Would you Rather... (Freakonmics Edition)

One of my favourite blog-stops is the one from the Freakonomics boys, here. (Haven't read Freakonomics? You should! Go buy it. Right now. I'll wait).

Anyway, one of the best things about the Freakonomics blog is the give-and-take with their readers. Take this post from yesterday: Dubner asks, "So, keeping in mind the two men’s ages, crimes, prison terms, reputational hits, post-prison opportunities, etc., tell us who you’d rather be, Conrad Black or Michael Vick."

That's a damn fine question. But it is the answers that are really interesting. A number of people pick Vick based purely on the fact that he's a lot younger (apparently being old is a fate worse than being a total dumbass). Intriguingly, lots of folks, despite the longer sentence, would rather be Black. The reasoning seems to be around the fact that he remains financially secure for the rest of his life and that his reputation is less damaged than Vick's. I dunno. Michael Vick isn't poor. And when he gets out of prison, someone will pay him a lot of money to play football again - either in the Arena Football League, or maybe even in the NFL. You can't tell me the Dolphins wouldn't take him. He and Ricky Williams could be roommates.

Now for me, I'd rather be Black because, while he is arrogant and obnoxious and massively self-satisfied, he sure isn't dumb. Vick, on the other hand, isn't setting any IQ records. Conrad will be fine. Vick will totally fuck up again. Otherwise, he just wouldn't be Michael Vick.