Wednesday, July 29, 2009

For Shame -- Reply -- (New York City)

In a message dated 7/28/2009 9:58:11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, xxxxxxx writes:
Goodell seems to have this "he paid his debt to society" idea of redemption

You're right. Everyone seems to think this, including major media and the dead brains on "The View."
No one of course is talking specifically of what Vick did. ABC News referred to the "few dogs" confiscated from Vicks property (it was more than 30) and no one talked about the 8 dead dogs dug up, all of whom had been violently tortured and killed.

Most people when they are released from jail leave with nothing. No money. No job. No counseling. No prospects. Usually, it is very difficult for them to find any job -- let alone one where they can serve as role models for kids and potentially make millions of dollars.

I think it is generally felt that ex-cons have to earn their way back to a respectable place in society -- "prove" that they in fact have found redemption (if indeed, that is true.)

So, why aren't these things true for Vick?

What does Vick have to show or prove? That he can still throw a football? Why should we believe he feels any remorse for his despicable acts or has found any kind of redemption? Because his PR representative or lawyer advises him to say he's sorry or has "matured?"

You and I both know this is pure bullshit.

The other day you talked about another football player who accidentally killed someone while driving drunk. While it seems only right such person should serve some jail time, it is also true that such act was not intentionally malicious, violent or premeditated. It can be presumed that this individual would feel deep remorse after such unintended tragedy and thus would not
represent further threat to society.

Why should we think the same about Vick?

His actions were cruel, sadistic, violent and intentionally malicious. They were fully intended to cause harm, injury and even death to other living beings.

Now, of course some will argue that dogs aren't humans and therefore, "don't count."

But, such argument totally ignores the fact that dog fighting is almost always linked with other crimes that do in fact, threaten and HARM PEOPLE (drug dealing, weapons possession and gang activities). Dog fighting, when present in a neighborhood, brings down the neighborhood and brings violence to it. That is fact.

Moreover, as said yesterday, our entire society, most notably taxpayers PAYS for the scourge of dog-fighting as represented by the millions of dollars it requires to bust up fighting rings, confiscate and impound the dogs and eventually kill them. That doesn't even take into the account the millions of "excess pitbull offspring" filling up our animal shelters and "Euth lists."

I understand the shallowness of modern media and its seeming unwillingness to investigate and actually report ALL THE FACTS. But, what exactly is Goodell's excuse? Should it not have been HIS responsibility to look into the facts of this horror and make a wise decision that takes into account all of the things in this letter, as well as maintaining the so-called "standards" of his sport -- football?

I will tell you this: While not an avid football fan, I have, over the years watched numerous games, enjoyed the sport and even attended a live football game.

But, I have now lost ALL respect for the sport. Any "sport" that welcomes back the likes of Michael Vick has lost me forever. (What and who else is college or professional football nurturing and protecting?)

If I have to think of any sport harboring and rewarding thugs, criminals and psychopaths, it is not something I would ever enjoy, partake in or respect.

Shame on Goodell. Shame on the major media. Shame on the animal community that so far is failing to adequately address and confront this disgrace. And shame on all those "football lovers" who continue to support a sport that has demonstrated its total lack of "standards," as well as human decency.


1 comment:

amby111 said...

Not only has the animal community failed to adequately address and confront this disgrace, but one major "animal welfare" organization is, in fact, embracing Vick. He is now an HSUS spokesman. Outrageous! Nathan Winograd posted a strong essay on his blog pointing out the hypocrisy and absurdity of such an association, likening it to the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network having rapist Josef Fritzl as a spokesman. What kind of message does HSUS' endorsement of Vick send to the general public? If the country's largest animal welfare organization places such little value on the lives of the dogs Vick abused and killed, why should anyone else place any more value on them?