Breaking News on Andrews Peephole Case: N.Y. Post Leads With 'Erin's Perv Fury'; Media's 'Haunting' Story is 'Volcanic' on Google Trends!

ABC News has another big report on the Erin Andrews nude video scandal, "Looking for Clues in Erin Andrews Peeping Tom Video: What Hints Can Be Gleaned About Perverted Perpetrator's Identity from Web Clips?"

But check out the New York Post, "Angry Erin Andrews Wont' Rest Until Peep Perve is Jailed":

Beautiful ESPN reporter Erin Andrews, who was secretly videotaped naked in her hotel room by a peephole pervert, is horrified and furious over the twisted act, her lawyer said yesterday.

"We are focused on putting this predator behind bars," her lawyer, Marshall B. Grossman, said yesterday. "This conduct is unacceptable in a civilized society" ...

Andrews, last seen on air Sunday during the network's annual ESPY Awards, will not resume broadcasting until college football kicks off in September, ESPN officials said.

Andrews, 31 - dubbed "America's sexiest sportscaster" - was caught on tape in her hotel room with a camera that may have been handheld.

The video and screen grabs surfaced on the Web under the title "Hot naked blond who looks a lot like a sports-blogger favorite in her hotel room."

Actually, if you check the link, the Post's story is behind the curve on what's known at this point. One guy interviewed there suggests the hotel security should have had "a camera on every floor to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen?" Of course, most reports now say that Andrews was videotaped by a miniature hook-neck camera through a hole carved in the hotel wall (see TMZ, "Andrews Peeping Tom - ESPN Investigating"). The Post's story is going heavy on the Erin Andrews photo-slideshows, naturally.

Related, from MediaBistro, "Erin Andrews Peephole Scandal Continues to Make News." MediaBistro takes issue with the Post's reporting, and has a nifty PollDaddy survey:

Do you think the Post and others - like TMZ, Fox News and CBS - made the right decision in publishing or broadcasting photos or parts of the illicit video? Take our poll and leave your comments below.

Actually, again, really bad reporting: TMZ viewed the original peephole videos, but declined to purchase them, and has refused to publish nude images of Erin Andrews.

Also, From Associated Content, "Erin Andrews Peephole Pictures Included with Hotel Video?":

Erin Andrews peephole pictures and hotel videos have been on demand for about a week. The search for Erin Andrews peephole pictures is now as prominent as the Erin Andrews hotel video. But searching for Erin Andrews peephole pictures may be a bit less risky, and easier, than finding the Erin Andrews Peephole Pictures Included with Hotel Video? Erin Andrews hotel video. The hotel video is now almost impossible to find, and can shut down one's computer. But Erin Andrews peephole pictures are now the next stage of this Internetp henomenon.

More, Gawker continues to ridicule the press reporting. See, "Nekkid Erin Andrews Haunts Media's Soul." But the phenomenon is hardly resrtricted to the tabloids, as we can see in the video above from yesterday's Fox & Friends coverage. See, Associated Content, "Erin Andrews Video Peep Airs on Mainstream Media":

Erin Andrews' peep video has been hot on the Internet for days, but now the Erin Andrews video peep has hit the mainstream. ESPN obviously didn't want to report on the video, but other major news outlets aren't so shy now. Now the Erin Andrews

Erin Andrews Video Peep Airs on Mainstream Media video peep, and its pictures, have reached actual news organizations like the New York Post, FOX , and CBS. As such, Erin Andrews' video peep, and the evidence of it, isn't just limited to Internet porn sites anymore.

The first controversy came when the New York Post turned Erin Andrews' peep video into front page news - and even reprinted some of the peephole pictures. Of course, they put a black box over Andrews' private parts, but still reprinted the images from the video peep nonetheless.

Added: See also, Deadspin, "CBS Discusses "Serious Violation" Of Erin Andrews' Privacy By Airing Video In Which Her Privacy Is Violated."

Okay, how about more explanations focusing on the complicity/demand side of thing? From Jamie Samuelsen, at the Detroit Free Press, "Everyone, Even I, Share Blame in Erin Andrews Incident":

It’s a horrible story on every level and any attempts to analyze it or place the blame on anyone other than the voyeur diminishes the heinous nature of the crime. And it is a crime in no uncertain terms. The person who shot the video is pretty low on the decency food chain.

But the video is a big story. And certainly thousands of people went looking for it when it started to make its way around the Internet. And thousands more will write about it or read about it. A quick search of “Erin Andrews” on Twitter this morning elicits everything from tweets of sorrow and shame to silly sophomoric tweets offering to be her lawyer or fruitlessly searching out the video. Will Leitch wrote a great column on Deadspin about this exact thing. To paraphrase, he wrote that everyone finds this story despicable, yet we’re all, in away, guilty for getting it to this point. As a sportstalk radio host, I’ve talked many times about Erin Andrews. We had her on the show a couple of times and she was asked (although in my defense, not by me) who she was dating and if she ever considered posing for Playboy. Wholly inappropriate questions for 99% of the journalists out there, female or otherwise, but somehow questions that are expected to be asked of her.

Keep reading, here. I think Samuelson low-balls the search numbers: It's probably in the hundreds of thousands who have searched for Andrews nude online. Google has manipulated its algorithms to limit "Erin Andrews Nude" searches, but Bing.com hasn't done a thing, and Yahoo.com goes back and forth.

Added: According to David Whitley at FanHouse, approximately 4.9 billion people have searched for the Andrews video. See, "Everyone Deserves Blame for Erin Andrews Video Fiasco":

To the approximate 4.9 billion people who've spent the week clicking around the web looking for the video, may your hard drives go permanently soft.

Wait, I'm in that group.

I could say I was only doing research for this column, but the fact is I was more than willing to stop mentally undressing ESPN's sideline babe and watch the real thing.My guess is you were, too. If not, I commend you and hope things are going well at the monastery.

Plus, on the investigative angle, see, "Erin Andrews Peephole Video Likely Shot by Fellow ESPN Employee: Report":

She may have been burned by one of her own.

The shocking nude peephole video of ESPN reporter Erin Andrews was most likely shot by a fellow ESPN employee, Radaronline.com reports.

The video shows Andrews stark naked in her hotel room. Her lawyers insist the video was made without Andrews' knowledge, and she was "in the privacy of her hotel room," Radaronline.com reports.

The scandal erupted when the video was posted to the French Web site Dailymotion.com. Radar reports that the video was uploaded by a user named Goblazers who has been identified as a 49-year-old American male.

ESPN is infuriated, and has vowed to find the person who created the video.

Also, "Erin Andrews Peephole Video: Did an ESPN Co-Worker Make the Video?: ESPN Internal Investigation and Countless Others Track the Maker of the Erin Andrews Hotel Peephole Video."

And more, a controversy on the controversy? Check it out: "USA TODAY Columnist Raises Some Hackles With Erin Andrews Tweet:

The controversy over the videotaping of ESPN reporter Erin Andrews in her hotel room, has ricocheted around the internet in every form.

USA TODAY columnist Christine Brennan has gotten a strong reaction to her postings on her Twitter account with the tweets linked to Facebook.

Tweeted Brennan:

Women sports journalists need to be smart and not play to the frat house. There are tons of nuts out there.

Erin Andrews incident is bad, but to add perspective: there are 100s of women sports journalists who have never had this happen to them.

The Big Lead picked up Brennan's postings and the response has questioned Brennan's opinion ...

Andrews was asking for it? Read the rest of it at the link. And then check out the radical feminst blog, Feministing, "The Long History of Objectifying Erin Andrews."

Also, I'm sure this'll bolster the argument at Feministing, but check out Deadspin's, "The (Mobile) Internet Is For Porn":

Because no one reads the newspaper, and SportsCenter's anchors are too perky for this early in the morning, Deadspin combs the best of the broadsheets and the blogosphere to bring you everything you need to know to start your day.

At the post is a hot semi-nude pic of Marisa Miller, who was this year's Sports Illustrated bikini cover girl.

See also, The Blog Prof, "ESPN Hottie Erin Andrews to Sue Over Nude Peephole Video at Hotel."

Most of the main bloggers on both the left and right have avoided this story; and that's because it raises the most difficult and potentially irreconcilable cultural, gender and political issues we've faced this decade.

I'll have more, but here are the traffic trends for the Erin Andrews hot searches on Google trends from earlier this morning (the post's timestamp is 9:43am PST):

1. adam laroche
2. splice the mainbrace
3. erin andrews video p...
4. boris kodjoe
5. andrea mcnulty photo...
6. ben roethlisberger a...
7. poveglia
8. harvey mudd college
9. baja fresh
10. tour de france stage...
11. alex donnelley
12. tony bernazard
13. shun kaji fusion
14. chrysler cash for cl...
15. snogging
16. valerie jarrett
17. shun kaji fusion 5 p...
18. henry louis gates ar...
19. free market warrior
20. young mom dies after...

Here's the Andrews entry, for the same time, at the link page:

erin andrews video peep
Hotness: Volcanic

Related searches:
erin andrews, erin andrews video, erin andrews peephole pictures, erin andrews playboy, erin andrews youtube

Peak:
2 hours ago

Updates forthcoming ...

**********

UPDATE: I doubt the threat of malware infection stopped that many people for searching for the Andrews video. But see, The Week, "The Erin Andrews Video Peep Malware: How Hackers Helped Slow the Spread of Video That Violated the Privacy of the Sexy ESPN Reporter."

Don Chavez takes a look at Internet search trends (NSFW), "Erin Andrews, Paris Hilton, and Kim Kardashian Compared on Google Trends":

Well this scandal isn’t over yet, but the buzz surrounding Erin Andrews ... could definitely rival that of Kim Kardashian especially if Erin gives an exclusive interview to *ahem* Barbara Walters on ABC ...

As for Paris Hilton, all I can say is. “That’s Hot”. The sideline princess can’t touch the release of Paris Hilton’s sex tape just before her reality show “The Simple Life” hit the air on Fox.

This race is far from over, and my money is on the blond with brains.

I'm sure Feministing is not pleased ...

Also, from Neil Best at Newsday, "ESPN Bans New York Post Staffers from its Outlets."

And Michael Rand discusses the "inside job" theory, "The Erin Andrews Story Gets More Bizarre."

It would make sense, given TMZ’s assertion that four of the video clips were shot in one hotel, while two others were shot in a different hotel. That information, based on the site’s review of the video, would seem to put an end to any thought that this was a random act targeted simply at an attractive woman. If TMZ is correct, then the person who made the videos certainly knew it was Andrews.

That wouldn’t make this whole thing any better or worse — though it would perhaps change the story from being about some creepy person obsessed with Andrews to someone perhaps intent, from the inside, on damaging her professional reputation. And to anyone who thinks she was in on all this (and they are out there in greater number than you might suspect): such a thought is simply absurd. Andrews takes her job seriously, and while something like this might lengthen the shelf life of a D-list celebrity, it does nothing for someone’s professional reputation. Inside job or not, there’s no way Andrews knew about it.

Rand's TMZ reference is to, "Erin Andrews Peeping Tom - Inside Job?"

Plus, at Associated Content, "Erin Andrews Peephole Video: Did an ESPN Co-Worker Make the Video?":

The Erin Andrews peephole video mystery might lead back to ESPN, the attractive sportscaster's employer. Two gossip websites, TMZ and Radar Online have reported that the Erin Andrews peephole video, which is a combination of several videos at various locations, might have might have been the product of an ESPN co-worker of Andrews'. With the Erin Andrews peephole video story remaining the top searched item on the internet (according to Google Trends) and being covered by every major media outlet (from the New York Times to CNN), the story has taken on a life of its own. It seems that the hunt for the "perpetrator(s)" has become just one more chapter in a story that began as a novelty, a curiosity, and has since exploded into an a full-fledged physical and cybernet manhunt.

Also, a French news report post a photo of Ms. Andrews without black patches or blurring, that is, stark naked, "Le mur de la chambre d'hôtel avait un trou" (roughly, "through the hole in the bedroom wall ...").

**********

UPDATE II: Some commentary from Tina Sims, at the National Ledger, "Andrea McNulty Charges; Erin Andrews Nude Photos and Video Drag Down Sports."

Schwarzenegger Budget to Reshape the Golden State

From the Los Angeles Times:

Roads will be rougher, classrooms fuller and textbooks more tattered. The odds of encountering someone fresh out of prison will almost certainly be higher.

If the budget deal crafted by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and top legislative leaders is passed by the Legislature and survives the inevitable court challenges, California will undergo perhaps the biggest downscaling of government in its history.

The state will be reshaped, at least for the short term, into a domain that is more efficient by necessity, but also noticeably shabbier, less generous and possibly more dangerous.

Those who will notice the biggest changes will be students and the poor as class sizes increase and health and welfare benefits shrink. The pace of government-sponsored redevelopment will slow, and some state parks will close.

"These cuts are real, they're going to be felt, they're going to be seen," said state Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell.

Details remained vague Tuesday about precisely how the cuts would be made, but enough trickled out to allow a general overview.

More at the link. All the major pork constituencies are pissed.

See, "Opposition to State Budget Deal Mounts." And, "Cal State Approves 20% Fee Hike: Hundreds of Students Protest the Move, Which Comes on the Heels of a 10% Increase in May. And the Chancellor Warns of Mass Layoffs if the Faculty Rejects a Two-Day-a-Month Furlough."

Plus, the San Francisco Chronicle, "Inmate Release Plan Imperils State Budget Pace."

Related: Ace of Spades HQ, "Palin 1, Obama 0: California Budget Compromise Allows Drilling Off Santa Barbara Coast."

Video Hat Tip: MSNBC, "Schwarzenegger Wields Big Budget Knife: Governor Jokes About Signing Cars."

Tea Party Censorship

From Americans for Limited Government:

Sometimes it requires a focused, local eye to get the big picture.

In this telling scenario, the big picture has come into clear focus in the small town of Danville, Virginia, where the local Tea Party movement has become the scorn of the politics-as-usual liberal leadership—specifically freshman Representative Tom Perriello, a Democrat “representing” the 5th District of his state.

As chronicled extensively by the ALG News Bureau, the Tea Party movement is a nationwide, patriotic grassroots effort aiming to beat back the tide of liberal policies that seek to grow government and simultaneously squelch individual freedom. Nigel Coleman of Danville is one of those patriots spearheading the movement.

Eager to participate in the American right of public discourse, Mr. Coleman and other concerned Tea-Partiers attended a local town-hall forum on environmental issues hosted by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, and Representative Perriello. Rather than having their questions answered, Mr. Perriello ignored Mr. Coleman’s group and called upon big business owners, familiar faces, and those in “reserved seats”. Some of those questioned even admitted to having been contacted earlier and informed that they would be called upon to ask their so-called “real questions.”

Clearly upset at being ignored, the patriotic crew retrieved some signs from their cars and began to protest outside of the farcical town-hall meeting. Mr. Coleman and his group were immediacy confronted by law enforcement and ordered to leave the public meeting—to which they politely complied.

After leaving, the group met up at a nearby restaurant to discuss the situation and decide how they should proceed. As they soon noticed, an unmarked police car was spotted in the parking lot and an officer was recording and calling in Mr. Coleman’s and the others’ license plate numbers.

Shifting from merely upset to outright livid at what was intimidation tactics plain and simple, the Danville Tea Party issued a press release voicing their disgust. And they have a right to be disgusted.

Not only has Representative Perriello displayed his disdain for free speech and opposing voices, he has gone a step further and aggressively sought to punish it. It is a tried-and-true despotic practice that has no place in America.

More at the link.

This is the most egregious harrassment I've heard about.

Recall the Democratic reaction to last Friday's tea parties, which included Senator Claire McCaskill's staff calling the police. I reported on this for Pajamas Media. See, "ObamaCare and the Tea Party Effect."

See also my earlier post, "'Blame Bush Not Obama' (For Our Healthcare Crisis?)."

And, no wonder Democrats want to censor the tea parties. See Rasmussen Reports, "53% Now Oppose Congressional Health Care Reform" (via Memeorandum), and Gallup, "More Disapprove Than Approve of Obama on Healthcare."

Related: Red State, "Bad Care After Good: Obama Seeks to Trade the U.S.’s Health Care Problems for Britain’s Health Care Catastrophe." Plus, at National Review, "Doctor Kevorkian, Call Your Office."

Democrats' Health Care Reform Bill Flawed

From the Fresno Bee, "Current Health Care Reform Bills are Flawed":

The health care system in this nation is badly broken, and needs a major overhaul. But we fear the reform bills before Congress only offer costly substitutes to the current system without solving key problems.

Congress should pass health care reform, but only if it controls skyrocketing federal costs of health care.

Congressional leaders and President Barack Obama need to take heed of the assessment by Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf, who said the proposed reforms would not "reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount." Other critics -- some Democrats and some Republicans -- echo Elmendorf.

This is the best chance for fundamental reform of the nation's health care system, but the badly flawed bills whizzing through Congress will not meet the goals of the president to improve the system. They would be a major setback to the effort to fix the system.

Obama and Democratic leaders want a bill passed before the Aug. 7 summer recess. We understand the political reality and the White House's desire to pass this reform quickly. After all, the longer the debate lasts, the more time available for fat insurance and pharmaceutical companies and other wealthy special interests to buy expensive TV advertising to sway public opinion.

More at the link. See also, Reliapundit, "This is Obama's Recipe for America."

Plus, USA Today, "Health Care Reform: 'This Is Going to Happen'"(video interview with Nancy Pelosi). And at the New York Times, "In Health Care Fight, Defining Moment Nears for President." (Via Memeorandum.)

Related: Nice Deb, "Obama to Dem Congressmen: “You’re Going to Destroy My Presidency”!"

'Blame Bush Not Obama' (For Our Healthcare Crisis?)

This is Monday's message was posted yesterday at Representative Loretta Sanchez's Facebook wall:

Representative Loretta Sanchez (CA-47) thanks everyone who came out to the healthcare reform town hall I hosted in Anaheim yesterday. The forum was productive and as always, I learned a lot from my constituents!

'I understand why she doesn't want the government option.'

Here's the report on the town hall from Megan Barth, who organized last friday's tea party at Congresswoman Sanchez's office, "Blame Bush Not Obama" (For Our Healthcare Crisis?)":

Well, that is what I was led to believe, for this is the first thing that I saw when entering the Loretta Sanchez Health Care Town Hall forum this Monday afternoon. One of her volunteers was proudly wearing a t-shirt emblazened with "Blame Bush, not Obama" as he was passing out leaflets to each person that entered the room. The front of the leaflet advertised "Guaranteed Healthcare for ALL with HR 676," and "One Nation. One Heath Plan for All Americans." The back of the leaflet was an advertisement for the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA).

So, my first impression of this town hall forum? Outside of the blatantly obvious, I will, with civility, state, that Congresswoman Sanchez has left her Blue Dog Democrat stance and is now for "one health plan for all Americans"--regardless of the cost and consequences.

You never get a second chance to make a first impression, but I still sat through the 90 minutes of her talk. She admitted that she hasn't read the bill (she has a staff for that). She repeatedly (and I need to stress repeatedly) exclaimed that healthcare was very complicated--it is a very complicated issue, and she knows, "as we all know, that if this bill passes, that there are no guarantees that it will work." Congresswoman Sanchez proceeded to be perplexed by complexities, for if healthcare isn't complicated enough, the process by which a bill is created and voted on is complicated. "Very complicated." The bill goes from the House to this committee and to that committee, and then to the Rules Committee and to this chair to that place and so on and so forth. She doesn't sit on any of these committees, we were told, but, she repeated that this "process is complicated and difficult."

She then made an analogy to baseball. Which, for me, complicated things even more.

After she answered some questions that were hand written on 3x5 cards--which she had trouble reading because she forgot her glasses (which led me to wonder why she didn't choose vision insurance under her government plan and why I was only given a leaflet), she summarily stated that she has the same insurance that everyone will have when they are able to choose from the Government Exchange (which I think is some bureaucracy in Washington DC) and she hasn't been sick in 13 years and she likes her plan. Thank you for coming.

Meeting adjourned...............................................................................................

So, in a nutshell, it's complicated. 90 minutes of my time to find out that everything is just complicated.

Exiting the town hall, swimming in all of this complication and passing by "Blame Bush not Obama," I was left to wonder this: if everything in Government is so complicated now, why should people be forced to go to some "place" called a Government Exchange for this complicated healthcare issue? Does adding a complex problem to a government, complicated process really insure us of anything except for maybe, oh, i don't know...complications??? Maybe Barack Obama summarized it best for all of us the other day when he was quoted as saying this: "we must ensure that people have choices in dealing with difficult end of life issues, we have to look at hospices as a legitimate option." Hmmm. It looks like the government is already warming up to making our "choices" for us--not only in our life, but also in our death.

Clearly, it seems that all of us people, especially the elderly, are really making all of this just so......complicated.

Leftist have cheered Sanchez's defection from the centrist "Blue Dog" coalition. See the radical Firedoglake, "Loretta Sanchez: A Blue Dog Barks Back on the Public Option."

Also, The Politico, "Waxman, Blue Dogs Strike Deal on Costs," and The Hill, "Dems at Odds on How to Turn Tide on Health." Added: From Political Punch, "Facing Blue Dog Rebellion, House Energy and Commerce Committee Cancels Markup for 2nd Day in a Row."

See also Memeorandum.

Related: Grizzly Mama, "Letter to My Representatives."

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."