Hitchens on Hilton

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I guess I don’t know what you’re talking about either. What opportunity did the sex tape give her, how did she “manipulate” it and how does that justify her public humiliation?

Bear in mind that pretty much all I KNOW about Paris Hilton is that she’s an heiress who made a sex tape. If the media fixated on her, I don’t see how that’s her fault or how it makes her evil.
[/QUOTE]

Paris Hilton has been savvy at managing her career. She has used her ‘stupid spoiled whore’ image to carve out her own niche in the entertainment industry and has made millions of her own dollars doing it. Her playing with the media has been a relationship not a one sided victimization, but do we not feel sorry for people when their romances go sour even if they played a role in it’s spoiling?

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Jodi]
Me, too. The woman is 26 years old; under no reasonable standard (even the West’s infantilizing one) is she a “child.” Her infamous porn tape is not something “everyone” has seen, nor was Hitchens required to view it – but how comforting to excuse her behavior there as well: She appeared to be drugged. And she’s not in prison, she’s in jail. Understanding Hitchens is not originally American, he should learn that here there is a difference between jail and prison.
[/QUOTE]

You clearly didn’t read the article I read. I did not see anywhere in the article where he asks anyone to excuse her behavior. He is talking about examining the behavior of prurient interest in seeing this girl fall to her sinful ways. He didn’t say that being drugged excused her making the sex tape but that it appeared as such, and that showed the lack of connection she had to the event, thus making it unsexy.

His point is that inside the media savvy whore there is a damaged little girl, and he wanted to bear witness to that. I don’t read it as an apologia.

[Larry_Borgia]

Regarding the Walton/Libby aspect, Here’s what Hitch said:

It cited an even more acid piece of creepy populism, in the form of an order from Judge “Reggie” Walton, who poured his witless sarcasm on those who had filed a brief in support of Lewis “Scooter” Libby. Would such “luminaries,” sneered Walton, be equally available for other litigants? It’s not his job to arbitrate such a question, and he seems not to understand the law, but if his words mean anything, and from a federal judge at that, they appear to mean that to be a public figure is to risk double jeopardy in the courts. No doubt Judge Walton will relish the coming days in which he can order Libby to report to prison.

Here’s what Walton said, as reported by the Washington Post:

“It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant,” Walton wrote in granting the scholars’ request.

He added: “The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics’ willingness in the future to step up to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions.”

Hitch is completely off base here. This wasn’t a decision of law, it was a footnote in a letter to the twelve law professors who wished to argue that Libby should remain free pending his appeals. Walton agreed to hear their arguments, and hasn’t made any decision at all yet. How Hitch thinks this offhand comment is “arbitrating” anything is beyond me.

Also, what does “double jeopardy” have to do with anything here? Seriously. Libby isn’t being re-tried for an offence he’s already been aquitted of, he was convicted. This is just part of the appeals process.

Finally, how is it “creepy populism” to note that a person of Libby’s stature, who had excellent legal representation, now has the free services of twelve of the most prominent legal minds in the country, while the indigent are stuck with a single overworked court appointed attorney?

[Jodi]

[QUOTE=mswas]
You clearly didn’t read the article I read.
[/quote]

Well, I read the one by Christopher Hitchens in Slate, as linked in the OP, so let us know which one you read.

I did not see anywhere in the article where he asks anyone to excuse her behavior.

That is the clear subtext of infantilizing her, minimizing her irresponsible actions, and magnifying her punishment (in “prison”).

He is talking about examining the behavior of prurient interest in seeing this girl fall to her sinful ways.

This is a “chicken and egg” argument. Is the public’s interest motivated to see her fall (“Take that, Paris Hilton!”) or is it generated by her having fallen? If there were fewer sex-tape-creating, starlet-bashing, cooch-flashing events occurring, there would be fewer reported. Which God forbid! Paris herself so abhors the publicitiy that she called Barbara Walters to request that the media leave her alone! Again, the Irony Meter seems to have been broken.

He didn’t say that being drugged excused her making the sex tape but that it appeared as such, and that showed the lack of connection she had to the event, thus making it unsexy.

AND implicitly excusing it in the first place: She didn’t do it knowingly; she was drugged.

His point is that inside the media savvy whore there is a damaged little girl, and he wanted to bear witness to that. I don’t read it as an apologia.

And MY point is that “damaged little girl” is as much a “spin” position – a postion every bit as unbalanced – as calling her a “crybaby” or a “jailbird.” He is decrying the very behavior he himself engages in. And you can read it however you like – as, of course, can I.

[Cat_Fight]

Meh. Nothing new. Perhaps he prefers drunk driving lost girls who liberally use the word ‘nigger’ and ‘chink’ over those who attempt to tell jokes?

[mswas]

Jodi Yea, I don’t see it the way you do at all. I do not see any attempt to excuse Hilton, only to treat her as a human being. Something that is so rarely done.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=Jodi]
Of course he did. She’s a “tearful child,”
[/quote]

She was tearful and everybody and their brother was accusing her of being childish, being a “brat,” etc.

a “lost girl.” She was “purportedly unaware” of her legal standing

That’s just a fact. she WAS, in FACT, “purportedly unaware” of her legal standing. Maybe you don’t know what “purportedly” means.

– despite having the proof of it in her very own car

So what? I find it extremely believable that she wouldn’t read her own legal papers or be very clued in as to what was going on. You may choose not to believe her if you wish, but you don’t KNOW what she was or was not aware of, and really, her collective crimes, even if accepted in totality, are still extremely petty and the punishment (talking about the leering, masturbatory press coverage, not just the excessive sentence) is far more than an ordinary person would receive.

– who had only a “whiff of alcohol” on her breath.

That’s about right. Her BAC was very low. She wouldn’t have eevn been over the legal limit in some states. Besides, driving while buzzed is not exactly the La Bianca-Tate murders. How many people can say they’ve never done it? Is getting a first time DUI (or driving on a suspended license) really a crime which merits the kind of pornographic public humiliation this chick received?

IMO, it is extraordinarily telling that he can’t make his case WITHOUT painting her as a vulnerable victim.

I think if you read more carefully, you’ll find that he DID make his case wityhout painting her as a vulnerable victim.

She’s a “lost girl.” We the public are kiddie-porn lovers.

The latter statement is certainly true.

As usual, the truth is probably somewhere in between

And i think that’s what his column was actually saying. It wasn’t “oh, poor Paris,” but "is it really decent to take THIS much pleasure in it? She didn’t kill anybody. She committed a petty, commonplace crime that practically every adult over 21 has committed at some time in their life. She didn’t cut anybody’s head off. She didn’t even rant about the Jews. My own feeling is not that Paris isn’t spoiled and entitled (she IS) but that the public response to her misdemeanor infractions is ludicrously out of proportion to the real severity of the crimes. The crimes are an EXCUSE for enjoying the humiliation, but I don’t find it believable that they are the CAUSE.

– Hitchens probably does have a point – but he HIMSELF is so much a purveyer of inflammatory “creepy” populism that you’d be hard-pressed to find the rational truth in his article, which is no more balanced than the tabloids. Somehow I doubt he gets that irony, but it’s pretty glaring to me.

I don’t think I’d ever call Hitchens a “populist.” He’s almost studiously contrarian. Supporting the war in Iraq is not a populist view. Advocating the use of the US military to topple totalitarian regimes in general (not just Iraq) is not a populist view. Attacking Mother Teresa wan’t populist. Being not just an atheist but an avowed “anti-theist” certainly isn’t populist. He takes anti-populist views all the time.

[Jodi]

[QUOTE=mswas]
Jodi Yea, I don’t see it the way you do at all. I do not see any attempt to excuse Hilton, only to treat her as a human being. Something that is so rarely done.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t see why she has to be sanitized and infantilized in order to be treated “as a human being.” To me, it’s the 900th iteration of the Virgin/Whore dichotomy: as a woman, she must be pigeonholed as one or the other. I think there has to be a rational middle position, that almost certainly more closely approaches the truth. IMO, Hilton is not a whore or an irredeemable slut – but neither is she some lost little girl. She’s a 26 year old woman who has made some savvy choices in media exploitation and money making, and some poor choices in personal relationships and reliance on her own celebrity.

So I don’t think Hitchens is completely off-base. I just think in decrying how far “the media” has gone in one direction, he goes way too far in the other direction. And I find that kinda ironic and funny.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Hitchens is using the “child” comparisons figuratively and derisively, not as a plea for sympathy.

I think that argument is also a diversion from the real point, which is that even if the worst possible inference and assumption is made about every moment of her life until she was in that courtroom, she STILL had never done anything to justify the transparently prurient joy that the public took in her humiliation. I got the impression that people would have been happy to literally see her burned at the stake. It was a very unsettling feeling for me – a sense of the implacable mob. It was disturbing.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Jodi]
I don’t see why she has to be sanitized and infantilized in order to be treated “as a human being.” To me, it’s the 900th iteration of the Virgin/Whore dichotomy: as a woman, she must be pigeonholed as one or the other. I think there has to be a rational middle position, that almost certainly more closely approaches the truth. IMO, Hilton is not a whore or an irredeemable slut – but neither is she some lost little girl. She’s a 26 year old woman who has made some savvy choices in media exploitation and money making, and some poor choices in personal relationships and reliance on her own celebrity.
[/quote]

This I would agree with, but I would say that Paris Hilton seems to be pretty off-kilter, and as anyone who has ever dealt with an addict knows, they are quite often ‘lost little children’. I don’t think acknowledging that part of her is a lost little child is really ‘excusing her’. I mean Charlie Manson if you read anything about his childhood is a bit of a ‘lost little child’, that doesn’t give him a pass. Paris Hilton is a tragic character.

So I don’t think Hitchens is completely off-base. I just think in decrying how far “the media” has gone in one direction, he goes way too far in the other direction. And I find that kinda ironic and funny.

While I agree that she shouldn’t get a pass, I don’t agree that this was Hitchens’ intention.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=mswas]
While I agree that she shouldn’t get a pass, I don’t agree that this was Hitchens’ intention.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed. He’s not saying let her out or that the sentence per se is a travesty of justice, he’s saying the least we can do is show some decorum, take our hands out of our pants and maybe even avert our eyes if she needs to take a piss.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Jodi

AND implicitly excusing it in the first place: She didn’t do it knowingly; she was drugged.

Why does making a sex tape need to be “excused?”

Why does having an ex-boyfriend publicize the tape make her a bad person?

[Jodi]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
She was tearful and everybody and their brother was accusing her of being childish, being a “brat,” etc.
[/quote]

You can parse “child” as broadly as you want ("He must have meant “child-ish”) but referring to a 26 year old woman as a child is factually incorrect.

That’s just a fact. she WAS, in FACT, “purportedly unaware” of her legal standing. Maybe you don’t know what “purportedly” means.

She also WAS, in FACT, in possession of the documents making her aware of her legal status – a FACT that Hitchens omits. And the tone of an article is built of those facts the writer chooses to include and those facts the writer chooses to omit. But maybe you don’t know what “tone” means.

So what? I find it extremely believable that she wouldn’t read her own legal papers or be very clued in as to what was going on. You may choose not to believe her if you wish, but you don’t KNOW what she was or was not aware of, and really, her collective crimes, even if accepted in totality, are still extremely petty and the punishment (talking about the leering, masturbatory press coverage, not just the excessive sentence) is far more than an ordinary person would receive.

I don’t give a rat’s ass what she actually knew; I have no time for willful ignorance, and I give no credit for not really knowing what you actually should know and have the means to know. I don’t have to accept your determination that her collective crimes were “extremely petty,” and I frankly don’t care if her punishment is or is not more than an ordinary person would receive, so long as the sentence is legal.

I think if you read more carefully, you’ll find that he DID make his case wityhout painting her as a vulnerable victim.

This is merely a variation of the tiresome “I’m wrong and you’re stupid” argument – Gosh, if only I read the article more carefully, I would see it your way! I read the article carefully; I disagree with you. In the article, she is a “girl,” she is a “child.” It’s victimizing bullshit.

The latter statement is certainly true.

Speak for yourself, please. And keep your kiddie-porn collection to yourself as well.

The crimes are an EXCUSE for enjoying the humiliation, but I don’t find it believable that they are the CAUSE.

The CAUSE is every twat-flashing picture, every spat with another starlet over boyfriends, every TV show or commercial where she’s allowed herself to be portrayed as a useless empty-headed socialite, every porny video, every bullshit envelope-opening she attended to utter “That’s hott”, every telepone call to the media asking that the media leave her alone. For years her behavior has screamed LOOK AT ME! while she has done absolutely nothing of value with her assets, both financial and in terms of notoriety. It is not my – or anyone’s – shining moment to be even minimally gleeful to see her discomfited, but neither does it make us akin to child abusers.

I don’t think I’d ever call Hitchens a “populist.”

Then don’t. I’m not asking you to share my opinon and, unlike you, I’ll go ahead and allow you have your own.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Why does making a sex tape need to be “excused?”

Why does having an ex-boyfriend publicize the tape make her a bad person?
[/QUOTE]

How does being on drugs excuse making a sex tape?

[PastAllReason]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
he was clearly speaking figuratively in this column and was not attempting to paint her as a vulnerable waif but was describing the public’s own perception of her as a spoiled child. Do you get this indignant every time somebody calls her a “brat” or a “child” in derisive terms?

What lengths has she gone to?

All people who want to be on magazine covers deserve to be himiliated and have no right to privacy?

All the excuses people come up with for bashing this woman always sounded hollow and defensive to me. It sounds post hoc. I think the hatred has more to do with envy than anyone is willing to admit.
[/QUOTE]

1. I am not indignant about this at all. You seem to be fairly indignant given the number of posts in this thread. But yes, I would also agree that calling her a “brat” or “child” in derisive terms is also inappropriate. As I posted earlier, she is twenty six years old, and she holds the same accountability for her actions or inactions as other adults.

2. If you are unaware of the lengths that she has gone to, I would suggest that you haven’t been paying attention. Mostly she is famous for being famous. Do you think that occurred accidentally? To give her credit, she has by several accounts managed to parlay this into a significant income for even appearing at a club.

3. Apparently you missed the part of my post that said the following, “I have much more sympathy for people who are famous who are not out seeking every last opportunity to get their pictures taken so they can appear in In Touch magazine” It’s interesting to look at women in roughly the same age range as Paris Hilton who seem to successfully balance being famous and and being a responsible adult. Consider, for example, Scarlett Johansson, a mere babe in swaddling in comparison to Paris Hilton, at the age of 22, or Natalie Portman who is the same age as Hilton. On the whole, a lack of drama. As I said before, I would have a great deal more sympathy for them were something similar to occur.

[Jodi]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Why does making a sex tape need to be “excused?”

Why does having an ex-boyfriend publicize the tape make her a bad person?
[/QUOTE]

Since the tape is on the Internet, having made it would constitute what my five-year-old niece calls “A bad choice.” Does that make her a bad person? No. But it doesn’t make her a smart one. Just like there’s nothing inherently wrong with leaving your panties at home, but if you’re followed by photographers everywhere you go, you have to be extra careful to not flash your naughty bits at the media.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=mswas]
How does being on drugs excuse making a sex tape?
[/QUOTE]

Why does making a sex tape need to be excused? I thought she looked like she was on drugs in that tape too. That’s not about “excusing” anything, it’s just a subjective observation. I also think that Hasslehoff was drunk when he was eating that cheeseburger. That doesn’t mean that either making a sex tape or eating a cheesbuger needs to be “excused” by anybody. There’s nothing immoral or illegal about either.

[Jodi]

[QUOTE=mswas]
This I would agree with, but I would say that Paris Hilton seems to be pretty off-kilter, and as anyone who has ever dealt with an addict knows, they are quite often ‘lost little children’. I don’t think acknowledging that part of her is a lost little child is really ‘excusing her’. I mean Charlie Manson if you read anything about his childhood is a bit of a ‘lost little child’, that doesn’t give him a pass. Paris Hilton is a tragic character.
[/quote]

Suffice it to say that I completely disagree with this. I don’t particularly consider Hilton a “lost little child,” and I really can’t even relate to such a characterization being applied to Charles Manson. Tragedy is certainly in the eye of the beholder.

[scotandrsn]

Paris Hilton is merely living out Gore Vidal’s edict: Never give up a chance to have sex or appear on television.

If she has become hateful, and I will not be the one to argue that she has not, it is not particularly her fault. DUI is a serious crime, and driving without a license and violating probation no less so, but Good Lord! This is LA, there must be several tens thousand people, of all income levels, doing these things daily here. Her violations are no more worthy of media attention than anyone else’s.

My wife enjoys celebrity gossip shows, and i often watch them with her. That’s hpw Paris Hilton first appeared in our consciousnesses. They show clips of people going in and out of clubs, parties, and openings, and suddenly there are more and more pictures of these two moderately good-looking, fairly unknown rich blond sisters. After a while, it seemed like an obsession on the parts of the photographers. Who are these girls, and why should I give a shit?

The more they appear, the more vapid and shallow they seem. Again, stupid spoiled children of the wealthy are a dime a dozen here. Why are these two taking up so much screen time?

Then one of them, the taller one with slightly better proportioned features and the sleepy eye, gets a TV show where she acts dumb and vapid. Well, sheee-it, I have as much money as I really need right now, but if someone were to offer me TV-level salary for no better reason than because I have a dumb-looking nose or had once played a caveman in a commercial, I’d jump all over that. She’s doing what anyone would do, there.

Someone releases a video of her having sex. GASP! Who would make a sex tape?!? Someone very narcissistic, and let’s just say there’s no shortage of THAT attribute in this town, either. Again, she’s no one special.

I never asked for Paris Hilton. She was thrust into my awareness. Had it not been for the media’s obsession with her from the time she was just another dumb unknown rich kid staggering out of a party, no one would have known who she was, or cared. Ever. If I have an opinion of her at all, one way or the other, it’s because the outlets I frequent to find out the news of the day insist that I consider her. If I want to know the important goings on and CNN tries to tells me it’s some run-of-the-mill wealthy blond ninny crying for her mother, who’s fault is that?

So fuck you, Chris Hitchens and any other media figure that chides the public for having opinions, not of Paris the person, who none of us will ever know, but Paris Hilton the media image that you have requested us to contemplate. You created it unasked. You have slavishly delivered it to us and repeatedly declared it important. It is your puppet. We are glad to see it damaged, because we have grown very tired of its antics taking up so much of the precious leisure time we have offered you to fill. You will not gain our sympathy by continuing to dangle your broken toy before our eyes. If you don’t like how things turned out, it is no one’s doing but your own.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=Jodi]
Since the tape is on the Internet, having made it would constitute what my five-year-old niece calls “A bad choice.” Does that make her a bad person? No. But it doesn’t make her a smart one.
[/quote]

Does not being smart make her deserving of public humiliation?

Just like there’s nothing inherently wrong with leaving your panties at home, but if you’re followed by photographers everywhere you go, you have to be extra careful to not flash your naughty bits at the media.

What’s wrong with flashing your naughty bits at the media? You can go with “not smart” again, but I’m not trying to argue that she’s a genius, I’m asking why she deserves such virulent public hatred and humiliation. It can’t just be the beaver shots. The paprazzi have been getting “up” shots of celebrities as long as there have been cameras. Why are Paris Hilton’s any worse than Princess Diana’s?