• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires.

Marge, god is saying you’re stupid.

Stamping your little feets and demanding that they see how important you are? Not working anymore.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

You’re just a puppy masquerading as an old coot.

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

Impressively dumb. Congratulations.

Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?

“The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.”

They traffic in fear. it is their only currency. if we are fearful, they are winning.

Please don’t feed the bears.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

Maybe you would prefer that we take Joelle’s side in ALL CAPS?

Let’s finish the job.

There are a lot more evil idiots than evil geniuses.

Biden: Oh no. We’ve upset Big Pharma again.

I didn’t have alien invasion on my 2023 BINGO card.

If senate republicans had any shame, they’d die of it.

Republican also-rans: four mules fighting over a turnip.

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

The worst democrat is better than the best republican.

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Popular Culture / FREE PARIS HILTON

FREE PARIS HILTON

by John Cole|  June 7, 200712:00 pm| 96 Comments

This post is in: Popular Culture, General Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

Our long national nightmare is over, and Paris Hilton has broken free from the shackles of incarceration and has been released from prison after serving three days for a “medical issue.” Al Sharpton, sadly, serves as the voice of sanity:

“Though I have nothing but empathy for Ms. Hilton whom I have met and appeared with on Saturday Night Live the night I hosted in 2003, this early release gives all of the appearances of economic and racial favoritism that is constantly cited by poor people and people of color. There are any number of cases of people who handle being incarcerated badly and even have health conditions that are not released.”

Officially, she is being released for a medical condition, but they might as well call it good behavior. After all, let’s face it- Paris Hilton sober and not partaking of the penis for three days IS good behavior for her.

I am just sad that all of my secret work on my FREE PARIS website will go unappreciated, as I had intended to release it during week two of the vigil. On the upside, though, we were spared the embarassing national spectacle of Lindsey Lohan, Kim Kardashian, and the Girls Next Door leading protests through Hollywood carrying “No Justice, No Peace” placards.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Open-er Thread
Next Post: Your Next Surgeon General (If Bush Had His Way) »

Reader Interactions

96Comments

  1. 1.

    Rome Again

    June 7, 2007 at 12:04 pm

    What, was she traumatized by having to prove she wasn’t carrying?

  2. 2.

    Redleg

    June 7, 2007 at 12:07 pm

    Jeebus. What a joke our justice system has become. I’ll be surprised if Scooter Libby serves more than a few day so his sentence.

  3. 3.

    Jon H

    June 7, 2007 at 12:08 pm

    I think you mean “No Justice, No Panties”.

    Also while they say she isn’t eating, is that any different from usual? Or do the hunger pangs feel sharper when there’s no coke to cut the appetite?

  4. 4.

    Think Billions

    June 7, 2007 at 12:15 pm

    Geez, that was quick! I’m glad we posted her mug shot in time!

    Think Paris Hilton

  5. 5.

    Don

    June 7, 2007 at 12:23 pm

    I wish we’d just cut right to the chase and make the special treatment for the rich up-front. Give the Hiltons and her ilk the option to simply pay an obscene fine – at least we’d get some local government solvency out of it. For $1,000 a day you get to be under house arrest instead.

  6. 6.

    Jon H

    June 7, 2007 at 12:24 pm

    “For $1,000 a day you get to be under house arrest instead.”

    For $80 a day you can be in a niceish jail and pick your roomie.

  7. 7.

    Tsulagi

    June 7, 2007 at 12:41 pm

    Al Sharpton, sadly, serves as the voice of sanity

    Yep, the Rev. put it far more civilly than I would.

    WTF was her “medical condition?” Hyperventilating, or her palate tortured by jail food?

    Inquiring minds want to know. Probably especially Libby’s mind. He’s probably by now called Paris for tips. His next call will be to Rudy for cross dressing pointers so he can look like Paris if his time comes.

  8. 8.

    D. Mason

    June 7, 2007 at 12:45 pm

    I’m about to say something crazy here but try to follow me. I believe there should be special treatment for certain kinds of celebrities. Before you all get testy, let me elaborate. We, as a people, ask for entertainment out of our celebrities(unlike Europeans), some celebrities entertain us with magnificent feats of athleticism, some through brilliant comedy, let’s be honest we are entertained by most things, but one of the biggest hits in Hollywood is being a drunken jackass… You just can’t make someone famous for being a drunken party slut and then get all pissed off at her for being a drunken party slut, I’m sorry. If this were theft or arms trafficking I would say throw the book at her but this is being a drunken party slut.

  9. 9.

    Dave

    June 7, 2007 at 12:54 pm

    but this is being a drunken party slut.

    No this is for driving on a suspended license after getting popped for a DUI. Both of which would land you in jail.

  10. 10.

    dagon

    June 7, 2007 at 12:57 pm

    You just can’t make someone famous for being a drunken party slut and then get all pissed off at her for being a drunken party slut, I’m sorry. If this were theft or arms trafficking I would say throw the book at her but this is being a drunken party slut.

    the problem with that is that I and MOST of us didn’t make her famous for being a drunken party slut and don’t participate in the process that maintains her “celebrity”. to me, she is simply a private citizen who shows yet again that wealth and status can buy special treatment. the fact that our judicial system even has special areas for “high profile inmates” shows how far off the track we’ve gotten with our worship of wealth.

    peace

  11. 11.

    Steve

    June 7, 2007 at 1:01 pm

    You just can’t make someone famous for being a drunken party slut and then get all pissed off at her for being a drunken party slut, I’m sorry.

    Who says I’m pissed? The fact is, sending her to jail is part of the entertainment package.

  12. 12.

    Tax Analyst

    June 7, 2007 at 1:05 pm

    D. Mason Says:

    I’m about to say something crazy here but try to follow me. I believe there should be special treatment for certain kinds of celebrities. Before you all get testy, let me elaborate. We, as a people, ask for entertainment out of our celebrities(unlike Europeans), some celebrities entertain us with magnificent feats of athleticism, some through brilliant comedy, let’s be honest we are entertained by most things, but one of the biggest hits in Hollywood is being a drunken jackass… You just can’t make someone famous for being a drunken party slut and then get all pissed off at her for being a drunken party slut, I’m sorry. If this were theft or arms trafficking I would say throw the book at her but this is being a drunken party slut.

    Actually, I really like this concept. Perhaps it would play out something like this:

    (Judge)”You stand accused of drunk driving and disorderly conduct. How do you plead?”

    (Defendant): “Your Honor, Sir, I plead Not Guilty…I have a Certified DPS (Drunken Party Slut) Exemption for all Drug, Alcohol and Motor Vehicle citations.”

    Maybe you pay a fine or just more money when you do your annual DPS renewal – I think additional renewal fees would work better than a fine.

  13. 13.

    Andrew

    June 7, 2007 at 1:09 pm

    Who says I’m pissed? The fact is, sending her to jail is part of the entertainment package.

    Indeed!

  14. 14.

    Pb

    June 7, 2007 at 1:26 pm

    Obviously, the room and board accomodations weren’t good enough–I say, send her to Club Gitmo, where she can enjoy the luxurious accomodations, the top-notch medical care, and the lemon chicken with two types of fruit!

  15. 15.

    Rome Again

    June 7, 2007 at 1:27 pm

    No this is for driving on a suspended license after getting popped for a DUI. Both of which would land you in jail.

    Yup, and something tells me if I were in her shoes and stopped eating, I’d end up in solitary confinement, not under my own comfy bedspread with my calendar booked up with visits from Lindsey and Nicole.

  16. 16.

    Tax Analyst

    June 7, 2007 at 1:35 pm

    Got out for an “Undisclosed Medical Condition”? I would guess something like “Anxiety” would be used…might even be true, although I’m not sure it should be allowed to excuse one from jail time…maybe if severe enough. I dunno, d’ya think Paris can whine and pout well enough to convince a Doctor? And after you mull that toughie over, “Is the Pope Catholic?”

  17. 17.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 1:41 pm

    Jail is expensive and ridiculous. House arrest is cheaper and at least makes some kind of sense for the kind of offense we are talking about here.

    She should never have been put in jail in the first place, it was a giant waste of money.

    If you really want responsible government, you can start by ceasing to talk as if people are essentially disposable, and should be housed in expensive draconian jails, for nonviolent parole violations. When politicians see people talking this way, they know that they can use this kind of thing against you, and they will, because people who regard others as disposable are easily manipulated.

  18. 18.

    dagon

    June 7, 2007 at 1:55 pm

    If you really want responsible government, you can start by ceasing to talk as if people are essentially disposable, and should be housed in expensive draconian jails, for nonviolent parole violations.

    i hear you tz, but people are essentially disposable (unless you’re the right people).

    i’m with working to reform our system of rehabilitation but as long as we have punitive policies such as 3 strikes and you’re out and a disproportionate number of my brothers and sisters are rotting in prison for bullshit; i say the treatment of miss hilton smacks of priviledge.

    peace

  19. 19.

    neil

    June 7, 2007 at 2:02 pm

    A justice system that only treats the rich in a non-ridiculous manner is unfair and worse than one that treats everybody ridiculously.

  20. 20.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 2:12 pm

    i hear you tz, but people are essentially disposable

    Oh, I agree totally. And that’s the problem. Politicians don’t think that finesse and subleties can be sold to the voters, so what you get is blunt-edged criminal justice that wastes money, overpunishes, abuses the powerless, and generally treats people as disposable.

    And even if that weren’t true, the idea that we would want to send people to expensive, draconian jails for nonviolent parole violations is just ….. stupid. Whether it’s Paris, or nobody you ever heard of, it’s just absurd.

  21. 21.

    Rome Again

    June 7, 2007 at 2:19 pm

    TZ, I understand what you’re saying, but this really seems to be to be more about the disparate treatment between rich and poor. While I think you’re ideas are correct, and it makes no sense to throw her in jail for a parole vioation, the fact is she was sentenced to a jail term and got out three days later. We all know that if it were any of us, that would never happen.

  22. 22.

    Dreggas

    June 7, 2007 at 2:45 pm

    OMFG the world is really ending…I agree with Sharpton.

    Seriously living here in So. Cal we get bombarded with this shit daily. World going to hell? Who cares Paris Hilton is out of Jail! It’s the ANS bullshit all over again. The rich bitch’s sole claim to fame is a stupid show where she gets to prove just how stupid she is. After that it was camera whoring pure and simple.

    I wouldn’t care about this and shrug it off if it weren’t for the fact that here if I got popped for the same thing I’d do 4 months if not more IN JAIL. Not in some “special needs” unit but in JAIL along with every other inmate. For her to be stuck in some special needs unit was bad enough but now she’s getting out of jail after being in for only 3 days but being given credit for 5 days!

    TZ, I feel ya on this stupid ass CJS system we have and how bad it really is but this stupid twit should have had to nut up and do her time just like anyone else. If anything I hope her medical issue was catching a case of the clap from the toilet seat, if she didn’t have it already by being the sperm burping gutter slut she is.

  23. 23.

    Tax Analyst

    June 7, 2007 at 2:51 pm

    Yes, it’s true that our judicial system is a farce…and for many a very cruel one at that. Most of our jails and prisons are such hostile inhumane places that the Powers That Be just cannot countenance the thought of “One of Their Own” being locked up in such a place…so our Society’s “Answer” so far is to place the rich and/or famous above and out of the version applied to everyone else. So for there to be any chance whatsoever of making all our laws apply to all our people, even the rich & celebrated, would be to revamp the whole thing – decriminalize situations where no harm is done to others, use more Community or Public Service in place of prison sentences for non-violent offenders, review sentencing mandates and remove the draconian aspects present in so many of them…there’s more. Is there really any Public Will to do so? Can it override the “fear” concerns that will be stoked by these proposals. Yes, there is always a chance that an “Early Release” or Alternatively sentenced person MIGHT commit a heinous crime…we seem to demand 100% assurances that this will not occur. So we are left to witness and then joke or be disturbed by situations like our present Paris Hilton Punishment Parody…

  24. 24.

    dagon

    June 7, 2007 at 2:53 pm

    And even if that weren’t true, the idea that we would want to send people to expensive, draconian jails for nonviolent parole violations is just ….. stupid. Whether it’s Paris, or nobody you ever heard of, it’s just absurd.

    sadly though, i fear that many americans actually do want to see people sent to jail for even less egregious crimes, as long as those people don’t resemble them.

    hell, in some circles people would like to make selling weed a life sentence.

    no, i think it’s going to take the sons and daughters of the rich doing real time for their transgressions in order for ted and sue america to feel it in their interests to reform our system.

    peace

  25. 25.

    Rome Again

    June 7, 2007 at 2:55 pm

    TZ, you told me once that one of your favorite political ideals was equality, where is that sentiment now?

  26. 26.

    Steve

    June 7, 2007 at 2:57 pm

    If you really want responsible government, you can start by ceasing to talk as if people are essentially disposable, and should be housed in expensive draconian jails, for nonviolent parole violations.

    Well, I think jail can teach people a valuable lesson that they might not grasp otherwise. But I think for most people, a couple nights in jail is plenty sufficient to ensure that they never, ever cross the line again. It’s hard for me to imagine what Paris Hilton was supposed to learn from 45 days in jail that she wouldn’t have learned in a week or less, and there we go, saving the taxpayers money.

    Also, there’s nothing wrong with asking a wealthy defendant to reimburse the state for the costs of incarceration, which I think is allowed by the law in most states.

  27. 27.

    Mr Furious

    June 7, 2007 at 2:58 pm

    Ya know, after Sarah Silverman’s viscious beatdown the other day, I actually felt bad for Paris. She endured a level of public humiliation that was downright cruel, and frankly, cowardly of Silverman.

    Now it seems that will be her only punishment (besides house arrest in a manshion, I mean)…

    [/sympathy]

  28. 28.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 3:05 pm

    but this really seems to be to be more about the disparate treatment between rich and poor.

    Can’t agree. There is a difference in treatment between rich and poor, always has been and always will be. Some of it is regrettable, some isn’t. It’s a story unto itself, but more to the point ….

    This story isn’t about that as much as it is about representation, who gets it and who doesn’t, and whether a system that DIDN’T have better representation available to those who pay for it is either desirable, or possible (in my opinion, it is neither). It’s also about the proper use of the jails. The government doesn’t want people in jail for political and symbolic reasons, it wants them in jail to keep dangerous people off the street. If there is a way to do that without jail, then doing it makes huge sense, not only in terms of cost, but in terms of propriety. Why would WANT a Paris Hilton locked up in an expensive jail when she can be confined and watched for a fraction of the cost, and at the same time, minimizing the trauma caused by putting her in jail in the first place. What purpose does the trauma serve? To make you feel better about a rich girl getting treated like shit? Seriously, what social purpose does it serve? Does the punishment fit the crime? If she weren’t Paris Hilton, would anybody give a flying shit whether she got out early? Would the cable outlets and the blogorrhea specialists be all over it?

    Let’s get serious here. There is no reason for her to be in a damned jail when she can be handled in a different, cheaper and better way.

  29. 29.

    Rome Again

    June 7, 2007 at 3:17 pm

    Why would WANT a Paris Hilton locked up in an expensive jail when she can be confined and watched for a fraction of the cost, and at the same time, minimizing the trauma caused by putting her in jail in the first place. What purpose does the trauma serve? To make you feel better about a rich girl getting treated like shit? Seriously, what social purpose does it serve? Does the punishment fit the crime? If she weren’t Paris Hilton, would anybody give a flying shit whether she got out early? Would the cable outlets and the blogorrhea specialists be all over it?

    Had she been confined to house arrest PRIOR to her release, I would say “fine, no problem”. It’s the fact that she was sentenced to a jail term and then released from it that is bothersome.

    We won’t agree with this, and no, it’s not that I want Paris Hilton to suffer. I appreciate that you’re trying to lift up the treatment of the guilty in terms of the entire way justice is doled out, I really do… but to change the term after she couldn’t handle it is just ludicrous on it’s face. You know that if I were in that sitaution, I’d be left to rot there, and so would you.

  30. 30.

    Fledermaus

    June 7, 2007 at 3:21 pm

    And even if that weren’t true, the idea that we would want to send people to expensive, draconian jails for nonviolent parole violations is just ….. stupid.

    Amen to that. I’m all for laws, I think they are a good thing and certainly I wouldn’t have much of a career without them. But at the misdemeanor level the ticky-tack shit that people get stuck with and serve 30-40 days for a driving on suspended license. It costs, in my area, about $200 per day to keep someone in county jail. And for what?

  31. 31.

    sal

    June 7, 2007 at 3:22 pm

    Ha ha! John has the ultimate word. Nothing better than:

    Officially, she is being released for a medical condition, but they might as well call it good behavior. After all, let’s face it- Paris Hilton sober and not partaking of the penis for three days IS good behavior for her.

  32. 32.

    Dreggas

    June 7, 2007 at 3:25 pm

    If she weren’t Paris Hilton, would anybody give a flying shit whether she got out early?

    This is exactly the problem, if she weren’t paris hilton she probably would not have gotten out early nor would she have gotten such a small sentence and that is where the problem lies TZ. Yes we should get past this whole BS prison for non-violent offenders etc. but until we do it’s fucking bull shit that she doesn’t serve the same damn sentence as anyone else who was convicted of the same crime. Yeah there’s an underlying problem that needs to be fixed but the issue, here and now, is the fact that because she is “Paris Hilton” she got off easy and let out after being in the “oh so horrible” jail for all of 3 days.

    Hell I am pissed that the only way it was noticed that the jail she was in has a higher than normal rate of staph infections was because she was there. That’s Bullshit too.

    Like I said I agree that things need to be reformed and changed and that “prison for all” is not the solution. But until that changes the bitch should have been locked up just like anyone and everyone else would have been.

  33. 33.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 3:29 pm

    You know that if I were in that sitaution, I’d be left to rot there, and so would you.

    Mmm, well, that’s a nice piece of rhetoric, whether it’s completely accurate in this case, I won’t speculate.

    However, in justice, as in many things, you get what you pay for. As I said, I think that it is neither possible nor desirable to make that not true.

    We can strive to make justice impartial, but I don’t think making it totally fair to all is in the realm of possibility. And impartial doesn’t mean equal. If you go to court with a great lawyer and I go to court with a mediocre slouch, I’ll lose, and ….. that’s the way it is.

    Jurisprudence is carried out by people. The system is going to look human, because it’s human.

  34. 34.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 3:33 pm

    it’s fucking bull shit that she doesn’t serve the same damn sentence as anyone else who was convicted of the same crime

    Well, that’s just absurd on its face. In order to enact such a paradigm, you would have to have zero judicial discretion in all sentencing, and have all defendants represented by the same mediocre, average and government-supplied attorneys. Then you’d have total equality.

    You will not have it, it’s ludicrous, and it is not desirable. The system works the way it does because it reflects the way the real world works …. and should.

    If don’t think I’m right, then imagine that you are accused of a serious crime, and then told, by the way, here’s your court-appointed lawyer right out of law school, and you have NO opportunity to go out and hire yourself the best lawyer you can get. Get it?

  35. 35.

    dagon

    June 7, 2007 at 3:39 pm

    If don’t think I’m right, then imagine that you are accused of a serious crime, and then told, by the way, here’s your court-appointed lawyer right out of law school, and you have NO opportunity to go out and hire yourself the best lawyer you can get. Get it?

    i think that’s a bit of a stretch as an analogy

    peace

  36. 36.

    jh

    June 7, 2007 at 3:42 pm

    The problem TZ, is that you get differential outcomes in justice for a myriad of reasons, not just attorney competence/experience.

    Mmm, well, that’s a nice piece of rhetoric, whether it’s completely accurate in this case, I won’t speculate.

    Anyone with passing familarity with the actual sentencing stats of the criminal justice system can verify this.

    Try getting out of prison after 3 days while NOT being famous, rich or white, and see what happens. I don’t care if your lawyer made Harvard Law Review every year his was in law school, clerked at the USSC, and has pictures of the judge in comprimising situations with Richard Gere, there is a better than average chance that you are going to do more than three fucking days in jail.

  37. 37.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 3:42 pm

    the bitch should have been locked up

    Heh, well unfortunately, that is the crux of your argument, and it’s exactly why your argument will fail.

    She should not and must not be locked up because she is “that bitch,” or be free because she is “that lovely girl.” In this case, she is actually being locked up in a different way and place, and primarily because she had a lawyer good enough to get that for her. Which is good for him, and good for her. I strongly suspect you’d take away that opportunity from everyone just to have the pleasure of seeing that rich bitch behind bars. On the scale of bullshit, I’m afraid your argument wins handily. Sorry.

  38. 38.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 3:45 pm

    The problem TZ, is that you get differential outcomes

    I think you don’t get it. Differential outcomes are not a problem, they are desirable. If you don’t have the possibility of differential outcomes in jusrisprudence, then what do you have, and how do you build and maintain such a thing?

    Of course you have differential outcomes, that’s why you have lawyers, judges, and courts. It’s the Republicans who hate process, squishy outcomes, and judges, remember?

    Or is that only when rich “bitches” and “whores” like Paris are not exercising all of their opportunity for representation? Did I miss something? The outcome is only good when the poor downtrodden guy gets a break?

    Come on people, get serious.

  39. 39.

    Rome Again

    June 7, 2007 at 3:48 pm

    If don’t think I’m right, then imagine that you are accused of a serious crime, and then told, by the way, here’s your court-appointed lawyer right out of law school, and you have NO opportunity to go out and hire yourself the best lawyer you can get. Get it?

    If you’re innocent until proven guilty, then why should court appointed attorney apply? Dreggas and I are talking about equality under sentencing, and while I agree that no two random people will get the exact sentence, they should at least serve a vast portion of that time before being considered for release.

    I’m sorry, I still disagree… by the way, your email only emboldened me, it didn’t take me off the trail.

    You and I disagree, oh well! It will happen, and I know it. You are beginning to get a little too smug about it though. You sure you want to go there?

    The defender of equality suddenly isn’t. The one who gets upset at the Frist family and Bush family influence suddenly defends the Hilton child. Hmmmm, perhaps you need to just take a long nap, you seem to be suffering from some sort of sickness today.

  40. 40.

    jh

    June 7, 2007 at 3:49 pm

    Differential outcomes are not a problem, they are desirable as long as they do not reflect preferential treatment for a certain class of people.

    Fixed

  41. 41.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 3:49 pm

    i think that’s a bit of a stretch as an analogy

    You cannot be serious, friend. It’s the entire point.

    When you go to jail, you and every defendant on earth is going to be thinking one and only one thing: Get me the best lawyer I can get.

    Why do you think that is? If these things are to be cut and dried, with the same outcomes for everybody, why would you care how good a lawyer you get? Are you telling me that if your life is on the line, you would settle for picking a lawyer blindly out of a hatful of names, if you could get something better? If you would, then your hat-lawyer has a fool for a client.

  42. 42.

    Pb

    June 7, 2007 at 3:51 pm

    In this case, she is actually being locked up in a different way and place, and primarily because she had a lawyer good enough to get that for her. Which is good for him, and good for her.

    In other news, O.J. is still looking for the real killer.

  43. 43.

    Badtux

    June 7, 2007 at 3:52 pm

    But JH, the rules only apply to the “little people”, people like you and me, not to the oligarchs who rule us. Thousands of ordinary men and women get to serve their full term despite having medical issues as dire as AIDS, kidney failure, and end-stage diabetes. But look, they’re just little people. They’re not offspring of the wealthy, like Little Ms. Hotel Chain. The rules only apply to the little people, not to the wealthy elite. Sheesh, what, you believe you live in a democracy rather than an oligarchy ruled by a small wealthy elite? Despite the fact that in most elections above the level of dog catcher, all we get to vote for is one rich oligarch or another, much like in Soviet elections where all the people got to vote for was one Communist Party apparatchnik or another? Next thing you’ll tell me is that you believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus!

    – Badtux the Snarky Penguin

  44. 44.

    Rome Again

    June 7, 2007 at 3:54 pm

    When you go to jail, you and every defendant on earth is going to be thinking one and only one thing: Get me the best lawyer I can get.

    I call bullshit. Many people don’t have that thought because they know they can’t even afford a mediocre one.

    I’ve had a court appointed attorney before. I wasn’t thinking about getting the best attorney, I knew I couldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of even getting one I could pay for, let alone one who might actually get me off.

  45. 45.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 3:54 pm

    Differential outcomes are not a problem, they are desirable as long as they do not reflect preferential treatment for a certain class of people.

    Cute, but only relevant when you can show that you can produce a system that accomplishes it. A system that both rewards good representation, and treats all who come before it exactly the same way. That would be funny if it weren’t so tragically ridiculous.

    I’m on trial for murder? Fine, give me any old lawyer, I don’t want better treatment than anyone else!

    When it’s your freedom or property or rights on the line, you want, and will demand, the best representation and the best outcome you can get. And that’s the way it has to work, because when you can’t get it, by rule, then nobody gets it.

    Sometimes the goofy shit you see in here is just amazing, really. You couldn’t make it up.

    “Why should a rich person get a better lawyer than me?”

    Un-fucking believable, honestly.

  46. 46.

    jh

    June 7, 2007 at 3:58 pm

    When you go to jail, you and every defendant on earth is going to be thinking one and only one thing: Get me the best lawyer I can get.

    Other things they are probably thinking

    – I wish I was rich

    – I was I was a white person

    – I wish I were a celebrity

    That way, even if I end up serving my full sentence, I will have the pleasure of doing it under conditions that’re probably nicer than the places poor people pay to live in, let alone do time in.

    You are full of it on this one TZ.

  47. 47.

    spoosmith

    June 7, 2007 at 3:59 pm

    I first heard this news on BBC radio. The medical condition? They are saying it was a rash. A RASH. I shit you not.

    Also, since she arrived at jail at 12:00pm, she got credit for a full day. Same as the release day.

    I’m not sure whether to be outraged that such a whinning, spoiled waste of space has achieved such celebrity or feel admiration that someone so vacuous could spin a last name and a bank account into a “career”.

    Pretty sure I’m outraged.

  48. 48.

    jh

    June 7, 2007 at 4:00 pm

    Cute, but only relevant when you can show that you can produce a system that accomplishes it.

    Right. Because if you can’t produce one with a 100% percent certainty, it’s certainly not worth the effort to try to actually improve the gravely flawed and unfair system we have in place.

    Make up arbitrary maxims much?

  49. 49.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 4:00 pm

    I call bullshit. Many people don’t have that thought

    { laughs }

    Okay, I am content to let the matter rest on that point.

    You say bullshit, I say that not only am I right, it’s so obvious that I am starting to figure that you (various persons) are just screwing with me at this point.

    Like I said, when your ass is on the line, you and every other rational person on earth will want, and demand, and expect, the best you can get. Best lawywer, best defense, best representation, best outcome.

    You’d better, and you’d better fight to get it, because the opportunity to get it is a precious thing that is worth gold. Don’t throw it away.

  50. 50.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 4:03 pm

    try to actually improve the gravely flawed and unfair system

    Well, that’s just silly. There are many improvements that can be rightly made to the criminal justice system, but improving it so that Paris Hilton spends more time in jail is not not one of them. That’s just grotesquely absurd.

    More time in jail for her serves no purpose whatever other than pleasing a rather ugly and mean-spirited crowd that has gathered in the blogorrheasphere.

  51. 51.

    dagon

    June 7, 2007 at 4:06 pm

    When you go to jail, you and every defendant on earth is going to be thinking one and only one thing: Get me the best lawyer I can get.

    of course, but i was referring to her early release.

    i’m not intimately familiar with the circumstances surrounding her change of venue; maybe you are. but from what i’ve heard, whoever was in charge of her placement caved once miss hilton began freaking out. her lawyer may have had something to do with making the political ramifications clear but apparently no lawyering was involved in this decision.

    that’s why i didn’t quite get your analogy.

    peace

  52. 52.

    Rome Again

    June 7, 2007 at 4:10 pm

    You’d better, and you’d better fight to get it, because the opportunity to get it is a precious thing that is worth gold. Don’t throw it away.

    I never had it to begin with. I may have come from a rich family, but when it came time to be defended, my rich parents were content to let me go with a court appointed atty. Now, would I want that assurance that if I had a good attorney I would get better treatment, sure… but I didn’t have it, and I knew I didn’t have it and I never felt I had that opportunity at all. You really don’t know what it’s like to be in that situation TZ, I can tell. You act like it’s all some “believe, demand and it will see you through” thing, it’s not. The dimes weren’t there, I didn’t expect a good lawyer, I didn’t demand the best. I didn’t demand anything at all. I took what I got and tried to make the best of it.

    You seem to be under the impression that everyone puts up a fight to defend themselves. Are you sure you want to go there?

    Laugh all you want. I hear it’s lonely at the top.

  53. 53.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 4:12 pm

    I’m not sure whether to be outraged

    Uh, well I am pretty sure that you are sure.

    If this were Jane Nobody, who would be arguing this nonsense here?

    What terrible crime against humanity warrants keeping this person in jail as opposed to confined somewhere else? Who can recite it without looking it up?

  54. 54.

    jh

    June 7, 2007 at 4:13 pm

    Sometimes the goofy shit you see in here is just amazing, really. You couldn’t make it up.

    Tell me about it.

    This for example:

    “Why should a rich person get a better lawyer than me?”

    Goofy? You should look in the mirror. You can have Perry Friggin’ Mason arguing on your behalf, but if in the end you are actually FOUND TO BE GUILTY in a court of law, your sentencing should not be influenced by the fact that you are rich.

    And that is exactly what we have here. A rich celebrity person being given a more lenient sentence because she is a rich celebrity.

    Ignore the travesty that is the 3 days she actually served for a moment.

    Tell me why it is in any way just for there to be a “nice” jail for celebrities and rich people and a nasty, “pound me in the ass and shiv me with a toothbrush” jail for regular people?

    Becuase one defendant’s lawyer is better than the other?

    I’m sorry, but that’s just bullshit.

    It’s because we have a multi-tiered justice system in which outcomes are dependent upon MANY factors; including but not limited to, the quality of representation obtained by defendents.

    Race, Class, Status and whether or not the Judge has gas that day, all play a factor in how people are treated by the justice system.

    While I can’t do anything about the judge’s gas, I certainly think that we as a society can make a better effort to eliminate special treatment for the wealthy, and well connected.

    But since you haven’t had your nap this afternoon, I don’t expect you to grasp this.

  55. 55.

    Otto Man

    June 7, 2007 at 4:14 pm

    Ya know, after Sarah Silverman’s viscious beatdown the other day, I actually felt bad for Paris. She endured a level of public humiliation that was downright cruel, and frankly, cowardly of Silverman.

    I have to disagree, Mr. F. That seemed to me to be the one time the outside world has gotten through her thick skull. She has an ego the size of Jupiter, and having that punctured a little is a universally good thing.

    Paris Hilton is unbelievably rich, popular, powerful and now apparently jail-proof. Sarcasm is the only weapon we have left.

    What are the odds the L.A. Sheriff gets re-elected next time around?

  56. 56.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 4:14 pm

    whoever was in charge of her placement caved

    Caved? Did I miss something, were we talking about Guantanamo here?

    Whew. Maybe this is the crime of the century …..

  57. 57.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 4:17 pm

    Sarcasm is the only weapon we have left.

    Weapon? In this world, people think we need weapons against the Paris Hiltons?

    Ye gods. I give up.

    I need weapons against an info industry that floods my monitor and tv screen with this trivial nonsense and can’t ask a DECENT QUESTION IN A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE for crissakes.

  58. 58.

    Dreggas

    June 7, 2007 at 4:19 pm

    spoosmith Says:

    I first heard this news on BBC radio. The medical condition? They are saying it was a rash. A RASH. I shit you not.

    How did i know it, I was only half joking when I said she got out because she broke a nail. Unfucking-believable.

  59. 59.

    Rome Again

    June 7, 2007 at 4:19 pm

    What terrible crime against humanity warrants keeping this person in jail as opposed to confined somewhere else? Who can recite it without looking it up?

    It wasn’t a crime against humanity at all. Why do you ask that question?

    It was that she whined loud enough to get someone to pity her sorry fate after three days when she didn’t do any time nearly resembling the time of those who are unknowns.

    It was that she couldn’t stand to live normal for a short few weeks.

  60. 60.

    jh

    June 7, 2007 at 4:21 pm

    There are many improvements that can be rightly made to the criminal justice system, but improving it so that Paris Hilton spends more time in jail is not not one of them.

    And you have the audacity to call other people here silly?

    Seeing to it that Paris Hilton spends more time in jail would be an incidental outcome of seeing to it that rich people aren’t being given preferential treatment by the criminal justice system.

    When a person from South Central LA can find their sentence in a rich person unit of the county jail, “revised” down to an an early release and house arrest for specious “medical reasons”, then I will buy your argument.

  61. 61.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 4:21 pm

    Tell me why it is in any way just for there to be a “nice” jail for celebrities and rich people and a nasty, “pound me in the ass and shiv me with a toothbrush” jail for regular people?

    Your dishonest argument would carry more weight with me had I not started my commentary here by saying that NOBODY should be in jail for this offense.

    Did you miss that part? Read the thread.

  62. 62.

    Dreggas

    June 7, 2007 at 4:21 pm

    TZ,

    If your whole argument is money buys your freedom and that having more of it means you’ll get off like Hilton did despite being guilty, then we have far more serious issues to deal with than decriminalization of non-violent crimes.

  63. 63.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 4:29 pm

    When a person from South Central LA can find their sentence in a rich person unit of the county jail, “revised” down to an an early release and house arrest for specious “medical reasons”, then I will buy your argument

    I doubt that you will. You don’t seem to understand the argument at all. My argument is that nobody should go to jail for this offense, unless there are serverely aggravating circumstances, which to my knowledge, there are not. Jail is an asburd option here. Jail should be for dangerous people who must be locked up to protect the rest of us. Further, it’s expensive and can’t serve any particular useful purpose in this case. A stiff fine, additional probation, service, home confinement, all seem more appropriate to me, regardless of who “the bitch” is.

    This argument isn’t about the true merits of this case or the rules, it appears to be about “the bitch” and the fact that she’s rich, and “a whore,” and just generally deserving of whatever smack we can sling. It’s about faux outrage in a time when there is more than enough to justify real, serious outrage about real, serious things.

    That’s the bullshit. Not my argument.

  64. 64.

    jh

    June 7, 2007 at 4:30 pm

    Your dishonest argument would carry more weight with me had I not started my commentary here by saying that NOBODY should be in jail for this offense.

    I read and agreed with that part of your post.

    We don’t yet live in a world in which non-violent offenses are treated appropriately, and until we do live in that world, treating people convicted of the same crimes differently because they have money is flat out wrong.

    Rational sentencing for ALL non-violent offenders?

    I’m on board.

    Arbitrary leniency exclusively for wealthy non-violent offenders?

    KMBA.

  65. 65.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 4:30 pm

    If your whole argument is money buys your freedom

    Um, that would be your absurd reduction of my argument, but nothing like my actual argument at all.

    But thanks.

  66. 66.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 4:32 pm

    We don’t yet live in a world in which non-violent offenses are treated appropriately

    Well, that’s a very general and gross statement, and I can’t agree with it on that broad a basis.

    Rational sentencing for ALL non-violent offenders?

    I think that was my argument from the beginning here.

    If that’s yours, then we agree.

  67. 67.

    tBone

    June 7, 2007 at 4:37 pm

    Jail should be for dangerous people who must be locked up to protect the rest of us.

    Or to scare some sense into people who are on their way to becoming a danger to the rest of us.

    One of my best friends was killed by someone driving on a suspended license (due to a DUI), so I’m afraid I can’t muster much sympathy for poor Paris or any other asshole in similar circumstances.

  68. 68.

    jh

    June 7, 2007 at 4:42 pm

    If that’s yours, then we agree.

    I don’t think anyone here disagrees with that particular sentiment at all.

    I hope you can understand that while one might be in favor of legal reform of the variety you describe, they are also justified in feeling outraged that in this particular case, Hilton’s treatment does not reflect a move towards he more rational sentencing of non-violent offenders, but is rather a continuation; right alongside the “celebrity unit” of the county jail, “country club” prisons for white collar offenders and most presidential pardons, of the preferential treatment afforded a certain class of individual. Namely, the rich, famous and well connected.

    They really are two different issues and I can say with almost absolute certainty that Paris Hilton’s commuted sentence (or that of any other celebrity) will not be the landamrak legal case that moves us towards rational sentencing.

    It’s just more of the same BS.

  69. 69.

    ConservativelyLiberal

    June 7, 2007 at 4:54 pm

    I see this Paris Hilton thread, and I note that it has the word “penis’ in it, and the comments are at 69…

    It has to be a conspiracy. No other way to explain it. John is in cahoots with the Hollywood elite. ;)

    Actually, I heard that she got out because of a medical condition, I think it is called “I’m fucking rich and white, and you are not.”

    That or she wore out the jail staff in five days…

  70. 70.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 5:02 pm

    One of my best friends was killed by someone driving on a suspended license

    Oh brother. I can’t believe you said that.

    I hope you can understand that while one might be in favor of legal reform of the variety you describe, they are also justified in feeling outraged that in this particular case,

    Well, I see it, but I certainly don’t agree that that outrage is either justified or appropriate. When you look at the meat and potatoes of the topics that slide by here on the conveyor, this isn’t even worth a raised eyebrow, IMO. But apparenty we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

    They really are two different issues

    Agreed. As for the “country club prison” thing, all I can say is, I’ve been hating the whole idea of traditional prison for most crimes for most of my adult life. I think it’s nuts. I don’t think it works at any level, don’t think it serves society, don’t think it is moral or ethical or humane. I don’t accept the treatment of people as disposable under any but the most extreme circumstances.

  71. 71.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 5:30 pm

    I think it is called “I’m fucking rich and white, and you are not.”

    Heh, well if everybody in this country gave up everything they had gained on the basis of one or both of those qualifications, there’d be a whole lotta givin shit up goin on out there all of a sudden.

    Tell ya what, in my case, I’d say about 75% of what I have, and 90% of the opportunity I’ve enjoyed, have been based on one or both of those things in my life at one time or another. And “rich” here doesn’t mean international-hotelier rich, it means American Middle Class just past the middle of the bell curve rich. Which on a world scale, is actually filthy fucking rich. On the world scale, I consider myself rich beyond the dreams of most of the people in the world. And I’m driving a Honda Civic, so there you are. Yet I live better than kings could have just a couple centuries ago. I don’t complain much about my station.

  72. 72.

    The Other Steve

    June 7, 2007 at 5:59 pm

    John, your site design is hideous!

    http://www.freeparis.org/

  73. 73.

    The Other Steve

    June 7, 2007 at 6:08 pm

    Weapon? In this world, people think we need weapons against the Paris Hiltons?

    GW Bush was just quoted this afternoon in a press conference as saying he didn’t think the United States ought to take military action against Paris Hilton.

    So I think we’re safe.

  74. 74.

    Dreggas

    June 7, 2007 at 6:15 pm

    ThymeZone Says:

    If your whole argument is money buys your freedom

    Um, that would be your absurd reduction of my argument, but nothing like my actual argument at all.

    But thanks.

    That would be your latest argument with regard to why Paris got off. I already stated I agreed that the sentencing laws are really fucking stupid TZ, however until that glorious day when things change and they are fixed, she should be locked up just like every other person who committed the same crime.

  75. 75.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 7:25 pm

    your latest argument with regard to why Paris got off.

    Well, if that is the best you can do, we’re done.

    She didn’t “get off.” She is still convicted of the original offense, still on probation, and still in custody.

    If you want to cut the crap and stop acting like you are member of this silly mob, let me know.

    If the people in this country want a government that doesn’t treat them as if they are a mob, or a potential mob (and if you doubt that characterization, I urge you to read the transcripts of the Republican debate from the other nite), then you have to stop acting like a mob.

    She’s “rich.” She’s a “bitch.” She’s a “whore.”

    She’s also completely irrelevant, and completely unrelated to the real outrages that are coming at you every day. But there is the mob on tv shouting “NO!” to whether she should go home from jail. It’s mob behavior, and it’s pretty disturbing.

  76. 76.

    tBone

    June 7, 2007 at 7:38 pm

    One of my best friends was killed by someone driving on a suspended license

    Oh brother. I can’t believe you said that.

    I can’t believe 75% of the bullshit you’ve said on this thread, so I guess I’m ahead.

    Now fuck off and go back to your Paris Pity Party.

  77. 77.

    The Other Steve

    June 7, 2007 at 8:20 pm

    I don’t understand why we lock people up at all. Yeah, Paris got 45 days in jail, but did she really do any harm? Sure, a DUI and driving with a suspended license. But who is the Government to say where I can drive my car?

    And poor Scooter Libby. All he did was tell a lie. Absolutely no harm whatsoever to anybody. And he gets 30 months?

    This is all grossly unfair.

    These two have suffered so much. Paris has lost her reputation as a good wholesome wench, and Libby is going to lose his law license. Haven’t they suffered enough?

    Really, only poor people should have to go to jail. It’d be a better life for them anyway.

  78. 78.

    srv

    June 7, 2007 at 9:14 pm

    Shit. What am I going to do with all these candles? We were going to have a spoof vigil tomorrow.

  79. 79.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 9:29 pm

    I can’t believe 75% of the bullshit you’ve said on this thread

    Raelly? So you have an actual coherent argument, but just keeping it under wraps at the moment? Or ….?

  80. 80.

    Rome Again

    June 7, 2007 at 9:29 pm

    This argument isn’t about the true merits of this case or the rules, it appears to be about “the bitch” and the fact that she’s rich, and “a whore,” and just generally deserving of whatever smack we can sling. It’s about faux outrage in a time when there is more than enough to justify real, serious outrage about real, serious things.

    Well, i certainly don’t believe this is about “that bitch” and how she should pay just because she’s rich. My problem is with the way people who are unknown will often (not always, but very often) get harsh sentences and will never get any reprieve. It has nothing to do with the amount of money she has, as far as I’m concerned, but the special treatment she receives because of her fame and notoriety. If Dreggas is wanting Paris Hilton to serve simply because of who she is, I don’t agree with that at all. I personally don’t feel that’s where he is coming from, but… I’m not Dreggas.

    I like the idea of lifting all non-violent offenders out of serving time behind bars, i just wish they would have offered it to the downtrodden first.

  81. 81.

    Rome Again

    June 7, 2007 at 9:32 pm

    Don’t throw them out srv, you may still yet get to use them. Paris is expected to be in court tomorrow to determine whether she gets to stay out on hour arrest or go back behind bars.

  82. 82.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 9:32 pm

    I don’t understand why we lock people up at all

    Really? How interesting. Do you think it might have something to do with keeping dangerous people away from the rest of us?

    And WRT to the difference between locking a person up with an ankle radio bracelet, versus putting them into a jail …. can you make some intelligent arguments in favor of the latter, when apparently the home lockup seems to serve the purpose fine, and is a good deal cheaper?

    Or are you just another one of the fist-wavers here who can’t argue a point worth shit?

  83. 83.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 9:37 pm

    Rome, I think we agree more than we disagree.

    Does anyone know what the history of home lockup is in these situations? Personally, I am in favor of it in all but the aggravated (repeat, or egregiously dangerous) cases.

    Of course, that’s a rational view, and as you and I know, rational views aren’t necessarily going to prevail aroud here.

    Here’s a blog that makes fun of Cindy Sheehan, but gets outraged at Paris Hilton not getting locked up. Excuse me if I don’t take the mob view here too seriously. And no, I do not consider you a member of the mob!

  84. 84.

    Tim P.

    June 7, 2007 at 10:05 pm

    ThymeZone:

    (1.) It is the case that a probation violation is not a crime serious enough to warrant jail time.

    (2.) The sentencing guidelines nevertheless suggest that Paris Hilton, and every other person convicted of this crime, should serve jail time.

    (3.) Paris Hilton was convicted but did not serve the prescribed amount of jail time because she is rich and white.

    (4.) Those who are poor or non-white serve the prescribed amout of jail time when convicted.

    (5.) (3) and (4) are good things?

  85. 85.

    ThymeZone

    June 7, 2007 at 10:33 pm

    Tim P, those are worthy points, but I think I addressed them all upstream already.

    It’s very tiresome here to have to keep having the same arguments over and over.

    As cruel and unusual as it might be to suggest it, if after reading over all my posts you think there is still room for discussion, let me know and I’ll slide you my email addy and we can talk it over.

    Cheers,
    Thyme

  86. 86.

    arnott

    June 7, 2007 at 11:39 pm

    ok, there is a update on this story : Paris Hilton ordered to return to court

    Paris Hilton’s release from jail may be short lived. Hours after she was sent home under house arrest Thursday for an undisclosed medical condition, the judge who put her in jail for violating her reckless-driving probation ordered her into court to decide if she should go back behind bars.

    Hilton must report to court at 9 a.m. Friday, Superior Court spokesman Allan Parachini told The Associated Press.

  87. 87.

    arnott

    June 7, 2007 at 11:43 pm

    ok, there is a update on this story : Paris Hilton ordered to return to court

    Paris Hilton’s release from jail may be short lived. Hours after she was sent home under house arrest Thursday for an undisclosed medical condition, the judge who put her in jail for violating her reckless-driving probation ordered her into court to decide if she should go back behind bars.

    Hilton must report to court at 9 a.m. Friday, Superior Court spokesman Allan Parachini told The Associated Press.

  88. 88.

    Steve

    June 8, 2007 at 12:00 am

    I’m still of the school of thought that says a couple nights in jail does a body good.

  89. 89.

    ThymeZone

    June 8, 2007 at 12:26 am

    Tim P, I am putting my email addy up on the photosite linked to by my handle.

    If you want to talk about your post, shoot me an email.

    I won’t be back on this thread tomorrow.

    The addy will be up until about noon Friday Pacific time.

  90. 90.

    The Other Steve

    June 8, 2007 at 8:52 am

    I’m still of the school of thought that says a couple nights in jail does a body good.

    So does hard work.

  91. 91.

    Dreggas

    June 8, 2007 at 10:15 am

    Rome Again Says:

    Well, i certainly don’t believe this is about “that bitch” and how she should pay just because she’s rich. My problem is with the way people who are unknown will often (not always, but very often) get harsh sentences and will never get any reprieve. It has nothing to do with the amount of money she has, as far as I’m concerned, but the special treatment she receives because of her fame and notoriety. If Dreggas is wanting Paris Hilton to serve simply because of who she is, I don’t agree with that at all. I personally don’t feel that’s where he is coming from, but… I’m not Dreggas.

    I could give a rats ass if it’s Paris Hilton, or if it was some average person. If the law says you do X and are guilty and convicted then you serve Y amount of time. If the law sucks, work to fix it but until it’s fixed it should apply to everyone whether you’re Paris Hilton or joe schmoe.

    the fact is if you or I get popped for the same offense then we go to jail, we do not get put under house arrest. She should be no different. As for the difference between “House Arrest” and being in an actual Jail. Look at the differences in size and accomodations. Jail is jail for a reason and while some might think their home is a prison it’s far from it.

  92. 92.

    Rome Again

    June 8, 2007 at 11:06 am

    Just as I thought Dreggas, you and I agree on this.

  93. 93.

    Dreggas

    June 8, 2007 at 12:52 pm

    Rome Again Says:

    Just as I thought Dreggas, you and I agree on this.

    I’ve had family get popped for similar things which led to years, not days in an actual prison. The laws are bs, yes, but the bottom line is the law is the law until it changed. Of course this is why I’ve been nodding in agreement with you as well.

  94. 94.

    BBF

    June 8, 2007 at 3:01 pm

    MERCK AND THE FDA APPROVED THE DRUG VIOXX BASED ON FAULTY INFORMATION AND IT WENT ON THE MARKET. AN ESTIMATED 55,000 – 60,000 AMERICANS DIED AS A RESULT OF TAKING THIS DRUG, AND 160,000 HAD HEART ATTACKS. MERCK’S PROFITS ARE WAY OVER A BILLION. AN ESTIMATED 300,000 HAVE DIED WORLD-WIDE. I HAVE NOT HEARD OF ONE MERCK OR FDA OFFICIALS SERVING ANY JAIL TIME.

    CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN THIS TO ME? DID PARIS HILTON KILL ANYONE?

  95. 95.

    Dreggas

    June 8, 2007 at 3:25 pm

    Hilton Screamed

    – Back to jail for her, not for 23 days but now for the full 45. Judge was not happy being overruled by the sheriffs dept.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. FREE PARIS HILTON | Paris Hilton Jail Blog says:
    June 7, 2007 at 12:16 pm

    […] Original post by John Cole […]

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • WaterGirl on I Am All For This! (Apr 17, 2024 @ 5:36pm)
  • Trollhattan on I Am All For This! (Apr 17, 2024 @ 5:36pm)
  • lowtechcyclist on I Am All For This! (Apr 17, 2024 @ 5:36pm)
  • WaterGirl on I Am All For This! (Apr 17, 2024 @ 5:35pm)
  • Ruckus on I Am All For This! (Apr 17, 2024 @ 5:34pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!