Of Erin Andrews and Big Ben

I've been amused by blogs that decry the assault on Erin Andrews' privacy while linking to the video or otherwise giving their readers a good hint on where to find it. Strikes me as disingenuous at best. (I'm not going to mention those blogs for the same reason I'm not helping anybody find the video.)

As shocking as the peeping incident is the comment from another female sports journalist, who shall also remain nameless but whose opinion confounds me. She advised Andrews to "stop playing to the frat-boy crowd" or words to that effect.
"Blame The Victim" sounds like a game for Howard Stern or Don Imus. How exactly has Andrews encouraged or otherwise failed to discourage the mindset that placed a camera in her hotel room?
Has she been spotted and photographed at parties with drinks in hand? Not that I'm aware of. (And that, by the way, is amazing. In an era of cell-phone cameras with YouTube applications, celebrities have two choices: live a cloistered life or wind up in a potentially misleading photo on the Web.)
Has she done or said anything sexually suggestive while discussing the nuances of the match-up zone?

This whole story is creepy, but you don't need me to tell you that.

Another matter has gotten my attention. When the Ben Roethlisberger story broke, I was surprised to see that an Associated Press story named the complainant. It's not a criminal matter, but it seemed to me -- and it still does -- that such disclosure violates a general journalistic policy. Sure enough, the AP stories filed Tuesday and Wednesday do not name the woman.
I'm conflicted about this entire issue. But consistency is important, and it appears that many outlets fell for the trick in the press release issued by Big Ben's attorney, which named the alleged victim in a quote. Perhaps lacking the time to make editing choices on deadline, many printed the quote in its entirety, thereby using the woman's name.

I'm back

I never promised I'd do this daily. That was the hope, of course. But I got distracted.

Anyway, Michael Vick's federal sentence ended today. He's now eligible to petition the government of the NFL for a redress of grievances.
Like most Americans, I think Vick has done his time and should be reinstated, but I break from Vick's cadre of apologists in one respect: I don't necessarily think his sentence was excessive.
Michael Vick was not sentenced to 23 months in the federal system for fighting -- or even for killing -- dogs. He was sentenced to 23 months for fighting and killing dogs and for lying about it.
That combo is critical.

Remember the timeline: On Aug. 24, 2007, he entered the guilty plea and held a press conference in which he vowed to change his ways. While awaiting sentencing, he lied to investigators and failed a drug test.
He was essentially thumbing his nose at the system.
What's a judge to do in that circumstance? Ignore it? If so, he or she is essentially telling the investigators that their work has no meaning.
Henry Hudson simply had to go for the high end of the scale at that point.

Now the sentence has expired. NFL majordomo Roger Goodell can still look like the law-and-order guy and let Vick play without further restriction. Vick has done his "extra" time. He imposed it on himself.