Beer Summit Won't Lead to National Conversation on Race

Allahpundit's got an open-thread, "White House Kegstand Solves Nation’s Racial Problems." But check also, The Politico, " 'Beer Summit' Letdown":

President Barack Obama’s highly anticipated “beer summit” with Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge police Sgt. Jim Crowley was reduced Thursday for viewers at home to two minutes of shaky, silent video of the men gathered around a table in the Rose Garden.

Obama followed through on his promise to bring to the men together at the White House – and suggested he saw seeds of progress for the future.

“Even before we sat down for the beer, I learned that the two gentlemen spent some time together listening to one another, which is a testament to them,” Obama said in a statement after the meeting. “I have always believed that what brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart. I am confident that has happened here tonight, and I am hopeful that all of us are able to draw this positive lesson from this episode.”

After the event, Crowley characterized the discussion as “two gentlemen who agreed to disagree on a particular issue. We didn’t spend too much time dwelling on the past. We spent a lot of time discussing the future.”

Crowley also said he and Gates had agreed to meet again – but not for a beer the next time, “maybe an Kool-Aid or an iced tea,” he joked. He also said he first talked to Gates earlier in the day when their two families were taking separate tours of the White House and ran into each other, then finished the tour together.

He called the day “an effort not just to move the city of Cambridge or two individuals past this event, but the whole country beyond this and toward some meaningful discussion in the future.”

Still, the portion of the event aired on TV had an anti-climatic feel, and in many ways was exactly what Obama had said it would be earlier – the men sitting around having a drink. One surprise was the addition of Vice President Joe Biden.

Analysts of race relations said the benefits of the White House encounter were murky, at best.

Jake Tapper adds some details on tap:

The President and Vice President spent much of the time we were out there snacking on the peanuts and pretzels on the table. In frosty mugs, the four men had their beers of choice. For the president it was Bud Light, a beer company once headquartered in swing state Missouri now owned by a Belgian conglomerate.)Vice President Biden, who doesn’t drink alcoholic beverages, had a non-alcoholic Buckler, brewed by Dutch Heineken. Crowley had a Blue Moon Ale, brewed by Toronto, Canada’s Molson Coors Brewing Company. Gates opted for a Sam Adams Light – the only truly American beer in the lot.

The CBS News report at the video is pretty skeptical that tonight's quaffing is going to lead to a lessening of racial tensions going forward. See also, "What a White House Beer Says About Race and Politics" (via Memeorandum).

I'm going to be reading up on this story throughout the night. I'm preparing an essay on the whole thing for Pamjamas Media, so I'll update if I find anything really juicy.

My previous collection of Pajamas articles is here. You know, I do actually write about things besides Erin Andrews!

Does Michael Vick Deserve a Second Chance?

Tammy Bruce tweeted this morning, "Dog Murderer Watch: Another NFL Team Says No to Michael Vick." I hadn't thought of it that way, actually. Tammy links to Fox News, "Another NFL Team Says No to Michael Vick":

Another team turned down the opportunity to sign reinstated NFL quarterback Michael Vick.

Washington Redskins coach Jim Zorn told the media his team wouldn't sign Vick "at this juncture."

Zorn says he wishes Vick the best and is sure the former Atlanta Falcons quarterback will return to the NFL.

The Redskins join a long list of teams — including the New York Giants, Jets and Dallas Cowboys — that have said they don't want Vick after he served 18 months in federal prison for running a dogfighting ring.

How does that sound to folks? Vick did two years in federal peniteniary. Doesn't the guy deserve a shot at returning to sports?

Rick Moran makes the case at Pajamas Media, "Does Michael Vick Deserve a Second Chance?":

Michael Vick is going to get a second chance. Like almost all the 408 other NFL players who have been arrested on felony charges since 2000, the league is granting him the opportunity to return to stardom — despite committing crimes relating to gambling (Vick insists he never bet on the dog fights) that some believe should have disqualified him from ever lacing up a pair of spikes again. At one time, prosecutors were discussing the possibility of bringing charges under the organized crime statute known as RICO — a turn of events that would have meant the end of his career since he would have been sentenced to at least 25 years. In that way, Vick dodged a bullet, as he did when several similar state charges against him were plea bargained down to three years probation.

None of us are granted the insight to look into a man’s soul and discover if he truly is remorseful and willing to change his ways. All we can do is judge someone based on our ability to interpret a person’s attitude toward their transgression and how they carry themselves from that point on.

Michael Vick appears to have made many of the right moves. He has paid his debt to society and given more than a million dollars to fund the care and rehabilitation of some of the dogs he so barbarically used. He has even agreed to Commissioner Roger Goodell’s suggestion that former Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy “mentor” the 29-year-old man to make sure he makes the right “decisions.”

But despite our longing to welcome back tarnished heroes with open arms, Vick’s crimes may be a bridge too far for the very image-conscious NFL. Despite Goodell’s conditional reinstatement of Vick, there has been very little interest shown by the 29 NFL teams in signing him, with many completely ruling out the possibility. It seems that there are indeed some things that are unforgivable — or, at least in the NFL, unmarketable.

That's insightful. I didn't know Rick was such a sports aficionado.

My sense is that Vick's talents are what will make or break a comeback. A team needing at elite QB may not be too worried about image-consciousness. As long as the league's going to let Vick play, he should at least get a chance to compete for both attention and success.

See also, Bleacher Report, "ENOUGH! Michael Vick Is Not This Interesting."

Rough Week for Senate Candidate Stormy Daniels

From Tampa's WFTS ABC Action News, "Porn star Stormy Daniels' Possible Senate Bid Hits Turbulence."

It has not been a good couple of weeks for Tampa porn queen Stormy Daniels, who recently made news by announcing that she may run for the U.S. Senate. Daniels found herself slapped with a domestic violence charge, while her political adviser reported an apparent car bombing.

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, was arrested Saturday on a battery charge after she allegedly hit her husband during a fight over laundry and unpaid bills.

Two days earlier, her political adviser in Louisana, Brian Welsh, said his 1996 Audi may have been blown up outside his apartment in an upscale area of New Orleans.

"It's something out of The Sopranos," said Edward E. Chervenak, a professor of politics at the University of New Orleans. "Very weird."

In May, Daniels announced she was considering a run in 2010 for the U.S. Senate seat held by Louisana Republican David Vitter, whose family-values stance took a major hit in 2007 when his name was linked to a Washington prostitution ring.

Daniels was arrested Saturday afternoon after her husband, Michael Mosny, reported that Daniels struck him several times, according to a Tampa Police Department report.

Mosny told police that his wife was upset "about the way the clothes had been done" and then "got more upset about some bills that had not been paid," according to the report.

The report went on to say that Daniels "threw a potted plant at the kitchen sink," hit Mosny on the head several times and "threw their wedding album onto the floor and knocked candles off coffee table, breaking them."

Earlier in the week, her political adviser's car exploded in New Orleans while he and his wife were walking their dog nearby.

More at the link.

Talking Points Memo is reporting as well, via Memeorandum. But for a kick, check out DownWithTyranny!, "Whoremonger David Vitter Takes a Swing at George Voinovich. Geez, what's the matter with all the conservatives - folks are taking a lot of lumps!

You Too Can Ascend to an 'Unofficial Leadership Position Within the Blogosphere'

The quoted section is from Michael Massing, speaking of Glenn Greenwald, at the New York Review, "The News About the Internet. He talks about the bloggers he's found while researching the article, and he notes that the blogosphere's online commentators aggressively reject the newspaper industry's goal of objectivity. Here he discusses Greenwald:

The bloggers I have been reading reject such reflexive attempts at "balance," and it's their willingness to dispense with such conventions that makes the blogosphere a lively and bracing place. This is nowhere more apparent than in the work of Glenn Greenwald. A lawyer and former litigator, Greenwald is a relative newcomer to blogging, having begun only in December 2005, but as Eric Boehlert notes in his well-researched but somewhat breathless Bloggers on the Bus, within six months of his debut he "had ascended to an unofficial leadership position within the blogosphere." In contrast to the short, punchy posts favored by most bloggers, Greenwald offers a single daily essay of two thousand to three thousand words. In each, he draws on extensive research, amasses a daunting array of facts, and, as Boehlert puts it, builds his case "much like an attorney does."

Greenwald initially made his mark with fierce attacks on the Bush administration's policy of warrantless surveillance, and he continues to comment on the subject with great fury. Other recent targets have included Goldman Sachs (for its influence in the Obama administration), Jeffrey Rosen (for his dismissive New Republic piece on Sonia Sotomayor), Jeffrey Goldberg (for his attacks on the Times 's Roger Cohen), the Washington Post Op-Ed page (for the many neoconservatives in residence), and the national press in general (for its insistence on using euphemisms for the word "torture"). In June he wrote:

The steadfast, ongoing refusal of our leading media institutions to refer to what the Bush administration did as "torture"—even in the face of more than 100 detainee deaths; the use of that term by a leading Bush official to describe what was done at Guantánamo; and the fact that media outlets frequently use the word "torture" to describe the exact same methods when used by other countries—reveals much about how the modern journalist thinks.

For the press, Greenwald added, "there are two sides and only two sides to every 'debate'—the Beltway Democratic establishment and the Beltway Republican establishment."

In so vigilantly watching over the press, Greenwald has performed an invaluable service. But his posts have a downside. Absorbing the full force of his arguments and dutifully following his corroborating links, I felt myself drawn into an ideological wind tunnel, with the relentless gusts of opinion and analysis gradually wearing me down. After reading his harsh denunciations of Obama's decision not to release the latest batch of torture photos, I began to lose sight of the persuasive arguments that other commentators have made in support of the President's position. As well-argued and provocative as I found many of Greenwald's postings, they often seem oblivious to the practical considerations policymakers must contend with.

That's interesting.

And keep in mind, except a brief mention of Drudge Report, Massing does not discuss the many conservative bloggers who have broken huge stories ahead of the press. Recall that Power Line and a number of top conservative blogs provided most of the reporting that led to Dan Rather's resignation as anchor at CBS evening news.

But Massing has a point about the "wind-tunneling," although I think it's better to have it than not. The mainstream press is not going to cover the tough stories with the same no-holds-barred aggressiveness. It's up to readers to sift through the baloney and make up their own minds.

Greenwald responds to Massing here, "Practicalities v. Principles: The Prime Beltway Affliction" (via Memeorandum). Greenwald's a nasty guy, and he's reviled by many across the web (see, "Greenwald’s Sock Puppets: The Worst Blog Scandal Ever?"). But he's feted by Eric Boehlert as an unofficial leader of the blogosphere. I guess good content matters, even if it's leftist partisan hackery. Folks might keep that in mind when reading about threats of excommunication from the blogosphere (as was the case in the recent flame up around these parts).

Obama's Public Approval Crashing!

Okay, here's an awesome update to the Wall Street Journal's report, "Support Slips for Health Plan."

Now, check this out from Pew Research, "Obama's Ratings Slide Across the Board: The Economy, Health Care Reform and Gates Grease the Skids":

Barack Obama’s approval ratings have suffered major declines. The president’s overall job approval number fell from 61% in mid-June to 54% currently. His approval ratings for handling the economy and the federal budget deficit have also fallen sharply, tumbling to 38% and 32%, respectively. Majorities now say they disapprove of the way the president is handling these two issues. The new poll also finds significant declines over the last few months in the percentage of Americans giving Obama high marks for dealing with health care, foreign policy and tax policy.

Three factors have likely contributed to more negative views of Obama. First, criticisms of the government’s economic policies are mounting. For the first time since Obama took office, as many say the government is on the wrong track (48%) as on the right track (46%) in handling the nation’s economic problems. In May, 53% said the government was on the right track on the economy, while 39% said it was on the wrong track.

Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted July 22-26 among 1,506 adults reached on landlines and cell phones, finds that many of the health care proposals being debated in Congress are sparking negative reactions, especially from those following the debate most closely. By a 44% to 38% margin, more Americans generally oppose than favor the health care proposals now before Congress. Opposition rises to 56% among people who say they have heard a lot about legislation to overhaul the health care system. Concerns about the costs and increased government involvement in the health care system are volunteered most often by Americans critical of the health care proposals.

Thirdly, Obama’s comments on the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. appear to have played some role in his ratings decline. News about the arrest of the prominent African American Harvard professor at his Cambridge home was widely followed by the public and 79% are aware of Obama’s comments on the incident. Analysis of the poll data found that the president’s approval ratings fell among non-Hispanic whites over the course of the interviewing period as the focus of the Gates story shifted from details about the incident to Obama’s remarks about the incident. Interviews Wednesday and Thursday of last week found 53% of whites approving of Obama’s job performance. This slipped to 46% among whites interviewed Friday through Sunday as the Gates story played out across the nation.

Read the whole thing, here. (Via Memeorandum.)

This is nothing short of devastating for the administration.

And of course, conservatives are fired-up, ready to plunge the sword to the grip.

Folks are planning a Nationwide Recess Rally to hammer the administration and defeat the left's big-government agenda.

Here's more from Nice Deb, "Join The Tea Party Express Tour." See also Pat in Shreveport, "Time for Obama to Back Up and Regroup."

And Media Matter's is mad! See, "Not About "Parties or Politics"? Fox News Promotes Anti-Dem "Tea Party Express."

Newsweek: 'The Feminist Roots of Polyamory'

From William Jacobson, "The Gay Marriage Slippery Slope Is Back "

At issue is Newsweek's, "Only You. And You. And You: Polyamory—Relationships With Multiple, Mutually Consenting Partners—Has a Coming-Out Party." Newsweek also features a special supplement, "The Feminist Roots of Polyamory":

Terisa and Scott have been together for 12 years, and live in a lakeside neighborhood of Seattle, where they share a vegetable garden and three dogs. For 10 years, Terisa has also been dating Larry, who on the side is dating Vera, who is married to Matt. Now Terisa is dating Matt, too. It’s like a real life Big Love, without the Mormonism: they’re “polyamorists”—a term used to describe people who believe in loving, consensual, multi-partner relationships. And while it’s easy to brush off anything with the word “poly” as some kind of frat-house fantasy gone wild, polyamory has a decidedly feminist bent.

The key to poly relationships is gender equality, and women have been central to the creation of the practice. The word "polyamory" itself was coined by two women, in the early ’90s, and the first five books on the topic were all female-authored. Over the past year, writers like Jenny Block and Tristan Taormino, the sex columnist, have written on the topic, while celebrities Tilda Swinton (who called herself a “freak” in an interview with Double X) and Carla Bruni, the first lady of France, have spoken out in favor of open relationships. “Multiple-partner relationships have always gone on, but they have rarely had the gender equity characteristic of poly relationships,” says sociologist Elisabeth Sheff, one of the few researchers to study polyamory.

I'm struck by how casually acceptable this all sounds.

As much as I've blogged on gay marriage, it's astonishing to read how the culture is developing on the radical left.

For a good response to all of this, see Gay Patriot, "Defend Marriage as an Institution to Avoid Slippery Slopes."

Dropping Public Support for Obamacare

From the Wall Street Journal, "Support Slips for Health Plan: Obama Push Faces Growing Doubts in Poll; Overhaul Advances in House, Senate" (via Memeorandum):

Support for President Barack Obama's health-care effort has declined over the past five weeks, particularly among those who already have insurance, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found, amid prolonged debate over costs and quality of care.

In mid-June, respondents were evenly divided when asked whether they thought Mr. Obama's health plan was a good or bad idea. In the new poll, conducted July 24-27, 42% called it a bad idea while 36% said it was a good idea.

Among those with private insurance, the proportion calling the plan a bad idea rose to 47% from 37%.

Declining popularity of the health-care overhaul reflects rising anxiety over the federal budget deficit and congressional debate over the most contentious aspects of the legislation, including how to pay for it. The poll also shows concern over the role of government in determining personal medical decisions.

See also, the New York Times, "New Poll Finds Growing Unease on Health Plan." (Via Memeorandum.) And Gallup, "Benefits of Healthcare Reform a Tough Sell for Americans:
Americans Least Confident That Reform Will Benefit Them Personally."

Plus, David Freddoso, "What Will Happen to My Individual Health Coverage?"

The Erin Andrews Flame War

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

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

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

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

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

**********

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

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

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

Here are Dan's posts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would appreciate your help in this matter.

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

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

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

Why are you doing this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have all the e-mails just in case.

So let me conclude:

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

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

What can we do next?

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

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

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

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

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

Justin Barrett's 'Jungle Monkey' Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

More at the link.

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

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

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

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

Revenge of the ‘Shoe Bomber’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the whole thing, here.

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

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

Erin Andrews and Sports Culture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the transcript:

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

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

Dispatcher: Do you want to meet with an officer?

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

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

Dispatcher: And what's your name?

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

Dispatcher: I'm not familiar.

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

Dispatcher: Really?

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

Dispatcher: I'm so sorry.

Andrews: I am, too. Thank you.

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

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

Dispatcher: What's the tag number?

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

Dispatcher: Are they black, white or Hispanic?

Andrews: What?

Dispatcher: Are they black, white or Hispanic?

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

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

Dispatcher: Are you OK?

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

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

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

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

Andrews: OK.

Dispatcher: OK, thank you.

Andrews: Thanks.

Click here for my earlier comprehensive reporting on the scandal.

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

Ordinary Cowardice at Ordinary Gentlemen

It's getting really pathetic.

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

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

Stacy McCain:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michelle Malkin: Obama Is A 'Racial Opportunist'

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

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

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

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

Backlash Against Obama-is-Racist Meme

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

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

Examples here, here, and here.

And most notably, here:

The rest of Peter Dauo's post is here.

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

Melanie Phillips on Obama's Racist Attacks Against Police

From Melanie Phillips, "The Mask Slips":

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

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

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

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

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

But not surprising.

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

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

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

UCSB Makes Top-Ten in Latest Party-School List

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

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

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

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

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

**********

1. Penn State University, State College, Pa.

2. University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.

3. University of Mississippi, University, Miss.

4. University of Georgia, Athens, Ga.

5. Ohio University, Athens, Ohio

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

7. University of Texas, Austin, Texas

8. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.

9. Florida State University, Tallahassee, Fla.

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

11. University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo.

12. University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

13. Union College, Schenectady, N.Y.

14. Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind.

15. DePauw University, Greencastle, Ind.

16. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tenn.

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

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

19. Tulane University, New Orleans, La.

20. Arizona State University, Tempe, Ariz.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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