Our Time of Irrationality and the Shame of the NAACP

The Michael Vick dog-fighting controversy has given rise to the latest disclosure of our media driven and money infused culture's loss of its sense of rational thought and behavior. Clinton Portis and Deion Sanders led off in the batting order or absurdities by insisting that Vick should be allowed to do what he wants associating dog fighting with sport and even if not sport, as simply the way that Vick relates himself to dogs leveling any distinctions between the kinds of behaviors that we train dogs to do. Training a dog to sit before eating dinner or to bark at a stranger at the front door as part of a pack made between human and canine are natural behaviors for a dog (just ask Ceasar Milan). How this associates with a clear philosophy of kill or be killed as the sole purpose of a creature's existence and to live its life counter to its very pack mentality (which is based on cooperation as a means of maximizing survival) is one clear indicator that irrational behavior is a supported way of life and thinking for many.

When Portis was chided continually for supporting not just Vick but the entire culture of dog fighting when the Vick story broke, it seemed to be an indicator that more would step out and provide reasons for why dog fighting was wrong and essentially quiet any sentiment that the act itself is simply relative to the whims of the dog owner/trainer. Sadly, this is not what happened.

Deion Sanders posted in his column that this is the way that some people prefer to train their dogs which is no different that training a dog to protect a home if that's what the owner of the dog chooses to do. He went on to defend what were Vick's accusations at the time. His column was almost immediately pulled for that week. This bit of arguing for the rights of Vick to treat his animals how he chooses to took the line of defense that Portis took. This view was again castigated and opposed with what seemed to be a clear enough message that dogfighting is an absolute wrong and not a relative policy applied to some and not others.

To this point one message was clear in virtually every commentary that I head about the issue – especially from hard-hitters in sports media like Jim Rome and Colin Cowherd – we should not assume that Vick is guilty since that has not been judged, however, these charges were not those of some North Carolina attorney this time (see, Duke lacrosse team) but a federal indictment run by the FBI and federal prosecutors. The message – be prepared for a very clear and well assembled federal case prepared against Vick in accord with the enforcement of a federal felony charge. From what I saw, read and heard, the discussion of the seriousness of the charges was clear along with an equally clear qualification that Vick was not yet proven guilty and so guilt should not be assumed. The court of public opinion is a different matter, but the sports media seemed to treat the issue fair enough. Thinking the Sanders article would seal the issue over the stupidity of the relativist argument that dogfighting is a choice and not inherently wrong, we would be rational to assume it would have stopped there. Nope.

Stephon Marbury who has been rightly praised for his funding of a line of low-cost designer athletic shoes came out with a statement associating dogfighting with any other sport involving animals such as deer hunting or any other form of hunting. Then came the real kicker.

The Atlanta NAACP chapter president R.L. White made this plea:

"As a society, we should aid in his rehabilitation and welcome a new Michael Vick back into the community without a permanent loss of his career in football… We further ask the NFL, Falcons, and the sponsors not to permanently ban Mr. Vick from his ability to bring hours of enjoyment to fans all over this country."

So to parse this argument, a) Vick needs to be rehabilitated from something which means that something must either be wrong with his psycho-social functioning in the world, or he has done something wrong or illegal. b) He should be allowed back to his job after his rehabilitation period in order that we may enjoy watching him. c) Society has an obligation to support this rehabilitation. So the logic here is that after a rehab period such as a prison sentence, if one offers hours of enjoyment, one should automatically have their job back. So what about the other two associates who ratted Vick out? If they were also entertaining to watch on TV should they have their jobs back as well? Does society have an obligation to support them in their rehabilitation as well? Or does that only apply to wealthy entertainers? Does this not make rehabilitation sound like Vick should argue that the Family Leave Act should be invoked in his favor? But before we answer some of these questions let's continue… From ESPN:

"At this point, you're not looking at guilt or innocence," White said, referring to the possible harsher sentence Vick could have received had he taken his case to trial and been found guilty. "You're thinking, 'What I better do is cut my losses and take a plea.' But if he saw this as the best thing to do at this point for his future, then I think he made the correct choice."

Now it sounds like Vick is not really guilty at all but was just "cutting his losses" by cooperating with federal officials. So from what does Vick need to rehabilitate and what obligation does society have to support this rehab if this is not even a question of guilt or innocence? By making the choice to plea out, according to this statement, Vick was not admitting guilt, but simply cooperating in order to speed up the legal process in order to get back on the field as soon as possible given the conditions. And let's see one more comment from White again from ESPN:

"White said he does not support dogfighting and that he considers it as bad as hunting. 'His crime is, it was a dog,' White said."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nfl&id=2986333

This follows in tow with Marbury's comment that hunting and dog fighting are on equal ethical grounds. This seems to equate dog fighting based on the loss of animal life alone and does not take into account the means of doing so or the purposeful engagement of the activity.

So it seems clear enough that the relative position of saying that one should be able to do what they want with their animals, that dog fighting is equal to hunting, and that Vick should be allowed to have his job back after his rehabilitation that he apparently does not need since his plea has nothing to do with admission of guilt are all not supported on any rational ethical grounds whatsoever. So much for the philosophical problem.

What's amazing here is that this bit of irrationality is the harder and finer point to argue and far less obvious than the key point of why all of these statements are fundamentally irrational and dare I say stupid. Let's look at two legal issues that could not be clearer: First the law prohibiting various means of involvement in animal fighting ventures is markedly clear in the United States Code, Title 7, Section 2156. Here are the two statutes directly referenced in the Vick case from that section of federal law:

(a) Sponsoring or exhibiting an animal in an animal fighting venture

(1) In general Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sponsor or exhibit an animal in an animal fighting venture, if any animal in the venture was moved in interstate or foreign commerce.

(2) Special rule for certain states With respect to fighting ventures involving live birds in a State where it would not be in violation of the law, it shall be unlawful under this subsection for a person to sponsor or exhibit a bird in the fighting venture only if the person knew that any bird in the fighting venture was knowingly bought, sold, delivered, transported, or received in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of participation in the fighting venture.

(b) Buying, selling, delivering, or transporting animals for participation in animal fighting venture It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sell, buy, transport, deliver, or receive for purposes of transportation, in interstate or foreign commerce, any dog or other animal for purposes of having the dog or other animal participate in an animal fighting venture.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/7/chapters/54/sections/section_2156.html

It is not even a question of the relative purpose one has for training a dog or how one conducts ownership that is even the issue – even though there are clear laws restricting the treatment of animals as well. You cannot sell, raise, or transport ANY animals if the intention is to fight them except in certain cases where state laws do not prohibit certain ventures with live birds. This automatically must snip any arguments that Sanders or Portis made regarding the right to do with your dogs what you wish and train them as you wish. There are clear strictures on the intent of your ownership and raising of animals that follow clear federal guidelines. Hence those arguments are just stupid since they ignore the law here! This is just like saying, "Well some husbands are raised to slap their wives around as a part of their culture and a husband should be able to hit his wife if he chooses to since its his life." Is the absurdity clear enough here? I thought so, let's move on.

Now for the argument that equates dog fighting with hunting. Here is the link tot he lengthy regulation in the state of Virginia regarding deer hunting alone since that is what Marbury used as an example: http://www.dgif.state.va.us/hunting/regulations/deer.asp. Hunting is legal and each state has its own seasons in which the hunting of certain animals is allowed, how many are allowed to be killed in that period, who can hunt and carry a firearm, and seasons specifying which firearms are legal at certain times. This is also connected with conservation, environmental protection, and safety requirements. There are rules about what you can do with the kill as well. All deer, for instance, must be checked at a check station and tagged http://www.dgif.state.va.us/hunting/regulations/validation.asp. The EPA has this to say about hunting:

"Human societies have recognized and accepted uses of wildlife for food, clothing, shelter, hunting, fishing, trapping, recreation, and as an indicator of environmental quality. These uses generate tangible goods, income, and contribute to the economic and spiritual well-being of society."

http://www.epa.gov/maia/html/wildlife.html

It is clear that with the absence of natural predators (wolves and mountain lions for example) that deer populations in such states as Pennsylvania are suspect often to human intervention to aid the natural thinning of herd density and populations. Here is a link to a lengthy piece from the state:

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/deer/pdf/Management__Plan6-03.pdf

It should also be noted that other states have similar plans to manage other species as well as deer in order to maintain a healthy habitat for herds and populations. Thus, hunting is controlled to ensure that it is safe and environmentally sound, and while it is sport, there are clear biological and environmental concerns that necessitate it in certain population densities of certain species of animal such as deer!

So this argument is even more absurd than it even sounds.

What is disturbing is the position of the NAACP with this issue. Here is the NAACP mission statement:

Our Mission

The mission of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination.

Vision Statement

The vision of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure a society in which all individuals have equal rights and there is no racial hatred or racial discrimination.

Objectives

The following statement of objectives is found on the first page of the NAACP Constitution — the principal objectives of the Association shall be:

• To ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of all citizens
• To achieve equality of rights and eliminate race prejudice among the citizens of the United States
• To remove all barriers of racial discrimination through democratic processes
• To seek enactment and enforcement of federal, state, and local laws securing civil rights
• To inform the public of the adverse effects of racial discrimination and to seek its elimination
• To educate persons as to their constitutional rights and to take all lawful action to secure the exercise thereof, and to take any other lawful action in furtherance of these objectives, consistent with the NAACP's Articles of Incorporation and this Constitution.

http://www.naacp.org/about/mission/index.htm

The question is how any of this noble mission supports the unsupported and irrational comments made in an effort to support Vick's career as an entertainer and to negate a plea of guilt in the matter of dogfighting. Not holding those accountable for their clear infractions of local, state, and federal law and then justifying that action on grounds outside of the law that are on fundamentally irrational moral grounds as well seems to denigrate the very mission of the NAACP in its relation to fighting discrimination. This is NOT a case of discrimination based on race, but on the basis of clear illegal action and support of an illegal franchise by Vick and his accomplices. The NAACP position denigrates the fight for civil rights which we still need today since it is clear that equality and forms of de facto discrimination still exist. Where is the responsibility of the NAACP to educate people and remove them from environments that promote illegal activity? Justifying illegal activity damages the very credibility of the organization and its existence. Mr. White failed in his responsibility to civil rights and his confused and irrational moral compass damages the very institutions that he is responsible to represent. For that he and the NAACP should be ashamed and failure should never be justified by anyone. It would certainly not be accepted by The Rev. Dr. King.

No related posts.