C3PX said:

I personally wasn't trying to make a comparison between a black man who has done something bad and a Jew who has done something bad. I was merely contrasting their crimes and the current public opinion to them without even considering race in the matter. Though you may make a relevant point, Boost. Though I think the difference is more due to the fact that he is a Jewish man with an extremely high level of status in the Hollywood machine. I have no doubt a black football player who rapes a thirteen year old girl would be burnt at the stake, but I also feel the same treatment would be given to a white football player who committed the same crime. Likewise, had a white football player been involved in dog fighting, I am pretty sure he would receive the same treatment as Vick.

I guess the real question is, what would the general public reaction be if Polanski had been caught fighting dogs?

I didn't mean to imply YOU were the one unfairly comparing the two. Just contrasting the two men's treatment in the general media.

I'm not sure you can point to their 'status' without somehow considering race and perception. Vick wasn't just a footbal player. He was a guy from the projects, doing dirty, project crime. I'm not sure if the backlash would have been quite as heated if Brett Favre was caught doing something cruel to animals with less of a social/racial stigma, for example fox hunting illegally or the Victorian sport of ratting (of course, this is impossible to test objectivly).

As for Hollywood, I think there would be a very different mood of Spike Lee gave a girl malt liquor and raped her as opposed to Polanski with qualudes and champagne... a difference in perception based on both race and perceived economic class.

But I do beleive you and I are in agreement that Polansky and Vick are both scum who should have the book thrown at them.