The Heinous Crimes of Michael Vick

[wednesday, july 29, 2009] two of my friends felt michael vick, the NFL football player, is getting too bad of a rap for his crimes of running a dog fighting ring and being responsible for the deaths of several dogs. in 2007 vick faced felony charges for his actions, was convicted and served less than two years in prison. recently he was released and is now free to rejoin the NFL. the viewpoint my two friends held was that, while crimes against animals are not to be condoned and should be punishable by law, they are nowhere near the severity of human-to-human crimes and should not be prioritized so highly. one friend in particular was upset that so much negative attention was given to vick when there are, in his words, "far more serious crimes being committed on humans," that we should attend to. their comments were in reaction to my facebook status line [posted 7.28.09], which harshly condemned vick for his actions. the following is my response to their comments:



for anyone to make the assumption there are worse crimes in the world than bashing another living creature's head into a wall, merely because it is not a human being, is speaking from a position of nothing more than ubiquitous speciesism; something which never ceases to amaze me. it is an arrogant supposition to repetitively place one's own kind in the center of all suffering.

regarding michael vick "not getting a break," he is already out of prison and free to sign with any NFL team who will take him, which is more than many convicted murderers get, despite him being precisely that, a convicted murderer.

in terms of comparing my status line to the sort of draconian measures taken against those in guantanamo bay - i am generally a pacifist by nature. however, if vick were to enact that sort of violence on a dog right in front of me, i would use whatever means necessary and available to stop him, no less than were he bashing a child into a wall in front of me.

as for my anger being the result of mere misplaced media nudging - hardly. i'm a serious animal rights advocate, have been for years, and strive to hoist human apprehension into accepting animals in equal standing with people. as for the rest of america, R., instead of its anger being unjust and misplaced, i ask you to consider that it is the slow and creaking revelation of a society (both media and the public) who is beginning to identify with animals as having a soulful, thinking, and feeling consciousness. it is *crucial* that this happen in appreciable numbers and inclusive of the media so it will offset the devastating impact that meat and fur consumption, not to mention systemic environmental collapse, continue to have on the world's animal populations.

and the funny thing is, R., in polls, the majority of people *do* feel vick has sufficiently paid for his crimes and want to see no more legal or professional action taken against him. so, it's not exactly like his public image has irreversibly plummeted to the depths unending social ostracization that you assert it has.

if my attitude toward him sounds harsh and unforgiving it is because the power to determine life and death on nearly every living organism on this planet lies within our hands and continues to do so at an exponential rate. our ego-maniacal race kills upwards of 50 BILLION animals a year for food consumption ALONE. this figure does not reflect the multitudes of wildlife species we are decimating by the minute in our mad dash to exploit every pocket of the globe as if it were ours alone. this figure also does not reflect how many millions, if not billions, of animals are taken out gratuitously each year for their fur, tusks or other products. the emotional severity of my status line is in accordance with the dire need to reflect the level of savagery that occurs unthinkingly among our race against other creatures. why would i act beholden to some violent, self-serving millionaire football player who is the living embodiment of values i abhor? why would i curb my emotions or mince my words? i'll stand on the rooftop and scream bloody murder if i have to, if that's what it takes to wake people up. because bloody murder is exactly what he committed.

H. put it quite astutely when he said, "this man's entire life has been founded on violence." football is a violent sport, running a dog fighting ring is a violent action. the likelihood of any genuine rehabilitation having occurred in vick from our current system is small. considering the pathological nature of his violence, the likelihood of his sincere contrition is also equally small. we'll watch whatever repentant pageantry he puts on, most people will be convinced he's a "changed man," and he'll continue to exercise some level of deep seated hostility under the radar if he can help it. it may not be with dog fighting or animal abuse, but that type of violence as evidenced by his actions, does not easily go away. i.e. O.J. simpson. and yes, i do think it's a viable comparison.

this is not to say that having a perpetrator of animal violence doing community service in the name of animal welfare groups is a wasted effort. i actually think it's a great idea - but in this particular case, it services and honors the animals whom he's offended more than it will motivate any deep conscientious change within him. in other cases, i think it would prove more effective at actually initiating a change in consciousness, depending on the person and the case.


© 2009 Copyright by Paola Lopez

Global Warming and Wildlife Extinction

discussion is the first step toward action regarding global warming and the extinction of wildlife. the u.s. is just emerging from a presidency whose 8 yr. regime didn't even acknowledge that global warming existed at all. so awareness and studying of the facts, as we can best determine them, is quite crucial at this stage, as is direct action, but it all starts with discussion and the spreading of vital information.

such discussion should include the well-being of *all* life on this planet, with flora and fauna as wholly principle beings in their own right. alarmingly, much environmental awareness, as it's currently underway, merely focuses on the impact dramatic climate change would have on the world's plant and animal population as it affects us, the human race, not how irreversibly tragic it would be to lose these life forms owing to their own significance.

to an extent, it is understandable that we would be primarily concerned for the welfare of our own species. but so often we put the concerns of our own extinction - whether from global warming, nuclear war or some other method devised to snuff ourselves out in a blaze of glory - above acknowledging the right of animal and plant life to thrive and survive all of these catastophes too. it is because of their innocence, their having done nothing whatsoever to contribute to this murderous mess, because of their helplessness - them having absolutely no defense against what we're doing to them and their surroundings - that i whole-heartedly believe our responsibility lies in an ability to put them first.

the reason i make such a bold statement is because when it comes to the colossal wallop of global warming, there will be no dearth of humans making sure our own protection is paramount and sought after first. relatively speaking, of course. already we see it now; 'going green' is on everyone's mind - from individuals, to corporations, to governments - they'll need to be regularly prodded, of course, and will require oversight from the people to keep them honest and on track (especially corporations and governments). however, what we hear far less often are humans who understand that, because of their vulnerability, animals need *more* help than we do.

by the way, this doesn't mean i think our work is done regarding elevating human consciousness to a point of accepting how much peril we are truly in from global warming. far from it. there is a mountain of work still to be done, but because of people's natural tendency to put their own species first (speciesism) - there will be more people looking after people than will there be people looking after animals.

a good example is katrina. in the wake of that monumental disaster it was incorrigible that people were left so long to suffer and die when they could have been helped earlier. however, when that help did finally arrive, it did not include all the poor pets and animals who had dutifully remained by their owners' side, offering comfort and company throughout the cold, dark nightmare that new orleanians endured. those animals were just as scared, hungry and traumatized as their human counterparts. and they were left to die in even greater numbers. certainly, to some extent this was done as a result of lack of funds and unpreparedness ("no room, we barely have enough to house all the displaced people"). but this type of pathology, as it undoubtedly is, can be corrected if we prioritize *all* life as inherently equal and worthy. and reallocate our wealth accordingly.

according to some accounts, at least 50% of wildlife on this planet is on the verge of extinction. all because of us. not by cause of a single thing the wildlife population did wrong. our extinction is a possibility in the future. their extinction is already happening NOW.


© 2009 Copyright by Paola Lopez

Sustainable Hunting and Farming May Be Realistic for the Masses, But It Doesn't Mean I Like It.

[written to my friend, Y., who is a radical animal rights activist.]



i got into a discussion with a recruiter for greenpeace this week and was saddened and appalled at the way he viewed animal rights activism. some of his perspective i understood the reasoning behind - taking the "middle path, "as it were, in their tactics for activism, so as to better include the masses, who tend to be freaked out with anything that identifies animals too closely with humans (for some bizarre reason).

but he so unquestioningly castigated anything that was done solely for the sake of the animals in their own right - even calling PETA violent, which, to my knowledge, they are not. he said "they give real animal rights activists who act sensibly a bad name." he said a "middle-path" reaches more people and you get more people behind it. whereas, taking an extremist path, you lose people. i said it depended on what your goals are. i told him all approaches are necessary and all have a role to play in aiding animal rights. he supported hunting and farming, claiming it can be sustainable if done responsibly.

ok. so here's my take on that. i, myself personally, am against hunting and farming, even if it is sustainable, because of how much i identify with animal consciousness. however, i do recognize that part of the gross abuse of various animal species in the world come from allowing human beings to hunt and farm in such a greedy, unscrupulous way that's nothing short of genocide. and it occurs every single day. their lives are not just ended but their time spent living is torturous. i do understand that it is likely human beings en mass will be more inclined to work to make sure farm and game animals are treated and killed humanely and are given a better quality of life BEFORE human beings in large, large numbers are likely to abolish eating and killing animals altogether.

that being said, however, doesn't mean i feel we should all just sit and accept the farming and killing of animals. in my view, while the "middle-path" will likely be achieved first for the bulk of humanity (meaning, animal consumption via types of farming/hunting where the manner and method of their lives and deaths occuring are humane, the numbers not so grossly out of proportion with the ecosystem of this planet) still doesn't mean that i won't work to see if i can change people's minds ENTIRELY about ANY sort of animal consumption and exploitation. it doesn't mean i am content or desire the "middle-path" as an end goal in and of itself. and finally, i DEFINITELY feel that without the "radical" element there, pulling people forward, we do not get nearly the same amount of change accomplished overall. it's like the old adage, "shoot for an A, and maybe you'll at least get a B."

in other words, knowing that the masses will more likely respond to a "middle path" re animal exploitation doesn't mean that i just give up on trying to raise awareness about animal consciousness at its highest potential; about the fact that this is a thinking, feeling, sentient being who would LOVE to simply live their life fully without being used or consumed at all.

another metaphor would be - just because i know that hybrid vehicles are financially viable "baby steps" for the auto industry before going fully electric/or other sustainable fuel, doesn't mean i'm content to let that industry rest on it's laurels until we're finally where we should be for an earth-friendly transportation system.

i understand that hybrids are the spoonful of sugar to giving a complete overhaul to an industry which is the bread and butter to some. hybrids have been a way to adhere to the demands of the public while circumventing auto industry full-scale PANIC for having to throw everything out (reads source of obscene wealth) - of course, they're panicking now for other reasons, ha! ha! these hybrids spoons of high fructose corn syrup allow that industry to merge slowly into other more sustainable fuel sources in a way that still gives 'em enough time to figure out how to corner THAT new market. understanding this reality doesn't mean i like it. i'm not going to stop pushing for the auto industry to go fully electric/or other. and btw, this isn't to say i support *any* industry monopolizing any market, esp something so disgusting as petrol. i do not at all. i just ruefully know that it's one of the things they were waiting for. i mean, ultimately, they'd rather not lift a finger, of course, but when they do, they want to make sure it's for something that'll allow them to turn just as much profit as they ever did. many yrs ago, my cynicism lead me to predict the auto-industry, being the greedy bastard that it is, would likely try to pacify us with some sort of hybrid car so that they could satisfy public demand while enabling themselves to buy time until they could figure out how they could monopolize the new "it" resource - whatever it ends up being. but doesn't mean i'm happy about it.


© 2009 Copyright by Paola Lopez