the dog -eat-dog world of michael vick
The following is not a moral indictment, but rather one of observation. Hmmm. Let me start by giving an example. Years upon years ago, I went to see with some friends a movie called THE ROAD WARRIOR. Actually a very well made action thriller staring Mel Gibson, and cast of unknowns (I guess, unless maybe known if you lived in Australia at the time), but I digress.
The movie, while enjoyable, was quite violent. There was much death and mutilation. Now, one of these unknowns happened to be a dog that belonged to the protagonist.
There was also much humor in the flick. But to get to the point, people either giggled in some parts or simply remained quiet. There was silence in the theater through human suffering galore. Then came the scene in which the dog was harpooned to death.
A collective groan from the audience ensued. You can probably see where I am going here. Take any story and kill off as many people you care to, but abuse a dog and you will be met with rage.
Trust me. I once wrote an article for a publication extolling the virtues of bullfighting that generated weeks of hate mail referring to me with just about every legally printable skewering.
I admit to being fascinated by the bullfights and have actually covered them for a bilingual publication in Mexico. Now, there is a vast difference between the bullfights and the dogfights. First of all, the term “bullfight” does not translate very well into English. The Spanish term is ‘corrida.,” which roughly translates into “run.” For those unfamiliar with the concept, it is more like a death ritual in the form of a spontaneous ballet.
While I have never attended a dogfight, there is nothing to translate. These are animals bred to do exactly what they are doing. Whether it is morally right or wrong is not the point I am about to make.
If one is seated at a bullfight, they can pretty much be sure that they are in a Latin country where the practice is accepted. On the other hand, if attending a dogfight in the USA, one can be assured of being ostracized and cast into the nearest clinker. It is not socially accepted or anywhere near being legal.
Michael Vick, if found guilty, had better be prepared to spend a vast quantity of his football fortune on of group of lawyers that are a guaranteed victory in court, if such an entity exits. A group of sympathetic jurors will be a few and far between proposition.
More than the actual fighting events, it will probably be the horrendous methods of executing the animals that performed poorly that will be the proverbial last straw in the public mind.
If Vick is found guilty, he had better drop to his knees and beg forgiveness with tears in his eyes. If found innocent, he had better drop to his knees with tears in his eyes and scream thanks at the top of his lungs.
If found innocent, his main crime will been associating with the wrong people and being at the wrong place at the wrong time with an addendum of a lapse in personal judgment.
If guilty, his main crime will have been stupidity.
If he serves time, he will probably get to know first hand the meaning of dog-eat-dog.
####
The movie, while enjoyable, was quite violent. There was much death and mutilation. Now, one of these unknowns happened to be a dog that belonged to the protagonist.
There was also much humor in the flick. But to get to the point, people either giggled in some parts or simply remained quiet. There was silence in the theater through human suffering galore. Then came the scene in which the dog was harpooned to death.
A collective groan from the audience ensued. You can probably see where I am going here. Take any story and kill off as many people you care to, but abuse a dog and you will be met with rage.
Trust me. I once wrote an article for a publication extolling the virtues of bullfighting that generated weeks of hate mail referring to me with just about every legally printable skewering.
I admit to being fascinated by the bullfights and have actually covered them for a bilingual publication in Mexico. Now, there is a vast difference between the bullfights and the dogfights. First of all, the term “bullfight” does not translate very well into English. The Spanish term is ‘corrida.,” which roughly translates into “run.” For those unfamiliar with the concept, it is more like a death ritual in the form of a spontaneous ballet.
While I have never attended a dogfight, there is nothing to translate. These are animals bred to do exactly what they are doing. Whether it is morally right or wrong is not the point I am about to make.
If one is seated at a bullfight, they can pretty much be sure that they are in a Latin country where the practice is accepted. On the other hand, if attending a dogfight in the USA, one can be assured of being ostracized and cast into the nearest clinker. It is not socially accepted or anywhere near being legal.
Michael Vick, if found guilty, had better be prepared to spend a vast quantity of his football fortune on of group of lawyers that are a guaranteed victory in court, if such an entity exits. A group of sympathetic jurors will be a few and far between proposition.
More than the actual fighting events, it will probably be the horrendous methods of executing the animals that performed poorly that will be the proverbial last straw in the public mind.
If Vick is found guilty, he had better drop to his knees and beg forgiveness with tears in his eyes. If found innocent, he had better drop to his knees with tears in his eyes and scream thanks at the top of his lungs.
If found innocent, his main crime will been associating with the wrong people and being at the wrong place at the wrong time with an addendum of a lapse in personal judgment.
If guilty, his main crime will have been stupidity.
If he serves time, he will probably get to know first hand the meaning of dog-eat-dog.
####
posted by bodega train at 10:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home