The notion of murder and madness as entertainment and murder and madness in the name of religious furor, fever and foment is nothing new. So it should come as no surprise that this guy considers dog fighting to the death a sport and Michael Vick a victim...of running with the wrong crowd. Americans spend billions to watch millionaire sports figures pursue their fame and infamy on and off the courts, the fields, the tracks and the high seas. We watch them maim and kill one another, and some of them watch dogs maul each other to death. Does seeing horrific injuries and death as a sport depend on where one is, or thinks one is, on the food chain? This is not a new problem in the history of man. The Romans threw Christians to the lions, and thousands cheered. Was it sport or religion or both? A masked man in Iraq poured gasoline on a child, and created this in the name of religion.
As America continues to open the doors to a global economy, a global culture clash becomes more clear, and we are witness to the lines between good and evil and right and wrong becoming blurrier. Dog fighting in this country has been taking place "behind closed doors." The Taliban was terrorizing women behind closed doors, too. Our political leadership in this country has made some huge decisions, on our behalf, behind closed doors. It's not the closed doors that make something intrinsically good or evil, right or wrong; it is, in fact, the act itself that is taking place behind closed doors. Killing dogs, maiming children, dying from so-called friendly fire or perishing when your helicopter falls out of the sky from either enemy fire or electro-mechanical malfunctioning all have something in common: dead is dead and maiming is maiming. All are happening in the name of sport, entertainment, religion, power and money.
An athlete with everything to lose, who is out hawking his new line of sneakers, takes the side of the wrong crowd---the crowd that includes Michael Vick. What can we as individuals do? Boycott his sneakers? Shout out our indignation at his position? Call for his early retirement? He simply has a different opinion, right? Guess what: sometimes the other guy's opinion becomes morally and ethically reprehensible and unsupportable when he decides to put that new shoe in his own mouth.
A President, who barely edged out his competition (or not), spends his entire time in office forcing democracy (why yes, yes it is a contradiction in terms!) down other people's throats, while his country's bridges are falling, his highways are crumbling and his people are starving for health, education and safety from terrorists within and without. Am I talking about President George W. Bush or Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki? You tell me.
UPDATE: And a little later in the day, Marbury starts to take it all back...almost.