Fiction author and legal journalist Stephen Elliott explains how and why Paris Hilton has drawn valuable attention to the inequalities of the California justice system.
Paris, The Hero Stephen Elliott The Huffington Post Mon Jun 11, 8:35 PM ET
Sometimes I think Paris Hilton is a hero. I watch the news and I see the willowy blonde, staring from the squad car window, face like a painting. Then I hear about over-crowded jails, a corrupt Los Angeles Sheriff, a two-tiered legal system. It doesn't bother me that it takes Paris Hilton to draw attention to these issues. Well, it does, but this is America and you have to accept certain things.
If anything, the Paris Hilton story breaks all the rules of celebrity journalism in that it is actually about something. It's about money and the kind of privilege money can buy, the kind of things that aren't supposed to be for sale, like justice. It's about the California penal system, broken under Pete Wilson and Gray Davis regimes where cheap slogans like "tough on crime" took over the space reserved for intelligent analysis and were rammed through the state legislature or put on ballot initiatives where they became law. Pete Wilson was going to run for president and Gray Davis' prime constituency was the prison guards union followed by the victims rights groups. If you were to visit a prison like the LA County Prison in Lancaster you would see medium security prisoners, most drug offenders, stuck in endless bunks in what was supposed to be recreational areas. I visited Lancaster in 2005. There were only a few feet before the walls, a bank of television screens, open toilets, guard with a gun walking on a metal plank twenty feet above. The bunks were in two or three tiers and the prisoners were only outside one hour a day. These people are serving years in the most horrendous, over-crowded conditions imaginable. And it is costing tax payers huge sums of money.
There is a PR campaign underway to paint Paris Hilton's punishment as harsh, as if she was being penalized for being a celebrity. Sheriff Baca even pointed to her harsh sentence when defending his decision to release her after three days. In fact, the sentence isn't harsh. This was not her first time being pulled over driving recklessly since her license had been suspended. She was given repeated warnings and pulled over in at least three separate counties. She had a signed document in her glove compartment stating she knew she was not allowed to drive. She had the resources to hire a full-time driver. Most people in her situation are forced to drive on a suspended license just to get to work, thanks to General Motors early dismantling of the LA public transit system. There are those that say the Sheriff was within his jurisdiction to release Paris early, but surely he could have found another prisoner to release, one whose sentence didn't specifically state that she could not serve any part of her sentence under house arrest.
This is about class warfare of the kind the rich have been waging on the poor. This is about separate and unequal. This is about a generation of poor stripped of political power in jail or on parole. And Paris Hilton has got America talking about these things.
Paris has become an unlikely hero. She didn't even try. Her well-cared for golden hair is shining a bright spotlight on the ever increasing disparity between the rich and the poor. Perhaps when Paris is released for real she will travel the country speaking to these issues. She'll lobby congress against mandatory sentencing guidelines, three strikes laws that target non-violent criminals, the absurdity of ballot initiatives that cost more money while removing layers of judicial oversight -- such as the absurdly named Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act- AKA Proposition 21.
So I want to take this moment to thank Paris Hilton for bringing these important issues back to the American conversation and the media for its excellent coverage of the events as they unfolded. Can a person be a hero even when they don't mean to be? Even while crying for their mother, taken away in chains? I guess it depends on your definition, but I don't see why not.
Monty Panesar is one of England's top cricket bowlers. This is his summer to break through and become a big star. Yesterday, he made that breakthrough. He scored his first 10 wicket test, which finished on Monday. That's ten outs -four in the first innings and six in the second innings- during the five-day match. He did give-up 137 runs in the second innings, contributing to the Windies' near-record 394 runs for a losing team's second at-bat. But 10 K's puts his name on a board of England achievements somewhere, and he earned it. He is doing some great things and like the England team of 2005, he is putting Cricket on the back cover of the tabloids again. I cannot wait for India to visit England for a test series in July. But until then, there is still one more test to play against the West Indies this weekend at Riverside (Durham County, I believe, near some castle).
My favorite England fast bowler, Steve Harmison, notched his 200th test wicket. His location was off in the first innings, where he struggled to get 2 wickets. But he recovered to earn a respectable 6 wickets while giving-up 150 runs total in the match.
Dead-on correct. The reason Harvey Levin, the chief of TMZ wants Paris freed is not because he cares about justice. It's because he needs Paris out and about to generate more revenue.
Why Bush Should Pardon Paris Sherman Yellen The Huffington Post Sat Jun 9, 8:36 PM ET
Forget Scooter Libby. He's hung out to dry. Much too complicated for Bush to pardon him now. Yes, the Republican base wants it, but a pardon always admits guilt, and that's something that the Bush people cannot, never have, and will never do.
But Bush has too much in common with Paris Hilton -- too much natural sympathy with her to let her twist in the wind or languish in a Los Angeles jail. He should pardon her if he acts on his principles and his past behavior. Like Paris he moves from one folly and misadventure to another without regard to the consequences, never suffering remorse or understanding the consequences of his acts. The Los Angeles police calls such folks 51/50's -- armed and dangerous mental cases who can injure themselves or others. But we call them news makers or Republican presidents. Here goes -- my short list of reasons for Bush to pardon Paris:
1. Her activities distract the public from the war in Iraq in a big way and keep us all calmer. In jail she can't do this successfully, but free she can work her charms on the public mind. There is no insurgency in Iraq, no economic conference, no atom bomb in Iran, no starvation in Darfur that can stand up to the attack of Paris on the news media. She is far better than the surge in spreading the Bush optimism, and since we don't have a Michael Jackson charged with interfering with the underwear of small children to keep us amused and outraged these days we need our Paris free. Who thinks of the three thousand and more American solders dead and the thousands of casualties, not to mention the tens of thousand Iraqi maimed and dead when we have Paris, reminding us that life goes on in its merry way - particularly among the rich and famous. Why worry, America? As Rick said to Ilsa in Casablanca, or was it Ilsa to Rick? "We will always have Paris." And so we do.
2. Paris is responsible for keeping thousands of reporters, commentators, publishers, lawyers, Judge Judy and all those cable-news-sanitation-workers employed. Not to mention those pesky undocumented aliens who tend the family gardens and cook America's restaurant meals. So we can all live vicariously through the wealth of our betters without solving our immigration policy as long as Paris is free.
3. Paris stands for all that Republican legislation which attacks the inheritance tax and calls it the death tax. Think of where Paris would be if not for grandpa Conrad's hotel money. Just another working girl in Vegas paying off the cops to loiter in the casinos and hotels. And she is such a fine role model for poor young girls who seek a lucrative career with no discernible talent but beauty and an interest in recreational sex. Speaking of sex - and that's always fun - she's a straight woman - no Ellen or Rosie - our Paris does it the right way, the American way. Say what you will about her, she will never demand to be married to Nicole Ritchie or Britney Spears. That in itself should earn her a pardon by Bush. We also have a duty to protect her from Large Marge and Big Betty in prison who wish to turn her into their prison bitch - the unspoken fantasy of our cable newscasters. We've all seen those prison movies. Although Bush as Governor never saw a prisoner on death row he wished to pardon rather than mock - here is a chance for him to show a bit of mercy to a girl who needs some. After all, she is our Princess Di, a martyr to privilege, our own first class train wreck.
4. Like Bush, Paris has her pornographic tapes. Hers was that plain, good 'ole American screwing (alas, I have never seen it, but I have heard tell it is right up there with Scarlet and Rhett in Gone With The Wind), while his pornographic tape is Abu Ghraib -- the torturing of prisoners -- which reveals his stalwart resolve to protect us at any cost - even if it means destroying our constitution and our traditional values. Together, their tapes record their misadventures, and the tapes don't seem to have hurt their standing in the great world. He should pardon her as a fellow tape maker, advancing the art of the American documentary film.
5. Paris, like Bush, has been nailed for DUI behavior. Only Bush's driving misadventures managed to get suppressed by his wealthy family. In this he has a friend in wife Laura, "Our Lady of the Libraries" with her youthful vehicular manslaughter - ready to stand with him behind this pardon. What's a few too many behind the wheel? The worst that can happen is that you kill a few innocent folks - far better than killing embryonic stem cells in the name of medical research, right?
6. With the public clamoring for Paris's incarceration, Bush can show once again that he doesn't give a damn about public opinion - that he is above it - by pardoning Paris. What a stick in the eye to those Democrats who keep sniveling about accountability and his failure to get rid of the egregious torture-loving Alberto Gonzales. You show 'em George!
7. For Bush, as the father of young daughters, the Paris pardon will send a message to the world that he still stands by his family values no matter how tested they are by a girl's violation and contempt for the law.
8. Our President with all his youthful misadventures with drugs and alcohol must sympathize with Mrs. Hilton and pardon her child. Here is a mother whom he can understand, one who regards her darlin' daughter as a martyr to the press, and has, like his own Barb Bush, turned a blind eye to youthful, coke-snorting hi-jinks. Momma Hilton may not be up to the high standards of a Barbara Bush, who shared her son's supreme indifference to the suffering of the Katrina survivors, but Momma Hilton is a Junior League version of Mama Bush who will stand by her child through thick and thin. Bush must stand up for such mothers and their tribulations by pardoning their progeny.
9. Remember 2000? Bush was the man all the men in white middle class America wanted to have a beer with - and so he was elected to rule the world. And a groveling MSM helped him do so. Paris is the girl that all the girls want to have a Cosmopolitan with and all the men want to go to bed with - and so she rules the news - which in our publicity culture means ruling the world. And a groveling press helps her do so. Despite their tsk-tsking, the MSM's admiration for the girl shines through - and a free press must be allowed to follow up every lead. No one will ever accuse them of neglecting to follow up on Paris as they did on the WMDs.
10. And finally, when Bush pardons Paris it will be the last chapter of No Child Left Behind. Paris may be old enough to understand the consequences of her acts, but she must not be the child left behind to rot in prison for a month, when she can rot in public for the rest of her life. Her failure to be educated properly, despite the private schools and tutors, reveals the failure of the American educational system and justifies more rigid testing of the young. More homework, America, or your child will become the next Paris with a condom in every backpack. She serves as both a source of admiration and a warning - a terrific combo.
11 & 12. Just as Bush urged us to shop our way to freedom during his war, Paris Hilton has lead the charge. She needs no American flag in her lapel to reveal her patriotism. She has replaced our national pride of WWII with our national Prada in the war on terror. As one who loves this country it warms my heart to know that the young, such as Paris, are doing their best to protect our country in its time of trial. As the Republican candidates have shown us, Americans want optimism - mixed with a dash of terror - and who is more slap-happy-yet-scary than Paris Hilton? Selfishly, as the grandfather of a 2-year-old toddler who is more interested in Dora the Explorer than Paris Hilton, I would like to see Paris out and about to exhaust her shelf life on the newsstands before my beloved child comes of age. I hope she can do that in the next decade or we are all lost. They used to say SEE PARIS AND DIE, but my motto for today is FREE PARIS AND LIVE!
I like Philadelphia. I don't love it. I came to that conclusion this past weekend as I went museum-hopping. It has a ways to go before it can be a 'Baby New York.' My Boston friends and I would laugh our asses off when we would see this commercial play during Red Sox broadcasts in 2003 / 2004:
I don't really want to knock the town that gave us the greatest document ever written by mankind, or was the last residence of Benjamin Franklin, the greatest of our nation's founders never to serve as an elected official. But I have to speak-up as a recent visitor of Philadelphia. It is not on the same level as Boston or New York. It ought to be, with its museums, universities, big train station, four major historic attractions, and very decent Center City (what they call downtown). Also Philly is known for cheesesteaks and very fine pretzels (either baked sourdough or chocolate-coated....mmmmmm).
Instead of giving a long-winded review, I thought I'd just touch a few topics by doing a list of pros and cons. Maybe the pros outweigh the cons. If I were a college student, Philly would be phine. But as a salaryman resident, Philly might kill me. Here's my list in no particular order:
PROS:
1. Museums. Philly has the Franklin Institute Science Center. While not quite as good as Boston's Museum of Science (Boston has better permanent exhibits and a bigger planetarium), the Philly museum is bigger, and it won the King Tutankhamun exhibit through the end of September. It is worth seeing. Philly has a huge Museum of Art. It also has the Rodin museum, the largest collection of Rodin sculptures outside of France. Philly also has the Mutter Museum, the largest medical museum in the USA. It is modelled after British medical museums, and has some pretty incredible specimens. It has the liver that was shared between Cheng and Eng, Grover Cleveland's surgically removed tumor, a post-execution tissue sample from John Wilkes Boothe, and dozens of skulls and fetuses, displaying fatal defects, rare diseases, and fatal injuries. It certainly uses some freakish samples to draw the crowds, but the presentation is clinical and very informative. And it currently has a wonderful exhibit on the medical advances pioneered by Benjamin Franklin, as well as a history of Franklin's health and ailments. He lived to be 85, which is outstanding by even today's standards (85 is my personal goal, too).
2. Food. That includes pretzels, cheesesteaks, and ice cream (Scoop de Ville is awesome). And one of the best Cuban restaurants I've been in, Alma. Alma is part of the Starr Restaurant Organization, which has twelve restaurants in Philly, two in Atlantic City, and two new restaurants in New York. They are the best in town. And the locals and tourists alike appreciate the many Starbucks in the 'teens streets in Center City.
3. Compact downtown. Buses, and trolleys can get you pretty much anywhere you want to go for $2.00 per ride. The buses are frequent on weekend days, so they score good marks. Philly's downtown is only slightly larger than Boston's. Boston's downtown is very compact for a world-class city.
4. Theater district. It's decent. Maybe that's the only part of Philly that is like a 'Baby New York.' But with Boston rebuilding theatres in the last 10 years, Philly might have fallen behind Beantown. Not good for a city bigger than Boston.
5. Shopping. Philly has Macy's, Anthopologie, J Crew, Joe A. Bank, Nordstrom, and the American Institute of Architects (AIA shop - one of Philly's best small shops.
6. Pro sports. An American city isn't "big" unless it has at least two pro sports teams. To Philly's credit, they have four pro teams, all on the south side. Furthermore, all three sports venues are clustered together near the banks of the Delaware River. That's pretty good, similar to what Cincinnati or Baltimore has for their football and baseball teams. Plus, there is a charming minor league ballpark just across the Delaware river in Camden, NJ. It has one of the best views of any minor league ballpark in the nation. Camden is home to Campbell's Soup, so the ballpark bears the company's name. Does that count as a Philly attraction? I would say so.
7. Benjamin Franklin. Enough said. He was a scientist, ladies man, scholar, publisher, journalist, medial pioneer, ambassador, co-author and co-signer of the Declaration of Independence, and thus played a key role in founding the USA. He's Master Yoda to General Washington's Luke Skywalker. He's Bill Belichick to Tom Brady. You get the idea.
8. US History. Philly has the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall, The Constitution Museum, the Betsey Ross house, and Christchurch (the church and nearby cemetery). That's six major historic attractions within a short walking distance of each other. And there are horse-drawn carriages and Duck tours, if you are a sucker tourist who is into those rides.
9. Higher Learning. Philly has some great schools, such as U Penn, Temple, St. Joe's, Drexel, the Art Institute, the Moore College of Art and Design, Thomas Jefferson University, the Philadelphia Academy of the Fine Arts, and LaSalle University to name a few.
CONS:
1. The Philly economy. Philly seems to have been left behind in the economic expansion of the 1990s. I hear the job market is stagnant. Restaurants are full and the tourist economy seems to be doing fine. There are better restaurants and hotels today than there were 10 years ago. There has been gentrification around the U Penn area, which used to be notorious for high crime rates. There are incentives for companies to come to Philly. The Chrysler Building-inspired Liberty Center still looks great 20 years after being built. The Comcast Center will be the tallest building in the state when it opens this fall. It is almost as tall as the Empire State Building. It is not fully-certified as a Green building, but it will feature some Green technologies, such as waterless urinals. When I look at Boston and New York seemingly rolling in mountains of cash, I can't say Philly is up there with them. In terms of overall quality of life, Philly is ahead of many inland cities, like St. Louis or Atlanta. But it seems to lag other coastal cities like Miami and Seattle (albeit, its cultural and educational institutions are above average for big cities in the USA).
2. The Delaware riverfront. There is none, right? There ought to be. There is demand for urban housing. There are people who want to live in Philly. But the waterfront is an eyesore. Philly will need to wait -as Boston did- for a beautiful waterfront.
3. The Schuylkill riverfront. It now has a park with jogging and bike paths on its east bank. But the industrial neighborhoods on both sides of the river need a lot of work. Aside from 30th Street Station and the Post Office on the west bank, the area is known for its red light district and unfriendly streets. Interestingly, violent crime in the area is low (most violent crime occurs west of the train station roughly from 50th to 63rd streets, and also in the North Side of town). But it is in need of development. Someday.
4. The drivers don't respect pedestrians. They just don't. Fortunately, car traffic in downtown is not as fast or as high-volume as midtown Manhattan. The narrow streets are similar to Boston's. But I have to point out that only a few drivers yielded to me, and blocking the box is also a common problem at red lights.
5. Are the locals of Philadelphia grumpy or is it just me? This needs to be studied further. But people in Miami and New York seem so much more....well, lively and happy.
6. Many businesses close early. I wanted to grab some chocolate-coated pretzels to take home. I saw them in a bakery on 17th Street on Sunday morning. I went back at 4:30pm to find it had closed at 4pm. Several shops on Chestnut, Market, Broad, and Walnut streets were closed on both Saturday and Sunday afternoon, in the middle of the hotel and tourist area (the 'teens streets, as I call them). What was up with that? Stay open, dammit.
So many great things about Philly. But I spotted some deal breakers as well. I had such high hopes. But it had been said to me back in 1998 by a former boss, that "Philly is the most boring big city in the Northeast." I wouldn't go that far. Washington DC is such a ghost town. But then again, isn't Baltimore more lively (I will know in 2008 or 2009 when I visit there)? Is Portland or Seattle a better coastal city in which to live (I *think* so, but they could disappoint me as well)?
Maybe I am too harsh? I like the 'thumbs-up' or 'thumbs-down' approach to travel destinations or restaurants. Right now, my thumb is pointing down.
Still, the WORST northeast city I have ever been in is Trenton, New Jersey. It was scary entering on foot in the morning, and it was scary leaving on foot at night. That was June 30th, 2002. It's the only city where a hooker approached me in broad sunlight. What a sad and scary place.
I agree with just about everything Rachael Sklar says, until her final sentence. Paris news does exclude most everything else - if a typical news consumer only watches nightly cable news.
Rachel Sklar We'll Always Have Paris The Huffington Post Sun Jun 10, 3:08 PM ET
Paris Hilton is news. That is a fact, like evolution. What kind of news depends on the day: Attending a premiere in a low-cut dress? Celebrity news, for Star and Us Weekly. Premiering another season of "The Simple Life?" Entertainment Weekly and TVGuide. Having a nip slip? Okay, maybe that's no longer news. But otherwise, Paris Hilton makes news — and it's not just for existing, either, it's for constantly doing things. Stupid things, but things nonetheless. Like being engaged to someone with the same name. Like recording an album with a single that was actually pretty sticky (oh, come on, you toe-tapped to "Stars Are Blind" too). Like eating a hamburger lasciviously for Carl's Jr. She even makes news when she flops, like with her infamously terrible Vanity Fair cover. Dies theatrically in a horror flick? Launches a perfume? Loses her dog? News, news, news. And of course, she was something of a sex-tape pioneer (but nice try, Kim Kardashian). Plus, didn't she pee herself in public or something? So like it or not, what Paris Hilton does makes the news — or some subset of the news. Perhaps not for being smart, but still.
Originally, Hilton was famous for being famous — a creation of Page Six, which catalogued her table-dancing antics from her arrival on the social scene. And as she got more famous, the outrage at her fame grew: "What does she do?" So, as she "did" more things, that outrage remained and our collective incredulity grew, in step with her worlwide marketing muscle and the skyrocketing value of her brand (worth even more in Japan!).
By the time Paris Hilton was actually busted for something real — a DUI is not a small thing, it is an act of surpassing selfishness, a fitting offense for a spoiled heiress who has never had to answer for anything in her life — the ourtrage, and the schadenfreude, was off the charts. So when she was busted, it was news. Real news — breaking news on the cable nets and headline news in the papers (though more the New York Post than the New York Times). And when she was released after three days for a paltry house arrest (and concomitant house party), it was even bigger news — so when she was dragged kicking and screaming back to the slammer, it was the biggest news of all.
That last bit would have been news for any celebrity — news is man bites dog, anything out of the ordinary, which is why Anna Nicole Smith got so much damn attention. For Paris Hilton — a truly sui generis case in the world of celebrity — this was a sui generis situation, and a story, on many levels. Celeb comeuppance? Check. Twisting, turning, developing case of crime and justice in the thank-god-there-is-actually-news-to-fill-this-late-afternoon timeslot? Check. Meditation on the differential treament of celebrities in the legal system? Check. There is even a debate: Was Paris treated too lightly — or punished too severely? Check, check, check.
So, Paris is news. Maybe not round-the-clock-all-the-time-this-just-in- she-took-another-breath news, but news nonetheless. News across the board, as news itself and as news about the news, i.e. "Did it need to be news?" and "How was it covered?" vis a vis the news decisions (and public statements thereon) of Katie Couric and Brian Williams. During the Anna Nicole whirlwind, I wondered if it wasn't news, the "why is Howard Kurtz putting it at the top of the hour?" Guess what led "Reliable Sources" today? Paris, Paris, Paris. Like it or not, it is news — just not to the exclusion of everything else.
In November or December of this year, this country will lose its 4,000th soldier in Iraq. Will that lead primetime cable TV newscasts every night the way Paris Hilton did last week? Of course not. This is a fifth really sad summer for the USA and Iraq. Ever since the Fallujah uprising in April 2004, it has been really shitty.
In other news.
This coming Sunday might be a beach day here in the New York area. It's not all bad news here in the Big Apple. It's time to hit the beach. Sandy Hook NJ, Long Beach, NY, and Fire Island, NY might all be on-tap for Father's Day.
Finally, photographic evidence of Bush drinking a beer while serving as president. Now this is a non-alcoholic beer which contains 0.5% alcohol. But as I can attest, you can barely feel that if you have a couple. So this begs the question, is Bush officially off the wagon?
That's what a good judge should do when lawyers and sheriffs fuck with his ruling. I like this judge:
During the hearing on the issue of her early release, Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer was calm but apparently irked by developments of the morning. He said he had left the courthouse Thursday night having signed an order for Hilton to appear for the hearing.
When he got in his car early Friday, he said, he heard a radio report that she would not appear and that he had approved a telephonic hearing. He said no such thing had been approved by him.
"I at no time condoned the actions of the sheriff and at no time told him I approved the actions," he said of the decision to release Hilton from jail after three days.
"At no time did I approve the defendant being released from custody to her home on Kings Road," he said.
Got that, Sheriff Baca? He's the judge. You are the sheriff. He calls the fucking shots around here. Asshole.
And as for Paris, crying and screaming throughout the hearing!
I wish I had your problems, girlfriend. You're famous for being famous. You are the ultimate postmodern celebrity. For having your name, you are a millionaire and don't have to work a fucking day in your life. And because of this, you have millions of fans. Fans! They love you because they want to live like you.
You have fans the same reason George W. Bush has fans. Millions of people wish they wouldn't have to work and they wish they had rich parents to get them everything they want. And when you don't get what you want? Well, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
Girls your age are getting blown up in Fallujah, Najaf, and Ramada, er, I mean Ramadi.
EIGHTY dead American female soldiers so far and counting.
I've got thirty fans here at MLH. I'm blessed. Happy Viernes, everyone.
I have pondered over the current Democrats running for president, and I am not happy with any of them. Oh sure, I would very much appreciate a Democrat in the White House. I like how Obama talks about America needing to re-affirm its purpose. The JFK playbook is still valid, I see. That's nice. But we need a Democrat with a backbone.
So I want this dude to run. I hope he does. This is him three years ago, in his finest speech (which you can still buy from MoveOn.org for $10).
When news broke yesterday morning that Paris Hilton was sent home after completing just 72 hours in jail, the story was that she had a medical condition that required her release from prison. But what could that medical condition be?
Well I used my non-professional medical knowledge to come-up with six possible serious medical conditions:
1. Paris is pregnant. 2. Paris has cancer and needs treatment. 3. Paris has appendicitis. 4. Paris got a serious bacterial infection (eg, a staph infection or meningitis - highly unlikely). 5. Paris suffered from a life-threatening blood clot (DVT). 6. Paris suffered a broken bone or other injury requiring a visit to an ER.
I think numbers 2 through 6 have been ruled-out, given that Paris was allowed to return to her house to work out, resume using lotions, play video games, and order take-out. So is she pregnant? I'm just asking. But her lawyer ain't telling.
And if she was released due to a 'psychological condition,' then what the fuck?
Does this mean that in California, complaining that a jail cell is cold is enough to get a fairer sentence (and in an instant)? What judge would allow that? Crying got her sent home? Is this a California thing? I ask because in Massachusetts and New York, crying and shivering does not get you out of prison sooner. A judge would laugh his ass off if someone faxed him a request to release a prisoner. Or the judge might grab his gun if he received the fax at 11pm on Wednesday night.
[I know how my girl reacts is she receives a bullshit page in the middle of the night. Badness. I can't possibly believe a judge received the order and said, "Oh joy! I'll sign this right now! Paris must be freed!! I'm honored to be awakened by this news! It's the most important case in the state!"]
Or was she released without a judge's signature at all? If that's the case, I again ask: What The Fuck?
Let's go to the videotape. From the Associated Press:
The decision by Sheriff Lee Baca to move Hilton chafed prosecutors and Judge Sauer, who spelled out during sentencing that Hilton was not allowed to serve house detention.
Late Thursday, Sauer issued the order for Hilton to return to court after the city attorney filed a petition demanding that Hilton be returned to jail and to show cause why Baca shouldn't be held in contempt of court.
Good. The judge ought to slap him silly. He needs to be fined. But wait:
Baca dismissed the criticism, saying the decision was made based on medical advice.
"It isn't wise to keep a person in jail with her problem over an extended period of time and let the problem get worse," Baca told the Los Angeles Times on Thursday.
"My message to those who don't like celebrities is that punishing celebrities more than the average American is not justice," Baca said.
What was that, asshole? "Punishing celebrities more than the average American is not justice"? Are you on Paris' payroll? You actually think that Paris is being punished more harshly than a non-celebrity? Do you expect her to blow you when this is over? Did she suggest she would? Sucker.
What kind of a state is it where a sheriff can effectively modify a judge's sentence without a signature or the need to explain himself to the bench? Un-be-fukcing-lievable.
What medical advice did Sheriff Baca receive? Paris was diagnosed with being a fucking crybaby? He could have called my house for a diagnosis. Then again, it would have been 2am my time. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr.
[And I don't mean to go even more overboard, but look at the logic. Women in this country complain about interior spaces being cold all the time. You see them wearing sweaters and jackets in movie theaters, offices, and shopping malls. They aren't as addicted to air conditioning as we sweaty men are. But does this mean that complaining about cold spaces is going to grant them special treatment? Can my girl now get a seat in first class if it is too chilly in coach? I'm just asking.]
Golly, this is such a weird sentencing case. Only in California (where a homicide trial lasted over a year, and frivolous lawsuits can survive rounds in court, etc.).
I know one thing: in Massachusetts, which has some of the toughest drunk driving laws in the country, driving while one's license is suspended, even sober, carries some stiff penalties:
- 30 or 60 days in jail, or up to 36 months if the individual has a criminal record and shows signs of violating the law repeatedly. Let's assume Paris would get 30 days. There would be no way to serve the detention at her house. She would have to live in a jail cell, albeit a nice one that resembles a dorm room.
- A fine up to $10,000.
- If one was on probation at the time (as Paris was), the judge can aim for the high-end of the fine scale and extend the jail term beyond the minimum 30 days.
So what Paris got was very similar, right? Her lawyers even got the jail term reduced from 45 days to 23. And what was so bloody difficult about serving that sentence? Her lawyers seem to be behind yesterday's early release, aggressive slime balls that they are. I'm curious to see what is going to go down in the courtroom today. If I were the judge, I would be pissed that my order did not stick for a young woman in good health and deserving of 20+ days in a detention facility.
Of course, her lawyers are doing what lawyers are paid to do - to get her a better deal. They have done a great job, too. So far they have:
1. Reduced her sentence from 45 days in jail to 23 (subject to change in today's court hearing). 2. Arranged for Paris to stay in the 'special needs' wing of the prison, so she would not have to interact with the majority of the 2,000 female inmates there. Also her cell would be slightly more comfy. 3. Successfully portrayed Paris as a victim, who is miserable and unsafe in jail, and therefore deserving of a much more comfortable home detention. 4. Spun the news about her medical condition in such a way that they made it appear that the sheriffs detained Paris for an extra 24 hours after first noticing her serious condition. So they have the audacity to say that she should have been sent home sooner.
In last weekend's debate, most Democratic candidates (except Dennis Kucinich who might be the only exception) claimed that Congress needs to override a presidential veto in order to end the occupation of Iraq. David Sirota has produced a video stating the facts.
Clinton, Obama, and Biden all fail on this very critical issue.
Which leads me to wonder, would Al Gore have gotten this little quiz correct? If so, I want him to run. Forget these wimps.
We have to wait a while before a real doctor becomes the nation's 25th Surgeon General. The 24th is about to get hired. I have a question, though. What is the bloody point of a Surgeon General if you don't have a nationalized, single-payer healthcare system? It's not like he is the head of the FDA. He's not even a cabinet member. Yes, I understand the US Public Health Service plays an important role and consists of real doctors. But it seems more window dressing than anything else.
But this op-ed from the editor of The Nation is worth a read:
Surgeon General Nominee's Gay Fascination The Nation June 6th, 2007
The Nation -- Bush's nominee for surgeon general, Dr. James Holsinger, has come under fire this week for his anti-gay politics (first documented by Bible Belt Blogger Frank Lockwood). By day Holsinger teaches health sciences at the University of Kentucky where he was chancellor of the Chandler Medical Center. By night, however, the good doctor is a bible-thumping Reverend with a degree in biblical studies from Asbury Theological Seminary and a seeming fascination of antipathy towards homosexuals.
Holsinger founded the Hope Springs Community Church, a "recovery ministry" that caters to alcoholics, drug addicts, sex addicts and those seeking to "walk out of that [homosexual] lifestyle," according to its pastor Rev. David Calhoun. When not busy endorsing ex-gay conversion therapy, Holsinger served on the highest court of the United Methodist Church where he voted to remove a lesbian pastor from her position.
And today, the Human Rights Campaign released a document Holsinger authored in 1991 as a member of the United Methodist Church's Committee to Study Homosexuality. Titled Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality, Holsinger's religious tract-cum-scientific paper is a fascinating window into the perverse imagination of homophobia. In essence, Holsinger argues that male-female "reproductive systems are fully complementary" because "anatomically the vagina is designed to receive the penis." The remainder of his paper is a graphic account of the "delicate" rectum which is "incapable" of "protection" if "objects that are large, sharp, or pointed are inserted" into it. From there Holsinger continues to discuss what he imagines are the pains (and pleasures?) of anal sex, from "fist fornication" and "sphincter injuries" to "lacerations," "perforations" and "deaths seen in connection with anal eroticism."
Sharp objects! Deaths seen in connection with anal eroticism! Gadzooks! Now, I've been around the block one or ten times, and I don't know any gay men who have put scissors up their ass, much less died from it. Of course, the barely mentioned but palpably anxious context in which Holsinger connects "death" with "anal eroticism" is the AIDS epidemic. And it should come as no surprise that his paper was part of a larger, pseudo-medical, moral discourse in which gay men's mode of sex (and by extension gay men) were blamed for AIDS - the death we deserved, the sexual suicide we courted.
The flip side of Dr. Holsinger's lurid speculation is the dangerous presumption that because heterosexual sex is "natural," it is safe -- safe from HIV, other sexually transmitted diseases and the trauma and injury that Holsinger seems so feverishly eager to attribute to gay anal sex. We now know, tragically and beyond any possible doubt, that heterosexual sex is not safe unless one practices it as such. And no amount of wishing and praying by our next Surgeon General on the "complementarity of the human sexes" will make it so.
A few years after Dr. Holsinger wrote his little brief against male-male anal sex, then Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders suggested, at a UN Conference on AIDS, that masturbation might be taught to young people as a mode of reducing sexual risk. On this point she was absolutely correct, but for even daring to mention the M-word, she was lampooned by the Christian right and eventually asked to resign by a cowardly Bill Clinton who, in retrospect, might have paid more attention to Dr. Elders and spent less time inserting foreign objects into inappropriate places.
But no matter. The doctor who gave sound, clinical medical advice was fired, while the doctor who engaged in wild, graphic and unsubstantiated fantasies about gay sex will most likely assume the helm as "America's chief health educator." And you wonder why we have a health care crisis in this country.
NEW YORK (AP) -- The New York Yankees' come-from-behind 6-5 victory over the Boston Red Sox attracted the most households ever to watch a Sunday Night Baseball game on ESPN.
The telecast averaged more than 3.98 million households, the network said Tuesday. It's the fifth-largest audience for a regular season major league game on ESPN.
The previous Sunday night record was another Red Sox-Yankees game earlier this season, when more than 3.95 million households watched the April 22 broadcast.
No kidding. I went back into my pile of saved articles and found two great ones analyzing Dunkin' Donuts, "the most aloof fast-food franchise in the USA," as Bryan Curtis has written.
Among their findings: Like Dodge automobiles, Dunkin' is a male-centric brand. That doesn't mean that females aren't allowed (in fact, women make-up about nearly half of customers for both Dunkin' and Dodge), but it means that the brand has a "male" image and feel. Dodge has its ads that speak to guys and their desire for toughness and utility ("Yeah, it's got a Hemi"). Dunkin' is about quick service and irresistible beverages, pastries, and occasionally ice cream. Calories be dammed. And having the very large John Goodman as a spokesman certainly helps to reinforce the sell. Dunkin's dirty, florescent-lit stores are not warm and fuzzy at all.
Starbucks, it can be argued, is a more European and 'female' brand, that invites customers to sit and stay (a decent minority does). Starbucks has barristas who might ask for your name during peak periods, and take over 60 seconds to deliver a beverage, sometimes with a label and your name on it. At Dunkin', the guy or gal behind the counter pushes a button on a $10,000 machine, and your hot or cold beverage is ready in about 20 seconds.
And it is really something how Dunkin' Donuts went from being a Quincy / Dorchester chain favored by Bruins fans, to a mega chain popular with Patriots and Red Sox fans. It really is the #1 brand for the pickup truck driving Massachusetts male who loves pro sports.
And here is a wonderful article by Mike Miliard in Boston Phoenix Magazine (now simply called The Phoenix) from March 2nd of this year, entitled, Choosing Our Religion.
They had a nuke guy? Who is News Corporation kidding?
The plan was intricate. It could have shut down JFK. Or it could have been a dud. There was no guarantee of mass casualties, considering that the terminals and planes would still be standing had the plan worked perfectly. In fact most experts agree that at most, it would have blown up one big fuel tank and nothing more. I'm not about to call the terror news bullshit, like last summer's London liquid bomb scare clearly was. But consider what had to happen in order for this plan to work, beginning with the fact that the alleged plotters needed explosives.
Or maybe there was no plot. Maybe the drug-dealing informant the FBI used to arrange these arrests just made shit up to avoid a lengthy sentence. If the defendants actually thought that lighting a pipeline at one end would cause a mushroom cloud of death and destruction at the other end, then they really are stupid. Ya think?
The threat these guys posed was certainly not as bad as it was first reported to us by the AP.
“The devastation that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable,” U.S. Attorney Roslynn R. Mauskopf said at a news conference, calling it “one of the most chilling plots imaginable.”
In an indictment charging the four men, one of them is quoted as saying the foiled plot would “cause greater destruction than in the Sept. 11 attacks,” destroying the airport, killing several thousand people and destroying parts of New York’s borough of Queens, where the pipeline runs underground.
There's no way that could have happened. How did such a scary story run wild through our mainstream news media? Oh right, the Bushworld culture of fear. I forgot.
Look, here's what you need to know about the JFK Four (one suspect is still at large.) They were yet another band of ne'er-do-wells with a homegrown hatred for the U.S. They had no terror training or know-how, no links to Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, or the big-bucks funding mechanisms of the kind that carried out real terror on 9/11. Their driving force in this plot of "unthinkable devastation" was a government informant, a twice-convicted drug dealer eager to win a lighter sentence. Aside from the most important aspect that their plan was not feasible, they also had no explosives to carry it out.
People who think that violence and bloodshed are an answer to anything are indeed a danger to a civil society, so unless the facts are radically different than what's been reported so far, we should have praise for law enforcement, including the NYPD and the FBI, for not letting this kind of nonsense get very far. It shows yet again that the law-enforcement approach to fighting this type of threat -- so ridiculed when John Kerry dared even mention it in 2004 -- remains the one that in most cases works best. That said, the plot was not exactly the biggest thing going on the world right now.
I see that Mr. Bunch does not want to offend the NYPD. I understand. I know a little something about NYPD retribution over lawsuits and bad press. But let's get real. Commissioner Ray Kelly embarrassed himself by being at that press conference to announce the arrests. To take credit for stopping an impossible 'terrorist' plot is absurd. Then again, he also took credit for stopping the plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge with blow torches. So Ray Kelly is shameless. He'd be a good mayor.
And then consider this Huffington Post entry by Nora Ephron:
1. In order to foil a terrorist plot, you must first find a terrorist plot. This is not easy.
2. Not just anyone can find and then foil a terrorist plot. You must have an incentive. The best incentive is to be an accused felon, looking at a long prison term. Under such circumstances, your lawyer will explain to you, you may be able to reduce your sentence by acting as an informant in a criminal case, preferably one involving terrorists.
3. The fact that you do not know any actual terrorists should not in any way deter you. Necessity is the mother of invention: if you can find the right raw material -- a sad, sick, lonely, drunk, deranged, disgruntled or just plain anti-American Muslim somewhere in the United States -- you can make your very own terrorist.
4. Now the good part begins. Money! The FBI will give you lots of money to take your very own terrorist out to lots of dinners where you, wearing a wire, can record yourself making recommendations to him about possible targets and weapons that might be used in the impending terrorist attack that your very own terrorist is going to mastermind, with your help. It will even buy you a computer so you can go to Google Earth in order to show your very own terrorist a "top secret" aerial image of the target you have suggested.
5. More money!! The FBI will give you even more money to travel to foreign countries with your very own terrorist, and it will make suggestions about terrorist groups you can meet while in said foreign countries.
6. Months and even years will pass in this fashion, while you essentially get the FBI to pay for everything you do. (Incidentally, be sure your lawyer negotiates your expense account well in advance, or you may be forced -- as the informant was in the Buffalo terrorist case -- to protest your inadequate remuneration by setting yourself on fire in front of the White House.)
7. At a certain point, something will go wrong. You may have trouble recruiting other people to collaborate with your very own terrorist, who is, as you yourself know, just an ordinary guy in a really bad mood. Or, alternatively, the terrorist cell you have carefully cobbled together may malfunction and fail to move forward -- probably as a result of sheer incompetence or of simply not having been genuinely serious about the acts of terrorism you were urging it to commit. At this point, you may worry that the FBI is going to realize that there isn't much of a terrorist plot going on here at all, just a case of entrapment. Do not despair: the FBI is way ahead of you. The FBI knows perfectly well what's going on. The FBI has as much at stake as you do. So before it can be obvious to the world that there's no case, the FBI will arrest your very own terrorist, hold a press conference and announce that a huge terrorist plot has been foiled. It will of course be forced to admit that this plot did not proceed beyond the pre-planning stage, that no actual weapons or money were involved, and that the plot itself was "not technically feasible," but that will not stop the story from becoming a front-page episode all over America and, within hours, boilerplate for all the Republican politicians who believe that you need to arrest a "homegrown" terrorist now and then to justify the continuing war in Iraq. Everyone will be happy, except for the schmuck you shmikeled into becoming a terrorist, and no one really cares about him anyway.
So congratulations. You have foiled a terrorist plot. Way to go.
Or take Anthony Kaufman's article on the Huffington Post tonight:
Anthony Kaufman Mon Jun 4, 11:24 PM ET
Why didn't the headlines read "Bombers Not Smart Enough to Bomb JFK" or "Plot to Blow-up JFK Unfeasible"? No, as is often the case in our post-9/11 paranoid universe, media hype and authoritarian fear-mongering conspire to freak us out.
On Saturday night, local New York news stations -- in flashy "team-coverage" packages -- declared a major plot to destroy John F. Kennedy airport had been uncovered. Complete with frightening court-drawings of the "dark-skinned" alleged ring-leader and maps that showed a path of destruction stretching all the way from Queens to New Jersey, the news painted a picture of impending doom a la 24, thwarted at the last minute by brave undercover sources working for the F.B.I. Even HuffPost's link to the Associated Press story "Authorities Charge 4 in NYC Terror Plot" offered little explanation of the near-impossibility of the supposed plot. Needless to say, I went to sleep scared out of my wits, worried for the safety of my friends and family.
The next morning, of course, I found buried deep into the news coverage reporting about how would-be mass murderer Russell Defreitas was "not smart enough" to carry out such a plot, and the plot, itself, probably wouldn't have worked anyway. Oh, no matter, right-wing bloggers and conservative pundits went hog-wild all-day Sunday (perfectly timed) with the BREAKING news, using the charges to justify their attacks on all things Islamic and their "war on terror."
While most folks have a healthy distrust of the press, it's all too easy to get swept up in the media maelstrom around such trumped-up counter-terrorism proclamations.
I am reminded, of course, of the front-page news stories of Jose Padilla, the so-called "dirty bomber," whose mis-label stuck on him like super-glue, despite the fact that the charges against him three-and-a-half years later made no mention of a dirty bomb. What do people remember? The shocking lead-item statements of imminent apocalypse made by Attorney General John Ashcroft or the little news story on page three some years later that showed just how ineffectual and unthreatening Padilla was? Or what about the so-called "Detroit Sleeper Cell," whose case proved to be a mockery of the U.S. justice system, revealing it to be overzealous, and let's face it, completely racist?
Is it a coincidence that the alleged plots to attack Fort Dix and JFK come at a time when this U.S. Administration's support is flagging, and Americans are increasingly doubtful of its ability to effectively fight terrorism. While we'll never know for sure, there's one thing that is certain:The media needs to do a better job of cutting through the propaganda.
You have to be a little nuts to run for President. First, you have to have an unnatural desire to be 1/3 of our government. That requires more than just a big ego - that requires a little madness. Second, you have to be a millionaire, even in the YouTube era, where anyone can be famous for 15 minutes. And third, you have to be willing to say things that go against your values and beliefs. You have to be willing to say anything to get elected.
Oh dear. Manny and Papi both couldn't get clutch hits. The Sox took the lead 5-4 in the 5th. But Robinson Cano got an RBI triple against Okajima in the top of the 8th. Then Alex Rodriguez homered against Papelbon with two strikes and two out in the top of the 9th. And that was that. Boston lost a second straight series against New York. No reason to panic, but the goal of any team is to win every regular season series in order to assure a spot in the playoffs. The Sox couldn't get it done despite some very exciting baseball this past weekend.
So what happens between now and their next meeting on August 28th is critical. Will the Yankees be able to build a 10-game winning streak during that time? (I doubt it). Will injuries slow down the Red Sox? (I think so). Will Manny and Papi get hot? (yes, but after the All Star break). Will Rodger Clemens make a difference in the Bronx? (doubtful). Will the Yankees try to trade A-Rod? (no). Will they try to acquire Eric Gagne? (yes).
So the Yankees are off to Chicago for four games to play the White Sox. They should win that series. Boston just landed in Oakland to play four games against the Athletics. They should win that series. We'll be watching both teams closely.
