The Absence of Justice in Omaha

On Tuesday, in Omaha, Neb., a 28-year-old former Omaha police officer was found guilty of sexual assault — which he did while he was on duty. His sentence could have been up to 50 years in prison. Judge Joseph Troia, however, sentenced Scott Antoniak to five years of probation and 150 hours of community service.

The county attorney plans to appeal the sentence, stating that probation is an excessively lenient sentence for a convicted sex offender.

The crime took place on 10 July 2005 in a mostly black, poor part of Omaha, where Antoniak was patrolling. The victim alleged that Antoniak threatened to arrest her unless she performed oral sex on him. Afterwards, the woman, angry that Antoniak had abused his badge for a blowjob, reported the incident. Antoniak was arrested, fired from the police force in August 2005, went to court and here we are.

Antoniak first claimed that the blowjob was the woman’s idea and he had a lapse in judgment by accepting the offer. Yeah, because women are just dying to give blowjobs to men they don’t know. Is he actually claiming that she just approached his police cruiser and offered to blow him?

Likely realizing this absurdity, his defense attorneys tried to make Antoniak seem like less of a creep by announcing that the victim had three prostitution convictions and two lewd conduct convictions in the mid-1990s, as well as 10 drug and paraphernalia convictions between 1997 and 2001. OK, the woman has an illicit past. However, it’s 2007 and she has no convictions after 2001. Maybe she’s cleaned up her act, gone to rehab and become an upstanding member of society. Antoniak and his defense attorneys, however, seemed to be trying to lessen the impact of his crime because of her past.

So someone with an illicit past is less of a human? She’s been a whore and a junkie, so the fact that she was sexually assaulted by a uniformed, on-duty police officer isn’t that big a deal? This implication by the defense is outrageous. President Bill Clinton was ostracized over a blowjob — and that one was consensual.

Either Troia is too soft on sex offenders or he decided that the victim in this case is a piece of trash. Maybe he figured that Antoniak got a raw deal, lost his career, has to register as a sex offender and those added to the public humiliation and embarrassment to his wife and children was punishment enough. Either way, Troia’s a complete fuckwit. Some might side with Troia’s decision, believing that Antoniak must just be a good guy caught up in a bad situation or that he had already paid for his crime. After all, he was a police officer!

Well, those people are fuckwits, too. As a police officer, Antoniak should have upheld a higher moral and ethical standard than regular old citizens. When you don that uniform and carry that gun, you have accepted a tremendous responsibility to uphold the law. This means, Mr. Antoniak, you catch the bad guys — you don’t become one.

Five years of probation is too lenient a sentence for a sex offender. I don’t believe in imprisoning nonviolent criminals; however, sexual assault is a violent crime, and offenders should be forced to spend a little time in the pen. Because the assault was committed while Antoniak was wearing his uniform, on duty and in a police cruiser, Troia should have denounced his egregious abuse of power and smacked him with a severe sentence. Maybe after a couple years as Bubba’s bitch Antoniak would think twice about forcing himself on women.

Cadillac, Zevren, Firstson: That's Your Name, Kid

In the quest to make each child a unique and special snowflake, parents are choosing outrageous and ridiculous names for their bundles of joy. From models of cars to astrological signs, these poor kids are destined for harassment througout their lives. If they were to go all Menendez brothers on their parents at some point, I'd have tough time convicting them.

Celebrities have furthered the trend. It sometimes seems like Hollywood has a game of "who can come up with the worst baby name." Moonbeam Zappa doesn't seem so bad nowadays after Jason Lee just named his son Pilot Inspektor.

Some celebrities, however, have been unfairly accused of giving stupid names to their children. Gwyneth Paltrow was criticized for naming her baby girl Apple. I don't see what's so bad about it. It's cute. Even when you picture a 20-year-old girl named Apple, it's cute. Nothing really awful rhymes well with Apple, and it's not likely she'll be called "Apple-Grapple" on the playground. Same goes for Shiloh and Suri. Unusual but cute, pretty names.

Some parents, however, have mistaken "fucked-up" for cute, pretty and unusual. Every month, a local hospital takes an ad in the newspaper and publishes the names of all the babies born the previous month. Here are some of the most recent winners.

Cadillac: Not sure whether it's a boy or a girl, but it's sure a snazzy car.
Aries: Although he or she was not born under the sign. Sounds like the kid's some kind of warrior.
Brooklyn, Aspen, Phoenix: Quit naming your kids after cities and borroughs. It's just stupid.
Jewel, Paris, Passion, Unique, Holiday: Destined for the stage. In a strip joint.
Firstson: Oh, yes, you're clever. Let me guess — he's your first son? He's going to grow up to become a pedophile.
Clemens: And you're going to call him Clem, right? Gag. The kids on the playground are going to call him "Phlegm," and he'll grow up to be a serial killer.
Zevren: I can't even begin to fathom why someone named their kid Zevren.

And some honorable mentions:
Harlie: Even with the girly spelling, she's going to be a rough-and-tough, tobacco chewin' biker chick.
Miley: Believe it or not, two sets of parents chose this odd name for their kids in the same month.
Bo: Redneck cowboy.
Beyonka: Like Willy Wonka!
Legend: Uh huh. He's sure to become a legend when the other kindergartners pants him on the playground.

Parents should also be banned from attempting to display cleverness with double abominations. If your surname is Horner or Daniels, do not name your son Jack. If your last name is Barr, don't name your daughter Candy. (In fact, regardless of your last name, don't name your daughter Candy.) If your surname is White, don't name your kids Brighton and Snowy.

Since ancient times, people have tied one's destiny to his or her name. In several religions, a name is tied to spirituality and the soul. Studies have shown that kids' names indeed impact them throughout their lives. For example, people with names traditionally considered "black" names — like Shakira, LaTisha, Jamal, Tyrone — are more likely to experience discrimination. People with classic names like Alex or Susan are much less likely so. Research conducted by Dr. Robert Needleman, MD, revealed that "boys with unusual first names tend to display more emotional disturbances than boys with more traditional names."

Studies have also shown that "desirable" names tend to lead to greater success. A School of Business at Arizona State University report revealed that, among the top CEOs in Phoenix, Robert, John and Steve were the most common names. Classic names with bizarre spellings, however, will hinder your kid: JuDee, Jazzmyne, Kammronn and Zaquiri (for Judy, Jasmine, Cameron and Zachary) are just plain repugnant. Also taboo — weird punctuation in a name: She'lah, J'amal, Me-Shell.

I'm not saying that parents need to choose boring, classic names like Michael or Jennifer. I think there are plenty of interesting, less common names that won't cause your kid to be ostracized throughout his or her life. But try saying and using a name before you just dump it on the kid. Would you want to be called Flower or Unique or Cadillac? Maybe you would and that's the real problem. Consider, though, how you imagine someone named Matt, Kevin, Anna or Lisa to look and behave. Now consider how you imagine someone named Elmer, Clancy, Horace, Bertha, Doris or Wilma to look and behave.

Be kind to your children. Pretend you're the bully on the playground and think of what you would call the kid named Trucker.

When the News Became a Soap Opera

When I studied journalism, news appeared in the "News" section of a newspaper, and celebrities, movies and bands appeared in the "Entertainment" section. The nightly news programs discussed real news items — politics, the economy, international relations.

Over the last decade, however, the media seem to have lost their grasp on what constitutes real news and what should be saved for the entertainment section. Moreover, once they get their grubby hands on a truly newsworthy item, they bang on it until our heads explode.

The media treated Anna Nicole Smith's death Feb. 8, 2007, like the death of an icon. Come on — she was trampy, rumored to have or have had addictions to both illicit and prescription drugs. She married a wealthy, half-dead guy and all anyone said about that was how she married him for his money — which she would surely inherit soon, since he looked like he could drop any day. She got fat, and everyone called her a cow. Her television show was utterly ridiculous and irritating. And she always came off as an idiot.

So why, then, did the nation go into mourning when she died? The media treated it as though she were as beloved as Marilyn Monroe or JFK. They created drama around her death: Was it suicide? Was it murder? Oh, how she'll be missed.

It was neither suicide nor murder. It was a dumbass junkie ODing on a pretty cocktail of pills. And frankly, I haven't missed her.

And then the big mystery: Who's her baby's father? Who cares? She was a slut. End of story.

But just this week, the media was still pounding the Anna Nicole drum. That is, until the tragedy at Virginia Tech. It was indeed a tragedy, and I'm sorry for all those students and families. But we don't need a minute-by-minute update of what's happening on the campus. Cho Seung-Hui was nutters. Our gun laws are such that he was able to easily obtain not one, but two guns. The loon snapped and shot up the school. Big tragedy. End of story.

All this information we're being fed about Cho's graphic, pedophelic writings, his bizarre silence, his stalker tendencies. Newscasters speculating about whether Hui intentionally carried out his deadly mission during the anniversary week of the Columbine shootings. Was he copying Columbine? He was a nutter — that's the only definitive answer we have. The rest is just networks' efforts to hypnotize viewers into staying glued to their televisions.

The news shows instantly catapulted Cho to infamy, which was likely his goal. I was irked Monday night when NBC pre-empted "The Black Donnellys" in favor of a "Dateline" special about the Virginia Tech shootings. No one really knew anything new that soon after the shootings. But the networks thought they had to air something more. The morning shows sent their anchors to the campus on Tuesday to give us blow-by-blow information, which wasn't emerging quickly. Then NBC banged the symbols loudest when it aired a videotape that Cho — between shootings — mailed to the network. The public was outraged that NBC aired that tape. But I guarantee they watched.

Amid what the networks consider "big" news stories, a lot of other things are happening in the world. These things, however, are swept aside until the dust settles from whatever story is buying them ratings.

Therein lies the problem: The general population takes the bait and becomes consumed with these hyperbolic stories. They want to know everything about the story. They want answers, by god! So they give the networks the ratings they want.

How about this: We stop being so small-minded and strive to learn about news on a global scale. How about if we stop being so U.S.-focused and give a shit about other countries, other people, other tragedies? If we, the television news audience, demand real news, then the networks will be forced to deliver. If we demand fair, unbiased news coverage, then the networks will have no choice but to return to what journalism truly is. Until then, the news will just continue to be an indulgent soap opera to win the ratings war.

What Went Wrong With Generation Y?

Touted as a generation of forward thinking, technology and multitasking, Generation Y can certainly bring some positive attributes to the workplace.

Unfortunately, they've also been coddled and spoiled, told they're each a unique and special snowflake. And they expect to be treated as such. The members of Generation Y with whom I've had contact have failed to display anything but laziness and self-involvement.

I first noticed this when I waited tables a few years ago. Many of the busboys and hostesses stood around, ignored customers and dirty tables, and escaped to the break room to talk on their cell phones rather than work. None of the servers was pleased to tip them at the end of the night after we'd had to clean our own tables.

About two years ago, I was at the checkout in a hardware store. The cashier, a boy of 16 or 17, talked on his cell phone during the entire transaction. No greeting. No "thank you." I did, however learn that he was talking to his father, who was irate that the kid had been arrested the night before.

A few weeks ago, I was standing at a customer service counter. Two clerks in their late 30s were extremely busy, and people were lined up at the counter. A group of three teens was just standing around, arms folded. One was talking on her cell phone. Finally one of the older clerks said her name. She moved the cell phone away from her mouth and gave him a pouty "what do you want" look.

"Are you on the clock?" he asked her. She nodded.

"You're not on break?" he asked.

"No," she replied in a snotty teenage voice.

"Then off the cell phone. We need your help."

She ended her conversation and proceeded to stand in the huddle of teens with her arms crossed. She made no move to help the other clerks or do any kind of work.

I'm 33; I remember my teen years. I was moody and difficult — at home. My parents would have beaten the life out of me if I behaved the way these kids do at work, school, in public. I had my rebellious years. When I was 18, my parents told me to find another place to live when they'd had enough of my antics. But then I had to work and keep a job to pay rent and eat. And I was a hardworking, thorough employee and made sure not to piss off my employers.

Not this younger generation, though. They seem to think an employer should pay them just for making an appearance. They expect a paycheck; they don't want to work for it.

This behavior is not limited to Generation Y teens. Gen Y adults are just as self-centered and lazy. They are working good jobs that they should consider careers but instead view them as jobs for a few years until they move on. There's no dedication, no devotion, no work ethic.

My most recent experience with Generation Y is a new employee in my department. She's 27. My company offers flex time, which she apparently thinks means "part time." After two-and-a-half months, she has yet to work a full, eight-hour day.

Despite our efforts to welcome and include her, she refuses to integrate with the rest of the group; she won't partake in any discussions, she never says hi or good morning or good-bye. She's like a ghost: pretty much nonexistent except when she occasionally coughs. She's not shy — in the few discussions I've had with her, she's not mousy or passive. She has yet to ask a question about what our company's software products do. I don't think she even knows what our company does.

The department is outraged for two reasons: First, where does she get off thinking she can work less than 30 hours a week and still receive full pay and benefits? Second, if you divide her salary by the number of hours she actually works, she's making more per hour than some of us who have been with the company a number of years. Apparently she thinks she deserves a fat paycheck regardless of whether she does any work or stays a full day.

I recently had a conversation with my siblings about the laziness of Generation Y. They're 28 and 29 — born in the last two years of Generation X. They are both hard workers with good jobs they consider careers. They don't expect their employers to just hand them a paycheck; they work for their money.

My brother pointed out that although Generation Y are lousy workers, Gen X started it; Gen X produced the first of the lazy workers. He's right, I suppose. But if the increase in laziness between Generations X and Y is an indication of what's to come with future generations, how will companies find employees who will actually work?

Would it go so far as to demand a form of neo-slavery, where companies would purchase employees and beat and starve them to force them to work? That may sound outrageous, but is it really? Generation Y may be able to punch text messages into their cell phones faster than members of older generations, but what happens in the future when a generation stops contributing to society?