is all the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth about Michael Vick by the sports channels missing the point? This is a man who brutalized dogs, and who broke the law. And yet all we hear is about what his sentencing means to his team, to the NFL, will he be able to return to the NFL, etc. We hear about his team "supporting their teammate". And to see fans wearing Vick jerseys in "support", players wearing "Free Mike Vick" under their jerseys-is it just me who finds this disgusting and disgraceful? To me these people are just as despicable as Vick, if they support an animal abuser thus.
To me, there are few human beings lower than animal abusers. I hear some cry that there is not similar outrage over the murder of human beings, that "it's just an animal", etc. I hear the NAACP all but compare him to civil rights martyrs. Is the state of the civil rights movement such that Michael Vick is today's Martin Luther King? Either we have reached Mr. King's dream and the NAACP has nothing else to worry about or the civil rights movement is in dire straits.
Think about what this man did. He betrayed the trust of an animal to take pleasure out of its torture and/or death. Companion animals such as dogs and cats look at us to take care of them; they are completely and innocently trusting in us. There is little difference between what animal abusers do and betraying the trust of a child. Which is why FBI profilers look at animal abuse as being predictive of a life of violent crime; many serial killers start out with animals. If Vick was convicted of child abuse, would those who make the false analogies above make similar statements?
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Kookiness from the left
As I said in my first post, I describe myself as being "left". I offer no apologies for this, and indeed am proud of it. But when I read about things like the University of Delaware's attempt to "sensitize" students, I can understand the furor of the right wing's response. To wit, the University of Delaware tried to run a mandatory program in "diversity awareness", it can be read here.
This was the part that got them in trouble: "A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e. people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture, or sexuality."
All white people? The right is having a field day over this, and it only reinforces their view that college campuses are cauldrons of left wing nuttiness. To be clear, let me emphasize that I recognize the long history of racism in this country, which persists to this day. I realize that much of the inequities of this country, and the persistent poverty found in the African-American community, is due at least in part to that racism. I find myself often at odds with white people who whine about "reverse racism" constantly, and pooh-pooh every person who brings up issues of racism. To many white people, racism ended in the sixties with the Voting Rights Act, and the reason blacks can't get ahead is because they don't want to. I find such thinking obnoxious and racist. To however label in blanket like fashion all whites as racist is absurd and insulting (I am white). It is prejudicial and designed to play on feelings of white guilt. And in the end it accomplishes the same thing "affirmative action" in the work place did. It tries to rectify centuries of racism by putting the burden on every day people (in affirmative action's case working class people, here college students) and engendering resentment in the process, while doing nothing to address the institutions of power and wealth that owe their status to that racist history.
A better approach, in my opinion, would be to create a program that identifies racism in our society that white people might not usually recognize. The goal should be to make people more aware, not to accost them with guilt and accusations.
This was the part that got them in trouble: "A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e. people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture, or sexuality."
All white people? The right is having a field day over this, and it only reinforces their view that college campuses are cauldrons of left wing nuttiness. To be clear, let me emphasize that I recognize the long history of racism in this country, which persists to this day. I realize that much of the inequities of this country, and the persistent poverty found in the African-American community, is due at least in part to that racism. I find myself often at odds with white people who whine about "reverse racism" constantly, and pooh-pooh every person who brings up issues of racism. To many white people, racism ended in the sixties with the Voting Rights Act, and the reason blacks can't get ahead is because they don't want to. I find such thinking obnoxious and racist. To however label in blanket like fashion all whites as racist is absurd and insulting (I am white). It is prejudicial and designed to play on feelings of white guilt. And in the end it accomplishes the same thing "affirmative action" in the work place did. It tries to rectify centuries of racism by putting the burden on every day people (in affirmative action's case working class people, here college students) and engendering resentment in the process, while doing nothing to address the institutions of power and wealth that owe their status to that racist history.
A better approach, in my opinion, would be to create a program that identifies racism in our society that white people might not usually recognize. The goal should be to make people more aware, not to accost them with guilt and accusations.
He lied, again
With the news that Iran has not pursued nuclear (or nook-yoo-ler, as our president says) weapons technology since 2003, our president looks like one of those playground kids jumping rope, except in this case it is his tongue he is trying to jump over. The White House has known this information for some time now, and the question is why the World War III rhetoric just 2 months ago.
Glenn Greenwald has a good piece here.
Glenn Greenwald has a good piece here.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Greetings!
Welcome to my blog! I'm new to this, but here you will find random postings, ravings, thoughts, emotional tirades and introspections from a member of Generation ? I call Generation ? those who were born after 1964 (the last year of the Baby Boomers) and before 1968 (the beginning of Generation X). I am what I would call an Independent who nonetheless would describe himself as "left", though that does not mean I subscribe unquestioningly to the Democratic Party line; as a matter of fact I find myself often attacking them more than the Republicans. Many of my postings may end up being political, reflecting my exasperation and dismay at the current state of the United States, but I certainly do not intend this to be an exclusively political blog.
I am married, my first child is currently swimming in my wife's insides, I work in healthcare, and reside in suburban Philadelphia. I spent 12 wonderful years prior in New Orleans and my soul will forever consider it home. Hell has a special place for those who contributed to its near death.
I am married, my first child is currently swimming in my wife's insides, I work in healthcare, and reside in suburban Philadelphia. I spent 12 wonderful years prior in New Orleans and my soul will forever consider it home. Hell has a special place for those who contributed to its near death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)