Lord, why must there be war?
Do we just like to fight?
Like children in a schoolyard, do we feel the need to punch and kick each other into submission just because we’re frustrated and can do nothing else?
Or are we led to conflict by our leaders for political reasons, over territory, for power or to assure a steady flow of oil? Or are there more glorious reasons: the freedom of oppressed people suffering under the yoke of dictatorships? Are we fighting for them, Lord, or are we fighting for us, to show off our mettle and assert our strength, just because we can?
Since the beginnings of this nation, Lord, we have thrown ourselves into combat. In doing so, we have sacrificed so much. We have brought generations of young men and, now, women, home in body bags. We have condemned countless others to lives in wheelchairs or worse. We have broken the hearts of their loved ones. Spouses must learn to cope without their partners, children without one or the other of their parents, parents without their children.
And what of those who now face the daily grind of war, Lord? The combatants who must live daily, not only in fear of their own death but with the knowledge they may have to take the lives of others to survive. And there is terror at home, as deaths in battle are reported almost as an afterthought on the evening news.
Lord, as the Cross testifies, you are no stranger to suffering.
We ask you for peace.
We pray the conflicts will stop and that you will bring our troops home unscathed and whole of heart.
Until then, Lord, on this Memorial Day, please bless and hold close those who serve and those who have lost friends and loved ones in any of our armed conflicts. Please include those from law enforcement and the fire service, as well. We owe so very much to our heroes, both living and fallen. Please keep them in our hearts always.
In the name of Jesus, who sacrificed for us all, Amen.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
I Agree With Sarah Palin...OMG!
During last night's appearance in Chicago, Sarah Palin took on Highland Park officials who have refused to allow the girls varsity basketball team to travel to Arizona for a tournament in December.
Hell may freeze over but I agree with her.
The school district's reasoning, explained in an email to me yesterday from Superintendent George Fornero, is thus: "We cannot commit at this time to playing at a venue where some of our students’ safety or liberty might be placed at risk because of state immigration law." Fornero denies the school district is playing politics by boycotting the Arizona tournament. "Rather," he says, "Under long standing constitutional law, all school districts are required to provide an education to all children within the District’s borders regardless of immigration status. Similarly, when our students travel, the school district is responsible, both legally and ethically, for their safety, security and liberty.
Fornero hasn't answered my question about who specifically made the decision. I find that odd. Did he wake up in the morning and kill the trip? Did the decision come from one of his assistants? The District 113 School Board? If, indeed, it was the school board, was it put to a public vote or agreed upon by a series of private phone calls so the nasty media (and voters) wouldn't have a chance to see how each member felt about the issue?
Or did the dictum come from Highland Park City Hall where, employees tell me, most significant issues are decided the old fashioned way: in back rooms by certain select individuals?
Bottom line, is it really the safety and liberty of students that school officials are worried about? Or are some Highland Park leaders taking a personal jab at the new law?
Frankly, I think Arizona is nuts. The immigration measure is a publicity stunt and will be overturned as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court reviews it.
I also think Highland Park is overreacting. The likelihood of a group of student basketball players being in any way touched by the law is minimal.
It's the fear of the backroomers running Highland Park that the city will be somehow embarrassed that has caused them to act.
Hell may freeze over but I agree with her.
The school district's reasoning, explained in an email to me yesterday from Superintendent George Fornero, is thus: "We cannot commit at this time to playing at a venue where some of our students’ safety or liberty might be placed at risk because of state immigration law." Fornero denies the school district is playing politics by boycotting the Arizona tournament. "Rather," he says, "Under long standing constitutional law, all school districts are required to provide an education to all children within the District’s borders regardless of immigration status. Similarly, when our students travel, the school district is responsible, both legally and ethically, for their safety, security and liberty.
Fornero hasn't answered my question about who specifically made the decision. I find that odd. Did he wake up in the morning and kill the trip? Did the decision come from one of his assistants? The District 113 School Board? If, indeed, it was the school board, was it put to a public vote or agreed upon by a series of private phone calls so the nasty media (and voters) wouldn't have a chance to see how each member felt about the issue?
Or did the dictum come from Highland Park City Hall where, employees tell me, most significant issues are decided the old fashioned way: in back rooms by certain select individuals?
Bottom line, is it really the safety and liberty of students that school officials are worried about? Or are some Highland Park leaders taking a personal jab at the new law?
Frankly, I think Arizona is nuts. The immigration measure is a publicity stunt and will be overturned as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court reviews it.
I also think Highland Park is overreacting. The likelihood of a group of student basketball players being in any way touched by the law is minimal.
It's the fear of the backroomers running Highland Park that the city will be somehow embarrassed that has caused them to act.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Young People, Partying and Common Sense
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.
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.
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.
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.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Two Stories To Make You Smile
My friend, Barb, is likely on her way to Mexico this morning with her husband. I'm sure she felt very blessed to be getting on the plane.
Earlier this week, a drunk driver hit her while she was driving to work on the Kennedy. He was alledgedly doing about one-hundred miles an hour. His car burst into flames. He got out, ran and was later captured. Barb tells me a Good Samaritan helped her out of her car before it caught fire.
A Good Samaritan. Imagine that. Have fun in Mexico, Barb.
The Tribune is reporting about another Good Samaritan this morning.
Dan Coyne, a social worker for the Chicago Public Schools, is donating one of his kidneys to his favorite supermarket cashier, Myra de la Vega. They met at the store. She told him about her renal failure and the eight-hours a day of dialysis she undergoes after her shifts at a Jewel in Evanston. Coyne decided to help her.
Have fun with your new life, Myra.
Good Samaritans. An interesting concept. Go with God's Hand on your shoulder, good people.
And some folks say they have never seen a miracle.
Earlier this week, a drunk driver hit her while she was driving to work on the Kennedy. He was alledgedly doing about one-hundred miles an hour. His car burst into flames. He got out, ran and was later captured. Barb tells me a Good Samaritan helped her out of her car before it caught fire.
A Good Samaritan. Imagine that. Have fun in Mexico, Barb.
The Tribune is reporting about another Good Samaritan this morning.
Dan Coyne, a social worker for the Chicago Public Schools, is donating one of his kidneys to his favorite supermarket cashier, Myra de la Vega. They met at the store. She told him about her renal failure and the eight-hours a day of dialysis she undergoes after her shifts at a Jewel in Evanston. Coyne decided to help her.
Have fun with your new life, Myra.
Good Samaritans. An interesting concept. Go with God's Hand on your shoulder, good people.
And some folks say they have never seen a miracle.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
More Dumb Crooks
I barely finish one blog about dumb crooks and, wow, get to write about more.
Seems like a Chicago man who's been arrested sixty-four times got nailed again the other day. He allegedly hid inside the Loop Macy's until after closing time and then tried to escape with some merchandise. Cops were wise to his stunt and confronted him. He reportedly resisted and was Tasered. While some may argue that Tasers are cruel and inhumane and instruments of torture, I really don't feel sorry for this guy. Do you? If you do, write and tell me why, please. Happy to have you air your feelings.
And then we travel out to Schaumburg which seems to have been home to a bunch of hookers lately. After getting stung in a sting a week ago, one of the young ladies allegedly went back to the same hotel with a buddy the other night and tried to hold up a couple of other upstanding citizens at gunpoint. A gunfight broke out. The accused hooker's boyfriend of two years (according to her mama) wound up dead and the victim and a couple of others including the alleged hooker, were wounded.
Flash forward to today in court. The accused hooker, now charged with first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder and attempted armed robbery, hears the judge set her bail at 3 million dollars and collapses, hyperventilating to the courtroom floor. I wonder if she pulled the same stunt when she was was arrested for battery, aggravated assault and resisting arrest in Winnebago County last year; or when she received a three-year sentence for a Kane County robbery conviction in 2006; or when she got probation in a 2004 felony retail theft charge and, separately, for aggravated battery to a police officer in Kane County in 2004?
For those wondering why she was charged with murder in this case without firing a shot, it's called the felony murder rule and provides that anyone charged in a felony crime resulting in death can be held responsible for that death.
What's great about this case, however, is that no one who really matters died. I don't see the boyfriend as any loss to society (was he also her pimp?). And were the 'victims' of this alleged 'robbery' really victims?
The Tribune quotes her mama as saying, "I can't believe this is happening. I can't believe she lost her boyfriend and is charged with his murder."
Believe it, Mom.
Seems like a Chicago man who's been arrested sixty-four times got nailed again the other day. He allegedly hid inside the Loop Macy's until after closing time and then tried to escape with some merchandise. Cops were wise to his stunt and confronted him. He reportedly resisted and was Tasered. While some may argue that Tasers are cruel and inhumane and instruments of torture, I really don't feel sorry for this guy. Do you? If you do, write and tell me why, please. Happy to have you air your feelings.
And then we travel out to Schaumburg which seems to have been home to a bunch of hookers lately. After getting stung in a sting a week ago, one of the young ladies allegedly went back to the same hotel with a buddy the other night and tried to hold up a couple of other upstanding citizens at gunpoint. A gunfight broke out. The accused hooker's boyfriend of two years (according to her mama) wound up dead and the victim and a couple of others including the alleged hooker, were wounded.
Flash forward to today in court. The accused hooker, now charged with first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder and attempted armed robbery, hears the judge set her bail at 3 million dollars and collapses, hyperventilating to the courtroom floor. I wonder if she pulled the same stunt when she was was arrested for battery, aggravated assault and resisting arrest in Winnebago County last year; or when she received a three-year sentence for a Kane County robbery conviction in 2006; or when she got probation in a 2004 felony retail theft charge and, separately, for aggravated battery to a police officer in Kane County in 2004?
For those wondering why she was charged with murder in this case without firing a shot, it's called the felony murder rule and provides that anyone charged in a felony crime resulting in death can be held responsible for that death.
What's great about this case, however, is that no one who really matters died. I don't see the boyfriend as any loss to society (was he also her pimp?). And were the 'victims' of this alleged 'robbery' really victims?
The Tribune quotes her mama as saying, "I can't believe this is happening. I can't believe she lost her boyfriend and is charged with his murder."
Believe it, Mom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)