Technically she's not a criminal because she won't be prosecuted for her lies. But false allegations and perjury are crimes, whether prosecuted or not, and we certainly know she has a criminal background.

So what, on earth, could account for this sentiment?

Once discrepancies surfaced in the account of the accuser--who has still not been identified by the MSM, even though she's now been exposed as a liar--some news organizations did a good job of pursuing them....

By the way, Drudge and other Web sites are running the accuser's name and picture. I'm not sure how I feel about this, since she is now a certified liar who put three innocent men and their families through hell, but it still feels cheesy.

First of all, that first paragraph contains a flat-out lie, and Howie Kurtz is well aware of it. The MSM has identified the woman -- at least FoxNews has. Unless Kurtz really believes America's biggest cable news network is really just a "website," like Drudge.

He couldn't have missed the fact that FoxNews had broken the embargo-- that's who Drudge linked to, no?

So he's lying. Why? Well, because he wants to take comfort in the "consensus" of the MSM to continue treating a vicious liar and criminal as a "victim" protected by the media's general rules of anonymity regarding real rape victims. And noting that FoxNews had broken the embargo would require him to admit this isn't actually a consensus position at all -- at least not a unanimous one -- and thus would force him to actually address whether this position makes any sense -- something he'd like to avoid. It would also alert WaPo readers that, unlike the WaPo, there was at least one news organization providing them with relevant information about a criminal, rather than coddling her.

So why does it feel "cheesy" to him? Is it "cheesy" to reveal the name of any other criminal? And this is no mere scofflaw or shoplifter; by his own admission, she's a liar who put three boys through hell and consumed precious law enforcement and prosecutorial resources for more than a year.

And inflamed racial tensions -- for a lie. And made it more difficult for real rape victims to come forward in the future -- for a lie.

So why the coddling?

Well, there are really only one possible reason. Because the metanarrative deemed this woman -- proven vicious criminal liar -- a "victim" due to her sex and race and class, and no matter what her actual character or the actual facts of the case, she retains that status, in perpetuity, because she's not getting rich (at least until someone offers her a book deal!), she can't change her skin color, and only through expensive surgery can she (sort of) change her sex.

She will always be a "victim" and entitled to treatment as such, because she cannot commit any action that forfeits the criteria which grants her privileged victim status. No lie and no crime will change her class, race, or gender.

Once a victim, always a victim. Never a perpetrator, and never a villain.

Kurtz's own treatment of the woman as automatic victim -- by presumption that cannot be overcome even with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt -- in fact answers all his "why?" questions about the media's overall shabby performance in this case.

But he's too much of a coward and weaseler to simply confront the unavoidable. Well, the almost unavoidable -- he avoids it, as does the media generally.

I hope that last one gets plenty of coverage, even though it's been clear for some time that the case had fallen apart. As long as we're talking about how the Rutgers women were unfairly disparaged as "ho's," consider the nightmare that the three Duke lacrosse players have lived through.

But in all the coverage you read and see about the clearing of these young men, very little of it will be devoted to the media's role in ruining their lives. I didn't hear a single television analyst mention it yesterday, even though two of the players' lawyers took shots at the press.

It was an awful performance, no question about it. News organizations took one woman's shaky allegations and turned them into a national soap opera, pillorying the reputations of the players. Reade Seligmann, Colin Finnerty and David Evans were presumed innocent in a legal sense, but not in the court of media opinion.

...

The North Carolina AG spoke of "a tragic rush to accuse," and he just as easily could have been talking about journalists as Mike Nifong. Commentators have been chattering about whether Nifong will be disbarred, but no one gets to disbar the media.

What made this a case of aggravated media assault is that news outlets weren't content to focus on the three defendants. Attorney General Roy Cooper said there was a "rush to condemn a community and a state." Remember all the "trend" stories about "pampered" and "privileged" student athletes being "out of control"? Remember how the lacrosse players' homes were shown on TV? How the coach lost his job? How this case was depicted as being about the contrast between a white elite institution and a poor black community? All of that was built on what turned out to be lies.

Once discrepancies surfaced in the account of the accuser--who has still not been identified by the MSM, even though she's now been exposed as a liar--some news organizations did a good job of pursuing them. But just about everyone joined in the original frenzy over race and sports. And given the media's track record going back to Richard Jewell, I have zero confidence that this won't happen again.

Of course it will happen again, Howie. It will happen again for the precise same reason you cannot lower yourself to name the original villain in this story -- Crystal Gail Mangum. She is black, female, and poor, and therefore cannot be a villain in the media.

Stories will be written about Nifong, of course, who is safely white, male, and rich.

But Crystal Gail Mangum? She is untouchable. No matter what crimes she committed nor what hells she created for innocent stranger, she will never, can never, forfeit that which makes her above the usual rules of civil society. It wasn't her status as "rape victim" which gave her her privilege and license -- it was her sex, race, and class. And while it has been thoroughly proven she's not a victim of rape, it can't be disproven she's black, female, and poor.

I wonder how Kurtz will handle the coming release by the NC AG of the report on the "victim's" lies? Will he continue embargoing her name even as news breaks again as to precisely how and why she lied, and why Nifong was so eager to believe her (or at least pretend to)?

Question For Mr. Kurtz: I trust it wasn't "cheesy" to name the liars in previous stories -- which got great play in the media -- in which white "victims of crime" falsely accused blacks of committing heinous crimes they themselves were responsible for? True, their names were never embargoed due to rape-shield considerations, but then, neither was the media ever hesistant to publicize their names.

Why is that, I wonder?

Those cases became celebrated. So full of "teachable moments" about the (presumed) automatic assumption of black guilt by whites.

Why is this case not similarly useful as a teachable moment?

Kurtz knows, of course. But he won't say. He can't permit himself to say, and even if he were inclined to, the media culture in which he swims would not permit him to say, at least not without consequences.

So we have this bullshitty article about a poor media performance with Kurtz just scratching his head wondering, "Gee willickers, how on earth did this happen?"

He knows. And his pretense of ignorance is yet another lie. and the most important one of all.

Posted by: Ace at 11:18 AM | Comments (15)
Post contains 1374 words, total size 8 kb.

It was a problem with the BlogAds, as it turns out, which Allah and Pixy both told me.

I've deleted them for the moment.

But Not In The Comment Pages: Apparently they use a different template. I'm looking for that template now.

Okay... Now I got it, I think.

Posted by: Ace at 10:17 AM | Comments (25)
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

You will never guess the surprise twist!

The Muslim terrorist turns out to be you, for terrorizing Muslims.

In addition, you're a half-insane loser who got laid off from his job, probably due to sheer incompetence, and now a shut-in who spends all his time furtively looking out his windows for Muslim terrorists like an old crone looking for younger women she can tut-tut at for wearing make-up as if they were common whores.

Well, like they say, Hollywood is the land of make-believe.

PS: Please ignore the fact that the FBI and DHS have issued bulletins to LEOs to be on the look-out for possible terrorist action against schools.

Remember, if you keep your eyes open and notify the police, you're just as bad as that wackadoo in the movie!

Uncle Sam says:

KEEP YOUR EYES AVERTED

AND YOUR PIEHOLE SHUT!

Correction To The First Correction: Apparently this movie came out last year according to Allah. But see-dub writes to say it only came out last year at film festivals, which really don't count, and is actually coming out in theaters this coming May 4th.

Advantage: See-dub!

May 4th? Of course! It's a summer picture! The feel-good American-guilt psycho-racist stalker roller-coaster ride of the year!

Posted by: Ace at 09:47 AM | Comments (23)
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.

Eight dead as suicide bomber, apparently an MP's bodyguard, detonates himself inside Iraqi Parliament. He almost certainly had help on the inside, as the metal detectors that usually would have detected the bomb just happened to not be working.

Is this a big deal in strategic terms? I don't think so. No one's ever doubted Al Qaeda and/or sectarian terrorist insurgents could plant bombs and kill people. So it happened in the Green Zone; so it happened in the Parliament. Well, it happened because someone sympathized with the terrorists or was paid to help or had their family threatened. All stuff we know was happening, could happen, and will continue to happen.

Meanwhile, more importantly I think, there is greater evidence of Iran directly training (and probably running) terrorists in Iraq, and the US military is growing far less reluctant to say so flatly.

Posted by: Ace at 09:29 AM | Comments (21)
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

Nice monkey-related timewaster for a dull morning.

Skinbad made this for me.

I'm torn between helpless rage and helpless laughter.

Here's one I made for Ace.

Posted by: LauraW. at 05:32 AM | Comments (26)
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

forge rite links these abominations:

Got any more?

I mean, this is obvious... more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:09 AM | Comments (34)
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

Because, let's face it, I'm not going to be up until 11, earliest.

Posted by: Ace at 11:55 PM | Comments (18)
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm getting sick to death of always being right. Did I or did I not say that Simon Cowell, who will make money off the AI winner's album, would begin shifting his opinion on Sanjaya to claim he's "evolving" as an artist so that when he wins he can say "America has spoken, this is the best Idol"?

Sort of like how Andrew Sullivan spent a couple of months preparing a paper trail of disatisfaction with Bush so he could announce his break with him had been an "evolution" (and not, as it really was, something that happened immediately upon Bush's announcement of support for the FMA)?

Simon has to reposition himself and move from Sanjaya basher to Sanjanya skeptic to Sanjaya supporter so ultimately, on the night of the finale, he can declare himself full-fledge Sanjaya Super Fan.

FACT: Since Sanjaya fever swept the nation, Sanjaya has not been in the bottom three in any night of polling.

FACT: Sanjaya is a mammal.

FACT: The point of Sanjay is to flip out and butcher songs and be awesome, and by awesome, I mean totally sweet.

The grim parade goes on.

Judges said he was "really good." Even Simon says he "wasn't awful," and that he was the "smartest contestant" who'd been on the show. (Growing facial hair was, indeed, a smart move, just to demonstrate he could do so.)

I was kind of kidding before, but now I figure he'll win. The judges are even now critical of their early favorites, includling Melinda Doolittle, who they practically crowned the winner since the first night of the show. Now she's merely "okay."

The trouble is the good singers left -- like Melinda and Jordan and the heavyset one -- have no charisma and, except for Jordan, are kinda.... well, let's say they're a tough drink to order and leave it at that.

So they may be judges' faves, but they're not going to win.

Clearing the way for Sanjaya. And requiring the judges to start accomodating themselves to that likelihood.

One problem with my theory is that I remember someone associated with the show, who would presumably know something about the voting, laughing dismissively at the idea that Sanjaya could win. (I think it was Randy.)

But now...

"American Idol"'s music director has said he thinks Malakar could well win the whole thing.

"I think he could win the show," Ricky Minor told the New York Post this week. "People are pulling for him. ... I can tell you he can sing," Minor said, adding "This isn't a singing competition alone. ... He's a handsome guy, and is really likable. People are pulling for him."

Can twenty million fourteen-year-old girls who don't understand the futility of a crush on a homosexual possibly be wrong?

No, they cannot.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:23 PM | Comments (46)
Post contains 630 words, total size 4 kb.

Zombietime notes the striking similarities between anti-semitic, anti-Israel, anti-war literature passed out by the White Aryan Resistance and the anti-semitic, anti-Israel, anti-war propaganda of the "peaceful" Berkeley left.

I was going to say that apart from the Nazi and skull iconography, they're indistinguishable. Except, checking again, they're both big into swastikas and skulls.

So they're not distinguishable.

Except by the MSM, which finds one an outrage and the other the highest form of patriotism.

Posted by: Ace at 10:53 PM | Comments (11)
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

But wait -- she has a defense. She didn't actually plagiarize, because the news items that bore her byline were falsely attributed to her!

In other words, she's not guilty of falsely claiming the writing of the WSJ as her own because she was actually falsely claiming the writing of her staffers as her own.

Which, in this case, turned out not to be the writing of her staffers but of the WSJ.

So, no problem.

Katie Couric did a one-minute commentary last week on the joys of getting her first library card, but the thoughts were less than original. The piece was substantially lifted from a Wall Street Journal column.

CBS News apologized for the plagiarized passages yesterday and said the commentary had been written by a network producer who has since been fired.

The CBS anchor "was horrified," spokeswoman Sandy Genelius said. "We all were."

The "Katie's Notebook" items are distributed to CBS television and radio stations, including WTOP (103.5 FM and 820 AM) in Washington, and posted on the news division's Web site. Genelius said it is "very common" for the first-person commentaries to be put together by staffers without Couric's being involved in the writing, but that she does participate in topic selection.

So it's not really "Katie's Journal," I guess.

What made the ripoff especially striking was the personal flavor of a video -- now removed from the CBS Web site -- that began, "I still remember when I got my first library card, browsing through the stacks for my favorite books."

As Steven Wright said, "The other day I was... Oh wait, that was somebody else."

I won't bother quoting the plagiarized parts. They're near-verbatim.

I don't know why anyone plagiarizes. Cops say kidnapping is the stupidest crime -- because how do you get your freakin' money?

Plagiarism must be the second-stupidest crime. Is there another crime in which the evidence remains in plain sight -- forever? You can plagiarize your first year out of college and then have it spring up to destroy you fifty years later after you've made a career for yourself. It's a ticking time bomb that can destroy your career at any moment. And if you ever achieve any prominence -- it certainly will, because it will be noticed.

For crying out loud, even schoolchildren know that when they plagiarize they should at least change the sentences enough that they're not direct swipes.

How hard is it for an adult in the media industry to re-write a sentence to obliterate any similarities with the plagiarized material? Do Katie Couric and her crack staff not have the sense and writing skills that fifth-graders do?

A representative of CBS said that the "Katie's Journal" segment's name would be changed to the "Intimate, Personal Diary of Katie and/or Fiftteen or Twenty of Her Closest Girlfriends and/or Underlings and/or Copyright Lawyers."

Posted by: Ace at 09:50 PM | Comments (26)
Post contains 490 words, total size 3 kb.