Saturday, January 01, 2011

Tucker Carlson: Michael Vick should have been executed

| »

In which Fox News’s Tucker Carlson descends into stereotypical right-wing death-mongering over the news that President Obama personally called the owner of the Philadelphia Eagles and thanked him for allowing Michael Vick a second chance after Vick had fought countless dogs to injury, disfigurement and death for money in his backyard:

My transcript:

CARLSON: President Obama – it has been confirmed by the White House – called the owner of the Philadelphia Eagles, and during the course of their conversation, thanked him for giving Michael Vick a second chance. Now, I’m a Christian, I’ve made mistakes myself; I believe fervently in second chances. But Michael Vick killed dogs, and he did in a heartless and cruel way. And, I think, personally, he should’ve been executed for that, and he wasn’t.

Now, I am certainly no fan of Michael Vick’s. What he did was absolutely immoral, downright inhumane, and in my opinion, he should still be rotting behind bars and should continue to do so for a while still, if not sent directly into some sort of rehab first. It takes more than mere petty criminal tendencies or cultural influence to actually be able to support and engage in the deliberate and casual massacring of innocent animals for a few bucks, especially creatures such as dogs who can very vividly display their suffering. It’s the sort of thing I doubt a person can just have a change of heart about; if you’re capable of doing this sort of thing as a mature adult, there is doubtlessly something very wrong with your sense of morality and empathy.

But, again, that’s just how I personally feel about it. And it’s obviously how Carlson sees it, as well. But the difference, as you may have noted, is that while I loathe what the man has done, I don’t want to see him suffer or die for it. Carlson, on the other hand, is apparently happy to help cement the notion that any sentence that starts with “I’m a Christian …” cannot end positively, much in the same manner as someone who starts to say “I’m not [X], but …” so often reveals that they are, in fact, very much like whatever it is they’re purporting to denounce.

(I would also like to point out how Hemant Mehta at Friendly Atheist apparently thought this would be a good time to let slip a snide little anti-meat-eating preachiness, something that I’m satisfied to see he’s been properly denounced for in the comments. Seriously, equivocating eating meat to dog fighting? Bad show, Hemant, very bad show.)

Update: (01/02/11 4:40 AM) – Hemant points out in the comments that he’s revised the wording from “those who eat meat” to “those who hunt” and promises to post an explanation for his thinking on his blog. My thanks to him for taking the time to post here, though I still don’t see how hunting, regulated as it is, could also be equivocated with backyard dog fighting. I await with an open mind.

(via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)