We'll Always Have Paris

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 8, 2007 7:52 AM

OMG Paris Hilton got out of jail early, like, how did that happen and who does she think she is and how can being confined to a totally rad Hollywood mansion really be, um, punishment?

Fer shure, she gets away with everything. The Internet sex tape thing. The wearing-no-underwear thing. The stupid driving-with-a-suspended-license thing. Now she gets out of the slammer in three days for some teensy weensy medical problem? Like, a crying jag? Her face broke out or something? I mean, really!

Television is just going bonkers over this famous-for-being-famous party girl. Charlie Gibson! Katie Couric! Every cable show on the planet! Lawyers shouting at each other: Miscarriage of justice! No, she was persecuted for being a celebrity! You idiot, she's being coddled!

Forget immigration, Iraq and -- what's that guy's name? -- Libby. We can all have a national meltdown now over Paris! Maybe Bush should pardon her so she doesn't have to keep wearing that designer ankle bracelet for the next 40 days. I wonder if Britney and Linsday can come over to her new "cell"--is Lindsay out of rehab? I'd better find my copy of Us--and they can pretend they're hitting the clubs. Paris, what are we going to do with you? Heyyyy. . . this would make a great reality show.

"Despondent jailbird Paris Hilton, teetering on the brink of a nervous breakdown, was plucked from her cell yesterday after serving just three days behind bars, and returned to her personal lap of luxury, outraging prosecutors who vowed to lock her up again," says the New York Post under the headline "BLONDE JUSTICE."

"Just one day after being sprung from jail early, airhead heiress Paris Hilton may be headed back to her cold hard cell," says the New York Daily News.

"It's Sprung Time for Paris," says the L.A. Times: "Sheriff Lee Baca's decision to let Paris Hilton out of jail after she served only three days of a planned 23-day stay sparked outrage Thursday, prompting an emergency court hearing today that could send the hotel heiress back behind bars."

I say, impeach him!

HuffPoster Marty Kaplan underscores the absurdity of the Hilton-heavy climate:

"Within 24 hours, no primate on the planet will be unaware of Paris Hilton's transfer from the pokie to the ankle bracelet, but it is a safe bet that within weeks or even months, relatively few Americans will know the big news going down now in Iraq.

"That's because journalism is distributed in two flavors: push and pull.

"Push-news is what media gatekeepers dangle to grab our lizard-brain attention. It's most apparent in the stories that dominate local television news, which an astonishing 70 percent of Americans say is their primary source of information: crime, celebrity, fires, freak accidents, cats behind drywall, and cross-promotion of network entertainment. This diet of fear, freakshows and touching human interest stories now also drives cable news programming, which has largely become the national version of local news, with bile-spitting national pundits filling in for happy-talking local anchors.

"Pull-news is what people seek out. If you read a national newspaper or small-circulation magazines; if you've found non-MSM radio and television programming that values importance over sensation; if you seek out online news aggregators whose priorities you find nutritious; if you bookmark blogs whose hyperlinks take you off the beaten path -- if you've become your own meta-editor and meta-publisher, then you're among the minority who have filled the responsibility-vacuum abdicated by push-news.

"This week, the Iraqi parliament 'passed a binding resolution that will guarantee lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the U.N. mandate under which coalition troops now remain in Iraq when it comes up for renewal in December.' But if you didn't read that in an exclusive alternet.org story by Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland, or if you didn't get an email from a friend (as I did) saying, Didja see this?, you might not know that a majority of Iraqi lawmakers has now fashioned a two-by-four to thump President Bush on the head and end our occupation. But no doubt you would know about the girl locked in a tiny room in Connecticut."

The Iraq vote does kinda sorta seem like news, doesn't it?

In non-Paris news, Time's Joe Klein has had it with liberal bloggers, and uses his column to vent:

"A strange thing happened to me the day the House of Representatives voted to pass the Iraq-war-funding bill. Congresswoman Jane Harman of California called as the debate was taking place. 'Look, I would love to have cast a vote against Bush on this,' she told me. 'We need a new strategy, and I hope we can force one in September. But I flew into Baghdad [with 150 young soldiers recently]. To vote against this bill was to vote against giving them the equipment . . . they need. I couldn't do that.' I posted what Harman said on Swampland, the political blog at Time.com, along with my opinion that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had changed their positions and voted against the funding for the worst possible reason: presidential politics.

"And then Harman changed her position. After we spoke, she voted against the funding. The next day, I was blasted by a number of left-wing bloggers: Klein screwed up! I had quoted Harman in the past tense--common usage for politicians who know their words will appear after a vote takes place. That was sloppy and . . . suspicious! Proof that you just can't trust the mainstream media. On Eschaton, a blog that specializes in media bashing, I was given the coveted 'Wanker of the Day' award. Eventually, Harman got wind of this and called, unbidden, to apologize for misleading me, saying I had quoted her correctly but she had changed her mind to reflect the sentiments of her constituents. I published her statement and still got hammered by bloggers and Swampland commenters for 'stalking' Harman into an apology, for not checking her vote in the Congressional Record, for being a 'water boy for the right wing' and many other riffs unfit to print.

"This is not the first time this kind of free-range lunacy has been visited upon me . . .

"The smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed--especially people like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable."

As you might have guessed, some liberal bloggers are not pleased. Here's Shakesville:

"Do I hear the lush arpeggio of the crying violins? Are those the dulcet tones of the waahmbulance? Could it be that Joe Klein got his feelings hurt by the meanie leftie bloggers?

"He's kidding, right? "Fury begets fury"? He's never read Little Green Footballs, Free Republic, or Michelle Malkin, and Ann Coulter is just a little over expressive, huh? Has he read the accusations of treason that come tumbling out whenever someone dares to contradict their Dear Leader? Those nutballs play for keeps, Joe. We may be snarky, but they're dangerous. Given the experiences of a number of leftie bloggers who have been stalked, verbally attacked, threatened with physical harm, had their personal information posted on the web, had their livelihood put in jeopardy and, in one case I'm intimately familiar with, forced off a server because of a DNS storm; being called a wanker by Atrios doesn't really cut it as far as being furious is concerned -- unless, of course, you really are a wanker."

Kagro X at Kos says Klein is being introduced to reality:

"Do I disagree that sometimes the smart stuff is drowned out? No. Do I disagree that the tone can sometimes be fierce, bullying, or often witless? Mmmm, no. How about that often, anyone who doesn't move in lockstep is savaged and ridiculed? Hmm, no, not with that, either.

"My difference with Klein here is this: blogging hasn't changed things here. Some portion of your readership always thought these horrible things about you (though admittedly, there are probably plenty of people who have recently come to that). All blogs have done is allowed them to say it, and for you to hear it."

Why do the media fact-check some things and blow off others? Such as one of Mitt Romney's answers at the New Hampshire debate? Brian Beutler ("Languishing in Obscurity Since 2007") cites Romney saying that if Saddam "had complied with the United Nations resolutions to allow IAEA inspectors into his country, we wouldn't be having this conversation." But Saddam did let the inspectors back in before the war.

"This is interesting for two reasons: It's evidence that--at the very least--Romney has been bandying about this malapropism for weeks and nobody on his staff either realizes he's wrong or dares correct him. It's also evidence that he didn't just screw up his Iraq history at the debates on Tuesday, but rather that he's in a constant state of either denial, ignorance, or deception.

Most reporters will now be spared the glories of Ames, Iowa in August, and, like me, Dick Polman thinks that's just dandy:

"Rudy Giuliani has performed a valuable public service. He declared that he will skip the Iowa Straw Poll, a Republican summer ritual that has long deserved to be exposed for what it really is -- a con job. Iowa Republicans have been staging this event since 1979, and for some inexplicable reason it has become a fixture on the political calendar, even though it is little more than a fund-raising hustle for the state GOP, and even though the presidential candidates who have scored well in the straw poll generally don't wind up in the White House unless they have a visitor's pass.

"But Giuliani isn't skipping out because he thinks the August event is phony. It's strictly a political decision. He knows that rival Mitt Romney is making a serious financial and organizational bid to 'win' the non-binding skirmish, and that his own standing in Iowa is weak, in part because the conservatives who dominate the GOP caucuses might be wary of his liberal views on social issues. He figures that it'd be smart to just de-emphasize Iowa and focus on the big states that are voting early next year (Florida, New York, California). And that means skipping the straw poll -- a ballyhooed prelude to the winter Iowa caucuses -- and thus pre-spinning a Romney 'victory' as meaningless. (John McCain decided that he would skip the straw poll, as well.) . . .

"By tradition, the winner is the candidate who can most effectively buy the most votes. That is literally how it works. Any Iowan who wants to show up and participate must first pay a $30 fee to the Iowa GOP, but that never happens -- because the candidates always vie to pick up the tabs. The candidates also provide free bus service to the event, held in the town of Ames. The candidates also spend up to $3 million apiece to ply their 'voters' with food and drink and all manner of apolitical allure -- swing dancers, skeet shooters, barbecuers, celebrity crooners, you name it . . .

"What I remember best about '99 was that the Iowans were very happy with self-funding candidate Steve Forbes, because Forbes had installed air conditioning inside his hospitality tent. He was the only candidate who had AC. He also bankrolled the equivalent of a small amusement park for the kiddies. Sure enough, he finished a strong second in the straw poll -- a fact that ultimately meant nothing, because he was virtually gone from the race once the real voting began six months later. In the competition to become the chief alternative to candidate George W. Bush, Forbes was quickly eclipsed that winter by John McCain . . . who didn't bother to show up at the '99 straw poll, dismissing it as a 'sham' and a financial arms race."

McCain skipped the Iowa caucuses too, which he can't get away with this time around.

The pardon debate is in full swing, and conservatives who howled about Bill Clinton lying to a grand jury have a very different view of the Libby case.

"I feel terrible for Scooter Libby's family," says Bill Kristol. "Millions of Americans feel terrible for Scooter Libby's family. But we can't do anything about the injustice that has been done. Nor can we do anything to avert a further injustice looming on the horizon--Judge Reggie Walton seems inclined not to let Libby remain free pending appeal.

"Unlike the rest of us, however, George W. Bush is president. Article II, Section Two of the Constitution gives him the pardon power. George W. Bush can do something to begin to make up for the injustice a prosecutor appointed by his own administration brought down on Scooter Libby. And he can do something to avert the further injustice of a prison term.

"Will Bush pardon Libby? Apparently not--even if it means a man who worked closely with him and sought tirelessly to do what was right for the country goes to prison . . .

"So much for loyalty, or decency, or courage. For President Bush, loyalty is apparently a one-way street; decency is something he's for as long as he doesn't have to take to take any risks in its behalf, and courage--well, that's nowhere to be seen. Many of us used to respect President Bush. Can one respect him still?"

Loyalty? Injustice? What about lying to a grand jury?

Another conservative, Captain Ed, is less sympathetic:

"I cannot just disregard a jury's conviction and claim no crime occurred. They found Libby guilty on four of five counts of perjury and obstruction of justice -- crimes that go to the heart of our justice system. Whether or not the investigation in question resulted in an indictment on the original charges, we cannot allow people to lie and obstruct justice, even when they believe they act with the best intentions. Keeping the conviction and the fine while commuting the prison sentence would be a good middle ground to acknowledging the adventuresome nature of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation, and it also allows Libby to continue to pursue his appeals on the conviction."

Sure, sure, but what about Paris?