The reason people are concerned about because of personal concern of Lindsay or Brittney (I hope people aren't overly emotionally involved with complete strangers), but because of what is says about our culture that such a person could reach what appear to be such heights of adoration.

The real question is: why is this woman, whom we all find despicable so celebrated? What does that mean about the expectations of womanhood, or personhood for that matter? Do young people really admire her? Do girls want to put all their energy into being nothing but vapid and manipulative? Do boys really want women who are nothing but vapid and sexually pliant?

This is anethema to what many of us believe about the aspirations of ourselves, our common culture, and our humanity. Does this mean that our sense of decency is completely irrelevent to young people? Can a society survive with the traits demonstrated here?

Someone, Thomas German I think, basically said as much. He said there was no usefullness other than monetary in developing one's intelligence and experience in the world. He appeared to advocate chaining ourselves back in Plato's Cave, so long as the images on the walls are of pretty baubles and girls next door who act like sex workers. I have a theory on why people start thinking and behaving this way, and it pretty much has to do with never being taught how to cope with challenges or a sense of self that isn't completely beyond reproach. Like, you might have to learn something from someone, or do what someone with more experience tells you. Like, you might have to admit that you're not the best at everything, that you're stupid about some things, rather than believing that everything else is stupid. In short, you'd have to actually make some genuine and unflattering self-assessments that result in a change of behavior or perspective, which challenge you and require some fucking effort. You might also have to seperate yourself from the what others do in order to pursue the better thing. In other words, you can't use the bad behavior and outlook of others to justify your own. Life takes effort, and most of us don't count money or sexual conquests as the chips. People like Thomas German honestly believe that education, experience, effort and goodwill are only the means to wealth and being hottt (i.e., admired and desired). The rest of us see money and sex as a means to healthy, happy well lived life of which we can be proud.

That's why we need to worry about the likes of Paris Hilton. Not because we care about HER, per se, but because if it's indicative of a larger cultural shift. I look at the attitudes of my teenaged cousins and I am kind of scared. It could very well be that I don't "get it", or am uncomfortable with "kids today," but it is worth thinking about in a rigorous way. Or, would your be okay if your daughter said, "I want to be like Paris Hilton when I grow up," or your son said, "I'm not dealing with women who aren't like Paris Hilton."

Maybe I'm being paranoid. But we won't know unless we really make a genuine inquiry.

Rich, irresponsible, incurious, leaving behind a trail of destruction -- it's Bush Country.

So you are officially the arbiter of proper female conduct.

Rule no. 1: Never, ever criticize a woman. It's unseemly. (And men might figure out that every one of us is not made of sugar and spice. SHHHHHHHH.)

Rule no. 2: Women are infallible except for those who say otherwise.

Come off it. You're wrong on this one.

Kaliope, it's alot more complicated than all of that.

Let us return to 2003 and the Bush Administration's minimal effort to give a rationale for invading Iraq, which I believe they intended to do from the moment they halted, for political reasons, the advance on Baghdad DURING THE FIRST GULF WAR.

Here's the point: the difference between Bush and Clinton is that Clinton saw the job of being president as being something like "Debater-In-Chief" or "Empathizer-In-Chief" whereas Bush sees himself primarily as "The Decider". Everybody knows I vote democrat but I agree with the current administration on this one. The presidency is diminished by engaging in debates with people who are not really involved in the decisions being made and who do not have the slightest insight into the issues at stake. The American president, once elected, does not have to submit himself to debate about decisions involving the US military except insofar as he wants to pursuade you to go along with what he his COMMANDING. But the fact is that any effort to pursuade you is mere politeness because the fact his he is constitutionally empowered TO COMMAND.

Ok, so the issue ultimately is this for me: a commander is diminished by debate. George Bush is not obliged to explain things to people, he does so out of courtesy and out of precedent. Insofar as you expect the presidency to be not only the responsible party for deciding things and in addition to that to be the responsible party for explaining things, then you are diminishing the presidency. Why? Because people only hear what they want to hear. George Bush could have sat there debating the French ambassador for a thousand years and the French would never have gone along with the war anyway. So why debate them? Why debate anybody?

Insofar as a commander is forced into debate he is weak. The sad truth is that a great many people would be happy to see the American Presidency weakened. So why not just say that outright? Why doesn't the French Government just say publicly what they are actually trying to do which is this: weaken the American presidency.

Do you want to live in a world where our political institutions have to submit themselves to the critique and approval of foreign governments? We decide what we do, not you. Most certainly not you. Of course, the sad thing is that most people don't seem to think that we know what we are doing, so they want us to explain ourselves. Well the issue then becomes this: do you have enough confidence in yourself to KNOW that you are doing the right thing? Insofar as you pause to debate in the midst of doing what you know you have to do, you are merely disclosing a lack of confidence in your chosen course of action.

We not only know what we are doing but the things we are doing are for your benefit. Now, suppose the person you are trying to help will never see your actions as helpful no matter how much you explain things to them... then what do you do? Answer: do the right thing and stop talking about doing the right thing. The Bush administration is as aware of Post-Structuralist/Post-Modern philosophy as the French and we all know that basically the French are fucking with us because it's either us or them and they are acting to benefit themselves. We are in the midst of a tribal war for the plunder of western civilization that started a long time ago. Who do you want to win? We all know that in fact most people do not want the Americans to win. The French in particular have always seen us as a nation of idiot farmers with no culture. Why debate them at all? We are doing the right thing and insofar as you don't believe it, fuck off. No debate.

So, yes, Paris Hilton is provocative. Good for her. SHe's free. We are all free. Paris Hilton does not have to live the life that you want her to live. Paris Hilton does not have to conform her behavior to the standards of Saudi Arabian masculinity. No American woman will ever have to conform her behavior to the standards of Saudi Arabian masculinity. We can let "our" women be drunken sluts. We are not diminished by drunken slutiness because we are powerful. We do not suffer from anxiety over female sexuality or female freedom. We can do whatever we want.

Now, after saying all of that, I have to add that it is true that I would have preferred that we not invade Iraq in exactly the same way that I would have preferred to see Paris Hilton exercise her freedom in a somewhat different way. For example, I would have preferred to see Paris Hilton study for a PhD in Mathematics at Princeton or something. But here is the point:

PARIS HILTON IS THE ONE WHO DECIDES WHAT PARIS HILTON IS GOING TO DO WITH HER FREEDOM.

I would rather live in a world where Paris Hilton decides than a world where some hick imam out in Said Arabia decides. Wouldn't you?

The sad truth is that nobody hates the freedom we have more than we ourselves do. It's ugly. It's beautiful. It's whatever we want it to be. We are not simply going to go away just because you don't like us.