What Charles Krauthammer said was incoherent. He said justice requires that Mr. Vick (the dog torturer, dog killer and dog fight impresario) be given a second chance since he has “paid his debt to society,” but that Mr. Krauthammer would not, himself, ever hire so horrid a person.
Why would the normally (seemingly) principled Krauthammer take such a position?Fox broadcasts NFL football, that's why. We wouldn’t want to piss off advertisers now would we? Krauthammer’s decision was motivated the same as the Eagles'. It wasn’t personal. It was strictly business.
The damaged-goods Michael Vick was a bargain.
What do they pay Charles Krauthammer?
Fuck the kids.
3 comments:
I think there needs to be a limit to punishment. He should have had more jail time, but the punishment has to have an end. Redemption is a basic good that benefits society. I don't feel he should be prevented from having a job. Including any job he can get with his talents.
I do wish that the fans would make it untenable for the NFL to hire him. He makes that great living due to the public's desire to see him. They should not want to. We may want some other entity to handle this for us (the justice system), but it is our responsibility.
I agree with Charles, that I would not hire him, but the NFL should decide on based on it's interests. It really comes down to if enough of our fellow citizens do not mind his past then they have the right to see him play. We simply are outvoted. I don't like it, but It's not the first time I've disagreed with the majority and won't be the last.
Personally, I would need to see complete repentance, creating a new man not only incapable of that action again, but dedicated to stopping it. I then could even hire him myself.
Many decent and good people including, I think, myself, have done horrible things we regret. It is best if we are given the chance to make amends.
I am still making amends for all the small innocent animals I killed as a young boy with a BB gun and a hunting instinct, and virtually every boy I knew did the same. I know Vick was a grown man, but maybe not so much really.
I very much doubt this was about advertisers, Charles doesn't strike me as that type. That would be disappointing.
Thank you for commenting, bagoh20.
Like you, I also doubt that Krauthammer was limited by any fear of advertisers. Do you want to know what I really think was the cause of his incoherence? I think he was simply unprepared for a relatively unimportant pop culture/show business topic on a Sunday evening.
This is the best explanation for why he failed to make an economic freedom argument, while letting a legalistic argument get close enough to a moral argument that the electric current could arc. In other words, he was just “dialing it in.”
I know it when I see it.
I’ve done it once or twice, myself.
Ha!
Approvingly your article helped me truly much in my college assignment. Hats off to you post, will look ahead for more interdependent articles in a jiffy as its one of my favourite subject-matter to read.
Post a Comment