Reader David McGee offers a great response on the Micahel Vick issue. This is the whole idea people. Don't be shy, join the conversation.
Here's his reply:
I do not condone what Michael Vick did. I do not condone the culture that promotes abuse to animals. Morally, what he did was reprehensible, and many would characterize it is as unconscionable, cruel and disturbing. I am glad that the man had to accept the consequences of his actions, and pay a hefty price for his involvement in the crimes for which he was convicted, sentenced and served.
Our judicial system is setup in such a way as to attempt to rehabilitate offenders, steering them back to the accepted behaviors of society; the norm. It is our fervent hope that when we punish someone for their crimes, it drives home the point that if the criminal continues their behavior, they should expect even more of a punishment when caught next. It is also our hope that the punishment dissuades others from committing similar acts, thereby acting as both prevention and deterrent of and to those who would consider breaking the law.
Michael Vick served his time, paid his debts and continues to show regret, sorrow and acceptance that what he did was wrong. He devotes himself, his time and his money to keeping others from the same path, to rescuing animals from fates in which others place them and to the SPCA (who have, by the way, publicly forgiven him). He shows no sign of recidivism. There is no more the man can do to show anyone that he has turned the page and learned from his lesson.
What is happening now is that people are targeting Michael Vick as a way of gaining exposure for themselves. They are not chastising Michael Vick. They are not protesting Michael Vick. They are not rallying to punish the man further. They are using his prior actions and his past reputation and his current celebrity for the promotion of their agenda. How moral, conscionable or right is that? After all, would it not be wrong to use someone's likeness without their permission in a positive campaign? Why then is it okay to use it in a negative campaign?
The news media participate. If they didn't, the protests would, indeed, go away. Free exposure through the news outlets is the goal of the protesters, and the media opens the gap for them to run with it. I don't see reports of people picketing other convicted felons at their places of employment. Heck, I don't see people, in general, getting this upset when a murderer of humans is set free after serving their time, paying their debt. It seems as if many of these groups hold in higher regard the life of an animal over that of a child, husband, mother or other human being.
And, maybe that's the problem. All too often, we allow our emotions to override our rationality. We hold onto the perceived slight, wanting to hang onto that which we can focus our anger and use it as a way to speak to other perceived slights, unleashing all of our venom on someone who has done something worthy of it. We feel justified in our actions because of their actions. Unfortunately, this is what's known, in psychological circles, as displacement; taking one's anger out on someone who does not, truly, deserve it.
Individuals and groups that refuse to forgive Vick for his past transgressions will not go away. They'll still troll message boards, they'll still crow their self-righteous, hypocritical, close-minded voices, and they'll still hate. We can't help them. We can help ourselves. We can decide whether we will respect the man for using his crime as an opportunity to raise awareness. We can decide that he has paid his debt, in full.
We Americans have the right to protest. When something is wrong, we should protest it. Unfortunately, all too often, that is where it stops. Too few follow through. Therefore, we now have a culture who are all too ready to judge and condemn based upon perception and opinion, rather than evidence and a good sense of right and wrong. According to the news outlet, many Americans are spiritual and/or religious. Is not one of the highest tenets of many religions "Do unto to others as you would have done to you?" Here's another: "Judge not lest you be judged." How about, "Turn the other cheek," "Love thy neighbor" and all others which promote kindness, forgiveness and mutual respect for one another? I have a spare mirror for anyone who would like to reassess their position on where they stand.
Here's his reply:
I do not condone what Michael Vick did. I do not condone the culture that promotes abuse to animals. Morally, what he did was reprehensible, and many would characterize it is as unconscionable, cruel and disturbing. I am glad that the man had to accept the consequences of his actions, and pay a hefty price for his involvement in the crimes for which he was convicted, sentenced and served.
Our judicial system is setup in such a way as to attempt to rehabilitate offenders, steering them back to the accepted behaviors of society; the norm. It is our fervent hope that when we punish someone for their crimes, it drives home the point that if the criminal continues their behavior, they should expect even more of a punishment when caught next. It is also our hope that the punishment dissuades others from committing similar acts, thereby acting as both prevention and deterrent of and to those who would consider breaking the law.
Michael Vick served his time, paid his debts and continues to show regret, sorrow and acceptance that what he did was wrong. He devotes himself, his time and his money to keeping others from the same path, to rescuing animals from fates in which others place them and to the SPCA (who have, by the way, publicly forgiven him). He shows no sign of recidivism. There is no more the man can do to show anyone that he has turned the page and learned from his lesson.
What is happening now is that people are targeting Michael Vick as a way of gaining exposure for themselves. They are not chastising Michael Vick. They are not protesting Michael Vick. They are not rallying to punish the man further. They are using his prior actions and his past reputation and his current celebrity for the promotion of their agenda. How moral, conscionable or right is that? After all, would it not be wrong to use someone's likeness without their permission in a positive campaign? Why then is it okay to use it in a negative campaign?
The news media participate. If they didn't, the protests would, indeed, go away. Free exposure through the news outlets is the goal of the protesters, and the media opens the gap for them to run with it. I don't see reports of people picketing other convicted felons at their places of employment. Heck, I don't see people, in general, getting this upset when a murderer of humans is set free after serving their time, paying their debt. It seems as if many of these groups hold in higher regard the life of an animal over that of a child, husband, mother or other human being.
And, maybe that's the problem. All too often, we allow our emotions to override our rationality. We hold onto the perceived slight, wanting to hang onto that which we can focus our anger and use it as a way to speak to other perceived slights, unleashing all of our venom on someone who has done something worthy of it. We feel justified in our actions because of their actions. Unfortunately, this is what's known, in psychological circles, as displacement; taking one's anger out on someone who does not, truly, deserve it.
Individuals and groups that refuse to forgive Vick for his past transgressions will not go away. They'll still troll message boards, they'll still crow their self-righteous, hypocritical, close-minded voices, and they'll still hate. We can't help them. We can help ourselves. We can decide whether we will respect the man for using his crime as an opportunity to raise awareness. We can decide that he has paid his debt, in full.
We Americans have the right to protest. When something is wrong, we should protest it. Unfortunately, all too often, that is where it stops. Too few follow through. Therefore, we now have a culture who are all too ready to judge and condemn based upon perception and opinion, rather than evidence and a good sense of right and wrong. According to the news outlet, many Americans are spiritual and/or religious. Is not one of the highest tenets of many religions "Do unto to others as you would have done to you?" Here's another: "Judge not lest you be judged." How about, "Turn the other cheek," "Love thy neighbor" and all others which promote kindness, forgiveness and mutual respect for one another? I have a spare mirror for anyone who would like to reassess their position on where they stand.
Comments