The gossip columnist for the New York Daily News announced that he would no longer devote space to the life and times of one Miss Paris Hilton. Lloyd Grove wrote:

Over the past five years - without any discernible talent, education, scruples, manners, modesty or underpants - the pretty blond great-granddaughter of hotel magnate Conrad Hilton has waged a terrifying campaign for world domination.

The arc of Paris' "career" - from rich, witless party girl to rich, witless party girl with a hit television show - is an insult to the American sense of fairness: the idea that you get ahead by working hard, playing by the rules and acquiring a skill of some sort.

Paris has bothered with none of the above, and yet society continues to reward her with money and fame.

The British actor Stephen Fry put it best when he observed recently to Lowdown that being Paris "takes a startling vanity, an enormous lack of self-knowledge and a huge amount of greed and desire."

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/264804p-226754c.html

Which got me to thinking (because there's a Level 3 snow emergency and I've got plenty of free time today), why exactly do we care so much about a skinny rich girl with no discernible talent of any kind but relentless self-promotion?

I believe applying Andy Warhol's prediction that "everyone will be famous for 15 minutes" to someone as shallow, superficial and just plain dull as Paris Hilton is bringing the qualification of being a celebrity down to a distressing new low. Someone said that Paris is today's Zsa Zsa Gabor; a "celebrity" whose primary claim to fame is that they are famous.

Why do we care so much what name Julia Roberts or Gwenyth Paltrow give their kids? Why does someone like Star Jones think people crave the details about her marriage? Why do we love our gossip columns and The National Enquirer?

In a time of reality TV where supposedly "ordinary people" become known to us on a first name basis for their apparent willingness to degrade, demean or humiliate themselves or others is that all there is? Are we so starved for new blood that being untalented like William Hung when he bombed on "American Idol" but was awarded a recording contract makes any kind of sense?

The question for debate (and I'm not just picking on Paris Hilton or "American Idol" or "Survivor" winners) is:

Shouldn't it be a necessary requirement to be called a celebrity that you've actually done SOMETHING worth celebrating?

Shouldn't it be a necessary requirement to be called a celebrity that you've actually done SOMETHING worth celebrating?

One would hope so. I salute Lloyd Grove for his decision to go Paris-less, as she is a waste of even tabloidal space. I can't help but wonder what this says about a society that is so interested in her, though. How can this person have a hit show? Why would anyone watch it to begin with? It's rather sad.

Allow me to be the voice of dissent. I think Paris Hilton is awesome. The fact that she is making millions upon millions of dollars by doing nothing but partying and having sex is what really makes this situation great. Look at the lives most of us lead with our "Go to school, get a mediocre job, get married, have 1.5 kids, accept the fact that the time to party and have fun is now over, say no to drugs, choose life, live long, die in a puddle of your own urine at the age of 85". She is living the life, and making a fortune doing it!!! I think people like her are a breath of fresh air in a mundane society. And that, fellow AD'ers, IS something worth celebrating.

It's true, this is what most people do. But if you're so down on it, then why do it? Just because it's "what people do"? Maybe this is just the twentysomething perspective taking the floor here, with my not-so-jaded outlook, but I feel that you should do what you want to do, but I know a lot people fall into things.

I once knew a guy who was a lot like Kramer (from Sienfield). I didn't understand how he got by because he didn't seem to have a real job, but yet he loved to be social and throw parties, had a PhD in sociology and loved to study and learn. He didn't have a family and get a mediocre job because he didn't want to. He basically just did his thing, which I think is great.

Now it just so happens that Paris's thing is being rich, partying, and above all else, being stupid. But I'm glad she's doing her thing, because she's enjoying I guess. The thing is she gets paid to be rich and famous...and saying that makes me feel like I'm in some alternate universe where nothing makes sense. She's really getting paid to do what she wants. We should all be so lucky. But the only way she could live this life and get paid for it is if she was famous already, which thanks to her family she is. Otherwise she'd just be another stupid drunk slut partying and worrying about life later, and we've all seen those, and they're nothing special. So in conclusion, Paris is useless. The fact that she can not care about life is not really an event, people do it all the time. They're just seen as poor, or apathetic, or lazy. Paris is just able to do it and have it not matter, since she has no lack of money (and I assume she wont since she won't (hopefully ever) manage the business). I only wish I could make money and the news for such non-events as doing what I want.

Shouldn't it be a necessary requirement to be called a celebrity that you've actually done SOMETHING worth celebrating?

Short answer: yes..."should" being the operative word.

As for Paris Hilton, ugh. She is vapid, dull, uninteresting, vulgar, and famous for being famous. She gives new meaning to the term "airhead". Unfortunately, today being a celebrity just means conforming to the thin, blonde, rich, appearing in all the right places formula...oh, and carting around a little rat dog as a fashion accessory. And her buddy Nicole Ritchie is just as bad. Sharon Stone is another good example of a publicity-seeking has-been camera hound.

Since even our network news has devolved into something resembling entertainment rather than actual news, it's hardly surprising. Content means nothing, appearance is everything. People who eat disgusting things and gag and vomit on camera is considered entertainment. It is a pretty sad comment on our society that crap like this gets so much attention.

Shouldn't it be a necessary requirement to be called a celebrity that you've actually done SOMETHING worth celebrating?

Paris Hilton is the type of person who appeals to a fantasy many of us have: to be rich, beautiful and famous without working or showing any kind of intelligence or character. In other words, we do what we want, get all the goodies, and pay nothing for it.

Paris Hilton is also like the adorable puppy in the Christmas stocking that grows up into a dog like the rest of the puppies do, or the baby chick at Easter that city people don't know what to do with when that chick becomes a hen or rooster. Like the rest of us, Paris Hilton will not escape the consequences of getting older. Granted: she will have plenty of money for Botox injections, tummy tucks, and whatever else the dermatologists come up with in an effort to forestall looking older.

If her parents did not want her to be a caricature of some sort, why would they have named her Paris? Likewise, the Hemingways named one of their daughters Margaux after the wine they were drinking when she was conceived. Margaux hated her name and later committed suicide (not because of her name, I am sure). Celebrity apparently is not good as an end in itself for everybody.

If Ms. Hilton makes it to an age of introspection, she can then examine whether she wants to be known as a rich fashion plate or apply herself to some more traditionally worthy pursuit.

I do believe that too much attention is paid to celebrities, especially those not known for achieving anything of note. It gives false hope to many of the young, who believe that they'll get a lucky break without working for it. But then, aspiring starlets used to hang out at drug stores in Hollywood to be "discovered," so it's not a new idea.

Shouldn't it be a necessary requirement to be called a celebrity that you've actually done SOMETHING worth celebrating?

Interestingly enough, I hate celebrity coverage of any and all kinds about any celebrity - except Paris Hilton. I don't care about J-Lo or Jennifer Aniston or any of the people who regularly grace the cover of the waste of trees known as People magazine. Entertainment Tonight bores the high holy crap out of me and if I see one more article concerning Julia Robert's twins, I'm going to throw a big hissy fit all up and down my 18-inch snow covered street. None of these people do anything that in any way has a remote impact on any aspect of my life, and I will never ever understand the fascination it seems many people harbor about celebrities.

Why is Paris Hilton different? I really don't have a simple explanation. I think she's awesome for the simple fact that it seems she has this extraordinary apathy for what people think or say about her. I also appreciate knowing that naturally, she looks nothing like she does, and anyone who's seen pictures of her as a teen or without makeup/contacts knows that before plastic surgery and without makeup, hair, and contacts, she looks like a very average (albeit skinny) woman. I like how she knows she's completely fake and still carries herself like she was born looking the way she does (and I know there are a bunch of people who don't find her attractive - I'm one of the ones who does). There's something appealing to an insecure teenager like myself in knowing that someone whom the media practically idolizes is just really "one of us." She's someone I'd probably like to interview, but would likely find myself bored to tears hanging out with (I find debating more appealing than partying).

To be a celebrity, one of the things you need have done the least is something worth celebrating. Would anyone have called Mother Teresa a celebrity? Martin Luther King Jr. a celebrity? In order to be a celebrity nowadays, really all you need is extreme popularity (mostly of a good kind, not like how Osama bin Laden is well-known) and enough people concerned with every little thing you do that people will buy magazines and newspapers to read about it. I think they can have that definition. If you've done something worth celebrating, I think "hero" is more fitting.

I agree, PE. Growing older is actually the most natural and beautiful part
of life. But, you wouldn't know it in this world we live in. And, Paris Hilton
is another example of girls and women who feel they must alter themselves
to fit the unrealistic, fraudulent standard that has been created.

Life's greatest lessons are gained through hard-work, sacrifice and even failure.
We learn and become greater people when we realize that the world does not
revolve around our own needs and desires. For a celebrity such as Paris Hilton,
that lesson may never be learned.



She does care, though. That is why she had plastic surgery in the first place.
If she didn't care what people think of her she'd be her real self - not a painted
platinum re-creation.

Shouldn't it be a necessary requirement to be called a celebrity that you've actually done SOMETHING worth celebrating?

I would certainly hope so, yes. But, to me, Paris Hilton has done something. She has provided an emblem for everything that our current administration stands for: privilege, inherited wealth, an unearned sense of entitlement, indolence, apathy, and a vacuous lack of concern for anything apart from one's own immediate needs. Paris Hilton is the Poster Girl for the modern Republican Party. The administration really should have used her as a campaign slogan: George W Bush - Making the World Safe for Paris Hilton.

Kudos to Lloyd Grove, though, for refusing to participate in the celebration of an individual with absolutely nothing to celebrate.

To answer the larger questions - why do we care about the private lives of celebrities? why do we love gossip columns? why do we delight in degradation and humiliation? - I'd have to say that this is probably to feel better about ourselves. All of the things which nighttimer mentions either give people the opportunity to live vicariously through the lives of celebrated people or to see such people taken down a notch or two. They either reinforce the impression that ordinary people can lead extraordinary lives or they point to the clay feet of our idols. Either way, it's a form of escapism - a more desperate form of escapism, perhaps, than something which actually addresses real human potential or presents possible alternatives which would improve the lives of us all (such as, say, a Frank Capra comedy) - but escapism nonetheless.

I suspect that the reason there seems to be an increase in the more humiliating aspects of escapist fare is that people are innately aware of the fact that, recently, there's so much more to escape from. The worse one's own life seems, the more degrading of others one's entertainment needs to be. Talentless skanks like Paris Hilton or Anna Nicole Smith are elevated so that we can see how little there really is to them. And "reality" shows like Fear Factor (all too reminiscent of The Magic Christian) demonstrate the depths to which people will sink in order to somehow elevate themselves. For the viewer, there's the comfort of knowing that, while their lives may be hopeless, their paychecks insufficient, their children ill and uneducated, their country at war for opaque reasons, at least they've not been reduced to eating giant cockroaches and warthog rectums or parading their manifest lack of talent for the delectation of people like themselves. When bread is scarce, the circus gets bigger.


The poll question? Celebrities are distractions from real people and issues. Now more than ever.

I see some jealousy here.

From www.amazon.com



Model, actress, author. fashion and jewelry designer and a mere 22 years old. Yes, after a hard day at the office she occassionally drinks. And like most 22? year olds enjoys sex. I mean she could, with all her millions, be contributing absolutely nothing to society. Instead she has helped advance all our lives by being a multi-talented producer in the capitalist system.

Just checked out www.clubparis.com, love that "eat the rich" bikini. I think she understands the attitude of many of her detractors and plays off of it pretty well.

I disagree with the notion that because someone has plastic surgery, they care about what other people think. Why can't people just not be comfortable with the attributes of certain body parts and want to change them? It is perfectly possible for people to not like their bodies, outside of any external influence.

I base my conclusion that "she doesn't care" on several things - not the least of which is how she handled herself after the whole sex tape fiasco. If I were her, I would have never shown my face in public again - or at least for the next few months - because I'd have been so embarrassed. Paris Hilton's reaction was like "yeah, so what, I have sex. Your point?" She basically continued on in life as if nothing had happened. Then again, this is coming from someone who flashes the papparazzi on a semi-regular basis. This may be the basis for people calling her sexually derogatory names, and I strongly disagree with it. In the first place, technically anyone who has sex can be caught having sex on camera. Second - and I don't claim to know her motivation behind her seemingly adverse attitude towards things like underwear and bras - but I think it does make a point when she knows that people will be filming and photographing her every move, and she goes undergarment-less anyway. This strikes me as being the actions of someone who really just doesn't care what people think or say about her.

Ah my dear Suzy Steamboat, we are a united front on the subjects of police brutality, the Bush Administration and the music of Nine Inch Nails, but we part company on the contribution of Paris Hilton to the betterment of society.

I don't know if you referenced Grove's article, but I wonder why you are untroubled by this: When she was caught on video making nice to two African-American men, then treacherously calling them "dumb n-s" after they left, it might have been a career-ender, but Paris barely got her wrists slapped. Even after her former friend Brandon Davis claimed: "She is a racist, plus an idiot. ... She puts down Jews and other minorities, too. And I'm Jewish." Paris - who, according to published reports, tried to buy the tape to take it out of circulation - sidestepped the issue of using racial epithets but declared: "I love everybody and am not a person who discriminates against anyone - ever."

Paris is the anti-Jessica Simpson. Simpson plays the dumb blonde, but actually has some talent as a singer. Hilton is a dumb blonde and has evidenced no discernible talent besides skill in performing oral sex in that video (where Grove also points out she made approximately $400,000 for her lead performance).

I'm not hating on Hilton for her metamorphosis from a Steffi Graf-lookalike into the taut, toned and talentless triple threat she currently is. But come on, Suzy, let's be real. Plastic surgery is noble and necessary for someone born with a cleft palate or scarred in a auto accident. For everyone else, it's all about vanity. Paris has so much plastic in her now she has to stay away from the heat lamps at the buffet table or she'll melt.

Last week on 60 Minutes, Mike Wallace interviewed Ricky Williams, the all-pro running back for the Miami Dolphins who announced his sudden retirement from the NFL a few weeks before training camps opened. Williams is now enjoying life as a free spirit learning holistic massage and smoking copious amounts of marijuana. Wallace gently grilled Williams about his sudden change from football star to 21st century vagabond with an affinity for the hippie lettuce. You know what Williams said, Suzy?

"I look very foolish. That's definitely accurate. To a lot of people, I look very foolish in what I'm doing. And I understand that," says Williams, who isn't bothered at all by it. "Because the only thing that matters is how I feel. And if I let what they feel affect me, then it changes how I feel."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/...ain661572.shtml

The world needs free spirits. People who sit under trees, stare up at the sky, think grand thoughts and contemplate their navels. Nothing wrong with living a life free from want and need and a simpler, more natural life.

But the world also needs bus drivers, garbage collectors and teachers in lousy schools. The world needs grown-ups and people like Ricky Williams and Paris Hilton draw more attention than necessary for the relative uselessness of their lives than their great works and contributions to the world. They're kind of stuck in a permanent state of arrested development where it's all about them and hooray for me and the hell with everybody else.

Life is hard. People need their little amusements and if Paris Hilton's life of wealth and comfort provides it for some, then so be it. I'm not particularly impressed by wealthy people with no sense of humility or noblesse oblige, but Paris is still young. Maybe eventually that 60-watt bulb of a brain will click on, but I'm not holding my breath. I guess Suzy, by my geratic standards, it takes more than a "I don't care" attitude to gain my admiration. I find reality TV worthless as a form of entertainment and "The Simple Life" where the premise is wealthy young women go slumming with the great unwashed to be particularly repulsive.

I prefer the non-conformists and challengers of authority that tried to bring about social or political change by their "I don't care what the world thinks" mind-set than all the Paris Hiltons of the world rolled up in a big ol' ball. Paris couldn't begin to fathom challenging the status quo. She is the status quo where being wealthy and beautiful (by a Eurocentric standard of beauty) trumps bad manners, casual racism, an elitist sense of entitlement and general cluelessness.

Paris is just the latest symptom of a yet uncured disease. Blind obeisance by the public to the Cult of Personality.

Jealousy? Hugo, C'mon.

If I were going to waste my energy with a futile emotion, such as jealousy, it
would not be aimed at the likes of Paris Hilton.

Have you ever heard of a woman named Tatyana Pozdnyakova? She won the
2004 Los Angeles Marathon. She was 47 years old at the time, and she
completed 26.2 miles in 2 hours and 29 minutes. At almost 50 years of
age she ran the mile in just over 5 minutes, and she did it 26 times over.
That, my friend, is a woman to be envied. Yet, her accomplishments are
inspirational to all women.

How does Paris Hilton inspire?

How about Oprah Winfrey? She was born in 1954 in rural Mississippi. The odds were
not in her favor, yet she overcame all obstacles and went on to become the
most successful talk show host ever. She is the first African-American billionaire.
She didn't have hotel money handed to her. She earned every single penny.

Unlike Paris Hilton, Oprah gives back to society:

In 1991, motivated in part by her own memories of childhood abuse, she
initiated a campaign to establish a national database of convicted child abusers,
and testified before a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on behalf of a National
Child Protection Act designed to President Clinton signed the "Oprah Bill" into law
in 1993, establishing the national database she had sought, which is now available
to law enforcement agencies and concerned parties across the country........

..... Oprah's Angel Network began presenting a $100,000 "Use Your
Life Award" to people who are using their lives to improve the lives of others.

----------------------------

The above are just two examples of women who deserve their fame and
recognition. Yet, they are also women who give hope to other women.

Paris Hilton does not inspire hope in others. If anything, she reminds us
of how unfair life can be.

Shouldn't it be a necessary requirement to be called a celebrity that you've actually done SOMETHING worth celebrating?

Well, if we lived in my world, that's a no-brainer. The answer would be yes. But unfortunately, we all don't live in my world.

Now I will admit to a certain level of male piggishness. I like girls, and I like to look at girls. Flipping past the E! channel and seeing vapid, self indulged scantily dressed prima donnas like Paris will certainly get my attention....and usually keep it until they open their mouths to speak.

I will respect a 'celebrity' for the work they do (as long as its decent), but it seems when they try and break out of their roles and become activists for their 'cause of the week' that they look more buffoonish. I actually think many celebrities look for these outlets because they know most people don't take them seriously. I just think they fail miserably, much as I would if I tried to act or sing.

Paris is definitely in a class all by herself. Aside from ridiculing small town America on her train wreck of a reality show, I've seen no redeeming qualities in her, much less a purpose for her life besides waiting for Daddy to die.

The true celebrities are those who most often won't get recognized. The soldier who pulls a wounded buddy to safety under heavy fire with no embed around to film it.........the man or woman from the middle of nowhere or the middle of the big city who has spent their life helping the poor, the homeless or the disabled........ the teacher who tutors kids after school without pay, because he or she really cares......these are the ones who should be celebrities.

So aside from trying to decide if Paris is really able to wear underwear with that outfit...I normally don't give 'celebrities' too much of my precious time.

BTW....Wertz, you have to be the only person I can think of who can put GWB and Paris Hilton at one degree of separation. Eggnog a little strong this year?

Well, Nighttimer expressed my views far more elegantly and eloquently than I ever could have...then I read this line and about snorted my Christmas glass of Shiraz out my nose:


As for her attractiveness, I'll leave that to the men; I find her quite plain, common and forgettable...kind of like rich white trailer trash.

That's quite an impressive list at only 22. I would wonder where she got the time to learn writing at a professional level, learn how to act, not mention have time to be a model in there. Or maybe she just has innate talent to do all this, or maybe she's a jack of all trades and a master of none, or maybe, just maybe, she gets to do stuff like this because she's rich and popular and people actually follow her because she's Paris Hilton.

I write songs and poetry, and I love to do stand up/comedy writing but something tells me I can't just go do it and become popular/rich because I'm me. All's I'm saying is she gets these opportunities because she's rich, not because of her talent.

Bingo. It's all about the money. Inheriting the Hilton fortune creates lots of opportunities. And someone said something about jealousy? Heck yeah I am jealoous of that kind of wealth-- who wouldn't be.
But when it all shakes out, Paris Hilton is boring and the public's fascination with her will die out of its own accord. Who cares?

Does it really matter? History doesn't judge the winners, and it matters not how she got the opportunities, she is still doing what she's doing. That's the way I see it, at least. To me, if one person got a promotion through hard work, and another got it by sleeping with the boss, they both deserve it equally, they both did what was necessary. In Paris' case, doing what is necessary is doing exactly what she wants. Which is great.



You know, I could never understand this fascination with hard work. As if it is somehow so much more noble to cut down a tree using a nail file than using a chainsaw. Hard work is not a choice, it is a lack of options. And I only wish I could afford to have all my needs and desires catered to.

In this time of ridiculous collective moralism, it is nice to see somebody use their social status and money to give a big, fat, surgically enhanced middle finger to all of it. She represents raw, selfish hedonism, and I love it.

And I don't care what anyone says, making fun of hicks is entertaining.

Generally celebrity types lead the life we all want--carefree, indulged, pleasant and free from the day to day grind that we all must go thru. Some acheive a moment of greatness like athletes and hit that string inside of us that still represents the 8 year old who once dreamed of being an astronaut and becomes an accountant. The Walter Mitty in all of us tries to live through them for a moment. Daydreams.
I think its why we are so vicious to those that commit the sin of failing or showing themselves to be false. How dare they throw away what we would often pay dearly for.
One of my regrets is losing the link to a study done that showed a large percentage of people will actually perform an action that causes themselves harm Just to bring down another person who has gained success and has the life we all wish we had.
What strange creatures we are.

I'll grant you this. But, we are we so fascinated by them. Paris doing all those things does nothing to improve one's own life. Is it mere escapism, then? If so, that doesn't explain the credibility we then assign to celebrity. If we think they are an escape from reality, assigning any credibility to their views on real problems makes no sense at all. By definition, they're disconnected from reality, and therefore wouldn't have a clue about any issue that would affect any normal person. Yet, we pay attention nonetheless...and I've never understood it.



Yes, couldn't agree more. Too bad we couldn't pay more homage to the Cult of Actual Noteworthy Achievement.

Paris Hilton was a child born with a silver spoon in her mouth. Her Parent's money and fame got her her fame. Is she talented? NO! At a very young age of 22 and has had so many cosmetics surgeries I hate to see what she will look like at 40. Another Michael Jackson? That is a scarey thought.

I think the best reply for people such as Paris Hilton is just to ignore then and their antics. When no one in the media gives them any press coverage, their ego and career will cease to exist.