That has to be the most ridiculous statement made in the last few news cycles.
For those of you who have lived in a cave within the last four years, I'm speaking of Michael Vick, quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles and convicted dog fighter and ring operative (not to be confused with a villain on NBC's Chuck). Or would it be ring operator? Either way, it's a bad thing for those of you who don't already know.
Of course it won't come true until 2012 when he's released from supervision, but should that even be allowed?
How about this instead: He starts with a beta fish. For those of you who don't know beta fish are fighting fish. They are very territorial and will beat the living hell out of any fish that gets in their space. Let's see if Vick can resist the urge to place other fish in the tank. Then we'll move him up to opossums, another mean and ready to fight animal. Then onto roosters, cock fighting is another illegal sport, and maybe, just maybe, assuming he can resist the urge to fight the rooster, dogs after that. But stuffed dogs. Not real ones.
That's like letting a convicted pedophile adopt a kid. What sense does that really make?
Don't get me wrong. Vicks skills on the field are unquestionable. Yes, he can throw a football, run like a cheetah and avoid tackles. I hear he also has a good eye for recruiting based on his highly illegal recreational activities. But that being said, he should not be allowed to own a dog. No matter how good he is at picking them.
Yes, everybody deserves a second chance to contribute positively to society after being imprisoned. I won't argue with that. But just like we won't let sex offenders live within a certain radius of children, schools or the seminary---and if we do, then we shouldn't because look at the priests we've arrested in recent years over children being molested---we also shouldn't let Vick live within a certain radius of animal shelters, dog tracks or petting zoos. I know dogs don't live in petting zoos, but better to be safe than sorry.
But people can change can't they? The short answer: No, they generally cannot. Sure, he'll be fun-loving and playful with the dog at first. But what if it doesn't perform well at the Westminster Dog Show (because you know with his money he'll buy something pure bred)? He'll see how it performs in the ring, then put it to death if it loses. Odds are it'll be a scrappy little dog like a Jack Russell Terrier---just to prove a point that you can fight with any dog. Yappier than hell, but a lot of bark and little bite. Little imaginary dog never stood a chance.
You'd also think this would have caused a bigger uproar, like my Jack Russell comment probably will. Animal lovers everywhere should have been screaming at televisions, fainting or both. They should have had activists on the air out the yin yang, but alas, the news was buried. Much like many of Vicks former...well you get the idea. No sense beating a dead...yep, I was going there.
You know how I heard about it? It was at the very end of a story on CNN. The story was about President Obama talking to an Eagles big wig about Vick and how he deserved a second chance, etc. The last line stated Vick "expressed desire to own [a dog]." The last damn line! You think they'd lead with that. That's big bad news. It would have huffed and puffed and blew the news day down. Maybe it was in earlier news cylces and I missed it. Maybe they buried it. Maybe I ignored it because it was only on celebrity gossip. Or maybe, just maybe, no one is finally caring about celebrity gossip. But we all know the latter isn't true or Perez Hilton would be out of a job.
I don't think they gave this enough news coverage. It should be a hot button issue for animal rights activists. If you can't be near a child after being convicted of molesting them, then you shouldn't be anywhere near a dog after being convicted of abusing them.
For those of you who are appalled that abuse and molestation are being compared, let's look at one simple fact: Molestation is abuse. Abuse is abuse is abuse. No matter what for it's in, it should be taken seriously. That is why Vick should never be allowed to own a dog.
Just like the old expression says: You can take the man out of dog fighting, but you can't take the dog fighting out of the man.
At some point, some lawmaker must have figured out that it wasn't that horrible of an idea to let animal abusers who have served their prison time, i.e. the punishment for such a crime, have animals again. I agree with them, because otherwise they should extend the punishment to include it. And if he's "under supervision" until 2012, doesn't that mean that part of his sentence IS not owning dogs/animals until someone deems him worthy again?
ReplyDeleteAlso, just because one type of abuse falls under the umbrella of another (child molestation is a form of child abuse), does not mean that animal abuse is equal to child abuse/molestation. Abusing animals is bad, but abusing children is way worse, imo.
Also, also, it's at least slightly ironic (possibly hypocritical) for you to say that he should be able to have a "lesser" animal _before_ a dog, as if dogs are greater than other types of animals and therefore should be subject to a possible abuser before a dog. That could be, of course, your opinion, just like the fact that children are greater than animals is my opinion, but the courts and the rest of the world would probably back me up on this, although probably not PETA.
Also, also, also, none of this, at any time, made me get you wrong and think you were questioning his skills on the field.
Also, re: activists, vick, and dogs:
http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2010/12/15/michael-vick-wants-a-dog.aspx?PageIndex=3
OK, so much of this post is exaggerated and meant to be satirical. It has some points and my opinion on Vick owning an animal is in there. I'm not going to argue about some of the points you made, but I wanted to clarify the point about other animals. It was supposed to be satire. I was comparing Vick to a child. Give him a little responsibility at first and THEN have him work his way up to greater responsibility. In no way did I state any animal is lesser than another. Other animals just require less responsibility than say a dog. That was my point. Treat Vick like a little kid.
ReplyDeleteFine. I will now commence operation "be just as satirical as your posts" when I comment. Can't wait for the next post!!!
ReplyDeleteAlcoholics can't touch alcohol. This probably shouldn't be allowed either...Good post Tim!!
ReplyDeleteI just randomly found this in my RSS feed today, too: http://www.harpyness.com/2010/12/28/somebody-you-know-is-a-criminal-and-why-their-rights-matter-a-guest-post-by-drahill/
ReplyDeleteInteresting at least.