Taking Issue With Michael Silver
Okay, so the guy is Yahoo! Sports newly-minted sports writer...wonderful.
Now if only he'd keep his opinions to himself, unless he's going to offer something genuinely meaningful to the conversation.
To wit, I give you his initial offering, posted on Yahoo!'s NFL News page on August 13. He wastes the better part of a couple thousand words recycling the same bleeding-heart Michael Vick apologies that the Worldwide Fearless Leader has tried to ram down our throats for the last two months.
Basically, he gives us the "What about this? argument, the "It's not as bad as..." argument, and the "He's not the only one..." argument, none of which come close to making his point.
He begins with his "What about this?" argument by attempting to draw a parallel between Peyton Manning hunting in the offseason and Michael Vick fighting dogs in the offseason. This was his first mistake. For all of his trying to paint Bambi into Manning's sights, hunting just doesn't carry the same cachet that dogfighting carries. Hunting is not only legal, but socially accepted around the world. Yes, there are some rather vocal opponents of hunting in the U.S., but they make up a rather loud and annoying minority. Most folks don't care or don't mind if a man hunts legally in his private time.
Silver then moves to the "It's not as bad as..." argument, by citing the misadventures of St. Louis Rams defensive end Leonard Little. If there's a difference here, it's that Little committed a crime that most of us could easily have committed: he drove drunk, caused an accident, and inadvertently killed a woman. Vick, on the other hand, cold-bloodedly and quite soberly planned and executed a gambling operation for over five years that involved the wholesale abuse, torture, and slaughter of animals, all for profit. One act does not excuse the other.
Finally, he goes to the "He's not the only one..." argument, by sharing comments from New Orleans Saints running back Deuce McAllister. McAllister essentially backs up Silver's contention that dogfighting is widespread in the NFL and that we should not make such a big deal out of it since so many people do it.
Well, by that logic, we ought to excuse pederasty, drug dealing, and wife-beating because, after all, so many people do it.
Then Silver has the nerve to castigate us for enabling Roger Goodell and the NFL to "rush to judgment."
Actually, it's quite simple: the public finds dog-fighting abhorrent. The NFL and its players make their living at the largess of the public. The advertisers who associate themselves and their products with the NFL do so at the largess of the public. The networks who broadcast those games and use them to promote their prime-time schedules do so at the largess of the public. Therefore, if the public finds dog-fighting abhorrent, the public is not likely to spend its hard-earned cash at NFL events, nor with the sponsors associated with the NFL, nor with the networks associated with the NFL.
And Silver thinks that this is a bad thing. He really thinks that Peyton Manning's legal and honorable hunting is the same as electrocuting a dog that failed to test well, or that Leonard Little's single conviction somehow outweighs five years of intentional perfidy, or that a lot of people might do it somehow excuses it.
Dude, it's simple. Most of us think dog-fighting is sick, and that the people involved in it are sick. Think about it: no person hides the fact that he's going to go hunting. He tells his wife, he brings his kids, he goes with friends, he brags about it at work, and if his prize is big enough, he gets his picture in the local newspaper.
When's the last time you opened up the Local Interest section of your newspaper and saw a guy proudly sitting with his rape stand?
Now if only he'd keep his opinions to himself, unless he's going to offer something genuinely meaningful to the conversation.
To wit, I give you his initial offering, posted on Yahoo!'s NFL News page on August 13. He wastes the better part of a couple thousand words recycling the same bleeding-heart Michael Vick apologies that the Worldwide Fearless Leader has tried to ram down our throats for the last two months.
Basically, he gives us the "What about this? argument, the "It's not as bad as..." argument, and the "He's not the only one..." argument, none of which come close to making his point.
He begins with his "What about this?" argument by attempting to draw a parallel between Peyton Manning hunting in the offseason and Michael Vick fighting dogs in the offseason. This was his first mistake. For all of his trying to paint Bambi into Manning's sights, hunting just doesn't carry the same cachet that dogfighting carries. Hunting is not only legal, but socially accepted around the world. Yes, there are some rather vocal opponents of hunting in the U.S., but they make up a rather loud and annoying minority. Most folks don't care or don't mind if a man hunts legally in his private time.
Silver then moves to the "It's not as bad as..." argument, by citing the misadventures of St. Louis Rams defensive end Leonard Little. If there's a difference here, it's that Little committed a crime that most of us could easily have committed: he drove drunk, caused an accident, and inadvertently killed a woman. Vick, on the other hand, cold-bloodedly and quite soberly planned and executed a gambling operation for over five years that involved the wholesale abuse, torture, and slaughter of animals, all for profit. One act does not excuse the other.
Finally, he goes to the "He's not the only one..." argument, by sharing comments from New Orleans Saints running back Deuce McAllister. McAllister essentially backs up Silver's contention that dogfighting is widespread in the NFL and that we should not make such a big deal out of it since so many people do it.
Well, by that logic, we ought to excuse pederasty, drug dealing, and wife-beating because, after all, so many people do it.
Then Silver has the nerve to castigate us for enabling Roger Goodell and the NFL to "rush to judgment."
Actually, it's quite simple: the public finds dog-fighting abhorrent. The NFL and its players make their living at the largess of the public. The advertisers who associate themselves and their products with the NFL do so at the largess of the public. The networks who broadcast those games and use them to promote their prime-time schedules do so at the largess of the public. Therefore, if the public finds dog-fighting abhorrent, the public is not likely to spend its hard-earned cash at NFL events, nor with the sponsors associated with the NFL, nor with the networks associated with the NFL.
And Silver thinks that this is a bad thing. He really thinks that Peyton Manning's legal and honorable hunting is the same as electrocuting a dog that failed to test well, or that Leonard Little's single conviction somehow outweighs five years of intentional perfidy, or that a lot of people might do it somehow excuses it.
Dude, it's simple. Most of us think dog-fighting is sick, and that the people involved in it are sick. Think about it: no person hides the fact that he's going to go hunting. He tells his wife, he brings his kids, he goes with friends, he brags about it at work, and if his prize is big enough, he gets his picture in the local newspaper.
When's the last time you opened up the Local Interest section of your newspaper and saw a guy proudly sitting with his rape stand?
Labels: dog-fighting, Michael Vick, NFL
posted by van walker | 12:39 PM
1 Comments:
I hear you. Until there are Dog Fighting magazines at the supermarket, Silver needs to put a sock in it.
Post a Comment
<< Home