Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Who's Human Now?

The link from the Washington Post website to this article by Sally Jenkins boldly proclaims that the "[a]ctions the NFL quarterback agreed to plead guilty to are crimes against humanity." Well, no, they're not. Look, I actually hate dogs, and even I recognize that Vick's actions were deplorable (and criminal). But crimes against humanity, they're not.

Similarly, Jenkins concludes her article by writing "Commit those crimes against people, and the words we'd use for it are fascism, and genocide." I suppose so, but that's equally true of the chicken fingers I ate for dinner last night (don't comment, vegetarian friends). The position of humans and animals aren't completely transposable--its hyperbole bordering on hysteria the way in which Vick's crime has been magnified into this massive example of all that is evil and wrong in the world. Reading articles like this makes Rick Morrissey and Barry Rozner's call for perspective all the more powerful (via Feministing).

See also, this great comic.


Anonymous said...

I don't think Vick's crime is evidence of all that's wrong with the world. I just think he ought to have electrodes taped to his nuts, the juice turned on and then be tossed in a swimming pool. - Donna

Jack said...

Crimes against caninity.

Stentor said...

Was there supposed to be an argument in the second paragraph? All I see is an unsupported assertion that Jenkins is wrong, and a request for anyone who disagrees* to not say anything.

*Well, technically you only apply it to your "friends," which gives me a loophole to comment.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I do think his crime is an illustration of what is wrong with the world. Too many people think they are entitled to do anything they want. To animals, to humans, to the earth....

Hate Dogs? I hate people.
As for chicken fingers, my hope is that you are eating the factory farmed variety. You deserve them.