Daily Blague

Fighting animals is a strange business indeed, one need only look at horse, cock, fish and dog fighting to get some idea of the breadth of this nonsense. I have been to cock fights as an adult, seen fish fight at a neighbor's house as a child, and seen some of horse and dog fighting on television. It is an odd business with its own culture which always seems to revolve around waggering and the social status that accrues to a winning animal's owner. The execution issues in dog fighting seem to be the most distasteful next to encouraging horses to fight. Cock fighting and fish fighting seem pale in comparison to the other two but all of it is distasteful. Vick rhymes with sick doesn't it? Cat fighting doesn't seem to exist except in old "B" movies.

Michael Vick...don't get me started. I have never been a federal prosecutor, but I know some people who were and what they tell me is that even though a good prosecutor could indict the Virgin Mary they typically don't indict if they don't think they can get a conviction. I must admit that I am a dog lover (I have two canine companions who are definitely pampered pets) and, hence, am predisposed to rush to judgment with respect to anyone who is accused of dog abuse, but I do think the Vick indictment raises some interesting issues, to wit:

* Corporate responsibility. As I understand, Nike has a significant relationship with Michael Vick. Based on my experience with my nieces and nephews, Nike is a brand highly desired by children. Shouldn't corporations think twice about who they sponsor as a corporate spokesperson? I applaud Nike for sponsoring Tiger Woods, who is, I think, exemplary in every respect, but why pay big bucks to someone like Michael Vick who is, from what I've read, not only not the best at what he does, but also not someone that one would want their children to emulate (the dog-fighting case aside, he was sued by a woman who alleged he knowingly gave her herpes--a case that was quietly settled--and he has had a few other run-ins with fans and others for questionable behavior).

* Personal responsibility. Certainly if one is merely a landlord, one shouldn't necessarily be held responsible for what one's tenants do on one's property (although the feds do have the authority to seize property that is used for criminal activity). Nonetheless, when one is a registered dog breeder (which, as I understand, Vick was), one should be held responsible for the actions of one's employees in the pursuance of the business enterprise.

* Basic humanity. Dog breeders should be held to some essential standards of humanity. How anyone can look into the face of a dog (who generally looks back with an expression of trust and affection) and then mistreat that dog is a mystery to me. There are also the statistics establishing a correlation between animal abuse and violence against people. One generally leads to the other, and there are people who believe that animal abusers should be banned from contact with both animals and small children (a position with which I am in complete agreement).

* Parental responsibility. Michael Vick is an adult and I don't believe that his parents can be held vicariously responsible for his behavior. Nonetheless, I can't help but wonder about the direction (or lack thereof) provided to Mr. Vick by his parents during his 'formative' years. What was it in his up-bringing that would make him think that even associating (and here I am giving him the benefit of the doubt) with those involved in such a despicable activity as dog fighting is acceptable? My parents didn't dictate every moment of my existence, but this sort of behavior and association was something that I knew, fundamentally, was wrong.

* Societal values. Michael Vick is, in my opinion, an exemplar of the fundamental rot in our society. Why should someone who is merely an athlete be paid exponentially so much more than teachers? (But then again, why should I? My only defense is that I am not paid such an obscenely high salary as a professional football player--a lame excuse, I realize). He adds nothing to the greater good of society and, as his behavior demonstrates, he is seriously morally deficient. That he is being paid millions of dollars to do what little he does is appalling.