True words on a certain AssHat

Here, thanks to ProFootballTalk.com, is a link to an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. This writer, Jeff Schultz, actually gets it. Vick is a coward, who still won't stand up and admit that he did what anyone with an IQ that's measurable knows he did.

I was thinking yesterday about another post on this moron. Seeing the Schultz article merely confirmed it. In truth, the post I had in mind was a bit different: while this guy accuses Vick of cowardice- a fair assessment- I was looking at it from the standpoint of his loyalty.

I read a few excerpts from Vick's plea deal. What I saw there was a guy that's trying to save himself at any cost. So he seems to be throwing his friends under the bus. Okay, in a way it isn't surprising- they all made deals before Vick, with the obvious intention of giving him up to save themselves. Fair enough, that's how it works. But now Vick comes along with his deal. Initial reports had him kinda-sorta admitting guilt, but not quite. Turns out that he did actually state the truth, to an extent.

The problem that I see (and bear in mind I have absolutely no training in the legal biz) is that Vick's friends all know the truth. And in his deal, he basically said "I didn't gamble and I admit that dogs died as a result of our collective actions. But my biggest mistake was that I was hanging around with a bad crowd."

In other words, he seems to be claiming that he just needs a higher class of friends. Well, duh. That's also pretty apparent to anyone with half a brain. However, I don't think that the whole dog-fighting thing was put into his head by these other morons. And he seems to be suggesting that it was. Which would really piss me off if I were one of the other guys.

I'm not sure that a claim like that is a Good Idea. As I said, these guys know the truth, and if they get the impression that he just pushed them in front of the bus, then they can still make his life miserable. At this point, they have little to lose- he's lost his Nike contract, has a good chance- especially since he still doesn't admit he's a slimeball- of being banned from the NFL, and it's possible that the Atlanta Falcons will go after him for some of the money they've already paid him. When the whole thing finally ends, there's a chance that he won't have a whole lot of money left over. So the golden goose has apparently died. And if (and I must clarify that this is merely a rant by me) he is guilty of more, and if his friends were to rat him out, then he might well be looking at a lot more time "in the service of the State", than seems to be expected today.

So it seems to me that he'd do better to keep him mouth shut about his loser friends. But then I question whether he's ever learned that lesson.

It all reminds me of a common story in military circles. We've all heard the tales of men hurling themselves on a grenade to save their buddies. It's a pretty solid way to get a medal, though generally posthumously. But in my younger days, when I was in the Army, I was talking to a couple Vietnam veterans. (Again, a quick disclaimer: what I'm saying here is what I was told. It may or may not be true, so take it for what it's worth.) At any rate, the explanation these guys gave me was that the whole "throwing himself on the grenade" myth was just that: a myth. Their explanation was a bit more... sinister. Or perhaps mundane. Supposedly, there were two reasons for someone dying this way. The first was that he was a less than stellar soldier, and when the grenade bounced into the bunker, someone managed to shove Snuffy on top of it. So the unit got rid of a weak soldier, and the dead guy's cohorts all got together and branded him a hero, getting him a medal that his family could cherish.

The second, far more relevant explanation is that the guy who "fell" on the grenade was simply the slowest guy of the bunch. Everyone else bailed out of the hole, and he couldn't keep up. So the slowest guy loses, and the fastest guy gets away with the least amount of injury.

Remind you of anyone?