Well, this headline sure jumped out at me today.

And of course, it reminded me of this post. Now, some folks disagreed with me then, and that's okay. They brought up valid points and disagreed in a respectful tone. But a lot of right-wing bloggers were tossing all sort of insults toward the editors of the papers who cut the Opus cartoon. Cowards, they were called. Islamic lapdogs. Anti-American. Terrorist apologists.

And those were the nice ones.

As I pointed out at the time, however, none of these people have a masthead on their blogs saying who and where they are. It's easy to be brave when no one is paying attention to the man behind the curtain.

Are any of these bloggers willing to come out of the closet, or are they only brave when no one knows where to find them? What risks are they willing to take for their right to say whatever they want whenever they want to?

Are they willing to risk death for free speech?

Are they willing to risk the lives of people around them for it? The people in their office? Their carpool friends? Total strangers on the bus who don't know what they said, or why?

Their own families? Their tiny boys and girls who don't even know for politics and terrorism yet, bless their innocent little hearts?

You know, I'm skeptical about that. Maybe because these same people aren't willing to back the right to be free from unwarranted search and seizure. Maybe because they won't even speak up to their employees in Washington for their own right to privacy. Perhaps because, despite the hot air of nine years ago, they won't demand the truth from their government. And why is all this?

Well, because they are afraid.

They have good reason to be, too. After all, it isn't as if we're any safer than we were six years ago. It's not as if INS suddenly became competent. It isn't as if cargo is being checked on out docks as it enters America. It's not as if a damn thing has been done about the southern border except some more guys on horseback. And it isn't as if the fundamentalist whackjobs they're afraid of are anything close to rational.

So while the idealist in me condemns to the very core this attitude of death for insult, this my-religion-is-the-only-true-one-and-I'll-kill-you-to-prove-it mentality, the pragmatist has another view.

That is, until we have a government that IS concerned, really concerned, for making this a safer country, those with a responsibility for the safety of others, like the editors of major newspapers, just might want to pick their fights a little more carefully for awhile. Of course, I do not mean copping out on verifiable, true news stories no matter who looks bad in them.

But really, when it comes down to it, whose life is a cartoon worth?

This columnist wants to know why we care more about what Michael Vick did to his dogs than about what people do to each other.

Well, I have a few things to say in response to that column.

First of all, let's not pretend that this isn't a stacked deck being presented here. This is an obvious example of cherry-picking. I don't believe for a second that Vick was the only guy caught abusing dogs this year, and many other examples of violence against humans do make the news. We see them every day, on every media outlet, do we not? I can easily replace these examples with the guy that chopped off his neighbor's dog's head and left it on her porch in a gift-wrapped box and the Laci Peterson case and draw the exact opposite conclusion. My neighbor's sweet dog Hito was stabbed last year. That certainly didn't make the news. If he bit someone, though, it would, because of his breed.

Secondly, it really begs the question of how not being aware of an event means that we don't care about it. Don't we have to be aware of something before we can have a real opinion of it? Can I love or hate someone whose very existence I'm oblivious to? So if something isn't in the news, is that because I don't care about it? Doubtful, at the very least.

Furthermore, there are examples of both that get justice done, and examples of both that do not, just like any other crime. Not every robbery is solved. Not ever car that is stolen is recovered. Murderers do get away with it sometimes. Does it follow that because Michael Vick was caught and punished while a particular murderer is not that no one cares to find the murderer? If the murderer is caught while a dog abuser like Vick goes undetected, does that mean that those particular dogs are suffering due to a lack of concern on the public's part?

You see how easily this unravels. And he's the one getting a paycheck out of it.

Let's play devil's advocate, though, and pretend this guy is actually making a point that would be strong enough for a high school debate team. I still have answers.

First, we tend to consider helplessness in choosing what victims to care about. If a child is assaulted by a grown man, that concerns most of us more than if that same man assaults a 6 foot 240 pound weightlifter. Why? Because we figure the weightlifter is more capable of taking care of himself. If Vick had killed a bear that was on his property, instead of dogs, there wouldn't be a problem because few people would look at a bear coming at them and see it as helpless.

Dogs are, though, even pit bulls. Hito might take someone else apart, but he sees me as an authority figure, and is genetically predisposed to submit to me, as was Angus. I could, if I were scum, kill him by walking right up to him and doing it. I might have to do it fast, but Hito would let me get close enough to do it, and allow me whatever contact it took to do it. He trusts me. That is what makes it so bad. It isn't so much that we value dogs more than people, it's that we're appalled by such a gross violation of an innocent creature's trust. For the same reason we would want an adult to be imprisoned for assaulting a child, but would be inclined to let the weightlifter deal with his attacker and go about his business once the aggressor is properly folded, spidled, and mutilated.

That is not to say that adults can never be helpless. Of course they can. In general, however, people will always be considered more capable of taking care of themselves than domistcated animals are.

But beyond that, aren't we basically inured to violence against other people? We see it on the news every day. We understand that we don't see ALL of it because it simply would not be feasible to give every single act of violence against people media attention. There are only twenty four hours in a day, after all, and who has the constitution it would take to absorb it all? Even the most callous amongst us would eventually say "enough!"

We dismiss a lot of what we do see, anyway. Dead children in war zones are called "collateral damage." Every time there's a rape case in the media you can bet that someone will say she was asking for it by dressing or acting the way she did. Excuses are made for police that shoot down unarmed men that later turn out to be guilty only of not being white. Sympathy is given to kids that kill their parents because they claim to be abused. We are, on the whole, quick to find excuses for people that use violence, and quick to use violence in response.

If we weren't we wouldn't jump so quickly to war, and there would be no one downplaying the need for diplomacy prior to war, as we have in our country now. We wouldn't have the death penalty, either. We might, without the inuring, follow our oft-brandished religions and seek redemption for the guilty, rather than death.

We play violence, too. It's in our movies and TV shows. It's in our video games. Hell, it's in some of our board games (and I LIKE "Risk"). We teach it to our kids with toy guns and toy soldiers and games like "Cowboys and Indians", where there are no reasons, just one group of kids pretending to shoot another for no other reason than "They're the Indians."

I'm not saying these things cause violence, so unruffle those feathers. I'm saying that they blunt the edge of our attutude against it. Violence against people is something we live with every day, starting at a very young age. We become inured, to an extent. Those of us who don't eventually crack up.

We don't have such a daily exposure to violence against animals, however. Kids never play "Cows and Butchers." Children caught abusing animals are normally punished for it. And we don't see dogfights and cockfights in the news every single solitary day.

And yes, we love dogs, because their loyalty and love is so much easier to count on than another person's.

Does that answer your loaded question, Mr. Martin?

I was brought up to not say "nigger". There was no question that neither the word nor the intention were welcome in my parent's home. I didn't really need to have that drilled into me, either, since I had no desire to use the word. Although there were no black people in the little country town I grew up in, my italian/cherokee combo gave me the darkest skin in school, so I got to be the "nigger". I know exactly, intimately, the feeling of isolation that this word can bring.

That is why I am so glad to see this finally happen.

I don't care for racism at all. As a result, I never thought much of the "black people can say it, but white people cannot" chain of logic. There is no way I can think about it without considering it racist as well. After all, "white people can sit under this tree, black people cannot" is racist, right? "White guys can wolf-whistle at white women, black guys cannot" is certainly racist. In fact, any time that one racial group says that they are allowed an activity that others are not allowed only because of their race, it is racism, pure and simple.

Now, I'm obviously not stumping for the right of whites to say "nigger." They have no such right. I simply never understood why black people wanted to. It never seemed "empowering" to me. In fact, if your idea of "empowerment" is to sound like a Klan member that would just as soon have you dangling from a tree, then I would say you have some serious issues.

More than that, though, I question the sincerity of any black person who says "nigger" and complains about white people being racist. ANYONE can be racist. Anyone of any color and any background. White folks don't have an exclusive on racism. We've certainly done the most to perfect it, but we're not the sole perpetrators.

So I'm glad to see black people standing up and saying "Enough! Let's be done with this damn word already! Save it for Uncle Tom's Cabin and Blazing Saddles! It's just not helping anything." (Of course, I'm the only one to literally say those words, but those words convey the feeling that these people's actions gave me.)

Maybe now we can be rid of this word and all the words like it. Eventually, maybe the intentions that spawn such words will go. This isn't people deciding how others can talk, it's people deciding what they are willing to listen to, and if people won't listen to comedians, actors, rappers, or anyone else that uses slurs, even if they are "taking the slur back", then perhaps people who want an audience will come to the conclusion that they are not being edgy, topical, and hip. Maybe they'll realize that they are offending and alienating those same people that they seek to identify with.

Maybe this will lead to a small victory against one of society's biggest evils.

Let's hope, eh?

We've been hearing a lot about celebrity justice this past year, probably because so many celebrities are appearing before a bench these days. While there are opinions flying around like gulls over a garbage scow, one thing everyone seems to agree on is the fact that it just isn't fair. Not fair at all.

What's interesting, however, is the difference in opinion about exactly what isn't fair about it. Even more interesting is the fact that the difference isn't related to who is speaking as much as it's related to whom they're speaking ABOUT.

After the O.J. trial, it was on everyone's lips - you don't go to jail if you're rich and famous. It was the same after the Michael Jackson trial. Ditto Robert Blake.

And when Paris Hilton was released early in the same fashion in which many non-celebs in the same situation were released, the public outcry was quite palpable. The explanation that the situation was not unusual or particular to celebrities fell upon a deaf nation. Everyone expected her to serve her full term, and by God, they'd bitch and whine until she did. And the same goes for that Lindsey Lohan scofflaw, as well. Nichole Ritchie, no different. 

I have no problem with that. Send 'em up the river. I'm just wondering why it should be different for Michael Vick.

Everywhere I go, I hear that he's only being prosecuted - some say "persecuted" - because he's rich and famous. I've been hearing it from the beginning. Never mind that his actions were against the law, not to mention any imaginable concept of decent human behavior. Never mind that he CONFESSED. They're only going after him because he's a famous football player.

Why the difference? Am I supposed to think that District Attorneys and Judges are big Paris Hilton fans, but don't care so much for sports figures like Vick and Kobe Bryant? None of them watch football or basketball, but would hate to see the next Lindsey Lohan film released late?

Or could it be that people have a vastly different standard for the celebrities that they like? Could it be that Americans don't care as much about the objectivities of the law as much as they like to pretend? Of course it could, and it's far from impressive.

Even more infuriating are the people who say "Well, [another sports figure] did [insert crime here] and only got [light sentence] so why should we go after Vick?

Well, by that logic, why go after anybody? If someone can show that one person got away with breaking a law, shouldn't everyone? After all, if one person got a light sentence, then there is no justice, and why should we pretend? It would be unfair to hold one person accountable for his actions if anyone else has gotten off prior to this, isn't it? That's how the argument seems to go.

And we ALL know that only one party's politicians are ever arrested. If it was the OTHER party, no one would say anything. Remember that guy from the other party who did such and such back in 1976 and got away with it? Obviously, every single person in the world who is mad at our guy knows about the other guy and approves. Hypocrites.

Meanwhile, I tend to think that the mistakes of the past may be beyond fixing, but their repetition can be easily avoided. In other words, if the law isn't being prosecuted properly in regard to celebs, there can be a point where that changes. Just because so-and-so got off five years ago in one state, it does not follow that someone else should get off for a crime committed in another. It is perfectly valid to say "Enough is enough. From now on, we do it right." We don't have to wait until it's someone unpopular confessing to a crime. We can choose to do things right any time we want. If we want, that is. We have to actually care about the law being obeyed by both those we like and those we don't.

But the lamest, worst of the lot is right here. This is pathetic excuse-making at it's worst.

First off, I have to ask why anyone watches The View. If any women reading this do watch the view, I sure hope you've never put men down for watching sports, Baywatch or the Three Stooges, because the fact that The View survives is ample proof that men aren't alone in watching utterly stupid, mindless television. However, I digress.

On her first show, and no doubt wanting to prove that she can be as controversial as Rosie O'Donnell, Whoopie Goldberg tells us that the conviction is unfair because Vick was doing something that comes from his southern U.S. culture.

Well, what else did I see in the news today that reflects southern U.S. culture? How about the racist slogans and swastikas that were burned into the lawns at a golf course in S. Carolina? How about nooses hanging from trees, and justice only for white people? What would Whoopie have to say about these "southern cultural traditions"?

I mean, sure, racism is wrong, and most of us know it is. Just like we know that training dogs to tear each other to ribbons and killing them tortuously if they fail is wrong. But we can make excuses for culture, right? How many people living in the area that Vick grew up in feel that wearing a white hood and putting a black neck in one of those nooses is a valid cultural statement?

Culture can be an interesting thing, but many people feel that it should be immutable, which I disagree with. I applauded when the state of New Mexico finally outlawed cockfighting, despite the fact that it is part of "Mexican culture." We're close enough to Mexico for those sad sucks to take a road trip for their blood sport. Cultures have been evolving since the first culture began. They do that because mores and standards change over time. If you tell me that you must be allowed to do something for no other reason than the fact that your granfather did it, I simply will not consider your argument valid enough to consider as such. It's really that simple. Show me how your tradition makes sense in our culture today, or how no one is harmed by it. Don't just tell me, "That's our culture", because when it comes to stuff like racism, animal torture, female genital mutilation, or forcing teenage girls to be their cousin's third wife, among other things, I simply don't respect or care about it. This is our culture, and it changes all the time. Jim Crow was part of our culture, and isn't anymore. Keeping women out of academia and the workplace was part of our culture, and isn't anymore. Voting rights for men only, etc., yada yada yada.

So please, Whoopie, spare me the bullshit about culture. Unless you're willing to stand up in defense of cross - burnings, segregation, and racially tainted justice as results of "southern culture", you really should shut the fuck up and let those elected to apply the law do so. We'll save the outrage for when someone is convicted on shoddy evidence without a confession. At least, I will. And I don't think I'l be standing up for someone rich and famous when that happens.