I agree with the verdict.
Put those rotten vegetables down for a second and hear me out on this.
Do I like her character? No. Do I like what happened to her daughter? Absolutely not. Do I wish that "mothers" like her should be sentenced to having their ovaries removed with a spoon? Definitely.
But I also believe that no one should be convicted on such charges without solid concrete evidence, especially in felony cases and even more especially in capital cases.
I didn't watch the trial. I knew enough people who were to be reasonably sure that I was getting fairly accurate Cliff Notes. I was out for lunch this afternoon when the verdict came in and watched as the wave of outrage swept through the pub. I didn't know all the counts that the jury was sent to deliberate on, so I asked if Reckless Endangerment was among them. No one could tell me. Everyone was outraged that she didn't get Murder One and sent to Death Row.
I do believe in capital punishment, but I also believe that anyone sitting in cell awaiting execution should have been proven beyond all doubt that they belong there. Casey Anthony doesn't make that grade. Circumstantial evidence, even in a massive amount, does not equate to concrete proof. They could prove that she lied. They could not prove that she either intentionally or unintentionally killed her daughter.
Yes, she might party hard, do drugs, drink like a fish, act like a bimbo, and whatever else... and I'm glad that she couldn't be convicted for that. I'm glad because it means that the jury was taking the law seriously and not condemning someone based on circumstances and personal character. Hell, I personally don't know that many people who would be able to stand up against the Court of Public Opinion on their character if that was the determining factor in such cases.
Do I think she had some responsibility in her daughter's death? I do. Call it a gut feeling. But gut feeling isn't concrete evidence either.
Okay, now feel free to pelt me with rotten vegetables.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Photos of Dead Terrorists
I just heard the news about Obama deciding not to release any of the post-mortem photos of Osama bin Laden after it was announced yesterday that at least one would be released. I could go on forever about the indecisiveness but I would rather spend the this time talking about history, suspicious natures, and who "we" are.
I personally would like very much to add Osama's deceased mug in that special folder of mine that I use for injury reference materials. But I understand that there are many people who have far greater reasons than I for wanting to see those photos, and I'd like to address that.
If you ask a roomful of honest people to raise their hand if they really trust absolutely everything that comes out of the White House, you probably won't see many hands raised. I've heard people whisper about not trusting the government all of my life but it's only been in the last ten years that I've seen people become extremely vocal about it. Of course, there are plenty of real nutcases out there to fan the flames, but there are plenty of clear-thinking Americans who have their eyebrows raised as well. This is something I take into consideration... why in the world would a government not want to release proof-positive on such a sensitive matter to a population that isn't exactly inclined to just take them at their word?
I really don't want to hear stories about how Osama and Obama have brunch together every Sunday in some secret bunker and laugh about how those stupid Americans "bought it".
We don't hear such stories about Saddam Hussein or Timothy McVeigh because there was hard evidence given to the people that those two enemies of the country were killed.
It's really not a blood-lust thing. It's actually an argument that has its roots in history. Want to know why famous heads were displayed at places like London Bridge? It wasn't someone's twisted sense of decorating. It was for identification purposes in the days before photography. The common folks could look up and see Thomas More's head on a pole, go back and tell their friends and families what they saw, and no one doubted that Mr. More was no longer among the living.
Many years ago when Daniel Pearl was murdered by terrorists and a video of his beheading was floating around on the internet, I had no less than six people ask me if I had seen it. They weren't asking it as they would inquire about a horror movie... they didn't want to see it for themselves but they wanted to know about it from someone they trusted. So I watched the video and let them know...yes, I saw it, and yes it actually happened.
I have never watched "Two Girls, One Cup" because I don't care to see that sort of thing... but I know what happened because of how many people I know who did watch it and told me all about it.
Which brings me to that whole "sensitive American" argument...
You are going to tell me that in a country where the two hottest-selling genres in entertainment are porn and horror, "most" Americans can't stomach a graphic war photo?
Well, we generally do have the common sense to keep potentially upsetting visuals in places where the people who want to see them can see them and those that don't can keep away from them. We don't see "Hostel" or "Bimbo Bangers" mixed in with the Saturday morning cartoons or afternoon soap operas.
If I want to find a particularly nasty photograph, I know exactly which websites to go to to start looking for it. I see no reason why the news media can't do likewise. "If you want to see the post-mort photos, visit our website and click here."
If you knew me around the time of the McVeigh execution, you already know my line about the media in these matters: "We've decided that a lethal injection video is too disturbing for Americans, but here's some dead babies for your viewing pleasure."
As far as the idea that we aren't vengeful trophy-hunters as a country... do these people at the White House ever pay attention to anything that goes on outside of their own social circles????
I watch the television every time I hear that a famous criminal is about to be executed. I know that they aren't going to let me see the needle go in the arm... but that's not why I watch. I tune in for the horse-and-pony show outside the prison gates. Serial killer Ted Bundy's execution is a particular favorite of mine because of how creative people got while celebrating his date with the electric chair. And I think they had every right to celebrate... the monster who scared the Hell out of them and took some of their friends in such a brutal way deserved to die. If someone like that was responsible for the death of one of my loved ones, I'd be right out there shaking pom-poms and cheering on the death squad too.
Osama bin Laden's actions managed to touch damned near every American's life... including those who hadn't even been born at the time of the 9/11 attacks. With as many people I saw who came out to celebrate in the middle of the night as soon as the news of his death came out, I don't think "we the people" have changed our minds about celebrating the death of our public enemies.
But even while caught up with the excitement of the news that night, there were (and still are) plenty of people who wished to see proof-positive that the man is dead. And to people who aren't familiar with the laws and customs of Islam, a very quick burial at sea sounds very fishy... no pun intended.
But we might upset the Muslim world and invite retaliation!
Ummm... I think that ship sailed a long time ago. I seriously doubt that folks who want to bring this country down to its knees are sitting around waiting to see if we release photos of a dead icon as a deciding factor to proceed. As it is with most bull-headed fundamentalist of any religion, they'll find a reason to be inflamed and offended no matter what we do. Why do we insist of trying to placate people who want us all dead?
Back to the trophy hunter argument...
Americans don't brag? Seriously???? How many freakin' "Good Guy Badges" does our government parade around whenever something awful happens around the world? Captain Democracy flies in to right the wrongs and give help to those less fortunate, to give them a taste of freedom... but we don't brag about it. We don't do cartwheels in the street when our forces take down a top terrorist. We're just not like that.
Yeah, right.
As I'm writing this, my mother just came in and told me that one of the news networks is reporting that they might show us some photos of the dead couriers in bin Laden's compound. So much for the "sensitive American" argument. And nice try at trying to dodge the issue about releasing photos of the dead man himself. Surely we won't clamor for Chateaubriand if they offer us hamburger.
I'm turning off the news. Would someone please whistle for me when the folks at the White House stop chasing their tails and start paying attention to the nature of the people they are supposed to be governing?
I personally would like very much to add Osama's deceased mug in that special folder of mine that I use for injury reference materials. But I understand that there are many people who have far greater reasons than I for wanting to see those photos, and I'd like to address that.
If you ask a roomful of honest people to raise their hand if they really trust absolutely everything that comes out of the White House, you probably won't see many hands raised. I've heard people whisper about not trusting the government all of my life but it's only been in the last ten years that I've seen people become extremely vocal about it. Of course, there are plenty of real nutcases out there to fan the flames, but there are plenty of clear-thinking Americans who have their eyebrows raised as well. This is something I take into consideration... why in the world would a government not want to release proof-positive on such a sensitive matter to a population that isn't exactly inclined to just take them at their word?
I really don't want to hear stories about how Osama and Obama have brunch together every Sunday in some secret bunker and laugh about how those stupid Americans "bought it".
We don't hear such stories about Saddam Hussein or Timothy McVeigh because there was hard evidence given to the people that those two enemies of the country were killed.
It's really not a blood-lust thing. It's actually an argument that has its roots in history. Want to know why famous heads were displayed at places like London Bridge? It wasn't someone's twisted sense of decorating. It was for identification purposes in the days before photography. The common folks could look up and see Thomas More's head on a pole, go back and tell their friends and families what they saw, and no one doubted that Mr. More was no longer among the living.
Many years ago when Daniel Pearl was murdered by terrorists and a video of his beheading was floating around on the internet, I had no less than six people ask me if I had seen it. They weren't asking it as they would inquire about a horror movie... they didn't want to see it for themselves but they wanted to know about it from someone they trusted. So I watched the video and let them know...yes, I saw it, and yes it actually happened.
I have never watched "Two Girls, One Cup" because I don't care to see that sort of thing... but I know what happened because of how many people I know who did watch it and told me all about it.
Which brings me to that whole "sensitive American" argument...
You are going to tell me that in a country where the two hottest-selling genres in entertainment are porn and horror, "most" Americans can't stomach a graphic war photo?
Well, we generally do have the common sense to keep potentially upsetting visuals in places where the people who want to see them can see them and those that don't can keep away from them. We don't see "Hostel" or "Bimbo Bangers" mixed in with the Saturday morning cartoons or afternoon soap operas.
If I want to find a particularly nasty photograph, I know exactly which websites to go to to start looking for it. I see no reason why the news media can't do likewise. "If you want to see the post-mort photos, visit our website and click here."
If you knew me around the time of the McVeigh execution, you already know my line about the media in these matters: "We've decided that a lethal injection video is too disturbing for Americans, but here's some dead babies for your viewing pleasure."
As far as the idea that we aren't vengeful trophy-hunters as a country... do these people at the White House ever pay attention to anything that goes on outside of their own social circles????
I watch the television every time I hear that a famous criminal is about to be executed. I know that they aren't going to let me see the needle go in the arm... but that's not why I watch. I tune in for the horse-and-pony show outside the prison gates. Serial killer Ted Bundy's execution is a particular favorite of mine because of how creative people got while celebrating his date with the electric chair. And I think they had every right to celebrate... the monster who scared the Hell out of them and took some of their friends in such a brutal way deserved to die. If someone like that was responsible for the death of one of my loved ones, I'd be right out there shaking pom-poms and cheering on the death squad too.
Osama bin Laden's actions managed to touch damned near every American's life... including those who hadn't even been born at the time of the 9/11 attacks. With as many people I saw who came out to celebrate in the middle of the night as soon as the news of his death came out, I don't think "we the people" have changed our minds about celebrating the death of our public enemies.
But even while caught up with the excitement of the news that night, there were (and still are) plenty of people who wished to see proof-positive that the man is dead. And to people who aren't familiar with the laws and customs of Islam, a very quick burial at sea sounds very fishy... no pun intended.
But we might upset the Muslim world and invite retaliation!
Ummm... I think that ship sailed a long time ago. I seriously doubt that folks who want to bring this country down to its knees are sitting around waiting to see if we release photos of a dead icon as a deciding factor to proceed. As it is with most bull-headed fundamentalist of any religion, they'll find a reason to be inflamed and offended no matter what we do. Why do we insist of trying to placate people who want us all dead?
Back to the trophy hunter argument...
Americans don't brag? Seriously???? How many freakin' "Good Guy Badges" does our government parade around whenever something awful happens around the world? Captain Democracy flies in to right the wrongs and give help to those less fortunate, to give them a taste of freedom... but we don't brag about it. We don't do cartwheels in the street when our forces take down a top terrorist. We're just not like that.
Yeah, right.
As I'm writing this, my mother just came in and told me that one of the news networks is reporting that they might show us some photos of the dead couriers in bin Laden's compound. So much for the "sensitive American" argument. And nice try at trying to dodge the issue about releasing photos of the dead man himself. Surely we won't clamor for Chateaubriand if they offer us hamburger.
I'm turning off the news. Would someone please whistle for me when the folks at the White House stop chasing their tails and start paying attention to the nature of the people they are supposed to be governing?
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Drugs and Welfare
Florida House Passes Welfare Drug Testing Requirement
This news makes me very happy.
Honesty, I don't understand why anyone who isn't on both drugs and government assistance programs would oppose it. The idea is that welfare recipients pay for their drug tests and are reimbursed if they pass it. If you are on drugs, you don't take the test and you don't get welfare. Makes perfect sense to me.
Yes, I've known plenty of folks who sat around their dwellings and indulged in drugs while waiting for their government checks. It always irked me that most of them weren't even trying to get jobs. Some would even use the lion's share of their welfare checks to buy lots of drugs, sell some of it, and use the rest to ride out until the next welfare check day. I understand that banks don't exactly give loans for such start-up businesses, but I have a real problem with dealers financing their operation on taxpayer money. I have more respect for the bloke who collects aluminum cans to support his drinking habit.
I have no idea if this bill will actually make it into law, but I hope it does. I don't buy the "invasion of privacy" argument because it's no more than many employers ask of their job applicants. If there are folks who are on welfare because they can't pass an employment drug test, then maybe having that same test as a prerequisite for welfare might be a big wakeup call for them.
Besides, we all know that a lot of employers don't actually conduct drug tests. It's not a death sentence for these people.
This news makes me very happy.
Honesty, I don't understand why anyone who isn't on both drugs and government assistance programs would oppose it. The idea is that welfare recipients pay for their drug tests and are reimbursed if they pass it. If you are on drugs, you don't take the test and you don't get welfare. Makes perfect sense to me.
Yes, I've known plenty of folks who sat around their dwellings and indulged in drugs while waiting for their government checks. It always irked me that most of them weren't even trying to get jobs. Some would even use the lion's share of their welfare checks to buy lots of drugs, sell some of it, and use the rest to ride out until the next welfare check day. I understand that banks don't exactly give loans for such start-up businesses, but I have a real problem with dealers financing their operation on taxpayer money. I have more respect for the bloke who collects aluminum cans to support his drinking habit.
I have no idea if this bill will actually make it into law, but I hope it does. I don't buy the "invasion of privacy" argument because it's no more than many employers ask of their job applicants. If there are folks who are on welfare because they can't pass an employment drug test, then maybe having that same test as a prerequisite for welfare might be a big wakeup call for them.
Besides, we all know that a lot of employers don't actually conduct drug tests. It's not a death sentence for these people.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Gold-Diggers and Their Kind
Is there anything more pathetic than a person who feels they must latch onto someone else for all their earthly needs without making any effort to provide for themselves? I understand those who seek patrons while working toward their career goals, (be it in schooling, starting out on something, or otherwise) but I have zero respect for those who spend their lives lounging on velvet coattails.
I have even less respect for the ones that bite the generous hand that feeds them by taking what is not rightfully theirs. They can use whatever logic they like, but stealing from a benefactor is pretty damned low in my book.
Perhaps such people get a skewered sense of entitlement, believing that they truly deserve nice things and justifying their unsavory ways of obtaining them. I've known a woman who lived on the welfare system who had the audacity to say that everyone who actually works hard should pay more taxes. It was her belief that because she displayed the ability to produce offspring, the rest of us should pay her expenses while she sat around and did nothing (and that unfortunately included taking care of her whelp.) I would certainly hate to see what kind of a world we would live in if babies came with "get out of work free" cards attached to them.
I understand having a sense of self-importance. I don't understand having this attitude with absolutely nothing to back it up. I also understand that one's opinion of oneself is generally not universally accepted.
Some talk a good game. "I'm going to do _______(enter any noble pursuit here)_____ with my life, if only someone could help me finance it!" I've known plenty of those types. Inevitably, that "noble pursuit" turns into a trip to the mall. Yes, one must look good when dealing with other people in business, but one needn't have a closet full of designer clothing to do so. One should actually put the money given by kind-hearted folks who want to help in that "noble pursuit" toward an actual pursuit.
Others do what is basically a form of legal prostitution and they sometimes even openly brag about having a "Sugar Daddy" or "Sugar Mama". Why do anything with their lives when someone who has worked hard to obtain a good life will readily give them whatever they like? These people disgust me. I wonder how well that tactic is going to work out for them when their beauty fades. At least hookers are honest about their affection-for-cash operational procedures.
I have even less respect for the ones that bite the generous hand that feeds them by taking what is not rightfully theirs. They can use whatever logic they like, but stealing from a benefactor is pretty damned low in my book.
Perhaps such people get a skewered sense of entitlement, believing that they truly deserve nice things and justifying their unsavory ways of obtaining them. I've known a woman who lived on the welfare system who had the audacity to say that everyone who actually works hard should pay more taxes. It was her belief that because she displayed the ability to produce offspring, the rest of us should pay her expenses while she sat around and did nothing (and that unfortunately included taking care of her whelp.) I would certainly hate to see what kind of a world we would live in if babies came with "get out of work free" cards attached to them.
I understand having a sense of self-importance. I don't understand having this attitude with absolutely nothing to back it up. I also understand that one's opinion of oneself is generally not universally accepted.
Some talk a good game. "I'm going to do _______(enter any noble pursuit here)_____ with my life, if only someone could help me finance it!" I've known plenty of those types. Inevitably, that "noble pursuit" turns into a trip to the mall. Yes, one must look good when dealing with other people in business, but one needn't have a closet full of designer clothing to do so. One should actually put the money given by kind-hearted folks who want to help in that "noble pursuit" toward an actual pursuit.
Others do what is basically a form of legal prostitution and they sometimes even openly brag about having a "Sugar Daddy" or "Sugar Mama". Why do anything with their lives when someone who has worked hard to obtain a good life will readily give them whatever they like? These people disgust me. I wonder how well that tactic is going to work out for them when their beauty fades. At least hookers are honest about their affection-for-cash operational procedures.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
New Project
Earlier this year I mentioned that I was about to embark on a long writing project. It's only fair that I follow that bit of news up with how what started as an epic screenplay destined for market has evolved into an epic graphic novel destined to be produced and released in numerous episodes over the next few years.
Along with artist Daniel Byrd (www.coffinrust.com), my husband Duckie and I are very proud and extremely excited to be working on what we hope will be an extraordinary illustrated story. I'm not at liberty to get into the details just yet... but I'll post them as soon as I'm able to.
On a side note, my first fictional novel, The Gallows Flower, is slated to become available very soon through Diabolic Publishing.
Along with artist Daniel Byrd (www.coffinrust.com), my husband Duckie and I are very proud and extremely excited to be working on what we hope will be an extraordinary illustrated story. I'm not at liberty to get into the details just yet... but I'll post them as soon as I'm able to.
On a side note, my first fictional novel, The Gallows Flower, is slated to become available very soon through Diabolic Publishing.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Rooting for the Bad Guys
This month I begin a long and complicated writing project that has its foundation firmly in a life-long habit of mine... being more interested in the villain of a story than the hero.
Thinking back, I cannot pinpoint exactly when I decided that Dracula was more interesting than Harker or Van Helsing, or that Jack the Ripper had far more appeal than Sherlock Holmes, or that Erik the opera phantom really just needed to improve his aim with a chandelier. Villains have always just seemed to be more complex to me. Even now with a growing trend of bad-boy heroes and "darker" super-beings, I still find that the designated black hat is the one I'd like to have a dinner dates with.
It's not that I particularly agree with the motives, just that they generally have a much more interesting way of looking at situations. One of my favorite on-screen villains of all-time is John Kramer/"Jigsaw" from the Saw series, whose philosophy and pre-planning abilities are amazing although quite firmly rooted in solid logic. And how quick people are to label him as crazy! Yeah, he's crazy like a fox.
Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker was crazy, but by no means uninteresting. Although Jigsaw didn't particularly like the results of his games, I do appreciate seeing black hat characters who genuinely enjoy what they do (even if it is downright awful.) Rob Zombie's Firefly family in House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects being a wonderful example of this.
But even more interesting to me are the villains who truly believe that what they are doing is right, more so than those who just don't give a fig that their actions are wrong in the eyes of the law or humanity.
I look forward to tackling a very classic villain this year.
Thinking back, I cannot pinpoint exactly when I decided that Dracula was more interesting than Harker or Van Helsing, or that Jack the Ripper had far more appeal than Sherlock Holmes, or that Erik the opera phantom really just needed to improve his aim with a chandelier. Villains have always just seemed to be more complex to me. Even now with a growing trend of bad-boy heroes and "darker" super-beings, I still find that the designated black hat is the one I'd like to have a dinner dates with.
It's not that I particularly agree with the motives, just that they generally have a much more interesting way of looking at situations. One of my favorite on-screen villains of all-time is John Kramer/"Jigsaw" from the Saw series, whose philosophy and pre-planning abilities are amazing although quite firmly rooted in solid logic. And how quick people are to label him as crazy! Yeah, he's crazy like a fox.
Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker was crazy, but by no means uninteresting. Although Jigsaw didn't particularly like the results of his games, I do appreciate seeing black hat characters who genuinely enjoy what they do (even if it is downright awful.) Rob Zombie's Firefly family in House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects being a wonderful example of this.
But even more interesting to me are the villains who truly believe that what they are doing is right, more so than those who just don't give a fig that their actions are wrong in the eyes of the law or humanity.
I look forward to tackling a very classic villain this year.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Observations in a Bistro
My husband and I went to a local wine bar/bistro this week because we really needed an evening out and the idea of meeting new people local to us was appealing. Overall, we had a very nice time and met a couple of rather interesting blokes. However, we also had plenty of opportunity to observe the locals and understood that this charming little bistro turns into a "meat market" after 9pm.
Is it really necessary to update your Facebook/Twitter/whatever every thirty seconds while you are out with your friends? I kid you not, a woman at the table beside us went no longer than three minutes without typing a new update. I saw quite a folks Twittering away, and it made me wonder what was possibly so amazing that they couldn't just tell their friends about it later.
Mind you, I'm not a big fan of electronic babysitters. I sometimes remember to turn my cell phone on when I'm away from home, and I have never owned one that came equipped with a camera and Internet capabilities.
Of course, I could see how texting your friends while in a bar could be useful. I would have considered texting my husband, who was sitting across from me at the table, if only so he could understand what I was saying over the loud music. We were seated in the much quieter outdoor area. I can't imagine how the folks inside where the band was managed to communicate with one another.
I know I need to get more accustomed to crowds and social situations, but I still feel quite alien at the moment.
Is it really necessary to update your Facebook/Twitter/whatever every thirty seconds while you are out with your friends? I kid you not, a woman at the table beside us went no longer than three minutes without typing a new update. I saw quite a folks Twittering away, and it made me wonder what was possibly so amazing that they couldn't just tell their friends about it later.
Mind you, I'm not a big fan of electronic babysitters. I sometimes remember to turn my cell phone on when I'm away from home, and I have never owned one that came equipped with a camera and Internet capabilities.
Of course, I could see how texting your friends while in a bar could be useful. I would have considered texting my husband, who was sitting across from me at the table, if only so he could understand what I was saying over the loud music. We were seated in the much quieter outdoor area. I can't imagine how the folks inside where the band was managed to communicate with one another.
I know I need to get more accustomed to crowds and social situations, but I still feel quite alien at the moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)