Of course, that is stating the obvious.

So what? It's her life. As long as she's not breaking the law, who are you to judge. Some do-gooder Peace Corps memebr could tell you, why are you wasting your life posting letters on Salon.com when you could go volunteer and work for humanity somehow?

I could say the same about you. Who are you to judge me?

I can judge whomever I damn well please. I say she's a useless skank. I work for my money and I pay taxes - therefore, I have the right to judge whomever I want. IF you don't like it, too bad.

I don't have to explain myself or justify my life to you. We aren't discussing ME, nobody is discussing MY LIFE because I do not live my life IN PUBLIC. The media does not report on my every move. I don't run after photographers, trying to get them to take my picture. They don't run after me. I'm not the one constantly appearing in tabloids. In short, my life is private and therefore none of your damn business.

You're posting letters on here too, asshole. You're passing judgments on people too, asshole. Take a long, hard look at yourself before talking shit on some random website. You are no better than I am.

Plus, I'd say that she's acting no worse than Joe and Jane Nascar. To most of the rest of the world, average Americans have unimaginable intellectual freedoms. How we in the Soviet Union dreamed what it's like to live in a country with free speech and freedom of information, where you could go to a library and check out any book, and learn about pretty much anything you wanted to learn about. The opportunity americans have to educate themselves is probably better than most other people's outside of Europe and a few other countries (Japan comes to mind). Yet, most people choose to eat trans-fatty snacks to the point of overweight/obesity and watch TV to the point that more people know the names of the Simpsons than the Supreme Court Justices.

Oh really? Then why are you passing judgments on the American population? Isn't it the average American's right to sit around, eat trans-fatty snacks, watch TV, and be ignorant of the world around them? How is their decision any better than Paris's decisions? Who the hell are you to judge the Americans who do these things? Aren't they just as free to do what they want as Paris is? Why does Paris get a free pass from you?

And while I'm still asking questions, why is it that every foreigner thinks that Americans are near millionaires? A lot of people actually DON'T have the opportunity to mosey on to a library and read books for an entire evening. Most people actually have to WORK for a living - an eight hour day, five days a week (not including people who may work twice as much just to make a decent living). If you think for one SECOND that the majority of Americans are living in decadent wealth, then you are painfully deluded.

Let's run with the whole library thing for a second. Yes, public libraries are free, funded by the taxpayers. However, cars and gasoline AREN'T. Not everyone lives in the city, and not everyone is able to use public transport - for two reasons: one, they may not be able to afford it, and two, they may not have easy access to it. So if you live out in the damn countryside like me, and can't afford to use a whole damn tank of gas to drive to the fucking library and read a bunch of books on European history just so a bunch of random foreigners can think, "oh, that American isn't such a worthless lard-ass after all, sitting on her ass all day long, watching the Simpsons and eating little Debbie cakes! Why can't the rest of them be more like her????"

Which brings me to Paris. She doesn't have to worry about gasoline, she has a car (probably plenty) and she has time to spare. She could be doing, as you say, joining the fucking Peace Corp and making a difference in this world, but NOOOOOOO. She gets to party all day and night, treat people like shit, spread rumors about her friends all over the fucking media and we're supposed to just sit back and take it because 'it's her life'.

You're even worse than the stupid fanboy. You, along with the media, are enablers. You let her get away with it, Thomas endorses it, and the author of this article bitches about it.

I'd say we're all enablers, even me. I'll admit it, but I still don't like it, and even if it makes me a hypocrite, I don't care. The difference between you and me is that I can admit it and be honest about it. You, apparently, cannot be.

I'm confused at the hostile reactions this piece seems to have provoked. I sense I'm in the minority here (at least of commenters on this thread) but I've always found Rebecca Traister's articles to be my favorite part of Salon. I may be wrong but I think some of you are missing a bit of satire here. Is a sincerely vindictive character assassination going to include use phrases like "frissons of exquisite terror" or "Dorian Gray cockroach"? No, it's not the friendliest article I've read recently, but that's cultural criticism for you.

One of the earlier posters basically summarized Traister's point as:

1. Paris Hilton is bad because she's vapid and terrible.

2. Criticizing Paris Hilton is bad because it's anti-feminist.

Well, I don't think you're quite being fair with that summary, but all things considered is this really such an odd thing to say? There are plenty of truths which aren't necessary to point out and certainly aren't worth harping on.

The level of bitterness and hatred towards Hilton that I hear from people (generally men) like Olbermann is rather disturbing. Yes, it's obvious that she's terrible, but how much time do we really need to spend criticizing her for that sex tape? And why is it that "skank" seems to be the most commonly-repeated epithet for Paris Hilton, when "idiot" or "racist" or "embodiment of all that's wrong with media culture" would all be relatively accurate? But I suppose that blatant misogyny isn't in vogue these days, so we need to create celebrity targets for it.

We're willing to crucify Michael Richards (who nobody cared about in the first place) for a moronic racist tirade, but when Paris Hilton says dumber and more offensive things with greater frequency the best we can do is "slut"? Why is this her most salient trait? I'd rather be a slut than a racist any day.

Anyway, thanks, Rebecca, as always! I keep wondering why nobody is taking her critics to task, or at least criticizing her in sensible ways. You just did both.