Of course he can’t afford to pay for 30 kids. Who can, except for maybe the Duggars?

Hatchett is tired of going to court every other month over this child support that he can’t afford. He’s tired. He’s tired.

Yeah.

Clearly he has nothing about himself that suggests he wants more out of life. I mean, really. Thirty kids? With 11 different women? I don’t have to know anything else about him to know just the man he is.

And that brings me to my point: What were the mothers thinking?! Fine, Hatchett clearly has no maturity, mental capacity, or bent toward responsibility. But that doesn’t explain why 11 different women have allowed themselves to become impregnated by this man. Nine of those children have come within the past three years, according to the LA Times story.

I am quite sure the mothers of those latter children had some inkling that Hatchett wasn’t about much. After all, I am sure his reputation preceded him. How could it not? And for them to knowingly climb into bed with that … to knowingly allow themselves to become pregnant … shameful. What, did each woman think she would be special? That he wouldn’t do to her what he had done to numerous others?

Again, I don’t know Hatchett personally, but clearly his history provides all the indication to his character that anyone considering a sexual relationship with him would need. That alone should have been enough for each of those women — speaking about the most recent ones — needed to be able to make a decision about climbing into bed with him. No doubt he’s charismatic. No doubt he is cute. (Has to be, huh?) No doubt he is a smooth talker.

No doubt, he’s a deadbeat.

Clearly he’s not father material. And that’s the one thing these women forgot to consider. It’s one thing not to care about who you sleep with. Obviously, it doesn’t take much to impress. But it is quite another to get pregnant by a man who has repeatedly shown he’s not interested in any part of fatherhood. He can barely keep up with all his kids’ names! WREG.com says some of the children receive as little as $1.49 a month in child support. Yeah. Uh huh.

As eye-popping as this story is, it is part of the bigger context: Lawmakers have been fighting in recent months about cutting funding for birth control and family planning services. This is quite an extreme case of a lack of birth control. But it ties in, I believe. Is this really what we want? More people wantonly running around having children with no thought to the future? It’s not. While I question the sanity and judgment of the mothers involved in the Hatchett story, I pause for a moment to wonder that maybe some of them did not have access to birth control or did not feel empowered to protect themselves through the use of condoms or contraceptives. Huge speculation on my part, but not outside the realm of possibility.

Several states have cut birth control funding. Texas has slashed $74 million in family planning funding.  Other states like Montana and New Jersey have eliminated funding altogether. Like Hatchett and his “baby mamas” that’s a short-sighted decision. People are going to have sex. Period. Can’t stop them. But at least we can help them be responsible about it, if they are so inclined. Help women protect themselves from men like Desmond Hatchett. Yeah, in an ideal world, this wouldn’t be an issue because the men wouldn’t behave so irresponsibly. And the women would be smart enough not to fall for it. But ideals only work in the ideal world, not reality. Providing family planning and birth  control helps women do what they can to exercise control over their lives. Helps women try to make good choices. We need to rethink these cuts. Because if not, then this is the result: Adults who make poor decisions that result in pregnancies.

We will continue to see children who, through no fault of their own, live in poverty because their parents can’t afford them. Children have to eat. Just because their parents make dumb decisions doesn’t mean they have to suffer. Except they do. These children are suffering under the burden of irresponsible, short-sighted parents who have likely destined them to childhoods mired in poverty.

And that is what breaks my heart.

But let’s move past the image and go to the question the cover asks. It says, “Are you mom enough?”

Ah, yes, the mommy wars.

This is a false argument that has become a raging discussion — ye, fight — for years: Which mothering choices give us the right to put our noses in the air and look down on other mothers for daring to make different decisions? This one question has caused drama amongst mommies for years.

This is the deal, I’ll put it as nicely as I can, to those who dare to pit mother against mother: Forget you.

Are you mom enough? Are you freaking kidding me? For years, we’ve had the debate about the stay-at-home mom versus the career mom. Each side looks suspiciously at the other, feeling a bit put-upon that her choice isn’t appreciated enough and maybe feeling a bit smug that she has made the better choice. Stay-at-home moms get to tout their choice as a sacrifice to give up a working career for the betterment of their children. Mothers who work outside the home get to tout their choice as the more liberated option or as the bigger sacrifice — and better example of parenting — because they wish they could stay home but instead sacrifice that time so they can provide resources for their kids.

Knock it off.

Both decisions have their merits. And what may be right for one family may not be right for another. Staying home to raise kids is a noble decision — if you can stand it. And getting up and going to work outside the home everyday is a noble decision. As a working mom, I split the difference: I work from a home office. My kid is with me all day. Yeah. Take that. Does that make me a better mom than someone else? No. It just makes me someone who hasn’t gotten that kid into preschool yet.

Then of course, there is the perennial favorite dividing factor: Breastfeeding. Breastfeeding mothers get to wear their milk-swollen boobs as a badge of honor. Mothers who do not breastfeed must slink away in shame. After all, who would deny their precious offspring the benefits of mother’s milk — tremendous bonding experience with mommy, immune system boosting nutrition, nature’s chosen source of sustenance?

I would.

I did not breastfeed. Could not. Tried. Oh, did I try. I pumped and pushed and squeezed and everything you could think of. Nada. Well, save for an ounce here or there. That was from pumping. And when I tried to put the kid to my breast to do it that way, he wouldn’t have it. Just wouldn’t take it.

I certainly didn’t feel like a prize mommy. Felt pretty lousy, actually. After all, breastfeeding has been around since the beginning of time. So easy, even a cavewoman could do it. But not this woman.

I had a very difficult pregnancy that landed me in the hospital twice, on bed rest after the 28th week. My son was born at 33 weeks. I didn’t even get to hold him his first night in the world. They whisked him off to the neonatal intensive care unit and took me to my room. That was that. No mommy-son bonding. No kissy-kissy. No marveling at this miracle.

No breastfeeding.

I finally got to hold my son sometime the next afternoon. Upset at not having my child with me, I cried to a friend who wheeled me up to see him. I sat with him, holding his 3 pound, 4 ounce body. No breastfeeding.

Because he was born so early, one of the things he had to learn to do in the NICU was to eat, to suckle. Eventually he got the hang of it.

By the time I tried to put my breast to his mouth, he wouldn’t have it. And my breasts wouldn’t produce much. And certainly by the time we got to bring him home after spending the first month of his life in the hospital, he could care less about a breast.

I guess if I had been mom enough, I would have known to pump my milk even before my son could breastfeed so I could get those breasts working properly. If I had been mom enough, I would have demanded they take me to see him that first night in the NICU. If I had been mom enough, well, I guess I would have made it my business to breastfeed at all cost.

Instead, I was just a new mom doing the best she could. I got the formula they had been feeding him in the NICU and made sure that’s what I gave him when he came home. I continued to try to pump — something, anything — but eventually gave up the effort as futile. I hoped — prayed — my inadequacy didn’t cost my child his health. I was paranoid he would fall prey to every illness out there because he didn’t have his mommy’s antibodies protecting him. And I envied those breastfeeding moms. They had it so easy. All they had to do was pop out a boob and their babies were bonding, protected, and happy. Meanwhile, all my boobs were good for was decoration, and that not even the good stuff. There was no perk left.

My son has turned out fine, despite my disastrous breastfeeding attempts. He didn’t have his first cold or bug until sometime around his first birthday. We’ve bonded plenty.

I was upset for a long time about not being able to breastfeed. Because not breastfeeding made me feel like I was not mom enough. But then I realized motherhood is about more than one thing. It’s about the decisions we make every day about our children and our families. It’s not about living up to someone else’s ideal. And it’s not about being perfect. Far from it. Motherhood is a job that comes with no guarantees and perfection is definitely not the name of the game. Getting out of there with everyone alive — and not too busted up by the experience is a far better aim. Some days you’ll do a better job than others. And that’s OK. Because in the end, if you are doing your best and your child is OK, then you are mom enough.

You don’t have to prove it.

You live it.

The Walt Disney Company, the parent company of Marvel, desperately needed this big win, after dropping the bomb that was “John Carter,” which has been touted as one of the biggest studio losses ever. The strong opening of “The Avengers” portends a good start to the summer movie season, as moviegoers are saying they absolutely adore this action flick. This is good news for Hollywood, since about 40 percent of its annual revenue comes from summer fare. Summer movie attendance was 543 million last year, its lowest since 1997.  The New York Times reports attendance is up 18 percent this year.

“The Avengers” is built on the Marvel comics franchise, of course, with so many beloved characters. And this has been a long promotional push, starting with” Iron Man” in 2008. But are those the only reasons this movie is doing so well? Nope, not at all. There are several.

1. Marketing. Marvel/Disney has spent about $100 million on global marketing. Everyone has heard about the superhero project.

2. Strong cast. Robert Downey Jr., Scarlett Johansson, Samuel L. Jackson, Chris Hemsworth, Jeremy Renner, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Evans.

3. Cool special effects. Audiences are loving them.

4. Acting. Yes, acting, even in an action movie. Mark Ruffalo is getting great reviews for his portrayal of the Hulk.

5. Broad appeal. The movie is attractive to lots of demographics. Males make up 60 percent of the audience; families 24 percent; couples 55 percent. Young and old are going to see it: 50 percent of the audience is under 25, 50 percent is over.

So have you seen it yet? If so, what did you think of the movie?

Seau was playing when I started watching football in 1993. He was an awesome linebacker and seemed like a really nice guy. According to the news story, he is the eighth member of the 1994 San Diego Chargers to die at a young age. He was 43. And he is the second retired football player to commit suicide in the last few weeks, following the April 19 death of Ray Easterling, who played for the Atlanta Falcons in the 70s. To hear Seau might have ended his own life is a sad reminder that we never really know what is going on in a person’s life. Seau’s death is the latest reminder that suicide is a very real problem. According to the CDC, it’s the tenth leading cause of death. And for every one person who commits suicide, 11 more have tried. That’s a lot of people who are hurting.

A lot of factors contribute to someone taking his own life. Some factors include extreme stress, illness, injury, substance abuse, and loss. But all suicides have one thing in common: The person who chooses to take his or her own life is in so much pain that he or she sees death as the only relief.

While it may be shocking to hear of someone’s suicide, in almost all instances, people who are considering killing themselves give off warning signs before it happens. Helpguide gives 10 suicide warning signs:

1. Talking about suicide. Sometimes they talk about wishing they had never been born, or that others will be sorry when they are gone.

2. Seeking deadly means. Sometimes suicidal people look for tools to be used in suicide attempts. Tools include firearms (the most common), illegal drugs, legal drugs, and poison.

3. Expressing interest in death. Maybe they show a sudden interest in death, violence, dying, and the related by talking about it, reading about it, or watching shows related to it. Some even express their interest by writing stories or poems about the subject.

4. Expressing hopelessness. They have feelings of hopelessness or that there is no way out of their current circumstance. To them, life will never get better.

5. Displaying self-hatred. They express feelings of self-loathing, guilt, or shame. They feel like the world would be better without them.They speak negatively about themselves.

6. Getting affairs in order. They handle final affairs, such as getting a will, tying up what they consider to be loose ends.

7. Saying goodbye. They reach out to people in their lives to say goodbye.

8. Withdrawing. They begin to isolate themselves from others. They stop interacting with or talking with others. They just want to be left alone.

9. Displaying self-destructive behavior. They turn into daredevils. They do things that seem to indicate a desire to die — increase alcohol or drug use, start having unsafe sex, drive recklessly.

10. Showing extreme calm. A sudden feeling of calmness or happiness after a period of depression or despair could indicate someone has decided to kill himself or herself and the person feels as if a burden has been lifted.

As you look through the list, you may think that it’s difficult to see any one of those warning signs as a clue that someone is about to commit suicide. And it’s true. A person can write about death and not actually be suicidal. As an author, I have many writer friends who have something about death in every book. Or someone may start trying to get affairs in order just because he or she has decided to take better control of life. Yeah, the signs can be confusing. But the point here is that for someone who may be in danger of committing suicide, these may be real signs that, if you notice them, can help prevent that final act.

If you find yourself in a position of dealing with someone who is suicidal, know that this person’s actions are not your fault. We all make our own decisions. But you can be someone who can help save the person’s life. The first thing to do is get immediate help. If the person is in imminent danger, then don’t leave the person alone. Remove potential means of suicide from the person’s immediate area. Get professional help. Encourage the person to make positive changes. Try to be supportive even after the immediate danger has passed. You can find other suicide prevention tips at Helpguide, as well.

Dealing with a suicide is never easy, and working to prevent one can be scary, exhausting, and confusing. It’s a piece of family drama we all hope we never have to face, but for more than 1 million families worldwide each year, it’s a reality.

I say a prayer for Junior Seau’s family.

“Fringe” has suffered low ratings from time to time — hence the reason to end it after this coming 13-episode season — but it’s really a fascinating show. It introduced me to a whole different part of myself, a part I had no idea existed. It’s only by watching “Fringe” that I realized I have a fascination with otherworldly things. Not supernatural stuff like ghosts and whatnot, but things like the concept of alternate universes, entanglement, and consciousness. I even watch “Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman” sometimes and am fascinated by quantum mechanics and noetic sciences. Of course there is a lot that I don’t understand, but I am fascinated, nevertheless. I owe this new discovery to my friends at “Fringe.”

“Fringe’s” acting is superb and the concept, when the writers remember to incorporate it into a show, is interesting.

Looking forward to seeing how they pull it all together for the final 13.

And so, Frank’s is a natural question, “Do you think higher earners work harder?” After all, we equate hard work with more money. We conclude that the reason poor people don’t have any money is that they just aren’t working hard enough. But I find it a false argument. While in some instances working harder produces more financial benefit — more money — in other instances, it does not. It just makes you tired. This is an age-old idea that we’ve had: The harder we work, the more money we make.

But is that really what it’s all about?

It’s easy to assume that people who don’t make as much money are too busy lazing around watching Kardashian marathons, playing Angry Birds when they should be working, and club hopping to exhaustion. If they’d spend more time at their work, then they would make more money. But this is a dangerous assumption. Many people work hard every day and they simply can’t ever seem to earn enough money. They are people with two, even three jobs. Some do backbreaking, physical work: They lay bricks in the blazing sun. They work in plants where they risk losing hearing or limb. They stand for hours on end, and wind up with busted up knees, achy backs, and general poor health. We would be hard pressed to make an argument that this is not “hard” work. Yet, people who do this work aren’t among the high earners of this report.

So, it’s not as simple as saying people who make more money work harder than those who don’t.

And what of it? We are taught, even from childhood that hard work produces the best results. And to a great extent, I agree. But it’s not hard work for the sake of hard work. You’ve got to know where to put the hard work. You can work hard all day, every day, year after year, on something that just isn’t going to produce results and never make any money. I’ve come across people who were, bless their hearts, working hard to put together their own news shows, but the talent just wasn’t there. So it didn’t matter how hard they worked, they weren’t going to make any money off that. And I’ve seen people who worked hard for years in certain professions, but they always seemed to struggle. The hard work was there. The opportunity was not.

How we see money, how much of it we make, and what value we place on what it says about us are all part of complex financial drama that plays out in social issues, politics, and real life. We let money define us, but we rarely truly think about what it means to us and if we’re pursuing that aim in the right way.

Long hours and a lot of money vs shorter hours and less money

One common idea we have is that working hard for all of our productive years is the way to go, so we can save for this fabled retirement. I say fabled, because increasingly, more and more people are not seeing that retirement, or at least not in the way they had hoped. Their retirement funds are in shambles. Their health isn’t what they would like. And the people they had expected to spend retirement with are not there. They’ve followed the accepted model and have worked long and hard for 40 years, only to come to a disappointing and depressing result. But if they had worked a little less over the years and taken the time to enjoy more — and pay attention to the people in their lives — they might have gotten a lot more joy.

Many people work so long and hard to make a lot of money that they miss out on what living is all about. In other words, they spend so much time making a living that they miss the opportunity to make a life.

We have to remember — or newsflash, if this is new to you — we work to earn a living to provide us with the means to be healthy, enjoy life, and spend it with people we care about. If we’re working too hard and all the important moments are passing us by or we never get a chance to do anything or connect with those who are important in our lives, then we miss the point.

Build the life you want, starting with today’s dollars

If you’re familiar with the concept of lifestyle design, it is the fashioning of your life in a way that allows you to enjoy some of the benefits of wealth or retirement now, as opposed to later. It’s a concept made popular by Tim Ferriss, when he wrote the The 4-Hour Workweek: Escape 9-5, Live Anywhere, and Join the New Rich in 2007, but it’s been around much longer. I love the idea of lifestyle design and am consciously working to build the life I want. I want to enjoy more life along the way, rather than wait for some far-off retirement age to suddenly start having fun.

Obviously you need to earn a basic amount of money that allows you to afford the things you need: Shelter, food, clothing, the occasional piece of fun or entertainment, health.  So yeah, you need some baseline amount of money, no matter who you are. But beyond the baseline amount, getting tons and tons more money doesn’t somehow make you happier and happier and happier. Your happiness increases based on the experiences you have, how much you’re able to help others (donate to charities, volunteer, etc.), and not really because you have a lot of zeroes in the bank account. So you too might consider revising your ideas about work, retirement, and what you really want out of life. Do you really want to work harder and harder and harder so you can finally start living when you hit 62, 65, or 67?

So how does lifestyle design apply to Frank’s question? Lifestyle design combines two parts of the work discussion: quality of life and intelligent work. Lifestyle design means seeking quality of life — enjoyment — in what you do. And it means being smart about how you work and how you play.

I believe we can all benefit from some level of lifestyle design, no matter our income level, once we’ve got the basics covered. Maybe we’re not ready to go full-fledged into everything Ferriss says and outsource our lives, hop from country to country, etc. But at our level, we can incorporate some design into our lives and in doing so, we can get the benefits we envision a larger income would afford us.

This isn’t about living for today and letting tomorrow take care of itself. No, we’ve been through that financial drama and have the foreclosures, high credit card debt, and anemic savings to show for it. The current economic crisis is about that way of thinking. No, I’m talking about revamping your life to provide meaningful experiences and time to enjoy those you love, without breaking the bank — and without having to devote every waking minute to chasing the dollar. This is not an excuse to be lazy, because that won’t get you anywhere. But it is a reason and plan for earning and using your money.

As a small business owner, I work hard, I won’t lie. It’s just as likely that a client will find an email from me at 3 a.m. as it is at 3 p.m. I work hard because I enjoy what I do, and I have so much I want to accomplish. But I also work smart. Working smart means finding ways to be efficient. And lifestyle design means taking off time to do what I enjoy. My husband and I love to play tennis. So we might do something that a lot of people working a 9 to 5 can’t do: Take off in the middle of the day and go play tennis. We can do it because of the entrepreneurial lifestyle that isn’t defined by anything other than what we choose.

With lifestyle design, you get to choose how you want your life to look and the experiences that will help you get there. For instance, maybe your idea of being wealthy means being able to travel several times a year.

Well, what happens if you start to build that into your life now? Maybe you can schedule a few short trips — some weekend getaways — over the course of the year, and then take one bigger vacation once a year. Your finances may allow you to hop on a plane and jet clear across the country for a few weekend getaways, or you may need to stick to destinations that are within driving distance. Chances are, no matter where you live, there are some good and interesting destinations within a drive of home. So you can start there. Maybe you do a couple — or several — of those over the year. At the end of the year, you look back and realize you have traveled a lot and have had some amazing experiences! You are living the life you only envisioned you’d be able to live with more money. But with lifestyle design, you’ve figured out a way to live that life now, on a budget. In that case, it may not be about working harder, but working smarter: Working fewer hours, but producing better results; comparative shopping so you get the best deals; cutting out some expense that doesn’t produce much reward so you can have money for something you’d enjoy more.

In that case, the question isn’t, “Do you think higher earners work harder?” It is, “Why exactly do you work?”

So what’s it about this movie that has people spending money at the theater when overall movie attendance is down? Well, it’s a few things.

Publicity

One, you can’t escape the publicity.  The three-year-promotional campaign saw 80,000 free posters given out, 50 Hunger Games-themed magazine covers, and a ton of social network traffic on Facebook, Twitter, etc.

Reviews

And of those who have seen the movie — I haven’t — reviews have been mostly positive. Rotten Tomatoes gives it an 85 percent fresh rating. Most people decided the highly anticipated movie lived up to the hype.

True to the book

Then there is the fidelity to the novel on which it was based. Many who have read the Suzanne Collins novel and have watched the movie say the movie captures the emotion, feel, and scope of the novel and trilogy. So where some movie adaptations fall flat, this one seems to excel.

Social commentary

And then there is the social commentary. The movie is set in the post-apocalyptic nation of Panem, which is in what is now North America. Katniss Everdeen volunteers in place of her sister to participate in a required fight-to-the-death match. The sci-fi movie plays on themes of poverty, survival, hopelessness — and even government control. The movie gets people thinking about social issues we face today, and their ominous consequences.

Broad appeal

While the movie is based on the first book in Collins’s Young Adult trilogy, the audience includes much more than just teens. In fact, 56 percent of those who attended opening weekend were older than 25. So the movie attracts more than the young adults you might initially think.

Acting

And of course, the acting helps. Academy Award-nominated actress Jennifer Lawrence plays a compelling and convincing Katniss. She blends strength and vulnerability in a way the viewer appreciates, roots for, and believes.

Criticisms

Even as her acting gets praise, some have criticized Lawrence’s weight, saying the character she plays comes from an impoverished background and Lawrence is too curvy — weighs too much — to play this role. That criticism has been batted back, as it’s nice to see a star who isn’t skin-and-bones held up as a role model for young girls.

Another thing to give some would-be attendees pause is the violence. It is, after all, a movie about teens killing each other on TV. So there is a lot of violence in this flick. In fact, some remind parents that while the movie has a PG-13 rating, it might be too violent for children.

So have you seen the movie? What did you think of it?

Yes, even as we have a case of Schadenfreude that causes us to feel good about things that go bad for others, gossip incessantly about celebrity divorces, and secretly — or not-so-secretly — revel in others’ falls from grace.

We hungrily lap up all the negative news about our celebrities, but we don’t mind welcoming them back with open arms and memories freshly erased of all the bad they did to land on the naughty list.

Perhaps that’s where we are with Tiger Woods.

Woods’s now well-documented fall came in the final months of 2009 when a car crash in front of his home began a slide that included revelations about serial cheating episodes that ultimately led to his 2010 divorce. The idea we had of Woods came apart. So did his career.

He had his first PGA Tour win this week since that 2009 meltdown and is poised for redemption and forgiveness.

Of course, some purists will argue that his personal life has nothing to do with his golf, and therefore there is nothing to forgive. But others point out the fact that it was the perception of his personal life — his squeaky clean image, his values — that played into the ability to capitalize commercially from his golf game. After all, he commanded huge appearance fees and landed endorsement deals for the merging of the two, his golf game and personal life. The endorsements and huge fees would not have come without both.

So now as he celebrates his first win in more than two years, he goes into the Masters this coming week. Bookies and others who make a living gauging people’s ability to exceed or cave to expectations place Woods as a 4-to -1 favorite. In their minds, I guess redemption has already come.

Woods chases Jack Nicklaus’s 18 major wins. To catch up, he’d have to win four more — quite the feat for a man dogged by personal disgrace and physical injury so severe he’s had four knee surgeries.

And he has people who used to be in his life who are now trying their best to stall his quest for redemption in their efforts to capitalize off his fall. Three of his porn star former mistresses are now out with their own sex movie about their times in bed with Woods.

And Hank Haney, his swing coach for six years, has just released a tell-all book, The Big Miss, portraying Woods as self-centered, selfish, and egotistical. He details the cheating and even prints the text message exchange he had with Woods in 2010 where he quit working for the golfer.

Woods may be trying to move on from the sex scandal that drove his career into the ground, but the stories from his former mistresses and coach come now to remind him — and others — of the not-so-distant past.

But is a win necessary for his redemption?

Well, whether he wins at the Masters or not, to complete his comeback, Woods will have to show repentance and change. Those are the rules of engagement. We don’t mind restoring our celebrities, favorite athletes, and beloved idols to their hallowed perches after disappointing falls. In fact, we are eager to do so. But we want them to show us that they won’t make us feel stupid for believing.

Redemption.

The man who shot the unarmed, defenseless 17-year-old Feb. 26 has not been arrested or charged. George Zimmerman apparently chased Martin and shot him — then claimed self-defense.

Zimmerman, who has called police nearly 50 times over the years to report what he termed suspicious activity in his neighborhood, was on neighborhood patrol Feb. 26 when he saw Martin walking down the street. Zimmerman called the police to report Martin’s presence, which Zimmerman claimed was suspicious. According to the 911 tape, the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to chase Martin, but he did. Some confrontation ensued and Martin ended up dead.

Martin was walking home from the store talking to his girlfriend on the phone after purchasing candy for his little brother.

At issue are several things, including law enforcement’s handling of the aftermath of the shooting. Police tested Martin’s body for drugs and alcohol, but did not test Zimmerman. Another issue here is Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, which allows a person to use deadly force if he or she feels his or her life is in danger.

So could Zimmerman’s life really have been in danger when he chased and accosted the kid walking down the street? What is the burden of proof on a person to prove his life was in danger? Was it in danger because Martin was a young, black man in a predominantly white neighborhood? This case has sparked debates, marches, and outcries all over the country. Many decry a law that lets citizens so freely brandish and use weapons for so-called self defense. Others raise the issue of racial profiling, which obviously played a part in Zimmerman’s assessment of Martin’s presence in his mostly white neighborhood.

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law has prompted a marked increase in the number of justifiable homicides. Before 2005, the year the law was enacted, there were about 13 such cases a year. Since the law came into play, the number has jumped to 36 a year.

A law that gives a person the right to defend himself against imminent and deadly danger is good. We should be able to walk around without fear of death. But if the law too broadly defines what that danger is and is a contributing factor to the killings of innocent people, the law must be changed. That’s pretty clear-cut.

I don’t know all the merits of the case and can’t argue whether Zimmerman will be found guilty of anything, if he is ever charged, but I do know that something was not right that night a Florida teenager dared to walk down a neighborhood street. He was profiled because he was young and black and wearing a hoodie. He was accosted by a man with a criminal record, but the dead teen was the one tested for drugs and alcohol and not the assailant. He was killed because some man decided to pull out a gun.

And that begs the question: What are we going to do about Trayvon Martin’s death?

After all, he never got a chance to do the thing he set out to do that evening: Give his little brother a pack of Skittles.

You know I love Peyton Manning. I’ve adored him since his days as a Volunteer. But even I’m not all agog over the idea of him winning a Super Bowl. At least not without seeing him play first. Mainly because I don’t want him to get hurt. Yeah, I know, it’s the NFL and hurt is part of the game. But with so many neck surgeries, I just hope he really is OK.

It’s a lot to ask a 36-year-old guy — he turns 36 this weekend — to play at the same level he did just a few years ago, even without a neck injury. But add in the neck injury, and expecting him to do what he did before is … unrealistic.

Experts say his neck surgeries were about arm strength not safety, so it’s good to know stepping on the field doesn’t endanger his life any more than that of any other player. But I still wonder about the effects of so many surgeries.

Of course, were it to come down to a Super Bowl game, I’d love to see Peyton Manning’s Denver Broncos line up across from my Dallas Cowboys. That would be an exciting day. Of course, as much as I love me some Peyton Manning, I would have to go with the Dallas Cowboys. But wait. Did I just do the same thing those Broncos fans are doing now? I think I did. I just, despite my reservations about his health, fast forwarded and put Peyton Manning in the Super Bowl.

Which brings me to this point:

Even if he isn’t quite what he was before, Peyton Manning is an excellent acquisition for the Broncos. If he is healthy, Peyton Manning will do an amazing job, no matter where he plays.

That’s if he is healthy.