of killing predators who pose a threat to herd animals (I say "ambivalent" because, although protecting herd animals and people from predators is fine, hunting them to near extinction for sport, which I suspect is a big part of what's happening in Alaska, is not).

Now, I have no intention of getting sucked into a debate about meat eating with you, as you're an irrational extremist on the subject. But I will point out why there's no contradiction in my statements because the activities described are not the same, morally speaking.
Posted by Matt from Denver on July 16, 2009 at 8:38 AM
15
I just want to know who this "Vicks" guy is.
Posted by Ed on July 16, 2009 at 8:39 AM
DOUG. 16
Hey Mudedes: It's "Vick".
Posted by DOUG. http://www.dougsvotersguide.com on July 16, 2009 at 8:40 AM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 17
Aw, cut Charles some slack - he hasn't had his first drink of the day yet.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on July 16, 2009 at 8:48 AM
Loveschild 18
13 Bs, You don't need a helicopter to go on shooting wolves, elk, deer, caribou, bears, or whatever furry creature has the misfortune of crossing your path. This particular "sport" is done by a good number of rural americans of mostly a certain demographic as opposed to that of Vick.

Posted by Loveschild http://www.samaritanspurse.org/index.php/articles/responding_to_haiti_earthquake/ on July 16, 2009 at 8:52 AM
Loveschild 19
14 so now you're the arbiter of what's morally right when it comes to animals. Hmmm... I doubt stupid Palin has no access or cannot afford other food sources besides caribou, and I doubt she eats the meat of the wolves she kills.
Posted by Loveschild http://www.samaritanspurse.org/index.php/articles/responding_to_haiti_earthquake/ on July 16, 2009 at 8:54 AM
hartiepie 20
Charles and Co. : You are using strawman arguments to justify your own biases.

How many people like Palin more than Vick? Who are they and where do they live etc?

How are you assessing these unamed and uncounted people's "bottomless hate"?

It's irritating when you post things by saying the pictures speak for themselves and write nothing. Yet when you go off in posts like this, I wonder if you have a clear thought in your head. Do you just wait around for people to listen to you prate?.....
Posted by hartiepie on July 16, 2009 at 8:57 AM
Mahtli69 21
If a white NASCAR driver was caught running dogfights, he'd get fined, not jailed.

Vick's sentence was bullshit. Dog fighting sucks, but, for the same reasons, so does the slaughter of animals for meat.
Posted by Mahtli69 on July 16, 2009 at 8:58 AM
22
I love dogs, meat from animals that aren't my pets, and Michael Vick.

I think Sarah Palin is incompetent and an embarassment to Republicans, but for reasons other than her inane bounty on wolves.
Posted by Steve P. on July 16, 2009 at 9:16 AM
Carollani 23
I'm a dog lover and a dog owner and Palin is worse because she has more power. Vick is just one psychotic asshole who is able to enslave and torture dogs. Palin has access to so much more and that makes her more of a threat.
Posted by Carollani http://twitter.com/carollani on July 16, 2009 at 9:31 AM
Fnarf 24
Of course Vick will get a second chance. The NFL needs bad guys to keep up interest. Fans need someone to boo, and commentators need someone to talk about: is he reformed? We talk to the man himself on Sunday! Must-see TV!
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on July 16, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Greg 25
Of course he'll get back in. When has the NFL turned players away because of thuggery? They need knuckle-dragging brutes for the offensive line.
Posted by Greg on July 16, 2009 at 9:57 AM
26
The wolf hunting thing is among the many reasons that I hate Sarah Palin. I do, however, see a fundamental difference between the cruel actions of Palin and Vic. Before a wolf is shot, which is generally a quick death (compared to say being eaten by a wolf), the wolf lives a beautiful, free life. Dog fighting involves constant and vigilant abuse and neglect, and dogs dying in dog fights do so in a very painful and gruesome manner.
Posted by Jamie in Pittsburgh http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/strawberry.limonade?ref=name on July 16, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Original Monique 27
@21: Totally.
Posted by Original Monique http://www.facebook.com/notifications.php#/group.php?gid=124801948427 on July 16, 2009 at 10:09 AM
schmacky 28
Our ideas of morality derive primarily from our associations...our definition of "normal" comes from what and who we see every day. Palin's Alaska is a place where wolves aren't beautiful spirit animals, they're killers of livestock and livelihoods. Killing wolves is good and normal in this context.

In Vick's case, dogfighting was how he grew up, what his friends did, and part of how he defined the world around him. Was he "immoral"? I submit that morality is nothing but context, and if you agree then Vick and Palin were actually exemplary moralists.
Posted by schmacky on July 16, 2009 at 10:18 AM
wilbur@work 29
let's release both Vick and Palin in the wilds of Alaska and hunt both with helicopters. The winner gets to eat the loser.
Posted by wilbur@work on July 16, 2009 at 10:36 AM
thelyamhound 30
@11 - I think you hit the nail on the head. Most people, given the choice, would rather take one in the brain from a helicopter than submit to death-by-Thunderdome (I might be an exception to that rule . . . but I digress). While the romantic martial-artist in me would like to think of the "participants" in a dog fight as dying a warrior's death, I also know that the battle being fought is not the dogs' own.

I don't support shooting wolves from aircraft, but I don't see hunting is significantly less moral than buying meat at a store (in some ways, I actually see it as less so--and I'm very much an omnivore).

Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on July 16, 2009 at 10:37 AM
The Amazing Jim 31
Yeah, it's not like those of us on the left gave Palin a lot of shit over this.
Posted by The Amazing Jim http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=100000076496291&ref=profile on July 16, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Matt from Denver 32
LC, am I stepping on your toes? I know YOU think you're the supreme arbiter of right and wrong on SLOG.
Posted by Matt from Denver on July 16, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Nora 33
Vick committed a FELONY. Palin changed a law.

I don't think what Palin did is any better than running a dogfighting operation, but what she did was nonetheless entirely legal. I repeat: Vick committed a FELONY. That's why he went to jail.

You're making a false comparison.
Posted by Nora on July 16, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Bill W. 34
Really sad what Vick did but remember that some people serve the same time behind bars for killing actual people because the public does not seem to care as much about some minority victims as other victims. Now that's sad.
Posted by Bill W. http://www.seattlegayscene.com on July 16, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Greg 35
@28: Gang-related violence is an everyday occurrence in south Seattle, but you wouldn't argue that a drive-by is moral because of context, would you?
Posted by Greg on July 16, 2009 at 11:41 AM
schmacky 36
@35: Actually, I would. It's all about perspective. In the system of gang culture, what you see around you every single day is the normalization of violence. Your friends and the people you look up to define "success" (i.e. what is right) and "failure" (i.e. what is wrong) by how well you perform according to the "rules," just like anywhere else. From the perspective of a gang-banger, to shun the rules and the system--which provide both structure and context--in favor of an outsider's idea of morality is more evil than the killing itself.
Posted by schmacky on July 16, 2009 at 2:10 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy