And here's his response:

SMITH: I`m sorry. You -- I`m saying they could be. I`m not arguing for which is worse, which one is worse. I`m just saying that in terms of his visibility is much worse. His visibility is much worse than what Kobe Bryant`s is. Kobe Bryant is a superstar in the NBA, but at the same time, he plays in Los Angeles, which is a city full of stars. Michael Vick is the most visible person in the city of Atlanta, maybe ever in the history of Atlanta sports.

Ah. Lovely.

Quick, Larry! If you run backwards fast enough maybe you won't look like an ass!

Oh, wait.

That is just so many kinds of weird I don't even know where to start. There are so many reasons I'm not a sports person.

Also, okay, granted, I can't name 10 mayors, but off the top of my head I can name four: Villaraigosa (here in LA), Bloomberg (NYC), Daley (Chicago, which, granted, is a gimme), and Rivera (my hometown of Colo Springs). I have no idea who the current spate of starting QBs are. Um, Brett Favre? Drew Bledsoe? I know John Elway used to start for the Broncos, but he retired years ago...

Also, I would argue that even in terms of visibility, if we are going to dignify Larry by using his own logic, Kobe Bryant is waaay bigger. I doubt there's going to be anywhere near the media circus for this as there was for the Bryant thing.

Of course he thinks it's worse. Female rape victims are widely seen as "asking for it," whereas dogs are just dumb, innocent animals.

I'm not surprised he didn't want to make a distinction between abusing bitches and abusing bitches. ;)

I'm not surprised he didn't want to make a distinction between abusing bitches and abusing bitches. ;)

Well, now, in this guy's defense, it is tough to make a distinction between abusing bitches and abusing bitches. ;)

Yikes! Feel free to delete the first two comments. It kept hanging up and appearing not to post anything, and every time that happened I thought of a better way to phrase it. :D

Wow. Okay, I'm normally way too shy to post, BUT this...wow, there's no amount of back-pedaling Larry Smith can do to justify that one.

I followed the link and submitted the following statement:

I am writing in response to Larry Smith's recent appearance on Nancy Grace. I am appalled by Mr. Smith's statements comparing the seriousness of animal mistreatment versus sexual assault.

I am an animal lover and vegetarian, and I agree that dog fighting is a serious crime and should be treated as such.

However, the implication that animal mistreatment is more deplorable than sexual assault/rape is a slap in the face to every woman, child, and man who has been a victim of such a crime.

The statement indicates misogyny in the mindset of the speaker, and a serious lack of respect for the physiological AND psychological effects (whether short term or long term) that sexual assault has on victims.

While an avid supporter of free speech, I have trouble respecting any journalist who would make such a disrespectful and ill-informed statement. Mr. Smith would be well advised to issue an apology for his statement if he wishes to maintain any shred of credibility, at least with this viewer.

On a side note, I would also recommend he visit the website for RAINN (Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network) and educate himself on the matter further before he makes a fool of himself again.

******
Hope y'all are cool with it, as I've been reading your comments and posts for a few days now, and I'm genuinely impressed by the intelligence, insight, and wit I find here daily. You guys rock!

People like to sneer at Nancy Grace, but I've been saying for a long time that she's one of the truest advocates for women's rights in the mainstream media, and a lot of the criticism seems based on the fact that she's a "shrill", "strident" over-30 woman who isn't there as eye candy. She may not be cool or hip, but she consistently holds the perpetrators of violence against women accountable.

Comparing the severity of any violent, criminal acts is probably not appropriate in civilized discourse, and I'm rather disappointed at the disregard that idea is being shown here.

If Mr. Smith is an unthinking misogynist, doesn't that make us dog-hating speciesists?

Rape is terrible. Torturing and killing dogs is terrible. It does feminism a disservice to marginalize either.

I was just telling a coworker, "You know, people seem to be more riled up about this dog fighting than they do about rape."

I didn't really think my hyperbole would actually be prescience.

It goes without saying that dog fighting is horrific. If only communities would rally around rape victims similarly.

I don't mean to sound callous or to at all trivialize the seriousness of rape. I am inclined to agree with ladenege on this one.

Rape is atrocious, but that doesn't mean that another crime cannot be as well. These dogs were trained to be violent and to fight to the death. They have been beaten and tortured, and will ultimately have to be euthanized because, through no fault of their own, they are too dangerous to be placed in any other home.

I don't think Larry Smith was right to make that comparison, but who are we to make the opposite?

Ugh, what? I don't think they should even be compared, or one assigned as "worth than the other". They're both crimes that only scum lower than snake shit would perpetrate, and I think anyone guilty of either should be covered in steak sauce and tossed to a pack of rabid wolves.

Comparing the severity of any violent, criminal acts is probably not appropriate in civilized discourse, and I'm rather disappointed at the disregard that idea is being shown here.

If Mr. Smith is an unthinking misogynist, doesn't that make us dog-hating speciesists?

Rape is terrible. Torturing and killing dogs is terrible. It does feminism a disservice to marginalize either.

I second that.

There isn't a limit on compassion. There isn't a limit on justice. There isn't a limit on outrage at violence.

Er, make that WORSE than the other, not "worth". I plead Friday afternoon!

She may not be cool or hip, but she consistently holds the perpetrators of violence against women accountable.

She may not be cool or hip, but she consistently holds the perpetrators of violence against women accountable.

Yes, I concur. Her job on the Melinda Duckett case, the Michael Jackson trial, the Duke case, the Elizabeth Smart case were all so professionally handled they warranted a jab from the Daily Show and disgust from journalists worldwide.

A video montage on The Daily Show (12 April 2007) showed Grace repeatedly taking the side of the rape accuser in the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case, and regularly changing her logic regarding the use of DNA data. When talking to Stephen Miller of the Duke Conservative Union, who expressed concern that the students may have been falsely accused, Grace shouted "Oh Good Lord!" and then proceeded to say, "You are saying that...your first problem is two innocent people?" Also in the montage, on June 9, 2006, a guest commented that the filings by the defense showed reasonable doubt. Grace accused them of prematurely taking sides, and then said, "Why don't we all just move to Nazi Germany, where we don't have a justice system and a jury of one's peers?" On 12th April 2007 North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper dismissed all the charges against the three defendants. That night Nancy Grace did not appear on her show; instead, guest host Jane Velez-Mitchell presented. She has not yet commented on the dismissal and her public statements regarding this case.

wtf is this place, fox news?

cutting off folks' responses?

don't you want to be taken seriously?

...Yeah, cause his "response" makes it SO much better!

Larry Smith is an idiot - and a male chauvanist!

In his mind, Michael Vick being involved in dog fighting is worse than Kobe Bryant raping a hotel worker?

That's sick!!!

I know folks who are in the dog fight game - so I refuse to join in the anti dog fighting hysteria.

Pit bull terriers have been bred to fight since the days of the Romans (they used to use them to fight bears, bulls and other large animals in the arenas - that's where the name "pit bull" came from)

Since the dog fight game is illegal, there are a lot of unethical folks out there, who use quite horriffic training methods - but most breeders and trainers are decent people, who actually love their animals and do their best to take care of them (within the limitations of dog fighting).

I don't know how Vick ran his fights or treated his dogs - if he abused his dogs, that was wrong, but if he did his best to train them well and take care of their injuries, than he's well within the mainstream of dog fighters.

Above all, Vick's being involved with dog fighting is far and away different from brutally sexually violating a woman who was just trying to do her job as a hotel concierge by bringing a hamburger to a customer's room - and then getting away with that crime scott free, as Bryant did.

Worse yet, at the time, Bryant recieved widespread public support - even in Boulder, Colorado, where the woman he brutalized lives and works.

Besides feminists, the only people who had any anger against Bryant were the local cops - and, on the real, it seemed that the cops were more upset about a Black man having sex with a White woman rather than if it was consensal or rape.

Larry Smith is an idiot - and a male chauvanist!

In his mind, Michael Vick being involved in dog fighting is worse than Kobe Bryant raping a hotel worker?

That's sick!!!

I know folks who are in the dog fight game - so I refuse to join in the anti dog fighting hysteria.

Pit bull terriers have been bred to fight since the days of the Romans (they used to use them to fight bears, bulls and other large animals in the arenas - that's where the name "pit bull" came from)

Since the dog fight game is illegal, there are a lot of unethical folks out there, who use quite horriffic training methods - but most breeders and trainers are decent people, who actually love their animals and do their best to take care of them (within the limitations of dog fighting).

I don't know how Vick ran his fights or treated his dogs - if he abused his dogs, that was wrong, but if he did his best to train them well and take care of their injuries, than he's well within the mainstream of dog fighters.

Above all, Vick's being involved with dog fighting is far and away different from brutally sexually violating a woman who was just trying to do her job as a hotel concierge by bringing a hamburger to a customer's room - and then getting away with that crime scott free, as Bryant did.

Worse yet, at the time, Bryant recieved widespread public support - even in Boulder, Colorado, where the woman he brutalized lives and works.

Besides feminists, the only people who had any anger against Bryant were the local cops - and, on the real, it seemed that the cops were more upset about a Black man having sex with a White woman rather than if it was consensal or rape.

Sorry, GREGORY, I don't care who swell those people you know are in other respects, if they are involved in dog fighting, they are doing something wrong. It's not like boxing, or wrestling, in which human beings are aware that it is a game or sport. It is NOT okay.

I agree with above comments. I'm not going to say "of COURSE this form of disgusting violence is worse than this other form of disgusting violence".

Hey Gregory? FUCK YOU AND YOUR MATES.

Real dogmen don't use the deplorable bullshit a lot of modern dog fighters do. That doesn't make them good, just better on a scale of sick and sicker

American Pit Bull Terriers have NOT been bred since "the time of the romans" you moron: the bull and terrier, from which English Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, and American Staffordshire Terriers all originate didn't bloody exist then.

APBT have been bred to be game, and often enjoy fighting. Not the point, and if you think dog fighting's OK just because your mates don't hang or burn the loser, you are one sick motherfucker.

To the topic: despite feeling deeply uncomfortable with the dismissive (toward animal cruelty) nature of the phrasing "crimes on a dog are much worse than crimes on a woman", I think it's totally worth getting angry that dog fighting could be called worse than rape.

"APBT have been bred to be game, and often enjoy fighting."

Really? The version I heard was that APBTs who lash out at other dogs usually do out of fear, and that this was almost bred out of the breed about a century ago but then some idiots decided to breed for it.

I think that dogfighting is heinous and disgusting and Vick needs to be locked up for a long LONG time (and never allowed in the NFL again).

But I don't think you can compare two crimes like that.

Oh, and Gregory, you are so completely out of touch with reality. Dogfighting is cruel and sick and so are the people that participate. Finding pleasure in watching two animals tear the shit out of each other indicates a serious psychological problem and I hope you get therapy for it, because you need it. There is no love in that 'sport' and no responsible breeder out there would allow their animals to be abused and fought.

There is a huge difference between Kobe Bryant and Michael Vick. Kobe was INNOCENT!

Michael Vick is an evil man, and the world would be better off without him. Those that trivialize(which is what many on here are doing) this crime are just as bad. No INNOCENT living creature should be put through such horrible acts. These dogs were hung, beat, drowned, and electrocuted! The Kobe Bryant case doesn't even compare!

I can see how you can COMPARE two evils, highlighting how abuse and violence is wrong in one aspect, and how abuse and violence is wrong in another... but I do not think this guy's response was appropriate.

I do have to say something though..

"but most breeders and trainers are decent people, who actually love their animals and do their best to take care of them (within the limitations of dog fighting"

what the fuck ever. Love them and take care of them enough to exploit their reproductive process and abuse them for money. Really- great, upstanding citizens. Right.

This is one of those instances where I feel like people are *looking* for things to get pissed off over.

As far as I can tell, this guy made a slip of the tongue. According to him, he was talking about severity in terms of visibility, and I can also understand how he might think "Well, the Kobe case didn't have substantiated proof of violence or wrongdoing, and didn't result in a conviction. In this case, we've got bodies of dogs, plus proof they were mutilated and tortured."

I feel like his words have been twisted. I'm not saying he doesn't think "killing dogs is worse than raping a woman"-- he may very well believe that-- but based on this exchange, we can't honestly say he DOES think that. It may just have been poor phrasing, a faux pas, not "proof" that he's some kind of rape-supporting misogynist.

Sorry to be the voice of dissent. I just don't think it's necessary to jump on every perceived offense when there are so many blatant ones already out there. IMO.

"Really? The version I heard was that APBTs who lash out at other dogs usually do out of fear, and that this was almost bred out of the breed about a century ago but then some idiots decided to breed for it."
Basically, a "real" dog fighter will not train their dog to fight. They'll train them to be very fit - the dog who wants to win will win. That's what gameness is. Yes, many dogs (and not just APBT) enjoy fighting

There have always been people breeding APBT for DA (dog aggression), and in a well bred APBT that shouldn't be an issue. They're very human focussed, so easy to train, and love people so would never bite a person, even if hyped up to fight.

Obviously DA is a pain in the arse, but it's 100% controllable. It's when arseholes are breeding giant mongrels (APBT should be 30-60lbs) for encouraging human-aggression that it's an issue

Also, fear-aggression is NOT OK in an APBT. It's semi-acceptable in some breeds, but the other side of the DA coin with APBT is their extreme soundness with people (depressingly, they're bred to take a lot of abuse and still love people. And that's a vast majority of APBT for you).

Unfortunately, breed-specific legislation and bad media have encouraged idiots to destroy the breed and make them into exactly what the hysterics say they are :( :(

Uh...why are people breeding dogs while millions more(many purebreds) are being euthanized in shelters because of lack of homes? That alone shows a lack of respect for the well-being of animals!

Smith was trying to say that Vick and Dogfights will be a bigger black eye for the NFL than Kobe and Rape were for the NBA.

I think he's going to be right, and I think this says a lot about our society, that we will forgive a Kobe but not a Vick.

Two points: First of all, Kobe was neither found guilty nor not guilty. He struck a plea and was required to make an ambiguous apology.

Second of all, I think Nancy Grace is among the most revolting individuals on TV. In her eyes there's never been a single defendant that she thought might be innocent, regardless of what the jury might say, or regardless of the fact that a jury had not yet spoken. Like most "news" talk anchors--male or female--her key tool is being as loud as possible and cutting off people she disagrees with, rather than looking to get to the real truth of the story.

I see I struck a nerve with the dogfighting comment - like I said, I refuse to jump on the anti dog fighting hysteria.

We live in a country where literally several hundred million animals are slaughtered every year, and, unlike fighting dogs, they have no hope of escaping death.

Ever wondered whre your breakfast sausage came from?

Or your leather belt?

Or the insulin your grandma injects in her veins?

Here's a hint - all that stuff, and more, came from large refrigerated buildings in the rural Midwest, where animals walk in one end of the building on foot and (after 3,000 immigrants with very sharp knives are done with them) are forklifted out of the other end in small boxes shrinkwrapped to pallets.

But, since that's CORPORATE slaughter of animals, it's perfectly LEGAL under every federal, state and local animal cruelty law.

It's pretty obvious that Kobe was wrongly accused and Vick actually committed the acts he's accused of. The evidence speaks for itself. I also think horrendous acts of violence against the most defensless members of society strikes a nerve with people. Michael Vick tortured innocent animals in the name of greed and pure pleasure. If Kobe had been accused of raping a child, old woman, or physical or mentally handicapped person he would've been treated much worse. Instead he was accused by a woman with a reputation of bad behavior with a shaky story. I'm not saying the fact she was promiscuous meant she deserved to be raped, but her credibility was shot. He was most likely the victim of a girl with bad intentions and dollar signs in her eyes. It was is not representative of most rape cases, and Katelyn Faber basically slapped every actual rape victim in the face. The real victim was Kobe's wife. I think what he did to her(by cheating) was awful, but it really doesn't compare to torturing innocent creatures for thrills. It's apples and oranges!

On Kobe Bryant - he beat the case, and that is NOT the same thing as being innocent.

There were a couple of problems.

One, Aspen (where the rape happened) is a small resort town that is very dependent on the good will of rich tourists.

And the town has a history of letting wealthy men get away with abusing local women.

Like the town's most famous author, the late Hunter S. Thompson.

He raped a fan who'd come to visit him at his compound.

Thompson had a history of alleged sex crimes (he spent about a year in the county jail in his native Louisville, Kentucky on a rape charge as a teenager - but he beat the case).

But, Thompson was friends with the local sheriff, so the woman's character and drug history got dragged through the mud, so charges were dropped.

In Bryant's case, a similar thing happened.

Initially, the investigators were out for blood - not so much because they gave a damn about a hotel worker being raped and sodomized by a pervert, but because they had a problem with Black men having sex with White women, under any circumstances (remember, it was illegal for a Black man and a White woman to have sex in Colorado right up until the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v Virginia in 1969).

But, the local powers that be eventually forgot Bryant's skin color, and remembered the fact that he's a multimillionare - and his accuser was a $ 7 an hour hotel concierge.

So, her character was dragged through the mud (and she had to flee town after death threats began pouring in from enraged Lakers fans), and Bryant beat the case.

This wasn't the first NBA star who raped a hotel worker and didn't have to do time.

New York Knicks commentator Marv Albert raped a Dominican hotel concierge (and bit her hard enough to break the skin) in Washington DC.

He actually went to trial - but his expensive lawyers dragged her character through the mud, and claimed that it was consensual BDSM sex - so Albert got aquitted.

As I'm sure anybody reading this blog knows, just because a man was aquitted of rape does NOT mean that he didn't do it - just that the sexist justice system couldn't (or wouldn't) convict him!

Oh come off it Gregory. As if meatworks are comparable to fighting dogs for your entertainment.

My discomfort with intensive farming is why I buy at least some of my meat directly from farmers (homekill).

But quite frankly they're not even remotely similar, and it's pathetic you'd try that comparison

On Kobe Bryant - he beat the case, and that is NOT the same thing as being innocent.

There were a couple of problems.

One, Aspen (where the rape happened) is a small resort town that is very dependent on the good will of rich tourists.

And the town has a history of letting wealthy men get away with abusing local women.

Like the town's most famous author, the late Hunter S. Thompson.

He raped a fan who'd come to visit him at his compound.

Thompson had a history of alleged sex crimes (he spent about a year in the county jail in his native Louisville, Kentucky on a rape charge as a teenager - but he beat the case).

But, Thompson was friends with the local sheriff, so the woman's character and drug history got dragged through the mud, so charges were dropped.

In Bryant's case, a similar thing happened.

Initially, the investigators were out for blood - not so much because they gave a damn about a hotel worker being raped and sodomized by a pervert, but because they had a problem with Black men having sex with White women, under any circumstances (remember, it was illegal for a Black man and a White woman to have sex in Colorado right up until the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v Virginia in 1969).

But, the local powers that be eventually forgot Bryant's skin color, and remembered the fact that he's a multimillionare - and his accuser was a $ 7 an hour hotel concierge.

So, her character was dragged through the mud (and she had to flee town after death threats began pouring in from enraged Lakers fans), and Bryant beat the case.

This wasn't the first NBA star who raped a hotel worker and didn't have to do time.

New York Knicks commentator Marv Albert raped a Dominican hotel concierge (and bit her hard enough to break the skin) in Washington DC.

He actually went to trial - but his expensive lawyers dragged her character through the mud, and claimed that it was consensual BDSM sex - so Albert got aquitted.

As I'm sure anybody reading this blog knows, just because a man was aquitted of rape does NOT mean that he didn't do it - just that the sexist justice system couldn't (or wouldn't) convict him!

Fenriswolf, my point was, it all involves kiling animals, so why is one form of animal slaughter "wrong" and "illegal" and another form perfectly OK?

As for the alleged difference between factory processed meat and that "homekilled" by farmers - basically, the 'homekill' product is a superior form of food (and you WILL pay the difference in price - that's why only the well off, and folks who live in rural areas, have that luxury option).

But, to the animal getting his/her head chopped off, it really doesn't make a dime's worth of difference.

So, please, please, please Fenriswolf, come off your soapbox!!!

Fenriswolf, my point was, it all involves kiling animals, so why is one form of animal slaughter "wrong" and "illegal" and another form perfectly OK?

As for the alleged difference between factory processed meat and that "homekilled" by farmers - basically, the 'homekill' product is a superior form of food (and you WILL pay the difference in price - that's why only the well off, and folks who live in rural areas, have that luxury option).

But, to the animal getting his/her head chopped off, it really doesn't make a dime's worth of difference.

So, please, please, please Fenriswolf, come off your soapbox!!!

For once I agree with Nancy Grace.

Has the ground felt cold to anyone recently? Because hell must have frozen over.

Dogfighting is a horrible crime that makes me so angry and sick to my stomach that I can hardly stand to think about it. That being said it would be insane to imply that dogfighting is worse than rape. But I agree with Nicole that Smith probably just made a stupid statement that he didn't really realize what it meant. Although he may very well think that way, I don't think we can condemn him completely because of it. And I also agree with Nicole about Nancy Grace...ugh she makes me sick. I hate that these journalists call it an "interview" when really they just talk over the person the whole time.

Dogfighting is a horrible crime that makes me so angry and sick to my stomach that I can hardly stand to think about it. That being said it would be insane to imply that dogfighting is worse than rape. But I agree with jessedouglas that Smith probably just made a stupid statement that he didn't really realize what it meant. Although he may very well think that way, I don't think we can condemn him completely because of it. And I also agree with jessedouglas about Nancy Grace...ugh she makes me sick. I hate that these journalists call it an "interview" when really they just talk over the person the whole time.

Gregory:

I'd say that there IS a difference, especially for the animal, if the death is humane vs. inhumane. Dogfighting is NOT humane, regardless of how they are raised, or how "well" they are treated by their owners. As the owner of a dog who is part APBT, seeing my dog in a fight where he could die would be terrifying, and I would certainly NOT be encouraging it. He's good at fighting, sure. But dogs don't ENJOY fighting. They fight to establish hierarchy, not for fun. Anyone who has seen a dog fight and a dog play knows the difference.

I don't want this to turn into a dogfighting forum but it does make me angry to hear excuses for it.

Dogfighting is strictly for human entertainment...the dogs don't enjoy it.

This is incrediably different than stunning a cow to make some beef.

While the outcome of "dead animal" is the same, it's "the how they got that way" that matters.

speaking of entertainment, MV, "if I did it"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bgwPa_K2Yo

OMG. I just...
speechless.

I don't know how Vick ran his fights or treated his dogs - if he abused his dogs, that was wrong...

He did abuse his dogs. HE BRED THEM FOR FIGHTING. THAT, in and of itself, IS ABUSE.

And no, Pit Bulls are not naturally aggressive or ruthless. NO dog is. I have two wonderful Pit Bulls in my life. They were both rescued from shelters and they are two of the gentlest, sweetest, funniest dogs I know. Dogs don't fight til the death unless they've been treated inhumanely their whole lifes. The puppies are STARVED to make them aggressive. It's absolutely disgusting. I hope Vick comes back as a Pit Bull in his next life. He is scum - as is everyone who perpetuates the horror of dog-fighting.

Bottom line: No one can seriously claim to love anyone or anything they are willing to put in harm's way for financial gain or entertainment value.

We live in a country where literally several hundred million animals are slaughtered every year, and, unlike fighting dogs, they have no hope of escaping death...
...But, since that's CORPORATE slaughter of animals, it's perfectly LEGAL under every federal, state and local animal cruelty law.

So what? There are plenty of people who think that the food-slaughter industry is absolutely terrible. Just because you can point to the meat-packing industry and say "Look, a lot of what they do is cruel too!" doesn't make dog-fighting less cruel.

And even if you think that killing any animals at all is cruel, it seems to me that the level of cruelty isn't necessarily the same, and I'm not really interested in pretending that they are, thanks.

Fenriswolf, my point was, it all involves kiling animals, so why is one form of animal slaughter "wrong" and "illegal" and another form perfectly OK?

I'll bite: because I think that there's a pretty significant difference between training animals to fight and kill for amusement, and killing animals for food, medicine, etc. I absolutely think that the meat-packing industry has a lot to answer for, and that the animals used for those purposes should be treated as humanely as possible.

You're trying to treat two different circumstances as being identical, when they're not.

The way an animal is treated during life and the method used to kill it absolutely makes a difference. I think that too many animals are slaughtered and that the conditions are horrible in many places, but I don't think that justifies being even more cruel towards animals.

The solution is not to pretend that dog-fighting is the same or even better than the slaughter of a free-range chicken for food.

Just noticed this part:

unlike fighting dogs, they have no hope of escaping death...

Uh, fighting dogs don't have any hope of escaping death either. Even if they don't die in a fight, they live a life of torture & suffering. A life lived in fear, without human affection or kindness is a fate worse than death, IMO.

Actually, the first thing I thought of when I heard about the vick story was how sociopaths usually start with torturing animals, and graduate to humans.

I'm wondering if he has a history of violence and aggression (other than the football, of course).

"Fenriswolf, my point was, it all involves kiling animals, so why is one form of animal slaughter "wrong" and "illegal" and another form perfectly OK?"

Because animal slaughter is not performed solely for human entertainment. Can I get any plainer?

the story here is that the original poster, Jessica, cut off Smith's direct, immediate, follow-up comment, which included an apology and an explanation. this is the same thing Fox News does all the time. She owes Smith an apology and the readers of this blog an apology.

Twisting of the truth goes both ways, but if you want to be taken seriously by decent and honest people, you shouldn't engage in this type of deception yourself.

The next time Feministing has something to say about an alleged quote by someone in the media, we'll have to find the transcript of the alleged statements and verify them for ourselves, because we can no longer trust Feministing to tell us the whole truth.

as to the question of why she did this - we can only guess - and it's really irrelevant - that Jessica decided to do this is enough. did she want to gain as much shock value for her post as possible? probably. did she want to misrepresent someone's remarks? maybe not - but she was obviously willing to do so.

Next time Fox News or any other media organization slimes some unsuspecting citizen who is fighting for justice, and Feministing calls 'bs', i'll be right here - pointing to this slime job by Feministing itself.

no apology. no correction. shameful.

guess we'll just have to go to Romanesko for our news:
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=127634

I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit right now, Peter.

1. The point is that he made the comparison at all.
2. The entire transcript was linked right there in the bloody post.
3. That was not an apology- saying "I'm sorry. You... I'm saying that they could be." is not an apology of any substance, it's an "I'm sorry you're upset" or "I'm sorry I got called on this." His "explanation" was totally shit, and it was back peddling of the worst sort.

She asks him, point blank: "Did I just hear [you]... state that crimes on a dog are much worse than crimes on a woman?" His response was "I'm sorry. You... I'm saying they could be." Then he tries to suggest that he meant that it was about visibility- because Kobe Bryant isn't as visible as Michael Vick (which is bullshit).

roymacIII,

Jessica chopped the transcript, seemingly intentionally, to alter the objective truth of the situation. that is shameful.

linking is not the same as inline quoting - especially given that she led us to believe that there was nothing else to be said immediately after Nancy Grace's rebuttal - as if Smith was dumbfounded and couldn't or wouldn't speak for himself.

the WaPo printed all sorts of WMD-debunking stories on page A23, but ran false Judith Miller stories on the front page, above the fold, as the cover story for the day - this is part of how we ended up in Iraq. the WaPo fooled most people who read it.

on this post, i was fooled by Feministing and Jessica. but i won't be, again.

This deception by Jessica will be just one more piece of evidence that all of feminism's detractors will use to make sure that the best parts of feminism remain irrelevant.

it's her blog - she can do what she wants, but as a responsible citizen who's interested in the truth, i have to let it be known that this behavior is not right, and i, for one, will not tolerate it.

whether you, roymacIII, think Smith's comments were correct or not, bloggers should not be in the business of misrepresenting what people say.

as an old engineering prof used to say, "if other people do it (risk people's lives by being careless), that's one thing - just don't _you_ do it."

i dont think he was trying to compare dog fighting to rape. what i think what he was trying to compare is two sport superstars both committing heinous crimes [altho i never followed the kobe bryant case, so i dont know if he was convicted?] but hey, however way you want to twist his words just to bitch about something is your prerogative. ^_^

It's so like people like that to lament the death of brainlessly loyal animals over women, who by having the intelligence to consider their needs over that of others are somehow beneath aforementioned brainless beasts.

i saw this on cnn today and thought it was the same guy.. but it was a different reporter who made this remark:
"Michael Vick would have been better off raping a woman if you look at the outcry of what happened."

awesome dude.

Were any other dorkmasters like me listening to NPR's Talk of the Nation yesterday when a male guest said "I'm going to be politically incorrect here, but..." and proceeded to argue that we have certain expectaions of an NBA player's love life and that when you go up to an NBA player's room, you KNOW what's going to happen, and that Kobe Bryant's being "popular with the ladies" is way less socially unacceptable or surprising than Vick's treatment of dogs, which is way less common?
Ok, I'm PRETTY sure it was talk of the nation, but I can't figure out from the website whether it was that show. but c'mon! even npr's doing it?

Were any other dorkmasters like me listening to NPR's Talk of the Nation yesterday when a male guest said "I'm going to be politically incorrect here, but..." and proceeded to argue that we have certain expectaions of an NBA player's love life and that when you go up to an NBA player's room, you KNOW what's going to happen, and that Kobe Bryant's being "popular with the ladies" is way less socially unacceptable or surprising than Vick's treatment of dogs, which is way less common?
now even npr's doing it?
it was on the "private errors, public lives" part of the show. you can listen here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12449042

Have we all forgotten something here? While people are wondering about the finer points of comparing dog fighting to the crime of rape we have totally lost the point, and that is: it was even brought up in the first place, again by a man. The fact that his mind looks at these two things and associates them is a more powerful statement of patriarchal dominance than are the finer points of debating which is worse.

I see comments by men here trying always to minimize. Dog fighting isn't THAT bad. Sound familiar?

When violence stops (since most violence is perpetrated by men) then it will be across the board. The issue here is violence and domination and those are default mechanisms of patriarchy.

This is how I view it.