What Mike Vick did is horrible. Earth-shatteringly, stomach-churningly horrible. If you haven’t read the indictments or heard the stories, I’m going to spare you the most graphic details of Vick’s dog-fighting operation. As I listened to various media outlets discussing this or that particularly violent activity, I was struck at how universal the outrage is. Everyone from West By-god Virginian ex-athletes to liberal ’shock jock’ types, and all their callers, were in agreement that Vick should be fired, suspended, locked up and pilloried. It was a chorus of horrified Americans, united in the idea that anyone who treats animals like that should be punished and we should have our values examined.
And they’re right. I hope they throw away the key.
You know what else is earth-shattering, stomach-churning, graphic, outrageous, and cause for national reflection?
This.
How’d that work out for us?
48 Responses to “Oh, fine: “Allegedly.””
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
The postal increase interception screen?
I do welcome all these animal rights’ converts, although I’m hardly one myself. Of course, the outrage would be twice as high if all the dogs looked like Lassie, and would fall to nil if Vick operated a slaughterhouse in rural Virginia.
NOOOO!
NOT KATRINA VANDENHEUVEL!!!!
I am outraged.
I assumed (yeah, yeah) that the link was to something about Iraq. When the Nation’s plea for funds opened, I thought you were joking.
Point taken, though. As bad as dogfighting is, it’s not a war.
Maybe if most Americans had grown up with a pet Iraqi civilian in their house, we might see a little more outrage. I’m not trying to be flippant about the story, it’s just sad that while most people can empathize with dogs because they see them everyday in real life, Iraqi families and the U.S. soldiers who brutalize them only exist in a TV fantasyland. Should we open an Iraqi petting zoo? Would that help?
Ah well what is getting me angry the most today is the ‘Good Old Larry Flynt Gets Them Evil Republicans’ story. Just because he hates THEM doesn’t make him one of US. Any thoughts?
I’m sorry, Cruella, but even though I don’t agree with the content of Mr. Flynt’s publication(s), I support his right to express what’s in them. He’s not shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, metaphorically speaking, so I consider a smutpeddler like Flynt considerably less harmful than a sociopath like Karl Rove, for example.
Talk about non-sequitur.
There isn’t massive propaganda promoting dog fighting. Our president isn’t lying to us about dog fighting. Fighting Iraqis isn’t a federal offense in 50 states.
Also, outrage about dog fighting isn’t just a animal rights issue, it’s also a public health issue. People who breed and train animals to fight pose a human health risk.
So I’m allowed to be outraged by only one thing at a time?
Mezosub, nobody asked you whether what Flynt does falls under free speech. The point is that even if he’s harassing unethical Republicans, that doesn’t make him a good leftist, liberal, progressive, or whatever you want to call it. He has serious disrespect for women–oh, don’t give me that look, I’ve browsed through Hustler and seen the nasty comics for myself, thanks much–and you can’t hate women and be a progressive. Period, end of statement, full stop. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
And I’ll thank you and other men (and ass-kissing female apologists for misogynist men) to stop waylaying conversations about pornography with cries of “Free speech! First Amendment!” We have laws against slander in this country, thankyouverymuch, and we have a Fourteenth Amendment that calls for equal protection under the law, and if crap like Flynt peddles isn’t slander against women, I don’t know what is. And turning the conversation about this into a free-speech issue distracts from the larger issue that photos and stories that depict treating women like garbage are harmful to women. I’m not talking about ordinary sex acts here.
My question is, what are you and other porn defenders afraid of? Seriously? But I’m not going to take it any farther than that because I’ve hijacked the thread enough.
Okay, let me clarify:
Dog fighting has united the country, and rightly so.
Iraq atrocities have not, or have at least taken far, far longer.
If you’re outraged by both, you’re one of those who’s in the right.
I can’t speak for everybody else, but with me it’s the silver, blue-eyed spiders crawling out of my coffee cup.
I am, however, willing to admit that that just might be post-withdrawal DTs.
Celebrity gossip I mean “news” is so much more /fun/ than reporting on wide-scale pain and suffering that we’re all more-or-less implicated in causing/sustaining/etc.
I wish so-called news agencies would actually report on, well, news.
What, no bear baiting?
This is going to hurt the NFL pretty badly, because the rumors have it dog fighting is endemic with the assholes the league calls players.
I like football. I love football, but ever since reading Invisible Man I cannot forget that part of the book where the Chamber of Commerce pays those African-American kids to put on blindfolds and have a mass duke out for the Whites’ pleasure. I think about that on every kick-off now.
slander? against women? whiskey tango foxtrot?
Okay. I like a lot of smaller magazines. This is an evil bit of media consolidation. In a weird bit of intra-postal synergy, I wonder what Larry Flynt’s postal bill is gonna be.
There isn’t massive propaganda promoting dog fighting.
There would be, if there were money in it.
Indy,
I wouldn’t go so far as slander against women (especially since it’s legally impossible to defame a group) but yes, porn is demeaning.
Jeffery, you’re not entirely correct. If a plaintiff can prove colloquium then a plaintiff can win a defamation suit when a statement has been made about a group.
3 basic rules for colloquium:
1. Plaintiff (P) has to prove that he or she is a member of the group, and
2. That the statement can reasonably be interpreted as referring to the P
3. If the statement is a general (i.e., inclusive) statement about a large group (larger than 70), it’s not actionable / it’s too exaggerated to be credible (“all lawyers are crooks�) EXCEPT
- if there is evidence of special circumstances, it’s possible it could be actionable (look for something in the statement to point to someone)
- an inclusive statement about a limited group up to 70 (“the football team takes steroids�) can reasonably be interpreted as referring to individual members of the group
- a statement that partially defames a relatively small group, maximum = 25, and there you have to look at the language and the size of the group to see if the statement can reasonably be taken to cast suspicion on each member, then any individual can sue
Flynt’s one of those guys that’s beautiful viewed from one angle and horrible from the other. He’s too complex to be written off as hero or asshole. I don’t like the cartoons, FWIW.
Vick was and is trash.
But so are Bush and Rove. And they kill a lot more critters. I do wonder why it is that dogfighting is (rightly) seen as clear-cut wrong but the Iraq War is not. I mean, propaganda is an easy answer, but there’s more to it than that: why do I feel more sympathy for a pit bull I’ve never met than an Iraqi civilian or American soldier? It’s a serious question and one to which I’d like to know the answer.
But I do know there’s a shitload of money in dogfighting. And war.
I mean, propaganda is an easy answer, but there’s more to it than that: why do I feel more sympathy for a pit bull I’ve never met than an Iraqi civilian or American soldier? It’s a serious question and one to which I’d like to know the answer.
It’s pretty simple (or simplistic, as you prefer): we feel that people have some kind of agency over their lives, but dogs don’t. So there is a feeling at some level that the Iraqi civilians should move, or the American soldiers should desert, because theoretically there is that option.
Dogs, however, don’t have that option. They’re stuck with whoever their owner is, and can only hope that their owners are not abusive assholes who will kill them without a second thought.
Short version: humans have agency, dogs don’t.
Well, dammit. The NFL talks tough, but claims they have to wait to see the result before they act. Vick’s team apologizes that people had to hear something nasty about a player–not for the actual offense.
What the hell? Tank Johnson lost his job and may still face further penalties from the NFL besides having to go to jail! And his best friend died.
The hell. Some players are more equal than others I guess.
If I had to guess, it’s because domesticated animals are completely dependent upon their caretakers, are not considered moral agents and cannot be blamed for their own condition as easily as Iraqi civilians or American soldiers.
I’m assuming this is why the only adult one ever sees in Christian Children’s Fund commercials is the (reassuringly USAian) spokesperson.
And may I just add: Pit bulls rock!
<threadjack>
Caren:
Tank Johnson was convicted of a crime. Vick has only been charged. The league is just playing wait-and-see with Vick.
</threadjack>
“Flynt’s one of those guys that’s beautiful viewed from one angle and horrible from the other. He’s too complex to be written off as hero or asshole.”
No, he’s an asshole.
No, I take it back– asshole is far too nice a word for him. Calling Flynt an asshole is insulting to assholes!
Flynt goes after wingers because he views them as potential threats to Flynt, Inc. That is all. Nothing “complex” about it.
I disapprove of the treatment given to modern sportstars by the media. Everyone posting here would be very angry if they were to lose their job over a mere accusation of dogfighting. If I get hauled off by the cops on a charge of screwing children, inciting terrorism, eating puppies and dismembering my own relatives I don`t want to lose my job unless my job concerns itself with the welfare of one of those groups, and/or I go to gaol. Even murderers have the right to work, and people not yet convicted of any charge are, in fact, innocent.
I understand that sportstars are “special” because they`re “role models”, but I don`t think they should be treated differently to the rest of us - in fact if the media didn`t hype these people so much to start with, they wouldn`t be considered role models at all, just stupid men and women doing a cool job and being paid too much for it.
I recall recently a sports star in Australia being fined the equivalent of a months` wages and being suspended from several games for sending some rude phone calls to a girl he knew while he was drunk. I don`t think anyone here would be happy with having their wages cut by 8% because they did something stupid in their private time. And certainly they should be considered to have “allegedly” committed the crime until the crime is proven, even if the evidence is so overwhelming that it seems only a technicality.
I would say in fact that everytime we fall for this stupid moral outrage - over any issue - we reward the media for setting themselves up as masters of others` fates. We should instead spit in their eye.
Flashheart, i hope to god you’re not serious. Yes, there’s a presumption of innocence, but 1) the NFL (or any other employer) isn’t the government and 2) it has an image to maintain, one that has been pretty well shot over the last year. While i would hope that they wouldn’t boot him from the league for good while charges are pending (and they won’t, they’re not morons), it is certainly their prerogative to suspend him for his alleged actions, and they would be fools not to.
randomliberal, Why? Why deny him the right to do his job because of an allegation? Why should it be a particular responsibility only of “the government” to treat people fairly? The NFL being an employer doesn`t exempt them from concepts like natural justice and the rule of law. Vick didn`t do anything that affects his ability to conduct his job, and if people were behaving rationally they would understand that his crime doesn`t reflect on the NFL`s staff policies or hiring practices.
And how is it fair to suspend someone for an alleged crime? Under the presumption of innocence he is not yet guilty. Yet he gets treated differently because of an allegation. This breaches the rule of law. How we behave under such circumstances is very much a reflection of our real, deeply felt views about the rule of law. And it seems to me that a lot of people think that when their particular pet crime is involved (be it sex with kiddies, sex with animals, abortion, lynching, animal cruelty, rape or torture), suddenly the rule of law is secondary to the moral panic. You go down this path and how, really, are you different to the illiberal losers on the right who think a mere sniff of an allegation of terrorism is enough to have you waterboarded for life? Only by degrees…
There is money in dog fighting. That’s why people do it. And that’s why the penalties are so high. Because if they weren’t, little fines and short jail time stints wouldn’t act as a deterrent.
Auguste, thanks for clarifying. I am outraged by both.
Caga, this is more than celebrity gossip. The reason Vick is going down is to make an example of him. Dogfighting is a huge illegal industry that needs to see one of its “heros” face the consequences in order to understand that there are consequences.
Regarding the “humans have agency, dogs don’t” theory. It sounds good, but I doubt it’s true. China treats dogs the way we treat cows, as animals for meat and fur. If Vick ran a fur farm and tortured raccoons and foxes, our society wouldn’t give a shit. People would still buy Burberry fur-lined clothing. If Vick ran a slaughterhouse and treated cows or pigs inhumanely, it wouldn’t be a news story.
I think the reason people have sympathy for dogs and not for Iraqis or US soldiers is because of Lassie and other pro-dog media we’re exposed to as children. Our society is pro-dog, anti-cow, anit-Iraqi, pro-milk…
Only by degrees? Right. A suspension is not expulsion, it leaves open the possibility (probability) of Vick coming back in the event of an acquittal or charges being dropped. Regardless of whether or not Vick is guilty of the charges that have been brought against him, he is certainly guilty of remarkably poor judgment and/or negligence (the house was under his name, and he absolutely should know what’s going on on his own property). That’s plenty for the league to suspend him, even if Vick did not actively participate in the dog-fighting. Image is very important for any pro sports league, and the NFL is well within their rights to take image into account when considering whether or not to take disciplinary action against a player.
Flashheart, in an employment context, it’s called “investigatory suspension.”
Whether or not anyone agrees, employers have a right to, and actually do, suspend employees pending an investigation of any *serious* allegation. It is a common condition of one’s employement generally set forth in employee handbooks.
What many employers do is to continue full pay for a certain duration (varies by employer / by allegation); I don’t know whether or not Vick is being paid during his suspension.
To further clarify, allegations in the employment context for investigatory suspension are not restricted to being criminally charged. Someone can be suspended in this manner in allegations of violations of company policies.
The suspensions have little if anything to do with the rule of law; merely company policy.
I see that the concept of
“Innocent Until Proven Guilty”
Has been basically abandoned in the U.S.
Nice work.
Joseph, employers are not bound by that concept; the government is.
Bonnie and randomliberal, why do you think this is good? Why do you present this fact of employer exemption from basic principles of western society as if it were a neutral fact? In the end, these charges may be dropped or disproven, and Vick has been run through the mill over them. Sure it may not be a serious issue in this case that he wasn`t allowed to play his sport for a month, but it`s still wrong. The fact that his employers can do it doesn`t make it acceptable.
This is moral panic, and you can bet your arse that it will filter down through the ranks. Today it`s people in the spotlight, but so long as we don`t do anything about it it will filter down through the ranks. But I suppose in a society where employers are accepted as being above the law, it`s okay isn`t it…?
So, a single malicious charge and this guy potentially loses his income while he has to fight a vexatious court case? And if he were playing a sport anyone else cared about, potentially during the process he loses the chance at national selection, so can`t represent his country because of a malicious charge? Nice.
flashheart, do all indictments qualify as “malicious charges?”
Because as indictments go, this one’s pretty damn well-supported.
Flashheart, do you believe all private entities should be bound to treat a suspect as innocent until conviction?
Can we therefore not mention that there are many things done by the Bush administration that have been illegal, such as disregarding the constitution and international treaties– because no one has been found guilty by a jury or Congress?
Can a woman not dump her verbally aggressive boyfriend if one of his exes files criminal charges against him for beating her up, unless he’s found guilty in court? She has to stick with him in spite of her increasing feelings of insecurity, because it wouldn’t be fair?
Must the father of a young man caught marching in a KKK rally have his son definitely tied into and convicted of an actual crime before he can say, “I have no son”?
Must Wendy stand by her husband in spite of his being identified as a john by multiple prostitutes, because no charges have been filed against him?
Must he stand by her, in spite of wondering when the strain will be too much after she pledged to Bobittize him?
There is a thing called freedom of association. It implies with it the freedom to disassociate. I know I’ve filled out forms that ask not only have I ever been convicted, but have I ever been arrested. In this country we do not require people to associate with suspected criminals. I don’t know where anyone would get the idea this is true.
Flashheart, deliberate cruelty to animals is known to be a marker for crimes against humans — besides the fact that in themselves, they’re despicable.
We used to have a concept called “sportsman”. The condemnation of Vick and Shane Warne for their cruel or (in the case of Warne) clueless, stupid and tasteless behaviour, by sporting bodies and fans, is completely warranted and shows that some vestige of the sportsman ethos still remains.
Being a thug can get you into trouble these days, although many of them still get away with it. You can boohoo for them, I won’t.
“Vick didn`t do anything that affects his ability to conduct his job”
Wrong. His job is NOT to carry a football (or block or whatever position he plays). His job is to sell tickets and merchandise, and being indicted of ugly charges DOES affect his ability to do that.
Flashheart, I did not say good, bad, or otherwise. I was hoping to illuminate the concept of “invetigatory suspension” for you.
As I said, sometimes employers continue paying suspended employees. That means Vick could still be drawing his salary. I do not know if he is or not.
Employers are not above the law; they just are not held to the standards of evidence in a criminal trial. I took no position on Vick’s situation in my comments to you.
Since you called me out by name, Radical Earthling, I’ll respond in like fashion. I never said Flynt was a good leftist, liberal progressive. I support his right to express himself, but I don’t think I went any further than that. Flynt is a capitalist, and like all capitalists, Flynt exploits people for profit. If he can turn more profits by undermining the conservative agenda in general and specific Republicans in particular, I’m all for it.
Please don’t mistake my support for free expression as an indictment of prudery or sexual hang-ups. You characterize Hustler as, “I’m not talking about ordinary sex acts here.� To which, I would respond that I’ve read a few issues of Hustler from cover to cover, and I would remind readers that what one may consider “ordinary sex acts� could be quite kinky to someone else. Same with the opposite end of the spectrum. There are lots of kinks that are considered quite vanilla to some enthusiasts.
Now, I’m not suggesting that Flynt is a friend to women and feminists, but, to answer your question:
I’m afraid of the slippery slope. I’m afraid that if we ban Hustler today, it’ll be Playboy tomorrow, followed by the Victoria’s Secret catalog. I’m afraid that banning adult materials is inherently anti-woman because it sends the message that women’s bodies are so inherently disgusting and evil and vile that they cannot even be viewed .
I’m also aware that pornography and prostitution are situations brought about by economic conditions. Adult film is one of the few occupational categories where the female actors are consistently paid more than the male actors for the same films. I’m against anything that inhibits women from taking advantage of market demands to improve themselves economically, and that includes adult film, still photography, audio services (900 numbers), exotic dancing, escort services, and prostitution.
I think they should all be legal and available because they serve as economic fulcrums that allow women financial leverage that they wouldn’t ordinarily have in mainstream job categories, given the wage gap, the mommy track, the glass ceiling, and all the other forms of institutionalized discrimination that women must face and overcome to succeed economically.
P.S. What made you think I was a man? I find it rather interesting that you’d think so.
Regarding the “humans have agency, dogs don’t� theory. It sounds good, but I doubt it’s true. China treats dogs the way we treat cows, as animals for meat and fur. If Vick ran a fur farm and tortured raccoons and foxes, our society wouldn’t give a shit. People would still buy Burberry fur-lined clothing. If Vick ran a slaughterhouse and treated cows or pigs inhumanely, it wouldn’t be a news story.
I think the reason people have sympathy for dogs and not for Iraqis or US soldiers is because of Lassie and other pro-dog media we’re exposed to as children. Our society is pro-dog, anti-cow, anit-Iraqi, pro-milk…
I don’t think that the reason people are appalled about dog fighting is because it is dogs. I don’t think it has anything to do with the type of animal it is. The difference between raising animals for meat and fur and forcing them to fight eachother for our entertainment is vast.
Is it more cruel to raise a cow and kill it for its meat, or to raise a cow and then put it in a ring and torment it until it fights and then is killed for the entertainment of humans? (Bullfighting) Is it more cruel to raise a rooster to mate for food purposes or to raise a rooster and routinely torment it and force it to fight other roosters until it eventually dies in a fight? (cockfighting)
The two things are not comparable even if the animal isn’t as cute and fuzzy and bonded with human kind as dogs are.
Also, I can’t help but want to point out how “concern troll”y this post is. So often people get mad on blogs when someone stops by and says “Oh you’re so concerned about women’s rights, but look what is happening HERE, it’s even worse.” And I think that is exactly what this post does, though I guess the clarification helps.
Also, I don’t think the “but this” is even very valid in this instance. The reason this is getting so much more attention in the media has less to do with the fuzzy puppies being tortured and more to do with the football player at the center. Our country does love to watch its celebrities fall from grace. (Helloooooo Paris.) This same post could be directed at any number of other stories by the press, Paris’s jail stint, Britney Spear’s vagina, so on and so forth.
And I am glad that this is being used as an opportunity to educate people about dogfighting and how horrible it is. However people are brought up on dog fighting charges all the time, and it rarely recieves any kind of attention. This is just another celebrity fall from grace story, that is being used (imho rightly) to educate people on an ongoing act of crime that is happening under our noses.
Maybe if Paris had been at Haditha people would actually care.
I don’t get it. Human beings can fight for each others’ amusement, but dogs can’t? Weird America
Do you think people would be as outraged if Vick was raising roosters for cock fighting? I doubt it. Americans care more about dogs than any other animal.
Sorry, forgot a backslash. Then end of the quote should be at are” and the beginning of my thoughts start at “I think they are comparable. Sorry.
Vick didn`t do anything that affects his ability to conduct his job,
Sure he did; he was indicted and arrested and has attracted a bunch of negative publicity (and probably protestors galore). His only job is to make money for the NFL. His actions have affected their image and, thus, their income stream. I don’t know about the rules where you work, but if someone is arrested where I work, they are placed on Administrative leave until the issue is resolved. It could be paid or non-paid leave, depending on the severity of the crime.
So from these posts i seem to get the impression that, in America, everyone demands the goverment uphold the rule of law, but at the same time you have no expectation that individuals or organisations outside the government should? And then you complain when someone you don’t like breaks the law… and worry about your high crime rates…?
Hmmm…
Flashheart–innocent until proven guilty does NOT mean that you get to prance around town and do whatever you want. Unless you can post bail, you are generally stuck in jail until the trial. Granted, that time in jail is figured into your sentence (i.e. that time is taken off your time), but still. You are in jail, regardless. Innocent until proven guilty means you don’t have to mount any kind of defense at trial. It does NOT mean that your employer has to have to you around. Generally, when you are hired, you are provided with an employee handbook that outlines the grounds for suspension. You are free to not take the job if you are worried about your proclivity for being arrested.