I just couldn’t stand it any longer.
I’ve been eyeing this guy who stays near my apartment for the longest time. He’s one of those messed-up guys: Early twenties, young wife/girlfriend and two kids, tattoos all over his arms and legs.
It isn’t just the look of him I couldn’t stand. I’m not the sort who’d pass judgement that fast. It began with his loud music that went on throughout the day and sometimes into the night. Another thing he always did was the wheel-spin thing whenever he drove his battered truck out of the parking lot. On weekends his group of friends would make the loudest drunken din. That’s not even what pissed me off.
Over the past few months I’ve noticed him taking his kids out. Two young boys, both blond and blue-eyed. Even from a distance I noticed his favourtism. It wasn’t hard to tell when he kept slapping the older of the two upside on the head for no apparent reason. They’d be walking side by side, and WHAP, he’d just strike the kid on the head. The younger one was never (as far as I’ve noticed) the recipient of such treatment. Truth is, I’ve even seen him buy the younger one an ice-cream, and only have the older kid look on.
The teen mother? She’s the petite kind who didn’t look as if she had much of a will left. She’d look on helplessly from the door whenever her punk of a husband took the children out for their “playtime”. She sometimes looked battered, and from what I could see she had been cowered into submission over time.
I’ve called the police several times, and so far they said that they were looking into it. Granted, I’ve seen more police cars patrol my neighbourhood and it’s worked somewhat. I’ll admit it - something about him just irks the heck out of me.
It consumes you, y’know? The more I dwelt about it, the angrier I felt and the more violent my thoughts became. They were just thoughts, until a few days ago.
I couldn’t take it any longer. He walked out of his apartment, beer bottle in hand and with his two sons, one of each side. He was shouting at the older son who was barely seven, hurling expletives. This kid was going to grow up warped, I remember thinking to myself. Then he grabbed the older son by the collar and dragged him back towards the door of the apartment. The boy stumbled and fell, and his knees scraped the rough tarmac of the parking lot. He let out an very loud yelp. His younger brother cried.
The father (it pains me even to call him this) picked him up by his collar again and threw, literally threw, him back into the apartment. He then slammed the door and headed out, leaving the younger son standing in the parking lot, still crying.
I had to do something.
It was easy to tell when Joe (that’s what I heard his wife call him) returned. It was marked by the very loud screeching of brakes and the smell of rubber on tarmac. I wished he stayed out longer than the forty-five minutes he did. I was still very angry and very upset.
My stomach fluttered with the wings of a thousand butterflies. I walked to the kitchen drawer and grasped the handle of a knife. Thank God I decided to put that away, for who could have known what would have been.
I took a deep breath and decided to go confront Joe. I went up to his apartment and knocked at the door. The smell of alcohol, even from behind a closed door, was suffocating.
No answer.
I knocked again. It was a while before I heard stirring from inside the house. A young woman’s voice could be heard. She was shouting. The cries of a boy played on like a broken record. I don’t know where the other boy was.
The door swung open violently and Joe stood there with a very nasty look in his eye. At this point, I was more concerned than angry, and wanted nothing but to talk some sense into him. But I saw that he held in his hand a junior baseball bat. Shorter than the adult-sized ones, but made of aluminium strong enough to do damage all the same. He grabbed me and told me to “get the f**k off his apartment”. My blood started to boil again.
Then it happened. Like a flash. I can’t even remember the sequence of events very clearly. I just snapped.
I broke his nose and swung his head against the wall. The baseball bat fell impotent on the ground and Joe lay unconscious beside the cheap sofa set that came with the apartment. Blood was splatted on the wall, and flowed down from his head unto the floor. I stood there stunned. In the corner of my eye I saw his wife, holding one son in her arms and the other against her side. I saw the horror in her eyes. There was no trace of gratitude.
The shock of it all slowly ebbed away and I saw what I had done. The wife had already called 911 and the police were on their way. I sat down on my hands, hoping that by hiding them I could somehow obscure the violent truth of my actions and find righteousness in my anger.
I spent the weekend in the lockup. Joe spent his in the hospital. As far as I know, he hasn’t woken up yet.
As I rationalise my actions inside my head I find more questions than answers. I wish someone would tell me that what I did was just, and that it was for the sake of the children, but Joe’s wife and kids are now without a husband and father. At least temporarily. Or permanently. I don’t know.
I don’t know anything anymore. I’m just sorry I didn’t update my blog over the weekend. I had a lot on my mind.
What you’ve just read is fiction, and yet it is not. It’s my own little personalisation of the whole war with Iraq.
Still trying to make sense of things.
Whoa.
the guy u are describing has issues man.
time for you to do somthin’ about it. haha
I only just started reading your blog last week, but I enjoyed the great photos and insightful entries. Anyway, I guess you must be going through some sort of ethical internal crisis and it probably is disturbing to you - your reaction to the man (especially since you are anti-war) and the fact that the family is angry with you when you really just wanted to protect them from that brute. For all it’s worth, it takes a courageous man to stand up to injustices and I pray that God will somehow resolve all that turmoil that your heart is going through right now.
Somehow I thought that was a bit un-you….
But you forgot to tell the alternate ending to that story… the one where you didn’t act out. The one where the older child was beaten to death with the baseball bat and the younger one grew up mentally scarred. His wife never left him and received the same punishment as the older son.
Maybe you were in lockup in your original version, but at least the mother and son didn’t have to die. Perhaps your sacrifice was what was needed to save them. You didn’t have to do it, but you did anyway… for their sake, not your own.
wouldn’t that mean that we can take the law into our own hands and beat up whoever our personal judgement goes against?
I kept thinking - “Him? No. Really? No. He wouldn’t do that.” Seems true in reality too - W. is the type that I can see doing that to someone. You? No. And look at where you stand on all of this. Me? I’m in the middle, but much closer to you. I might want to do it, but something would stop me. I would hold back.
“wouldn’t that mean that we can take the law into our own hands and beat up whoever our personal judgement goes against?”
John,
No, it wouldn’t. Where does “personal judgment come into play here? Can you not admit that beating a child like that is flat out wrong?
You can’t possibly believe that the father in this scenario should be able to say, “Well, it’s my prerogative that I should be able to beat my child until he bleeds”. There is discipline, and there is abuse. The two, while seemingly similar are far from bedfellows. There IS a right and a wrong in this world, and a child in that situation that would be unable to defend himself would be lucky to have someone willing to stick up for him. As he noted in the story, there may be no immediate gratitude, but at least the child wouldn’t have to lose his life because of his tyrant of a father.
Let’s take note, however, that as Lucian acted immediately and irrationally, beating the man after he only yelled at him… having only that one interaction with him, and NEVER approaching him before that altercation… this story did not mirror the situation between the U.S. and Iraq. We dealt with them for over a decade and they were warned. They were given and ultimatum, and still things only changed enough to appease a U.N. security council that wasn’t making relevant forward progress. No, this is the part of the story where the two don’t line up.
one begs to differ. What construes “relevant forward progress”? Who defined the yardstick? Surely an entire council cannot be wrong if they are in agreement, against a single member of said council? what right would 1 member have to define it’s own end-point, to say all right, this is where it stops, this is where we blow them up? progress WAS being made. weapons inspectors were at work within the country. weapons were being destroyed - slowly, perhaps, but nonetheless the absolute number of weapons available was undeniably falling with each public destruction of ordinance. There could only have been 1 justification for war - that there WAS a definite end-point. that there was evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction - AND (this is an important And) that he was going to use them against the rest of the world. (even so, surely the phrase innocent until proven guilty, so freely practiced in american courts of law should apply internationally?) So far this justification has proved to be a long shot. Little evidence of said weapons, and none that he was going to use them. All this death and destruction, has been for… what? because we ran out of patience? Or was it to depose one man? To overthrow the leadership of Iraq? Surely a simple assassination would have been simpler. But then one realises it’s not a single man, but an entire party. Saddam might have been killed recently, or he might have died many years before and had a double pretend to be him for years now - it wouldn’t matter. The party itself knew what games to play. The information minister is a mini Saddam in himself. So there is your endpoint. To end a regime of oppression and suffering of many, and death and torture of a few, hundreds of thousands of civillians have died, and herds more iraqi soldiers, and a large handful of coalition troops. Is it worthwhile? That depends on the outcome of this whole situation. If the country is restored and the people receive compensation in the way of peace and able leadership, and prosper, then yes, potentially. If the leadership is one they unanimously agree upon, one of their own, in other words, then yes, it was worth it. If the great old US of A allows the country’s own people to vote for a new leadership, to practise DEMOCRACY. Then yes, perhaps. Or if the US of A decides that the country is too young, and too immature for democracy to be thrust upon it (which is justified), then perhaps an interim government can be arranged. (that’s where things are going now, no?) If that government could consist of local leaders under guidance from the UN that would be good - but it isn’t likely to happen. If that government could be run by a committee of nations, to ensure that no single nation benefits financially from this acquisition, and that the welfare of the country remains of foremost importance - if they can hold each other’s greed in check - then yes, it might be worthwhile. But if that government is run entirely by American “experts” - then we can see why this war has truly been fought. And what should be at best a dubious moral victory turns into an ugly demonstration of greed. And hundreds of thousands of people will have suffered for that greed. “Democracy”, imposed on a nation by a democratic nation, in a most dictatorial fashion - even ignoring the other UN members protestations to go to war. Equality - or not?
“slowly, perhaps, but nonetheless the absolute number of weapons available was undeniably falling with each public destruction of ordinance”
The problem here is that they were only disposing of weapons as was necessary to appease the U.N.
And, “Surely an entire council cannot be wrong if they are in agreement, against a single member of said council? what right would 1 member have to define it’s own end-point, to say all right, this is where it stops, this is where we blow them up?”
Well if that’s the case, then the minority should never have a say, correct? And to assume that the council was somehow “in charge” of all decisions made is a flawed argument. The United Nations does not act as a government of governments. As my friend pointed out to me the other day, they merely serve as something of a mediator. It’s more than obvious that the USA has never had to do anything the council demands, just as Iraq obviously never had to destroy their chemical and biological weapons (which are beginning to appear now… hmmm… I thought they didn’t exist?)
You’re basically correct in your scenarios listed above. But I can’t help but believe that we’re not simply in this to take over Iraq. If that were the case, and we didn’t care about civilian deaths and we just wanted the oil, we could do it… and probably without a single coalition death.
“The problem here is that they were only disposing of weapons as was necessary to appease the U.N.”
and not quite as quickly enough to appease the U.S. don’t you see how US-centric your arguments are? The other counterpoint being that the U.N. could easily have stepped up their demands since the ball had started rolling, neccessitating a more enthusiastic response from Iraq - unfortunately they never even got the chance to.
“Well if that’s the case, then the minority should never have a say, correct?”
I believe the principle of democracy is that EVERYONE should have a say, and then action taken in the course agreed on by the majority. (preferably by all)
in this instance, everyone had a say, and action was taken by select “individuals” within the group. action, versus a say.
” It’s more than obvious that the USA has never had to do anything the council demands”
It was a common courtesy, also considering that the USA was part of the council. PART of. ONE of the members. An, if you may, ordinary member of the collective.
If america delivers on its promises, then and only then will the anti war protestors be silenced.
But should it go any other way - involving capitalising on newly acquired oil resources, things could get very ugly indeed.
“If that were the case, and we didn’t care about civilian deaths and we just wanted the oil, we could do it… and probably without a single coalition death.”
1) nobody here has claimed the US doesn’t care about civilian deaths. Just how much they care about iraq civilian deaths is the question. Apparently dropping 4000 ton bombs on residential buildings to rid the world of saddam hussein is justified, although at the same time it doesn’t matter if saddam is dead or not, his reign is over? civilian deaths for what? to prove a point? As for it “just” being about the oil - of course it is not just about the oil. If america had gone to war on the single premise of taking iraq’s oil - and without justifying their actions, the war might very well be on american soil right now - with the invaders consisting of germans, french, south east asian, middle eastern, and dare i say it, perhaps even british troops. Nobody is fool enough to go to war without a “moral” justification of sorts. Err perhaps with the exception of Saddam Hussein.
You have to realise that there is a world out there larger than the US of A. If you learn to play devil’s advocate to your own points you may find that you understand how the rest of the world works. I for one find it frightening the way the US and UK lept headfirst into this war despite international protestation. It sets a dangerous precedent for future wars on even more tenuous grounds. It takes dictatorship to a new level, with “might is right” being the underlying basis for everything. Less powerful members of the international community will simply have to stand by and watch other countries be victimised and destroyed because they had performed some supposed transgression to the international conscience. Scary thought, no? The Slippery Slope argument.
Well honestly, anonymous, nothing will silence anti-war protestors… that is (for Americans, at least), unless another party was in the White House. And common courtesy? According to whom? Could you name the security council members again… I seem to have forgotten…
And please, tell me how many “hundreds of thousands” of civilian deaths have been caused by our action in Iraq. Now, compare the REAL number of Iraqi civilian deaths to the number of Iraqi civilian deaths cause by their own dictator.
And as for my US-centric arguments… what else would you expect? Where are you from? Bias will always be present in any argument… but more than that, the US felt that the countries disagreeing with our stance were wrong… why would we say, “well, we feel we’re right, and you’re wrong… but because there’s a loose network of nations that we disagree with often, we’re going to do what everyone else says”?
The thing is, the numbers gradually tipped in our favor… it was no longer a coalition of the few… if that was ever the case, it is ancient history now. Frankly, countries like France can go suck a lemon… the last time the French military action mattered, well… let’s just say it’s been 2 centuries since then.
Quick note… democracies never have 100% cooperation… never. If that happens, something is wrong. Oh, and last time I checked, the U.N. wasn’t a democratic GOVERNMENT.
And why should we have waited for another vote? France said they would veto anything we put on the table without even seeing it. How is THAT reasonable?
But why did France do this? Is it because THEY have such strong financial ties to Iraq? Hmmm… maybe THEY need to play devil’s advocate.
Look, this bullcrap about “might is right” is just getting old. You say that simply because we ARE the only superpower in the world. It’s ALWAYS said of the superpowers… but that doesn’t instantly make every one of their decisions wrong. And honestly, we have the backing… and it’s steadily increasing.
But most importantly, I know at this point that we’ve done the right thing. The people are rejoicing… just as predicted. The tyrannical rule has ended… and guess who’s gonna’ be the first to act like they never protested… the French.
shocked, was i…until the end…a sigh of relief i let out…
Rashness has made many fall.. yet what has been done cannot be undone.
Gripping stuff. Keep writing :)