Wednesday, May 09, 2007

...you might hit a bump and spill your drink

Or so the bad old joke goes.

(The set-up line: why shouldn't you drink and drive?)

We've had a rash of drunk-driving accidents where I live. In several cases, people have been killed (not the drunk; the innocent bystanders in the car he hit). It's sickening, because it's something that's preventable by using common sense: If you drive, don't drink. If you drink, get someone else to drive you.

I've happily been the "designated driver" in a few situations - I don't drink anyway, so it doesn't matter at all to me.

And, last week or so, there was the Cardinals player who was killed after drinking and driving. (And that's sad. And I think the Card's response of not permitting alcohol in the clubhouse MIGHT help, but their other suggestion: that they ramp up anti-drunk-driving messages to players, seems kind of silly to me: if you make it to legal drinking age in this country, you're pretty well inundated with "don't drink and drive messages. I'd argue what they should do is institute a policy where if you are caught drinking and driving, you are off the team. Permanently. And you're off any other team - out of MLB altogether. THAT might work.)

And apparently one of the less-talented famous people in the world was caught drinking and driving - on a suspended license at that. And a judge wants to send her to prison. But now, when P*aris Hilt*on is going to get hers for drinking and driving, people want her "pardoned."

Why? Because she "because she provides beauty and excitement to ''(most of) our otherwise mundane lives" (h/t to Ken S.)

Oh, if there ever were a statement I wanted to fisk...

I won't comment on the "beauty" thing, because it's catty to mention her meander-y eye and her too-thin nose. Or the fact that she really could use perhaps another 15-20 pounds on her frame (and NOT in the chestal area).

But "excitement"? If your main source of excitement is hearing about the debauched doings of a girl who is famous solely for being famous - who apparently makes a living (over and above the hotel money) by being paid to show up at parties - you really need to look closely at your life. Like Charles Barkely said - "I'm not a role model" (And everyone reamed him for that, but no one listened to the rest of the sentence: "...because parents and teachers and local people should be the role models.")

Besides, "excitement" is highly overrated in my book. Peace, calm, and contentment - now that's worth working for.

As for "mundane lives"....well, that's really a nice slap in the face to the Working Americans who go out to their jobs every day, who keep this country running, so Paris-sites (heh, get it?) like Hilton can go out and party at night. Honey, the guy who mops up your vomit in the hotel is one of those "mundane lives" you're referring to. The doctor who pumps your stomach when you take something you shouldn't have is one of those "mundane lives." If you asked them, they'd probably admit they don't give that much of a flip about you and your doings: they're more interested in their families, their friends, making the house payment...It just shows the narcissism of the very famous to think that people are shocked and horrified that you are going to be subjected to such treatment as going to prison, because, OMG! You're famous.

Celebrity, believe it or not, isn't something most of us aspire to.

I'd hate to be famous - hate to have that kind of scrutiny where, if I decided I wanted to go out and eat pancakes at a restaurant, I'd see my face splashed all over the gossip rags next week with something like "Ravenous Ricki Eating Binge! Why is she packing in the food?!" Ugh.

Look, I sympathize with the fame-sucks thing. I'm sure it sucks to be famous. I suspect you're secretly coveting one of those "mundane lives" you seem to mock. Like, maybe being a schoolteacher. Or waiting tables at a posh restaurant. Or even being a receptionist in a doctor's office. Something stable, something predictable. Something where you can go home at 5 or 6 or whenever and take off your shoes and your stockings and even your brassiere if you want and just relax and be YOU. Instead of being "on" all the time.

But it just puzzles me, how we idolize certain famous people in this country. I heard a certain amount of dismissiveness about Queen Elizabeth II when she came - about how people were 'fawning' and "scraping" to her and how "disgusting" it was.

Well, Queen Bess has actually DONE some worthwhile things in her life (okay, the kids she gave birth to are debatable, but she was a symbol of the Empire in its declining years and even now she's a gracious and polite woman).

I heard things like "we fought a war some 200 years ago to get rid of royalty!" Yes, but - considering the way many people react to rock stars, sports stars, or even famous-for-no-good-reason people, it seems we've re-created a royalty - perhaps one less worthy than what we kicked out in the first place.

I can't quite believe the outpouring of bile against the judge who would sentence Paris (I hope he has protection; I could just about see some crazed fan trying to "avenge" her). And the outpouring of pity. (I do, however, believe the atrocious grammar and orthography, sadly.)

I guess I can sum up my reaction to the people who are wanting to "protest" and to "sihn" petitions to get her off (once again) with barely a slap on the wrist:

Get.

A.

Life.

Seriously - go out and volunteer somewhere. Help people less fortunate than you. Plant a garden. Pick up trash in your town. Because your premise (that Paris Hilton deserves to be allowed to do whatever she wants, because she brings "beauty and excitement") is incorrect. And your way of presenting it is horrifying and atrocious and anyone who values the English language (and, for that matter, I suspect, most people over the age of 25) are aghast at the delivery of said premise.

That said - what if you get your wish? And she gets off with a slap on the wrist? And then, she dies in a horrible crash caused by driving drunk? What have you accomplished then?

Look: there need to be consequences for actions. It's better she face the consequence of spending some time in the pokey (and losing her license. I'd actually like to see it lost permanently but I don't imagine that will happen) than she have the possible future consequence of dying herself or killing innocent people.

If I were enough of an idiot to drink and drive? I'd take what punishment was doled out to me and thank the good Lord I didn't kill anyone during my indiscretion. There's such a thing as "'fess up, fix up, and make up" in this world: if you screw up, you admit it, you do what you need to do to make it right, and then you ask forgiveness. It's not "mundane people 'fess up, fix up, and make up and I squeal until I get what I want." No. It's EVERYBODY, when you screw up, you 'fess up, fix up, and make up.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

You know what I don't understand about people like Paris Hilton driving drunk? She's filthy rich, right? Why not call a cab? Or, if you know you're going to spend the night out drinking with friends, why not hire a car for the night to take you wherever you'd like to go? It's ridiculous.

And you're right about the "royalty" thing. We may have shirked the monarchy 200 years ago, but I'll take a dignified, well-mannered, gracious lady like Queen Elizabeth over some of the vacuous celebrities that have filled the void in the place of princes and lords. At least the royal family has to continually justify its existence.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, Emily, the whole "why not hire a cab" thing puzzles me, too.

She could have hired a feckin' LIMOUSINE with DIAMOND-ENCRUSTED hubcaps for the evening and not suffered a major cash setback.

I know college students who hire "party buses" when they go out drinking - they pool their money, get a minivan with a driver, and have at it. Not my cup of tea (I don't like puking my guts out the next morning and feeling like a Zamboni ran me over) but I applaud them for (apparently) being more mature than this heiress.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure whether "People" is still the largest-circulation magazine in the U.S., but if not it's pretty close. What a depressing commentary on how many people choose to live their lives vicariously. I can't recall a time in history when so many people have been famous without actually accomplishing anything, nor a time when fame itself was the goal rather than a byproduct of achieving some other goal. Such people needing ratification of their own worthiness from hordes of other people must have inner lives that I don't even want to think about.

I've experienced marginal fame. I was a local TV news anchor for 20 years. The thrill subsides after a while and the constant recognition becomes more of a burden than a blessing. Your "pancake house" example cracked me up, Ricki, and it's right on target!

It's also mind-boggling how UNimportant you suddenly are as soon as you become a "former" something. In the long run, people without a strong inner sense of their own identity will have very difficult lives.

nightfly said...

Right on, Emily. My only guess is that they don't want to hire someone who may spill tales of drunkenness and cruelty to the tabloids - but half of their publicity IS such tales anyway. Why not go whole hog and hire a permanent chauffeur?

You know, you both mentioned Queen Elizabeth. I'll go a step further - George III was a darn sight better than gay Paree the Jailbird. He wasn't a bad king, it just wasn't our deal, especially when he decided that he was going to take a hard line on the rebelling colonies. Hell, even Napoleon sold us Louisiana. What do these such-and-sos bring to the table?