Shameless hypocrisy from Hanoi Jane brought to us via Red Alerts chief guilty pleasure IBBB who caught the seditious communist waxing philosophic on the Hilton case with Larry King:

“I’m glad she’s being sentenced. I’m glad she’s going to do the time. If she were black or poor she would have done it much sooner, maybe the first time she had an offense. “

This from a woman who helped propagandize for the communist N.V.A., turning America against the war and allowing the communists to take over all of Vietnam. This from a woman who has since remained silent as the communists in Vietnam and Laos have waged a genocidal campaign of terror on the indigenous Hmong and Montengard peoples for decades. Campaigns that are well documented and on-going but of little interest to armchair revolutionaries like Jane Fonda.

Jane Fonda has blood on her hands, the ethnic cleansing in southeast Asia by communist regimes is possible only because of her, and the “anti war” movement’s efforts to keep America from influencing the region. Those efforts worked, just as they are working now in the Iraq war, where the results will be the same. But she doesn’t care.

And that’s where the hypocrisy comes in, because Fonda’s ultimate point is that Hilton doesn’t care about the law, morality (drunk driving can kill people) or anyone but herself. That may or may not be true, but how is that different from Fonda? Did she care about the families of American soldiers when she took the above photos with the people trying to kill them?

Does she care about the indigenous peoples of southeast Asia being massacred by what is essentially Marxist colonialism?

Isn’t her lack of empathy a symptom of her narcissism and self-absorption?

Paris Hilton is a rich sheltered woman whose family allowed her to stay in a state of perpetual adolescence. At best she’s yet another celebrity with a drinking problem and no friends who care enough about her to take her keys, at worst she’s a narcissist who deserves jail time. But does she deserve to go to jail more than Jane Fonda?

I’d say no.

Amy Ridenour is covering this scandalous story of government regulation gone amok in Louisiana. It seem that to be a professional florist in Louisiana a person must pass a state required exam which includes a portion where the arrangements of prospective florist are judged by other florists. In case the problem with that doesn’t become immediately apparent, the big A (as I will be calling her from now on) spells it out so that even a Louisiana Democrat can understand:

The latter half of the exam is especially prone to subjectivity. Instead of using impartial judges to grade the Commission’s exams, the LHC employs state-licensed florists with whom prospective florists will compete in the marketplace if they pass the test. Thus, legal experts note, a situation is created where the judges can effectively control development and competition within their own industry.

LHC judges are asked to determine whether an applicant’s four floral arrangements meet indeterminable and subjective criteria such as a proper focal point, whether the arrangement was constructed in a size proportional to its container, if and how the flowers were effectively spread and whether or not the flowers and greens were properly picked. Many applicants have complained to the LHC that they believe the judges’ discretion and subjectivity obstruct the opportunity for applicants to obtain florist licenses.

One example that aptly demonstrates the arbitrary and subjective nature of judging occurred when one aspect of an applicant’s wedding arrangement received three perfect scores on the appropriate size of wire on her greenery (five out of five) and two failing scores (zero out of five) from the five-judge panel. These wide-ranging and inconsistent scores exhibit how the guidelines for grading and potential bias on the part of the judges toward future competition can contribute to the exam’s exceptionally low rate of success.

The exceptionally low success rate mentioned is 46%. That’s right, less than half of people taking a florist exam pass. The test costs $150 so it’s a cash cow for the state, since many people will attempt to take the test again if they fail, so the government has no interest in cleaning up a system where over 50% of people who have paid the state $150 are likely to pay them a second or even third time. The judges aren’t interested in allowing their marketplace to flood with competition, especially talented competition, so they’re unlikely to start giving fair hearings anytime soon.

This is a clear case of government intervention causing many more problems than it would ever solve.