Poor Little Paris

Did you know that Paris Hilton has (allegedly) suffered "one of the single most egregious and reprehensible invasions of privacy ever committed against an individual"? Or at least that's what her lawyers are claiming in a new lawsuit Ms. Hilton has filed in federal court in California.

Turns out, according to the complaint, Ms. Hilton had a moving company rent a storage unit for her. To "avoid garnering attention," the unit was put in the name of the moving company. The set-up allegedly looked like this: Paris would pay the moving company & the moving company would pay the storage company. Ms. Hilton claims she her accountants paid the moving company but the moving company never paid the storage company. She also alleges that the storage company sent delinquency notices to the moving company which were ignored.

After not receiving rental payments for several months, the storage company, not surprisingly, foreclosed on the unit and sold the Hilton collectibles (including, allegedly, some sensitive personal documents such as medical, legal and financial records and, get this, her "passports") at auction. The buyer at the auction, like any bright entrepreneur, then put everything on a website that you & I can check out for a mere $39.95 one-time fee. OR -- (since Paris doesn't really seem to know what happened) the buyer at the auction sold everything to a third-party who created the website.

Whatever. The gist is Paris Hilton had a storage unit. The storage company didn't get paid and auctioned off all her shit. Someone bought the contents of the storage unit at auction and either set up a website or sold the shit to someone else who set up a website. Now Paris wants her shit back. Oh, and Paris was supposedly "temporarily out of the country" when everything was put into storage, according to the complaint.

The buyer refused Mr. Hilton's offer to re-purchase the items from the auction and now she is suing under several theories, including copyright infringement. Get this -- 6 days ago, Mr. Hilton registered three "literary works" with the US Copyright Office. Today, she is suing for copyright infringement of those works. I'm no expert, but that seems a little fishy to me.

Anyway -- here are just some of my questions about all of this:
1. Assuming this is an invasion of privacy (which I will not concede), why is it "egregious and reprehensible"? It's not as if someone broke into her house and stole her shit while she was sleeping or mugged her at gun point and stole her purse. Was it "egregious and reprehensible" when Whitney's shit got sold earlier this month? Would it be "egregious and reprehensible" if it was my storage unit that got auctioned off?

2. Who the fuck puts highly sensitive personal and financial records in a regular storage unit? Or rather - why the fuck would one of the richest bitches on the planet put her highly sensitive personal and financial records in a regular ole storage unit? Hello...ever heard of a fucking safe deposit box? And why the fuck did she even need a storage unit -- don't Mommy & Daddy have some place she could have put her shit? Hell - my mom lives in a 3 bedroom duplex and I stored my shit there when I spent a summer working in a another city.

3. Why the fuck would a gazillionnaire let some random moving company be in charge of paying her bills and keeping her shit safe? Even assuming that isn't a little crazy, why wouldn't you fucking pay attention to make sure the bills were actually paid? Or at least pay someone to pay attention for you. And, more importantly, if it is the moving company that fucked up, why the fuck isn't she suing them? (at least she isn't suing them in the complaint referenced above).

4. Am I to feel sorry for poor little Paris because she was so busy flitting around the world that she didn't have time to pay attention to her own personal financial matters? Is she so very special that the rules that apply to everyone else on the planet somehow don't apply to her? Sorry, but you don't see regular folks getting a break when it comes to paying their own bills.

And, finally, my most burning question....

If Ms. Hilton's passport was in the storage unit, as she claims, how the fuck did she leave the country??? Hell, regular people can't even go to Mexico or Canada anymore without a passport. What makes her so fucking special?

Photo provided with thanks to Roger Casas-Alatriste.

New Favorite Quote...

And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter.

Thomas Jefferson

Books 2006

Books I read, re-read or gave up on in 2006...There are less books here than I would have liked -- which means I didn't get enough time for myself in 2006. Guess I'll have to work on that for 2007! FYI -- links are to the Bookcrossing site -- my favorite place to find books!!

The Good Wife Strikes Back by Elizabeth Buchan
The Winter Room by Gary Paulson (one of mom's books)
Eldest by Christopher Paolini (library book)
Rococo by Adriana Trigiani
The Chamber by John Grisham (bookring)
Standing in the Rainbow by Fannie Flagg (bookring)
My Uncle Napolean by Iraj Pezeshkzad
The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien
Inkheart by Cornelia Funke
The Shipping News by Annie Proulx (not yet registered)
Everything is Illuminated by Jonathan Safran Foer
The Monk Downstairs (not yet regstered)
Brokeback Mountain by Annie Proulx
The Street Lawyer by John Grisham
Dead Poet's Society by N.H. Kleinbaum
The Boy Next Door by Josie Lloyd & Emlyn Rees
Bogmail by Patrick McGinley
Revolution of Little Girls by Blanch McCrary Boyd
Prodigal Summer by Barbara Kingsolver
The Once and Future King by T.H. White
The Secret Dreamworld of a Shopaholic by Sophie Kinsella
The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini
Gypsy Masala by Preethi Nair
Confessions of a Sociopathic Social Climber by Adele Lang

Vigilance or . . .?

Ok - so the right had its ass handed to it in the election earlier this month. And the Dems will take charge in January and stop the madness by being fair and bi-partisan, blah, blah, blah. So we can all take it easy now. Right? Well I say to hell with that. Since the election, Bush has played into the Dems' pledge - saying he'll be bipartisan too. But we all know he's a big fat fucking liar. Hell, since the election he's proved he could give two shits about what the Dems, or the liberals, or even the moderates, want . . . by, for example, appointing an anti-choice, anti-contraception advocate to be in charge of the federal family planning program. And trying to shove through appointments to the federal bench of candidates who had already been rejected. So much for bipartisanship. And if the Dems really think that's gonna change come January, then they're dumber, and wimpier, than I already thought. So its not time to rest just yet everyone. We must remain vigilant for if we do not monitor those morons in Washington, goddess only knows what could happen next.

Brand New Day

Glory, glory hallelujah. The Dems have taken the House and are poised to take the Senate. The abortion ban gets shot down in SD, the gay marriage ban gets shot down in AZ, and stem stell research is approved in Missoura. And then, as an extra special treat -- Rumsfeld resigns.

Unbelievable -- I mean, I figured the progressives would do well, but I never imagined it would be this good. If I was any happier I might just pee my pants.

Here's to having hope again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Madonna & David

Sounds like a renaissance painting or statue or something, but it's not -- it's just recent news about a pop star and her attempts to adopt a baby from Malawi. And of course, the human rights groups who have come out against the adoption.

Now I am a major supporter of human rights, especially the rights of children. But I don't see what the fuss is about. I understand the technical point being raised by the human rights groups, but seriously, do they really think the child would be better off in a orphanage in Malawi then in the care of Madonna & Guy Ritchie? Especially when the father - who surrendered his child to the openness because he couldn't afford to care for him - approves of the adoption?

I know, I know -- the "law" in Malawi says that prospective parents have to stay in Malawi for 18 to 24 months before an adoption can be finalized. But even the Malawi government recognizes that this law is archaic and not conducive to the best interests of children. Seriously, think about -- if every adoption was required to be preceded by 18-24 months of the adoptive parents residing in the culture, or even within the state, within which the child is to be adopted, think how far fewer adoptions there would be. There are enough parentless children out there without requiring draconian rules that would lessen the prospective parent pool. I can tell you this - two very good friends of mine adopted an adorable little girl from Russia. They would not be parents today if they had been required to live in Russia for 2 years before they could bring their daughter home. And besides, it simply does not take 18-24 months to assess prospective parents.

I also know that some people believe children do best growing up close to their cultural home. But, having majored in cultural anthropology, I know a thing or two about the topic and I don't buy that crap. Maybe once a child is older he or she would do better in their country of origin, but for very young children -- they have no culture. Culture is taught. Language is taught. If a child is raised in America, for example, by American parents, he or she will be American, regardless of whether he or she was born in Malawi, or Canada, or in my case, Italy (although technically I think of myself as Italian-American, but that's another story).

And, I also know that some people are simply against international adoption. But these people are not really thinking about the child -- they're thinking about themselves, or the country, or some other socio-political cause. If children are without parents because of disease or war or famine, then yes the root problems need to be cured. But in the meantime someone has to care for the children who are left behind. The countries can't do it so - -hell, look at America, we're supposedly the richest country in the world and our child welfare system is shit -- so if the only people who want or can afford to care for orphaned children happen to live in other countries, then so be it. Maybe it isn't fair. But tough fucking luck, cause life ain't fair, and ya gotta do the best you can.

Anyway -- if the courts in Malawi, and the government of Malawi, and the sole living parent of the child all think adoption by Madonna is best for this child, without abiding by the 24 month rule, then who are these supposed human rights groups to say otherwise? I don't care if it's un-PC to take sides against these human rights groups, but I am. I find it hard to believe that anyone can seriously say that a child, any child, would be better off in an orphanage than with willing parents. I find it hard to believe that anyone with any sense thinks it takes 18-24 months to monitor prospective parents, or that monitoring must take place in the country of origin. I believe there needs to be strict rules surrounding adoption, but I also believe that some rules go too far, and are too strict. When that happens, its OK to relax the rules if relaxing the rules means a child will find a safe and loving home.

Who's the bitch?

OK - so I'm a huge, huge, huge Project Runway fan. Makes me wish I could quit my job and take design classes! But lately, my reception for the show has sucked. And I almost lost it all together tonight for the "who goes to Fashion Week" show. The screen freezes, the sound goes wacky, or worse, silent, and sometimes the picture goes black. So who's the bitch? Comcast or Bravo? I'm thinking Bravo, since I don't have the problem on any other channel, but it may just as well be Comcast -- maybe it happens on other channels, just on channels I don't watch. Plus, I've heard that lots of folks have had all kinds of problems with Comcast. Or maybe it's all just a big conspiracy to deprive me of my favorite hour of TV. I suppose next I'll have problems with Fox once the new American Idol comes on (yes, I'm a fan of that show too -- sue me).

Of course, I'm generally a conspiracy theorist, and may just be a little nuts, but all I know is that I still have Bravo on, and now that my fave is over, the problems have gone bye-bye, so you tell me.