?> See Hear Speak No Evil » should celebrities be held to higher moral standards?

Jul 30 2007

should celebrities be held to higher moral standards?

Published by Al at 9:49 pm under al, my two cents

As a nice and quite funny start to what will surely be a rant… read this hand written law suit filed against Michael Vick (who inspired this rant)

Now to the real reason for writing.

I’ve been thinking about this for a long time, at least since the Kobe Bryant rape scandal, when someone posed the question “Should celebrities be held to a higher moral standard than the rest of the public?” or something along those lines.

At the time of the Bryant scandal, i adamantly thought ‘NO!’

My reasoning: just because someone in the public eye does something extremely stupid and likely illegal (although Bryant was cleared of all charges) doesn’t mean that the media should come down on them any harder than a regular Joe doing the same thing.

I have since changed my mind. As unfortunate as it is, the general US public (whom I guess I know the most about) looks up to sports and Hollywood celebrities. We consider them role models and our children aspire to ‘be like Mike (Jordan),’ etc. Because this has become the case, these celebrities, like anyone in the public eye, especially ones who run sports camps for kids, should attempt to live moral and honest lives like those of us who pay ass loads of money to watch them do their job.

Until recently, I was a fan of Michael Vick. I REALLY wanted to see him play live and even had discussions about how explosive he was and what a great player he was, etc. I still believe that he’s an explosive and great player but I will be OUTRAGED if the NFL doesn’t kick his ass to the curb for engaging in illegal acts that amount to federal felonies.

I am APPALLED at his involvement in not only fighting dogs but running a dog fighting ring from one of his homes. I would feel this way if it were any animal (coming from a state that only recently banned cock fighting). Using helpless and mistreated animals to play out violent and gory acts is extremely disrespectful and, I think, says a lot about a person. It says that they have little respect for all living things. And they have violent tendencies that may find their way out of the fighting ring and into their daily involvement with other people.

I also think raising, and eventually killing dogs who didn’t win, dogs to fight shows a lack of emotion. I realize that not everyone gets as emotionally attached to animals as I do (as we’ve seen with the size of my gato) but I also KNOW that dogs are extremely intelligent and are not called ‘Humans best friend” lightly. They did not evolve to fight to the death for the mere pleasure of their ‘owner.’ Look at wolves, they don’t fight to the death over nothing. The fight to the death over survival.

One might claim that throwing 2 dogs in a ring is a survival fight, and I’d agree. Dog doesn’t fight or win, dog dies. But the chances of those same 2 dogs fighting to near death at the dog park are slim to none. We have bred most of the fight out of dogs and so must abuse the hell out of them and train them to fight. Unless of course, they’re fighting to save their human.

Maybe I digress. But think of all the serial killers (e.g., Dahmer) who started out on their crazy, disrespectful road by abusing and then killing animals.

Not only that, but what does this say to all of the admirers of Vick? All of the unsuspecting kids who look up to him and aspire to ‘be like Mike?’ Does it tell them that it’s ok to mistreat animals and other people (because that’s where animal abuse eventually leads)? Does it tell them that if Mike Vick can do it, so can they?

There are reasons that animal fighting is against the law in 49 states (LA still allows cock fighting), because it’s cruel, it’s inhumane and it may teach our posterity that not all life deserves respect. I think Mike Vick deserves respect for his athletic abilities but should be tossed out of the NFL, not only because he’s broken the law but because it will teach kids that even when they do something wrong, they don’t have to face the consequences. So yes, celebs should be held to higher moral standard. At least on some things. Maybe not on getting adulterous blow jobs but when the act is violent (as w/ OJ) then yes, yes and YES!

So, NFL, if you’re reading this…
oust Vick. He no longer upholds the NFL principles and I, for one, will be sure to boycott all Falcons games until he’s gone.

Stumble it!

5 Responses to “should celebrities be held to higher moral standards?”

  1. Bridgeon 30 Jul 2007 at 11:17 pm

    I absolutely think that public figures should be held more accountable. Part of the price they pay for being so well known, and for being a role model for my kids.

    /sigh

  2. hollion 30 Jul 2007 at 11:24 pm

    Oh LORD - I can’t really get started on this issue, because I think someone should just start up a fight between him and a dog… with his hands tied. I am really up in arms, but then again - I would be your typical animal rights activist (did you know I got hate mail after showing a picture of myself wearing a PETA shirt?)

    Anyway, Tom and I argue about this all the time - he thinks efforts can be spent better elsewhere helping humans. I thnk if nobody cares about animals.. then nobody cares. And then we don’t speak for a great deal of time.

    I really don’t like Michael Vick. I think anyone involved in dog fighting rings should go straight to jail. End of report.

  3. Kyle Johnsonon 31 Jul 2007 at 11:10 am

    This is really big here since he is having his trail in Richmond which is an hour away from were I live, there are a lot of pissed off people around here and a lot of outrage about what is going on with him. I do feel that you are right Al. Kudos

  4. Craigon 01 Aug 2007 at 12:11 am

    Athletes get held to a higher standard because they have more to lose when such an incident occurs; endorsements, public perception, and of course, money. But that’s a fair trade for getting paid millions of dollars.

    That being said, I think we need to let the legal process proceed. After the absolute debacle at Duke, we learned that the media cannot be allowed to conduct a mad rush to judgment before the facts are fully presented. The NFL has set the precedent that conviction is not required for them to act. That is a delicate issue.

    Of course, if it’s an OJ-style trial, we can ignore the verdict, because we know he did it.

  5. Jesson 01 Aug 2007 at 4:10 pm

    of course celebs have to be held to a higher standard… and if i was their public relations advisor, i would remind them of this fact every single day.

    especially celebs who have kids who look up to them… don’t these guys know that kids idolize them? if they don’t, they need a smack!!

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

  • Hack our Site

  • , AAAS.org, , , , , , , , , , , , 02, , ACM.org, , , , , , , , , , , , theta, , , led, , , , , , , , AltaVista.com, , ls1, aan, , , kennel, , , , chainsaw, , Amazon.com, AOL.com, , , , APS.org, , , vii, Archive.org, Arizona.edu, , , , , , , , , , ArXiv.org, ASU.edu, , , , gemstone, , , , , , , campos, BarnesAndNoble.com, , burlington, , , , , , , , , , , letra, , , , ,