Erin Andrews Remains in Media Glare, Ethics Debate Rages; CBS News Says 'No Easy Recourse' in Criminal Probe While Airing Nude Video Clip!

The Erin Andrews story remains a hot topic across the Internet. Fox News is running a syndicated piece this morning, with reporting that's three days old: "ESPN Sportscaster Erin Andrews Videotaped Nude Through Hotel Room Peephole."

But in what would seem a shocker, check out CBS Today Show's full story, "No Easy Recourse Seen After Illicit Video: Analyst Predicts Tough Time Finding Voyeur Who Taped ESPN's Erin Andrews Nude in Hotel Room." The clip shows the actual peephole video, and at times Erin Andrews' naked body is only partially blurred to meet FCC guidelines. Legal commentator Lisa Bloom is interviewed at the story. And to hear her take, its seems logical to ask if anyone watching the CBS report could prosecuted ... [Update, 7-22-09: The CBS video has been taken down; here's CelebTV as a replacement ...]:

USA Today has been doing some very respectable reporting from the consumer safety angle, for example, "Readers Speak Out on Hotel Privacy After Reading About the Secret Filming of a Sportscaster in Her Hotel Room."

But most of the news today has been on the moral angst surrounding the Andrews peephole video. For example see, John Gonzalez, at the Philadelphia Inquirer, "Trafficking in Sleaze?":

A number of journalists have rightly and harshly criticized Site X for posting the video in the first place. That's the sober, expected part of the editorializing happening across the country.

The more complicated part of this unseemly mess is how and why it became a national controversy.

Deadspin has been condemned by some for linking to Site X and greatly increasing its traffic as a result. A.J. Daulerio, the editor of Deadspin and author of three posts about the Andrews video, said he wrote about it because ESPN's lawyers were involved. Daulerio added it would be a story if ESPN's lawyers were forced to take action against someone in possession of an illegal video involving Chris Berman or any nationally known media personality.

Daulerio is right about that. But he was wrong for linking to Site X. He took the link down almost immediately and apologized on Deadspin.

He told me he linked to the site - but not to the actual video - for context. That's an awfully fine line. (Attempts to reach an ESPN spokesman were unsuccessful.)

"We never had any intention of putting the video on our site," Daulerio said. "I wasn't linking to it to show the video. The name of the site is all letters - it sounds like a site someone made up. I didn't link to it to explode the story. It was more like sourcing."

I've known Daulerio for a little while now. We used to work for the same company. We're friends. I believe him when he says he was trying to write a Meta piece about ESPN's lawyers going after some slimy Peeping Tom. Not surprisingly, the nuance of Daulerio's story was lost on a lot of people. As a result, this is a potential game-changer for Deadspin and possibly the blogosphere.

Well, yeah. It's pretty game-changing

As I reported yesterday, reporters for ABC News had to "verify" the authenticity of Andrews tape with their own eyes. See, "Erin Andrews Nude Video Stirs Controversy: ABC News Spies Video for Investigative Value!"

Shouldn't professional journalists be able to respect Andrews' privacy by citing sources verifying the video is genuine? By Monday, no doubt everyone who wanted to see the video had seen it. As Bob Norman wrote, at Broward's New Times:

Well, I find the whole thing to be absolutely sick. Disgusting, repulsive, absolutely offensive, and outrageous. And I'm very happy to report that the video has been taken down from the web. I know because I looked for it. For like a half an hour. (Look, I'm a journalist, and that means, as traumatic is it might be, I have to verify these things with my own eyes. I make these kinds of sacrifices every day, people.) Anyway, here's the picture the Sentinel ran with its story, which happens to be one of the most curvaceous shots of Andrews available anywhere. But don't focus on that part of it! Only a sicko would do that.

As indicated at my report from yesterday above, there are lots of opinions on the sleaze factor, ethical propriety, the appropriate role of women in sports media, and Erin Andrews' professional abilities. Obviously, there are tremendous gender differences to the story, and gender affects moral decision-making. As captured, sadly, by yet another blogger:

Erin Andrews is babelicious, to be sure, but she’d be so much hotter if she embraced her hotness, developed a sense of humor and posed for Playboy already. She’d get a big check, ESPN would get a boost in ratings and no sleazebag could profit off some grainy video anymore.

But recall my earlier reporting on the respectability angle, from Associated Content, "Erin Andrews Peephole Video: What You're Not Seeing":

... although the more cynical will say that Erin Andrews has made it as far as she has primarily because of her looks, it must be noted that, if true, it isn't because she has calculatingly used her beauty to become a popular ESPN sports reporter.

Also, here's CBS Sports columnist, Gregg Doyel, "You Call Yourself a Man? Not While Erin Out Your Fantasies Online":

You're probably not the actual guy who drilled a hole into the wall of her hotel room and filmed her and then put it on the Internet. But chances are, you're among the hundreds of thousands of guys who have searched the Internet for that video. Which means you're among the millions of American males who set this sick scenario into motion by congregating online at the altar of Erin Andrews Imagery. Objectification is yours!>

And you're this country's next wave of husbands and fathers. Terrific.

Honestly, I don't know why I'm even bothering. You don't, and you won't, see your problem. Addicts or idiots -- and you are very possibly both -- never do. You think it's fine to scour the Internet for pictures of Erin Andrews and then find the nearest message board and type, "I'd hit it." As if you'd have a chance at Erin Andrews. Or any attractive woman. See, the general rule of thumb is this: If you've ever uttered the words I'd hit it ... then you really wouldn't. Because you couldn't. Because you're a loser. Ask the woman who works in the cubicle next to you. (First, take your eyes off her breasts.)

You're the guy who goes to strip clubs and shoves $1 bills into a stranger's g-string while she dances in your lap, and you're stupid enough to think you've scored. Your capacity for self-delusion is exceeded only by your incapacity to attract an actual (free) woman. So you go to strip clubs or hire a prostitute or, if you're cheap, you congregate on the Internet and study YouTube videos of Erin Andrews. Look, loser -- there's her butt!

There's more at the link, and Doyel is comprehensive in his condemnation. But comes up with an honest conclusion:

Guess what was No. 2 on the Google Trends list? A search for someone called "Aaron Andrews." I'm not making that up. And just missing the top 10 was the search for "Erin Anderson." I'm not making that up, either. So not only is the typical American male horny and hopeless -- he's stupid.

But he's real. And apparently, since I'm an American male myself, he's ... me.

Yeah, and the guys at ABC News, Bob Norman above at Broward's New Times, and on and on ...

And check out this commentary from CBS sports blogger, BigBluMasochist. The title of the piece is a little off, but otherwise it's outstanding, "OFF TOPIC: Is Erin Andrews a Victim or the Crime?":

Call me jaded; call me cynical. Call me anything you want because I'll be the first to admit that I have a strong tendency to lean towards suspicion and the immoral qualities of people in any given situation. In addition to this, it's pretty clear by now that the younger generation does not have the same moral & personal boundaries that those of us who grew up in the 70's or 80's do. Yes, media desensitization and a decreasing focus on "traditional family" as a concept are partly to blame here. So we didn't have cell phone video cameras and YOUTUBE when I was in school; I don't think I would have had the notion to videotape a girl getting beaten to a bloody pulp and posting it for the entire world's enjoyment. And I wouldn't say my family life was of the "Ozzie and Harriet" variety, either.

Let's look at the first part of my cynisism - jumping to the conclusion that no perverted, sick or degrading act will ever have a lasting affect on public figures. Over the last 20 years or so, the saying "no publicity is bad publicity" has been taken to a whole new level, steadily inclining to what appears to me as a 90 degree angle by now ...

Look around the entertainment world and see the examples ...

Kobe cheated on his wife and publicly lied about it, but no one in Los Angeles cares (his jersey sales haven't slipped either). Add President Bill Clinton and Reverend Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson to that list as well. Randy Moss hit a traffic cop with his car. Eddie Murphy and Hugh Grant were both arrested for public lewdness with prostitutes. And Michael Jackson - who just received the most memorable tribute and celebration in entertainment history - is remembered for his singing and dancing. It certainly wasn't becuase he completely disfigured his face, paid off numerous families keep quiet about his sexual escapades with their children or endagered his own baby's life by dangling it off a balcony. And every time I see his father Joe Jackson being fawned over by some interviewer, I can't help but wonder why they aren't asking the most important question of all: "Do you think that your physical and emotional abuse, incessant rehearsals, whippings and name-calling had anything to do with Michael's problems?"

And just in, People Magazine is reporting, "ESPN Reporter Threatens Lawsuit Over Nude Video."

I have no big takeaway here. I can say that it's clear there are no agreed upon ethical values in today's media reporting. Like sex, voyeurism sells, even for the mainstream press.

For a concluding example, see this surprising story. It turns out that the Huffington Post, which is a political blog and newsite, has a story with video on a controversial faux Pepsi ad which aired in Germany, "UPDATE: Sprite Oral Sex Ad Was Unauthorized (VIDEO)." As the piece notes, " It combines oral sex and the desire for a refreshing Sprite to create a big finish that has to be seen to be believed."

And no doubt many have seen it.

I'll update with more on the Erin Andrews story throughout the day ...

**********

UPDATE: ABC News is back for a second day of reporting the story. See Kate Snow and Russell Goldman, "Law Might Favor Erin Andrews' Peeping Tom: Laws on Video Voyeurism Vary From State to State."

And here's this from Will Leach, at Deadpspin, which broke the story wide open last week, "Erin Andrews and Guilt, Imagined and Otherwise":

In the wake of the awful video that hit the Web over the weekend — actually, it had been hanging around for months, apparently, but no one had seen it — everyone is pointing fingers. It's blogs' fault for objectifying her. It's fans' fault for often caring more about what happens off the field than on. It's ESPN's fault for not strangling this story in the crib when they had the chance. (And they did.) It's her fault. It's our sports culture's fault. It's the fault of the thin walls of a lousy hotel.

None of these things are true, of course, and all of them are. Obviously, the fault lies in the assbag who shot the video in the first place, something this person has made a habit of, ultimately stumbling on someone in the public arena. (Let there be no doubt, though: This could happen to you, your wife, your girlfriend, your daughter. These slugs exist because it's impossible to find a way to kill them all.)

But it's more than that, obviously. That's the reason we're all here and talking about it, aren't we? This is not just any sideline reporter snoop video. It's Erin Andrews. If this is Holly Rowe, or Jill Arrington, or Michele Tafoya, this story is over in a day, if it even goes that far. But it wasn't. It was Erin Andrews. She was not called America's Sideline Sex Object: She was called America's Sideline Princess. Lisa Guerrero posed for Playboy. Jamie Little models when she's not updating us on NASCAR. Andrews was never like that. She was a sideline reporter, and a busy one, sloughing through West Lafayette and regularly traveling with Brent Musburger. It would have been shocking to see her do so much as a photo shoot ...

But that doesn't really matter, does it? It's not like Jamie Little or Lisa Guerrero would deserve a snoop cam video any more than Erin Andrews did. No, the reason the video has gained such traction, and the reason everyone is so upset — and I can assure you, I've yet to talk to a single person, blogger, blog reader, ESPN employee, sideline reporter, upright walking normal human being, who wasn't profoundly disturbed by this — is because we all felt somewhat complicit with Andrews ...

Read the whole thing (here), and check the links, which include a story I missed earlier. From Sports Media Watch, "The Erin Andrews Saga":

Some in the blogosphere have reacted with scorn. The Big Lead notes that "the Erin Andrews fanaticism just veered from fawning and sad to downright disturbing." Erin Andrews Tracker calls it a "a very twisted end to EA’s big week in the spotlight." Fang's Bites says that the "person who took these videos definitely went over the line in a big way."

All of which is true. But for some reason, the reaction rings slightly hollow. For several years, Andrews has been the object of leering from mainstream writers and bloggers alike. She may be one of the most prominent sports broadcasters working today -- and that has nothing to do with her sideline reporting. While this is a brand new low in what has basically been a national stalking of Andrews, comments about how unconscionable it is seem somewhat disingenuous.

Certainly, there are very few -- one would hope none -- in the sports media who support the blatant infringement of Andrews' right to privacy. But when someone is valued solely for their looks -- and becomes a prominent figure solely for their looks -- is it really surprising when members of the fringe of society go over the line?

Consider recent headlines about Andrews. Last week, she was struck in the face by a fly ball. Cue the unsurprising, sophmoric headlines: "Erin Andrews has balls flying at her face," "Erin Andrews Takes It In The Face," "Erin Andrews can take balls to her chin," and "Sportscaster Erin Andrews gets a facial." The last headline comes not from a blog, but from the Dayton Daily News.There are the countless pictures of Andrews that have been littering the Internet for years. Pictures of her backside, pictures of her 'suggestively' eating a hot dog. Sports Illustrated even recently had an online photo album devoted to Andrews.

Lots more examples and analysis at the link.
Okay, now here come the leftists to take it out on the media for reporting and showing the Andrews video. From Media Matters, "Fox News, CBS air clips of peephole video of ESPN's Erin Andrews."

On July 21, Fox & Friends repeatedly aired numerous video stills from a videotape surreptitiously taken of ESPN sideline reporter Erin Andrews nude in a hotel room. Fox News' stills, which were prominently displayed on-screen, repeatedly showed Andrews' face while covering some of her body parts with lacy red tape. In addition, during CBS' The Early Show, science and technology correspondent Daniel Sieberg played several seconds of the Andrews videotape with parts of her body blurred.

Hey, what a way to take a stand! Media Matters is a Soros-backed media-front for MoveOn.org and radical groups allied with the Democratic Party. Certainly Media Matters can argue against CBS and Fox News for their broadcasts of the Erin Andrews video. But the outlet is far from a neutral observer. The group's attack on CBS and Fox originates less from the perspective of media ethics and more from partisan gain. And here's more on who these people are: Media Matters has been one of the biggest defenders of the anti-Semitic Daily Kos. See, Media Matters, "O'Reilly Defends Comparison of Daily Kos to Nazis and KKK." Well, they are like Nazis, actually. As of this writing Daily Kos still publishes the eliminationist, anti-Semitic screed, "Eulogy before the Inevitability of Self-Destruction: The Decline and Death of Israel."

Added: More outrage at opportunistic press voyeurism. See, "ESPN Reporter Erin Andrews Peephole Pictures Published by New York Post":

The New York Post is once again courting controversy by being the first to post screenshots from the infamous Erin Andrews peephole video on Tuesday. The video shows star ESPN reporter Erin Andrews strolling naked around a hotel room. Andrews’ lawyer, Marshall B. Grossman, said in a statement to the press that the video was illegally obtained through a peephole by a so far unidentified voyeur.

That's from a gossip site called "Snark Food." The editors then proceed to publish a screenshot of the New York Post's cover story, here: "ESPN Hottie Erin Andrews in Peep Shocker: Nude Hotel Video Splashed Online." Of course, the Post's story doesn't skimp on the nude screenshots of Andrews. No doubt this edition flew off the, er, racks ...

Gawker also comments on The Post story, "SICKO PERVS: New York Post Outraged By These Hot Nude Pixxx" (it's a parody that republishes the screenshots).

Another gossip website, PopCrunch, publishes the story with the CBS video posted above, "ESPN Reporter Erin Andrews Threatens Lawsuit Over Nude Peephole Video."

And now TMZ offers another titillating headline, "Erin Andrews Peeping Tom - Inside Job?":

TMZ has reviewed six videos shot by the peeping Tom who secretly videotaped Erin Andrews in her hotel room as the ESPN reporter walked around naked, not having a clue she was being watched ... and there are signs the person who taped it may be connected with the coverage of athletic events.

More from Deadspin, "ESPN Ignoring Biggest Stories of the Day (IMPORTANT UPDATES)." Plus, Associated Press has the story on the wire services, "ESPN Reporter Secretly Videotaped Nude in Hotel."

*********

UPDATE II: Okay, more on the Lisa Bloom comments at the CBS video above. From Carlos Miller, "So Now It is a Crime to Even Watch the Erin Andrews Video?":

... now some lawyer is claiming that it is illegal to download the video or view it if you happen to come across it.

CBS News Legal Analyst Lisa Bloom states that viewing or downloading the video is equivalent to “buying or selling stolen property.”

I’m not too sure about that one; the buying and selling of stolen property involves the exchange of money. I would like to hear what my attorney readers have to say about that.

It appears that Bloom is acting on feminist fervor rather than legal logic. She not only is the daughter of feminist attorney Gloria Allred, she is also the attorney who sued the Boy Scouts of America when they did not allow a girl to join the organization. She lost that case.

Also, from Newsweek, "Erin Andrews' Peephole Pictures Are Privacy Porn":

Apparently, no one in this country knows what a naked woman looks like. At least, that’s what media outlets including CBS, The New York Post, and Fox News seem to think. In reporting the story of Erin Andrews, the ESPN reporter who was surreptitiously taped au naturel in her hotel room, these outlets and others found it necessary to include stills from the tape making its way around the internet. It probably seems incredibly naïve to ask why – naked ladies increase ratings, duh—but the answer may be a little more complicated—and disturbing—than that.

Plus, Newsday, "ESPN Passes on Story About a Certain ESPN Reporter." And from The Week, "Nabbing the Culprit Behind the Erin Andrews Peephole Pictures: Is it Possible to Catch and Punish the Person Who Shot Video of the ESPN Reporter Naked in Her Hotel Room?" Also, now it turns out Andrews' privacy is turning into a gag line, at Don Chavez's post, "Gisele Bundchen in a Hotel Room (Doesn’t Make Camera Man Hide In Wall)."

The Everday Ethics blog lays down a scold, "Erin Andrews Peephole Video: Are Gawkers Getting What They Deserve?":

It's one thing if you yourself put a video out there for money, or any other reason. It's another if someone violates your privacy by surreptitiously filming you, then releasing the results for millions to see. And while I hold the perpetrator of that crime the most responsibile, those who buy -- or try to beg, borrow, or in this case download -- the product of his criminal act, in full knowledge of the humiliation and pain it causes the victim, are far from blameless.

And more on the investigative side: Hollywood Gossip, "Erin Andrews Naked Video Filmed at Two Hotels?":

An extremely upset Erin Andrews does not know where she was filmed and the person or persons shopping the pics and videos for profit is still at large.

But the videos raise the suspicion that it was an inside job by someone familiar with her schedule - and possibly even traveling on the road with the reporter.

Also, at The Wrap, "Hypocrisy and That Erin Andrews Peephole Video" (covers most of the stuff I reported above, i.e., CBS News and the New York Post).

Noted: These last couple of links are via WeSmirch, where I first learned of the story last Sunday.

Plus, I just found this from Tom Archdeacon, at the Dayton Daily News, "The Assault of Erin Andrews." (The guy goes off on a long tangent that REALLY avoids a lot of the darkness; it's a tough story to write about, no doubt.) More from Sporting News, "NY Post Tops Its Indecency with a Side of Stupidity in Erin Andrews Coverage." (These guys are mad ... won't link, so readers will just plug NY Post + Erin Andrews into Google or Yahoo.com; two cheers on the moral clarity, though.)

**********

UPDATE III: Neil Best at Newsday thinks the Erin Andrews peephole controversy has peaked. See, "Media, Blogs React Strangely to Erin Andrews Saga." He offers some inside perspective on Andrews' life in sports media:

Andrews was the reigning queen of that realm and a good sport about playing along with the obsession over her as the very attractive girl next door.

Still, she knew the fine line she was walking, and told me at Citi Field earlier this year of her concern over some of the darker corners of her fan base.

When one of them emerged from the shadows, it wasn't so much fun anymore for bloggers, and we reacted as if a friend had been violated.

You don't often see that in the snark-infested waters of the Internet.

Is it a stretch to draw a direct line from a lone criminal with a camera to the newspaper and Internet writers who hopped on the Erin bandwagon?

Of course. No sane human approves of what happened, and none of us is directly complicit in the act. But the peculiar culture that grew around her - remember, she is a reporter, not an actress or rock star or model - surely contributed to the ongoing fascination with the video.

Where do we go from here? ...

Check Best's link to see where he thinks we're going. After that, check out this reallly tough essay by Erin Nicks at the Universal Cynic, "Erin on Erin: Through the Sports Media Peephole":

While I reiterate that this never should have happened, I sincerely hope it causes Erin to reconsider certain things about life in the business. Yes, she's a very attractive woman. We all know that, and unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), nothing can be done about it. However, Erin has previously been under scrutiny for wardrobe choices and flirtatious behaviour in the past. These decisions will likely exacerbate any kind of objectionable treatment she receives. Am I saying she's to blame? No. This isn't a, "girl dresses a certain way, she's getting what's coming to her" rant. The fact of the matter is, that while not all men are capable of doing dangerous/criminal things, most are more than capable of objectifying women to some degree -- be it publicly or privately. The spotlight is on her in such a male-dominated business, and her appearance adds to that. Anything -- and I mean ANYTHING that can be perceived as questionable (a hand on a player's shoulder or a dress cut to mid-thigh) can and will lead down a slippery slope.

That's the most cutting section, of which I don't really agree, from the standpoint of an observer who's been blogging this story for three days. I'm not a sports insider though, and I'm a guy. So, check out the recommendations there for where Erin Andrews should go ...

By the way, I found that piece at Michael Rand's compilation, "Rounding Up and Reacting to the Erin Andrews Reactions." I've pretty much covered all of that stuff already. But Rand adds some commentary of his own.

Okay, here's more: At Canada's National Post, Bruce Arthur pretty much eviscerates not just the voyeuristic culture that incubated the Andrews peephole crime, but the participants in the event as well, no matter how distant or detached. It's scathing, "Andrews Video Nothing Short of Appalling":

In the United States, however, Erin Andrews is famous. She is beautiful, and a consummate professional. She has been promoted by ESPN, and has especially been the object of fascination in the blogosphere. There have been photos of her eating a hot dog, or photos of her posterior in tight pants. There has been leering, right from the start.

And sometime in the last year or so, that leering went several steps further when somebody drilled through a wall and filmed at least one peephole video of Andrews as she walked around a hotel room, naked. The video apparently hit the Internet a few months ago, and was sitting around generally unnoticed. This weekend deadspin.com, the most popular sports blog on the Internet, linked to a pornographic site hosting the video. And the whole thing exploded.

To be clear, I haven't seen the video, since I prefer not to be an after-the-fact accessory to this particular crime. But the frenzy has been so widespread that at one point on Tuesday, the subject occupied six of the top 40 spots on Google Trends, which measures the popularity of search topics on the world's dominant search engine.

This despite widespread warnings that in the toxic laboratory of the Web, many purported Andrews videos have instead been designed to unleash computer viruses and malicious software. Many sites have also deleted the video due to legal warnings from ESPN, but now it's out there, and there is no dragging it back.

To be honest, it feels dirty just writing about this, because it only devotes more attention to a criminal invasion of privacy, and could send more people searching out the product of such an invasion. Please don't. This was, to be clear, the voyeuristic equivalent of rape.

The question, for the rest of us, is how we react. Some of us in the media, old and new, have been complicit. Deadspin, the most influential sports blog there is, linked to the video and only retracted when the pressure mounted.

But don't just blame the Internet. The New York Post, a bastion of tasteless journalism, published a still from the video on its front page, and a series of partially blurred or obscured stills on its website; both the CBS and FOX News morning shows did the same. We're all worse off, as an industry, for that.

So who, besides the slimebag on the other end of the video camera, is at fault here? What led to this? It's not a question that can be definitively answered. The blogs that trafficked in Erin Andrews traffic are, in some cases, engaged in self-examination; Will Leitch, the founding editor of Deadspin who left last year, wrote that while he didn't see a causal link between the leering coverage and the video, "If I ran into her on the street today ... I'm not sure I could look her in the eye. I'm not sure anybody could."

There's more, here.

And finally, here's Clay Travis at Fanhouse, "Erin Andrews Video Straddles Sports Culture's Sexual Fault Line":

I think virtually every person who has seen the video agrees that it crosses the line of propriety by a large stretch. But what hasn't been really talked about very much is why Erin Andrews represents more than just herself, she's a symbolic figure, a Rorschach test for modern sexual politics. Don't believe me? Dive into my mind. If you dare.

I'll begin by answering this question: Can a very attractive woman ever be so good at what she does for a living that her attractiveness is ignored by men? I think the answer is no. No matter how equal the sexes ever become. And I get why that totally sucks for professional women ...

Probably for the betterment of our society most women have no clue how sex-obsessed we men are in our ordinary lives. I know many women claim to understand, but they don't actually get it. It's like men claiming to understand the pain of giving birth. In theory, we get the concept, but we can't really grasp it. Men help hide this obsession because deep down we're all a little embarrassed by how much sex or the pursuit of sex motivates our actions. At least those of us who are smart enough to realize it. Marketers, television executives, movie producers, and others who make a living off society at large are not surprised by these obsessions. It's why every time I see one of those CSI-type shows, it involves a sex-crime gone awry. Often with a hot, young victim.

Remember back when Cinemax's soft core porn got you through high school? Well, now we live in a softcore porn universe. Everyone toes the line as best they can because sex moves products. Unless, God forbid, Janet Jackson's nipple gets revealed. And then, my God? What of the children?

We've drawn a weird line here that allows some companies in America to make money off sex while claiming that they aren't actually selling sex. Meet sports leagues. They support the troops. They would never sell sex. Except when they do.

Which ties right in with Andrews. Let's be clear, she's smart. She's good at what she does on the sideline; she's well-prepared, hard-working, professional, and always ready when the camera cuts to her. But, and this is the kicker, how many people in America could do Andrews' job for ESPN every bit as well as she does? I'll tell you, tens of thousands. Maybe even a million. Put plainly, Andrews wouldn't have her job if she looked like YouTube signing sensation Susan Boyle. No matter how good she was. She just wouldn't. Her looks open doors for her that no one else gets to walk through.

Now, once she's through that door she can demonstrate that she deserves the opportunity, that she's actually good at her craft. But it's her looks that open that door. And ESPN put her on television for one reason, because viewers, mostly male, are sexually attracted to her. Put it this way, if Andrews comes on the screen and the television is muted while I'm doing work, am I more likely to turn on the television to hear what she says than if it's an unattractive woman or Chris Berman?

Yes.

Does that make me stupid?

Maybe.

Does that make me like just about every other male watching television?

I think so.

And Google proves it. While we all may be wagging our heads and tut-tutting about the immorality of the video in question, Google search knows all of our private obsessions. And Google search confirms that come Monday morning, "Erin Andrews" and derivatives were the two most popular search terms in Google; the search graph looks like a bull market. Even by this afternoon as I write this, she was still sixth, seventh and eighth ...

Actually, there's more, here. And there's added bonus at the essay, "Sports Internet Scandals" (scroll down; it's a photo slideshow ... and who knew about all of this?!!).

Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and the Racial Cesspool at Harvard

Here's the ABC News report from yesterday, "Prominent Black Scholar Arrested After Racism Charge: Cops Say Gates Was 'Disorderly'; He Says 'This Is What Happens to Black Men in America'."

The New York Times is also on it, "Harvard Professor Jailed; Officer Is Accused of Bias."

It's a pretty big story when an eminent Harvard scholar is arrested for disorderly conduct during a case on breaking and entering in Cambridge, Massachusetts. But it must be a really big story if TMZ covers it, "Busted Harvard Prof Drops 'Yo Mama' Joke on Cop."

The leftists are all over this one as a big instance of "racism." But frankly, it looks like Gates thinks being black gives you a pass when a neighbor phones the police. Geez, they were doing the guy a favor!

Anyway, William Jacobson nails it, "No, It Wasn't Racial Profiling":

Harvard Scholar Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested for disorderly conduct. According to news reports, police responded to a call from a neighbor that someone was trying to break into Gates' house by forcing open the door. It turns out the person trying to break into Gates' house was Gates. So far, there is no story.

But when police asked Gates to identify himself, Gates refused and started screaming that police were engaging in racial profiling ... Gates' behavior resulted in the disorderly conduct charge, and he was released on his own recognisance ...

Racial profiling is a serious issue. Gates' accusations of racism and racial profiling not only are not serious, they are damaging to real victims.

Check William's post for the original police report.

Plus, from the Washington Post, "Gates Says He Is Outraged by Arrest at Cambridge Home."

Yeah, yeah. Aren't leftists always outraged in any constroversy involving a black man. Gotta be "racism."

My sense is that Professor Gates is too steeped in the radical race victimology he and his hard-left allies preach. From the TMZ story highlighted above:

According to the police report, 58-year old Gates got into it pretty good with Sgt. Crowley, and that's when ...

"As I began walking through the foyer toward the front door, I could hear Gates again demanding my name. I again told Gates that I would speak with him outside. His reply was "ya, I'll speak with your mama outside."

As you can imagine, the argument got more heated after that and Gates was taken into custody.

It's too bad, that. The cop sounds totally professional.

But Gates is being represented by black radical law professor Charles Ogletree; so my sense is that the whole incident - which could have been avoided with common sense on Gates' part - goes back to this bitter racial ideology.

For more on that, see FrontPage Magazine, "Harvard's Racial Cesspool." And ABC News, "Prominent Black Scholar Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Sees Charges Dropped: Cops: Incident Was Not 'Gates' Best Moment'."

Also, check Memeorandum.

Schwarzenegger, Legislature Announce Budget Accord: California to Drill Off Santa Barbara Coast!

From the Los Angeles Times, "Budget Accord Reached":

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders announced today that they have reached a deal to close California's $26.3-billion deficit and begin paying all of the state's bills again.

The agreement does not include any broad-based tax increases, they said, and relies largely on deep cuts in government services to wipe out the deficit.

Most of the details have yet to be released. But interviews with lawmakers and staff involved in the negotiations suggest that the plan would reshape government in California, significantly scaling back many services that have been offered to residents -- particularly the elderly and the poor -- for years.

In addition, tens of thousands of seniors and children would lose access to healthcare, local governments would sacrifice billions of dollars in state assistance this year and large numbers of state prisoners would have their sentences scaled back. Welfare checks would go to fewer residents, state workers would be forced to continue to take unpaid days off and new drilling for oil would be permitted off the Santa Barbara coast.

"There isn't a whole lot of good news in this budget," said Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento).

But the agreement does not "eliminate the safety net for California," said Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles).

Schwarzenegger emphasized the lack of new taxes in the package, and said he hopes the full Legislature will vote on it Thursday.

No new taxes? Okay, but where's the money coming from? Twenty-six billion is a lot of dough!

Check some of the other articles at the Times, "Some Proposals That Didn't Make the Cut," and, "Buyers Abound, But Calif. IOU Holders Not Eager to Sell."

Actually, not much there, and looking for information, it turns out that California will drill, baby, drill! From the San Francisco Chronicle, "State Leaders Have Tentative Plan to Fix Budget":

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders reached a tentative budget compromise Monday to plug a $26.3 billion deficit by making hefty cuts in education, health and welfare services, and taking billions of dollars from county governments.

The plan also includes allowing an off-shore oil drilling project near Santa Barbara and keeping most state parks open. Prison spending would be cut but inmates would not be released early ...

More at the link.

See also, Debra Saunders, "Offshore Oil Drilling Solves Problems."

That's awesome, but I need more information. Check the Fresno Bee, "Governor, Lawmakers Announce Budget Deal."

Also, the New York Times, "California Reaches Budget Deal, With Billions Cut." Oh, ouch! Now I see it! Lots of educational and social policy cuts coming down the pipeline. So, it won't be just environmentalists who're going to be pissed!

Added: Kenneth Davenport, "California Kicks the Can (Again)." And check Memeorandum.

Plus, right on cue, the leftists are hopping mad, and not just about landing in the residual tar from the 1969 S.B. oil spill: "The single most important thing that Schwarzenneger has done is keep the state from raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations."

Erin Andrews Nude Video Stirs Controversy: ABC News Spies Video for Investigative Value!

The Erin Andrews nude video controversy is covered at ABC News, "Nude Video of ESPN Reporter Stirs Controversy: Peeping Tom Video of ESPN's Erin Andrews Goes Viral in More Ways Than One":

Lawyers for sportscaster Erin Andrews have vowed to find and prosecute the peeping tom who surreptitiously videotaped the naked ESPN reporter through a hole in a hotel room wall and posted the video on the Internet.

Searches for the video, posted online to numerous sites including YouTube but seemingly taken down over the weekend, topped Google's list of most searched items this morning. Many of the searchers were looking for cached versions of the removed clip, but were instead exposed to viral malware programs  a common occurrence for widely searched Internet content.

Andrews, 31, a statuesque blonde who joined the network in 2004, has legions of fans around the sports blogosphere, contributing to the rapid and rabid interest in the video.

"While alone in the privacy of her hotel room, Erin Andrews was surreptitiously videotaped without her knowledge or consent. She was the victim of a crime and is taking action to protect herself and help ensure that others are not similarly violated in the future," her lawyer, Marshall B. Grossman said in a statement.

According to Grossman, the filmmaker remains unknown. A spokesman for ESPN would not confirm whether investigators have any leads regarding where the video was shot or who might be responsible.

"Although the perpetrator or perpetrators of this criminal act have not yet been identified, when they are identified she intends to bring both civil and criminal charges against them and against anyone who has published the material. We request respect of Erin's privacy at this time, while she and her representatives are working with the authorities," said Grossman.

The video purportedly shows Andrews changing clothes in an unknown hotel room, unaware that she is being filmed.

It is unclear if the video was shot through a specially-made hole in a wall or door, or through the hotel door's peephole.

A cached clip found by ABC News, but of unconfirmed authenticity, shows grainy images of a naked woman whom the camera seems to be following, indicating the camera may be hand held.

The piece was written by Russell Goldman for ABC.

He's not joking when he says that "Searches for the video ... topped Google's list of most searched items this morning." You can just check my FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed for the evidence! (Actually, Bing and Yahoo are sending me the bulk of the traffic.)

You can read the full story at the link.

But you've got to love it! Man, that's a tough journalistic assignment!

A cached clip found by ABC News, but of unconfirmed authenticity, shows grainy images of a naked woman whom the camera seems to be following, indicating the camera may be hand held.

You think?!!

We need experts! Assemble a crack CSI team! Top hypothesis? A cellphone? Nah, not exciting! Besides, criminal voyeurism is outrancière!

But wait!

TMZ is also on the case, on the cheap exploitation angle! See, "Erin Andrews Nude Video Peddled for Profit." OMG!! WHO KNEW?!! That's despicable! What's gotten into people nowadays? And TMZ adds, "It appears the video was shot from some sort of spy cam. It looks as if someone drilled a small hole in her hotel room from an adjoining room" [updated].

More here, but NSFW: "Erin Andrews Peephole Video Update: Who Was The Source?"

See also my earlier reports, "Voyeur Demand for Erin Andrews Story," and "Blog Traffic and the Erin Andrews Nude Video Controversy."

No word yet at WeSmirch (Don't know if Memeorandum will cover it). I'll have more as the investigation unfolds ...

**********

UPDATE: From Yahoo Sports, "Assault on Erin Andrews' Privacy Scary for All Female Journalists." And from USA Today, "How Private Are We in Hotel Rooms? Female Sportscaster Filmed Naked Through Hotel Door Peephole."

Also, an interesting comment board, "Do You Think Erin Andrews Peephole Video Will Affect Her Career? Positively? Negatively?"

Okay, here's A WOMAN COMMENTATOR who bashes Erin Andrews before defending her:

Personally, I think Erin Andrews, and women like her (for she's certainly not alone in the sideline bimbo parade) set back women in sports media about 100 years. It makes me sad for women like Mary Carillo, Linda Cohn, and Melissa Isaacsson, who I'm sure had a much tougher row to hoe and are far more interesting to me than Erin Andrews.

That meme really goes against the analysis I reported yesterday, that essentially, Andrews wears, for most jocks, TOO MUCH clothing (a good thing), and she is in fact totally professional about her job.

Also, the Erin Andrews story's got, er, legs, "Erin Andrews Peephole Video Has Staying Power on Google Hot Trends." (The search date for this piece is July 20, but the article indicates December 31, 1969; Andrews wasn't born yet, of course.)

Plus, Michael Rand, at the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, essentially blames sports-culture mania, and basically, Andrews' fans themselves:

To the vast majority of male sports fans on the Internet, the Andrews explosion is fairly harmless. She is an attractive woman working in sports who happened to come along at a time when that would be a big deal. Bloggers and commenters can make the requisite borderline statements concerning Andrews without creating a more serious obsession in their minds. That said, the collective weight of the Andrews explosion is almost certainly a factor in the awful thing that has happened.

And at Deadspin, one of the most important sources for early reporting on the story, "How $600 Worth of Equipment Put Perv In Erin Andrews' Hotel Room":

Earlier today, I sent a snippet of the video, still being passed around the internet like samizdat, to a helpful guy named Jon from Spy Tec Inc. in New York, a company that specializes in "the finest surveillance and detection equipment on the market today." He says the peeper was probably in an adjoining hotel room (not, as many people seem to think, on the other side of a peephole), having threaded a gooseneck or fiber-optic camera through a hole in the wall about a quarter-inch across. "I doubt the wall was concrete," says Jon, who asked me not to use his last name. "Any kind of sheetrock or plaster, you could use a penknife, if you have the time to do it."

Now, at Seattle Sportsnet, a balanced if somewhat behind-the-curve analysis (you'll see, if you RTWT):

It goes without saying that when you’re a good looking female in a high-profile line of work, people are going to want to see you naked. Call it an indictment on our society if you must, but it’s simply a fact of life. It’s why the paparazzi exist, after all.

Eventually, you had to figure that the gotta-see-you-naked hype would catch up to ESPN sideline reporter Erin Andrews. It’s just too bad that when it happened, it would end up being a really creepy crime.

Andrews is the bane of every sports fan’s existence. An unattainable goddess of sorts that can turn heads on a low-def, 20-inch Hitachi from across the room. Since the reality of the situation is that most of us will never, EVER hook up with a celebrity in any facet of our mere existence, we make up for our inabilities by scouring the internet for naked pictures or videos of such individuals.

**********

UPDATE II: The Erin Andrews story continues to take off ...

From Diane Pucin, at the Los Angeles Times, "Is it Possible to Let Erin Andrews Just Do Her ESPN Job?":

It seems wrong to even mention Erin Andrews' name in a context other than the quality of her work.

Andrews is a talented, hardworking ESPN reporter who is meticulous in her preparation, who understands sports and has a personality that makes both coaches and players feel comfortable talking to her. Heck, she even took a line drive off the chin in a baseball clubhouse and came right back to work, bruise and all.

But to some Andrews is a pretty face with an attractive body and is fair game to be cyber-ogled. Last summer a newspaper sports columnist, Mike Nadel, wrote a suggestive column taking Andrews to task for daring to wear summer clothes in the summer. USC player Rey Maualuga apologized to Andrews after he simulated a lewd dance with her on the field before this year's Rose Bowl while Andrews was unaware of his presence. Andrews kindly accepted the apology and moved on.

Over the weekend Andrews was big on the Internet again. Again, unknown to her, she was apparently videotaped while she was alone in her hotel room. The videotape purportedly showing Andrews undressed was posted and linked to on various websites until her lawyer said lawsuits would be filed against sites that continued showing the video. One of the websites that linked to the video and is well known for often posting items with sexual slants about female athletes and broadcasters, actually wrote a self-righteous message about the so-far unknown videotaper having crossed a line.

Nope, guys, that line had already been crossed. But now it's just a little scarier.

Very well said, and more at the link.

Also, excellent piece by Matthew Hines at eWeek, "Can Malware Help Erin Andrews?":

ESPN reporter Erin Andrews got screwed. Bigtime. Nude spy video on the Internet screwed.

But in an ironic twist, malware distribution may play an unexpected role in somewhat lessening the sting of the incident. At least a little.

To anyone who has followed her career as I have as a sports addict, and admittedly not always for her reporting talents alone, the breaking of the peephole video claiming to be Ms. Andrews unclothed, a contention that the ESPN sideline specialist has apparently confirmed, is striking for a number of reasons.

Andrews, the daughter of an Emmy-winning television news reporter, is gorgeous.

There's just no way around it. And like some other very attractive female sports reporters before her, including ESPN colleagues Colleen Dominguez and Sam Ryan, it's almost seemed at some points that she's almost had to work harder and conduct herself a lot more seriously than some of her less eye-catching peers, to downplay her looks a bit, just because... well, it's hard to miss on TV that she's beautiful. And that doesn't always lend credibility. Especially on ESPN.

Seems ridiculous right? But as much as being good looking can help get you onto TV, it can become a major issue if you're a woman covering something and your target audience is, even in this day of worldwide sports mania, still mostly made up of guys.

Especially if you're trying to be taken very seriously as a reporter whilst covering a lot of men's athletics, which undoubtedly she has all around.

There's a certain extra mile than any woman covering men's sports still needs to go to be widely accepted as nothing more than a pretty smile even in this era of near-ubiquitous women's appearances in sports reporting. (How many hotel rooms have I seen Linda Cohn in on a business trip? More than Stuart Scott? Maybe!)

And to anyone who has been watching, Andrews has clearly been running it; doggedly in fact, and for a few years now - covering everything from the NHL playoffs to the National Spelling Bee and almost everything in between.

Great piece (read the rest, here). Pretty much undercuts the woman who was bashing Andrews above as "setting back women in sports media 100 years." Being pretty meant she had to work harder! Imagine that ...

Update on Bowe Bergdahl: Allegations of Desertion

Michelle Malkin has a comprehensive analysis, "Questions about the Reported Abduction of Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl; Update: Reports of Desertion Mounting":

My prayers are with the family of Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl, the U.S. soldier seen on the Taliban abduction video released this weekend. The Jawa Report has the full clip.

All Americans should hope and pray for his release from jihadi custody.

There’s one question I have, though, about strange details initially reported on the case — details which have been deleted from later wire dispatches ...

Read the whole thing, here. Also, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters argues for a hard penalty if it's shown Bergdahl abandoned his unit:

I want to be clear. If, when the facts are in, we find out that through some convoluted chain of events, he really was captured by the Taliban, I’m with him. But, if he walked away from his post and his buddies in wartime, I don’t care how hard it sounds, as far as I’m concerned, the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills.

I wrote about Bergdahl previously, "Private Bowe Bergdahl in Taliban Captivity (VIDEO)."

More at Memeorandum.

Drivers and Cellphone Risks

From the New York Times, "Drivers and Legislators Dismiss Cellphone Risks":

On his 15th birthday, Christopher Hill got his first cellphone. For his 16th, he was given a used red Ford Ranger pickup, a source of pride he washed every week.

Mr. Hill, a diligent student with a reputation for helping neighbors, also took pride in his clean driving record. “Not a speeding ticket, not a fender bender, nothing,” he said.

Until last Sept. 3. Mr. Hill, then 20, left the parking lot of a Goodwill store where he had spotted a dresser he thought might interest a neighbor. He dialed her to pass along news of the find.

Mr. Hill was so engrossed in the call that he ran a red light and didn’t notice Linda Doyle’s small sport utility vehicle until the last second. He hit her going 45 miles per hour. She was pronounced dead shortly after.

Later, a policeman asked Mr. Hill what color the light had been. “I never saw it,” he answered.

Extensive research shows the dangers of distracted driving. Studies say that drivers using phones are four times as likely to cause a crash as other drivers, and the likelihood that they will crash is equal to that of someone with a .08 percent blood alcohol level, the point at which drivers are generally considered intoxicated. Research also shows that hands-free devices do not eliminate the risks, and may worsen them by suggesting that the behavior is safe.

A 2003 Harvard study estimated that cellphone distractions caused 2,600 traffic deaths every year, and 330,000 accidents that result in moderate or severe injuries.

Yet Americans have largely ignored that research. Instead, they increasingly use phones, navigation devices and even laptops to turn their cars into mobile offices, chat rooms and entertainment centers, making roads more dangerous.

A disconnect between perception and reality worsens the problem. New studies show that drivers overestimate their own ability to safely multitask, even as they worry about the dangers of others doing it.

Device makers and auto companies acknowledge the risks of multitasking behind the wheel, but they aggressively develop and market gadgets that cause distractions.

Police in almost half of all states make no attempt to gather data on the problem. They are not required to ask drivers who cause accidents whether they were distracted by a phone or other device. Even when officers do ask, some drivers are not forthcoming.

The federal government warns against talking on a cellphone while driving, but no state legislature has banned it. This year, state legislators introduced about 170 bills to address distracted driving, but passed fewer than 10.

Five states and the District of Columbia require drivers who talk on cellphones to use hands-free devices, but research shows that using headsets can be as dangerous as holding a phone because the conversation distracts drivers from focusing on the road.

Fourteen states have passed measures to ban texting while driving, and the New York State Assembly sent such a bill to the governor on Friday.

The states that rejected any efforts to limit distracted driving this year include Oklahoma.

“I’m on the phone from when I leave the Capitol to when I get home, and that’s a two-hour drive,” said Tad Jones, the majority floor leader in the Oklahoma House, who helped block the legislation. “A lot of people who travel are used to using the phone.”

Scientists who study distracted driving say they understand the frustrations of colleagues who publicized the dangers of tobacco. Like cigarettes, they say, gadgets are considered cool but can be deadly. And the big device companies even offer warnings that remind them of labels on cigarette packs.

Verizon Wireless, for instance, posts instructions on its Web sites not to talk while driving — with or without a headset. But neither Verizon nor any other cellphone company supports legislation that bans drivers from talking on the phone. And the wireless industry does not conduct research on the dangers, saying that is not its responsibility.

Some researchers say that sufficient evidence exists to justify laws outlawing cellphone use for drivers — and they suggest using technology to enforce them by disabling a driver’s phone. “Just outlawing the behavior cannot possibly go very far toward getting people not to do it,” said Robert D. Foss, senior research scientist at the Highway Safety Research Center at the University of North Carolina. “The behavior is too ingrained and compelling.”

For his part, Mr. Hill rarely talks when he drives now. His mother gave him a hands-free headset two months after the accident. She thought it would create less distraction. He tried it once, and found his mind wandering into his phone call so much that “I nearly missed a light,” he said.

He pleaded guilty to negligent homicide, a misdemeanor, for the death of Ms. Doyle. Now, when he is a passenger in a car, it makes him nervous when the driver starts talking on the phone. But Mr. Hill, who is polite and deferential, said he doesn’t want to badger drivers about the risks.

“I hope they don’t have to go through what I did to realize it’s a problem,” he added.

There's more at the link.

This is really interesting. Both citizens and lawmakers are turning a blind eye to the extreme dangers of new wireless technology. How many of us continue to drive everyday when we know, by common sense and empirical reality, that cellphone use behind the wheel is deadly.

We've had a lot of weighty moral issues discussed at this blog the last couple of days. I suspect "driving to distraction"might get less of a hearing at the comment boards.

Leftists Respond to Collapse of Obamacare

From Steve Benen, on Senator Mitch McConnell speaking on Obamacare on yesterday's Meet the Press:

... McConnell continues to think the system is, at its core, fine. A few tax cuts here, a few tax cuts there, throw in some restrictions on lawsuits, and voila, problem solved. There's no need for major change, when some tinkering will get the job done.

Also, at Fox News, "Deficits, Taxes and Time Appear to Doom Health Care Reforms."

In response to that piece, Down With Tyranny quotes Digby:

The right are radical authoritarian Nazi types and the left are radical progressives who want to change the system in favor of the hoi polloi. These so-called centrists are actually conservatives who maintain the status quo -- which always works in favor of the moneyed interests.

The only time we even get a chance to move forward is when these people fuck things up so badly that there is simply no choice but to change something and then it's usually a battle between us and the Nazis for who gets a turn at the table.

It's no way to run a country.

Hmm ... I wonder how Digby responds to this: "Poll Shows Obama Slipping on Key Issues: Approval Rating on Health Care Falls Below 50 Percent."

Also, from William Kristol, "Kristol: Kill It, and Start Over." (Via Memorandum).

Also Blogging: Below The Beltway, Betsy's Page, Don Surber, Gateway Pundit, Hot Air, JammieWearingFool, Macsmind, Michelle Malkin, Pajamas Media, Pundit & Pundette, QandO, Right Pundits, Say Anything, Stop The ACLU, and Wizbang.

Blog Traffic and the Erin Andrews Nude Video Controversy

Monday morning Internet surfers are burning up the pipelines trying to get a glimpse of the Erin Andrews nude video. Bing and Yahoo are currently sending me loads of traffic. Alta Vista and Dogpile are also sending the occasional visitor. There's no "Google-bomb," however, as I mentioned last night at my post, "Voyeur Demand for Erin Andrews Story." Google has altered the algorithm to limit Internet searches for the video.

But for a clue as to what's driving the traffic, check the comments at "SBR Forum":

Totally awesome! Whoever shot this video is a HERO! Andrews' lawyer issued a statement yesterday CONFIRMING IT IS HER! I bet you he's the one who shot it.

Whoever did shoot this has some no-nonsense skills, he obviously knows how to get in, position himself WELL, get the shot, and escape like a pro, completely undetected. They'll never catch him, he's obviously 5 steps ahead of them. Next up, he should get the entire female wing of the Palin family.

Nickel - I believe that the privacy of ugly women should be sacred, and indeed, it still is. This video does cross the line - INTO PURE AWESOMENESS AND VICTORY BABY! Score one for the home team on this one baby!

Now, recall the original reason for the initial post post was to test Robert Stacy McCain's Hot Babes Google Bomb theory. Well it turns out that Stacy's reached a new milestone, "TWO MILLION VISITORS!" And as he notes at the post:

We must therefore begin by thanking Carrie Prejean nude ...

Read the whole thing for context.

There are clear differences between the Erin Andrews and Carrie Prejean stories (Erin Andrews was stalked and violated; Carrie Prejean gave consent). But as far as Internet traffic goes, for the raging testosterone driven sports-jock, both episodes were "victories for the home team"!

On that point, don't miss, "Erin Andrews Peephole Video: The Allure of a Female Sportscaster."

Also, a word of warning, from USA Today, "Erin Andrews Hotel Tape Being Used to Spread Computer Virus."

See also Memeorandum. For my response to critics, see the original post, "Nude Video of Erin Andrews!"

Voyeur Demand for Erin Andrews Story

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Legal Assault on Israel

A couple articles on Iraeli politics.

Interesting read, @The New York Times, "Netanyahu’s Talk of Peace Finds Few True Believers":

Mr. Netanyahu has been explicit ... about his conditions for a deal. He says the Palestinians must recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. Palestinian negotiators reject such recognition, contending it would preclude the demand of the Palestinian refugees of 1948 and their descendants for the right of return to their former homes, and be detrimental to the status of Israel’s Arab minority.

Mr. Netanyahu adds that the problem of the refugees has to be resolved outside the borders of Israel and that Israel will only accept defensible borders, and he wants international guarantees that any Palestinian state will be fully demilitarized.

But check out the Jerusalem Post, "The Legal Assault on Israel is Gathering Speed":

Although talk of peace, "two states for two peoples" and the "Arab League initiative" fill the lofty speeches of American and European leaders, the political war to delegitimize Israel is accelerating.

Officials of the Arab League and the Palestinian Authority, working with powerful groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Oxfam, exploit the rhetoric of international law to brand Israeli defense against terror as "war crimes" and "collective punishment." As a result, talk of peace process continues to be a façade, demonstrating that the core ideology and objectives - the elimination of Jewish sovereignty and statehood - remain unchanged since 1947.

The Gaza war that took place six months ago, like the 2006 Second Lebanon War, provided major platforms for accelerating political warfare against Israel. Erasing the context of Hamas rocket attacks, this coalition uses international frameworks to pursue a campaign of delegitimization. The UN Human Rights Council's Goldstone Commission, with a mandate that found Israel guilty before any "evidence" was gathered, is one example, and there are many more.

These objectives unite the "moderates" and "radicals" who, on other issues, are bitter enemies. In theory, the PA, dominated by Yasser Arafat's old Fatah organization, is supposed to be the moderate wing and Israel's peace partner, while Hamas, which controls Gaza, is the militant Islamic terror group. But in campaigns to label Israel as an "apartheid state," Mahmoud Abbas' PA and Amr Mousa's Arab League are on the front lines.

Related: The Astute Bloggers, "Obama Meddling in Israeli Affairs Again - ******* UPDATED: Bibi Tells Barry to Eff Off!" (Via Memeorandum.)

Rallypalooza! West Chester, Pennsylvania

From Skye at Midnight Blue, "West Chester Rallypalooza!":

See also, Kenneth G. Davenport, "Call Congress! Your voice matters! The Time to Act is NOW!."

Also, PoliGazette, "Anti-Obamacare Protesters Take the Streets, Democrats Panic."

Related: From Jennifer Rubin at Pajamas Media, "Code Blue! Health Care Reform May Be Dying." And, Noah Johns, "True Role of Government."

Private Bowe Bergdahl in Taliban Captivity (VIDEO)

From Jawa Report, "Video: Pvt. Bowe Bergdahl Full Hostage Video":

Here is the entire video showing Private Bowe Berdahl in Taliban captivity. The Taliban have threatened to murder him if the U.S. does not leave Afghanistan ....

This video reminds me why I began to blog in the first place. I want these Taliban dead. Killed. Annihilated.

Read the whole thing, here.

And thanks Rusty!

See also, Flopping Aces, "Taliban Releases Propaganda Video of Captured U.S. Soldier." And Fox News, "Soldier Held in Afghanistan Identified as 23-Year-Old Idahoan."

Conservatives, Libertarians, and Republicans

From Bruce McQuain's thoughtful response to Melissa Clouthier (via Memeorandum):

The reason the GOP sucked so badly in the last election has absolutely nothing to do with Bob Barr and/or libertarians. It had to do with how poorly your party governed. Like most libertarians I haven’t voted for a Republican since Reagan. And frankly what happened to the size of government under Reagan is one reason why. Bush compounded the problem (Medicare Part D? “No Child Left Behind”?) and the eternally squishy McCain promised more of the same.

Melissa's original post is here, "How Can You Claim Moral Superiority Voting For Bob Barr?–UPDATED."

I'm trying to go easy on the debates with those on the right, LOL! (Speaking of which, how does a libertarian react to this?)

But really, how far does one have to go to the right to wind up with hardline right-wing extremists, or even on the other side?

Bob Barr is a former top member of the Republican Party, and last year he unequivocally denounced any ties between libertarians and extremists, particularly the racist Stormfront organization. (See, "Bob Barr to Stormfront: Drop Dead.") Barr also distanced himself from the 9/11 truthers. Yet, it turns out Barr has collaborated with the ACLU, a communist-inspired, Jihad-defending, open-borders organization. (See, "ACLU Announces Collaboration With Rep. Bob Barr; Says Conservative Congressman Will Consult on Privacy Issues.")

See Glenn Beck's intervew with Barr, here. And also, "Bob Barr, Born-Again Libertarian, Backsliding on Mass Immigration." More at Memeorandum.