There are more pertinent issues than the words of a few embattled commentators.

When it comes to uttering half-witted things in public, there aren't many people with a rap sheet longer than mine.

I'm often guilty of offending, annoying and enraging, all in the name of trying to kid around or be funny.

I've often driven nice people to either walk away in a muttering huff or stick around and endure my act through gritted teeth.

So, at some basic level, I sympathize with the likes of Dick Enberg, Don Imus and Johnny Miller, whose verbal missteps have prompted a good deal of national criticism recently.

TV viewers heard Enberg invoke the image of "nubian slaves" to describe how tennis star Roger Federer might make his pharaoh-like entrance to an interview at Wimbledon, while Miller described underdog Rocco Mediate as a "pool boy" for Tiger Woods during their U.S. Open playoff.

Meanwhile, syndicated radio listeners heard Imus launch himself into the middle of another firestorm earlier this week when he made what many interpreted as a racial dig at Adam "Don't Call Me Pacman" Jones, a NFL cornerback with a knack for getting himself in trouble with the law.

The outrage toward Imus is understandable and justified, though.

He infamously referred to black members of the Rutgers women's basketball teams as "nappy-headed hos" — a reprehensible statement that led to his firing from CBS — and continues to make a living with insights designed specifically to make us cringe on ABC Radio.

Told that Jones wanted to drop his nickname and that the Dallas Cowboys cornerback had been arrested six times since 2005, Imus asked:

"What color is he?"

"He's African-American," was the reply.

"Well, there you go," Imus said. "Now we know."

Imus said he was implying that Jones was being picked on by police because of his race. Given the apparent ease in which he disparaged the black women at Rutgers, Imus can't expect us to now buy his claim that he had a black man's back.

By the same token, those in a huff about Enberg and Miller seem to have too much time on their hands. They made the metaphorical leap that Enberg had to be referencing blacks when used the word "slaves" and that Miller had to be chiding Mediate's Italian heritage by invoking the caricature of a minimum-wage earner.

My mind didn't go there.

It may seem like more people are being offended than ever before, but that's not the case. It's just that there are so many more avenues to voice an opinion and have it entered the conversational record.

You can blog. You can e-mail a letter to the editor. You can dial up a talk show host on your cell phone. You can slip anonymously into a chat room and yammer up a storm. You can instantly comment on a story that shows up on a newspaper's Web site. You can text message a reporter.

With all these communication tools, you'd think there would be more open and honest discussions about the edgier issues in our world.

Technology is fine, but that process has to start in the mirror.

Lots of times, I have to admit I don't like what I see.