Now, I don't doubt that Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra are a credit to their sport -- in fact, Zenyatta was the first ever female horse to win the Breeder's Cup Classic, while Rachel was the first filly to win the Preakness since 1924. Way to bust the glass ceiling, gals! Nevertheless, I can't help noticing that they are not human, which -- call me speciesist -- is something I usually expect from an "athletes of the year" list. Perhaps if the AP folks had given the subject a bit more thought, they might instead have chosen to honor, say, Rosemary Homeister, who in 2009 became the second most successful female jockey of all time. Or, you know, any other two women in sports, leaving Zenyatta and Rachel to duke it out for Horse of the Year. Something more like that?

The AP's official pick for Female Athlete of the Year was announced today, and I'm happy to report that human being Serena Williams took the title, beating out the second place winner by 48 votes. You know who that was, though? Zenyatta! Kim Clijsters, Lindsey Vonn and Diana Taurasi, all of whom placed after the mare, can suck it, apparently. 

The good news for the runners up -- and other actual female athletes -- is that it seems Zenyatta won't be racing in 2010, so maybe more two-legged candidates will stand a chance next year. As long as they're hot, of course.

Here's the thing, though: The confessed killer will still be allowed to argue that he snuffed out Tiller to save the "unborn children" the doctor would have aborted. This could potentially pave the way for a lesser conviction like voluntary manslaughter, which is defined under state law as the "unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force." Roeder's belief -- that it was necessary to kill Tiller to prevent the doctor from "murdering more babies" -- seems to meet those requirements. Unreasonable? Check. (Abortion is legal, remember.) Honest? Yep, there' s no doubt he's a man of strong convictions.

Isn't that nice? Potentially reduce your sentence to less than 10 years in prison by arguing: I unreasonably broke the law, yeah, but I really believed it had to be done. That said, the judge "might limit what the defense can say in opening statements, and indicated it would be difficult to allow testimony indicating Roeder was acting in defense of others because the law requires an 'imminent threat,'" according to the Los Angeles Times. However, the defense team previously requested a list of Tiller's clinic appointments scheduled for both before and after his death -- presumably to argue that there was indeed an "imminent threat."

We'll just have to wait and see when the trial kicks off on Jan. 11.

For what court documents described as instructing their three children "to lie to authorities as well as the media regarding this hoax" in order to "make the Heene family more marketable for future media interests," Richard Heene pleaded guilty last month to the felony charge of attempting to influence a public servant, while his wife Mayumi pleaded guilty to the Class 3 misdemeanor of false reporting to authorities. They also, as Mayumi's own lawyer told a Colorado judge today, "have reached the top ten lists of blunders of the decade."

The first to hear his fate was Richard, who told the court, "I do want to reiterate that I'm very, very sorry. And I want to apologize to all the rescue workers out there, and the people that got involved in the community. That's it." He was sentenced to 90 days jail time beginning January 11, 60 of which may be served under work release.

In a statement to the court, Mayumi's attorney Lee Christian asked for leniency for his client, who is not a citizen and could face deportation back to her native Japan for her crime. "She's a good wife, she has a marriage of 12 years," her lawyer said. " She is a good mother.  She has three kids that are doing well. ... She is smart, she is polite, she is kind. ... She does not have mental health problems.... All of these things would argue for no jail." Mrs. Heene waived her right to make her own statement.

After acknowledging that "Her offense is less serious than Mr. Heene's," Judge Stephen Schapanski ordered her to 20 days in jail, to be served after her husband completes his sentence, and which can be done nonconsecutively so her children have adequate care. Like her husband, Mayumi also gets supervised probation, community service and must write a letter of apology to her community. They also face up to $47,000 in restitution fees. But despite Mayumi's lawyer's argument that "The media has profited from this" and that "if the Heenes make any money from this it be diverted for legal fees," Judge Schapanski was quick to shut that down. "The court is going to order the condition of not profiting from this event," he said, adding that "it would simply allow them to benefit from the hoax."

Aside from the jail time and probation and the plain old disgust the Heenes earned in all of this, perhaps the best example of any justice in action is that while you and I can still make some bank from this whole dumb debacle, the ones who wanted most to profit from it can't.

You know that Beloit College "Mindset List" that comes around every fall, ostensibly to identify "the cultural touchstones that shape the lives of students entering college" but actually just to make you feel fucking ancient? Here are a few that pertain to the class of 2013: "Everyone has always known what the evening news was before the Evening News came on"; "migration of once independent media like radio, TV, videos and compact discs to the computer has never amazed them"; "they have always been able to read books on an electronic screen"; "text has always been hyper." It won't be too long before that list includes, "Social networking has existed for their entire lives." Adults may still see online communication as an optional complement (and potential detriment) to real interaction, but to the kids we're all so worried about, it's just as real as any other kind.

So, that's just one reason why I bristle (read: foam at the mouth) when I see educators (or parents or cops, whatever) saying things like, "Facebook was the only common denominator" with regard to bullying incidents. That particular quote came from David Heisey, principal of Scotch Plains-Fanwood High in New Jersey, about a cafeteria fight that apparently had its genesis on some kid's "wall." "The statements posted on Facebook led to statements that were exchanged in the cafeteria, which led to the girls fighting," says Heisey. And Facebook is the only common denominator he sees there? Really? One other that leaps out to me is: Scotch Plains-Fanwood High School. Also, the cafeteria, the gender of the participants, and oh yes, the existence of some "statements" that set the whole thing off.

Which brings us to reason No. 2 why blaming Facebook for all manner of teen trouble drives me bats: It erases the underlying problem, which is kids treating each other like crap, not the specific vehicle for it. Norman Whitehouse, president of the Scotch Plains-Fanwood school board, offers a letter-perfect illustration of the curmudgeonly ostrich approach still favored by too many Concerned Adults: "This goes further than bullying 30 or 40 years ago, when you would get a bloody nose on the playground."

Let me just give you the bullet points of what's so painfully wrong with that line of thinking:

• Hey, guess what! It's not 30 or 40 years ago! It's right now!
• I don't know when it will hit the Beloit Mindset List, but we have known for some time that relational aggression A) exists, B) causes serious damage and C) has been practiced, especially by girls, for as long as anyone can remember. The idea that bullying always used to mean sucker-punching a boy for his lunch money, and therefore any other form of childhood aggression must be new and strange (and thus the direct result of new and strange things, like Facebook!) is both sexist and hopelessly outdated.
• Also sexist and outdated, not to mention ridiculous? The idea that getting "a bloody nose on the playground" was somehow not a real problem way back when, but today's kids are so much worse (and/or so much wimpier) than we were. Actually, they're pretty much doing what kids have always done to each other, just with more advanced technology. And getting sucker-punched, physically or emotionally, was always painful (even for boys!) no matter how tough you acted then or how much you've forgotten now.

Just as Facebook is not causing the death of genuine friendship, it is also not causing the birth of high school enemies. It only facilitates the malicious gossip, rumors, cruel insults and hormone-fueled anger that have long been a painful part of teenagers' lives. Yes, the use of social networking sites to make some kid's life miserable is troublesome -- just like easily forwarded e-mails and texts, three-way calling, handwritten notes, and all the other public humiliation delivery systems of yore. And yes, the Internet's ability to expedite the destruction of a reputation, or the escalation of simmering tensions, is something parents need to make their kids aware of. But that doesn't mean blaming Facebook and strategizing to lure teenagers away from it. It means you have to start explaining to kids -- ideally before they can type -- that anything you post on the internet has the potential to dog you forever; that secrets you text or e-mail to a friend, no matter how close, could be all over school (and, if they're interesting enough, the world) by morning; that talking smack online might just lead to a showdown in the cafeteria, etc. It means you have to acknowledge reality -- these kids have already grown up online, and they'll be communicating via the Internet for the rest of their lives -- instead of acting like social aggression never existed before Facebook, and there's still a chance that if we all wring our hands really hard, the genie might just go back in the bottle.

Believe me, as a reasonably smart person who acquired both a painfully clichéd tattoo and a serious nicotine addiction at 17, I can appreciate the challenge of getting young people to grasp the long-term consequences of their behavior. But there's really no good alternative to trying. Claiming that "Facebook is the only common denominator" in an otherwise standard-issue (except perhaps for the fact that it was among girls) cafeteria brawl is absurd. To insist that social networking itself, as opposed to the vicious bullying it's used for, is responsible not only for incidents like the one at Scotch Plains-Fanwood High but for self-harm and suicides is to ignore all the kids who were pushed to the edge by whisper campaigns, passed notes and old-fashioned isolation long before home computers were common -- and to continue sidestepping the underlying issue of social aggression. Facebook arguably makes it worse, but it certainly didn't create the problem. And since the Internet isn't going away anytime soon, the only option adults have is to try our best to prepare today's kids for the world they actually live in, not the one we vaguely remember.

And so, as that last part of you that didn't have as much affection for the Jay-Z anthem as Alex DeLarge did for Beethoven's Ninth finally withers and dies, behold "the friendship, the fashion," the glitz of a city unscathed by recession, and four women who will forever refer to themselves as "the girls."