You don't have to be a sports fan to know that superstar quarterback Michael Vick has recently been indicted on several felony counts for sponsoring dogfighting. You also don't have to be a sports fan to recognize the gruesome details that are described inside the indictment. All of us are pet owners or have family/friends with pets, and the thought of dogfighting and dog executions is absolutely despicable, but this piece isn't about Michael Vick or his alleged guilt, it is about the rest of us. The blood of these dogs fighting is on more hands than this high profile football player, what about the legions of those people? I am speaking of the ability for our society to assign value to certain lives over others and the way we delegate our prison system for punishment instead of rehabilitation.
I am certain that the federal indictment is going to turn into Michael Vick vs. everyone (including angry fans, pet lovers, general public), which should be okay with Vick because that is how every Atlanta Falcons game I have seen turns out. Vick is the best at ducking, dodging and running his way out of trouble in the pocket, now we are going to see if his legal team can scramble to save the way he does on the football field. If they don't scramble enough he could get sacked, and this time it will be for years not yards!
Lets say he gets convicted. Should he serve time in prison for the punishment of this crime? The prison system carries the name of "correctional facility" as a moniker for the mission of incarcerating convicted criminals. Would sending Michael Vick to prison under this definition help his rehabilitation process as a productive member of society? The fact is that, he is already a productive member of society. He gives to charities and spends his time in children's hospitals in Atlanta. Prison by definition is designed to remove the predators from within the mist, those individuals who cannot function within societal norms. These predators would be murders, rapist, thieves, not just any person convicted of a crime. Why the thirst for the sight of rich young people going to prison, I can see no other reason for our thirst than our jealously! Michael Vick should pay a hefty fine, have some term of probation, and go about his business of playing football.
On the other behalf, people will scream and chant about poor Fido, but in the grand scheme of things this is a victimless crime. How did we as such a 'civilized' society provide a hierarchy for what animals carry more importance than others? What is acceptable animal treatment, and what is excess animal cruelty? How in the world did training a dog to fight become worse than bullfighting? We all know how that story ends... the bull dies. Not only does the bull die, but is humiliated in front of an audience while some guy dressed in frills waves a red sheet and after he tires the bull out he stabs him with sword. I personally cannot contain my excitement when the bull wins! Most will argue that due to cruelty laws bullfighting is not done in the states, that is true, but we do have horse racing. I do not remember ever hearing that the horse had a choice whether he (or she for the phillies) wanted to run in the races. If they don't perform well they can't stud, which is a whole other conversation, they go to the "glue factory". So who is going to argue that it is natural or optional for a horse to run in circles with a 145 pound person on their back while hitting them with a stick?
We need to stop being so stupid as a society! We like watching horses run, and that is why it is legal to bread horses to race. We don't like watching Fido get chomped by the bigger, badder dog across the street and that is why dogfighting is illegal. So lets put away the torches and pitchforks, Michael Vick is not going to kill your Fido!
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Thursday, July 19, 2007
My Broken Heart Over Our Broken Health Care
The conversation of a national health care plan has been a subject up for debate in this country for a long time. The problem with the debate has been and for the most part still today, viewed by the nation, as socialist reformers. The threat of another "RED SCARE" is enough to keep conservatives and liberals alike voting against a national expansion of government like health care! Socialism is a curse word in this country and the the detractors of a national health care system use it as such to keep us, the voters, afraid of embracing a better way to care for other Americans, with and without preexisting health care coverage. Should profit be at the crux of a health care plan? Is there a better way?
I hate to think that a movie is needed to prompt a discussion on the necessity for a national health care system. Michael Moore's latest film "Sicko" highlights a vital concern over the United States health care system, not just for the uninsured, but for the people who think they are insured as well. While I am sure most certain that Moore's editorial film speaks of his concerns and the way he views the ills of the American health care system. I think a few points he makes, especially about the rise of the HMO (health maintenance organization), are valid for all Americans to take notice. Just because you may be insured, does not mean you are covered.
How could the United States, the world's strongest economic center, be lacking in the field of medical care? The insinuation of anything less than the best or the greatest infuriates the policy makers of this country with the vast amount of resources at our disposal. Unfortunately, that is what we have in the modern age of medicine. American citizens having to sell their house, because they cannot pay their hospital bills. Young couples going broke, before they get a chance to build a financial base, due to the expenses attached to having a baby. Did you know that the number one reason for bankruptcy and foreclosure on homes in this country is due to people's inability to pay their medical bills? I am not saying that I don't believe in getting paid for an honest day of work, but what is honest about putting someone out of their home? If the motto for all those who choose to practice medicine is "do no harm", I guess they are not speaking of harm to your wallet.
The common defenses of our system is the American ability to choose your own doctor, and the luxury to have the top pharmaceutical companies be able to make products in the U.S. That is great! Companies with strong financial outlooks aid the American economy, but since when did it become okay for pharmaceutical companies to hold our nation hostage? Great Britain (which has 2 of the 8 most profitable pharmaceutical companies) has federally subsidized prescription drug prices and a national health care plan that allows doctors to work in subsets of 9, and the British citizens are allowed to choose the group or subset from which they receive medical care. This system still provides the doctors the ability to live with a modest income that keeps themselves in a BMW and their wives in Aston Martins. Why couldn't that system be here?
The rush of animosity from the idea of the socialization of any private service, will bring a nice stir to a debate between liberals and conservatives, liberals and liberals and conservatives and conservatives. If anyone has watched the posturing between the Democrats in their campaigns and speeches, they can see that there is no congruent plan between any two people. Maybe all of the issues begin with our ego? Our big American, everything we do is the best, ego. We cannot admit defeat in combat, and now we cannot concede in policy administration either. Big Brother is going to run our lives, if we let them run healthcare, first by making us live longer and healthier, then by putting more money back in our pocket. How Horrible!
I hate to think that a movie is needed to prompt a discussion on the necessity for a national health care system. Michael Moore's latest film "Sicko" highlights a vital concern over the United States health care system, not just for the uninsured, but for the people who think they are insured as well. While I am sure most certain that Moore's editorial film speaks of his concerns and the way he views the ills of the American health care system. I think a few points he makes, especially about the rise of the HMO (health maintenance organization), are valid for all Americans to take notice. Just because you may be insured, does not mean you are covered.
How could the United States, the world's strongest economic center, be lacking in the field of medical care? The insinuation of anything less than the best or the greatest infuriates the policy makers of this country with the vast amount of resources at our disposal. Unfortunately, that is what we have in the modern age of medicine. American citizens having to sell their house, because they cannot pay their hospital bills. Young couples going broke, before they get a chance to build a financial base, due to the expenses attached to having a baby. Did you know that the number one reason for bankruptcy and foreclosure on homes in this country is due to people's inability to pay their medical bills? I am not saying that I don't believe in getting paid for an honest day of work, but what is honest about putting someone out of their home? If the motto for all those who choose to practice medicine is "do no harm", I guess they are not speaking of harm to your wallet.
The common defenses of our system is the American ability to choose your own doctor, and the luxury to have the top pharmaceutical companies be able to make products in the U.S. That is great! Companies with strong financial outlooks aid the American economy, but since when did it become okay for pharmaceutical companies to hold our nation hostage? Great Britain (which has 2 of the 8 most profitable pharmaceutical companies) has federally subsidized prescription drug prices and a national health care plan that allows doctors to work in subsets of 9, and the British citizens are allowed to choose the group or subset from which they receive medical care. This system still provides the doctors the ability to live with a modest income that keeps themselves in a BMW and their wives in Aston Martins. Why couldn't that system be here?
The rush of animosity from the idea of the socialization of any private service, will bring a nice stir to a debate between liberals and conservatives, liberals and liberals and conservatives and conservatives. If anyone has watched the posturing between the Democrats in their campaigns and speeches, they can see that there is no congruent plan between any two people. Maybe all of the issues begin with our ego? Our big American, everything we do is the best, ego. We cannot admit defeat in combat, and now we cannot concede in policy administration either. Big Brother is going to run our lives, if we let them run healthcare, first by making us live longer and healthier, then by putting more money back in our pocket. How Horrible!
Changing Gears
There have been a few things that have gone on in my life and the world around me since I have last written in my blog. Due to some of these circumstances and instances, I am going to begin to take my writings in a different direction for a while. I have not fell out of love with sports and the sporting news, but I feel that I need to change gears for a while and talk about some things that may matter on a larger scale than sporting arguments. So I hope you appreciate some of the newer topics that will be discussed by this posting, and I hope that this will encourage further discussion on message boards and homes across America.
Lew
Lew
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)