NOW Paris is relevant

Posted on by

The more I thought about it today the angrier I became. I never expected to write a post about Paris Hilton on this blog. I’m incensed whenever mainstream media thinks that her life is worth reporting to the masses, especially in light of the real events in our world that go ignored. She is a harbinger of the Assault on Reason. But finally, today, Paris became relevant to me. TMZ.com has had the best blow-by-blow on the internet:

Law enforcement sources tell TMZ Paris Hilton’s medical condition was purely psychological and that she was in peril of having a nervous breakdown, and that’s why she was released early this morning.

Psychiatrist Charles Sophy visited Hilton in jail yesterday and the day before. We’re told after Sophy’s visit yesterday, word was passed to the Sheriff that Hilton’s mental state was fragile and she was at risk.

The reason for releasing her had nothing to do with a rash or other physical issues. It was purely in her head. [Link]

<

p>

And the breakdown of our society is complete. Just think about this for a minute (if you haven’t been already). A rich white girl was convicted of being a drunk driver and sent to jail. She was convicted even after making use of the best lawyers that money could buy and having full and transparent use of the American legal system. After three days she gets out because prison was too much for her fragile mind and she wasn’t eating well. Meanwhile, you have so-called “enemy combatants,” some of them South Asian, who in many cases don’t get a lawyer or even get to hear the evidence against them. They are simply thrown into a cage. Not only do they not receive a get-out-of-jail-free card for mental illness, they get tortured in a manner meant to hasten mental illness. Even children. I know some of you think it might be unfair of me to compare Hilton to Guantanamo inmates. You are quite correct. The Guantanamo inmates have only allegedly committed a crime. And what about the thousands of non-rich women and juveniles in the American legal system? Many get raped or assaulted in prison without any justice. They don’t get to go home with an ankle bracelet if they cry about it or don’t eat the soggy vegetables on their plates. Mental illness is very real and shouldn’t be treated lightly (but it is unless you are rich). What we are witnessing here is a perfect example of the “Two Americas” that candidate John Edwards is always going on about.

This past week there has been a furious immigration debate around what some in Congress were calling the “Grand Bargain.” As of today the bill is dead. The reason many lawmakers give for opposing the bill is because they believe that in America the rule of law should come first. If illegal immigrants are breaking the law then they should get no concessions or amnesty (like, ummm Hilton). Other groups wanted the bill to fail because they saw it as a battle between the skilled and the unskilled (which can be translated to mean a battle between the potentially rich vs. the potentially poor). Why give an “unfair advantage” to poor huddled masses?:

Indian American legal experts and immigrant rights activists across the board have strongly opposed and rejected the comprehensive Immigration Reform Act 2007.

The compromise arrived at between the White House and the US Senate over the proposed Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act has been termed as a “sell out” by the Senate in the “grand bargain”…

These are the worst set of immigration policies for high skilled immigrants in the civilized world.” According to Immigration Voice, the Senators that have crafted the new merit based system have announced that this model follows the legal immigration pathway developed in Canada and Australia, but the compromises that have been made have deluded the entire system into a cesspool of half baked immigration ideas. This bill takes away annual Greencards from an already low number of Greencards available to legal, skilled employment based immigrants and awards them to unskilled future guest workers and to the new untested merits based points system, as explained by Immigration Voice.

As an example, an agriculture worker can earn 25 points for working 100 days a year for 5 years, while a skilled individual will get 10 points for working the same number of years. [Link]

<

p>First off, the above article is a misleading load of crap. Especially the part I put in boldface. There are many South Asian Americans that wanted this bill dead (or modified) for reasons opposite to the ones listed above. A purely merit-based system might tear apart families and discriminate against unskilled labor (which many would argue America needs to stay productive). Again, it is the haves vs. the have nots.

<

p>So that brings me back to Paris Hilton. She is the tipping point. What she demonstrates is that as a society we are comfortable with two sets of rules and values: one for the rich and one for the poor, and that this often translates to “one for the natives and one for the foreigners.” If these are all signs of things to come and America strays too far from its egalitarian roots and the principles upon which it was founded (but has never practiced perfectly)…then we will all have more than Paris to worry about. We must throw Paris back into jail and simultaneously afford some real justice to those that deserve a fair trial.

<

p>There is some hope at the 11th hour:

TMZ has learned that a judge has ordered Paris Hilton back to his Los Angeles courtroom, telling her she must attend tomorrow morning’s hearing. She could be sent BACK to the slammer!… [Link]

161 thoughts on “NOW Paris is relevant”

  1. whoptido!!!! 🙂

    i am a little disturbed at how thrilled i am to hear she back in jail. bad bytewords.

  2. see it this way—if you want the perks she has got, getting rich than bleaching yourself is the smarter way to go.

    Getting rich will get you some perks, not the kind she has. and the bleaching yourself would only work if you’re already at her wealth level.

    but money is an equalizer of sorts.

    Temporarily. Let’s not forget, the OJ case isn’t clear cut evidence that money transcends race, in the civil trial, he was found liable and in the criminal trial Johnnie Cochran argued the behavior of the LAPD was errant.

    Camille, here’s lookin at you kid:

    “White people would do the exact same shit, cuz if it was Jerry Seinfeld, on trial for double murder… and the guy who found the glove just happened to be from the nation of islam… Jerry’d be a free man, he’d be eatin’ cereal right now” -Chris Rock.

  4. From the NYTimes : ” Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer ordered Paris Hilton to return to jail to serve out her original 45-day sentence, according to The Associated Press. “

    Keeps getting weirder, don’t it ? 23 days back to 45 ?

  5. good judge. i know she’s not so smart – but how the hell did her lawyer think she could go home before a nod from the judge?

  6. Well if it makes you feel any better the judge ordered her back to jail.

    Actually, yeah, it just made me feel a whole lot better. Best news I heard all day.

  7. From the NYTimes : ” Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer ordered Paris Hilton to return to jail to serve out her original 45-day sentence, according to The Associated Press. ” Keeps getting weirder, don’t it ? 23 days back to 45 ?

    nope. she managed to get the sentence down to half before even starting it, and what she probably thought from the beginning was that she would bribe her way out—which i think is what she did when she left prison yesterday.

    if people were not looking, she would have got away with it. but she has gone too far to let her have her way. so nyanyanyanyanana.

  8. Paris Hilton. Shmaris Pilton.

    At least she is spending a few weeks in jail. As opposed to Sandy Berger, the ex-Clinton aide who destroyed documents that most likely severely implicated the Clinton adminstration in the growth of Al Queda, did not even spend a single day in prison!! That, my friends, is the third America.

    M. Nam

  9. I get a sense that a lot of people find her lifestyle more punishable than her actual crimes.

    If an Imran Khan can go from playboy to cranky-old-guy-mouthing-pious-nothings, why deny li’l Paree a similar career arc?

    Let the hypocrisy be gender-neutral is all I’m asking.

  10. Heh. One of my law professors would repeatedly say “whatever you do, don’t annoy the decision-maker.” Judges do get pissed off pretty easily. The judge I worked for was pretty laid back most of the time, but a few things could really set him off…like cell phones.

    Very true about cell phones. I freaking hate judges. The day I retire from active practice of law, I will provoke a judge (it takes very little!) and when he says this or that is not allowed in my courtroom, I will turn around and say ‘Your Honor, The courtroom does not belong to you. It belongs to ‘we’ the people. The tax payers pay for both the courtroom and your salary. Now go and fuck yourself”.

  11. shodan: gender discrimination?? there are any number of rich heiresses, none of whom get the hate paris gets—and very few would think they are any less of “players” than hilton. the reason paris gets the hate is that she has made it her career to flaunt her privilege.

    and imran khan doesn’t compare—his fame came with spectacular performances on the field. and i say this as an indian.

  12. I am also dismayed by the lack of hot-or-not discussion. I mean this is one thread that’s begging for it. Sheriff Lee Baca. Hot or not. Discuss.

  13. Very true about cell phones. I freaking hate judges. The day I retire from active practice of law, I will provoke a judge (it takes very little!) and when he says this or that is not allowed in my courtroom, I will turn around and say ‘Your Honor, The courtroom does not belong to you. It belongs to ‘we’ the people. The tax payers pay for both the courtroom and your salary. Now go and fuck yourself”.

    Even if a judge gets provoked easily, if your speech and conduct are within the confines of the law, what can they do to you? Don’t be disrespectful – but note that they don’t have the right to disrespect you either. My attorney friend was just telling me this morning about a friend of his who is a very successful trial attorney in the midwest. The attorney and this judge were going back and forth. The judge threatened to hold the atty in contempt if he stepped any further out of line. The atty just smiled and said to the judge, “You can’t hold me in contempt merely for my opinion.” The judge said that he agreed, and that he would like to hear the attorney’s opinion. The attorney said, “My opinion is the Court is an asshole.” BAM.

    We can’t all pull that off, of course, but it’s a good story. 🙂

  15. Clueless: My dear friend you know very little about India. I wish you lived in Punjab in early 1990s.

  16. The day I retire from active practice of law, I will provoke a judge (it takes very little!) and when he says this or that is not allowed in my courtroom, I will turn around and say ‘Your Honor, The courtroom does not belong to you. It belongs to ‘we’ the people. The tax payers pay for both the courtroom and your salary. Now go and fuck yourself”.

    Heh. And if that doesn’t work out, there’s always transactional practice, ACfd!

  17. Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer ordered Paris Hilton to return to jail

    Heh… that Judge Sauer is a real pistol … Persona non grata at the Hilton hotels from now on I bet.

  18. Why is she crying? Doesn’t she know a few days in jail would do wonders for her popsinging career? She would get the street-cred she deserves and then all the record companies will be lining up at her door step.

  21. For those that felt that the punishment is too harsh etc: This woman had been repeatedly warned about driving under the influence.She knew she was not supposed to be driving at all What if she had caused a crash that killed or hurt someone? Let’s hope she cleans up her act after this!

    3 cheers for Judge Sauer!

    schadenfreude? Hell, yes!

  22. I do follow celeb news and I always wondered why PH didn’t get any fallout for being caught on tape using racial slurs.

    everyone else who did – Kramer, the guy from Grey’s Anatomy, Mel Gibson — had to make a public apology, get counseling. The Grey’s Anatomy guy is fired from the show even after going to get counseling and apologizing. Watching that video where she was using racial slurs and putting down people from the “comptons” disgusted me.

    I realize this is one case in millions, but it helps put my faith back in the system.

  23. Wow, so many people are bashing Paris for using her money and celebrity to get out of jail early, when under the same circumstances anybody else would do the same thing to get themselves out of jail. That’s a little hypocritical, no?

  24. anybody else would do the same thing to get themselves out of jail

    I think it’s a bit of a generalization to say “anybody else” would do the same thing. I don’t know that I would. Then again, I probably wouldn’t have been in the multiple DUI, and driving with a suspended license situation either.

  25. A nation discovers its moral conscience.

    Or a judge just B-slaps a ass-kissing sheriff. It’s Hollywood, not America

  26. Why is she crying? Doesn’t she know a few days in jail would do wonders for her popsinging career? She would get the street-cred she deserves and then all the record companies will be lining up at her door step.

    Agreed. if anything, her future inmates should be weeping. I’d imagine doing time with paris hilton would only strip away any street cred amassed by that point.

  27. “that’s a little hyporcritical no?” -zk

    I understand your sentiment. I also actually feel bad for Paris having to go back to jail, but that doesn’t mean that I think she shouldn’t. Humans are about loyalty and self-preservation, but the law is about fairness.

  28. I think it’s a bit of a generalization to say “anybody else” would do the same thing. I don’t know that I would. Then again, I probably wouldn’t have been in the multiple DUI, and driving with a suspended license situation either.

    Can you really say that, if given the choice between being in jail, or being released, you don’t know which you’d take?

  29. Can you really say that, if given the choice between being in jail, or being released, you don’t know which you’d take?

    Oh wait, so she wasn’t an active agent in putting herself in that position in the first place? Why does the ‘choice’ you propose start so late in the process. If given the choice of following the law or not following the law, which should she have done, which would you do?

  30. Can you really say that, if given the choice between being in jail, or being released, you don’t know which you’d take?

    Yeah, I do know which side I’d take. I also know that the time to exercise choice is before you do the stupid thing that could land you in jail…and I can really say I probably wouldn’t do the stupid thing.

    There are people in the penal system whose circumstances prevent the proper exercise of those sort of choices. But Paris Hilton did have a choice.

  31. @ KXB: Hollywood is a tragic microcosm of America at large. It’s like a fun-house mirror version of the nation.

    But that aside, it makes me rest a little easier knowing that even rich bitches can’t skip past the law. Shame on that moronic sherriff for trying to get on the Hiltons’ good side. And kudos to the judge who probably is taking a lot of flack from hack lawyers and people who are all 🙁 that their waif bimbo is behind bars.

    Martha Stewart pulled off jail because her’s was a white collar crime and there are white collar criminals who didn’t even sit a day behind bars — and Martha is a functional member of society and has kept contributing something. Not to mention her empire has kept expanding. I respect a woman like Martha.

    Paris, I don’t. She’s a lazy little witch — she couldn’t even see her one record the full way through — yet she manages to stay on “the lists.” Oh and there’s the bit about DUI which is pretty cut & dry.

  32. zk, i think most people would take advantage if they had the means. after all, if the system is willing to give you a break – even if it requires a little arm-twisting – and you know others in similar positions have gotten a break, why not? if the system was so great, it couldn’t be bought. i do, however, have a problem with how this whole thing was done – paris and her lawyer brokered a deal with the sheriff, who was not the person that sentenced her. so she was going over the judge to get out of jail.

    also, if i was in the same situation, i could never ever honestly say ‘it’s not fair’ after being re-sentenced. the whole point is that you actively chose to break the law, perhaps thinking that your money and fame would mean there would be no consequences. once you reak the law, you cannot be shocked by reasonable consequences. plus, this girl is an idiot – she said her agent told her she could drive again, but when she was pulled over and was looking for her registration in the glove compartmnt, she also found the court order (which i assume she put there) that stated that her license was still suspended. yes, milking the system for as much milk as it wants to give you is OK. but simultaneously, there are consequences to your actions – if you want the system to give you a break, you should also be willing to take the downside of that system as well.

  33. paris and her lawyer brokered a deal with the sheriff, who was not the person that sentenced her. so she was going over the judge to get out of jail.

    And here’s the reason I think she was taken back to jail. Not to ‘serve justice’ or any noble reason like that. Paris Hilton, or no Paris Hilton, a judge would rather have rats dine on his testacles before some non-judicial entity overturns his decision. From what I know about the legal world, judges are irate, hard to deal with people – and their judgement’s are their livelihood, overturning a judge’s decision is probably the worst thing they could conceive of.

  34. Thanks, HMF. Made me afternoon 🙂

    hema, amen! Seriously, sympathy for someone who has a DUI and violated her suspension several times. I don’t care who you are, if jail is what it takes to get your ass in check, then fine. I don’t feel bad for her at all. There are a lot of crimes in which you wonder about the fairness of the system or wonder if everyone is a victim. This is not one of those crimes — she is entirely responsible for her recklessness and her choice to actively endanger the lives of others.

  35. yes, but the same judge also cut down her sentence. instead of being grateful that she didn’t have to serve a full-term, and despite getting certain considerations – e.g. her own cell – she tried to get out of the sentence completely. i don’t think this judge was being irrational – i’m pretty sure any other judge would have done the same thing. shit on the system, the system shits right back on you.

  36. she also found the court order (which i assume she put there) that stated that her license was still suspended

    LMAO. That just makes me laugh. Maybe it’s good that they tried to send her home. If she’s accidentally “reformed” by this experience, it will be all be so much less entertaining! 🙂

  37. a judge would rather have rats dine on his testacles before some non-judicial entity overturns his decision

    … or interrupts the use of his penis pump in court.

  39. I love the tone of the last line of the NY Times article.

    “It’s the kind of day where we’ll always have Paris,” Stephen Frazier, one of the anchors, said, trying for a wry delivery.

  40. <

    blockquote>Are we really discussing if Paris Hilton has had it easy? I mean COME ON!

    of course having paris hilton is easy. come on.

  42. Post #116 I wished you lived in the Punjab in early 1990’s.

    I have some family who live in the Punjab in the early 90’s. Punjab in the early 90’s was out of control, before the K.P.S Gill came along and get rid of those Khalstani idiots.

    There is alot that law enforcement in the west could learn from K.P.S Gill.

  44. Can someone explain why she just got more time in jail then originally required?

    It was the Sheriff that let her out, so why is she punished to do more time then before? Is this judge over compensating for this whole mess or is it justified?

  45. ST, she was originally sentenced to 45 days and then the judge decreased it to 23. so, really, the 23 day-sentence was a courtesy to her. i think that sentence was reduced because she tried desperately in the days after the initial 45-day sentence was announced to show how reformed she is and how repentant. i guess leaving jail without proper permission takes away from a display of a law-abiding reformed member of society. you can’t just say the sheriff let her out – didn’t she or her lawyer think to know whether the judge was OK with it?

  46. didn’t she or her lawyer think to know whether the judge was OK with it?

    She I doubt would know anything beyond the ability to use the word ‘like’ 5 times in one sentence, however, her lawyer I take it had an idea.

  48. A nation discovers its moral conscience. Or a judge just B-slaps a ass-kissing sheriff. It’s Hollywood, not America

    Ya KXB, I was trying to be ironic. A nation that didn’t mind losing habeas corpus is outraged because an heiress got 20 days early out of prison. Is this moral outrage or schedenfraude?

  50. “Again, it is the haves vs. the have nots.

    So that brings me back to Paris Hilton. She is the tipping point. What she demonstrates is that as a society we are comfortable with two sets of rules and values: one for the rich and one for the poor, and that this often translates to “one for the natives and one for the foreigners.”

    I think you are trying to say that both the prison system and the immigration system in this country unfairly advantage those with money and resources to work the system, yeah? I was looking for some deductive link between the Paris Hilton case and the immigration debate, or some analogy or homology, but none exists. At best, this is extremely weak inductive reasoning that seeks to make a polemical point not about immigration or Paris Hilton but simply the inequity of wealth distribution.

    You decided that

    a) since there are rich people and poor people figuring in the debates surrounding paris hilton, and b)apparently there are rich people and poor people figuring in the debates surrounding immigration, and c) since in both, the poor people seem to get the worse deal, d) that the Paris Hilton case and the immigration debate are worth presenting as related symptoms of American society as a whole.

    It only remains to be noted that presenting the immigration question as one hinging on “haves” versus “have nots” obfuscates more than it reveals.