Zimmerman arrested again, bringing more justice problems to light

George Zimmerman, 31, was arrested Friday night on aggravated assault and domestic violence charges. Photo is in the public domain.

George Zimmerman, the man found not guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges in the wake of the shooting death of unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in 2012, was arrested Friday on suspicion of aggravated assault and domestic violence with a weapon.

Zimmerman, 31, was arrested at about 10 p.m. in Lake Mary, Fla. and was booked on those charges at the John E. Polk Correctional Facility.

This episode is merely the latest in Zimmerman's checkered history with the law ever since his trial and the events leading up to it gained national attention. He was pulled over in Texas on July 31, 2013, just two weeks after his acquittal in the Martin case. A few months later, he was suspected of getting into an altercation with his then-girlfriend in November 2013. He was arrested on domestic violence battery, aggravated assault, and criminal mischief charges, which he denied. He posted $9,000 bail and his then-girlfriend opted not to press charges.

On top of those charges, a man said in September that Zimmerman threatened to kill him during a road rage incident.

Clearly, Zimmerman's track record is a spotty one. Even if he weren't guilty of any of the charges against him, the fact that he's been in police crosshairs so frequently ever since he first shot Martin casts an even longer shadow of doubt over the verdict. Let's be clear. Zimmerman has been charged with crimes, but has not been convicted. With that said, each incident that causes his name to appear in national headlines casts the verdict in even worse relief.

This particular incident in and of itself may or may not be directly related to recent tragedies that have increased racial tensions to their highest level in 22 years, but justice and race relations do not operate in a vacuum. Not only that, but questions about the neighborhood watch coordinator who continually runs afoul of the law don't paint a rosy picture for Lake Mary.

Recent events have made it clear that a major overhaul is needed in the justice system and in how those who are sworn to protect our communities operate. However, laws alone won't bring the change that's needed. Citizen panels who advise the police but don't have teeth in being able to keep them in line won't get the job done.

Both those who oppose police brutality and those who say they support the police make valid points, but when New York City police officers turn their backs on New York Mayor Bill de Blasio in obvious mutiny and an Indiana officer prints T-shirts with the sloan "Breathe Easy, Don't Break The Law" in an obvious slam on those who wore T-shirts with the slogan "I can't breathe," it only aggravates the us vs. them atmosphere that exists between police and citizens.

It's going to take the community and police working together to ensure that people don't live in fear of police and the police can do their jobs without fear that a 12-year-old will wield a pellet gun, as Tamir Rice did on Dec. 5 when he was shot dead. It's also going to take a much more careful evaluation of other things such as racial profiling.

The justice system was put in place with safeguards that are meant to protect the innocent. When those safeguards result in juries getting it wrong, the problems make the system look worse than it is, regardless of whether Zimmerman is not guilty of these latest charges.

When a joke is no laughing matter

Jokes in newsrooms are often freeflowing and are frequently profane. They’re often riotously funny for the people involved in what is a stressful job.

That is, they’re funny until the jokes get into print.

That’s a lesson The News-Enterprise in Hardin County, Kentucky found out the hard way.

During the publication of Thursday’s edition, two copy editors decided to make a joke out of a quote from Sheriff John Ward about why people go into law enforcement.

In a paraphrased statement, the newspaper reported that Ward said they do so “because they have a desire to shoot minorities.”

As editor Ben Sheroan wrote in an editorial recounting the critical blunder, “Sheriff Ward is not responsible for the statement. He said nothing of the sort.”

The result of the major error is that two copy editors now find themselves out of a job, a reporter finds herself with major egg on her face through no fault of her own and, as Sheroan wrote, the newspaper blew years of trust up in a cloud of smoke.

Sheroan wrote that many angry callers demanded to know if anyone proofreads the newspaper before it goes into print.

Unfortunately, as he wrote, “that’s where the error took place.

“A function and process designed to rid the news pages of error instead added a terrible one that altered the reporter’s original sentence,” he wrote.

To his credit, he also didn’t try to offer a justification for what happened.

“No reasonable excuse can exist.”

Adding in a joke that makes it into print and embarrasses a newspaper is bad enough. Years ago, a copy editor put in a placeholder caption for a person he or she was trying to identify and wrote, “some [expletive].” Unfortunately for everyone involved, that expletive referring to the performer of an act of sexual intercourse made it into print.

Another embarrassing mistake happened when The Bucks Local News, a newspaper based in Pennsylvania, printed an insult of Philadelphia Phillies outfielder Domonic Brown referring to the unusual spelling of his first name.

“*NFP: DOMONIC IS SPELLED RIGHT, HE'S JUST AN IDIOT*”

“NFP” stands for Not for Publication. It was apparently intended for copy editors to not try to spell Domonic in a more traditional manner. Instead, it resulted in a major embarrassment, which resulted in writer Matthew Friedman writing, “the only idiot in this case is me.”

Perhaps in Friedman’s case it was. But these cases point to a critical flaw when it comes to journalism, in particular print media. Story after story of newspapers cutting jobs and some newspapers closing their doors have been rampant over the years. So, too, were directives from newspaper management to “do more with less.”

There’s a huge flaw in that directive. Too often, staffs have been cut to the bone, and in some cases, into the bone, leaving overworked reporters and editors, some of whom end up taking on added responsibilities that they aren’t trained in or aren’t good at.

Some newspapers require their reporters to take photos instead of having a photographer. Some reporters can take photos well. Some can’t. Either way, a reporter having to take photos will see the quality of his or her work suffer in the process.

If a newspaper or a chain of papers takes away a copy editor from a large copy desk, it may have a minimal impact. But if it’s several copy editors who go, it makes it much harder for the people who are left to catch mistakes or write captions or headlines facing mounting deadline pressure.

None of that excuses the horrible mistake on Thursday that resulted in an embarrassing error that looks even worse considering the state of race relations in this country. It shows an appalling lack of sense on the part of the copy editors involved to even make the joke, let alone to allow the joke to make it into print.

The impact to the newspaper itself is a clear loss of credibility, major embarrassment for the reporter involved for that mistake to appear in a story with her byline on it, and a community that is now up in arms. In an age of heightened racial tensions, the impact could have been much, much worse.

Councilman's "apology" was hardly one at all

Frederick County (Md.) Councilman Kirby Delauter backtracked on Wednesday from his threat to sue The Frederick News-Post for using his name without his permission.

Sounds good, right? Someone admitting when he’s wrong, which seems all too rare in this day and age, and doing so soon after committing the epic gaffe that turned him from locally known at best into a First Amendment villain sounds admirable.

Not so fast.

Delauter’s screed in response to the outcry he caused by threatening to sue reporter Bethany Rodgers was no apology. Hell, it wasn’t even a non-apology apology, which I’ve written about in the past.

“Of course, as I am an elected official, The Frederick News-Post has the right to use my name in any article related to the running of the county -- that comes with the job,” Delauter said in a statement.

“So yes, my statement to the Frederick News-Post regarding the use of my name was wrong and inappropriate. I’m not afraid to admit when I’m wrong.”

Not afraid to admit when he’s wrong, perhaps. But nowhere in the statement do I see the words “I’m sorry.” There’s an acknowledgement of letting his temper get the best of him, and an admission that it sometimes escalates rather than calms tense situations.

But there isn’t the most important, most basic element of an apology. The words “I’m sorry.” Hell, even “I apologize” would have been more welcome than their absence. Saying you made a mistake but then not pledging to take concrete steps to ensure that mistake doesn’t happen again is only doing part of the job.

Perhaps acknowledging the First Amendment was a good step in the right direction for Delauter, but with this statement not truly being apology, just merely a backtrack, it reads as more like a snarky response to the sudden dragging of his name through a much larger swath of mud than Frederick County, Maryland. Instead, Delauter’s statement was reminiscent of former congressional staffer Elizabeth Lauten’s non-apology in the wake of her criticism of first daughters Sasha and Malia Obama.

If there is one good thing to come from this episode, it’s the prospect that media -- both traditional and otherwise -- still can hold elected officials and those who work for them accountable. That’s something that journalists around the world need to continue doing to prevent the next Kirby Delauter from picking a fight with the media and the people he represents.

An act of terror strikes France

Two armed gunmen stormed the Paris office building of a satirical newspaper and killed 12 people in a brutal attack early Wednesday morning.


The gunmen allegedly shouted "we have avenged the prophet!" during their assault on the Charlie Hebdo headquarters, as they symbolically took aim at a newspaper that has been accused of "mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims" by a Financial Times columnist.

Obviously, they did more than kill 12 people, including the top editor and lead cartoonist. This cowardly act is an affront against the principle of freedom of expression. Even though the attack seemingly happened a world away, it is an attack against all journalists, especially ones who turn a critical eye toward religious figures.

Unfortunately, this sort of attack is far too common. Not just the act of shooting people dead itself, but the act of seeking retribution for insults against the Prophet Muhammad, be they real or perceived.

One of the few pieces I wrote in years past on this blog that remains in place is a piece I wrote when an Islamic group took offense to cartoons published by a Danish newspaper back in 2006. As much as I try to be respectful of other people and other cultures, I can't wrap my brain around being so thin-skinned as to take offense to any insults to any religious figure. That sort of hypersensitivity is far worse than any sense of "political correctness running amok." It's far more dangerous than any so-called "pussyfication" of society.

Lives are at stake. People have lost their lives due to jihad over insults. Even if Charlie Hebdo were "baiting" French Muslims, it's a satirical newspaper, possibly akin to the French version of The Onion.

Rather than take offense to any real or perceived insults to any religious faith, a far more productive response to cartoons or criticism of the faith would be defending the faith by making counter arguments in support of the faith. Might doesn't always make right.

My heart breaks for the families and friends of the victims, the 12 people who lost their lives and the five others who were critically injured. We must all take this as a call to action to ensure that people of conscience can feel free to express themselves without fear of retribution.

On Kirby Delauter and his so-called rights

Until the past couple of days, I'd never heard of Kirby Delauter.

He's a local politician in my home state of Maryland. Specifically, he's a member of the Frederick County Council.

So what did he do to become so famous (or infamous, as the case may be)?

He threatened to sue The Frederick News-Post for using his name without permission.

"Use my name again unauthorized and you'll be paying for an attorney," Delauter wrote in a Facebook post directed at a News-Post reporter As if any news outlet needs permission to use the name of public figures when they do public figure things.

I won't bore you all with a detailed deconstruction of just how idiotic this makes Delauter look. The News-Post does a nice job of that in an editorial with a brilliant piece of trolling thrown in for good measure.

I encourage you all to read the editorial itself, which I included in the link above. If you'd rather not, each first letter of the editorial spells out Delauter's name.

I won't be a copycat and do that here, but I was tempted. Boy was I tempted.

Besides the First Amendment discussion the News-Post and other outlets were so quick to trumpet as giving media the right to use his name, there's another element that makes Delauter's threat laughable. Namely, in the context of Frederick County, Maryland, he's a public figure. If someone were to write something or say something disparaging about Delauter in Montana, he might have a case because he's not a public figure there.

But this isn't about Montana or Dubuque, Iowa or Portland, Maine. This is about Maryland. This is about Frederick County, where he is a public figure, or at least a limited purpose public figure. As such, Delauter would have to prove there was actual malice on the part of the newspaper in printing his name.

Granted, the editorial might be used as evidence of such malice because of its expert trolling job. But I doubt it. It likely would be considered an act of public commentary. It would be considered part of a newspaper doing its job by being a public watchdog over those who are supposed to represent us or to pass laws to protect us.

Regardless of public figure or First Amendment issues involved, the act of threatening a newspaper with a lawsuit because they used his name simply fails the smell test. It's an attempt to intimidate the news media from doing its watchdog duty.

I hope Delauter has plenty of money if he wants to go ahead with suing the News-Post or anyone else who has suddenly decided to use his name. Now that he's made a fool of himself, he may now be a national public figure, which would make his case even more spurious than it already was.

Nice going, Kirby Delauter.

R.I.P. Stuart Scott

There are some losses that just take more out of you than others.

Stuart Scott's death after a courageous battle with cancer at age 49 is one of those losses.

Some of my friends essentially grew up watching Scott rattle off catch phrases such as "booyah!" and "as cool as the other side of the pillow. I was already in my early 20s when he made his debut on ESPN, so I didn't get the same chance as my younger friends did.

I may not have always connected with some of his catch phrases, but I did connect with his inspirational battle with cancer. As a cancer survivor myself, I rooted for him to beat the disease.

When most of us think of beating a disease, we think of eradicating its existence from our bodies. We think of living decades beyond a diagnosis. We think of succumbing only to the ravages of old age.
Scott reminded us all that merely beating a diagnosis or sending diseased cells away from your body alone doesn't mean you beat cancer. Last July, when he gave a speech at the ESPY Awards, he explained what it truly means to beat cancer and other diseases like it.

"When you die, it does not mean that you lose to cancer," he said in words that take on a whole new meaning now. "You beat cancer by how you live, why you live, and in the manner in which you live."

In 2006, I was in my first year as the managing editor of The Prince George's Sentinel, a weekly newspaper in Maryland. In November of that year, I was diagnosed with testicular cancer. In the days leading up to the surgery and then the doctor's appointment where I found out what type of cancer it was, the fear and the uncertainty held a vise-like grip over me. Realizing that I could be battling for my life was a scary thought for someone who was still in his early 30's.

I was fortunate. The cancer I had was a seminoma. Long story short: It was the best possible outcome other than not having cancer at all. I found out on Dec. 1 that year that all the markers after my surgery came back normal, meaning the cancer did not metastasize. I went through single-dose chemotherapy, and just a day or so later, had a conversation with a friend who told me I'd never seemed more alive that I was at that moment.

Normally, I'm a very private person and wouldn't think to share my demons with others. I went public with my cancer battle. I wanted people to learn my story and possibly save their lives by going to the doctor. I don't consider myself in the same category of Scott or Lance Armstrong, who also survived testicular cancer. But I am grateful that I'm still among the living.

As painful as it is to write a tribute to someone who has left this world far too soon, I do so with Fleetwood Mac's "Beautiful Child" playing in my head. It's a tiny sliver of comfort in an hour of loss.

Goodbye, Stuart. You truly were "as cool as the other side of the pillow." And now, you will always be that way.

Wizards showing last year was no magic trick

Amid the rush of people returning unwanted Christmas gifts or perhaps enjoying a relaxing day off from mingling with relatives or fighting shopping mall hordes, my thoughts turned to the National Basketball Association after its slate of Christmas Day games.

Specifically, I pondered some of the meaning behind the Washington Wizards defeating the New York Knicks 102-91 at Madison Square Garden in New York Thursday. Sure, the Knicks are in such disarray they wouldn’t even qualify as a hot mess with a 5-26 record and a rookie head coach in Derek Fisher who is one year removed from being a reserve point guard. Sure, the Knicks are trying to adopt the triangle offense espoused by team president and legendary former Chicago Bulls and Los Angeles Lakers coach Phil Jackson, and that offense is complex.

But a win is a win, and this win marked the 20th of the season for the Wizards, snapping a two-game losing streak. For a Washington team that all too often in its history has struggled to win 20 games out of the NBA’s 82-game schedule, winning 20 games out of the first 28 games on the schedule is a notable accomplishment. Winning on the road in one of the league’s most storied venues, even against a decrepit Knicks squad that fell to 5-26 as a result of Washington’s victory in front of a national television audience is significant.

The team has won games it would have lost in years past. A come-from-behind victory over Milwaukee when the team started flat after beating Cleveland the night before was a prime example of a game the Wizards would have lost in years past that they’ve learned to win. Another example was a lethargic outing against Orlando on Dec. 10 that saw shooting guard Bradley Beal struggle mightily all game until he hit a buzzer-beating game-winning shot that secured a 91-89 victory as Wizards play-by-play announcer Steve Buckhantz shouted, “Dagger!”

The best part of this for long suffering Wizards fans who didn’t jump onto the bandwagon of a suddenly successful team has been watching a team that isn’t just struggling to sneak into the playoffs as a low seed to get an expected beat down from the elite teams in the conference. This team has the look of an outstanding team in its own right. It’s a team that former Washington Post columnist Michael Wilbon argued doesn’t get enough attention from a D.C.-area fan base that’s obsessed with the Washington NFL team.

In a signature victory-type outing Dec. 12 against a powerful Los Angeles Clippers squad featuring Blake Griffin and Chris Paul, the Wizards seized control of the game and never let the Clippers get closer than eight points in the second half, defeating Los Angeles 104-96. It was a game that wasn’t as close as the score suggested, and point guard John Wall completely outplayed Paul.

Just as important as Wall has been with his assists and with his court vision has been the veteran leadership of forward Paul Pierce, who has helped the team take “maturity steps” on the way to becoming a team to respect. One media outlet in the Washington, D.C. area reported that Pierce got on his teammates about bad habits after the team won a game.

Wilbon also touched on the chemistry the team has developed on the court and off and has complimented the team’s personalities in addition to the quality of their play. This definitely does not have the look of a Wizards team that nearly five years ago saw former superstar guard Gilbert Arenas and fellow guard Javaris Crittenton have an altercation that led to Arenas leave four guns in Crittenton’s locker with a sign saying “pick one.”

Not only that, but Randy Wittman has successfully removed the label of coaching retread over the past two-plus seasons. His failures as a coach – with admittedly inferior teams in Cleveland and Minnesota – were well documented before the Wizards dispatched the Bulls four games to one last season. Sure, his overall record of 211-337, with a winning percentage of .385 is awful. However, after Wall returned from an injury in 2012-13 with his team mired in a 4-28 start, the Wizards started their rebound with a 25-25 record the rest of that season. Last year, they finished 44-38 in the regular season. That’s a combined 89-71 mark and a .556 winning percentage since that disastrous beginning.

It’s still not a record that would draw comparisons to Jackson, Pat Riley or any other coach who may have Hall of Fame aspirations. But for a team that has been so bad for so long, and celebrated mediocrity by printing T-shirts that celebrated merely qualifying for the playoffs 10 years ago, it’s been amazing to watch a team that people are now saying can contend for a conference title.

More violence in St. Louis, and more problems for our country

For many people, the day before Christmas Eve may be a day for finishing up work projects before taking off for a holiday break. It may be a day of packing and getting on the road to visit Grandma or other relatives. It may even be a day devoted to finishing up last minute holiday shopping and wrapping presents.

For the family of Berkeley, Mo. resident Antonio Martin, 18, it will be a day of grief. Martin was killed after a confrontation with police during which the officer who shot Martin accuse him of pointing a gun at him.

More than four months after 18-year-old Michael Brown’s shooting death turned the otherwise little-known St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, Mo. into a household word and inflamed racial tensions, St. Louis County police are once again drawing national scrutiny. Officer Darren Wilson may not have been indicted in Brown’s death, but protests have made headlines and fault lines between people who argue that police are abusing their powers and those who assert that police wouldn’t have to be in a position to be accused of brutality if people obeyed the law have become more pronounced.

Tensions have gotten so heated that an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released just the other day reported that 57 percent of Americans believe race relations in the country are poor. Twenty-three percent said relations are “very bad,” the highest number since October 1995 when a majority-black jury declared O.J. Simpson not guilty in the murder of ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

Protestors have decried police tactics and the militarization of police units around the country, including people who wore T-shirts bearing the words, “I can’t breathe” to protest the choking death of Eric Garner. Some police have taken part in counter-protests and worn shirts that have said, “breathe easy. Don’t break the law.”

That’s bad enough because it shows insensitivity to people who are grieving. Regardless of whether Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Martin or 12-year-old Tamir Rice, gunned down Nov. 22 for pointing a toy gun at a police officer were at fault or had any responsibility for what happened, it’s a direct insult to people who are grieving and those who support them.

To make matters worse, police demands that the National Football League and the St. Louis Rams extract apologies for a protest where five Rams took the field at Edward Jones Dome in St. Louis making a “hands up, don’t shoot” gesture. The NFL rightly refused to apologize for or discipline the players.

Police demanded that the Cleveland Browns apologize for and discipline wide receiver Andrew Hawkins for wearing a shirt to protest Rice’s death. Hawkins responded all right, but didn’t apologize.

“Justice shouldn’t warrant an apology,” he wrote.

It’s bad enough that some police choose to antagonize people in grief. It’s even worse that they demand apologize for people exercising their rights of freedom of expression. When once police officer wrote a blog post entitled, “Today I Stopped Caring,” it only served to inflame tensions even more.

“Today, I stopped caring about my fellow man. I stopped caring about my community, my neighbors, and those I serve. I stopped caring today because a once noble profession has become despised, hated, distrusted, and mostly unwanted,” the post began.

Instead of taking the time to evaluate all sides, including people who broke laws and people who abused the authority symbolized by their badges, the post blamed parents who “refuse to teach their kids right from wrong and blame us when they are caught breaking the law,” among others. I’ll admit that as soon as the writer wrote, “I stopped caring today because Liberals hate the police as we carry guns, scare kids, and take away their drugs,” he or she lost me completely. Even though the post later blamed conservatives for hating them because “we are the government,” the post served to do nothing to heal the great divide. It only reinforces it.

Many police out there do great things, including Larry DePrimo, who dropped $100-plus on a pair of boots for a barefoot homeless man two years ago. I consider one or two police officers friends of mine. But instances of police brutality exist, and must be addressed effectively. Lawbreakers need to be dealt with effectively, and the punishment should fit the crime.

More importantly, however, these events that have cast a dark shadow on race relations in this country are proof positive that we need to tackle the roots of the problem. Passing laws won’t necessarily solve the problems. Electing an African-American to the White House hasn’t eliminated racism. What’s needed is a long term cooperative solution that demonstrates respect on all sides.

An old song by Traffic singer Dave Mason called “We Just Disagree” might be a good place for us to start, as the chorus talks about not declaring either side to be wrong or right.

“So let’s leave it alone/Cause we can’t see eye to eye/There ain’t no good guy/There ain’t no bad guy/There’s only you and me and we just disagree.”

Come to think of it, we all could use the lessons from that song.

Does actor's admission make matters worse?

Just over two months ago, actor Stephen Collins's alleged confession to sexually molesting underage girls over a 21-year period surfaced as part of a protracted divorce battle between him and ex-wife and fellow actor Faye Grant.

The sordid case was a sad footnote for a man who became famous for playing the Rev. Eric Camden, a beloved figure on the hit TV show 7th Heaven during its 11-season run and also played a key role in Star Trek: The Motion Picture as Cmdr. Will Decker. I noted back in October that Collins hadn't been charged yet and hadn't formally admitted to molesting anyone.

Now he has admitted to molesting three young girls between 1973 and 1994 in a statement he released to People Magazine. The 67-year-old described three specific incidents in graphic detail which were included on a tape secretly recorded by Grant of an otherwise confidential couples therapy session between Collins and Grant in 2012.

"Forty years ago, I did something terribly wrong that I deeply regret," Collins said in the statement. "I have been working to atone for it ever since."

All the supposed good those contrite-sounding words may have done likely was wiped out with the defiant tone intimated by his subsequent comments about the leaked confession.

"I've decided to address these issues publicly because two months ago, various news organizations published a recording made by my then-wife, Faye Grant, during a confidential marriage therapy session in January, 2012. This session was recorded without the therapist's or my knowledge or consent."

It's true that leaking a secretly taped conversation opens the door to legal problems in its own right. But this reaction suggests that Collins is trying to deflect at least some of the criticism on the methods Grant used to bring these accusations to light.

"On the recording, I described events that took place 20, 32, and 40 years ago," Collins continues. "The publication of the recording has resulted in assumptions and innuendos about what I did that go far beyond what actually occurred. As difficult as this is, I want people to know the truth."

The truth is that Collins' now admitted actions are some of the ugliest, most heinous crimes that can be visited on children. They deserve the kind of scorn which is increasingly being visited on the people who truly deserve such scorn, people who commit various acts of exploitation.

Cases of sexual and other forms of abuse have taken center stage this year, especially in light of incidents such as Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson's abuse of his 4-year-old son by hitting him with a switch. That led to what amounted to an indefinite suspension from the National Football League and what has now become a protracted legal battle as the league and Peterson battle over what was allegedly supposed to be a two-game suspension.

Besides abuse inflicted on minors, the case of former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice knocking out his then-fiance Janay Palmer brought the NFL's domestic violence policy under much-needed scrutiny, even though the league made itself look bad by essentially subjecting both Peterson and Rice to double jeopardy. The stories of alleged drugging and sexual assaults by Bill Cosby also underscore the massive problems society needs to address.

The league may not be subject to constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy, but the NFL Players Association argues the league can't punish players a second time for the same offense based on its collective bargaining agreement. That's why it was so critical to get it right the first time, and why the league's mild punishment was so problematic.

If there's one good thing to come from all the reports of domestic violence and sexual abuse, the fact that many people are now having difficult conversations that would have been suppressed in recent years may shine enough of a light in the hidden dark corners of society to force much-needed changes to how we treat abusers and victims.

Whether various statutes of limitations mean Collins, Cosby or anyone else who may be guilty of abuse in years past will face the music of legal ramifications or not, the fact that these accusations have brought hidden demons out into the open may prove to be its own form of justice.

An open letter to Obama and McCain

An open letter to the Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin camps:

Congratulations to both of you for wrapping up your respective parties’ national conventions. To use a football analogy, we’re now headed into the fourth quarter with the game very much in doubt.

I’m sure both sides feel you got a lot accomplished with speeches that raised the same old talking points. However, as a disaffected centrist, I’ve got a few things for both of you to chew on.

I’m sick and tired. Namely, I’m sick and tired of fighting a war we had no business starting in Iraq. I may be one of the few people who spoke out against the war when President Bush started the drumbeat for the march to combat. The years American and coalition lives wasted there have proven that I’m right, not President Bush, and certainly not Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

I’m also sick and tired of negative campaigning. I’m sick and tired of the McCain camp attacking Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and treating him as if he were nothing more than a cult of personality. I’m sick and tired of demonizing Republicans as spawns of the devil. I’m sick and tired of has-been politicians such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani attacking Obama by even insinuating that Obama is Muslim. And what did that whole “Islamic terrorists” thing mean, Rudy? Did you mean to suggest that all of those who practice that faith are terrorists or subscribe to the beliefs of the radical extreme? If not, you sure could have fooled me.

I’m also sick and tired of the lack of specifics from both parties. Sen. Obama, you had every opportunity to provide specific solutions to America’s problems on Aug. 28. Yet, you chose to give us a speech full of catch phrases rather than specific solutions. You’ve done the forensic equivalent of providing us a dinner with plenty of appetizers and side dishes, but little real substance.

I’m also sick and tired of both sides forgetting who’s really in charge here. It’s not the President. It’s not Congress. It’s not the Supreme Court. It’s the American people. It seems as though both sides are doing too much shouting at each other. They’re not doing enough listening to the American people. We want real energy independence, but we don’t want it at the expense of the environment. We don’t want to continue fighting an unjust war, but we also don’t want to shun the troops who fight it. We want our lawmakers to talk about the issues that really affect our lives every day. We don’t want to waste time arguing over same-sex marriage or other non-issues that certain extremists act as though the world will swallow us whole if we allow them. We want real solutions to the foreclosure crisis before it becomes the 21st century’s Great Depression. Neither of you have given us enough of a plan to get us out of this economic mess.

I’m also sick and tired of both sides beating us over the head by saying a presidential candidate or his running mate isn’t experienced enough to lead. Sarah Palin may have only been governor of Alaska for two years. Sen. Obama may have only been a U.S. Senator for three years. Well guess what? Neither of you have a whole lot of experience, so stop attacking each other for not having enough.

Abraham Lincoln once said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Well, our country is perilously close to dividing against itself, not by north and south. Not by east and west. The divisions between so-called red states and blue states threaten us in a way that few other divisions have. We the people demand pragmatic solutions to our problems, not more talking points and partisan politics. Neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has shown enough leadership to put aside the political bluster long enough to remember who their real bosses are.

It’s great that an African-American and a woman are both running for the highest offices in the land. It’s great that a woman was in contention for the White House until the last state counted its primary votes. But it’s time for us to stop talking history. It’s time to start talking about what we need to do to get this country headed in the right direction. I implore both sides in this election to start now.

A Disaffected Centrist

The lax equivalent of kissing your sister.

For anyone who doesn't know, fans of the Maryland Terrapins have worked up a great deal of enmity toward Duke University in college basketball, both men's and women's. The infamous riots after men's basketball games have often followed games against Duke. There's no rhyme or reason to the outcome: Whether it's a Maryland win or a Duke win, Terps fans riot. The Duke women have dominated the Maryland women except for two big postseason wins by the Terps in 2006. After the second of those wins, a 78-75 come-from-behind win in the NCAA championship game, fans rioted. Even in other sports, Terps often circle their calendars for the Duke game. Men's soccer, lacrosse, etc. There's usually a rivalry between Maryland and Duke.

Having said that, when Maryland and John's Hopkins meet in men's lacrosse, that is THE big rivalry in all of college men's lacrosse. It has all the build up of Redskins-Cowboys, Yankees-Red Sox, Manchester United-anyone else in other sports. If Keith Jackson were going to broadcast the game, he'd likely say, "these two teams plain don't like each other" if he were describing Maryland and John's Hopkins.

Thus, Monday's NCAA championship game brought a swirl of conflicting emotions. Two teams I downright disliked were playing each other for the NCAA title. For John's Hopkins, it was simple. They're Maryland's most hated rival. The idea of rooting for Hopkins in men's lacrosse is complete anathema to me. Even though I had a pretty good experience interviewing some of their players, including Paul Rabil, I still have a hard time rooting for Hopkins to win at anything.

However, they were playing Duke. This wasn't just the team of blue blood aristocrats facing the Maryland proletariat. This was a team that was just over a year removed from the travesty of a rape trial by that keystone cop of a state's attorney (Mike Nifong). The case became a referendum for the spoiled athlete, the priviledged sons of rich parents who sent their sons to a private school. It was seen as a battle against the working class woman who was trying to make a better life for herself and her children and who went to a historically black university. And, let's be real. It was also seen as a clash of white versus black. There was so much riding on this case, and the fact that men who now have been exonerated saw their lives permanently sullied over a rush to judgement made this appearance more than just a good team that has a chance to win a national title. For Duke, this was redemption. For the three men who saw their lacrosse careers derailed ignominously (Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans), it was possible payback for seeing their careers cut short, since Duke cancelled the last games of its season after they'd only played eight.

I don't really know what to think about John's Hopkins 12-11 win over Duke. I can't be happy that Hopkins won. I don't know if I would have been happy if Duke had won. The more important thing in my mind is that the sport now is trying to return to some level of normalcy. Hopefully, next year's storylines will be more about whether Maryland can improve on its first round appearance in the NCAA tournament or simply beat Hopkins. Hopefully, we'll talk more about Duke's emergence as a team than its role as a martyr for all that went wrong in the bungled investigation.

I can't believe that I just wrote a long treatise on men's lacrosse after I'd only written one story on a men's game this year.

Denmark: The REAL deal

I've been railing on about how ridiculous I think the whole controversy surrounding the cartoons in a Danish newspaper that allegedly depicted the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist and got people up in arms in protest of supposed sacrilege. One of the reasons I am particularly incensed at the whole controversy is the character assassination of a country I've been in love with since 1995.

Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said his country is being unfairly portrayed as being an "intolerant, closed society" and he's dead on. The Danes are about as open and accepting a people as any in the world. They certainly are aces better than many in the United States on certain issues. This is a country in which Rebilt National Park holds the world's only Independence Day celebrations not on U.S. territory. That's the American Independence Day. You read it right. If you're visiting Denmark and you're worried you'll miss the Fourth of July, don't.

He also condemned Sunday's vandalizing of Muslim graves, saying "the Danish government condemns any expression or any action which offends people's religious feelings." The truth of the matter is this: Danes have a sense of humor. They're a friendly lot. If the Danes who published the cartoons were guilty of anything, their worst offence was poor judgment.

The other thing that gets me is the propensity of many in the Muslim world to condemn the United States for what a Danish newspaper did. Of course, the people doing so would condemn the United States for coughing, but there's only so far that they can go before all Hell breaks loose.

Taking things a little too far

In a recent trek to the World Wide Web to do some web surfing, I suffered a momentary lapse of boredom-laced inspiration and began to Google the term "man date." Among the first results was this little beauty of an article in the New York Times. I'll admit I've heard of the term before and actually used the term. But the term only registered as a bemusing moniker until I read that article.

The New York Times piece cast the term in a much thornier light in my mind from the lede graf (journalist slang in case you didn't know). "The delicate posturing began with the phone call." Delicate posturing. Three words in and already I'm thinking about something much less pleasant about a term I thought was going to be the 2006 version of "metrosexual."

Maybe I'm getting old faster than I thought I was. Perhaps I'm just hypersensitive. It's possible that I'm stuck in the wrong era. But I was under the impression that you spent time with someone or "hung out" with someone to use slightly less moldy language, because you liked him. The way the article described food-based outings that weren't wings and beer or sports bars betrayed a form of closeted homophobia on the part of the men who took part in these "man dates."

Going to a museum and taking great lengths to almost avoid each other because you're afraid someone's going to put two and two together and come to a conclusion that isn't true? Sounds like someone has a few issues they need to work on. No, I'm not saying Matthew Speiser or John Putman are homophobic. I'm not even suggesting they have anything in particular against homosexuality. But going to such great lengths to avoid even the suggestion that they're gay just takes things about 10 steps too far.

There's plenty more within the article itself. Take the "rules" against home-cooked meals that weren't grilled steaks or deep-fried foods and paying a bill in any way other than Dutch treat. There's also the strategic empty seat between two men at a movie, which can't be a romantic comedy.

I haven't even touched the subject of "man crushes." It's more than just another invented word that further separates and stigmatizes homosexuals. It comes with its own family tree of definitions, rating anywhere from a depiction of the Ben Affleck-Matt Damon friendship to the positive feelings Texas Longhorn fans have for Vince Young. Admiration for power, idolizing a friend, there's plenty of depictions of what a "man crush" is.

Once upon a time, guys hung out with another male friend without describing it as a "man date" or genuinely liked another man without using a ridiculous term like "man crush." People spent time with each other because they genuinely enjoyed each other's company. Men were able to open up with other men about topics that had nothing to do with box scores or cup sizes. We weren't so emotionally bankrupt that any emotion other than pure rage was stuffed worse than Clinton Portis against the Seahawks.

That's what we need to get back to.

Stick to (American) football

Once again, the all-wise powers that be in the U.S. Senate know more about what's in the best interest of our country than we do. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) said he might refer the Terrell Owens case to the Senate antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He called the Eagles' decision to suspend Owens for four games and deactivate him for the rest of the season "vindictive and inappropriate," adding, "It's a restraint of trade for them to do that, and the thought crosses my mind, it might be a violation of antitrust laws."

I beg your pardon? Terrell Owens committed insubordination by mouthing off about his team and his teammates on a radio show, which he's done multiple times in the past in San Francisco when he played for the 49ers. He also got into a physical altercation with former Eagle and current team ambassador Hugh Douglas and challenged several teammates to a fight.

What Terrell Owens did is nothing short of a personnel action that would get him fired from just about any job in the so-called real world. If suspending an employee and then effectively firing him is an anti-trust violation, I can think of thousands of anti-trust violations that don't even get coverage beyond the town gossip. None of which, I might add seemed to interest Mr. Specter in the least. The worst part of this story? Specter himself condemned Owens's actions that led him into this mess to begin with.

"I am madder than hell at what he has done in ruining the Eagles' season," he said. "I think he's in flagrant breach of his contract and I believe the Eagles would be within their rights in not paying him another dime or perhaps even suing him for damages." Sounds like someone's talking out of the other side of his mouth. Considering the party he hails from, that should come as no surprise.

Rhenquist dies of lung cancer, leaving two openings on the Supreme Court

Chief Justice William Rhenquist died of thyroid cancer. That now means two openings on the Supreme Court. I've seen speculation that current Associate Justice nominee John Roberts could have his nomination pulled and transferred to a nomination for Chief Justice. That would then keep Sandra Day O'Connor on temporarily as an Associate Justice.

That would not be a wise move on President Bush's part considering the fact that Roberts would be new to the Court and then possibly be the Chief Justice? I doubt that would go over well. I'd think it'd be more likely that Antonin Scalia could be named Chief Justice than have Roberts join the court and serve as Chief Justice. Though I'd hope for John Paul Stevens to be Chief Justice if you talk about longevity on the Court. But Stevens is in his mid-80s.

Argh.