First, I have to share the video assistant features editor Cathy Harley shot and I edited:

Second, I need to make a preemptive strike. You see, historically, whenever I've written or produced a story that hints at a part of the body that, in certain contexts, is considered, uh, sensual, there are complaints. Were I producing hardcore pornography I'd accept the complaints as part of the job, but articles about crime, art or medicine are no more salacious than the stock ticker.

I like to think that humans are smart enough to know the difference between a medical text book or a great work of art and a photo spread in Hustler. I'm going to continue to assume that about the good folks of the Lowcountry, so please don't prove me wrong.

Once and a while, though, you run into a nut case who, perhaps through repression or fear or ignorance, cannot tell the difference. Take, for example, the spending of $8,000 to cover up the exposed breast of Lady Justice. John Ashcroft could go after terrorists, but show him a stone representation of the female anatomy and he turns to jelly. There's been a more recent flap on Facebook about mothers posting photos of their breast feeding babies. Because we all know that breastfeeding infants is about as hot as it gets.

But like I said, I know you Lowcountry folks understand that, sometimes, a breast is just part of a woman's anatomy and isn't always something to get riled up about.