A cretinous piece of street garbage wielding a baseball bat attacked a couple of innocent women on their way home from a night of clubbing in the Bucktown area of Chicago early this morning. Both women are in the intensive care unit and the prognosis, at least for one of them, doesn't look good.
My heart goes out to these young women and their families. I pray that the parents of one of the girls, an Irish exchange student, will be able to get to Chicago to be with their daughter given the disruption of flights overseas caused by the volcanic ash eruption.
News stories say the women were out celebrating. The attack occurred when they were walking home at 3:30am.
Therein lies the problem.
They were alone, on the streets of Chicago, at 3:30am.
Of course they had a right to be there and to expect they would get home safely. Unfortunately, the person who attacked them had other ideas. And he was the one with the bat.
The one with the weapon usually wins.
The moment they left that club, those women ceased being nice girls out for a night of fun. They assumed the unfortunate role of "targets of opportunity."
They didn't deserve what happened to them. Few victims of violent crime do.
But when you engage in behavior that makes you a target, you contribute to your victimology. I'm not assessing blame. I am evaluating risk.
Male or female, alone or in a small group, going out on the streets of a major city at 3:30 in the morning after a night of partying, especially if alcohol is involved, is like wearing a big neon sign that says, "I'm helpless, attack me."
Think before you drink. Think before you party at all, regardless of the beverages you imbibe. Before you go out for the evening, consider your options for getting home and make sure you stick with your plan. If you can't count on your friends, have enough cash to call a cab.
Feral creatures of the night sniff the air for the scent of innocents.
The occasionally coherent ramblings of an ex-cop and former broadcast journalist turned crime novelist.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Roger Ebert is Annoying
Ebert calls the new movie Kick Ass "morally reprehensible" because it depicts an eleven-year old girl as a cartoonishly violent martial artist and assassin, punching and chopping her way through a gang of thugs and using language that would make a standup comedian blush.
Yet Roger had no such criticism for a movie last year that I felt was one of the most reprehensible and unneccessarily brutal that I'd ever seen. In Last House on the Left a gang of killers beats and rapes one teenage girl and shoots another in the back as she is trying to escape. And the rape scene is arduous and graphic.
Yes, Kick Ass is unquestionably violent. And yes, the little girl has a potty mouth (which, I agree, could have been toned down, probably to better effect). She also gets punched out toward the end by a far bigger and stronger adult. But come on, Roger! You gave Last House on the Left four stars and mentioned the rape only in passing. Kick Ass got two thumbs down.
Kick Ass is a dark comedy crafted from the cartoon of the same name. The "super hero" characters are what Peter Parker might have become if he had only the suit and a bellyful of moral outrage (and enough Lotto winnings to buy an arsenal that includes a bazooka, Gatling gun and a jetpack). It's campy and fun and devilishly unrealistic in a Jackie Chan, John Woo, chop-socky sort of way. Most important, however, it has heart and characters who care about each other.
I can't begin to say that about the trash that is Last House on the Left which looked to me as though it was written and filmed by a bunch of people with some frightening sexual fantasies.
Roger, your moral compass is seriously skewed.
Yet Roger had no such criticism for a movie last year that I felt was one of the most reprehensible and unneccessarily brutal that I'd ever seen. In Last House on the Left a gang of killers beats and rapes one teenage girl and shoots another in the back as she is trying to escape. And the rape scene is arduous and graphic.
Yes, Kick Ass is unquestionably violent. And yes, the little girl has a potty mouth (which, I agree, could have been toned down, probably to better effect). She also gets punched out toward the end by a far bigger and stronger adult. But come on, Roger! You gave Last House on the Left four stars and mentioned the rape only in passing. Kick Ass got two thumbs down.
Kick Ass is a dark comedy crafted from the cartoon of the same name. The "super hero" characters are what Peter Parker might have become if he had only the suit and a bellyful of moral outrage (and enough Lotto winnings to buy an arsenal that includes a bazooka, Gatling gun and a jetpack). It's campy and fun and devilishly unrealistic in a Jackie Chan, John Woo, chop-socky sort of way. Most important, however, it has heart and characters who care about each other.
I can't begin to say that about the trash that is Last House on the Left which looked to me as though it was written and filmed by a bunch of people with some frightening sexual fantasies.
Roger, your moral compass is seriously skewed.
Labels:
comic books,
Kick Ass,
killing,
Last House on the Left,
martial arts,
rape,
Roger Ebert,
violence
Monday, April 5, 2010
All Bluster, No Muster
Not really surprised to learn that Blago's been fired from The Celebrity Apprentice.
The Sun-Times story this morning says our former governor couldn't work a computer at "even the most basic level" and had trouble using a smartphone. It also comes as no shock at all that he tried to run his team from Orlando while they were working in New York. Shades of a governor who was terrified to leave Chicago and assume the appropriate seat of power in Springfield.
It's pretty sad, actually. A man so desperate for attention that he's willing to become a bumbling idiot on national television. And to repeat the performance in one way or another for months and months, every time he's given the opportunity.
He's mentally ill, of course. The question is: is he exposing himself this way to set up a fallback insanity defense when his corruption case goes to trial? Or is this the way a sociopath melts down when he's not smart enough to stay in control? Or, another possibility, is this just a guy having all the fun he can, knowing the end is approaching?
But who is ultimately at fault? We elected him, didn't we? We pulled the levers that put him in office without doing a whit of due diligence to determine whether his qualifications were real or a political sham.
We're poised to do it again. Two mopes running for governor. Two mopes running for the U.S. Senate. To apply the word "statesman" to any of them is a joke of diabolical proportions.
Whether "crook" is also an accurate description remains to be seen but, after all they are Illinois politicians.
And we are the Illinois electorate that has not learned from its mistakes.
The Sun-Times story this morning says our former governor couldn't work a computer at "even the most basic level" and had trouble using a smartphone. It also comes as no shock at all that he tried to run his team from Orlando while they were working in New York. Shades of a governor who was terrified to leave Chicago and assume the appropriate seat of power in Springfield.
It's pretty sad, actually. A man so desperate for attention that he's willing to become a bumbling idiot on national television. And to repeat the performance in one way or another for months and months, every time he's given the opportunity.
He's mentally ill, of course. The question is: is he exposing himself this way to set up a fallback insanity defense when his corruption case goes to trial? Or is this the way a sociopath melts down when he's not smart enough to stay in control? Or, another possibility, is this just a guy having all the fun he can, knowing the end is approaching?
But who is ultimately at fault? We elected him, didn't we? We pulled the levers that put him in office without doing a whit of due diligence to determine whether his qualifications were real or a political sham.
We're poised to do it again. Two mopes running for governor. Two mopes running for the U.S. Senate. To apply the word "statesman" to any of them is a joke of diabolical proportions.
Whether "crook" is also an accurate description remains to be seen but, after all they are Illinois politicians.
And we are the Illinois electorate that has not learned from its mistakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)