The Erin Andrews Flame War

Publisher's Note: I found a couple of more things just before publication:

* Cynthia Yockey has updated her post on the Erin Andrews controversy with this comment: "I would like Donald Douglas to do time in prison."

* E.D. Kain piles on at the Yockey post: "I think many social conservatives operate from a truly honest platform – from a moral foundation that is simply hard to change or evolve. But others really do operate from a position of power alone – out of “greed and lust” for power ..."

* Dan Riehl commented again yesterday, "It doesn't really impact, or even have much to do with me in any event ..." And, Dan updated with this, "This is a guy we really don't need in the right blogosphere. He appears to be as troubled as he is troubling to deal with ..." (link).

* Stogie from Saber Point, in the comments at an earlier post, adds this: "You were wrong to post that first article about Erin Andrews and you got called on the carpet for it, and justifiably so. We all make mistakes, we are all human. Learn from it and go on ... The angry, defensive, circle-the-wagons Donald is not the Donald that I know. I hope you can get control of this situation before any more damage is created."

**********

The blogging reaction to my series on the Erin Andrews controversy has gotten personal and nasty, and some are now insinuating legal action. But frankly, I did not elicit the latest iterations in the backlash. Folks might want to think before they attack others. They also might take responsibility for actions they've taken of their own accord. This post is to set the record straight. I wish I didn't have to write it. But the Internet cops couldn't accept my initial apologies nor could they leave things alone after that. Everyone has been glad-handing and backslapping at the expense of my reputation. Apparently no one bothered to think that it was really theirs on trial in the court of public opinion.

So, I'll be clear: It was never my intent to battle conservatives, and I've sought to avoid it. But, first and foremost is my personal integrity. Everything I've done in this debate is on the record. As for attacks on me, my responses have been limited. I tried to make light of the backlash in a post day-before yesterday: "Dan Riehl Breaks Out With Huge Gates Tax Fraud Exposé: Yet, Gasp! Dude Blows it With Lunkhead Prose Reporting!" Besides that, earlier responses can be found sprinkled throughout my extensive Erin Andrews reporting.

Well, it turns out, first, that Dan Riehl just won't let the issue die. He has by now mounted a full-blown personal jihad against me, the "Rule 5 community," and, well, the entire Internet. And let me be clear: Dan Riehl is now LYING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED. Readers can attack my blogging ethics all they want, but one thing that's never been in doubt is my honesty. In return, we've witnessed the most dishonest, hypocritical scorn from Dan and the others, piled higher than a dung heap in an Indian village.

Here are Dan's posts:

* WTF? (a response to my "lunkhead prose" jab).

* He Just Doesn't Get It (a response to R.S. McCain's post defending "Rule 5" blogging).

* Dan, Dan, Dan ... Here's A Clue (a response to Dan Collins' thoughful comments on the issues).

* Short Sighted Bloggers Busted In Cloakroom Circle Jerk (a response to me and R.S. McCain attacking us as perverts).

* On The Alleged Erin Andrews Video (his initial blog response to me).

* Very Few Lines Get Drawn Out Here (yet another high-horse response to R.S McCain)

I have also been attacked by Cassandra at Villainous Company, Cynthia Yockey at A Conservative Lesbian, Joy McCann at Little Miss Attila, and Dave at Ordinary Gentlemen.

Not one of the attacks has specifically responded to my original comments on the criticisms. It's been all emotion and faux moral outrage. As I have said twice already, I make no apologies for writing an Erin Andrews Google-bomb entry. One analyst estimated that by the middle of last week nearly 5 billion searches had been launched for the nude video. It's likely that hundreds of millions of people have searched for Andrews nude. Ultimately, untold millions watched the clip. It is what it is. And recall, CBS News ran raw footage of Andrews on The Early Show (showing a second's-worth of bare back and breast). CBS later took down the video. Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, Geraldo Rivera, and the Fox & Friends all showed nude clips of Erin Andrews. The New York Post ran two consecutive days of scandalous Erin Andrews reporting, including raw photographs of the peephole shot with only minor black-barring. And Shaun Phillips, an outside linebacker for the San Diego Chargers, requested a copy of the Andrews video on Twitter.

I have covered all of these developments at American Power. This is a national event, and a national scandal. Dan, Cassandra, Cynthia, and Joy have barely touched the issues of the national and mainstream media exploitation of Erin Andrews. It's understandable, of course. I'm sure none of them want to jeopardize a chance to appear on TV. Moral outrage can be selective that way.

Remember all the Erin Andrews stories are always prefaced with "creepy" or "disgusting" right before showing the peephole video shots. Folks can have their cake and eat it too.

So, I'm hoping that this will be my final response to critics. I will continue to report on the Andrews scandal because it's a huge national story of culture, ethics, gender, media, and sexual power. Frankly, it's an unbeatable combination of newsworthiness.

Now, one more time, I have no apologies for blogging Erin Andrews, although I regret labeling my initial post as a "Rule 5" entry. It was a hasty mistake, and I have already said I'm sorry for it. Yet, not one of my critics has responded to my argument laying out the case for a non-sacrificial self-interest. Instead, folks have attacked me personally and unfairly, and THEY'VE LIED about their own involvment in all this as well.

Dan Riehl has been the most voluminous in his moral grandstanding, and it keeps getting uglier. He wrote a personal attack on me and Robert Stacy McCain a couple of days ago, "Short Sighted Bloggers Busted In Cloakroom Circle Jerk." It's mostly ill-founded faux outrage and ad hominems, and as such didn't deserve a blog post in response from me at the time. Dan writes, for example:

... both Stacy McCain and Donald Douglas have crossed a line they should have never crossed by continuing to harangue a dear friend. That would be a blogging colleague of mine for years, Cassandra at Villainous Company, who, like me, has probably forgotten more about blogging than these two hand creme dreamers can seem to gather up in those shriveled little heads they seem so fond of stroking for one another to get themselves off so seemingly obsessively these days.

Both Robert Stacy McCain and Dan Collins responded, however. In return, Dan Riehl wrote two more posts, "He Just Doesn't Get It" and "Dan, Dan, Dan ... Here's A Clue." As Dan Riehl writes in the latter entry:

My good friend Dan Collins thinks I went to eleven today over Stacy and Donald. In point of fact, I reigned it in. I deflected my true anger and resentment into the meme about Cassandra and such, partly as it also gave me a chance to acknowledge some old and dear friends. And I didn't much care for seeing Cassandra's name being bandied about by two people who have all but lost any respect I ever had for them. Really, Dan, you don't have an issue with two fellows out here playing ping pong with a solid conservative woman's name on their blog? Well, that's another matter, but I certainly do. I don't' find them, or it funny at all. Why you said nothing of that troubles me a little, because I know you to be a decent sort. Won't these two adolescent morons ever buy a clue, or lighten up? They won't if they aren't told about it, that's for sure. So I told them about it in precisely the manner I chose to do it. Too bad. As for your take on it, that isn't really a big concern, or anything that impacts my friendship with you, I hope.

But this entire affair is greatly misunderstood, as it was by Donald at the start. My original group email on this had very little to do with him, or the video at all and everything to do with Stacy McCain and his game of rules. And that's my fault for not being as clear as I could, so allow me to set the record straight. It isn't Dan Collin's fault he is misunderstanding all this. It's mine.

The passage is worth quoting at length as it shows Dan Riehl's strange psychology and pure, unadulterated bullshit. The chivalry would be fine, if it wasn't so self-serving and wickedly dishonest.

The e-mail Dan Riehl refers to is one he sent out after I cc'd my initial Erin Andrews nude video post. But it is not true that the "original group email on this had very little to do with him." On the contrary, Dan's e-mail was explicitly a response to the Andrews controversy. Here is what Dan Riehl wrote by e-mail, cc'd to 30 or so bloggers:

Friends - and many of you are - but please exclude me from all this Rule whatever BS. We were ginning our site links and some modest traffic with such gimmicks with far more sophistication and class in 2004 ...

As for the video, I already posted on it when I saw the first email. You are either perpetuating a crime, or a scam.

From the get-go, Dan Riehl has been in the full-metal damage control mode. It's actually pretty sad. He is truly a sick man. Fudging at minimum, he's launched his own hypocritical crusade to "clean- up" the Internet. Note too Dan Riehl's comments in a follow up e-mail sent to me personally, in response to my mention of him at one of the early reports on Erin Andrews:

Correct your post ... I did not watch any clip. Ask if you're going to attribute something to me in the future.

These are Dan Riehl's own words, and I'm making them available for the record to rebut the scurrilous slander against me.

Dan Riehl's strenuous efforts to defend Cassandra at Villainous Company provide a nice background to her series of lies and omissions in attacking me. Cassandra's morning entry is here: "My First and Last Rule 5 Post." She writes:

It’s a waste of time to attempt to refute someone who continually puts words in your mouth, or imputes to you positions which reflect neither your values nor your arguments. If you want a debate, read what I’ve written and tell me why I’m wrong. I always enjoy a good argument on the merits.

But calling me silly names (and the idea that I’m a radical feminist is just that - silly) isn’t a rational argument. Neither is ignoring what I've written in favor of what you would like your readers to think I said. People who use such tactics aren’t making an argument. They’re engaging in a pissing contest. The thing about pissing contests is that the participants tend to get wet.

Over the past few weeks I’ve written two posts about the Erin Andrews story. In neither of them did I contend that Donald Douglas is a bad person. I did not ask anyone to chastise him or cast him out of the conservative fold. I didn't try to gin up a flame war.

To be clear in response to Cassandra, I have not "put words in her mouth," nor have I imputed anything to her that she has not herself stated.

Cassandra actually sent me an e-mail a couple of days ago. I have not written a single post in response to her, and I've put up at most two or three substantive paragraphs on Cassandra. Everything I reported on Cassandra is true. But she's been fiery mad nevertheless, and has somehow tranformed the debate into "All About Cassandra." Here's the e-mail, "Jesus Christ, Donald":

I have not been reading all the crap you have been saying about me, but did you ever stop to think for one second that you might be harming a very worthwhile cause by saying something like that?

You seem to be going out of your way to prove that you will do anything, no matter who it hurts, to "win" (whatever you think that is).

I am really disappointed. If you understood even half of the good Valour IT has done, you would never have risked hurting them just to take a dig at me. Even wounded vets aren't off limits. I made a serious error in judgment with you. Despite our difference of opinion over this Erin Andrews thing, if someone had told me you would do something like this, I would have said they were crazy.

"I do know that Cassandra's not above hawking some skin in order to get the big blogs on board for promotion (i.e., images, but not of her, as far as I know). But readers will have to check with Cassandra for the details."

For the full context, please read the orginal post containing the quotation Cassandra cites: "Reliable Sources Debates Erin Andrews: Geraldo Rivera Airs Nude Clip Again; Long National Nightmare Winds Down Amid Lingering Moral Hypocrisy

As for hawking skin, this is what Cassandra told me in an earlier e-mail, when she was soliciting help in promoting the Soldier's Angels veterans' fundraiser:

Any help you can provide will be most welcome, Donald. Typically (and please forgive my bad memory - it's been 3 years!) the minimum would be to sign up on the Soldier's Angels site for the Marine team ...

You may well get some new readers - it isn't all milblogs. Hugh Hewitt, Michelle Malkin have been on the Marine team in the past. I will be trying to get some big bloggers on our side this year. That's always a challenge since I don't really keep up with who's who in the blogosphere.

I will tell you a funny story - you of all people will get a kick out of this. In 2006, we were really desperate to get some of the bigger bloggers on our side, but the other teams started before I was asked to take over and had a huge head start. So I came up with the idea of having the women on the Marine team flood Ace with adoring emails - we found photos of pinups, Victoria's secret lingerie photos, you name it. The racier the better. We photoshopped all sorts of nonsense on them:

"Ooooooh Ace ... you have no idea how *grateful* we'd be if you'd join the Marine team". It got pretty crazy, but eventually he joined the dark side. Anyway, this is not exactly a secret but I'd prefer if it didn't get out. I doubt he'd be embarrassed, but we kept it quiet since he was such a good sport about it :)

Why Cassandra felt she was at liberty to share this information is beyond me. But if she herself describes her own milblog flesh-peddling as descending to the "dark side," then she's really established a new home-run record for abject hypocrisy.

And remember, Cassandra's post this morning includes this gem:

What disturbs me most is the argument that traffic is so important that it justifies pretty much any act. Over the past few months I've sat back and watched this argument percolate across the blogosphere in various forms: society is oversexed but sex sells; I'm not really sure this is such a great thing to do, but it boosts my traffic without much effort; blah blah blah.

Okay, now lets' wrap this up with what's happening with Little Miss Attila. In the same post I responded to Little Miss Attila's attack on my name, saying she didn't want me screwing up the Freakazoid franchise:

Change your name, Bud. Or use a nickname as a first name—one that doesn’t begin with a “D.”

How about “Frank”? Or “Goofball”? Or “Butch”?

Well, actually, I'm rather proud of my name - especially since it's my late-father's name, as I'm a junior. I responded to Little Miss Attila at the post. Little Miss Attila is Joy McCann, and I got an e-mail from her a couple of days ago:

I am sorry that you took seriously what I meant as a lighthearted joke about your name, and the allusion to Douglas Douglas of Freakazoid.

I am asking you to please remove your link to my husband's blog. I am at present under legal and personal threats from someone whose cult I was involved in at the ages of 13, 14, and 15, and publicizing personal information about me and my family members may help this person to find me and subject me to further harassment from him and his associates.

I would appreciate your help in this matter.

All best,
Joy McCann, Little Miss Attila Online Magazine
http://littlemissattila.com/

To be fair, that's a genuine apology, and I'd consider her request. But before you know it, I got this e-mail from Ace of Spades HQ, "Hey Dude":

I got a note from Little Miss Atilla (which I don't understand the
details of) saying that you're outing personal information about her
for reasons I can't really fathom.

Why are you doing this?

First of all, I'm not "outing personal information about her." Joy McCann's husband is John McCann, and he has his own Wikipedia entry, which links to his personal blog, "Write Enough." It's all public. No doubt anyone who's really looking to threaten Joy McCann can find the information without my help. But why send an appeal to Ace of Spades regarding an issue to which he is not involved? Joy McCann pulling some strings to get me to take down her husband's name? What a scandal!

Interestingly, after that, Joy McCann gets right back into the "Rule 5" action this morning with a post congratulating Dan Riehl for taking it "upon himself to school Donald and Stacy about their unseemly obsession with stat-meter size."

Also, I get the feeling that Cassandra has e-mailed her post this morning all around, hoping to clean up her blemished name. Robert Stacy McCain has this on it, "Nine Days in July: Nuclear Diplomacyin the Conservative Blogosphere."

Also, just now from the comments to the post in queston:

May I suggest that you are out of your mind suggesting that Cassandra has done anything to get the attention of Castle Argghhh!

You see, I am Beth Donovan, married to John Donovan, creator of Castle Argghhh! Cassandra has had posting privileges at Castle Argghhh!for years - before Valour IT was even thought of.

Cassandra is a dear friend, and I insist you withdraw any and all comments about her, Castle Argghhh! and Valour IT.

I would also suggest that you withdraw comments about Joy, also.

You are making insinuations that are completely untrue, insulting and possibly even libelous.

Believe me, I will be contacting a lot of our friends who have Milblogs, and letting them know just what kind of person you are.

So, I'm being threatened now? NBFD, although I'm not surprised it's come this far. Beth Donovan's blog is here.

I have all the e-mails just in case.

So let me conclude:

By now it's clear that the backlash to my original Erin Andrews nude video post has spiraled out of control into an ugly monstrosity of self-serving dishonesty and deceit. And these folks are conservatives?

And the conclusions are really simple. The folks still standing with the honor and integrity are the "Rule 5" bloggers themselves. Cassandra, Dan Riehl, and Joy McCann opened up a can of worms, and boy the contents inside are really ugly.

What can we do next?

I think apologies all around are in order, and I'll go first: I am sorry that I sent the original Erin Andrews post by e-mail and got people involved in a news scandal to which the didn't want to be.

Folks can publish apologies and retractions at their own blogs, with the appropriate citations and links, and that ought to do it. As for my posts, they'll remain as a legal record of what has transpired. The e-mails I have cited go to disprove the allegations being made against me. This is all about setting the record straight and putting the focus back on the folks who got so damned ruffled in the first place.

I don't know if anyone will step back, look at themselves, and say this has gone too far. Can't we all just get along? I'm certain that I won't be speaking with a lot of people after this.

I do know that I've been honest throughout. It's regretful that people stoop this low in moral hypocrisy. So on that note, I'll just close with the King James Bible, Luke 6:37:

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven ...

Justin Barrett's 'Jungle Monkey' Controversy

Some seemingly nasty new developments in the Henry Louis Gates controversy. From CNN, " 'Jungle monkey' E-Mail Jeopardizes Boston Officer's Job":

A Boston, Massachusetts, police officer who sent a mass e-mail in which he referred to Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. as "banana-eating" and a "bumbling jungle monkey" has been placed on administrative leave and faces losing his job.

Officer Justin Barrett, 36, who is also an active member of the National Guard, sent an e-mail to some fellow Guard members, as well as the Boston Globe, in which he vented his displeasure with a July 22 Globe column about Gates' controversial arrest.
The columnist, Yvonne Abraham, supported Gates' actions, asking readers, "Would you stand for this kind of treatment, in your own home, by a police officer who by now clearly has no right to be there?"

In his e-mail, which was posted on a local Boston television station's Web site, Barrett declared that if he had "been the officer he verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC [oleoresin capsicum, or pepper spray] deserving of his belligerent noncompliance."

Barrett used the "jungle monkey" phrase four times, three times referring to Gates and once referring to Abraham's writing as "jungle monkey gibberish."

He also declared he was "not a racist but I am prejudice [sic] towards people who are stupid and pretend to stand up and preach for something they say is freedom but it is merely attention because you do not get enough of it in your little fear-dwelling circle of on-the-bandwagon followers."

More at the link.

More at Boston's WFXT-TV FOX25, "Cop Suspended for Slur in Gates E-Mail."

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

Related: Radley Balko, "Response to Patterico and Jack Dunphy."

Image Credit: WFXT-TV FOX25, "Justin Barrett's E-Mail in Question: Justin Barrett Has Been Suspended by the BPD."

Revenge of the ‘Shoe Bomber’

From Debra Burlingame, at the Wall Street Journal, "Revenge of the ‘Shoe Bomber’: The Terrorist Sues to Resume His Jihad From Prison. The Obama Administration Caves In":

Last May at the National Archives, President Barack Obama warned that “more mistakes would occur” if Congress continued to politicize terrorist detention policy and the closure of Guantanamo Bay. “[I]f we refuse to deal with those issues today,” he predicted, “then I guarantee you, they will be an albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future.”

On June 17, at the Administrative Maximum (ADX) penitentiary in Florence, Colo., one of those albatrosses, inmate number 24079-038, began his day with a whole new range of possibilities. Eight days earlier, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Denver filed notice in federal court that the Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) which applied to that prisoner—Richard C. Reid, a.k.a. the “Shoe Bomber”—were being allowed to expire. SAMs are security directives, renewable yearly, issued by the attorney general when “there is a substantial risk that a prisoner’s communications, correspondence or contacts with persons could result in death or serious bodily injury” to others.

Reid was arrested in 2001 for attempting to blow up American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami with 197 passengers and crew on board. Why had Attorney General Eric Holder decided not to renew his security measures, kept in place since 2002?

According to court documents filed in a 2007 civil lawsuit against the government, Reid claimed that SAMs violated his First Amendment right of free speech and free exercise of religion. In a hand-written complaint, he asserted that he was being illegally prevented from performing daily “group prayers in a manner prescribed by my religion.” Yet the list of Reid’s potential fellow congregants at ADX Florence reads like a Who’s Who of al Qaeda’s most dangerous members: Ramzi Yousef and his three co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui; “Millennium bomber” Ahmed Ressam; “Dirty bomber” Jose Padilla; Wadih el-Hage, Osama Bin Laden’s personal secretary, convicted in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombing that killed 247 people.

In December 2008, the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss Reid’s lawsuit. It cited the example of ADX inmate Ahmed Ajaj as an illustration of “the dangers inherent in permitting a group of inmates, of like mind in their opposition to the United States, to congregate for a prayer service conducted in a language not understood by most correctional officers.”

While imprisoned for passport fraud in 1992, Ajaj assisted in the plans to destroy the World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993, making phone calls to Ramzi Yousef and speaking in code to elude law enforcement monitoring. Ajaj tried to get his “training kit” to Yousef, which included videotapes and notes he had taken on bomb-making while attending a terrorist camp on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

Reid’s own SAMs on correspondence had been tightened in 2006 after the shocking discovery that three of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers at ADX, not subject to security directives, had sent 90 letters to overseas terrorist networks, including those associated with the Madrid train bombing. The letters, exhorting jihad and praising Osama bin Laden as “my hero of this generation,” were printed in Arabic newspapers and brandished like trophies to recruit new members.

Read the whole thing, here.

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

See also Atlas Shrugs, "Muslim Airplane bomber, aka the "Shoe Bomber," sues to resume his jihad from prison - Obama caves in."

Erin Andrews and Sports Culture

Here's a few related articles on the cultural context of the Erin Andrews peephole controversy.

At U.S. News, readers respond to Bonnie Erbe's recent comments. See, "Erin Andrews and Sports Culture."

Newsbusters responded earlier. See, "Erbe: Erin Andrews Incident the Fault of Women Who Promote ‘Sports Culture’ ":

The key issue here is not the "sports culture" which both American men and women celebrate, it is the decency of men and women in our society.

By blaming anything or anyone other than the culprit, the person(s) who video taped Andrews and placed the video online, in a sense Erbe blames the victim, something to which she is not new.

Keep the Newsbusters piece in mind while reading this one from the American Prospect, "Sports Misogyny and the Court of Public Opinon":

In mid July, a Harrah's hotel worker accused Pittsburgh Steelers star quarterback Ben Roethlisberger of raping her, and her employer of covering it up. And then, as reliably as thunder follows lightning, the sports misogyny apologists boomed onto the scene ....

They're an essential ingredient in the modern sports culture that protects and lionizes male athletes at all costs. And when we allow them to ramble on unchecked, when we laugh at them or roll our eyes or simply ignore them, we give them tacit permission to keep using women's bodies as payment ....

The apologists drink from a potent cocktail of hero-worship, almost military levels of team solidarity, and old-fashioned "boys will be boys" gender essentialism. And they would just be offensive if they weren't such an integral part of the larger culture of misogyny in sports -- a culture that makes it possible for there to be so many henious acts to defend, minimize and deny in the first place. As is, they're downright dangerous, writing a blank check for athletes' behavior that too many athletes are happy to cash ....

All of which makes the initial reactions to the Roethlisberger case pretty hard to swallow. It hasn't even been two weeks since the charges were filed, and already we've seen ESPN try to make the whole thing disappear by issuing a "do not report" memo to its entire staff, while gossip blogs like Perez Hilton and TMZ led the charge of accusing the woman of being a "lying golddigger." Legions of apologist fans followed suit, charging anyone who allows that the alleged victim might be telling the truth with "obstructing justice" and inventing their own facts right and left. (My favorite is the story that a woman invented a fictional husband for the alleged victim to have an online affair with, and then fictionally shipped him off to Iraq and had him killed there. This purportedly led the alleged victim to seek therapy before she ever met Roethlisberger, which somehow calls into question her mental stability. Leaving aside the question of why some random woman would do this, or even how it could happen, this is somehow supposed to prove the alleged victim is crazy?)

The alleged victim is already suing Harrah's, her employer, for telling her that "most girls would feel lucky to get to have sex with someone like Ben Roethlisberger" and trying to cover up the whole incident. Would that she could sue ESPN, Perez, and their millions of nameless sycophants, too. She can't, but that doesn't mean those parties should face no consequences for their crimes against the safety of all women. While she's arguing her case out in court, it falls to each of us to cross-examine sports misogyny apologists -- wherever and whenever we find them -- in the court of public opinion. If we do it with even half as much fervor as they have when they rush to their heroes' defense, we have a real chance of changing the verdict.

See also my earlier post, "Erin Andrews' 911 Call: 'I'm Being Treated Like F***ing Britney Spears and It Sucks'."

Also, check the link here for my previous coverage of the controversy.

Erin Andrews' 911 Call: 'I'm Being Treated Like F***ing Britney Spears and It Sucks'

From TMZ, "Erin Andrews 911 Call -- I'm the Naked One!":

TMZ has obtained the foul-mouthed 911 call made when ESPN reporter Erin Andrews spotted "suspicious people" lurking around her Georgia home last week.

In the call, before she even says her name, Andrews says "I've been in the news recently about being in a hotel naked." She goes on to say, "I did nothing wrong and I'm being treated like f***ing Britney Spears and it sucks."

Listen to the entire audio at the post. The "suspicious people" were reporters looking to get an interview. They were released by police without arrests

Here's the transcript:

Dispatcher: DeKalb 911. What's the address of your emergency?

Andrews: Um, I was in the news recently about being in a hotel naked, and I have paparazzi outside my window, and I was told by law enforcement that if I did to call 911.

Dispatcher: Do you want to meet with an officer?

Dispatcher: Do you want to meet with an officer, ma'am, when they come out?

Andrews: Yeah, these guys are sitting in a car outside my house right now. I would like to tell the officer to have them leave because the cops have told me to call 911 if they're outside my house.

Dispatcher: And what's your name?

Andrews: My name is Erin. My last name is Andrews. I'm all over the news right now.

Dispatcher: I'm not familiar.

Andrews: I'm the girl that was videotaped without her knowing, without her clothes on in the hotel.

Dispatcher: Really?

Andrews: And I've got two assholes sitting outside my house.

Dispatcher: I'm so sorry.

Andrews: I am, too. Thank you.

Dispatcher: We'll send someone out. What kind of vehicle are they in?

Andrews: They're in a RAV, a white RAV4. I'm in a gated community, and I don't know how they got in. Mom, can you see their license plates? It's a handicap license plate they have. What's the license plate number?

Dispatcher: What's the tag number?

Andrews: We're trying to see. Do you see it, Mom? OK, I'm gonna try and go to another room and see if I can read it. I can't believe these jerks are knocking on my door. Fucking assholes. Mom, you're totally being obvious.

Dispatcher: Are they black, white or Hispanic?

Andrews: What?

Dispatcher: Are they black, white or Hispanic?

Andrews: They're both white males. I think it's — they know I'm here, 'cause I have a car out front. So they know I'm inside. I have private security that I'm working with, but they're not with me currently, and they said call 911. OK, here's the license plate. It's a handicap license plate for Georgia.

Andrews: They're looking at me through my window.

Dispatcher: Are you OK?

Andrews: Yeah, I'm just — I did nothing wrong, and I'm being treated like fucking Britney Spears, and it sucks. I'm sorry.

Dispatcher: OK, the first available unit will see you as soon as possible.

Andrews: Thanks. Do you know how far they're out?

Dispatcher: No. They should be in — they'll be here as soon as possible.

Andrews: OK.

Dispatcher: OK, thank you.

Andrews: Thanks.

Click here for my earlier comprehensive reporting on the scandal.

Added: The New York Post is on the story (surprise!), "Erin Andrews Calls 911 Over Possible Peephole Video Paparazzi."

Ordinary Cowardice at Ordinary Gentlemen

It's getting really pathetic.

I've been keeping my responses in the Erin Andrews backlash to a minimum. I'm hanging back right now, preparing the publication here of a bombshell exposé that's going to reveal Cassandra, Joy McCann, and Dan Riehl for the lying weasels they are. (Laying down the dirty hypocrisy on these freaks is going to rock the blogosphere.) But in the meanwhile I'm seriously getting a kick out of Ordinary Dave's response to Robert Stacy McCain's delicate blogospheric diplomacy:

From Ordinary Gentlemen, "You’re Surprised?":

Stacy McCain:

With all the humor I could muster, I’ve tried to broker peace. Now, however, the pilots have been scrambled, the jets are fueled and fully armed, and if a stand-down order is not issued soon, I cannot be responsible for the thermonuclear consequences.

With all due respect, you did not try to broker peace. You engaged in an exercise of futility. Those of us who know who you are speaking of know this and know that the individual in question was not going to stand down. Rather than calling him a “good guy”, you should have turned up the heat and called him out for the son of a bitch that he is. Had you done that, I bet he’d have turned on you and you’d see the same nonsense we see here at OG or people like Little Miss Attilla, Cynthia Yockey and Cassandra see.

Maybe I’m not as nice a guy as you, but I know a bad situation when I see it and know when to cut my losses when the other side is being completely unreasonable . When someone digs a hole that deep while causing all sorts of collateral damage to a cause that many people deeply care about, I don’t waste time pontificating about Animal House and inside jokes. I fill in the hole burying whatever is in it and making sure that sort of nonsense never sees the light of day again. It’s that simple.

What's hilarious is Dave provides more evidence that I'm the blogger whose name shall never be uttered at Ordinary Gentlemen. And my crime? Not one of those mofos can survive a debate with me, and they certainly can't get next to me in the integrity department.

Mark Thompson's still mad that I called him out for cheering Hamas' rationality in the Gaza incursion episode last December.

And E.D. Kain has yet to come clean on his dirty decision to pull the plug on his neoconservative blog, NeoConstant.

You're a loser, Dave. I'm sorry it's come to this, especially after my support for you when you lost your baby to miscarriage. You're now getting in bed with losers in criticizing Robert Stacy McCain. It's cool, though: Another blogger down. Only the whole Internet left to defeat and I'll finally claim the highly coveting belt of the de-linked champion fighter of the world!

Michelle Malkin: Obama Is A 'Racial Opportunist'

From Hot Air, "Video: Michelle Discusses Obama’s “Racial Opportunism” on … the Today Show":

Enjoy Lauer affecting shock at the idea that a guy who tried to prove his “authenticity” by spending 20 years in Reverend Wright’s Church of the Perpetual Grievance, who once famously accused Team McCain of having a problem with the fact that he doesn’t look like the other presidents on U.S. currency, and who was known to reference “Malcolm X” while addressing black audiences on the campaign trail might possibly be guilty of racial opportunism. Although, in The One’s defense, what kind of progressive would he be if he wasn’t?

See also all of the disgusting hatred of Michelle Malkin in this Media Matters thread.

Plus, at Memeorandum, see Harvey Silverglate, "Prof. Gates' Unconstitutional Arrest."

Backlash Against Obama-is-Racist Meme

I don't know if this will help my blog rankings (not that it matters), but Peter Daou gives me a top-entry citation at his essay at the Huffington Post, "Right Wing Attacks Collide: 'Racist' Obama Using Health Reform for Reparations :

In the swirling mass of news coverage and opinion-making on the issues of the day (Gates arrest, health care reform, birthers, etc.) we're seeing the convergence of various anti-Obama attack lines. In addition to the racial undertones of the birther movement, one theme gaining traction on the right in light of the Gates arrest is that Obama is racist:

Examples here, here, and here.

And most notably, here:

The rest of Peter Dauo's post is here.

See also Memeorandum. There's a thread going for this entry: "Fox News Legal Analyst Sides With Professor Gates."

Melanie Phillips on Obama's Racist Attacks Against Police

From Melanie Phillips, "The Mask Slips":

This affair is toxic because it touches many nerves: America’s neuralgic conscience over its historic racism, the monstrously unjust over-reaction to that racism, and the election of a President who supposedly embodied, in both his identity and his approach, a post-racial New Man and an absolution for past national sins. Now the mask has slipped, and even those with Obama stars in their eyes can’t hide their dismay.

As regular readers of this blog know, I have been banging on from the start of Obama’s rise to power about the astonishing discrepancy between how he was presented by the media on the issue of race and what he actually had said and done. His whole background from the earliest days onwards was steeped in anti-white grievance politics of the most bitter and corrosive kind. This was all ignored. His two-decade membership of an anti-white church was ignored, his early anti-white mentors such as Frank Marshall Davis were ignored, his participation on the Nation of Islam ‘Million Man march’ and his association with Nation of Islam cadres were ignored.

And as Krauthammer aptly observed – and as I wrote here – Obama’s major speech on race in March 2008 in which he finally ‘renounced’ his former pastor, the anti-white bigot Rev Jeremiah Wright, which was hailed as the greatest piece of oratory since the Gettysburg address and which supposedly transcended racial animosities to create the colour-blind Brotherhood of Man, was anything but. In this speech Obama actually said Wright should not be renounced, and that Wright’s racism was actually all the fault of white people. The fact that so many people failed to hear or read what Obama actually said and instead heard or read only what they wanted to hear was truly frightening.

Now, thanks to the histrionics of Henry Louis Gates, we can see how Obama’s dysfunctional attitude to race plays out in real time. Gates’s arrest was an honest and understandable mistake by the Cambridge police who were investigating what appeared to be a break-in. It clearly had nothing to do with Gates being black – not least because other officers backing up the arresting officer were non-white. Gates’s protests were preposterous, and vividly demonstrated the pathological resentment and injustice – not to mention the strutting arrogance and narcissism -- of anti-racist ‘victim culture’.

For the President of the United States to get involved at all in such a local matter was off-limits. For him to do so without even bothering to discover the facts was disturbing. For him to damn the Cambridge police as ‘stupid’ whereas it was clearly Gates who was ‘stupid’(and worse), thereby demonstrating how the Presidential knee automatically jerks to the crudest of anti-white (and anti-police) tunes regardless of the facts, was deeply alarming.

But not surprising.

Related: A really interesting twist, from ABC News, "Harvard Prof Gates Is Half-Irish, Related to Cop Who Arrested Him: Two Men at Center of Controversy Linked by Irish Heritage" (Via Memeorandum).

See also, Doug Powers, "Officer Crowley, Stimulus Funding Machine?"

And, another related piece, which includes exactly the kind of pathological resentment Phillips highlights; see Eric Kleefeld, "Obama-Haters Becoming Increasingly ... Racial In Their Rhetoric" (also via Memeorandum).

UCSB Makes Top-Ten in Latest Party-School List

Penn State comes in first, but UCSB makes the top-ten again, from FOX 5 Atlanta, "Princeton Review Party Schools 2009":

Penn State University is now the nation's No. 1 party school.

The school known partly for its football tailgate weekends and fraternity and sorority scene snatched the title away from the University of Florida in the 2009 Princeton Review survey of 122,000 students nationwide. Florida, last year's winner, finished second in the annual survey released Monday.

It's the first time Penn State has finished first in the dubious category. The school has been on the list the last seven years and ranked third in 2008. The listing covers Penn State's main University Park campus in State College.

"These rankings are not more than popularity contests," said university spokeswoman Annemarie Mountz. She noted that groups on the social networking site Facebook have urged members to make Penn State the top party school ....

**********

1. Penn State University, State College, Pa.

2. University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.

3. University of Mississippi, University, Miss.

4. University of Georgia, Athens, Ga.

5. Ohio University, Athens, Ohio

6. West Virginia University, Morgantown, W.Va.

7. University of Texas, Austin, Texas

8. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.

9. Florida State University, Tallahassee, Fla.

10. University of California-Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, Calif.

11. University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo.

12. University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

13. Union College, Schenectady, N.Y.

14. Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind.

15. DePauw University, Greencastle, Ind.

16. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tenn.

17. Sewanee: The University of the South, Sewanee, Tenn.

18. University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, N.D.

19. Tulane University, New Orleans, La.

20. Arizona State University, Tempe, Ariz.

It's easy to toss these rankings off as irrelevant, but young folks take this stuff seriously - "dead" seriously, in some cases, which is why parents should be concerned. (See, "Beloved UCSB Student Passes Abruptly.")

If I recall, UCSB was the country's #1 party school in the early '90s, shortly after I started graduate school. Upon moving over there my wife and I were advised not to move to Isla Vista unless we planned on attending kegger parties around the clock on the weekends. We moved off campus, because despite all the ill-repute blogging that goes on around here, I'm actually a pretty respectable guy!

Here's more on the latest rankings, including campus reviews:

Some students object to the view of UCSB as a party school: "people need to get past the party reputation and realize that this is an excellent school academically."

It's hard to live down, actually. I still get ribbed for having a "party-school Ph.D."

More from some UCSB students on Facebook, "Proud Students of the Most Intelligent Party School of the Nation."

And note these appellations: "UCSB = U Can Study Buzzed or the University of Casual Sex and Beer".

Photo Credit: "UCSB Ranked 10th Best Party School in the Nation" (from 2007). Plus an interesting comment from the piece:

The CNN/SI blog, FanNation brings up a good point when they question the list's lack of a local college who have shown more than their fair share of school spirit lately.

We’re trying to figure out how any college party could top UCLA’s annual undie run, especially after seeing these pics, but the Bruins didn’t even make the Top 20, so what do we know?

Dan Riehl Breaks Out With Huge Gates Tax Fraud Exposé: Yet, Gasp! Dude Blows it With Lunkhead Prose Reporting!

Look, Dan Riehl's a nice guy. But let's just say he was distracted by some bikini-babe hotties during freshman composition!

The guy made a genuine contribution to the Gatesgate controversy this week. See his piece, "A Gatesgate at Henry Gates' 'Bogus' Charity?" The essay was a big traffic generator apparently (NTTAWWT!!); and Dan made sure to get a notch on his bedpost by posting his phallic-symbol Sitemeter trophy).

Strangely, though - and perhaps to compensate for whatever insecurities he may suffer - Dan feels the need to pat himself on the back for the scoop; he then TOTALLY BLOWS IT it with some of the worst writing I've seen in the conservative blogosphere:

I think it fair to say the first and perhaps only place this was reported was in my blog post of Saturday. I dug the recipient's links to Gates out via Google after seeing their names on Joe's documentation that made me aware of them and we were both pursuing the story together, and individually at that point. It appears to have gotten someone's attention.

Whoa Nelly! That's one doozy of a paragraph!

Hey, somebody buy that dude a copy of Strunk and White! (Rule 17):

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.

Actually, I'm sure readers can find some of my own lunkhead prose in the archives. We're all guilty of it sometimes, no doubt.

And I'm NOT PASSING JUDGMENT, remember! I'm human, of course. So I can't resist getting a kick out of the style malfunctions of old Internet-cop Dan Riehl!

Check out Dan Collins as well, "Dan Riehl Goes to Eleven." Here's Dan C., with reference to his own blogospheric battles-royal:

I found it interesting to discover that due to my posting I was a horrible person, a misogynist, and many other unseemly characterizations. What I found most interesting, though, was the revelation that reproducing and speaking the truth regarding a public document was a transgression much more serious than spewing lies is.

Read the whole thing, here. Dan offers a great cost/benefit analysis of my recent blog controversy.

I'm trying not to engage in flame wars, but Dan Riehl makes it so damn easy!

I'll update if there's more to the backlash.

Professor Gates, Sgt. Crowley to Meet President for Beer Thursday

From Fox News, "Professor, Officer Expected to Meet President for Beer Thursday":

The professor, the policeman and the president are ready to share a beer -- and maybe a few thoughts about race and law enforcement in America.

The gathering set for Thursday evening may help President Barack Obama write a sudsy but happy ending to an arrest that triggered a fierce debate over race relations and briefly knocked him off his stride.

An administration official said Monday that Obama is hosting the two main characters in the unlikely Boston-area drama that dominated several news cycles last week: Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge, Mass., police department. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the announcement was not yet public.

More at the link.

And what will the boys be quaffing? See, "Frothy Diplomacy: What Beer Will Obama Choose for White House Meeting? The President Hopes to Ease Tensions by Drinking Beer with Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Sgt. James Crowley." (Via Memeorandum.)

Mousavi Calls for New Protests Next Week

Andrew Berman's got a new update from Iran, "Iranian Revolution (Day Forty-Five)."

But see also the Los Angeles Times, "Iran Opposition Leader Calls for More Street Protests":

Iran's leading opposition figure called on his supporters Monday to head into the streets daily during a religious festival next week, potentially escalating tensions at a time when his election rival, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is to be sworn in for a second term.

The call for new protests was the most provocative move in weeks by former Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi. It was a sign that the aging bureaucrat, once a pillar of the Islamic Republic's political establishment, is growing into the role of leader of a youth-based movement that seeks greater democracy and better ties to the rest of the world.

More at the link.

See also, Atlas Shrugs for an earlier report, "Day 43 Iran revolution: Killings Continue Unabated, Iran Plunged Into Fresh Political Turmoil."

Michelle Malkin Launches Culture of Corruption on Sean Hannity (Gets Some Hate Mail in Response)

Via Allahpundt, Michelle Malkin premiered her new book last night on Sean Hannity's show:

In response, Michelle got a round of hate-mail, "E-Mails of the Day":

Michelle Malkin you are a stupid asian BITCH.

The only reason you are on t.v is because americans feel so so sorry for you.

It is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.

So go and sell your body some more.

So that you can send money back home to support your slummish asian family.

There's more at the link, unfortunately. Democrats are such nice people, don't you think.

The Amazon link for Michelle's Culture of Corruption is here.

Bill Maher Reminds Me Why I Don't Like Bill Maher

Hey, hats off to Wolf Blitzer, who focused on Bill Maher's America as "stupid country" remark in this interview yesterday,"Bill Maher: U.S. Stupid If It Can Elect Sarah Palin":

Here's the comment at Freedom Eden, "Bill Maher: America is Stupid":

Bill Maher is trashing America again.

It's as if the only way he thinks he can appear relevant is by making inflammatory statements.

He's right in a way. He doesn't get attention unless he's saying something outrageous.

I think Maher does it to survive, to make a buck, because he's not funny anymore.

Talking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Maher delivered his latest desperate attempt to get noticed.

Hat Tip: Freedom Eden.

Gatesgate and Police Discretion

From Brandon del Pozo, a NYPD Captain and Ph.D. candidate in philosophy at CUNY:

Without drawing conclusions about the Gates case, there comes some point where a person is genuinely causing public alarm, and where he is acting with a rage that exceeds what we can expect from a reasonable person in a heated moment. The mere presence of the police conducting a legitimate investigation should not provoke continuous rage and epithets from such a person. One response is that the police should just leave if the investigation has been conducted successfully, and that this will calm the person down. In practice, this is indeed often the best thing to do. On the other hand, it should be noted that it is just as much the responsibility of the citizen to see that his actions are an inappropriate way to relate to police officers who have not, in the specific case at hand, acted unreasonably. This point may be hotly contested, but I believe it is true: there is no obligation for the police to hurry in their activities or to leave as soon as possible because they have incited the rage of a person who is acting unreasonably. There is a distinction between hanging around to show them who’s boss and working at a steady, professional pace, to be sure. But in the end the mere presence of the police cannot be seen as an acceptable reason for disorderly conduct, and should therefore not spur the police to leave a scene simply to de-escalate it. A police strategy of “winning by appearing to lose” emboldens citizens to attempt to get the police to lose in more and more serious matters, including walking away from situations where a person is genuinely guilty of a crime.

Be sure to read the whole thing, here (there are currently 454 comments at the post). It's a hard-left blog, so del Pozo's taking some big heat.

Video Hat Tip: Allahpundit, "Must See: Cambridge Cop Says She Won’t Vote for Obama Again After Gatesgate" (via Memeorandum).

Reliable Sources Debates Erin Andrews: Geraldo Rivera Airs Nude Clip Again; Long National Nightmare Winds Down Amid Lingering Moral Hypocrisy

London's Daily Telegraph has a late report out today, "US Sports Reporter to Sue Over Naked Internet Video." But with Sunday's Reliable Sources on the Erin Andrews controversy, we're finally seeing our long national nightmare fade from the media cycle.

Here's the transcript.

Even Christine Brennan is in damage control after her unambiguous statement blaming the victim for the peephole privacy invasion:

KURTZ: So, are the media exploiting this sick act even as they supposedly decry it?

Joining our panel now, Christine Brennan, sports columnist for "USA Today" and a contributor to ABC Sports.

Christine, should "The New York Post" and "Fox & Friends" and others reporting on this outrage have used those screen shots of a very nude Erin Andrews?

CHRISTINE BRENNAN, "USA TODAY": Absolutely not. It is despicable behavior. It's what I said on the first radio interview I did, that what happened to Erin was just gross and despicable.

And, you know, it seems to me that what they're doing -- and I got dragged into it by being quoted completely out of context -- what they are trying to do then is create a story line so that then they can show it again. And, of course, what they'll do in the case of Fox is say, oh, this is terrible, this is awful, get that off the air, as they've shown it again and again.

And think about poor Erin Andrews and what she's going through. And that, to me, is just shoddy journalism.

ASHBURN: It's prurient; right? And we're not as journalists in the porn business. And, well, even if we were, we couldn't find the video right away. It was pulled ....

KURTZ: All right.

Christine, you mentioned an interview that you did this week that drew some controversy. This was with a Raleigh, North Carolina, radio station. It was replayed on "Good Morning America."Let me roll some of that and we'll talk about it on the other side.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) BRENNAN: If you trade off your sex appeal, you trade off your looks, eventually you're going to lose those. She doesn't deserve what happened to her, but part of the shtick, seems to me, is being a little bit out there in a way that, then, are your encouraging a complete nutcase to drill a hole in your room? (END AUDIO CLIP)

KURTZ: Some people jumped on that, as you know, and said it was some version of, well, she kind asked for it.

BRENNAN: Right. There's a sound bite there that's missing, Howie. I said, "And I want to have a long career." I was talking about myself. That was taken out of those clips.

KURTZ: Yourself as a female sportswriter...

BRENNAN: Absolutely.

KURTZ: ... and you're covering a male-dominated sports world?

BRENNAN: Exactly. I mean, so, that first part of that, I was talking about myself. And that was literally taken out of the clip. Also, if I may say, that in the course of that interview, nine minutes and 20 seconds with that North Carolina station, the first words out of my mouth were that this was gross and despicable. And eight times in that nine and a half minutes I said she didn't deserve this, it's wrong, it's terrible.

KURTZ: But what about the part about creating a climate that encourages the nut cases of the world? Creating a climate by flaunting sex appeal?

BRENNAN: I was again talking about myself. The question was about the larger issues of women...

Actually, she wasn't talking about herself, and she was called out for her sexism, rightly so. It turns out this isn't the first time for Brennan either. See, "Remember, Christine Brennan Hates Good Looking Female Journalists." (And see Howard Kurtz at this morning's Washington Post, "Howard Kurtz Discusses the Media and Press Coverage of the News.") Added: Deadspin, "Christine Brennan Continues Her Erin Andrews Smarm Offensive."

Plus, it turns out that Geraldo Rivera also featured a debate-panel on the controversy on Saturday, "Erin Andrews Peephole Video, Photos Shown Again."

As any student of the media knows, Geraldo Rivera's name is synonymous with sensationalist-smut journalism. Like Bill O'Reilly, Rivera aired lengthy clips of the Andrews nude peep video. It comes as no suprise. Rivera's list of controversial broadcast-outrages is virtually unmatched. And he remains a national media personality with a powerful reporting platform. Yet conservatives might recall, in 2007, Rivera threatened to spit on Michelle Malkin for her views on immigration, calling her "the most vile, hateful commentator I've ever met in my life." Malkin subsequently announced that she'd no longer appear on The O'Reilly Factor. (See Michelle's report on that incident here; she also called out Christine Brennan as well, "USA Today Columnist Blames Peeping Tom Victim.")

Here's how one commentator described Rivera's coverage of the Andrews controversy:

FOX's Geraldo Rivera is obsessed with ESPN sportsbabe Erin Andrews and that naked video and how it came to be. Geraldo July 25th: "She's holed up in her house until September... I think she's going to huge. I never heard of her before."

Rivera beats himself off under the desk for eight minutes:

So, where are we now, as a culture and a nation? For almost two weeks now we've had this wrenching national debate on the limits of propriety in mainstream reporting and commentary. But as someone who wrote early on this - and under absolutley no false pretenses - it could be argued that America's abject moral hypocrisy is a crime tantamount to the original hole-carved peeping incident. In yet another commentary, this article summed it up best, "Peeping Erin’s Andrews":

Every article you read about Erin Andrews and her peephole video reads the same. Every story has to use the word “creepy” or “disgusting” or “low-down” or some adjective either directly before or after referencing the video as an over-the-top attempt to try to convince the reader that they didn’t spend all afternoon frantically searching Google and using “happy tissues” like they were going out of style. But, masturbatory habits of the average sports fan aside, the real question that everyone wants to know is Who’s to blame?

Read the whole thing for one of the better compilations of the tragedy of a national moral epic fail. We're all to blame, of course, Heaven forbid.

And speaking of "masturbatory habits," let me close out my daily coverage of the Erin Andrews controversy with some belated - and hopefully final - commentary on the "Rule 5 community."

I announced my retirement from "Rule 5" blogging at Saturday's post, "Erin Andrews Internet Traffic Report."

I should note that I couldn't have been more clear in my motivations for writing my original Erin Andrews Google-bomb entry. But let me reiterate a couple of the main points:

* I have NO PROBLEMS with operationalizing my own egoistic-rational self-interest in testing Robert Stacy McCain's model of traffic-generating nude-pic scandal opportunism. As the TrogloPundit once exclaimed, "It works! R.S. McCain is a genius!" And I would add that R.S. McCain's been an amicable fellow through all of this. Good luck on his continued success!

* And to be clear again, I am NOT PASSING MORAL JUDGMENT on others who have sought to achieve their own self-interest by shamelessly exploiting the objectification of women to increase blog traffic and to build a lowest-common-denominator readership. Despite protests to the contrary, my comments in previous posts have been simply observations all along. But being a blog flame-war, participants have conveniently ignored the facts at hand. It's certainly understandable. Like Dorothy's frail old wizard, it's not flattering when the curtain is finally drawn away. Frankly, we all do it. And since Stacy made the reference in his post last night, I don't mind citing Jesus' words, King James Bible, John 8:7, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." (And don't miss Stacy's whole post, "'That's Just the Rule 5 Way It Is!'" And Stacy's now-famous Google-bomb masterpiece is here: Carrie Prejean Nude Pic Scandal.")

And given all of this, folks might think it just a bit amusing to find Cynthia Yockey jumping on the moral condemnation bandwagon. I love the title of this post: "I Am With Little Miss Attila in Villainous Company to Challenge American Power." The entry includes some "I can haz faux moral condemnation":

Look, I've been reporting real news on this story for over a week. So, if readers will pardon my language, Cynthia doesn't know WTF she's talking about. Indeed, she'd be better off frankly to just SDASTFU.

You see, Cynthia's a perfect example of a traffic-slutting "Rule 5" acolyte (NTTAWWT!!). Cynthia's claim to fame is her classic Bea Arthur exploitation post, " ‘Symbolism Was My Life’." And as she admits at her eminently "villainous" post:

Now, “nude Bea Arthur” was not a picture and key phrase that I expected to generate a lot of traffic. However, until my Web host changed my blog’s URL without my understanding how much that was going to screw up my standing in Google for the pictures indexed from my blog, I was getting just over half of my daily traffic just from the nude Bea Arthur portrait and my Bea Arthur eulogy post, “Symbolism was my life.”

Hey, more power to you, sweetie! Bea Arthur had a huge rack! I hope your traffic numbers rebound, but to borrow from Stacy's favorite line, "don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."

Also, after my Saturday entry, the hapless Joy McCann was moved to respond, TWICE: Donald Douglas Would Like Some Attention," and "Cynthia Takes the Wood to Donald Douglas." And in a twist, Joy found a way to plug her husband's work in the "Freakazoid" franchise while simultaneously attacking my family name:

Actually, my main criticism of Donald Douglas is his name. He sound like a Freakazoid! character. What is he?—the Freaka-cousin? Sheesh. Change your name, Bud. Or use a nickname as a first name—one that doesn’t begin with a “D.”

How about “Frank”? Or “Goofball”? Or “Butch”?

Image Credit: Wikipedia (Fair Use Citation)

Actually, no.

That's not Joy's main gripe. Men are assholes, remember? Yep, Joy took issue with the Erin Andrews posting and in her pathetic refusal to take responsibility for her shameless "Rule 5" chubby-building exhortations she instead went for the cheap personal attacks in smearing my family name. Real classy, Joy, that one. Sexy smile though, I must admit!

Husband John's blog is here (he's a real looker; but Joy apparently still needs to post an extra hunk of beecake now and then, NTTAWWT!!) Strange, in any case, all of Joy's fulminations - but it's better not to judge, remember?

Okay, let's not forget Cassandra at Villainous Company. I pretty much said my piece with Cassandra already, but you might want to check her additional comments at the thread.

I think Cassandra's a good woman, and my sincere hope is that after all of this blows over we can still be friends.

Cassandra's problem is that she's way too quick to condemn others for the very same traffic-grabbing exploitation techniques she's not above deploying. (See also, Wikipedia: "Psychological projection.") And I'm not just talking about her hot laced-garter pinup across her blog's banner. No, Cassandra's a huge booster of Project Valour-IT, a veterans' fundraising drive that has helps provide laptaps, game-systems, and GPS devices to returning soldiers. If I'm not mistaken, the major milbloggers have some sort of contest every year to see who can drum up the most contributions. Castle Argghh! has a big thank you to supporters. Cassandra gets a big mention there. And while I'm not at liberty to discuss her methods, I do know that Cassandra's not above hawking some skin in order to get the big blogs on board for promotion (i.e., images, but not of her, as far as I know). But readers will have to check with Cassandra for the details. While I have no problems exploiting a peep scandal for traffic, I'm not going to betray personal confidences, as juicy and damaging as those might be.

So that's it. This story's spent, and my daily Erin Andrews reporting ends here. I will, of course, update with major breaking news if things develop. I will also be watching Erin Andrews' return to sideline reporting in September, if that works out for her. We'll see, and don't be ashamed to stay tuned for updates.

And with the exception of something really egregious, I don't expect to engage in any more flame wars. I've sought no enemies through all my reporting, and I stand by my motto of "no enemies on the right." No doubt some bloggers would rather never speak to me again. That's fine. I understand. Others will continue to flood my e-mail inbox as if nothing ever happened. That's fine too.

And of course, "Rule 5" blogging will continue without a moment's genuine introspection among most of the participants. Joy McCann barely batted a mascara'd eyelash in posting some hot beefcake this morning (see, Oh, Yeah. I Got Your Rule 5 Right Here"); and Chris Wysocki's got a big entry up for some full-steam-ahead babelicioius action: "Donald Douglas and the Rule 5 Identity Crisis."

My only advice is for folks not to get down on themselves - and have fun! Remember, I'm a political scientist. I study political culture AND human interest. I find it extremely interesting that folks are horrified at how I could justify my posting on Erin Andrews on rationalist grounds. In testing Robert Stacy McCain's Google-bomb theory, I acted on a rational egoist premise holding my own utility-maximizing self-interest as the determinant of what's good or bad. Such a position should be no secret to students of rational-egoist epistemology. And among Ayn Rand fans, I'd be particularly suprised to see objections, for Rand's method is pure self-interest maximization:

When one speaks of man’s right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational self-interest, most people assume automatically that this means his right to sacrifice others. Such an assumption is a confession of their own belief that to injure, enslave, rob or murder others is in man’s self-interest - which he must selflessly renounce. The idea that man’s self-interest can be served only by a non-sacrificial relationship with others has never occurred to those humanitarian apostles of unselfishness, who proclaim their desire to achieve the brotherhood of men. And it will not occur to them, or to anyone, so long as the concept “rational” is omitted from the context of “values”, “desires”, “self-interest” and ethics.”

In citing this I readily affirm my guiding theme of honesty and integrity, but also moral clarity. (WYSIWYG!!) Would that so many others shared it. This is not say that an added cost/benefit analysis taking in other emotive-spiritual-non-rationalist factors is to be completely abjured. It's simply to point out that my blogging has always been guided by a foundational set of beliefs, and nothing's changed.

If readers continue to have a problem with my self-interested blogging, perhaps they might enjoy joining the comment boards at Crooks and Liars, Daily Kos or Firedoglake. Leftists despise self-interest maximization. And so, for those who first attacked me with the line, "I can't belive he's a conservative," and for those who eagerly hopped on the bandwagon, I propose that these folks know nothing of where they speak, nor of any system of integrated values upon which they stand.

And if any readers still haven't gotten enough of Erin Andrews, check Coed Magazine's totally opportunistic, "The Complete Erin Andrews Web Photo Index."

Plus, more exploitation at Mediaite, "Erin Andrews Most Influential TV Reporter? What Her Top Ranking Really Means." Also, my previous coverage is available here.

**********

UPDATE: Dan Riehl get chivalrous here, "Short Sighted Bloggers Busted In Cloakroom Circle Jerk." He touts traffic impressive traffic numbers, here, but leaves out a key comment at my post, where I note, upon mention of my retirement rom "Rule 5" blogging, "I'm still learning about all the deceit and double-standards" in bloggging and media worlds (Dan would know, of course).

I'll add updates here if anything else comes up. Dan Riehl's a good guy, not too smart, but solid nevertheless. (You can't police the Internet all by yourself, Dan; but hey, knock yourself out trying.)

Also, interesting commentary, from Michael-Louis Ingram, on ESPN's handling of the controversy, "Sending In The Clowns??? Don't Worry, They're Already Here at ESPN."