So, lemme get this straight....

This woman killed her son.

She drugged him, then put a plastic bag over his head so he couldn't breathe, and waited for him to suffocate.

Premeditated, cold-blooded murder.

But instead of being treated as a murderer, she's out on bail, being charged with manslaughter, and the pastor of her village says that they feel profound sadness and sympathy - for her, not for her dead son.

I wonder, if I just started killing people who were inconvenient to me, could I get profound sadness and sympathy too? I've got a list of people I don't like all that much....


_{Taken from wakasplat}

So, you can't register for those Serenity passes anymore...

Which is a good thing for those of us who already did - it indicates that we might actually have seats. I've been using too many dashes lately. Must stop that.

I guess this is time to link to Growing Joel's site again...

My brief (very brief) examination into the eviedence shows that this trend of excusing people for murder if it's an autistic kid they killed extends well past that, into just about every sort of disability. If you kill your disabled kid, you get to say that it was the best choice, and people will listen. Some will believe you, and even those who don't will end up discussing matters from your perspective, instead of taking the stand that says "no, murder is wrong, this was wrong".

Remember the caged kids? This is the most recent article. I remember the comments to the early articles. There were people in the comments arguing that they "didn't know" why the cages were there, that there might've been a good reason for it, that we didn't know the whole story, that it could be nothing more than screens to keep them from getting out of bed at night.

Can you imagine anybody saying that if these kids weren't disabled? Even if they were nothing more than screens attached to the bunkbeds, can you imagine people saying "that's okay" for nondisabled kids, kids who are long since too old for cribs? Not everybody said that. Many people didn't, in fact. But even those who didn't were still letting the foster parents set the stage by claiming that this was for their kids own good.

Aha! So, if I'm *reallyreally* lucky, I should be able to see Serenity on Wednesday.

Depends on how much they overbooked it, right? *dramatic eyeroll* I obviously can't wait on line for hours and hours with the kid, so instead I'm going to drop Ana off with Jenn, and head there myself. Although I'll be done with the kid *later* than usual, I'll be by the area far *earlier* than I'd be if I wait for 'dul - he's supposed to be home by 4:30, he's often not, the earliest boat I could possibly catch is the 5:00, meaning I'd be in Manhattan no earlier than 5:25, and then I'd still have to head up to 34th street. No fun there.

The official synopsis is as follows:

Joss Whedon, the Oscar® - and Emmy - nominated writer/director responsible for the worldwide television phenomena of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE, ANGEL and FIREFLY, now applies his trademark compassion and wit to a small band of galactic outcasts 500 years in the future in his feature film directorial debut, Serenity. The film centers around Captain Malcolm Reynolds, a hardened veteran (on the losing side) of a galactic civil war, who now ekes out a living pulling off small crimes and transport-for-hire aboard his ship, Serenity. He leads a small, eclectic crew who are the closest thing he has left to family –squabbling, insubordinate and undyingly loyal.

Hate to say it, but the official synopsis sucks.

Firstly, the way they state it makes it sound as though this movie is something altogether new. It's not, of course - it's the movie that has to do with Firefly. (I mean, duh!)

And it makes the whole thing sound a lot sappier than the show was, and hopefully the movie is. I mean, c'mon, does this look like a sappy movie? I didn't think so.

As for undyingly loyal... right. I'm sure Jayne would be tickled to be described as undyingly loyal after the way he betrayed them.

Well, youse all know what Firefly is, I don't have to describe the show to you. Which is good, because I hate doing that sort of thing. Come to think of it, youse all know about this movie by now, and already know if you're seeing it or not. So I'm promoting it why, exactly? Oh right. Because if I'm really good, I get a Jayne hat. Wait, no... Oh right. Because I might not *get* to see the movie, so I have to talk about it before it shows. I got $100 from my grandmother, and I'm spending it on shoes, pants, and maybe a shirt. Not even a new bra, which I also need. (And I guess a book or two for Ana would come out of that $100. I'm thinking Chicka Chicka Boom Boom and Where the Wild Things Are. Love those books.)

So, basically, it's like this: I like Firefly. It's a good show. It's interesting. It could've gone farther than it did. (Same thing for Gargoyles, which was also struck down before its time, but that's another rant....) So I want to see the movie. If you haven't seen Firefly, I suggest you either watch it now or ignore me. Whatever.

*checks watch*

Yeah, I've typed enough. I was going to download some pretty pictures, but they couldn't be opened. I'll find other pictures later, and demand icons or something. Because I'm a whiny, demanding person. Plus, getting fascinated with stuff like this is a good distraction from worrying about the recent spate of hurricanes. I know people... a person, rather... in Galveston, I have family (well, I have an uncle we don't talk to or about, and a grandmother who might be dead years ago, and my father's grave) in Texas. I don't want to worry.

I've finally decided that the session clips are emphatically competely nonspoilers.

You remember these, right? Good.

That said, I want an icon from here, the "would I still be allowed to dance?" quote.

But I don't like the image that goes with it. Now, I don't want to use the dancing sequence that's in the icon I have already, so I'm thinking one of the turnykicky things from the trailers? Or maybe one of the swordyslashy things. I have no idea how to take just those myself and say "THIS! USE THIS!", nor how to make an icon. I'm sorry this is all so vague.

(This is entry two promoting the movie. I *will* see this movie. No power in the 'verse can stop me. Not even poverty.)

Aha, the turnykicky things are in the scene in "Fight". Go to it, my lovely, wonderful, brilliant friends. Pwetty pweeze?

It's not the act that appalls me.

Well, I mean, it is, but not as much as reporting of it does.

"In a case that touched the local community, neighbours, including the local pastor, expressed sadness and said Markcrow was a "lovely woman" who would be welcomed back with open arms."

God. It sounds like he was a notorious kitten-killer or something. "Touched the local community"? That's the phrase you use when refering to a murder case?

She had been through a double tragedy with the sudden death of her husband Paul, an architect, shortly after she killed her son.

Now, the other article implied that her husband had died *first*. But if he died *after* the boy, suddenly (not the result of a long, drawn-out illness, say), the "oh, she was upset that her husband died" argument obviously doesn't work. And, of course, her son's death is considered part of a "double tragedy", even though she caused it.

"There is more sympathy than criticism. People who know will be very understanding really, knowing Wendy as they do."

Of course they will. Because she was just so put-upon, poor dear.

"Patrick had special needs and that was an enormous pressure for her, she was very conscientious in her care for him."

Whatever the lawyers and all said, the community and the press are working to make sure we all get the idea that her son's murder was okay because he was a burden on her - not because she had serious psychiatrc problems. And maybe she did, but that's not what I'm reading in these comments in the article.

It's sickening. There's no other words for it. If she'd killed anyone else, nobody would be saying "I don't know what happened but whatever she did, it was not her fault", not like that. And it's clear that her neighbors aren't saying that because they thought she wasn't in her right mind. If they did, I doubt they would've gotten together to sign a book of support to mail to her after her arrest. For murder, remember, even if now it's been pushed down as far as manslaughter, which is a joke.

*gigglesnorts*

Remember the post I made advertising Serenity?

You know, the movie that "centers around Captain Malcolm Reynolds, a hardened veteran (on the losing side) of a galactic civil war, who now ekes out a living pulling off small crimes and transport-for-hire aboard his ship, Serenity. He leads a small, eclectic crew who are the closest thing he has left to family –squabbling, insubordinate and undyingly loyal."?

It seems everybody trying to get into their respective screenings is posting while also pointing out that they're posting so they can get into their screenings. While that certainly does show devotion, I'm not so sure it's going to work for any of us. I mean, it's kinda blatant that people are following the letter of the law, not the spirit.

That said, can more of you comment in these things, make me look ridiculously popular and influential, and just the sort of person who should get to see an advance screening of a movie so she can advertise it to people who love her, listen to her, and would go to see this movie no matter what she said? Just, y'know, reply and make me look like I've got a massive fanbase of my own.

God, I *am* pathetic.

SEE HOW DESPERATE I AM TO SEE THIS MOVIE? SEEEEEEEEE? YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE I GET A SPOT, YOU SCREENING PEOPLE! PLEEEEEEEEEEEEASE!!!!!!!!!

This had better work, or else I'll be sitting here complaining about it.

Edit: Here, sitting here. God, I'm so desperate that I'm making typoes. See how much I wanna see this movie in advance, kind screening people? You love me and want to help me. Right? Right.

Edit again: How about a firefly layout? Would that be overkill? If I did that, could I change it back to my old layout once I'd seen the movie?