Michael Vick is in a heap of trouble, but his trouble points out a few troubling things in our society not that have little to do Mr. Vick.
#1: The Court of Public Opinion
How can you possibly get a fair trial after being convicted in the media, decried as "Barbaric!" (see the video above) on the Senate floor? Where can you find "12 good men and true" to hear that case impartially? Media coverage is so ubiquitous today it's almost impossible to not be innundated with the opinions of the various public figures (in this case those opinions are very one-sided), which will undoubtedly shape the opinions of anyone subject thereto and this makes it incredibly difficult to get a fair hearing. But legal ramifications aside, we publicly convict famous people immediately upon charges being leveled, for any occurence and it is nearly impossible to shake this label once applied, even if one is found not guilty or charges are dropped. It's possible that the very liveliehood of a person could be stripped away for false accusations and trumped up charges. I know that there is the public trust to win/lose, but in some cases, the public condemns you on the basis of not much other than emotion and you can never regain your same position or status even if you've done nothing wrong.
Syndicated columnist Earl Ofari Hutchinson puts it this way:
Even if Vick somehow beats the fed charges in his trial which is scheduled for November, that’s a doomed hope. In fact, as was the case with [OJ] Simpson, that will ignite even greater public fury. They will wag fingers at Vick and say that he was able to use his fame and name, and his A team, high priced attorneys to massage the legal system to skip away scot free, even though he’s guilty as sin. Vick will pay an even steeper price for that presumption.
He will lose any chance at endorsements. Sportswriters will rail against him. Animal rights groups will hound Vick in every city he sets foot in waving “Convick” signs in his face. Fans will rain boos and catcalls down on him when he sets foot on the field.
We show our (often justifiable) cynicism with the legal process by thinking any celebrity cleared of charges is only freed or offered leniency because they are rich. We forget that a jury of citizens hears the evidence and decides based on the facts presented. That's how the courts work and always have. It's this rational procedure that aids in our maintenance of civility instead of the vigilantism and mob justice, regardless of the facts/evidence, that rears its ugly head in the Court of Public Opinion.
#2: The Price of Fame or: The Blessing and Curse of Celebrity in America
You are beloved and popular and rich. But when you screw up, we will tear you a new one. Look at the ridiculing of Britney Spears these days. Mel Gibson became a punchline. The campout at Paris Hilton's house before she went to jail. Watch the Tonight Show sometime. We build 'em up so we can tear 'em down. Steven Spielberg tells a story that late New York Times film critic Pauline Kael told him after Close Encounters was a critical and commercial hit (his 3rd in a row to start his career) that there was chum in the water (an obligatory Jaws reference), as the critics' community was just waiting for him to make a mistake. 1941 was a slight misfire and they buried him (albeit very briefly, he followed up with Raiders of the Lost Ark, then ET and found himself back in their good graces forever). But the point is there. We want to tear down the idols so we love having paparazzos milling around like vultures waiting for some calamity to befall them, waiting for them to do something dumb/illegal. Why do think sites like TMZ and Perez Hilton and The Superficial are so popular? I wrote a couple months back about the phenomenon of not viewing high-profile celebrities as actual people, and I think that separation of them from their humanity is something they can start to do to themselves as well and it can become really problematic and creates the sort of problems we can see in folks from Vick to Lohan.
#3 The Race Thing
Two common arguments: "You're singling Vick out because he's black" and "You're only defending Vick because he's black". The first points to a deep-seated mistrust of the establishment (both state and media, though the distinction is increasingly blurring) and an entrenched perception of racial discrimination (if not an outright state of racial discrimination). The second points to stereotypes borne as a result of the first. If there were no feeling of the media conspiring to portray minorities negatively there would be no need to be overly protective of "one of your own" against perceived oppression.
While there are no doubt some who fall into the categories laid out, neither charge is necessarily accurate. It's possible to single Vick out because he is charged with a heinous crime. The fact is, even being tangentially connected to dog-fighting is problematic. Having the FBI say they have been tracking you and activity on your property for 4-5 years is problematic. Likewise, it's possible to attempt to defend Vick from the legal perspective by saying he is innocent until proven guilty, and the trial isn't set to commence until November and most who are out protesting haven't even read the indictment so though they may espouse, in that Howard Beale tradition, the "Mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore" attitude, they don't really know what exactly they are railing against.
#4: Pet the Dog, Eat the Cow
Sen. Robert Byrd stated, "God created the dog to be man's companion". A Sports Illustrated article quoted a few local Atlanta residents as saying this case was much worse than the case of Chris Benoit's double murder-suicide.
The Salt Lake Tribune reprints this Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed:
I watched cable news recently, and almost every anchor interviewed an official of the Humane Society, and all expressed horror, especially that Vick's indictment had accused him and his fellow defendants of executing dogs in ways apparently designed to be as cruel as possible: drowning, strangling, electrocution. One official compared the practice to child pornography. Then I went into town for some lunch, driving past all of the franchises peddling ground cow for human consumption - the same ones you'll find on every American highway exit. If killing dogs is the equivalent of child pornography, while eating cows is simply a way to put off mowing the lawn, we seem to be conflicted - or reeking with hypocrisy and confusion.
We have a set of intuitions, driven partly by our interactions with pets, that many animals can experience pain in a morally significant way, that they can suffer, or be used and degraded. Perhaps they have somewhat less of a claim on us than human beings do, but they make a claim. But another set of intuitions is driven by our dietary habits or our experience of thumping squirrels and armadillos on the road: that an animal is little more than an inanimate object, and can be used in whatever way a human being sees fit.
Our moral evaluation of animals seems to vary with their proximity to ourselves - both their everyday interactions with us and their perceived similarity to us - so that by the time you're done attributing love, loyalty and inferential reasoning to your dog, you have recognized her as a de facto human being, a member of the family. It works both ways, and your dog recognizes you as leader of the pack. Cows have big, sad eyes, but less personality of the sort that arouses our recognition. And these days, unless you're directly involved in the farming and food industry, your interaction with cows is limited to, let's say, the drive-through lane.
In practice, the moral claims of animals vary by species and track our sense of the animal's proximity - cognitive, emotional, physical - to ourselves. We become truly sentimental: We write memoirs with our dogs, talk baby-talk to them, let them lick our faces. But about other species we are as hard-nosed as possible. Essentially, we do whatever we feel like to them whenever we want. But there is no rational justification for this distinction. Pigs aren't more stupid, or less emotionally complex or less capable of experiencing pain than dogs, but they seem to lack that certain something (well, all except Charlotte's Wilbur).
We need to decide: (a) Do animals count? and (b) How, exactly, not as dwarfish, or four-legged, or stupid people, but as real things whose existence is, though connected to ours, profoundly external and different?
That last question is especially important, because we tend to think of our relationship to pets in human terms, and all other animals as a distinct other, yet how we arrive at that distinction is never really considered. What of those who have no pets and no real attachments to the "animal kingdom" (a phrase which itself confers human qualities on animals, the "king" of the jungle and so forth).
Well, that's all I got and I'm tired of writing. What say you? (I'm guessing nothing. That's usually how it goes 'round here).
No comments:
Post a Comment