It’s about the little things.
For the record, a lunch with two entrees is pretty awesome to begin with.
Now, I don’t usually have any ear for celebrity news. The pervasive knowledge of who has married or divorced who in the Hollywood or recording industry space often simply provokes an allergic reaction in which I break out into rashes that form the words, “Why do we care?” But one subset of this gilded, rhinestone-encrusted space that never fails to snag my attention is those cases where these people are arrested and brought to trial. This is most borne of a morbid curiosity to examine how the justice system warps and buckles, some sometimes fails, under the strain of wealth and popularity. So when this article passed from the ether into my RSS inbox, I felt compelled to stare into the abyss. Lo, have I seen things there that defy rational thought once again, but strangely they lie outside the legal sphere.
Basically the deal is that a celebrity of diminishing fame has been accused of stealing a necklace worth twenty-five hundred dollars from a jewelery store. Won’t take a plea bargain, blah, blah, blah, security tape shows what really happened, blah, blah, blah, violation of parole, blah, blah, blah. Then, just as I am about to mentally chastise myself for wasting precious minutes of my life mulling this crap over, it hits. It appears that once the trial is over, the jewelery store intends to auction off the necklace in question, as soon as they get it back from the police’s evidence department.
Consider that the trial has not yet run its course, and could well be decided in the favor of the accused. What this implies is that win or lose, this already hugely expensive bauble is rendered more valuable because it may or may not have been stolen by a failing actress who’s in and out of rehab twice a year.
I am reminded of the charlatans of old, charging two shillings a head to touch a corner of the cloth that Saint Peter blew his nose into.
Ja.