A few days ago I heard that Barbara Walters had some sort of special in which she pronounce who the ten most important people of 2004 were. Heading the list, I was told, was Karl Rove. That seemed perfectly reasonable to me. It turns out that in the number two position was Paris Hilton! Since I find her, and her fifteen minutes of fame, to be utterly idiotic, I was glad to see that Dana Stevens at Slate agreed (you can ignore Stevens’ remarks on Rove later in the article). But this on the "soulless, dead-eyed, 23 year old party girl" Hilton is very good:
In order to find entertainment in the Paris persona, one must simply accept that materialism, greed, and a naked desire for fame are highly valued attributes in our culture. After plugging her new perfume (is there really anyone out there who wants to smell like Paris Hilton?) and her soon-to-be-released album, Screwed (is there anyone out there who wants to listen to Paris Hilton?), Hilton characterized herself as the misunderstood girl-next-door, who plans to settle down and have children in the next two years. ("Is there a guy?" asks Barbara. "I’ll find one," vows Hilton.)
I have to disagree with you about Paris Hilton only having 15 minutes of fame.
A friend (not me, you understand) has seen the video and it’s more like 37 minutes!
Peter,
More power to her IMHO. There was a market out there, and like any good entrepreneur she sold her market.
I have no idea if the "real" Paris is the public one or not, nor do I give a fig about her doings.
But, she accomplished what she set out to do and, I’m certain, my, or your, opinion matters not as to whether or not she’s succeeded.
Because, she has!
Mike
The list was the ten most interesting people, not the ten most important. I imagine if you sat down to chat with Paris you would find she is as dumb as paint. That said, she is still gorgeous, and the saga of the rich heiress who craves fame has some appeal.
I can’t believe that you guys are supporters of Paris Hilton and her non-accomplishments! Do I have to re-evaluate my values? Do I have to call her parents pedotrophists?
Indeed, if our standard for determining merit is identifying a market and successfully selling to it, we’d have to call Hitler one of the greatest men in history. I’m as pro-capitalist as the next guy, but to equate what is successful with what is admirable strikes me as an incredible abdication of moral judgment.
I fully agree with John Moser, that,
"to equate what is successful with what is admirable strikes me as an incredible abdication of moral judgment"
Ms. Hilton either bores me or disgusts me, but any of the worthless projects or publicity stunts that she profits from (along with her publicity and marketing crew, no doubt) hardly bother me more than the fact that she would also be absurdly wealthy had she done nothing whatsoever, except cash in her allowances and inheritances. As much as the Right loves to plug individual initiative, hard work and merit, people like Hilton can rest assured that their unearned "birthright" fortunes will sustain their extravagant lifestyles, and probably the next generation or two of Hiltons (I’d hope!), with the help of Bush fiscal policies (Protect Paris from the "death tax!").
Whereas, those who work in lucrative jobs at McDonald’s, Wal-Mart or Target find it increasingly difficult to even fathom college educations (leftist dominance of the academy sort of a moot point for these folks), for them or their kids, in order to market themselves for more wholesome endeavors than those of Ms. Hilton.
I differ with Mr. Daley’s position, that basically anything that makes money, or adds to the GDP, is a good thing. But bloggers here often appear happy to blur or minimize any distinction between democracy and capitalism (free markets = freedom), so I’m (pleasantly) surprised to see Daley’s comment get some resistance.
As for equating successful things with admirable things, this fallacy is what valueless blue state liberals, progressives and leftists contend with every day, as they question or work against many so-called "successful" things that they don’t see as so admirable.
Let’s also keep in mind that Hilton is not successful for anything that she has done. It didn’t take any creativity or any effort at all. She was simply so wealthy from her birth that she could decide, when the time was right, that she is famous. Take away the inherited wealth and the last name, and she is not "successful" or even well-known. She is run-of-the-mill, moderately attractive (but by no means "hot), used up trash by the old age of 23, working in some seedy dance club in the Flats so she feed the drug habit that will ultimately cause her death. This is nothing for us to praise or even pay mention of.
I think Paris is a very talented young lady.She should not be picked apart for all of her negitves but she should be acknowledged for her accomplishments. Paris is living her life the way she wants and is setting an example for other young women to do as they please and shrug off the people who disagree.I think if anything that is important in todays society. I am a fifften year old girl and i think Paris is just wonderful!