Easily Hitchens worst article by far. She's in her mid twenties but Hitchens thinks its his right to forget that in order to call her a child.

I've never seen her sex video, don't buy gossip rags and ignore CNN when some troubled or spoiled intractable blond, dead or alive, dominates coverage. This isn't just about a lingering sexual double standard. If it was, maybe the article wouldn't seem as superficial as the coverage.

Paris Hilton sought media attention and got it. She can't take it back. She can't stop it now. She is, in legal speak, a limited-purpose public figure. I'll save my pity for people caught up in events and thrust into the public eye by accident and without their own encouragement.

Another aspect is celebrity journalism equals ratings, and ratings are more important than telling the public what it needs to know. Nothing personal against Paris and her escapades, but she's just a media tool.

Of course, Hitchens can't write an article about high profile defendants without mentioning uppity district court judge Walton. He claims Walton will relish sentencing Libby but doesn't question whether dozens of amicus briefs on behalf of Libby would have unintended consequences on any judge.

Ah well, anything to support the war supporters.