jedsa: (Default)
Come on. The apology statements of Michael Vick and Republican Senator Larry Craig were just absurd and horrendous from a rhetorical standpoint.

Let's quickly get Senator Craig's laughable statement of Tuesday August 28th out of the way. Who the hell accidentally pleads guilty to soliciting an undercover cop for sex in a public bathroom? He's a US Senator. Does he think that he looks better when he says that he did not consult with a lawyer, friend, or family? He only looks MORE guilty! Pleading guilty is an "overreaction"? Bullfeathers.

If he was innocent, he would have fought it. He would have have consulted with a lawyer. C'mon!

The notion that a US Senator chose to plead guilty by mistake is patently absurd! Senator Craig may well have been hounded by the Idaho Stateman, I really hadn't been paying much attention to that until now, but if you have been a subject of a "witchhunt" by a newspaper that wants to nail you for being a closeted homosexual, don't you fight such a criminal charge more vigorously instead of pleading guilty?

OK, moving on Vick the Dick.... I must confess that I do not understand the Michael Vick apologists who complain that the outcry against Vick is racist; that there is a hullabaloo only because he is a successful black man.

I don't care about his skin color, I'd be every bit as angry if it was Tom Brady or Ben Roethlisberger or Peyton Manning or Joe Montana.

I like dogs, and I hate dogfighting. I certainly hate someone who electrocute, strangled, and tortured at least eight dogs that we now know of.

Why is the NAACP rallying around him saying that he should be allowed to play football again?

I certainly acknowledge that a lot of poor, African-Americans are railroaded through the criminal justice system. Heck, a lot of poor people in general are railroaded! Vick wasn't. Michael Vick could hire just about any attorney he wanted. He pled guilty because he was guilty and wanted to try avoid getting hit with the max.

Moving on to the Vick's apology, it was utterly pathetic and not in the rhetorical sense of trying to invoke pathos in the Aristotelian sense. He has not admitted with specificity as to what he did. Read or watch his statement. He apologizes for lying, and for letting people down, but where does he apologizes for torturing dogs for fun and/or profit? Any acceptance of responsibility is equally lacking from his plea deal with prosecutors. I do not understand why some in the media seem so impressed by Vick's "unscripted statement." How can you ask for forgiveness without actually admitting to the underlying wrongful conduct? And as long I mentioned the "unscripted statement" that some media analysts have gushed over, lets note that he undoubtedly wrote it in advance and spent hours practicing with his lawyers if not PR specialists. The idea that he got up on the stage and just spoke off the cuff is as laughable as the text that he spoke.

One of his excuses during his statement was that he was young and immature. Well, how old do you have to be to know that cruelly and viciously killing animals for your own amusement is wrong?

To cover all of his bases, he threw in a quick, one line about finding Jesus during this experience. Anyone else feeling skeptical?

And lastly, it is far too little, far too late. He could have admitted what he did and apologized months ago. Instead, he lied to the public, lied to his friends, lied to his teammates, lied to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, and lied to the Falcon's owner, and only admitted the truth when the evidence was so clearly against him that he could no longer deny it. And by admitted the truth, he admitted he was guilty, but he still has not acknowledged what he is guilty of.

He should not receive forgiveness without admitting what he did that requires forgiveness. The only things he apologized for, letting us down and lying, were the least of his sins.


jedsa: (Default)

June 2009

 123 456


RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags