Is Michael Vick the Devil?

I'm not quite certain that I understand, so maybe you can help me out.

Correct me if I'm wrong -- but it was my understanding that the point of incarceration was to remove a criminal from society, thus providing the opportunity for one to reflect on the crimes perpetrated (and as punishment for said actions).

Again, correct me if I'm wrong -- but this is what happened with Michael Vick. He committed an admittedly HEINOUS crime and served 2 years as punishment, in addition to the hundreds of millions in lost salary & endorsements. He had to file for bankruptcy protection as his liquid assets were quickly wiped out. He missed valuable time with his young children, even missing the birth of his youngest daughter. He must live daily with the fact that he allowed something unconscionable to happen on his watch, nearly losing everything that he had in the process. So why was this not enough?

The man hasn't played in the NFL in 3 years but there are some who feel that this is not punishment enough. When the Eagles announced yesterday that they'd signed him, the reaction was so mixed... some immediately sold their season tix online, while some were frothing at the mouth just thinking about the offensive nightmare the Birds could become.

There are some that will never give him a chance to prove that he's learned from his mistakes and that he can become an example for others. The man isn't even 30 years old -- he has PLENTY of time to make things right. Speaking of making things right, I'm further confused by the fact that Donte Stallworth did not generate a fraction of the outrage expressed toward Michael Vick. Let's look at the "tale of the tape" shall we?

Michael Vick
Crime: Financing a vicious dogfighting ring, conducted at a residence that he owned.

Punishment: Two year jail sentence & concurrent NFL suspension, expected to extend into October. Not allowed to own dogs anymore.

Public Reaction: Extreme outrage, to the extent that some would have him killed in the same manner as the dogs.

Donte Stallworth
Crime: Got high & drunk while out partying one night. Drove his luxury car down a busy street and plowed into a motorist, killing him.

Punishment: Thirty day jail sentence & 1 year NFL suspension. Never allowed to drive again. Also made settlement with family as part of his plea.

Public Reaction: Has there been any? This got nowhere near the airtime & scrutiny that Vick got the day the Eagles signed him, let alone since the incident first happened.

And don't even get me started on Rick Pitino...

Sure, the public reacted to Stallworth -- but can anyone in their right mind say that it even compares to Vick? Vick's actions led to the deaths of scores of dogs, while Stallworth got high/drunk and killed a human being. Unless we're giving Stallworth a pass for being inebriated, I just don't get it. Human beings will always come before dogs on my hierarchy, no matter how you slice it. Who would you rather your daughter bring home: a dogfighter or a serial rapist? Again, I'm not saying that it's okay, but I feel like it needs to be put into perspective a bit. Dogfighting is cruel, but deer hunting for sport is even worse in my opinion. Killing those innocent animals just to put a new head on your wall? I guess killing is perfectly moral when you have a license for it.

I'm not saying that Vick is an angel -- I know he screwed up BIG TIME and committed a DEPLORABLE act... but much like a man who has cheated on his wife, he is asking for a second chance. He has paid his debt to society and is looking to become a productive member again. I just ask that we give the man a chance to make good on his promise. Now if he pulls an Adam "Pacman" Jones and relapses by even so much LOOKING at a dog twice, we can revisit this topic... At that point, I can assure you that my post would be short & sweet:

THROW THE FUCKING BOOK AT HIM.

Guilty Until Proven Guilty

Why is it that someone can be found not guilty of a serious crime, but can never remove the stigma associated with the accusation? Michael got off -- not once, but twice -- on criminal child molestation charges. Charges against Kobe were quickly dismissed. R. Kelly has yet to be convicted of statuatory rape. Our legal system seems to work just fine... but our collective brain seems to be stuck on stupid.

Michael Jackson is guilty of only one thing: loving people too much and putting himself in a silly predicament more than once. Some argue that he must have been guilty, since he settled out of court -- which would be the wrong train of thought.

What people fail to realize is that the boy's family initially suggested settlement. They said that they would cease the pursuit of their civil suit if he would fork over the money. Not wanting to be subjected to continued ridicule and scrutiny, MJ decided to pay up. He negotiated the family down and settled out of court -- but not before the multitude of reports that he had been accused (or in our society, found guilty) of inappropriate behavior. Little do folks know, it was later found that there was not enough evidence to go forward with the criminal case and it was dropped.

The second time around, MJ decided to fight the charges in court -- and the jury found him not guilty. Now, I'm not sure if it was because he'd already been in trouble for it once (and didn't learn his lesson about letting the children be around him in that setting), but folks just couldn't seem to understand that a verdict of NOT GUILTY means that there wasn't suffficient evidence to suggest that the charges brought against the man were valid... so why is it that he was referred to constantly as a child molester? Because we don't know how to separate accusations from the truth.

At one point, Kobe Bryant's lawyer argued that "using the word 'victim' constitutes a kind of prejudicial communication that could taint the process" (ed. note: SO true). Makes sense when you consider that although the charges were dropped, that didn't stop people from calling Kobe a rapist & despising his very existence. You don't have to like him, but why are so many still holding something against him that was not proven to be true?

R. Kelly may never get a fair shake, on account of the type of music that he normally performs. He has proven himself as a singer-songwriter, responsible for many huge hits -- including "Fortunate" (Maxwell) and "You Are Not Alone" (Michael Jackson). Neverthelesss, he also had a penchant for freakier fare -- which is why it was so feasible that he might have committed statuatory rape. At one point, there was a video floating around that was purported to feature him bathing the young lady in a "golden shower." As of yet, he has not been convicted... but will that stop folks from calling him a rapist until proven otherwise? Highly doubtful.

When does it stop? What happened to the presumption of innocence? I was pretty sure that it was how we did things here in the US. For example: An Idaho man named Charles Fain was convicted of kidnapping, assaulting & murdering a 9 year-old. After spending 18 years on Death Row, DNA evidence was tested -- proving that he was in fact not the perpetrator. This man was incorrectly placed on DEATH ROW, but proven to be innocent. Are there those that will think twice about walking near this man or having him around their children? You bet. Wanna know why? Because we're allergic to the facts.

Maybe one day we'll get over this prevailing mentality... but I have a feeling that the healing won't begin until the media stops plastering biased information everywhere. Tupac & Roman Polanski were actually CONVICTED of violent crimes -- but they still sold plenty of records & won an Oscar, respectively. Backwards, huh?

If we went back to the days when the media served only the purpose of disseminating information (rather than spreading one-sided opinion pieces), then maybe -- just MAYBE -- people would have a decent chance of shaking accusations... especially AFTER being found NOT GUILTY.

< /rant >

Inappropriate

This is just inexcusable.

OK! Weekly magazine decided to use a close-up photo of MJ being attended to by medical personnel in what would be his final moments.

To say that I'm disturbed would be an understatement. MJ or not, I really don't think this was appropriate by any measure. As inappropriate as I think this celebration was, this magazine cover really took the cake... then again, I don't even want to get started on NY politician Peter King. It's only a matter of time before his dirty laundry is aired -- after all, he is a politician. Politicians without skeletons in their closets are like baseball players without steroids: presumed to be the minority. I'd love to hear what he has to say when the shoe is on the other foot.

I understand that his passing was tragic and that he meant a lot to so many (which some of us didn't realize until it was too late), but this is sensationalism beyond comprehension.

The link is below, if you so dare to click. If so, I'd love to get your opinion; if not, I'm sure that I've given you enough information to opine anyway.

WARNING: This link says it all...

No Words Needed

Her stupidity says it all...

Peek-a-boo!

How on Earth have you all been? I feel like I've been gone for years! I've been busier than a hooker on payday and just haven't had much time to post. Unfortunately, I bit the bullet and picked up a second gig. I know what you're thinking -- "WTF?!?!?" Yeah, so am I. I work many 14-15 hour days, raise my dog for about 15-20 minutes and sleep for about 25 seconds per night (Ed: That's a Dave Chappelle reference, in case you've not had the pleasure of watching "For What It's Worth"). Basically, I just figured it was time to buckle down and attack my opponent (debt) like a political ad.

Speaking of which, have you been keeping up with politics? I don't normally indulge much in it myself, but with the upcoming elections I felt that it would only be right to pay a little attention. I can summarize my experience thus far, as such:

I really hate political ads.

It has been very interesting and I'm looking forward to the elections. I can't wait to see how things turn out in November... but Alicia Keys wants me to vote for Barack Obama -- and who am I to disappoint her?

Exactly.

***Note: I had to stop writing for about 5 minutes because I was entranced by a combination of Alicia Keys, Gabrielle Union, Keri Hilson, Lauren London and Ashanti's delectable frames on 106 & Park... whew.

I mean, that's a lot of sexy for one man to absorb in a short span of time. While I'm at it, how about Paula Patton? I was mesmerized when I saw "Idlewild." Seriously. I could continue on this tangent forever, but I'll end it with this: you know that woman is doing it something serious for her husband to write a song like "Lost Without U" about her...***

I really hate political ads.

Overall, I'm feeling pretty good these days. Making big plans for the future and taking steps toward achieving the brand of professional success that I've been seeking has been gratifying. I still have a way to go, but I'm certainly on the right track. I'm eager to see where...

I really hate political ads.

...things go from here. I mean, I'm no Daunte Culpepper -- I won't quit. I'll ride the bench on a CFL squad before I give up.

I really hate political ads.

So what have you wonderful people been doing (besides avoiding BET like the black plague)?

Racism Still Exists

A group of white students at a university in South Africa tricked a group of black students into eating a funky stew (by pretending that it was for a Fear Factor-esque program) laced with a peculiar secret ingredient: urine.

Apparently, this incident took place back in September but the video has only surfaced in the last day or two (Editor's note: I wonder what the over-under is on how fast Rev. Al Sharpton will find his way down to South Africa to speak out against these atrocities? I've got my all money on 5 minutes ago).

This all got me thinking... as recently as segregation was still allowed in America (40 years), it has been an even shorter period of time since it was still acceptable in South Africa. How screwy is this whole thing? At the very base of it all, one can be hated simply for possessing more melanin than another. Not because of a heinous crime committed (although in their blind hate, some would peg an African-American for an offense without knowing a thing about him/her) or anything else that could justify such outright disdain -- but because of a person's skin color. Does being dark (or not) dictate how intelligent, thoughtful, classy, respectful, diligent, productive or good (or not) a person will be? Is one predisposed to a life of crime, prison, illegitimate children, manual labor or an otherwise unfulfilled life just because of the hue of their epidermis? I'm no anthrology, sociology or history expert, but I'm truly curious to know what was passing through the minds of the first people to say "Hey, look at them... why are they that color? They're different so I hate them and will teach my offspring and their offspring to hate them in perpetuity."

When broken down to its simplest form, racism is unfounded to a large degree and probably only exists now because it has existed for so long and has been passed to generation after generation.

I want to take the time to make this statement: Minorities can be racists, too. We can "discrimihate" (thanks, André 3000) on ourselves and others like us for reasons unknown. Some refuse to socialize or procreate with other minorities. Some viciously attack other minorities out of spite. Are they lashing out because of how they've been treated? Do they see a dark face and decide to release their anger and frustration? I'm probably way off-base, but I'm just trying to get a discussion going here.

I'm no deity or saint (and won't purport to be), but I know I'm a good person that treats everyone with respect. I'm no criminal... I have a college degree, a great job, a house, a car and multiple bank accounts -- I even have a 401(k), for goodness sake! But do you know what? Somewhere, a white person hates me because I'm black and a black person hates me because I'm doing something with my life. Mind you, I'm NOT insinuating that ALL white or ALL black people behave a certain way, but those that exhibit these behaviors know exactly who they are (and are probably proud of themselves).

I'm probably just being uber-pessimistic right now (this article sure did set me off), but the world is in sad shape. I just can't see world peace -- ever. Hate without reason is a very deadly weapon. A day without hate anywhere in the world is a day when we've all simultaneously fallen asleep or died from global warming and/or some massive explosion from deep in the Earth's core. Just look at all the centuries of tribal battle in the Middle East and Africa -- so senseless. Many of the battles are based on religious beliefs; others have simply been raging on for so long that children are reared to hate the opposition with no real rhyme or reason.

Racism (and most other -isms) has absolutely no place in society. I can only hope that my pessimism proves premature and that something will change... but I promise you that I will not hold my breath waiting.

Snake, Rat, Cat, Dog

"How you gon' see 'em if you livin' in a fog?"

Well, it's more like a snake and a rat-cat-dog anyway.

In Brisbane, Australia, a 16-foot python stalked and ultimately consumed a family's pet silky chihuahua in front of them -- much to the children's horror.

Apparently, they'd actually seen the snake a few days lurking in the area of the dog's bed -- yet failed to call in the local snakesmith (Editor's note: No, that's not a real word but yes, I'll actively seek to have that changed). The snake pounced and swallowed the 5-year old dog WHOLE. Whole! I can barely eat a chicken wing in one fell swoop -- but this 110-lb. bag of muscles swallowed another animal whole. Geez.

My favorite part about this article were the final two paragraphs:

Removing the half-swallowed dog could have harmed or even killed the python, Rose said, because dogs have sharp teeth and claws that could do the snake internal damage if it were wrenched out.

The snake was still digesting the dog at the zoo Wednesday. It will soon be relocated to the bush, Douglas said.

Really? Does anybody else not give a fuck about that snake (like me)? He swallowed a damn dog WHOLE. Greedy bastard.

Moral of the story: Stay the fuck out of Brisbane. Don't even bother.

Killadelphia

In honor of my buddy Girl From Park Heights' recent visit to my current place of residence, I've decided to take a little time to enlighten the blogging public as to why Philadelphia should be known as the "City of Brotherly Hate" henceforward.

This past Friday, as I reposed in my mother's living room (in lovely Upper Marlboro, MD), I checked news stories online only to discover frightening news -- a 15 year-old boy got shot. Normally, this wouldn't have troubled me any more than any other shooting in this trigger-happy city... but do you know why he got shot? Yup, you guessed it -- he accidentally hit a guy with a snowball. A snowball.

Last time I checked, snowball fights were the shit on those lovely days when classes fell victim to the elements... the problem is, I didn't know that was a good enough reason to become the next gunshot victim.

Apparently, the snowballee took great offense to this "injustice" and confronted the youth. In typical brazen teenage fashion, the young man returned the favor verbally -- which naturally just further incensed the gentleman. Instead of chalking it up to youthful indiscretion, the man warned the teen that he'd be back for him. The mother of one of the teen's friends advised him to remain indoors and refrain from any further verbal discourse. Of course, the teen didn't listen and went back outdoors. The friend's mother claims that as soon as she noticed he'd left, she opened the front door just in time to see him fall from being SHOT IN THE FACE AT POINT-BLANK RANGE.

Did you bother to click the link? If not, allow me to summarize: The boy died the next day at Temple University Hospital after his family decided to remove him from life support. Now, I understand that the kids in this city are bold, fresh, smart-mouthed sons-of-bitches... but WHY on EARTH did he have to kill the boy? Granted, the boy should've shut his damn mouth -- or better yet, apologized -- but that absolutely does not make it okay to kill him. I'm sorry. As bad as my road rage is and as many people as I've wanted to strike down in my lifetime, I've rarely heard of a crime so heinous. I'm thoroughly disgusted.

Let the countdown to my Philadexodus(TM) begin...

English 101

Watching the movie "The Heartbreak Kid" this weekend brought to mind a topic that I love to love: grammar -- of the English variety, to be specific. Ben Stiller's wife in the movie broached the topic of living together and used the word "inhabitate" -- which was fortunately met with great resistance from Ben's character and a request that she consult Webster's Dictionary to seek further guidance regarding the correct verb and its proper usage. As I've said in the past -- I'm no English major, journalist, teacher or member of any other profession in which it is my specific duty to correct the misspeak of society; however, as your friend, it is my privilege and pleasure to share with you just a few of the most commonly misused and abused terms to which my sensitive ears have been victims over the years:

Conversate:
-> Intended meaning: To hold a discussion
-> Example(s): "Why are we still conversating about this?"
-> Correct word: Converse
-> Etymology: A word so often misspoken that it was allegedly added to the dictionary (and/or otherwise recognized) by Webster's New Millennium Dictionary of English. From Biggie to Beyoncé, this fictitious word has been chanted to a melody and recited by music fans worldwide to ill effect.

Irregardless:
-> Intended meaning: Without regard, care or consideration
-> Example(s): "Irregardless, she shouldn't have done that"
-> Correct word: Regardless
-> Etymology: I wish I knew. There is absolutely no excuse for a double-negative in the SAME DAMN WORD. None whatsoever. It's worse than saying "I can't not do this never." What the fuck are you saying? Either you are or you aren't. Both the prefix "ir-" and the suffix "-less" are intended to indicate a lack of something -- whether it be regard, rationale, compassion or anything else human. There is absolutely no sound reason to use both at once. I'd sure like to have a nice conversation with the foolhardy individual who first spread that poisonous, filthy word to the masses so that I might enlighten him/her to the folly of his/her ways.

Be:
-> Intended tense(s): Present Progressive, Present, Imperfect, etc
-> Example(s): "Who be doing that?"; "Why you be saying stuff like that?"
-> Correct wording: Usually the correct tense of "do" or whichever verb succeeds "be"
-> Etymology: Pure colloquialism that has far too often rolled off the tongues of those skilled in American slang -- which is often referred to as Ebonics, in what appears to have been intended as a more PC term and/or empowering to African Americans. Honestly, to suggest that slang is unique or specific to blacks probably generated the inverse of whatever emotion was intended or desired here -- good job. As my buddy Music Snob might say -- DO BETTER!

*Your:
-> Intended meaning: Contraction for "you are"
-> Example(s): "Just call me when your outside."
-> Correct wording: You're.
-> Etymology: As in "you're welcome." Which is what I'll say when you thank me for this later. There are people out there who probably think that nothing is awry in the example that I gave. Naturally, this is an error reserved for writing -- but an utterly complete & comprehensive grammar check is just so far off from reality that we all need to stay on our toes. This atrocity can easily be avoided... if you require assistance, please take a look here for a handy guide. Please also refer to the "their/they're" dilemma.

I'm sure that I've overlooked a plethora of other misnomers and otherwise faulty verbiage (please note that I did not say "verbage"), but I'm hoping that you guys and your lovely commentary will help resolve that issue (i.e., I cracked open the coconut -- now it's time to eat).

I hope that all of my educated brethren will join me in yet another crusade -- this time to bring the everlasting joy that comes with a firm grasp of one's language of birth and to end the seemingly interminable verbal atrocities spewing from the orifices of our fellow Earthlings.


*Only when not intended for use as a possessive pronoun.

Who Is This Woman?

Apparently, she's a daughter-of-a-bitch.

(editor's note: I've always wondered why we never say that... it seems intuitive, right? Well, don't start now because it's in the process of being trademarked & I'll sue the blog shit outta you if you don't properly remunerate me!)

Her name is Kelly Tilghman, a former Duke women's golfer who last played back when Driving Miss Daisy had just won the Academy Award for Best Picture (she NEVER played on the LPGA Tour). She's not terribly relevant now (unless you consider being the only female announcer on The Golf Channel a sign of relevance)... and apparently, she's not too fond of Tiger Woods. She remarked on air that young golfers should "lynch Tiger Woods in a back alley." Now, perhaps this was some feeble attempt at making a joke about Woods' superiority & dominance over the sport (and alluding to the notion that they try to gain an edge by any means necessary)... or maybe she just straight-up meant what she said. Regardless of her true intent, it came off as extremely tacky, crude and downright inappropriate.

She's not even remotely attractive, successful, talented, popular or otherwise significant enough for this non-average American male to even fiddle with the notion of "overlooking" this calamity. This is the kind of shit that gets members of the media fired quickly. Oh, you're wondering why they haven't fired her.. right? Well, let's break it down like this:

1) She works for the fucking Golf Channel! Have you ever seen or heard of it? Chances are that 99.5% have not and will not.

2) She "apologized" to Tiger the following day (scroll to the bottom to see the blurb) -- as all the best offenders have been quick to do.

3) Well, let's be honest -- these broadcasting conglomerates really try not to fire the offenders until somebody makes a big stink about it. I haven't done the research, but I'm sure there have been quite a few more snafus that have slipped right under the radar and buried their heads in the sane.

I don't really want to care about this as much as I do, but FUCK -- it's 2008, bitch! I don't just want people to stop saying racist, sexist, ageist or anything-ist else offensive -- I want us to stop thinking it in the first place. Then, and only then, can we ever move forward as a society without prejudice.

Too bad none of us will live long enough to see anything near that.

Not-So-Lean Cuisine

"Man kills, cooks and possibly eats girlfriend, police say"

This story was just so wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin, but I just felt the need to address it -- so I'll give it the old college try.

On Saturday, January 5, 2008, a 25 year-old Texan male allegedly called 911 and advised an emergency dispatcher that he had murdered his 21 year-old girlfriend... and was BOILING her body parts at his mom's house. When the cops arrived, they stumbled upon a horrific scene right out of your favorite (not-so-scary) horror flick:

"When authorities arrived at the home, they found Shearer's mutilated body, one ear boiling in a pot of water on the stove and a fork sticking out of some human flesh sitting on a plate on the kitchen table."

Wow. This kind of shit happens in real life? What the fuck is wrong with this dude? To make things worse, he allegedly stabbed the boyfriend of his estranged wife a few days prior. I don't care what anybody says: people like that just don't get better... they just get lobotomized by psychiatric meds. Worse yet, I fear that all the defense will have to do is paint a picture of a mentally disturbed man (how else could you possibly commit such a heinous, atrocious crime against another human?) and get him off easy.

Normally, I'm not an "eye for an eye" kind of guy... but this dude deserves to be Kentucky-fried with all of the Colonel's secret spices and a splash of mambo sauce for good measure.

Random thought: Does it upset anyone else that he may have eaten some of her? Even if he didn't, the fact that the authorities cannot definitively rule it out as a possibility (a piece of flesh on a plate with a fork in it can raise a few eyebrows) perturbs me to a degree. I don't care to see a Hannibal Lecter copycat -- I had enough once I saw him sample Ray Liotta's frontal lobe, thank you very much.

I say throw a REALLY big book at this dude (e.g., the Encyclopedia Brittanica) and make it part of his sentence to read it word-for-word, page-for-page -- he looks like he'll die trying anyway.