Sentencing: The Jury is Kinder than Heather

No boiling blood for Chante Mallard. Instead, suddenly remorseful now that there are RAMIFICATIONS for her actions, a snivelling Ms. Mallard is sentenced to 50 years for the more serious of her offenses.

I am pleased about many things. First, the jury took nearly no time to deliberate. Second, this stands as very visible proof that, indeed, there are consequences for evil doings.

So much for "extraordinary circumstances."

hln

Posted by: hln at 10:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

An Extreme Example: Please Take Responsibility for Your Actions

Everyone who knows me knows about this. I expressed frothing outrage when first I learned of the news, and I will do so again at a particular statement made by the defense attorney:

To Mallard's lawyer, "that doesn't amount to murder ... She didn't want her parents to learn what she had done, and she didn't want to go to jail."

Well, lawyer man, that's just ducky. Let me ask you, how do you sleep at night? And here's why I ask:

Chante Mallard

1. Drove a car while under intoxicating/drugged influence.
2. Struck a man while driving said car in said condition.
3. Struck this man with such force that he remained embedded in her car, specifically the windshield.
   
   Stop right here. If Mallard contacts the authorities and seeks aid for the man she has struck, she's done the best that can be expected of civic duty given that point one violates civic duty. But no.
   
   
4. She drives home with the man still in the windshield.
5. She puts the car (hence, the man) into the garage.
6. She has the audacity to APOLOGIZE to the man but not seek help for him.
7. The man dies. Mallard seeks help in disposing the body.

Does anyone not find the last four points entirely morally reprehensible? And then for the defense to paint the picture of a poor, distraught soul. So, Chante, what does Mommy think now?

Disgusting. Thoroughly disgusting. I propose Circle 7, Round 1. Submerged in hot blood.

Duly sentenced.

hln

Posted by: hln at 12:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

Tobacco Furor (rant rant info

Tobacco Furor (rant rant info rant)

Today is obviously an ammunition-rich day for tobacco opponents.

First, we have this.

Next, my opinion on smoking. I'm proud of myself that I've abstained from presenting this until now.

1) If this were MY world, it wouldn't exist.
2) It's not allowed in my home, my car, and, if possible, anything I would define as my personal space.
3) When asked a smoking preference at a restaurant, I say "eradication." (No one seems to understand that, btw. So fun).
4) I completely miss the point of smoking. It's supposedly pleasurable. So are very many things in life that do not gradually and continually damage one's own body willingly (and irritate/exacerbate/cause lung disease/etc. in others). Everyday smokers are some pretty jumpy people, too, so I question some common sense about "smoking calms me down" when, in effect, the whole habit is probably what makes you jumpy in the first place. The smell (and residue) are revolting. Out of context (read: the non-smoking world) this all seems very, very strange.

HOWEVER. Currently, smoking is legal, and individual property owners (bars, restaurants, homeowners) dictate whether the activity can be conducted on their owned property. There's the whole big ever-changing debate on the effect of smoking on public health. It's so nebulous, really. Firm X pays for this study, Firm Y for this. They cancel each other out. Who's really to know? Personally, I believe most of the "smoking is bad for x because of y." reports, and, I have physical ramifications from breathing the stuff, so I try to avoid it in all possible circumstances.

A quote from this CNN article is obnoxious, though.

American Cancer Society CEO John Seffrin called tobacco "the only weapon of mass destruction used against people all over the world."

Sit down, Sir John. Puhleez. Did you gather appropriate mounds of fetid onions to be placed in your immediate vicinity so that your cry and snivel were heard loud enough to grant you this quote? WMD - such a lovely catchphrase. You must be proud to be cliche.

Moving right along to something with a little more protein, we have this article I stumbled across when it was 12 seconds old. Nicotine is some nasty noxious stuff - so this isn't terribly surprising. In short:

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Smoking during pregnancy appears to affect a newborn's behavior in ways similar to infants whose mothers used heroin or other illegal drugs, new study findings suggest.

Smoking between 6 and 7 cigarettes per day -- less than half a pack -- throughout pregnancy was associated with infants that were more excitable, less consolable and more rigid, according to the report published in the journal Pediatrics.

This is funny. So THAT'S what's wrong with Generation X.

hln

Posted by: hln at 12:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 3 kb.