The status of Paris Hilton, Presidential Candidates, and Separation of Church and State
As of June 10, 2007. Paris deserves the identical treatment as any other criminal who committed the same crimes in California. I am not sure if the judge gave her a harsh sentence or not. It seems she broke the law and spit in the face of the system several times before ever getting jail time. However, given the prison overcrowding in that state and consistently lenient sentencing, it seems that few nonviolent criminals get more than a day or two in jail. I am sure, however, that she did get special treatment when she was released for a vague medical condition, against the judges orders and totally outside of the normal protocol in similar situations. Once she was released due to whatever trickery her team concocted with the sheriff, it was absolutely unfair to send her back, just as she has cried out in court. Fire the jailer but don’t emotionally torture the young lady, especially given the sheriff’s department just made a huge deal about her emotional weakness when releasing her.
If I was to guess I would say if Paris lived in the real world she would probably be pretty nice and harmless. Her cohort Nicole however seems like an anorexic drug addict most of the time, with serious emotional issues, possibly inflamed by her inability to compete with Paris. Note to Nicole: get over it, practically nobody in the world can compete with Paris’ fame, beauty, and wealth at the same time.
As of today she told the press she is no longer breaking down and will serve her time without appeal. I am hoping she will be out of jail before 45 days given how poorly she has been treated at this stage. I also think it is important to stress that jail is no laughing matter, even for 45 days. People could easily be physically, emotionally or socially harmed in jail from day one. However, I think that Paris will be segmented from the population and get better treatment and protection so it is less risky for her. Overall I think she may have deserved some jail time but it bothers me to see people gloating about it as if jail is no big deal for a young lady, or anyone else.
The presidential candidates had debates this week and have been talking their heads off on TV in general, leaving me with some impressions.
First of all I think almost all of them are smart and well spoken, and even well intentioned, especially some of those with no chance of winning. However, I think there is no reason to discuss ones that have no chance so I will focus on the announced candidates with the greatest chances of success: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, McCain, Giuliani, and Romney for the time being.
While I enjoy each of them in some respects I dislike all of them in many respects too. For me the most important qualities are trustworthiness, political and military leadership potential, the ability to serve the economy, and theit interest in serving the poor and sick.
For the Dems I only trust Obama from what little I know about him, but I think Hillary would be the best leader and has a real affinity for the common man. Also I think Hillary has the best chance of winning so far. I respect Edwards for his lifelong commitment to fight poverty but I really just don’t like him. Aside from being annoying I will have to just go with a gut feeling on him.
Overall Obama is too green so I will have to vote for Hillary as the leader of the Dems for now eventhough I really don’t trust her overall or have any particular affinity for her given her populist flip flopping and consistent patronage to special interest groups.
For the GOP I feel similar about Giuliani as I do about Edwards, just don’t like him, a gut feeling. However I bet he would kick the asses of the terrorists, so that I am fond of.
Romney says some really strange stuff and flip flops plenty himself. I don’t trust him but he will get the terrorists good, and he would perhaps be a great leader due to his apparent business acumen. Also I heard he got healthcare for all Massachusetts residents, not bad for a Republican.
McCain, don’t trust him, but he will kick the crap out of the terrorists I hope. He has been around the block enough to have plenty of special interest skeletons and flipflopping. Overall Romney is fresher than McCain, a better businessman, and equally likely to get the terrorists and be a real leader. And if he could solve the
US healthcare crisis that would be huge. Again I don’t like him though overall. And I don’t like the slate of candidates overall as you can tell.
Who else can enter that would have a chance and what would I think of them? Newt Gingrich would be the smartest of all candidates and as tough on terror as any, and likely a decent leader and businessman. But this guy has lots of skeletons and there is something scary about him, so I think I might still prefer Romney but stay tuned.Fred Thompson? No thanks. We don’t need another actor in office, and he seems physically weak and unlikely to win in any event.
For the Dems offhand the only unannounced person who could win the primary may be Gore. Clearly he is a leader in the environmental movement and that is laudable. However speaking of a gut feeling of someone I don’t trust, or like their personality, he takes the cake, so now way. John Kerry, ditto on that.
So I am still left with Hillary for my favored and the likely winner for the Dems and Romney for my favorite for the GOP (although I think McCain is more likely to win). Now to choose between my top picks. Hmm. Not easy since I don’t like either of them. I guess I will pick Romney as the best potential business and war leader, and because he adamantly promised to clean up Washington. Romney has done good on healthcare legislation while Hillary has failed at the same on the national level. Hillary is the epitome of Washington in many ways, she is old news, so let’s bring in an outsider and see if they will actually do what they promise. Romney is top pick to date.
BTW, in case it hasn’t occurred to you I am neither a Democrat or Republican. I think both parties have consistently abrogated their constitutional mandates to serve common Americans in favor of their self interests and those of the special interest groups with which they are aligned. Read an old blog of mine further below for my diatribe on the reasons to support a viable third party.
Separation of church and state is a well respected and critical American tradition. However it is almost impossible to apply consistently and completely.
Why do we debate whether one can swear on a Koran versus swearing on a bible. Would you trust a witness more if they swore on a bible even if it is not the book of their religion? I would trust someone more if they swore on their own chosen book.
Does it even matter since the church doesn’t belong in the court in the first place theoretically, eventhough it makes sense due to our traditions? Also why not just make people swear on the lives or memories of their mothers. I think that would work better if the state is in the business of forcing people to swear to something in order to get them to tell the truth.
The point is that separation is not absolute, we have to balance it with tradition and the wishes of the stakeholders in the system, and to draw lines in certain places, eventhough they will offend some groups against the majority.
If separation of church and state were absolute we’d also have to remove the word “God” from our currencies, and take the pledge of allegiance out of public institutions, more things antithetical to the wishes of average Americans and their traditions.
Worried about separation of church and state? Get over it because there is no easy solution and it is not nearly the most important issue of the day.
See you next month.