Patterico's Pontifications

6/10/2007

Idiotic Comment of the Week

Filed under: Buffoons,Crime,General — Patterico @ 10:41 am

Are we shocked to learn that it came from Andrew Sullivan? It’s about — of course — Paris Hilton:

[F]ar from undermining democracy, this little story about this pathetic, pampered wretch can only restore a little faith in the criminal justice system. It’s almost enough to make up for O.J.

Right, Andrew. Some overhyped socialite going to jail on a probation violation is almost enough to make up for O.J. Simpson getting away with killing two people.

Add Andrew Sullivan to the long list of people who have completely lost any sense of perspective over this nonsense.

42 Comments

  1. 1. Andrew Sullivan is not talking about the seriousness of the crimes, he’s talking about the rich being treated differently within the criminal justice system — and he’s using this as an example where they don’t get off scot free because of their wealth
    2. That’s all he’s talking about — he never said what the two people did is in any way comparable
    3. He was being sarcastic… he knows they aren’t comparable

    Patterico, what you don’t understand at all, is most people who care deeply about the Paris Hilton story do so because they are relieved that, unlike the norm, Paris Hilton is not receiving light treatment because of her highly paid lawyers. You have a tough judge and prosecutor standing up to them.

    That is what Andrew Sullivan was commenting on: The thing which is on most people’s, but apparently not your, mind in this matter.

    Comment by Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/10/2007 @ 11:05 am

  2. He said it almost makes up for O.J. That is a ludicrous statement any way you slice it.

    Comment by Patterico (eeb415) — 6/10/2007 @ 11:09 am

  3. And we certainly was not being sarcastic. Read his post. He was beside himself with delight over her going to jail.

    Comment by Patterico (eeb415) — 6/10/2007 @ 11:10 am

  4. Sulli will do or write anything to get linked or talked about. He’s a bigger whore than Paris.

    btw, he *murdered* two people.
    I think that’s how the sentence should read….

    Comment by _Jon (0ed3c1) — 6/10/2007 @ 11:13 am

  5. If you dont want to do the time then dont do the crime

    Comment by krazy kagu (376605) — 6/10/2007 @ 11:16 am

  6. Since, we’re sharing what would restore our faith in justice, I would like to see Andrew Sullivan kidnapped and held hostage by AQ. Then he could learn what torture really is about.

    Comment by sam (8c66ab) — 6/10/2007 @ 11:19 am

  7. “He said it almost makes up for O.J. That is a ludicrous statement any way you slice it.”

    It would be totally ludicrous to say any crime makes up for any other bad action. That would be the “two wrongs cancel each other out and make a right theory”.

    That’s not what I said.

    What I said is Sullivan, who I don’t even know anything about, was clearly OBVIOUSLY talking about how, from a public confidence in the judiciary and criminal justice system standpoint, it is helpful to see a rich celebrity is not allowed to receive special treatment — even in the face of those possibly bought off to give her special treatment.

    How do I know he was talking about the treatment the defendents are receiving by the criminal justice system, not the vast chasm in moral culpability between the crimes they committed?

    Well, he said so…

    “[F]ar from undermining democracy, this little story about this pathetic, pampered wretch can only restore a little faith in the criminal justice system.”

    This is also the motive of the judge and the prosecutor, I believe, in ensuring his sentencing order was carried out.

    And I salute him for it. Why you don’t is a mystery to me.

    I, and most everyone else, agrees O.J. got away with murder and this is terrible. The two crimes are not synonymous — despite the 18,000 people who die in the United States every year due to drinking and driving: 5 times the U.S. military death rate in Iraq to date.

    No, the underlying crimes aren’t synonymous because of the great moral gulf between being stupid and selfish and between cunning and wilfully snuffing the life out from two people because of your own inadequacies.

    But Sullivan isn’t talking about that, now is he?

    Comment by Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/10/2007 @ 11:24 am

  8. He’s the one who brought up O.J.

    Comment by Patterico (eeb415) — 6/10/2007 @ 11:48 am

  9. sam, please don’t make comments like that here.

    Comment by Patterico (eeb415) — 6/10/2007 @ 12:01 pm

  10. He did. Because they both impacted the public’s confidence in how the criminal justice system is applied differently to people of fame and wealth.

    One in a very negative way (O.J.) and another in a more positive way (Hilton).

    The only context Andrew Sullivan was addressing is the disparity people of priviledge get treated vs. the average fellow.

    And you’ll see he used qualifiers like “a little” and “almost” in the post you critiqued because even just within that context, it doesn’t completely make up for it. The only thing that would make up for it is justice for all — a founding principle of the United States constitution.

    I understand you’re emotional about the O.J. travesty and I agree with you there. But that isn’t to say a person can’t talk about the impact the O.J. case had on the public’s confidence in the legal system and compare it to another case.

    As a prosecutor, you are focussing on the evilness of the defendents. So be it. I never called Paris Hilton evil and I certainly wouldn’t hesitate in using that term to describe O.J.

    Others of us, members of the public often at risk from overzealous prosecutors, less than brilliant judges, and unable to afford more than mediocre overworked lawyers consider the discrepancy between how poor and rich are treated an important issue in general.

    Can’t you see that?

    Comment by Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/10/2007 @ 12:05 pm

  11. In all fairness, I’d be crying like a spoiled socialite if I had to go to jail for 45 days…

    Comment by Kevin (1c20c1) — 6/10/2007 @ 12:12 pm

  12. Paris Hilton’s case doesn’t make me more confident in the American judicial system. The system barely managed to punish Hilton once for multiple DUI offenses, and it practically had to move heaven and earth to do that. The whole system would shut down if every case were this difficult.

    The only part of this that made me feel good was Hilton’s last written communication in which she acknowledged her guilt and accepted punishment. That makes me feel good for her – not the system – although I think the Judge and her attorneys deserve some credit for making her finally accept reality.

    Comment by DRJ (2d5e62) — 6/10/2007 @ 12:17 pm

  13. … and the prosecutors get credit for hanging in there on this case, too.

    Comment by DRJ (2d5e62) — 6/10/2007 @ 12:18 pm

  14. Hear hear, DRJ.

    Comment by Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/10/2007 @ 12:21 pm

  15. It’s amazing how bright and chipper she was before she went in, and then after she got sprung by that crook Baca.

    She had a lil party planned…

    I’d imagine the realization that her money and fame wasn’t buying her a free ride was indeed a horrible shock for her.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 6/10/2007 @ 12:45 pm

  16. I rejected Nietzsche’s philosophy almost as soon as I read it, but after seeing the vitriol against Paris Hilton I wonder whether he may have been right in this aspect.

    Comment by nk (c66fe9) — 6/10/2007 @ 12:48 pm

  17. nk, What was your point in this?

    Just because?

    Comment by Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/10/2007 @ 1:08 pm

  18. Sorry, bad link. What was your point in this?

    It felt good or something?

    Comment by Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/10/2007 @ 1:09 pm

  19. heh…

    I loved that.

    Giving the finger to “the Man” always feels good.

    Well, right up until The Man breaks it off, but that’s neither here nor there…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 6/10/2007 @ 1:11 pm

  20. Good God, nk, you mean it actually gets worse for you? You wrote a post entitled:

    “We Got Gun Control When We Needed Nigger Control”

    And you are lecturing others on their displacement of anger or something?

    You’re rising up in defense of the, through no fault of her own, very white Miss Paris Hilton?

    Perhaps there is a reason — a dark disgusting reason — for your views.

    Comment by Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/10/2007 @ 1:17 pm

  21. Possibly this?

    Comment by nk (c66fe9) — 6/10/2007 @ 1:21 pm

  22. nk, and then there’s this.

    It’s not even funny.

    You’re a racist bigot. I know it must pain you to see your blonde idol in jail, but them’s the breaks.

    Comment by Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/10/2007 @ 1:23 pm

  23. I too am perplexed by the post about gun control. Why use that word?

    Comment by Patterico (eeb415) — 6/10/2007 @ 1:26 pm

  24. Patterico #23,

    I’ll e-mail you.

    Comment by nk (c66fe9) — 6/10/2007 @ 1:34 pm

  25. OK.

    Comment by Patterico (eeb415) — 6/10/2007 @ 1:35 pm

  26. So, nk, you announce to the world it’s “nigger” control which is needed to reduce crime, but you’ll only email one person whose respect you wish to maintain because you like commenting on his blog your reasons for using this word in two recent blog posts?

    That’s fine; I hope you two hash it out.

    I’m still calling you a racist

    Comment by Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/10/2007 @ 1:38 pm

  27. Patterico can publish my email if he wishes in these comments or anywhere else. But you are absolutely right about whose respect I wish to maintain.

    Comment by nk (c66fe9) — 6/10/2007 @ 1:45 pm

  28. “But you are absolutely right about whose respect I wish to maintain.”

    Absolutely. After all, I could be black.

    Comment by Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/10/2007 @ 1:48 pm

  29. After all, I could be black.

    No, you’re the guy in the white sheet who lynches a black man because his wife wears a nicer dress than yours. Which is what I said in the first place (my comment #16) that got you so all-fired angry at me.

    Comment by nk (c66fe9) — 6/10/2007 @ 1:55 pm

  30. I’m not angry at you. I’m disgusted by you.

    Comment by Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/10/2007 @ 1:57 pm

  31. “Patterico can publish my email if he wishes in these comments or anywhere else.”

    Since you said it’s OK to repeat it — nk e-mailed:

    I thought I was being snarky and provocative. I can’t remember what exactly
    triggered it in the news or on the blogs but it had to do with the Virginia Tech shootings. Once I posted it felt I had to leave it up and live with it.

    I understand feeling the need to live with what you’ve written, but I’d apologize. In my opinion, it doesn’t come across as you apparently intended.

    Comment by Patterico (eeb415) — 6/10/2007 @ 1:58 pm

  32. I understand feeling the need to live with what you’ve written, but I’d apologize.

    After twenty-five years of having my stomach turn by my clients’ expressions of remorse one minute before the judge passes sentence? I’m sorry, Patterico, I can’t do that.

    Comment by nk (c66fe9) — 6/10/2007 @ 2:09 pm

  33. nk, your logic is difficult to comprehend. We have to control “niggers” to reduce students from Korea here on visas from committing murders?

    The problem is that you really do appear to be racist. This isn’t something you have to live with forever. Why don’t you apologize and work on your problems?

    Certainly, if you didn’t mean to be racist, you could have said “criminal control” is required, rather than “gun control”. A valid point.

    But to use the term “nigger control” IS racist. Highly so.

    To use the term “nigger” when commenting on a Korean citizen who committs a crime is further evidence of deep seated prejudice and racism.

    Solve it. Everyone I know has been touched by prejudice at one time or another, sometimes in our minds. Acknowledge it, hash it out, and fix it.

    “After twenty-five years of having my stomach turn by my clients’ expressions of remorse one minute before the judge passes sentence? I’m sorry, Patterico, I can’t do that.”

    I feel sorry for any “nigger” you have as your client one minute before the judge passes sentence on them after you represented them.

    If they knew your views, you’d have few clients, as well you should have.

    You are a disgrace to the bar.

    Comment by Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/10/2007 @ 2:13 pm

  34. Well, I’ve said what I have to say about it. I suggest we drop it at this point.

    Comment by Patterico (eeb415) — 6/10/2007 @ 2:28 pm

  35. Christoph, you didn’t read the post of NK’s critically, did you?

    The gun control act was in response to a militant black group that was shooting people.

    Instead of going after the actual problem (the ones doing the shooting), congress went after the tools used, which in theory would have worked but for two things:

    1 – It restricted people who had commited no crime in their attempts to purchase and own a firearm

    2 – if you’re shooting at people, you probably don’t care about whether or not it’s illegal to get the gun you want to use.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 6/10/2007 @ 2:31 pm

  36. I read both of nk’s posts, Scott; they were very short.

    It was nk himself who said here he used the term somehow in response to the Virginia Tech shootings.

    Also, his own disdain for his clients is troubling. Criminals, I despise, but I never think, or if I do think, I stop myself, from calling them racist terms.

    1 – I support gun ownership and use of guns in defense against hostile aggression
    2 – agreed again

    I believe nk has deep seated racism and it manifests itself in his harsh rhetoric and defense of Paris Hilton among other things.

    As Patterico said, there really isn’t much more to say on this point. I’ve said my piece.

    Comment by Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/10/2007 @ 2:42 pm

  37. If I didn’t know nk as I do, given his longtime status as a commenter, I might feel differently, but I think you’re quite wrong about this, Christoph. As just one example I point to his consistent defense of Kathryn Johnston.

    If he has a bias, it’s one in favor of criminal defendants. But it’s a reasonable bias.

    Comment by Patterico (eeb415) — 6/10/2007 @ 2:52 pm

  38. Well, then, his communication skills are severely lacking.

    Since as a lawyer these are important, I hope he will take some of your advice, apologize for his very poor choice of words, and improve them. Since, if he was not posting anonymously, “nigger control” articles would be ruinous to his career.

    Comment by Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/10/2007 @ 2:54 pm

  39. I’m desperately fighting the urge to make a snapper joke.

    flipflop on June 10, 2007 at 6:55 PM

    You lost.

    Comment by Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/10/2007 @ 3:00 pm

  40. Ah, darn… totally posted in the wrong place. Sorry. Nothing to do with this website at all. Should have been at Hot Air here.

    It was in response to the news that a fellow inmate of Paris Hilton’s snapped some photos of her with a camera hidden in the inmate’s hoo-hah.

    Serious news? Nope. But, in my book, hoo-hah’s have there own special charm.

    Comment by Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/10/2007 @ 3:02 pm

  41. I recall reading that gun control laws originated as part of Mr. James Crow’s legislative acts. (And refer to Dr. Rice’s remarks on the Second Amendment at the time she became Sec’y of State.) So NK’s post has a resonance he may not be aware of.

    The gay joke, OTOH, I did not find to be anti-gay, and I did find it to be funny. (But not as funny as Schrodinger’s LOLcat (for those who have not seen it: In yoar box, maybe!)

    Comment by kishnevi (d50358) — 6/10/2007 @ 8:24 pm

  42. Has Andrew Sullivan ever consitered how TED KENNEDY got away with the murder of MARY JO KOPECNY or is he too much a fool?

    Comment by krazy kagu (d982eb) — 6/12/2007 @ 7:26 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3031 secs.