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

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.