Skip to main content

Perplexed by some liberals' inconsistency when it comes to second chances

Liberals often like to pride themselves on being open-minded, accepting of change, differences, and diversity. They tend to believe in equality across all ages, genders, races, creeds, and orientations. They tend to favor life-imprisonment-without-parole over the death penalty, of felons being able to vote, of people being able to turn their lives around via rehab, and being rightly rewarded with a second chance due to this. So why is it many liberals showcase inconsistency when it comes to providing individuals with second chances in life, most notably, former NFL quarterback and convicted dogfighter, Michael Vick?

Before I continue, it should be noted I'm a lover of dogs, animals in general, but especially dogs. My current Siberian Husky, Lexi, is my fourth dog, adds a great amount of joy to my life, and it pains me to think of her or any other animal/pet being abused in any manner. In saying that, Michael Vick was charged, convicted, and sentenced for his role in a dogfighting ring in 2007, before being released and getting signed by the Philadelphia Eagles for the 2009 season. This decision was met with a great deal of scorn and disdain, as many animal lovers felt that Vick should never be welcomed back to the league. Rightly or wrongly, a decent percentage of these individuals have maintained this stance for the past going on 10 years.

When Vick was signed by the New York Jets and then the Pittsburgh Steelers, petitions were signed by people wanting the world to hear they didn't approve of the moves. Such actions were taken even more recently, as Vick's alma mater, Virginia Tech, decided to select him to join their school's Hall of Fame; Kansas City Chiefs head coach, Andy Reid, offered Vick an opportunity to intern as a coach; and FOX Sports hired the former Pro Bowl quarterback to work as an NFL analyst. With each and every story, I read about between 20k and 60k signatures being signed on petitions in an attempt to prevent Vick from receiving any of these opportunities. As an animal lover myself, I have to ask, why?

The dogfighting, conviction, and prison sentence will never be erased from Michael Vick's life. It's a chapter which is stuck to him like pocket protectors to stereotypical nerds, and it can't (and shouldn't) be erased from memory. However, as a liberal and a believer in second chances, from what I've seen of Michael Vick since his release, the man appears to have significantly grown, changed for the better, and be a prime example of the potential effectiveness of incarceration and rehab. He's gone above and beyond his legal obligations to the humane society, to providing anti-dogfighting speeches, to political involvement regarding the issue, etc. Michael Vick was rightly punished for his horrifically disturbing crimes, but the man paid the price, has come out a better person, and it's my sincere hope he's able to continue that trend. In my opinion, while we shouldn't forget criminals' misdeeds, it's better to forgive and allow them a second chance in life than to forever punish them for their previous mistakes. Ironically enough, if we fight to take away opportunities to such individuals, like Vick, the more apt they'll be at going back to their past lives, making the same mistakes, and allowing the dreadful cycle to continue. What Michael Vick did years ago to animals and pets we love was despicable beyond words, but we mustn't potentially compound the situation by placing a halt on the man's progressions and leaving him more prone to regressing to the person he was during his dogfighting days. It's about time we place our grudges to the side and try to help criminals progress once they've been released from prison, so that not only they improve, but the country does as well.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"