Friday, May 04, 2007

Paris Goes To Jail

It all started with an alcohol-related reckless driving charge. I don't keep up with Hollywood royalty and their drama (I really don't have that kind of time - who does?) but apparently last September, Ms. Hilton had been drinking (registering a .08 - the legal limit for drunk driving in California) and was stopped for reckless driving.

She pled no contest in January and was sentenced to 36 months probation, alcohol education and $1,500 in fines. She had until February 15th to enter an alchohol education program.

On January 15th, she was stopped for some charge (sorry, I don't remember what the charge was). During the stop she signed a document stating that she understood her license was suspended. On February 27th, she was stopped yet again.

Today, she was in court to answer a violation of probation charge and was sentenced to 45 days in jail. She could have gotten 90 days. She claimed, and her assistant also claimed, that both thought the suspension was for 30 days only and that she hadn't driven during the thirty days. But wait...she was stopped on January 15th. I don't have the date she was originally in court, but it was sometime in January. The first day she could have appeared in court in January would have been January 2nd, only 13 days prior to that traffic stop. That's not 30 days.

Then she's stopped again on February 27th. Okay...from January 15th to February 27th is more than 30 days. Maybe that's the 30 days she though the license was suspended? Nah...even Pari Hilton couldn't believe that.

Oh, remember the probation condition of entering an alcohol education program by February 15th? Hadn't bothered to do it by April 17th.

Sorry, Paris, you violated the law three times - at least (who believes that she only drove twice between January 15th and February 27th?). Caught driving twice and failing to sign up for the alcohol education program. Now you must pay the price. We live in a society of rules for a reason. If everyone were to choose to ignore the law or choose what laws we will obey, what do we have?

Whether they like it or not, those in the public eye, whether a Hollywood celebrity, a sports superstar, or a Washington powerbroker, are role models for our youth. They have the ability and power to influence the young, and the not-so-young. If they are going to set an example, they also have to show that there consequences for their decisions, and that they are willing to pay the consequences.

Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.
- Thomas Jefferson

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."

Every one of the above statements are true. Some, I believe more than others. I believe that all Americans have the right to bear arms. It's guaranteed by the Constitution (an interesting read. Try it sometime).

I said that I believe that all Americans have the right to bear arms, but I don't believe that all Americans should bear arms. I believe that only those among us who demonstrate the knowledge and ability to handle guns should bear them. That means that anyone who wants to own a gun should know how it works and what it does when it's used.

I've written that when my father-in-law re-married a few years ago, his new bride preferred not to have guns in the house. He then gave several hand guns, rifles, and a shotgun to my husband. I wasn't too thrilled to have them in our house, but since my husband was familiar with handling weapons, I didn't object. I planned to take gun safety courses and to get a concealed weapons permit. Well, we never got around to doing this when my husband suddenly passed away. My interest in the weapons, limited at best, was now a thing of the past. So, when my father-in-law asked if he could have the guns back, now that they had moved to the country, I was more than willing to return them.

, just because I don't want them around me, doesn't mean that no one should have guns. As I said, those with the knowledge, ability, and desire should have them if they want. II just think that anyone who is going to handle one should know what they are doing and be able to demonstrate that ability. I have to demonstrate my ability to handle another potentially deadly device - a car - before being able to legally drive it. Why shouldn't I have to demonstrate that I can handle a gun before being legally allowed to own one?

Do I have any solutions to taking guns away from those who "shouldn't" have them? No, I can't say that I do. I don't believe in taking guns away from anyone - I just think they should be legally owned by people who know how to use them. It's part of the American culture to own and bear arms, and it's guaranteed by our Constitution.

I don't have guns at the moment, but that doesn't mean I won't see a reason to have them in the future. Especially if I can prove that I am capable of doing so safely. And I don't want anyone to tell me I can't.

It's my right under the Constitution and I refuse to allow anyone to take away that right.
$65 Million for a Pair of Pants?

Wow....that's some pair of pants. Are they made of some rare material? Maybe they have gold, diamonds and other percious gems sewn on them? Maybe all of the above and worn by some famous person of history?

No, these pants are part of a suit owned by a Washington judge who dropped them off at a neighborhood cleaners for alteration. The pants somehow got separated and lost. I think the judge's mind must have been in the pants because I think he lost that, too. He's now suing the cleaners for $65,000,000. Yes, that's 65 MILLION DOLLARS.

We've all heard about suits filed by inmates because they were given creamy peanut butter instead of chunky (or was it the other way around?) and by people who were burned by coffee they didn't know would be hot and for lots of other reasons. And here we have a cleaners that lost something? How very unusual. That's never happened before in the annals of cleaners history.

I have no quarrell with this judge filing a lawsuit. He wasn't happy that his pants were lost in the first place and wasn't happy with the offers he got to satisfy him. Personally, I would have been happy to get the pants back, not to mention the monetary offers ($3,000, $4,000 and then $12,000 for pants from a suit worth $1000). But no, this judge thinks he deserves more.

Part of the lawsuit claims the rental of a car every weekend for 10 years to go to another cleaner. He thinks he's somehow entitled to a cleaner within blocks of his home, I guess. Would he have sued if this cleaner had closed down a year before this happened?

Now, to give him some quater in this suit, he claims he's filing under the consumer protection laws that fines violators $1,500 per violation, per day. Under his interpretation of the law, he's claiming 12 violations per day over 1200 days by three defendants. I'm not gonna do the math. Oh, who's kidding who? Of course I am, just cause I want to know. But wait! that comes up to $64,800,000. Maybe the other $200,000 is for the car rental? No, that's only $15,000. I guess he wants $185,000 for pain and suffering.

The lost pants? They were found about a week later. The judge says they aren't his. These pants are gray and his were blue and red pinstripes. The inseam matches his measurements, but more importantly, the ticket on the pants match his receipt.

This is a man who is up for a ten-year renewal to his administrative hearings position. Maybe there's a reason he thinks he won't be renewed and wants to insure his retirement. In my opinion, this is a clear cut case of abuse of the judicial system and the man should be ashamed of himself. Particularly because he is a judge and should be above this kind of action. As far as I'm concerned, his appointment should not be renewed, he should be laughed out of court and he should have to pay all costs of the filings.

Your Honor, you should be held in contempt of court for abuse of the legal system.