Let us now bash Paris Hilton. Why not? She’s a vapid, entitled blemish on the face of American culture. Born to wealth and privilege, Ms. Hilton is “famous for being famous,” attracting America’s attention with “reality” shows in which she and ex-friend Nicole Richie attempt, and fail with “hilarious” results, to live like ordinary Americans.

Q: Why is Paris Hilton stupid?
A: Because it pays so well.

Ms. Hilton does, however, provide a public service. She furnishes parents and preachers with an easy morality tale: while being crass and vacuous may be, in some cases, a path to fame and fortune, it’s better to make a positive contribution to society and retain your self respect. If “getting ahead” is all you care about, what separates you from the guy selling drugs on the corner?

On the other hand, let’s consider John Yoo, a professor at the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California at Berkeley. From 2001 to 2003, Professor Yoo was in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice.

Mr. Yoo is famous (not “Paris Hilton famous,” but famous enough) for his work at Justice. He is a proponent of the “unitary executive” theory of government, which boils down to: “The president is above the law and can do whatever he damn well pleases.”

The week before Ms. Hilton’s first television program was aired, “pirated” copies of an explicit sex tape featuring her and an ex-boyfriend appeared in cities across the country. Copies of the tape – “One Night in Paris” – are still available at street-corner card tables staffed by sketchy-looking guys. (These men often appear in morality tales, next to the guys selling drugs.)

In a 2005 debate, Mr. Yoo said if the president orders it, government officials might legally crush a child’s testicles, in order to get the child’s father to reveal information the government officials think the father may be withholding.

On several occasions, Ms. Hilton made news by arriving at social events and – in front of a crowd of photographers – emerging from an automobile in a miniskirt, having “forgotten” to wear underwear.

In a 2003 memorandum, made public in the last week, Mr. Yoo argued American military personnel were allowed to inflict bodily harm on “enemy combatants,” as long as the harm was not inflicted on American soil and as long as the harm did not cause “death, organ failure or permanent damage.” If those conditions were met, Mr. Yoo wrote, such treatment did not amount to torture.

Ms. Hilton recently appeared naked and covered in gold paint in ads for an Italian canned sparkling wine. We haven’t tried the product, but can only assume its quality from its association with Ms. Hilton.

In another old memo made public (sort of) this week – this one written six weeks after the September 11th attacks – Mr. Yoo claimed, “Our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations.” We don’t know exactly what Mr. Yoo’s memo said, because it hasn’t been released; what we do know was gleaned from a footnote in another formerly secret memo that was released to the American Civil Liberties Union.

I’m no legal scholar, but I believe the Fourth Amendment does apply, always and everywhere in the United States and not only that, the Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of the military in domestic law enforcement.

Aside from applications of gold body paint, there is little difference between Paris Hilton and John Yoo. Both are clearly making it up as they go along. Both have been too richly rewarded – Ms. Hilton with money and fame, Mr. Yoo with prestige and influence – for subscribing to the theory that the ends justify the means.

It’s easy and appropriate to lament the reduced state of American cultural values when we consider the case of Paris Hilton, but Paris Hilton is, for the most part, a victimless crime. We should not let her antics distract us from the important news of the day, which is that the United States, under the pen of John Yoo and people like him, has devolved in eight years from a democracy to a totalitarian state.

One can perhaps forgive “Entertainment Tonight” for having no ethical basis – what’s the University of California at Berkeley’s excuse?

© Mark Floegel, 2008