Well, at the risk of being repetitive, this is what I still think:

I see celebrities as gods and goddesses. A strong interest in their betrothals and betrayals, their binges and fasts, their tragedies, to me indicates an interest in the world of magical characters. It is at root a spiritual quest, closely allied with our thirst for literature. ...

... I would argue that gods and goddesses are only useful to us in our lives if they are not regarded consciously as gods and goddesses -- only if they are regarded as real. ... The minute we become conscious of worship, the worship dies. It loses its magical power. We become self-conscious. So the obsession with celebrities is an act of cultural innocence. ...

http://www.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2006/01/06/celebrities/index.html

Yikes. Some of these letters are bizzare. Paris Hilton is not the "embodiment" of anything on a large or even small social scale and the idea that's okay to spew venom on her because she is "a woman who does harm" is way out there. A lot of this this is petulant pettiness, along with the usual internet quackery of diagnosing somebody else's supposed mental health problems, that's simply hiding behind a "What Does It All Mean?" dubious "intellectual analysis".

As others have pointed out, there's absolutely nothing new about a "famous for being famous" person like Hilton and the idea that she has some sort of unprecedented, powerful, or even any real social impact is suspect.

Now an interesting analysis would have been how a dumb, skanky, (insert other pejoratives here) like Hilton has managed to turn the typically vacuous lifestyle of a trust fund heiress into a $10 million a year "job" but that might be too much to bear for the smug, smart and virtuous (ha) people here who are trying to pretend that their sipping on haterade has some social meaning. Nah....

KStone: I was with you until the last paragraph. There I was, thinking that you could have been right. But then came this: if I don't like another woman it's because I'm a jealous catty thing. Right. I couldn't possibly have something genuine to say about her, huh? You think I'm wrong? Than go and say so, and a lot of other people who are taking this too seriously (the part you may be right about) never actually called her any names. Nor do I hate her: I don't actually KNOW her. She's never done anything to me, personally. You, however, implied that because of my rejection of her persona, that I am just one of those jealous types and worthy of contempt. Haha, you girls are so silly! She's silly, I'm silly, we're all so silly. Great.

Also, I did call her a malignant narcissist, which is clearly an exageration. Obviously, I don't know the woman, and obviously she isn't a serial killer, but her persona does exhibit the typical traits of the narcisstic personality disorder. I have no idea if she is one in real life,. but it is not something we should laugh off, and certainly not something people should admire. I will continue to say I don't approve of this behavior when asked. Because I don't. Or, does having an opinion make me one of those nerdy, jealous girls who couldn't get a date to prom? Please. You know less about me than I know about Hilton.

This is the DSM diagnostic measure, btw.

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

(4) requires excessive admiration

(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her

(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Thomas German: I have no idea what any of this has to do with the Gulf War. I'm certainly not comparing Hilton to Bush.

But here are some other "deciders". Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Vlad the Impaler, Ghengis Kahn. I reject on its face the notion that the ability to do something makes it beyond reproach. That was part of my earlier point. No one is above reapproach. The ability to do something does not make it okay. Every day each and every one of us restrains ourself from our "baser" impulses because we know the result would not be acceptable. There used to a popular saying among the wealthier families in this country: with great great power comes great responsiblity. Furthermore, absolutism does not change reality. You claim to have studied mathematics. Surely you realize that being sure about the wrong answer doesn't make it right.

Finally: the current war doesn't benefit "us". Forgetting for the most that the Us v. them dichotomy is falacious in this (and most) situations, you'll have to explain to me who, exactly benefits from bad, if unargued decisions.

But none of this has anything to do with anything. I sincerely hope that you don't believe that anything you choose to do for your own benefit is inherently okay. I really do.

If she's a Cylon, she's the ugliest I've seen -- probably an early-model skin-job. And unlike Paris Hilton, vampires have real personalities, desires and hungers, otherwise no one would be making movies about them. (Has anyone ever seriously considered casting Paris Hilton as a vampire?)

Paris has more influence on the young-and-upcoming crowd than any of you feminists ever will. Call it moral decline if you will, but that's just the way it is.

She's got it, flaunts it, and many of you are trying to shoot her down. A previous poster said it better than I - would you rather she does what she does, or have her confined behind a burkha, along with everyone else? Freedom is a lovely thing, and Paris exploits it in spades.

This letter section is becoming pretty gigantic - see what I mean? Even while some of you are saying "ignore her" fact is, she still meant enough to you for you to click through the advertising banners so you could read and reach this very letters section. Indirectly, she's generating income for Salon, so why not post more articles of her? Pays the bills.

The opposite of love is not hate. It is indifference, and sorry people, that's just not what I'm seeing here.

I'll say it again: Paris pays the bills.