Newsed and Abused

I'm trying to get back into the habit of writing on here regularly. Ignoring the fact that I get about 1 visitor a week, I think it's good to be disciplined even when the payoff isn't obvious. So thinking of inspiration today a couple of recent news items came to mind. The first is fading away a bit now but it's in regards to the whole Miss California scandal. The second involves Michael Vick and the huge controversy that's been immediately restored upon his prison release.

So starting things off with the hot blonde (or blond if you prefer, both spellings are actually correct in case you weren't aware), let's take a moment to summarize the details that make her newsworthy. She was a finalist in the Miss America pageant and on track to potentially take home the crown. Many say she would have won had she answered her question differently. Because for the top contenders, after they have them walk around the stage in bikinis and strut around after being all dressed up in gowns, they ask them questions about what they think. The truth is, who the hell cares? The idea is for them to give diplomatic, bland, choreographed responses to the questions to skate through this event. However, when Carrie Prejean (California) was asked what she thought of gay marriage, she spoke truthfully and explained that she doesn't agree with it. A couple of problems here. Firstly, she was asked by an extremely gay man whose name I don't remember or care about. Secondly, she apparently broke the pageant pact by answering honestly instead of in a manner that she knew the judges would be pleased to hear. That's it. The whole thing is that she was asked a question which is hotly debated all across America and she answered honestly. Clearly, this woman is a horrible human being.

The aftermath involved several things, none of which honestly matter much. It turns out she did a photo shoot to try out for Victoria's Secret (note to self: if they hold tryouts I'm getting a spot on the judges panel next year) in which she was topless. Not topless as in you could see her fantastic body completely nude, topless like she didn't have a shirt on and she was facing away from the camera. Still a hot photo, worth checking out. Her opponents say this means she isn't Christian and somehow makes her a hypocrite. I'll be honest, I don't see what a hot girl posing without a shirt on has to do with gay marriage. I really don't see it. Then they said she was speaking too much about the subject and using her pageant title as a pulpit to preach from. They don't want their contestants talking about things that they believe in or the public cares about. That's a no-no. Alright, clearly at this point I'm on her side. Let me tell you why: because this is fucking ridiculous. She was honest. That's what it comes down to, she was asked a question and she answered it. If he didn't want to hear her answer, the judge who asked shouldn't have posed the question, simple as that. I thought the response was tactful and well stated, she wasn't rude or offensive in any way that I could tell. Beyond the fact that all she did was speak her mind, let's take a look at the answer people are so mad about. She opposes gay marriage. Here's a fun fact, CNN just did a poll to see how America feels about the subject. The results? 54% of Americans oppose gay marriage. Want another one? The President currently sitting in the oval office, the one many people are very happy with (including, I'd imagine many of the people who hate Ms. Prejean) has himself stated he opposes gay marriage. Want one more? California just voted against making gay marriage legal. That's odd, the state she represents agrees with her views. So...people hate her because they thought she'd give one answer but gave another. An answer that you're more likely to hear than not when asking the average, random American. Get my point?

Moving on to another hated figure, Michael Vick (former NFL quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons). Mr. Dogmauler himself. Short story, he just got out of prison after spending 2 years there because he was convicted of bankrolling and hosting dog fights. The kind of thing where they get dogs all pissed off and throw them in a ring, place bets and the dogs battle to the death. On top of that, apparently, abuse was pretty common and so was neglect. Pretty bad. It is, you can't really paint a picture that makes him look good there. But he was convicted and went to jail. Now he's out and there's an uproar. A lot of people don't think he should be allowed to play football again. At least not this season, they think teams should either neglect him like the dogs he fought or the commissioner should issue a suspension for the 2009 season. This is stupid. He should be allowed to play if a team is willing to pick him up. He did the crime, surely, but he also did the time. I work for a software company. If I were to steal a car and go to prison for it, when I got out should I be prohibited from getting a job at a different software company? Of course not, that's absurd. What does stealing a car have to do with working on computer programs? About as much as dog fighting has to do with playing football. The crime has nothing to do with his occupation. His occupation happens to pay much, much better than mine and puts him in a public spotlight, but it's still his occupation. He's a football player. That's what he does. The fact that his job is so much more specialized than mine doesn't really mean he should be punished to a greater extreme than me in my opinion. People want him to prove that he's remorseful and that he doesn't want to kill dogs anymore. Really? If he spends the next 365 days campaigning for PETA and wears shirts made of nothing but grass while kissing dogs and going on a vegan diet it still doesn't matter. The dogs are still dead, the whole thing still happened and most importantly, it doesn't prove a damn thing. If he does all that, what it proves to me is that he really wants to play football again. Because that's the truth. He does and due to his abysmal financial position, he'll probably do just about anything to play again because he needs the money. It doesn't mean he isn't remorseful or that he doesn't sincerely want to make amends, it just means that his actions don't prove jack shit because all we'll really know for sure is that he is trying to get back into the NFL. I'm not saying this against him, the fact is anyone in his position faces the same problem. Remorse is a personal thing, you can't prove it when you have more to gain than personal redemption. I'm of the opinion that he should be allowed to play because he paid the price for what he did and should be allowed to go on with his life, which is only right. At the risk of sounding callous (which doesn't bother me), let me put it this way. He acted cruelly to some dogs, get over it and let's all get on with our lives. Yup, I said it. Not that what he doesn't wasn't awful, but I get the feeling that if he'd raped a women or killed a man he wouldn't be facing nearly this level of scrutiny. Which disturbs me. Why do some people value the lives of animals over those of humans? I think this is a question that this situation poses which we should all be looking at. If he had done something awful involving human beings instead of dogs, would people be this angry? I don't know if they would. It also poses the question, do we all deserve a second chance? I'd like to think we do. Yes, it's understandable that dog lovers are mad at him. Yes, he deserved what he got. But he got it. He went to prison and lost his job as starting quarterback for an NFL team. That's pretty severe. Now let him move on, let's all move on. Even if he's denied the option to play for a team this year it won't be indefinite. He will play again. Make no mistake there are teams willing to take the flack for signing Michael Vick. Ultimately, the assigned punishment is going to end and he'll be back out there. But if he's truly remorseful, if he really regrets what he did (and if he doesn't I think he'll come to) then the self inflicted punishment is going to last a lot longer than anything Roger Goodell can impose. And no PETA add is going to make it better for him.