Hypocrisy is ALWAYS "news", Sweetheart, especially in the case of the self-anointed and arrogant, because hypocrisy can always be used to demonize the arrogant and get them out of office.

Perhaps it makes as much "sense to the numbskulls" who ran too old, too manipulative, too "reach across the aisle", too McCain-Feingold, too Gang-of-14, too Amnesty-for-Illegals, too tweaker, too faux-benign-voice John McCain as the 2-party alternative to the Barack the Magic Negro. Rock star charisma won out over has-been-POW-political-hack status. So what? Whose fault is that? Who are the real numbskulls? It is always better to vote FOR what you believe in (third party of choice) than AGAINST what you are afraid of. With your unhelpful attitude, you're probably going to lose again in 2010 by choosing yet another McDole to run against the DEMS. How sad! How downright unintelligent.

The problem I have with Crowley's behavior is that he lost his professional cool and DELIBERATELY violated the 1st and 4th Amendments and arrested a citizen (admittedly an arrogant jerk, but being a jerk in and of itself is not a crime) in his own home when there was ZERO constitutionally sufficient probable cause and when he KNEW a conviction would be constitutionally impossible.
Unlike those of you who don't care about such, I am interested is preserving the Bill of Rights. What most pro-Crowley posters are too ignorant to understand is the relevant constitutional law involved. When the police and prosecutors bring a charge against an accused person, they are not at liberty to merely parrot the language of the statutue, in this case, "uncooperative", "unruly", "disorderly", "tumultuous", "resisting a police officer", "interfering with a police officer", etc - as Crowley unarguably did. That wannabe-cutesy-pie unconstitutional parroting is ALL Crowley had, which is why the case was dropped by higher ups. A Bill of Particulars is the constitutional method for overcoming unconstitutional statute parroting.
Regarding a Bill of Particulars, the U.S. Supremes have said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875):
"In criminal cases, prosecuted under the laws of the United States, the accused has the constitutional right 'to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.' Amend. VI. In United States v. Mills, 32 U.S. (7 Peters) 138 138 (1833), this was construed to mean that the indictment must set forth the offence 'with clearness and all necessary certainty, to apprise the accused of the crime with which he stands charged;' and in United States v. Cook, 84 U.S. (17 Wallace) 168 168 (1872) that 'every ingredient of which the offence is composed must be accurately and clearly alleged.' It is an elementary principle of criminal pleading that, where the definition of an offense, whether it be at common law or by statute, "includes generic terms, it is not sufficient that the indictment shall charge the offense in the same generic terms as in the definition, but it must state the species -- it must descend to particulars."
THERE WERE NO CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID SPECIFIC PARTICULARS in Crowley v. Gates. Nor was there any constitutionally acceptable probable cause. I despise arrogant jerks who deliberately and very manipulatively throw around false charges of racism. And I support constitutionally valid police behavior. But unlike some citizens who are functionally illiterate about their own Bill of Rights, I have a problem with any policeman who will deliberately violate the 1st and 4th Amendments and arrest a citizen in his own home when that policeman knows FULL WELL that constitutionally valid probable cause and a constitutionally valid conviction are impossible AS A MATTER OF LAW. Many long-time cops and prosecutors have said the only reason Gates was arrested is because Crowley lost his professional cool.
Freedom in America is threatened by the constitutional illiteracy of citizens who, often combatively proud of their ignorance, in effect, say, "screw the constitution, just nail the bad guy no matter what!" I refuse to join that type of over-heated, illiterate (aka "n-u-m-b-n-u-t-t-e-d"), short-sighted, control-freak insanity. Too many brave men and women have died over the years defending the Bill of Rights to simply summarily disregard it for the sake of scoring a few cheap political points. Too bad Obama didn't think about that before he shot off his mouth on a trivial local issue just because he thinks he's narcissistic. I stand by my original constitutional assessment: Crowley v. Gates should actually be titled "Jerk v. Jerk". The whole thing is an embarrassment and a shame from ALL sides. It shouldn't have happened to three such reasonably intelligent men as Crowley, Gates and Obama. It just goes to demonstrate our human weaknesses. God save us all, and God save America!

Most of the pro and con posters are just as screwed up as GOP and DEMS.
Crowley deliberately violated Gates' 4th Amendment rights without the requisite probable cause.
Gates deliberately made false charges of racism. There is going to continue to be a race problem until whites get as violently angry at being falsely called "racist" as blacks do being called the "N" word. Gates is part of the "I'm entitled to free money from the government because white people are racist A$$H***s" prevailing black culture promoted by race hustlers like J-e-r-kson and Sharpton et al.
But saying that doesn't, and shouldn't, excuse the VERY REAL problem of arrogant badge-heavy cops who will empty their guns into an innocent person and then say they thought his wallet was a gun.
Regarding the 1st Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, there are a number of seminal United States Supreme Court decisions every citizen should read. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) is the obscenity standard. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) is the “fighting words” standard, but Chaplinsky has been weakened by later cases such as Gooding v. Wilson, 405 US 518 (1972) and Lewis v. New Orleans, 415 US 130 (1974). Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) is the standard for parody and satire. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) and Roth v. United States, 354 US 476 are also "must reads". As a matter of fact, in the recent case of State of South Dakota v. Marcus J. Suhn, 2008 SD 128, the South Dakota Supreme Court, citing U.S. Supreme Court cases, upheld a citizen's right to swear at the police. The clear reasonable inference of 1st Amendment free speech law is that, unless he physically struck Sgt. Crowley (he did not), Prof. Gates was pretty much free to say whatever he pleased as vigorously and obnoxiously as he pleased without having the testilying Cambridge cops spin it as "uncooperative", "unruly", "disorderly", "tumultuous", "resisting a police officer", "interfering with a police officer", etc - as they unarguably did.
As far as I'm concerned, Gates v. Crowley should be titled "Jerk v. Jerk". There is more than enough blame to go around, and I get sick and tired of self-absorbed vociferous m-o-r-o-n-s who are in possession of ZERO first hand information and are self-evidently illiterate in the relevant constitutional law posting their ignorant ad hominem blather for the whole world to see.
I would fear Crowley because he has a gun, badge, a license to kill me and obviously doesn't give a damn about constitutional probable cause. In contrast, I wouldn't fear Gates but merely dislike and shun him for being the arrogant loud-mouthed A$$H*** he is.

What is it about the human species, anyway? How is it that some 24 million people let a little dog-eating mutant gargoyle get totalitarian control over them? I don't get it. I say step on the cockroach!

It's easy to see why Twitter has become my #1 source for news in real time. Even Drudge with his immense readership posts there. Anybody who is somebody posts there. Twitter allows the reader to choose which posts (including news) s/he wants to follow. VERY powerful tool for freedom! VERY cool! Hello grassroots journalism! Bye, bye fascist MSM media monopoly. And good riddance to bad rubbish!

What is it about the human species that a mutant gargoyle like Kim Jong II can acquire totalitarian political control over millions of otherwise "normal" human beings? I don't get it. Squash the stinkin' insect and be done with it!

Rverp1: The DEFINITIVE blog I've read on the subject of so-called "gay marriage" is "Does the CA Supreme Court's Prop 8 decision mean the "gay marriage" semantics fraud may be winding down?" at john wilkenson dot com (no space and real dot). You can Google the title and read it.

Rverp1: This has NEVER been about "government licensing marriage". It's a LOT more subtle and evil (anti-individualism) than that. It is about manipulative, deliberately irrational propaganda strategists trying to use the police powers of the State to REDEFINE COMMON-USAGE, COMMON-LAW WORDS for the express purpose of promoting their political agenda, which is to: create in law by police-power coercion "equal" dignity and respect for homosexual behavior as for heterosexual behavior. Violators, of course, will be punished at law for "hate speech" because the 1st Amendment no longer means what it says.
Judicial "interpretation" is how the individual loses rights. For example in the infamous Dred Scott decision, the Roger Taney majority defined the word "persons" to exclude blacks. In other words, blacks should remain slaves because they are not "persons" as that word is contemplated by the Constitution!
The Civil War was fought, 600,000 people were killed, and, thanks to the "Civil War Amendments" blacks are no longer chattel. BUT the Supremes have NEVER rejected their usurpation of the power to define common-usage, common-law words! So the gays want them to do it again with the word "marriage". That's SO scummy!

In a fair world, the sophist manipulations of the 1st-Amendment-destroying radical gay propaganda strategists would be countered with a movement to lobby for the criminalization homosexual behavior. But in the real world virtually no decent kind-hearted people (including me) would be in favor of that. Unfortunately, that leaves the loud, aggressive, rude, crude and highly manipulative radical gay propaganda strategists free to be as ugly, spoiled-bratish and scummy as they please. Frankly it frustrates the hell out of me that they can't see what a serious threat they are to the first amendment. Gay is not straight. That's why there are two words: "homosexual" and "heterosexual". Equally logical are the two other separate words, "marriage" and "civil unions". But that's never been the point with spoiled-brat radical gay propaganda strategists.
Sophistry, manipulation and political correctness are dangerous diseases. Actually, I am starting to favor criminalizing political correctness with the death penalty attached to it — and I'm opposed to capital punishment generally! B.S. is B.S., whether "gay" or "straight", so just say "No!" to gay propaganda B.S. To hell with what radical gay propaganda strategists think. They're not interested in truth, tolerance or honest communication anyway, they just want to win their wannabe-clever little public relations contest regarding their ownership of the word "marriage". I advocate boycotting all things "gay" until they back off their snottiness and sophist control freak ways!