Misunderstandings, Race, and Ass Holes in San Francisco.

See it centers around a little outing that I planned with Chrissy, who I always run into at sports industry related fuctions. The latest was The Leigh Steinberg Party at the Super Bowl. ( A great party, but more about that later.) She is perhaps the only person other than my best friend Beth Schnitzer, who actually recognizes me and says hello.

So, I thought getting together and talking would be fun, as she's been quite nice for a while now. I didn't have any date idea in mind; frankly it was the business of finding out what a person -- her in this case -- was doing that may be such that we could work together in the future.

Anyway, Chrissy has the idea of inviting both Beth and Gary. I thought that as a good idea as Gary's a friend who helped me on the Super Bowl: Oakland campaign and who sat next to me at Super Bowl XL (I got his ticket for him).

Well, I was informed by Beth that Gary and Chrissy had dated. I feared another drama scenario ahead, and started at one point to back out of it. Then I asked my friend Sarah to come as Beth could not make it, but Sarah had a mid-term. So, I was stuck. And still my gut was saying it wasn't going to go well.

I was right.

We planned to meet at Aqua, which is one of my favorite San Francisco places to visit. I go on Thursdays as Kathy's the bar tender there and I've known her for about 16 years.

Anyway, I arrived at Aqua at about 6:49 PM and seated right just as I walked in was JT and Mary. JT is someone I met six years ago, while I was working to bring the Super Bowl to Oakland. At any rate, he was trying to gain the NFL as a client to a company called Dream - something or other. I said I could help him do that. At any rate, the conference call with the CEO of Dream - something or other - was annoying. The guy said to me "Why do I need you to get into the NFL." And I felt he was being nasty for no good reason, so I told him he should try it on his own, and essentially ended the conversation. I had no time for rude ass holes, and that's what he was being.

Well, JT was upset that I didn't try harder. But the stakes were not that high because the person I was talking to didn't sell me on the idea of working with him; it's a two way street, and they needed me much more than I needed them.

Well, I had not talked with JT for some time after that. Meanwhile, Beth had developed a friendship with him, and so he started showing up to her parties -- but he'd never say anything to me. Wouldn't even look at me for a time. But after a while he came to so many events that I got rather annoyed with his unnecessary behavior, and so complained about it to Beth on several occasions. Whatever the connection, he at least speaks now. But we've only had one coversation of meaning since the "warming" period.

Well, JT was sitting with M Condy, who's husband Charles owns Aqua and three other restaurants. M is also a friend of Beth's. M's OK, but at times she's more than a bit weird toward me. That happens only when she's not with Beth and I see her in public. For example, I was recently at The Balboa Cafe and standing at the far corner of the bar. Where I stand is such that if you order a drink at any place at the bar, and look toward the back of the place, you can't miss me. But that's not why I stand there.

I do so because it gets me away from the crowd, and frankly a few of the white males who walk in there can be a little "stupid" in what they say to a person of color after they've had a few drinks -- this even happened once when Beth and I met for a drink about a year ago. Since I'm totally tired of anything that smacks of racism, I stand away from the crowd to avoid the desire to smack someone upside the head who might say something stupid. Now that written, it doesn't happen often at all. I like The Balboa Cafe especially when the regulars walk in, but that's another story for another time.

At any rate on the day I'm thinking of, M was there but when I looked over at her, would not allow her eyes to meet mine. Now, I'm the only black person there, and given where I stood impossible to miss. So, I resolved that I would treat her just like she treated me; I said nothing. I did this until a really nice and lovely Irish woman came over and said "We were debating whether you played Rugby or Cricket." I laughed. That woman turned out to be with a group of friends, which included Mary. So, I was pulled over, and then Mary talked to me. At that point, I was concerned that she had too much to drink, and so got her some water. She was fine later.

So, back to the present. M said hi, but there was no place to sit over there. I wanted to find a stool and order food. So, I went down to the other end of the bar and found the only place to sit. As I did, Aqua's great host Jean Pierre came up to say hello. A nice person. Consistently gracious.

I ordered wine and the Aqua Classic Appetizer, which is a great dish of chopped Steak Tar Tar and other seasonings. Then Chrissy arrived and Gary showed up about 25 minutes later. We were fine, until two things happened: first she and Gary had broke up, and then were acting like, well, kind of cheezy, feeding each other food and acting like they're on a date rather than hanging with a friend -- me. Gary seemed more like he was concerned that he was competing with me for her, which wasn't the case. It was all bothersome to me. But the kicker was this weird ass hole who JT and Mary were talking to and who came over to where we were. He shook Gary's hand and Chrissy's, but basically ignored me even though Gary introduced is -- until I called him on it. He then walked over, but had nothing of value to say -- I can't even remember his name. All I got from his words -- to Gary, not me, even as he was standing next to me -- was that his dad owned some resort and that he knew some woman in Chicago who was a "Wrigley" as in the chewing gum and baseball stadium.

Big deal.

But Gary and Chrissy never made an effort to stop the guy from being an ass hole, and so I was out of the conversation they all were having. I was pissed. For one thing, I never got to talk with either one of them about NFL stuff, or anything else. And Gary and I had unfinihed business that was for him, not me. And it was a friendly gesture on my part, this deal I was trying to craft for him.

As Gary was talking to the ass hole, I told Chrissy about his behavior and how from my perspective the guy may have a race issue spinning in his head. I mean he walked up and saw me, a black guy sitting with a blond woman, so he could be racist, given his response toward me. But she said "I don't understand this because I don't see color." I tried to explain to her a black person's point of view, but she wasn't listening and didn't try to, which irked me.

So, we continued to talk and M walked over. After a point she complained that Beth wasn't there and "always says she's going to be somewhere and doesn't show up," to which I quickly corrected her that her statement wasn't true and she should not even say that to Beth, explaining that I would come after her -- I was playing -- if she accused Beth of that. The reason I came off so hard was that Gary and Chrissy were nodding there head in approval of what Mary was saying, and so I got pissed. I don't like "two-faced" behavior. Beth's a friend, and so they should honor her as a good friend, not talk about her behind her back.

Mary walked back to the other side of the bar and we started talking with a gentleman named Wally, I believe. After we told jokes somehow Chrissy started talking about USC QB Matt Leinart and how she thought he was cute. I listened to her talk and then asked about Vince Young. She said "I'm not attracted to him, and I don't date athletes." So I asked if she really just preferred white athletes since Matt Leinart's also a football player. "No," she and Gary and Wally -- all of whom are white -- said.

Geez.

At that point, I'd had enough. They got their bill; I paid mine. On the way out, Gary and Chrissy -- she was his ride home or whatever -- stopped to talk to Mary and JT and the other people. D Blackford, who also worked with me on the Super Bowl and stopped to talk earlier -- a good bright spot in an other wise dark evening -- asked where I was going.

"I'm leaving," I said. And that was that.

I didn't hear from Gary or Chrissy, and I didn't contact them. And it was Gary who wanted NFL business -- and I was trying to help him -- gratis. Now, I don't care one way or the other.

Earlier in the encounter Chrissy said "I don't see color." I really hate when people say that -- It's not true. No. I've never heard anyone black, Asian, or Latino or Jewish say that -- only whites who are Irish or English, but not Italian.

Those same people who say that are the first to mark "white" when stating a dating preference in a personals ad. I think Chrissy meant well and she's certainly not mean sprited, but just isn't sensitive to how what she says may impact people of color. So, in a way she's right -- she doesn't see color.

And that's the problem.

I need to blog more!

Wow, I didn't realize I had not written a single post since Wednesday. I've got to change that one. We've got over 20 blogs now, and I suppose I should establish the one-post-per-blog-per-day minimum. Sounds like a plan.

Colts GM Bill Pollian on NFL Network Now

NFL Network's Rich Eisen is talking to Indianpolis Colts President GM Bill Polian at the 2006 NFL Scouting Combine, so I thought I'd try to type what he says. The quotes are close to exact, but not right on.

On the Scouting Combine:

"First combine was in 1984 and with about 150. Now it's grown into a major event.


On Reggie Wayne's new contract and not franchising RB Edgerin James:

"Hopefully, we will be able to get him back. That may happen if there's no CBA. Reggie's been an important part of our team...We wanted to get him signed." Poliann said it would have made no sense to "tag" Edgerin as the number was "untenable."

On the 2006 draft:

We have three or four people contribute from the draft each year: Cato June, and others. The way our model is set we have to have contributions from younger players.

On the CBA:

We're wating to see what happens. All of the good things we have had come from labor peace. We've got Peyton (Manning) and Tony (Dungy) and have been to the playoffs six out of the eight years. How did we get there as a team in the smallest stadium in the league? The salary cap.

On the Competition Commiteee and Mike Holgren leaving it:

Rich Eisen asked if the Super Bowl Officiating problem had to do with it: "Absolutely not. He wants to spend more time with his family..,.He may change his mind in Florida.

Polian says that the committee is not going to look at just the officiating problem but the whole game.

That was it. Polian's off to other matters.

Colts WR Reggie Wayne Signs New Contract - RB Edgerin James' Future with Team in Doubt

Colts re-sign Wayne but probably won't keep James

By Mike Chappell, The Indianapolis Star

INDIANAPOLIS -- Reggie Wayne won't be designated the Indianapolis Colts' "franchise player," but his value to the franchise has been confirmed with a lucrative six-year contract. However, it's doubtful that development increases the possibility of running back Edgerrin James returning for the 2006 season.

In line to be slapped with the franchise tag before Thursday's deadline, Wayne agreed on Wednesday to a six-year deal, according to his agent, David Dunn. Dunn would not disclose financial parameters of the contract, but it's believed to be worth approximately $40 million with bonuses of nearly $13.5 million.

Team president Bill Polian could not be reached for comment.

The contract ties Wayne to the Colts through the 2011 season and keeps intact an elite receiving corps that includes seven-time Pro Bowl selection Marvin Harrison and Brandon Stokley.

It also keeps the franchise designation available to the Colts for one of their other players who will become an unrestricted free agent on March 3. The tag must be used by 4 p.m. ET Thursday.

However, there's a strong possibility the team will not use the tag because of the steep financial commitment required to place it on linebacker David Thornton ($7.169 million) or defensive end Raheem Brock ($8.332 million).

And the Colts almost certainly will not use the tag on James as they did following last season.

Polian reiterated last week that it would be virtually impossible from a financial standpoint to use the tag once again on James. The cost of a one-year contract for James in 2006 would be nearly $11 million, which is a 20% increase over his '05 salary cap number ($9.081 million).

Polian described the $11 million franchise number for James as "untenable."

To retain both James and Wayne, he added, would require significant changes in the current roster. That probably would entail "drawing a line through" the names of several players, cutting them to make room for Wayne and James under the projected salary cap of roughly $95 million.

"And I don't know if you can draw enough lines, even if you wanted to," Polian said. "And you may not want to because it would weaken the team so much in other capacities."

Wayne was one of 13 Colts eligible for unrestricted free agency, but there never was a possibility of him hitting the open market. When asked during the '05 season about Wayne's future with the Colts, Polian replied, "Reggie Wayne isn't going anywhere."

The team's 2001 first-round draft pick has elevated his game every season. Wayne, 27, led the Colts with a career-high 83 receptions in '05, ending Harrison's six-year run as their leading receiver.

"Reggie's thrilled to stay with the Colts," Dunn said. "He could not respect the organization or Bill Polian or (coach) Tony Dungy any more than he does. And he has the maturity to understand the importance of winning."

In five seasons, Wayne has registered 304 receptions for 4,164 yards and 28 touchdowns. He topped the 1,000-yard mark in 2004 and 2005 when he established himself as one of Peyton Manning's top targets. He caught a then-career-high 77 passes for 1,210 yards and 12 TDs in 2004 when he became part of the NFL's first receiving trio to top 1,000 yards and 10 TDs. He followed that with last year's 83-catch, 1,055-yard season as his role continued to expand.

The move makes Wayne one of the NFL's highest-paid receivers. But Wayne wanted more than money out of his contract.

"He thinks in terms of enjoying the situation with the team and the offense he's familiar with," Dunn told The Associated Press. "And having Peyton (Manning) throwing you the ball and Coach Dungy doesn't hurt. He thinks it's a good situation."

While Wayne could have left the Colts for another team, where he could have avoided being overshadowed by Harrison, the Colts' career receiving leader, he opted to stay with a team that has won three straight AFC South titles and been to one conference title game.

"Over the last month, I became acutely aware of how much he wanted to win," Dunn said.

Wayne's signing means the Colts will keep their passing attack intact long-term.

Harrison signed a six-year, $66 million deal in December 2004. Manning, a two-time NFL MVP, signed a seven-year, $98 million deal in March 2004. The Colts' No. 3 receiver, Stokley, agreed to a lucrative five-year deal late in the 2004 season.

The Associated Press contributed to this report

President Bush's Is Right; CNN's Lou Dobbs and Others Wrong About Port Deal

I see no concreate reason why the US can't suddenly partner with this organization of long standing. They're not new.
To block the deal for essentially racist reasons is not American.

Moreover, the matter of Terrorism is more complicated than many of us chose to understand. You can complain, bitch, and moan, but like it or not, this deal is actually best for the US and the World. I'd rather have an Arab firm -- with the great attention it gains -- run some cargo transactions, than a British firm I know nothing about. Oh, except that they're white.

NFL Revenue Sharing with Players - I Say Scale The Percentage

The impass between NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue and NFL Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw seems to be over the size of the percent of revenue the league will share with the players. I say, rather than have a fixed percentage, scale it with repect to overall increase or decrease in annual league revenues. Simply, if there's an increase, the percentage is somewhat greater; if there's a decrease, it reduces.

Now, the measure should be gross revenues, not net revenues. Or perhaps a better measure is revenues minus player playroll for that year. This way, if there's a year where, for a combination of reasons, overall player payroll is higher than the previous year (incentives, etc.), but overall NFL gross revenue is lower, the percentage would be lower than the year before.

Just an idea.

NFL is headed toward a labor showdown by the end of this week - Washington Post

Deadline Looms For NFL, Players
Attorney: Deal 'Seems Doubtful'
By Mark Maske
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 19, 2006; Page E01

The NFL is headed toward a labor showdown by the end of this week barring an unlikely last-minute breakthrough in negotiations, Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw said, signaling that the labor peace that for 13 years has been a key reason for the league's success is on the verge of dissipating.

A written message sent Friday from a union attorney to NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue said it "seems doubtful" that team owners and players will be able to settle on an extension of their collective bargaining agreement beyond next season. Upshaw, who has worked closely with Tagliabue for years to avoid the sort of labor strife that has affected other professional sports leagues, said in a telephone interview that the union now is ready for a fight.

"The closer we get to the deadline the more pessimistic I am that anything will happen," Upshaw said. The owners "don't seem to believe we're willing to take it all the way. . . . But we are."

Upshaw said he regards the end of this week as the deadline for a labor deal and he has little hope that scheduled bargaining sessions on Tuesday and Wednesday will produce movement toward a settlement. He plans to address players' agents in two groups this week in Indianapolis, the site of the NFL scouting combine.

The current labor deal leaves the NFL's 13-year-old salary cap system in place through the 2006 season. A failure to agree to an extension of the deal would leave the sport without a salary cap in 2007 -- and perhaps beyond. Upshaw has said the players will not allow a salary cap to return if they play a season without one.

The salary cap sets an annual ceiling on the amount each team can spend on players. Next season's cap is projected to be between $92 million and $95 million per team. Without one, wealthier teams such as the Washington Redskins could spend whatever they wished on players, but people on the management side maintain that certain changes that would come with a season without a salary cap -- such as players needing six seasons of experience, instead of four, to be eligible for unrestricted free agency -- might keep it from being the bonanza for players' salaries that Upshaw and the players envision.

The labor impasse already is wreaking havoc on teams' planning for the March 3 opening of the free agent market, since it is effectively leaving teams with less wiggle room under the 2006 salary cap.

With league revenues burgeoning after the completion of a new set of national television contracts worth almost $4 billion per season, Upshaw has been seeking to expand the pool of revenues from which the players are paid. But the two sides remain unable to agree on what percentage of the expanded revenue pool the players should receive.

In a related issue that is complicating talks with the union, the 32 owners have been unable to agree to a system to increase the amount of locally generated revenues that they would share. Several teams, including the Redskins, in recent years have expanded the revenues they generate on their own, outside the shared revenue stream each team receives collectively, primarily through network television contracts and leaguewide marketing deals. The owners' deliberations have become so combative, Upshaw said, that he has been told nine of the wealthiest teams have banded together and are threatening to sue if the clubs have a revised revenue-sharing system forced upon them. The Redskins, who generate the highest revenues in the league, would be among that group of nine.

Owners of lower-revenue teams say that if no plan for bolstered revenue-sharing is put in place, football will become, like baseball, a sport of have and have-not clubs in which only a handful of wealthier franchises will have realistic championship aspirations.

The labor stalemate also impacts planned stadium construction. Upshaw said the players will stop participating in a stadium-loan program that they fund in cooperation with the league if there are no labor and revenue-sharing deals. The teams planning new stadiums include the Dallas Cowboys, Indianapolis Colts and the New York Jets and Giants.

Upshaw previously has said he would, if there's no deal, recommend to the players at a March 9 executive board meeting that they begin the process of decertifying the union, a tactic that would seek to eliminate the possibility of a lockout by the owners. It also could lead to the players going to antitrust court to challenge any new system imposed by the owners.

Upshaw and Tagliabue skipped the Pro Bowl in Hawaii last week to return to the East Coast after the Super Bowl and resume the labor deliberations, but Upshaw said there has been no progress.

A letter written by union attorney James Quinn, delivered by e-mail Friday to Tagliabue and Harold Henderson, the league's chief labor executive, said that "we are rapidly approaching the next league year and our ability to get a deal done in this short time frame seems doubtful. Gene, Jeff [Kessler, another union attorney] and I are particularly concerned that so little progress has been made on the core economic issues that we have been discussing for nearly two years."

In the e-mail, Quinn identified the "three bedrock issues" in the negotiations as the salary cap, revenue sharing and the stadium loan program. He wrote that "in order for us to continue any form of salary cap, the players must obtain a significant increase (both in dollars and percentage) in our overall share of total league revenues." On the revenue-sharing issue, Quinn said that the union has "repeatedly made clear that we will not agree to any form of salary cap that does not deal with the 'free-rider effect' which unfairly benefits a handful of high-revenue clubs."

Upshaw has said that some owners of the league's wealthiest franchises aren't devoting a fair portion of their revenues to players' salaries. He has exempted the Redskins' Daniel Snyder, whose team generates the league's highest revenues but also usually has one of the NFL's heftiest player payrolls.

The teams share their national revenues equally, but the success of the Redskins and some other clubs in increasing streams of unshared local revenues has led to a fractious internal debate in which the less-prosperous franchises are seeking to have more of those revenues shared.

"There's a lot of infighting on their side," Upshaw said. "They don't believe they're going to have to do this, but that's the only way the low-revenue clubs can afford their commitment to us. My understanding is that there's a group of nine [wealthy teams] that's saying, 'If you force us into more revenue sharing, we'll sue you.' "

Of the stadium loan program, Quinn wrote that "the players are prepared to continue the . . . program in a form that makes sense to both sides" but it must come within the context of a bolstered revenue-sharing deal. Upshaw said the union will not contribute to any future stadium projects if there aren't labor and revenue-sharing deals in place. An NFL spokesman said yesterday the league had no response.

All of the uncertainty is creating extra work and additional worries for those people in charge of running teams.

"Right now we're operating with a Plan A and a Plan B," Baltimore Ravens General Manager Ozzie Newsome said. "We have both of them ready to go. That's all you can do. We've never faced a year like this since I've been on this side of the fence. We've never been where it went down to the 11th hour like this not knowing what the system is going to be."

Ravens Ray Lewis to Oakland in exchange for Kerry Collins?

That's the rumor around the message boards. Where it came from is not clear, but it's taken on a life of its own. On face, it's a great trade, with Lewis coming back to play in a defense he's familar with, assuming Art Shell keeps Rex Ryan as defensive coordinator.

We'll see what happens. The question is will it be a straight-up trade, or with draft picks? Who would give up what? It seems a simple trade would make all sides happy. But here's the Ravens rub: does this mean giving up on Kyle Boller, or just having an experienced backup that could push for the starting job. Collins knows and played for Ravens Offensive Coordinator Jim Fassel, so the trade seems logical from a relationship standpoint.

2006 NFL Draft: Will Vince Young Fall to the Oakland Raiders?

This post on the Oakland Raiders Yahoo! Message Board reveals a possible outcome worth monitoring:

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 03:31:33 -0000
From: "Andre"
Subject: Just A Little Note To Ponder

In a recent article by Chris Gargano, someone stated that Vince Young
could fall directly in the Raiders lap whether we win the coin toss
for #6 or not. Knowing that we need youth, talent, and a deep ball
thrower...not to mention a good scrambler in case for some God aweful
Reason Moss, Porter, Curry, Gabriel cannot get open, why in the hell
would you not draft Vince Young. Also there is a possible trade for
Ray Lewis in order to get rid of Collins. Does this sound like the
making of a team you can respect......now this is not freaking fantasy
football....these are facts that could very well develop... and free
agency will be Christmas for the raiders because there are some good
lineman D and O available.....any comments from Intelligent raider
fans who can feel the energy of this team increasing by the numbers?

Blogging Better Than Mainstream Media: Ted Rall's Rant - Check it Out

The Bland Leading The Blind
The nanny press and the cartoon controversy

BY TED RALL

LAS VEGAS--Of course it was a provocation. In September, the editor of a right-wing Danish newspaper decided "to test cartoonists to see if they were self-censoring their work, out of fear of violence from Islamic radicals." Though some declined, 12 artists accepted the editor's invitation to make light of the Prophet Mohammed, and submitted work equating Islam with terrorism and the oppression of women, among other things.

Five months later, editor Fleming Rose has learned that cartoonists have good reason to watch what they draw. Thousands of demonstrators, furious at the publication's violation of an Islamic stricture banning graphic depictions of the Prophet, marched through the streets of Cairo, Karachi, Istanbul, Teheran and Mehtarlam, Afghanistan, where at least five were killed by police. Gunmen took over the European Union office in Gaza. Mobs burned Danish flags and called for a Muslim boycott of Danish goods. Iran withdrew its ambassador from Copenhagen. Danes were ordered to flee Lebanon after mobs burned the Danish consulates in Damascus and Beirut, where they also trashed a Christian neighborhood. The Danish cartoonists, having been threatened with beheading, are presumably catching up on their Salman Rushdie while they weather the storm.

Adding fuel to the fire, said the Times, were "a group of Denmark's fundamentalist Muslim clerics ... [who] took their show on the road" last fall, traveling around the Middle East showing a package that included cartoons that had never actually appeared in any newspaper, "some depicting Mohammed as a pedophile, a pig or engaged in bestiality." Newspapers in France, Germany and elsewhere further fanned the flames by reprinting the Danish drawings.

Being provoked, as I tell myself when I'm sitting next to Sean Hannity, doesn't justify reacting with violence. And as Kuwaiti oil executive Samia al-Duaij pointed out to Time, there are better reasons to torch embassies than over cartoons: "America kills thousands of Muslims, and you lose your head and withdraw ambassadors over a bunch of cartoons printed in a second-rate paper in a Nordic country with a population of five million? That's the true outrage."

As the only syndicated political cartoonist who also writes a syndicated column, my living depends on freedom of the press. I can't decide who's a bigger threat: the deluded Islamists who hope to impose Sharia law on Western democracies, or the right-wing clash-of-civilization crusaders waving the banner of "free speech"--the same folks who call for the censorship and even murder of anti-Bush cartoonists here--as an excuse to join the post-9/11 Muslims-suck media pile-on. Most reasonable people reject both--but neither is as dangerous to liberty as America's self-censoring newspaper editors and broadcast producers.

"CNN has chosen not to show the [Danish Mohammed] cartoons out of respect for Islam," said the news channel.

"We always weigh the value of the journalistic impact against the impact that publication might have as far as insulting or hurting certain groups," said an editor at The San Francisco Chronicle.

"The cartoons didn't meet our long-held standards for not moving offensive content," said the Associated Press.

Bull----.

If these cowards were worried about offending the faithful, they wouldn't cover or quote such Muslim-bashers as Ann Coulter, Christopher Hitchens or George W. Bush. The truth is, our national nanny media is managed by cowards so terrified by the prospect of their offices being firebombed that they wallow in self-censorship.

Precisely because they subvert free speech from within with their oh-so-reasonable odes for "moderation" and against "sensationalism," the gatekeepers of our national nanny media are more dangerous to Western values than distant mullahs and clueless neocons combined. Editors and producers decide not only what's fit to print but also what's not: flag-draped coffins and body bags arriving from Iraq, photographs of Afghan civilians, their bodies reduced to blobs of blood and protoplasm, all purged from our national consciousness. You might think it's news when the vice president tells a senator to "go f--- yourself" on the Senate floor, but you'd be wrong--only tortured roundabout descriptions (like "f---") make newsprint. "This is a family newspaper," any editor will say, arguing for self-censorship--as if kids couldn't fill in those three letters in "f---."

As if kids read the paper.

The nanny media, even more prudish since 9/11, covers our millions of eyes to protect us from our own icky deeds. In Afghanistan in 2001, while covering a war that had officially killed 12 civilians, I watched a colleague from a major television network collate footage of a B-52 bombing indiscriminately obliterating a civilian neighborhood. "If people saw what bombing looks like here on the ground," he observed as body parts and burning houses and screaming children filled the screen, "they would demand an end to it. Which is why this will never air on American television." But other countries don't have our nanny media. Europeans and Arabs see the horror wreaked in our name on their airwaves, assume that we see the same imagery and hate us for not giving a damn. America's self-censors make anti-Americanism worse.

Ugly truths come out one way or the other. While the Muslim world was raging over the Danish Mohammed cartoons, Washington Post cartoonist Tom Toles received a chilling letter from the Joints Chief of Staff in reaction to his single-panel rendition of a quadriplegic veteran; if not for the nanny media's slavish refusal to run photos of the real thing, would that abstract image have shocked anyone? While we're at it, using prose to describe graphic images--as editors and anchormen are doing about the Mohammed imagery--makes as much sense as talking about the Rodney King police brutality video. "[Describing the cartoons without showing them] seems a reasonable choice," editorialized The New York Times, a paper whose readers' right to know apparently includes classified surveillance programs--but not cartoons.

Toles "crossed the line" from appropriate commentary into outright tastelessness, complained the Joint Chiefs. Similarly, many Muslims say the 12 Danish cartoonists "crossed the line" when they indulged in blasphemy of one of the world's major religions. U.S. State Department spokesman and honorary mullah Sean McCormack helpfully tells us where The Line is drawn: "Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images," he said. But who can distinguish "anti-Muslim images" from "acceptable" satire? Taste is subjective. Right-wing Time columnist Andrew Sullivan, who has repeatedly called for censoring my work because it's critical of Bush, calls the Danish cartoons "not arbitrarily offensive" and thus acceptable free speech. Lefties, on the other hand, rallied to get Rush Limbaugh fired from his gig as a football commentator.

Hypocrisy abounds: Everyone supports the free speech they agree with.

Which is why, in a nation with a truly free media, there is no line. To hell with the nanny media. Free speech is like a Ferrari: What good is it if you don't use it or if you barely use it, only driving it in town, in stop-and-go traffic? It's useless until you can head out to the Arizona desert and push it past 150 mph. Short of libel, slander and impersonation, anything goes--that is, if you believe in the First Amendment.

What if millions of people take offense? What if some of them turn violent, even murderous? So what? No one can make you angry. You decide whether or not to become angry. If journalistic gatekeepers worry about the mere possibility of prompting outrage, they'll validate mob rule and undermine our right to a free press, one that covers the controversial along with the bland.

While deciding what goes into the paper and the evening news, good journalists ought to be guided by only one consideration: Is it news? If the answer is yes, send it out. Even if it's tasteless as all f---.

Postscript: A European Muslim Web site has posted a cartoon depicting Anne Frank in bed with Adolf Hitler. "If it is the time to break taboos and cross all the red lines," the site explains, "we certainly do not want to fall behind." It's an idiotic cartoon. Breaking taboos, on the other hand, is something our nanny media ought to try.

New York Names Street After Peter Jennings

I just saw it on CNN's "Live From." W. 66th Street is now called "Peter Jennings Way." What a way to honor one of the best television anchors in American history.

It Could Be That, With AJ Freeley, The Chargers Feel They Can Get Along Without Brees

I think it was a calculated action, but in retrospect a very smart one by San Diego Chargers AJ Smith: signing quarterback AJ Freeley to a contract that runs through 2007.

I think this move was done to place San Diego in a perfect quarterback bargaining position they feel they can't lose in. With Brees, Phil Rivers, and AJ Freeley in place, the Bolts have two QBs' that other teams would want to deal for and one that's a proven backup.

And that's the other side of the problem.

Too much of this dealing and wheeling could place the Chargers with a team lacking in the righ chemistry to win a championship, let alone get into the playoffs.

Last year, the Chargers were one step from the postseason and arguably the best team not to make it. AJ Smith's actions could keep them in a position where they're on the outside looking in for a long time.

The best move was to place a franchise tag on Brees and go from there. It would have been a great move to insure the team's future chemistry. But it's too late now; they could lose Brees and Rivers and be stuck with Freeley.