A false patriotism

I guess Melissa Jacobs of Sports Illustrated just can't help herself. She is so oblivious to the world around us that she buys into the notion that patriotism conflates with support for the military.

I understand that the world of professional sports (and college to a large degree) spews this trope by parading veterans and soldiers in front of crowds and by dressing athletes in camouflage gear and flag decorations. The message is quite clear - to be patriotic you must go all-in with the military.

I hate to break it to you, Ms. Jacobs, but that message is bullshit.

Patriotism has nothing to do with support for the military. In fact one could make the argument that not supporting the military in its current state is the most patriotic thing one could do. You see every military action since Harry Truman committed two of the worst war crimes in history has been unconstitutional.

The last declaration of war by Congress occurred in December 1941 after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. After that Congress just said fuck it and let the President do whatever the hell he wanted to do with the military.

In the meantime the United States military has become an occupying force in over 100 countries. The United States military has propped up some of the worst right-wing dictatorial governments in history. The United States military has murdered innocent men, women and children all over world - from the Korean peninsula to southeast Asia to the Middle East. Members of the United States military have been sent to advise right-wing forces around the world on how to unseat leftist governments who get in the way of money-hungry U.S. corporate interests.

Take a look at a map of U.S. military interventions since World War II and you will see a path of destruction with people of color as the target. Go to the library and do a little reading of Latin American history and see what good has come out of U.S. militarism.

The United States military is nothing more than the advance arm of American capitalism and it points its weapons at those who oppose the onrush of imperialism.

Besides, Ms. Jacobs, why would anyone support an institution that sends a nation's young people off to die for the benefit of corporate interests and an older generation that rejects peaceful coexistence? It's an incredibly stupid concept if one stops and thinks about it for a second.

But that's exactly why the NFL and other sports leagues glorify the military.

Take off the rose colored glasses, Ms. Jacobs, and wake up to the real world.

Taking a stand by sitting down

"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."

 -- Colin Kaepernick

It would appear that San Francisco 49er quarterback Colin Kaepernick has sent flag-waving pro football fans into a tizzy with the stand he made on Friday night.

If you somehow missed the shitstorm on Twitter, at Friday night's game, Kaepernick remained seated on the bench when the National Anthem was played. When asked he said he would not show pride in a flag for a country that has for centuries oppressed people of color.

Apparently his willingness to take a stand when young black men are being shot dead by police while the officers go on paid leave has left white football fans in the dark. Professional football (along with baseball and auto racing) at times seem nothing more than delivery vehicles for a pro-militaristic, pro-imperialist philosophy that we are all expected to bow down before.

In the eyes of professional sports (and to some extent college sports), true patriotism means supporting military operations overseas - regardless of the reason young men and women are being sent to another country (generally one populated by people of color) to kill, rape and destroy.

On occasion we hear a hue and cry for athletes to take a position on some hot button topic of the day. But that would seem only to apply when the athlete takes the position that the mainstream wants them to take. Pat Tillman is lionized because he walked away from football to join the army in order to invade a sovereign nation. Colin Kaepernick takes a stand against racism and racial violence and he is pilloried by the ignorant masses.

And, speaking of the ignorant masses, you might want to take a gander at this article by The Intercept's Jon Schwartz. It seems that if you listen to more than the first verse of the Star Spangled Banner the symbolism gets a bit complicated and messy.

Francis Scott Key was a slaveowner when he penned the song. For those who don't remember your history, Mr. Key wrote the anthem after the attack on Fort McHenry during the War of 1812 - a war that was fought because the United States decided to invade Canada. During the war the British promised a life of freedom for any black man who enlisted to fight on their side. They also made promises to the Native Americans (who were already learning that the US government was not to be trusted).

No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

-- Star Spangled Banner

Of course I could write many more posts about the intellectual dishonesty of the phrase "land of the free" but I'll save them for another day.

Colin Kaepernick may not be the best quarterback in the league - he may not be the best quarterback on his own team - but he is the most courageous. By taking a stand against racism and racial violence in America he is risking his own livelihood. If he is cut by the 49ers he may find he isn't welcome by any other team in this proto-fascist league.

Thank you, Colin, for taking a stand.

Where it's worse to smoke a joint than beat up your wife

Last week Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice was suspended for two games without pay for an incident in which he knocked his (now) wife out and dragged her out of an elevator unconscious. He was indicted by an Atlantic County (NJ) grand jury. Mr. Rice was then accepted into a pretrial intervention program in which after he completes a year on probation, the case will be dismissed. 

Justin Blackmon, a receiver for the Jacksonville Jaguars, is currently on an indefinite suspension for his third violation of the NFL's substance abuse policy. The first violation did not result in a suspension. The second violation earned Mr. Blackmon a four-game suspension.

Josh Gordon, a receiver for the woeful Cleveland Browns, was hit with a one-year suspension after he was arrested for driving while intoxicated after already having failed at least one random drug test. Mr. Gordon was stopped for speeding and, after being arrested on suspicion of DWI, blew a .09 on a breath test.

And I guess I would be remiss if I didn't remind y'all that Ben Roethlisberger, the quarterback for the Pittsburgh Steelers, was suspended for six games back in 2010 after he was arrested, but not charged with sexually assaulting a 20-year-old college student in Georgia.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and his lackeys have been making the sports-yak circuit trying to justify a policy that makes little or no sense. One NFL official, Adolpho Birch, appeared on ESPN Radio Monday morning and made a complete ass out of himself trying to justify Mr. Rice's two-game suspension.

What does it say about the NFL - and our society - that the penalty for smoking marijuana is more severe than the penalty for knocking your girlfriend unconscious? The fact that so many folks in authority still seem to buy into the propaganda film Reefer Madness so many years after it was made (and discredited) is one of those things that makes no sense.

And how can we even compare Mr. Gordon's misstep with what Mr. Rice did to his then-girlfriend in that elevator? 

If the point in the NFL's player conduct policy is to protect the corporate image of the league, why is Mr. Goodell more concerned about players smoking marijuana and driving while intoxicated? Shouldn't domestic assault be an area of more serious concern? It never ceases to amaze me how our puritanical views on pleasure and recreation lead us to such absurd results.

Now if you think that Mr. Blackmon and Mr. Gordon received the right punishment for their actions - I will respect that opinion. But, if their suspensions were justified, then Mr. Rice should be joining them on the outside looking in for the 2014 season.

The new welfare

The other day, while perusing Gregg Easterbrook's Tuesday Morning Quarterback site, I came across a link to an article he penned for The Atlantic last month regarding the way the NFL acts as a conduit for transferring money from the poor to the very, very rich.

We are, of course, talking about subsidies handed out like candy to NFL owners who want to build expensive new playpens for their teams without reaching into their own pockets. The most glaring example is that of Tom Benson and the New Orleans Saints.

The Saints play in the Superdome which is in the middle of downtown New Orleans. For those of y'all who remember Katrina, you will remember that the Superdome suffered severe damage as a result of not only the storm, but also the aftermath. It took millions of dollars to rebuild - and that money came courtesy of the taxpayers in Louisiana. In return, Mr. Benson pockets all, or damn near all, of the game day revenue in exchange for a mere pittance of rent. He also pockets millions of dollars of national television revenue. And, as if that wasn't enough, the taxpayers in Louisiana pay him about $6 million a year NOT to move the team somewhere else.

So, let's get this straight. The city of New Orleans is still rebuilding after the storm. There is still widespread unemployment and poverty throughout the city. But the state can't afford to spend any money rebuilding infrastructure and homes. The state doesn't have the money to provide good paying jobs rebuilding the city. But the state has plenty of money laying around to lavish on a billionaire who owns a football team that uses the city's name.

And, as Mr. Easterbrook points out, the NFL copyrights all images from the games played in the Superdome and charges a fee to use them. Let us not forget that the Superdome is a publicly funded stadium paid for by the taxpayers of Louisiana and yet none of the taxpayers see any revenue either from the NFL's television deals or from the copyright fees charged by the NFL. All of that money finds its way into Mr. Benson's pockets.

Disgusting doesn't even begin to describe it.

And that's just one example. All across the NFL extremely wealthy owners are threatening to move their teams if local municipalities and states down pony up the money to build new playpens. Then there are also the infrastructure improvements needed to support the stadium that are also paid for with taxpayer dollars. Not mentioned in Mr. Easterbrook's article is the ways in which cities exercise their powers of eminent domain to force landowners to sell their property at less than the going rate. Should a person who owns property the city needs to build the stadium dare ask for a premium price due to the value of his particular parcel of land, the city will step in and threaten to use its powers to take the land from him at a discount to what he could/should have made.

But that's not all. The price of admission to one of these grand gridiron palaces has become out of the reach of the ordinary football fan - the football fan whose tax dollars are being funneled straight into the bank account of the billionaire owner. So, not only are the taxpayers being fleeced by the NFL, they are also being denied entry into the buildings they paid for with their hard earned money. Nice.

We have all of this money being transferred from public coffers to private entities so that the owners can reap a fortune from their association with the NFL. At the same time cities and states are cutting the amount of money spent on social services, infrastructure improvement, housing and education.

We are told by the NFL and the media that these benevolent titans of football made their money the hard way - they earned it of the exploitation of others. They are capitalists to be admired. They are willing to part with vast sums of wealth in order to entertain us with football. No. They are nothing more than welfare queens who preach that unbridled capitalism is good for the masses while they belly up at the trough of the public till.

Burn those draft cards!

Prior to the decertification of the National Football League Players' Association, the players and owners bargained collectively on the rules by which the NFL operated.

Unlike most industries, the NFL was allowed to operate in such a way that violated the Sherman Anti-trust Act. The league created high barriers to the formation of any competing league so as to guarantee itself a monopoly over the professional football industry. Everyone turned a blind eye to what the league was doing because it was small potatoes -- until the cable industry matured.

Suddenly the NFL was a hot property and the rights fees have escalated to the point that the NFL brings in roughly $9 billion a year. That money is divided among the owners and players per their collectively bargained agreement.

But with the decertification of the NFLPA, and with the amount of cash that flows in NFL coffers, folks are starting to take a harder look at how the NFL operates. After the NFL instituted a lockout this spring, the players were successful in having a federal judge in Minnesota sign an injunction preventing the NFL from continuing the lockout. The players alleged that the NFL was in violation of anti-trust laws.

Now that the lockout has been lifted there is uncertainty regarding the rules under which the league will operate in 2011. Any rules the league tries to impose to limit the right of free agents to sign with the teams of their choice may be challenged as being in restraint of trade. But what about tonight's draft?

By instituting a draft, the league is preventing new players from exercising their right to choose where they work. The league is also preventing teams from exercising their right to hire the players they choose. The draft hurts incoming players chosen late in the round because they are unable to effectively bargain with their employer over the terms of their employment. The draft also hurts those players who aren't chosen by driving their wages down to the league minimum.

The draft gives the teams all of the leverage in their negotiations with the players. If a player doesn't like the offer made by the team he has two choices - he can sign or he can sit at home; but if he chooses to sit at home, he still can't choose where he plays because the team that drafted him retains their "rights" to his services.

The only question is whether anyone will have the nerve to stand up and challenge it.

The NFL's spring of discontent

While I do some legal work for a local teacher organization, I would never pretend to be a labor lawyer. I have a basic understanding of the process by which the local school district goes about screwing its employees dismissing teachers, but that's about as far as my knowledge extends in that field.

Having made that disclaimer I am quite intrigued by the machinations of the NFL owners and the players in their ongoing negotiations - or whatever you choose to call it at this time. The owners, most of whom have never seen a local government they wouldn't attempt to fleece, claim the players were negotiating in bad faith and that they intended to decertify the players' union all along. The players, many of whom seem to have forgotten how us reg'lar folk live, point to the television contract in which the owners agreed to less overall money in exchange for a guaranteed payment in 2011 whether or not there was any football.

With the NFLPA decertifying itself and the players filing suit in federal court arguing that the NFL is violating anti-trust laws, how on earth can the parties come to a new agreement?

If the players' union isn't a union anymore then how can their be a new collective bargaining agreement? If the NFLPA is now a trade association, how does that give it the right to bargain on behalf of the players? Wouldn't that mean the NFLPA is a union? And, if it's a union, the lawsuit filed by the players is a nullity.

And what kind of a union signs off on agreements that benefit the few at the expense of the many? I don't know of too many "union shops" in which each employee negotiates his or her own deal with the employer. I don't know of too many "union shops" in which the union agrees to a wage scale that pays new workers an obscene amount of money before they've ever worked but doesn't protect older workers from being laid off for no other reason than they're older.

On the other hand, the owners were beyond stupid not doing themselves any good by giving money back to the networks and DirecTV in exchange for guaranteed income in 2011. How could anyone think that was anything more than a blatant showing of bad faith on the part of the league?

As to the division of the booty, the league and the owners are telling us constantly that building new stadiums benefits local economies by creating new jobs and the like. Once again I must ask, if that's true, why can't the owners find private investors who are willing to plop down the bucks for the owners' new playpens? Why are these owners, who profess an undying love of capitalism, so insistent that state and local governments fund their stadiums?

Take a look at the area surrounding Reliant Stadium in Houston. Anyone who's been here for the past 20-30 years will tell you that South Main looks as rundown and seedy now as it did back in the 1980's. The new stadium did nothing for the economy. There were no benefits. It just means that we financed a fancy new (antiseptic) building so that a (very) rich man could stuff his pockets with more cash.

Now I'm not going with the "a pox on both your houses" attitude in this matter. My sympathies are more with the players - they're the ones everyone's paying to see and they're the ones risking permanent injury and disability every time they step out onto that field.

When the breath test contradicts the officer's observations

You only thought blowing under a .08 meant you wouldn't be arrested for DWI. You figured that once the result of that breath test came back the officer would admit his mistake and let you go about your business.

You thought wrong.

Mike Williams, rookie wide receiver for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, thought wrong, too.

Early this past Friday morning, an officer with the Hillsborough County (FL) Sheriff's Office stopped Mr. Williams for speeding and weaving in traffic. The officer smelled alcohol on Mr. Williams' breath and noted he had glassy eyes. The officer determined, through a decidedly unscientific method, that Mr. Williams was intoxicated so he placed him under arrest and took him to the station where Mr. Williams agreed to submit a breath sample.

The results of that breath test, you ask? .065 and .061. Well below the legal limit in Florida.

Now, aside from the obvious question of how a "scientific instrument" can have two readings .04 .004 apart on two blows that were no more than two minutes apart (I can't imagine a scientist being too pleased with that result on a test), what does this say about the ability of an officer to detect an intoxicated driver using NHTSA's roadside coordination exercises?

These coordination exercises supposedly tell the officer when a suspected drunk driver has an alcohol concentration of .08 or higher. But did they in this case? The answer would appear to be a big fat negative. The officer based his arrest decision on Mr. Williams' driving, his appearance and his performance on the roadside exercises. He came to the conclusion that Mr. Williams had an alcohol concentration of .08 or higher while driving his car. His conclusion was wrong.

Of course the obvious conclusion is that Mr. Williams was intoxicated by something in addition to alcohol. So authorities ordered a urine test (now there's a scientifically accurate test for you). The only problem is that regardless of what shows up on that screening, there will be no evidence that whatever was in Mr. Williams' body (if anything) other than alcohol had any effect on his mental or physical faculties.

The legislature of Florida decided that a person is intoxicated with an alcohol concentration of .08 or higher. The decision was made by legislative fiat. There is no scientific evidence that any given level of any other substance will cause a person to lose the normal use of their mental or physical faculties. None. The results of the urine test will not tell a single person whether Mr. Williams was intoxicated or not.

What we have here is an officer who was convinced, based upon his observations, that Mr. Williams had an alcohol concentration of .08 or higher. The state's own breath test machine proved the officer wrong and so the officer must find some other way to justify his actions that night.

That's DWI enforcement for you.

Taking advantage of a second chance

As criminal defense attorneys we are supposed to believe in the power of rehabilitation and that everyone deserves a second chance. At least that's what we profess to believe when speaking to the prosecutor, the judge or the jury about a client we don't think should go to prison.

In our personal lives, however, we don't always practice what we preach in the courtroom.

Michael Vick is a polarizing figure. He was sent to prison for his role in an interstate dog-fighting ring. Never mind for the moment whether it should have even been prosecuted as a federal case since Virginia has laws making what Mr. Vick did a crime; Mr. Vick plead guilty and did his time.

When he got out of prison the Philadelphia Eagles gave him a second chance. Ironically enough, it was Donovan McNabb who supposedly petitioned his coach, Andy Reid, to sign Mr. Vick. After playing a token role in the 2009 campaign, Mr. Vick has made the most of his opportunity in 2010.

I have colleagues who still spew vitriol whenever Michael Vick's name is brought up. Need I remind you that there are players wearing NFL uniforms who served time for taking the lives of other people. But where's the outrage that Donte Stallworth is allowed to play after serving all of 30 days in jail after pleading guilty to manslaughter in 2009?

Michael Vick made some mistakes. Michael Vick paid the price for those mistakes. Michael Vick is getting his second chance.

Jets receiver grounded for DWI

Braylon Edwards, a wide receiver for the New York Jets, was arrested early this morning in Manhattan for suspicion of driving while intoxicated. Mr. Edwards submitted a breath specimen that that had a reported alcohol concentration of 0.16, twice the limit in New York state.

Ironically enough, Mr. Edwards was not stopped as a result of any erratic driving. His downfall were overly tinted windows on his Range Rover.

The 27-year-old Edwards was pulled over for having overly tinted windows in his Range Rover. Edwards was arrested at 5:15 a.m. after police smelled alcohol and Edwards blew .16 on a breathalyzer -- twice the legal limit, the New York Post reported.

What possessed Mr. Edwards to blow into the state's breath test machine is something we may never know. If all the police had was an equipment violation and the smell of alcohol, a conviction for drunk driving would be unlikely.

What should be obvious is that if you consume any alcohol you are at risk for being arrested for driving while intoxicated -- whether you are over the limit or not. Getting pulled over for an equipment violation can lead, as it did in Mr. Edwards' case, to a DWI arrest just because an officer smells alcohol on your breath.

There's raising the bar, and then there's raising the bar

Those of us on the "dark" side (i.e. defense bar) are taught to lower the jury's expectations as to our case and raise their expectations for the prosecutor's case. The object is to make your leap as low as possible while making the state jump through a high hoop in order to get a conviction.

Someone might want to let Donald Briskman down in Alabama know about that after he raised the bar just about as high as he could for his own client - former Oakland Raider quarterback JaMarcus Russell.

"We fully expect he will be exonerated from these charges. That's exactly how I feel. I've had an opportunity within the last week to get some additional information which bolsters my feeling that he's ultimately going to be acquitted." -- Donald Briskman

It's one thing to say that you believe the evidence will show that your client wasn't guilty or that the evidence doesn't support the charges -- it's quite another thing to inform the world that you expect your client to be exonerated. And might I remind my fellow counselor that there's a world of difference between being acquitted and being exonerated. Being acquitted means raising enough reasonable doubt to convince a jury to find your client not guilty; being exonerated means proving your client didn't do what the prosecutor said he did -- it means assuming the burden of proof.

Maybe Mr. Briskman was stricken by mike-in-face disease and just couldn't control what came out after leaving the courtroom. As less than a third of his practice is devoted to criminal defense, maybe he just didn't realize what a blunder he was making. In the civil courthouse both sides carry the burden of proof; one side meets it and the other doesn't.  Over in the strange world of the criminal justice system, on the other hand, only the prosecutor carries a burden and we win if he can't meet it.

Mr. Russell, who has joined Ryan Leaf at the top of the list of the NFL's biggest draft busts is facing a felony charge of possession of codeine.

At least he's our so-and-so

Maybe the line is just apocryphal, but supposedly President Franklin D. Roosevelt once remarked regarding (a) Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza, (b) Spanish dictator Francisco Franco or (c) Dominican strongman Rafael Trujillo that although he was a son of a bitch, at least he was "our son of a bitch."

That same sentiment remains today when talking about sports figures. Barry Bonds was the most despised baseball player when he was chasing Mark McGwire's (tainted) single-season home run mark and Hank Aaron's career mark. That is, unless you were one of the fans sitting in Telephone Company ballpark watching him launch balls into McCovey Cove.

Terrell Owens is a cancer in the locker room who tears teams apart with his pettiness -- unless he happens to be wearing the colors of your favorite team. Donte Stallworth and Leonard Little are responsible for the deaths of others as a result of their drinking.

The list goes on and on of athletes who have done things that they shouldn't have -- from the ridiculous to the criminal. But in most cases, even though they are scorned by the public at large for their (mis)deeds, they are beloved by the hometown fans. Character matters, well, so long as the team is winning.

Add Brian Cushing of the Houston Texans to the list. After it was announced this week that Mr. Cushing would be suspended for the first four games of the 2010 season for testing positive for a steroid masking agent (the same female fertility drug that got Manny Ramirez suspended for 50 games last season), fans on local talk radio gushed over his performance on the field. And when the AP announced that it would hold a new vote on the 2009 Defensive Rookie of the Year Award won by Mr. Cushing, Texans' fans and radio personalities had their panties in a wad.

Brian Cushing may have been a cheat, but at least he was "our cheat."

And the same may be said about the roster of confidential informants used by the police. Each and everyone of them has broken the law at some point (a multitude of times, usually) but now they ply their trade for the men in blue. Sure, they may be a bunch of criminals, but at least they're "our criminals."

Big Ben to sit down in 2010?

While Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger's legal problems appear to have passed (click here for excerpts from the police investigation), he is now awaiting word from NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell as to how many games he will miss this coming season. Despite the fact that Mr. Roethlisberger was not arrested and that no charges will be filed as a result of the alleged incidents in Georgia, the NFL has deemed fit to suspend Big Ben in 2010.

As I was driving from the courthouse to the office this morning I happened to catch Dylan Gwinn's (a/k/a "The Mighty Gwinn) show on Sports Talk 790 in which he weighed in on the Roethlisberger drama. As you may know, Roethlisberger's (now former) teammate Santonio Holmes was traded from the Steelers to the New York Jets after being sued by a woman for allegedly throwing a glass at her in a bar. According to Mr. Gwinn, there are those in the Steel City clamoring for the Steelers to cut ties with Big Ben and trade him before next week's draft.

But what I found interesting was Mr. Gwinn's assertion that the name of the game in the NFL is winning the Super Bowl and that because the Steelers have won two Super Bowls with Roethlisberger behind the wheel that the owners of the Steelers would be crazy to trade him. I do agree with the statement that the NFL is a business. But I would argue that winning the Super Bowl is not the ultimate goal for an owner of an NFL franchise. The ultimate goal is the same as in any other business - maximizing profit.

The Houston Texans are one of the league's most profitable teams - but nowhere near the Super Bowl (well, maybe about 240 miles from next year's edition). I think Bob McNair would rather ramp up the cash flow and increase the market value of the team than win a Super Bowl.

My point being that Art Rooney II, the owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers is one of the most image-conscious owners in the NFL. He understands that sports isn't just about the game -- it's about entertainment -- and if your star brings too much negative attention to your product, well, that's just not good for the bottom line.

What's the deal, Roger?

NFL Commissioner (Judge, Jury and Executioner) Roger Goodell has spoken and Michael Vick has been (conditionally) reinstated to NFL-playerhood. Mr. Vick will be allowed to sign with a team and play in their final two preseason games but he will have to sit out at least the first five games of the regular season.

While Mr. Vick's conduct off the field may have been reprehensible, there are players on teams' rosters who did far worse. Mr. Vick gave up the richest contract in NFL history, was in federal custody for 23 months, lost two years in the prime of his career and had to declare bankruptcy.

This conditional reinstatement just adds insult to injury. How many teams are willing to take a chance on signing him without knowing for certain he'll be able to play in the upcoming season?

Mr. Vick paid a very steep price for his misdeeds and I daresay that 23 months under federal supervision trumps Donte Stallworth's 24 days in the county jail and probation for killing another person. Ray Lewis was present for the stabbing death of an individual in Atlanta - he was never punished by the NFL. Leonard Little was convicted twice of DWI -- including one case in which he killed someone. He was never punished by the NFL.

Why is Vick facing the ire of the commish? Is it because he lied when the commish asked him what was up with the hubbub in Virginia? Was it because he didn't admit to the commish that he was involved in the dog fighting operation? Hey, Goodell, wake up! You're an attorney and you know damn well that Vick's attorneys would have (or at least should have) told him not to admit to anything.