By FRANK WARD
DailyPhiladelphian.com Editor
National columnist Jason Whitlock is not on the top of my friends list. Rarely do I agree with him. In fact, I’ve been banned from following him on Twitter because I challenged him on remarks he made after Tiger Woods’ auto “accident” on Thanksgiving.
Today, however, I’m offering to bury the hatchet with Whitlock. In a column for Foxsports.com, Whitlock says the NFL shouldn’t punish Vick because he was a few minutes off on when he left a nightclub last week. He does, however, say the Eagles should be stuck with Michael Vick even if he is a cancer in the locker room.
“NFL commissioner/top cop Roger Goodell should not bail out the Philadelphia Eagles by taking action against the Avon Barksdale of football,” Whitlock writes. “The more appropriate punishment would be to leave Vick’s cancerous carcass inside the Philly locker room, a fitting payback for the way the organization treated classy QB Donovan McNabb.”
If Michael Vick is the NFL's Avon Barksdale, Donovan McNabb is Stringer Bell, says Jason Whitlock.
As a fan of The Wire and Donovan McNabb, I’d struggle to find a better metaphor for the situation created by the Eagles when they jettisoned McNabb. This has nothing to do with Kevin Kolb’s ability or limited body of work. This has everything to do with McNabb the player and the person.
The Eagles culture changed with McNabb and they way he was shipped from town still irks me. As Brother Mouzone said to Omar Little after the two took out Stringer Bell and Omar went to pick up his manlove, “What’s done is done.” McNabb is gone and I’ll back Kolb for better or worse. He is the one lining up behind center on Sundays.
Still, look at how the Eagles treated McNabb and compare that to the love they’ve shown Vick. They pulled McNabb out of games to let Vick run around like a schoolboy on the blacktop at recess and gain three meaningless yards.
Whitlock calls Vick Avon Barksdale and refers to McNabb as Stringer Bell. Stringer was all about doing the best thing from a business standpoint, while Avon wanted the streets to recognize and fear him. That was his downfall. And, as Whitlock points out, it’s going to be Vick’s as well.
Why else would Vick even be involved with a birthday party in his hometown at a nightclub? Can anything other than trouble ensue? What did he have to gain? That’s not to say he can’t go out to dinner with a few select friends. But, to have an open party that anyone with white linen pants and a few bucks can get into?
As Whitlock writes, “Vick still wants to be king of the ‘hood. He wants his name to ring out in Newport News. Dumbass.
“And all of his defenders/enablers are just as stupid.”
Couldn’t agree more, Jason.
Now, Whitlock goes on to say that Vick being accepted by the black community more than McNabb is just stupid. I can’t speak to that other than to say his argument appears to hold water.
I seriously suggest reading the column; it’s that good and my summary doesn’t do it justice.
Jason, we’ve had our differences, but I’m with you on this one.
Jason Whitlock is a sell-out and all around jerk. He only has a job because he can get away with making the controversial remarks about Black sports stars from which white reporters shy away. His “work” is nothing more than self-hating diatribe marketed as provocative analysis. Anyone can sit back and be overly critical of all things Black in order to sell it to a White readership.
The man no longer has any idea of what the “Black community” thinks if he ever has. For one, the Black community is not of one uniform mind about anything. Like any community, it’s made up of individuals. But, since these individual often share common experiences, there is sometimes a consensus on subjects that concern us and, like often, Whitlock is way off. The Black community loves Donovan McNabb. And, for the most part, we think that Michael Vick has handled things in a stupid manner. One reason many are so supportive of Vick is because of the way the dog-fighting case was handled. What he did was stupid. He had too much to lose to be involved in something so asinine, even with his cousin, but the man lost a fortune and two years of his life over dogs. I love dogs, but that was not a fair trade-off and we know it. We also know that, like with so many other situations, the same punishment would not have been dealt to … say … Tom Brady. But I digress …
The Black community has always been supportive of McNabb, and often feels that he’s been treated unfairly as well, but he’s handled it well, and he still has his life intact. Vick on the other hand is the problem child who has been unfairly beat up. So, more open support is shown for him. (Whitlock on the other hand is the self loathing fat kid who has dealt with his own problems by bad mouthing the “family” every chance he could get in order to be more appealing to those who get off on seeing that.)
Your first instinct, to keep clear of Whitlock and his ideas, was the right one.
DC, you’re wrong: what Michael Vick did to those dogs was not merely “assinine,” it was horrific, cruel abuse that speaks to a very troubled personality, and 2 years was nowhere near long enough. That is abundantly clear now. His behavior continues to demonstrate a crippling lack of judgment.
And your making light of the crime adresses directly the point of his column. We have a problem with our children and young men looking up to and imitating the Michael Vicks of this world.
Mr. Whitlock’s opinion may not mirror yours, but he he got it right as far as what *I* see in our community.
errata: “asinine”
Must’ve been a Freudian slip.
KV, you argue against me, but you’re actually making my point. First, I didn’t not say that what Vick did was “merely” asinine, but it was certainly that considering his situation. And, I’m not making light of the crime, but I am making the point that many people in the Black community feel that taking away a man’s fortune and two years of his life is too severe a punishment for his having a role in dog fighting. This seems to be where we disagree.
Where you make my point is in your show of disdain for Vick. As you can see in this article, Whitlock says that the Black community accepts Michael Vick more than they do Donovan McNabb, and it was with that point that I took issue. If you read my post thoroughly, rather than cherry picking a phrase, you’ll see that.
It is true that some people support Vick for just the reasons I said, but it’s not true at all that the Black community supports Vick over McNabb. In fact, like you, many people feel that Vick crossed the line and is not at all a role model, while McNabb has been a strong role model even through his own tribulations in Philly.
Your post also demonstrates another of my points. You show that the Black community is not of a single mind
DC, you’re right: our disagreement is about the dogfighting. But that’s the crux of the story in my opinion.
I would not characterize what I did as “cherry picking.” I think your term (asinine) is far too mild a rebuke for Michael Vick’s crime and your tepid chiding reflects the issue of who we respect — or even how “respect” is shown in our community (happy to agree with you that we are not a monolithic Black People marching in lock step, but I’m afraid many of us do — and it is in admiration for the Michael Vicks of our world.)
The shocking callousness of his and his friends’ repeated cruel acts were telling. And the chickens are roosting now with him continuing to make really poor choices.
He’s partyin’ in bars? Really? With people who carry guns? C’mon. And this is him on his *best* behavior because under added scrutiny?
Yes, I can see several places where we have a meeting of the minds and I admire your sophisticated arguments but I respectfully think you’ve missed the point: Too many of our children and young men STILL think he’s cool.
You say he was punished too harshly; I say he’s treating his conditional release (probation) like a de facto bye .
I will now bow out of this the engaging discussion and leave you the last word if you’d like it (I’ll read it eagerly if you do).
You get the McNabb Sportsmanlike Conduct trophy
KV, I’ll just add this so that I’m not misunderstood. When I pointed out that Michael Vick’s participation in the dogfighting was asinine, it was not to lesson the degree of brutality in the act. I was speaking about the stupidity of the decision RATHER THAN the brutality of the act. It doesn’t mean that I didn’t find the act barbarous, it was just not a part of my argument.
As a man who was raised with a dog, and who loves dogs still, I was disgusted by what Vick and his “friends” did. Still, I don’t believe the punishment fit the crime. Maybe it’s because of where I was raised, and what I’ve seen done by those who were struggling for survival. In the end, human life and survival is more important than the dogs. As bad as that may sound, it’s the way things are when someone is in a rough situation … and that brings me to my use of the word “asinine”.
See, Michael Vick wasn’t in that situation at all. He had his whole life set up for him, and if he was a thinking man he could have used his money to help his cousin set up a legitimate business. Vick wasn’t struggling for survival, and his options weren’t limited. So, however cruel and disgusting one finds the act, what I see more than anything is how absolutely foolish it was. Therefore I used the word asinine, not to understate the brutality, but to emphasis the stupidity. Vick, who had the power, could have saved everyone the trouble, and he could have helped his cousin along the way.
Now, he’s making other bad decisions. We agree about that.
To me, the crux of the article wasn’t the dogfighting, but the comparison between the way Vick and McNabb have been treated. The part that most interested me, was the way Whitlock (of whom I am obviously not a big fan), accused the Black community of being more supportive of Vick than of McNabb. I just don’t believe that to be true. But, like I said, the “problem child” who has been beat up by the world (even if it’s of his own doing), gets the most attention. Fair or not, the one who has his act together doesn’t garner the same show of support because it’s not necessary. This is especially true when the former is beat up in a way that we feel is unfair. You don’t feel it’s unfair, and since his punishment was what it was, others obviously agree. Some of us, on the other hand, feel that his sentence was too much. That in no way means that I (I can only speak for myself) support or defend what Vick did.
My son doesn’t even know who Vick is, and I’m an Eagles fan. He does, however, know Donovan McNabb. That will tell you to some extent how I feel about Michael Vick as a role model. I am my son’s role model, but I don’t mind if he admires public personalities who have admirable qualities. Still, I would never want him to admire someone who makes decisions like the ones Vick has made, and continues to make.
It’s been a good thread. We have different points of view. Though we disagree on the suitability of Vick’s punishment, we also show some evidence that the “Black community” does not support Vick over McNabb. In fact, 100% of the Black community on this thread express the opposite sentiment
Well THIS piece turned out well, didn’t it Uncle Jason? Why don’t you and Michael Steele, Alan Keyes, or Ward Connorly go and do a soft shoe for the white people you so desperately try to appease.