Life Is Life... Life is Love

Pardon me, this week... apparently I've been a moral compass-- and people aren't liking it.

So, I like to take a stand from time to time... sue me. Though, you should know I'm not perfect, and sometimes I should take my own advice. I have my internal battles.

But while I'm on topic-- and still being a moral compass-- there is one thing that really grinds my gears: The abuse of children.

I can't find an excuse for this anywhere. Because there isn't one. There is nothing that should come between parents and the love for their children. Really. You love someone enough to perform the ultimate act of love with them-- and let's make this crystal-clear, sex is the truest sign of affection for another person and is not to be an abused priviledge-- and then you can't handle the result?

There was a story in the local news about two parents neglecting their infant child by withholding formula. You monsters-- how in the eyes of God can you do such a thing? I can't comprehend it. What possible excuse is there for turning your back on the needs of your child?

(You can't tell right now, but I'm struggling to find the words right now to say about this... I'm just making frustrated noises....)

It's a child. Pure and innocent. Unable to care for his/herself. Dependent on the very love with which he/she was created.

It's disgusting that anyone could be so cruel. I so badly want to scream in anger, or just go off on a profanity-laced tirade about this.

...And then there is the lead story in Omaha...

A 22-year old man is on trial for murdering his 19-year old girlfriend-- whose body has not been found-- with a Bangkok Battlesword.

I'm sure someone, somewhere is going... no body? No crime. I guess that's for the jury to decide, but when you hear the details of the case, and you just get sicker and sicker by the moment.

The missing 19-year old, was pregnant. A pool of her blood was found on the boyfriend's bed, with blood splattered all over the walls. The boyfriend, who also has another girl pregnant (yes-- he's scum) was looking up blood-flow on the internet shortly before girlfriend #1 (or apparently #2 in his case) disappeared.

Seriously, this guy is an ex-wife and about 400 pounds short of being Ted Kennedy. Not too far off.

But this is where I fight one of those internal battles, and I struggle with my Christian teachings...

This guy has clearly selected himself out of society, he was abused love, abused people, and has killed two lives-- yes, a fetus is still a life, not to mention ruining the lives of two others and effecting several others. Killing a pregnant girlfriend is the ultimate in child abuse-- it's abortion... and it's wrong. You've used an act of love to create, then you take a preventative measure to it's life?

I'm sorry, the correct answer was 'abstinence'... ABSTINENCE. You obviously did not love this woman, but you expressed your love for her in a way reserved for the truest of love. See you in hell.

No, he's not on the same level as Hussein, Hitler, Milosevic, Pol Pot, Castro, Bundy, or Gacy... but he has crossed the line... and I think he did it with one life.

The irony of the situation is, the 22-year old is only charged with second degree murder... Bangkok Battlesword, pool of blood, internet search of blood flow, dead pregnant girlfriend-- it doesn't take a leap of faith to see it's premeditated.

The battle I fight with myself is that the Catholic church opposes Capital Punishment, though Old Testament teachings (which seems to be all I remember from four years of Catholic high school, and 26 years of faith) preach 'an eye for an eye'. I see arguments for both sides.

Here I am arguing that these people have committed the most heinous of acts-- taking another persons life-- and that they have selected themselves out of Eden (voted themselves off the planet, if you must go there) and are no longer worthy of living.

So... my answer for taking one's life, is to take one's life? If you use Capital Punishment to put them to death, shouldn't you then put the executioner to death? It's spirals from there. Can I argue being wrong is different than being wrong with a purpose? I mean, you are allowed to protect yourself, right?

Now I'm catching myself in a excuse to kill. Don't get me wrong, killing is wrong... but you see the internal demons lining up for a battle-royale.

So, the phone lines are open... I want to know what you think. Please be open-minded and respectful.

The Times They Are A'Changin'

Four years later... and we're still fighting. Did I miss something? Didn't our fearless leader declare the war in Iraq over three years ago? Then why are we still fighting? Did we formally declare war? On who?

...And if the war is over, why did we not sign a formal treaty? Somebody please explain to me what the heck is going on!

I have never supported this war, or police action, or crusade, or whatever Bush, Junior wants to call it. Ill-concieved, ill-advised, and illogical-- not a good mix. It makes me sick.

But what makes me even sicker are the new guerilla tactics being employed by the radicals in the Middle East. To take a car, use children as cover to gain access through a checkpoint, and then blow up the car... WITH THE KIDS INSIDE! That's just the grossest misconduct of human nature. It's worse than the Russians strapping bombs to dogs, and sending them after German Panzer Tanks.

...and the end result? The Germans started shooting any dog they saw.

Ahh... you just saw the connection, a history of over-reaction. Isn't that how we got into this mess? An over-reaction. Yes, many innocent people died in September of 2001, but instead of a diplomatic and proportional response, we began a crusade against the Muslim peoples of the Middle East. Call it anti-Terrorism if you want, it still doesn't make it right.

Really, what reason could anyone possibly have for sacrificing those who don't know better? Dogs have feelings, as do children. More irrational-- you can't even argue that the children will be rewarded for killing infidels... 72 long-haired virgins mean nothing to infants and toddlers... among other obvious reasons. Inexcusable... and the Good Lord is watching. It is a violation of human rights to purposely exhaust the life of a non-willing person-- it even violates the Old Testament stance of 'an eye for an eye'.

The point is, we don't even know who we are fighting. We've been after bin Laden-- can't find him. We found Hussein, and put him to rest-- well done, there. But did Hussein really have anything to do with the World Trade Center and why we were in the Middle East?

No. None at all. He was collateral. He posed a bit of a threat... or more of a resistance to our efforts, and so we chased him off. Not right, we strayed from the task at hand. I'm still attempting to figure out how Iraq fits into the equation at all.

bin Laden is believed to be hiding somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan-- that is where our focus should be. We should have handled this situation like diplomats and good-will ambassadors... ask for help, and if they refuse threanten sanctions, then follow through on the threat. Instead, we've declared war on a bunch of renegades who have no firm connection to any government. We're chasing a ghost. Just like in Vietnam, we have absolutely no clue who we are fighting.

Now we're complaining that they're not fighting by the rules. Well, unfortunately all is fair in love and war-- expect the unexpected. Just because we would never dream of using children as decoys to breakthrough enemy lines, doesn't mean others won't. It is nothing more than complacency on our parts-- and it is that sort of complacency that started this mess six and half years ago.

Do you think the Germans were expecting the Russians to use dogs as weapons? No.
Did the Germans expect the Brits to be throwing dirty daipers at them? No... but it was all the English has for weapons at the time.
Did we expect the VietKong to be shooting from trees in ambush attacks? No... but we should have known better.
Did the English expect the Colonials to be shooting from behind rocks and trees while they marched in a straight line, the way all good armies fight? No. But you see where I'm going with this.

Times change, technology and techniques change, and we need to adapt to it. You can not reason with unreasonable people. And radicals are never reasonable... but they are logical and methodical.

So we are fighting a war against someone... and we're getting frustrated. That is no excuse to destroy everything in our wake-- it's reckless, and I can only hope that when the President leaves office (and maybe even before then) the Hague says something about it. Though, I'm sure our Maker will have his way with Georgie-boy.

This is the fourth time in American History where we've started on the wrong track, and let it snowball into an embarassment. Custer and Pickett had brilliant ideas to fight uphill-- and we know how that went for them. Thinking about it, weren't both of them fighting the wrong side of the equal-rights fight-- Custers trying to rout the natives, and Pickett fighting for slavery? Vietnam... only the government knows for sure whether we had actually cause to be involved there-- and seeing as how we got spanked, I'm guess God is telling us the Americans were wrong there. And now the Middle East....

OK, I'm sure God is not approving of the use of children in warefare, but if we had this the right way, perhaps we wouldn't be in this position. It's really just a stalemate. The 'terrorists'-- whomever they may be-- are in the wrong for the senseless killing of innocent people, no matter how evil they believe them to be. But we are wrong for playing the religion card, and for the other ways we have gone about this 'war'.

I am anti-war. Not just this war-- any war. There are no good wars.

But I also understand that sometimes you do have to fight for what you believe. Not what you want... what you truly and deeply believe is right.

War is just an anacronymn for 'We Are Right'. Those who are right shall become victorious...

...but what is no one if right?

I'm Going To London!

It's the first weekend of March, and it did nothing but snow all week. The big snow of last weekend was really a bunch of hype-- I think we got 5 inches, all of it early enough Sunday to keep schools from closing. But Thursday we got 12 more inches-- that even closed down the U... but it's really no shock why.

Four days later, it's Sunday now, and the plows have just now cleared the street out front of my house.

Somebody explain this to me...

The City of Omaha mandates that homeowners clear public sidewalks within 24 hours of the last snow or face fines. Yet, four days later and I'm still waiting for a snowplow!

Brilliant. Really, it's more ridiculous than you can imagine. I have spent the better part of the last two days digging cars out of the snow, pushing them into driveways-- you know... earning good karma points. Though, I did see a plow in my neighbourhood yesterday... PLOW UP!

Apparently the plows can randomly choose where they wish to plow. How do I know this? Because up around the corner from my house was a 5-foot high, 8-foot deep snow drift... blocking the entire street.

Like, the plow went up hill one way, piled the snow there. The went up the hill the other way, and piled the snow in the same place. It was the Berlin Wall of snow drifts. 'No, I'm sorry, you can't go there anymore-- you are cut off from there and anything that may be there-- family, cars, jobs, duckies...'

So, what better time than now to talk about my Spring Break plans?

As you can tell, I'm headed to London... Ontario, that is.

Actually, I'm going to Detroit-- but who really wants to say they're going to Detroit for Spring Break? You want to make it soud like you're going some place fun, right? South Padre Island... Estes Park... Cabo San Lucas... somewhere exotic. Of course, if I wanted to impress people I could say I'm going to East Beirut...

Beirut... Detroit... same difference. Just sounds like I'm going someplace semi-nice to say I'm leaving the country.

...And I am. I'm headed up to Detroit with Dave, Glen, and Chaz-- my associates in producing the Mike Kemp Show-- for the CCHA Final Four. While we're up there we intend to head across the border to that beautiful land of free socialized health care to the north.

Chaz is looking at going to film school at the University of Western Ontario in London, so we're indulging him by taking advantage of the proximity to where we will be. We'll take an extra day, enjoy the clean air of the Great White North and if the spirit moves us, maybe do some work.

OK, is anybody else thinking what I'm thinking? Western Ontario-- London? When I think Western Ontario, I think Kenora, Thunder Bay, at least Sault Ste. Marie.

London? That's more south-central. Hell, I think it's slightly south of Detroit. There is definately like 600 miles of Ontario west of London. That's 1000 kilometers for those of you on the metric system. I think London is actually closer to Quebec than it is to Manitoba.

Just don't go there if you want to major in Geography.

OK, Detroit isn't that bad of a place. And believe me in my last visit there I survived walking the streets downtown at 3 in the morning. I also survived an accidental visit to the 8-Mile. Yes, THAT 8-Mile.

Fortunately the people responsible for those adventures will not be traveling with me this time.

So there you have it. My plans for Spring Break. See you in London.