Thursday, June 07, 2007


[Posted by reader_iam]

I don't disagree with much of--in fact, I agree with most of--the Moderate Voice's Shaun Mullen's post on Paris Hilton's pathetic early release, but what's with the "harlot" epithet? And why the need to refer to Fred Thompson, especially in light of other recent flapdoodles? (I'd appreciate a link, if the rumor to which Mullen refers really has been circulating; I've been spending just a fraction of the time I used to on non-work-related internet surfing.)

Seems a little hinky, to me. And in the case of "harlot"--well, that speaks for itself. If Paris had been a guy, would that word have sprung to mind? Or been used?

My exasperation is directed more to the decision-makers who permitted Hilton's release after just five (according to some counting system which, apparently, expands what the rest of us would call three-ish) days. If she was in that bad of shape, why not just permit her family to send in (and pay for) a psychiatrist three times a day for support? Yeah, yeah, yeah...I know there are practical and other issues with that.

Not the point, however.

Wow. My world is going off its axis, if I'm actually posting things which could be interpreted as supporting Paris Hilton or, for that matter, Fred Thompson (the latter simply because I'm so far away from making up my mind about the majority of presidential candidates, and certainly not inclined to be pro or con with regard to any of them at this stage).

Labels: , , ,