I learned what an abusive personality is the hard way, one-on-one, and now I know how to spot one.
Michael Vick didn’t just abuse dogs; he has an abusive personality. He has no remorse for what he did, and he had the middle-finger-up brazen gall to say so in a television interview. The reporter asked him, if you could go back and change anything, is there anything you’d do differently? To the reporter’s obvious amazement, Vick said no, he wouldn’t change a thing.
Even if he hadn’t told his sad, frightening personal truth in such a public forum, most of us (or even all of us) can feel that his attempts at making reparations don’t ring true. He’s not sorry he committed those crimes. He’s only sorry he got caught.
People who think Michael Vick can have a second chance are missing something big about abusive people. You can’t give a ‘second chance’ to someone who is psychologically incapable of realizing that he ruined his first chance. Don’t you get it, Mr. Wayne Pacelle of the HSUS? Michael Vick is secretly laughing at your second chance. He doesn’t think he did anything wrong. If he can do it without being caught, he’ll take all the chances you give him and do the same damned thing (and I do mean ‘damned’) he did the first time. Once an abuser, always an abuser.
If you don’t believe that last sentence, or if you just want to learn how to spot an abusive person, read, ‘Why Does He Do That? Inside The Minds Of Angry And Controlling Men’, by Lundy Bancroft.
The concept of ‘giving a second chance’ simply does not apply, in the case of an abusive personality.
Please consider boycotting Nike, Subway, the Eagles, and any other organization ignorant or cynical enough to link itself with his name.
P.S. I would write that I hope Wayne Pacelle is simply using Michael Vick while the public eye is upon him, using him to spread the anti-dogfighting message, but what would that say about Wayne Pacelle? So I guess I’m between a rock and a hard place on this. For me, Wayne Pacelle, the head of the Humane Society of the United States, is either gullible or manipulative. Do those choices describe the best person to lead such a potentially important organization? Don’t we need someone smart as hell, honest, and compassionate?