I mean, I've expressed as much contempt for Paris Hilton on this blog as anybody out there, but over the past few days I've been trying to put myself in Richard Hilton's shoes. If I'd dumped tens of thousands of dollars into the McCain campaign and the RNC, only to have McCain turn around and slag off my own daughter (spoiled whore though she may be) in a national TV ad, I'd want to punch Captain Maverick in the face.
But unlike me, Paris has decided not to get mad but to get even. Holy fuck, does that mean Paris Hilton is a better person than me? While I ponder whether it's wrist-slitting time, watch this, assuming you haven't seen it 20 times already:
See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die
The big caveat with Paris's "plan," of course, is that offshore drilling won't "carry us until" anything, since it'd take at least 10 years for the first drops of oil to begin spurting from those coastal oil rigs (and even then it'd be unlikely to drop our gas prices by more than a few pennies per gallon). Otherwise, though, it's not bad, and I'm not the only one who thinks so:
Watching the Hilton video, a few questions came to mind. First, why is that Paris Hilton’s fake ad includes more substantive talk about energy policy than John McCain’s real ad? Second, if writers helped Hilton with her script, and writers helped McCain with his script, why is it that Hilton seems to have a better grasp on policy details than McCain does? Shouldn’t that be, you know, the other way around? And third, why is it that a 27-year-old heiress/reality-show star can read a teleprompter better than the presumptive Republican presidential nominee?
I don't know that I have the wherewithal to answer any of those questions at the moment, because I'm still trying to grapple with the fact that, for the first time that I can remember, I might actually like Paris Hilton.
See what you've done, Walnuts? Damn you, John McCain. Damn you to hell.
52 comments:
You poor misguided and uninformed soul. Quit tuning into MSNBC.
Well, you know what they say about politics. And Paris makes a strange bedfellow. Or so I've heard.
"why is it that a 27-year-old heiress/reality-show star can read a teleprompter better than the presumptive Republican presidential nominee?"
Because he's old. Old people don't understand how technology works.
The first time I saw the Paris Hilton piece, I thought exactly the same thing: why does this spoof contain more actual substance than the real ad? But then a more troubling question: Why do we vote for people who can not/will not give us some substance.? We have come to a point where Fernando Lamas could be an effective political adviser: "It is more important to sound good than to be good, and you sound marvelous!"
So, duh, we have to drill because it sounds like doing something. Also, in fairness, all of the other ideas take a long time, too.
I found myself agreeing with you on this Doug... at first. I had gone so far as to call Miss Hilton worthless, and I meant it. After seeing this "ad", I briefly felt the same odd respect you mention here. But then I got over it. She's still a symbol of what's wrong with our media, so I have to continue my resentment. If anything, I ended up angry that she finally did something competently for the first time in her life. Well, aside from that other one thing she can do competently (based on the video evidence).
Here is the reason I prefer McCain... He doesn't want to raise taxes. I am sorry, but if the dems would get it through their heads that this is the litmus test for most "middle of the road" voters, they could win in a landslide. Just my opinion...
Actually, Hilton wasn't reading a teleprompter. She memorized everything and got it right in four takes.
Heard that in an interview with the Funny or Die folks.
Taxes aren't inherently bad though. Wasteful spending (like Ted Stevens useless bridge, or no-bid contracts for wildly overpriced shit related to the war in Iraq) that is bad.
The "taxes must go" crowd forgets or is willfully ignorant that D.C.'s been spending hundreds of billions regardless of the revenue coming in. The latest housing bill raised the credit limit on the national debt. This is accounting that a drunken college kid with mommy and daddy's platinum card could figure out. Stronger national defense=costs more money. But the GOP refuses to raise taxes at a time of war, unlike well...every other administration at a time of war.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs when someone like Paris (Thanks for the money) Hilton can even get air-time. What does this say for us?
Will... I am not a "taxes must go" person, but instead of just raising taxes at every turn when DC decides they need more money, they should as you point out "cut some freakin' spending".
I don't want to get into all the places we (as a country) waste money, but taking more money out of the pockets of hard working Americans is not the right answer. Too bad the government isn't run more like a business in some respects.
--Chris (previously anonymous from (11:01 am)
I realize that this spot is a joke, but the whole basis of the joke is "even though I'm Paris Hilton, I'm not a total moron." This would have been really funny except: "John McCain mentioned me in a campaign ad, so I must be running for President." Huh? That's like 7-year-old logic, which is completely inconsistent with the rest of the ad. Totally ruined the whole thing for me.
Am I the only one who feels this way? This is what I get for teaching a logic class, I suppose.
Bovinekid - I disagree. The whole point of the ad is that she's playing the airhead that she's been playing in public for years now, reading her magazine about where to get the best tan, and then she busts out with a thorough breakdown of domestic energy policy that puts both candidates to shame. And then she goes back to endorsing the message because it's hott. The irony is in the contrast.
Dammit, it stops being funny once you explain it.
I think Paris is doing McCain a favor. She reminds people of McCain's original spot, which you find offensive, but my guess most find clever and pretty effective in delivering the intended message.
The only people sympathetic to Ms Hilton over all this are people who already hate McCain. This is just one more way for you to express it.
Could it be she's just having fun?
And as far as the oil thing - ask anyone involved in the process and they will tell you that the oil can start flowing in 3 - 5 years. Our willingness to drill our own oil will be what drops the price at the beginning. All we have to do is get a spine and get on with it.
I found myself in the same boat as Doug. One of the biggest Paris haters out there, then suddenly seeing this fake ad changed it. It humanized her. She sat on that beach chair, and made fun of McCain and her own image. Showing a sense of humor goes a long way.
Oh, and to one of the anonymous commentators: It all depends on which tax bracket you belong in as to if Obama or McCain is better for your individual tax situation. 11% of the US would see lower taxes under McCain (those making over $112,000 a year), while 89% (those making under $112,000 a year) will have lower taxes under Obama.
(link)
If people voted solely on income taxes alone, 89% Obama to 11% McCain would be a bigger landslide than when Reagan stomped Mondale.
Do we want to turn this into a debate about who pays the most taxes and who should pay the most? And having been in that over 112 tax bracket for quite some time I am tired of getting f****** by the government every year to pay for things like the bridge to nowhere in Alaska. More privatization and smaller government please.
(Sorry for heading way off the original topic)
Anything that is compulsory and confiscatory is, if not "inherently bad", is inherently less than good. Taxes, by there very nature extract resources from the taxed and re-distribute in unequal proportion to other interests. Those interest may be for good purposes or for ill, but such value judgements are in the eye of the beholder and not decided by the taxed. Obviously, there are situations whereby some receive more, in the way of services, than they contribute, but there are many others who receive less than they contribute. Whatever the case as it pertains to equity, at the root of the situation there is property being extracted by force from the government and reallocated to others -- which is called stealing in any other private, non-government setting. That is not to say that I believe there should be no taxes, but one must acknowledge that the tax system is an imperfect institution at best and has historically been an instrument of abuse by governments throughout time.
I'd just like to thank y'all, the liberals and conservatives both, for sharing your differing opinions in a very measured and matter-of-fact way rather than turning this into one of those "Bush is Hitler"/"Obama is an empty-suit commie"/"get your head out of your ass!" sissyfights that these comments threads so often get turned into. On behalf of both my blog and my blood pressure, I thank you for your intelligence and maturity.
Doug -- Good point, but should we not take our heads out of our respective asses? Is Bush not in fact Hitler reincarnate? Can it be disputed that Obama is nothing more than an empty-suited commie?
-ChicagoDawg
aka Barry_from_Eastenders
Doug, I'm no fan of McCain but I have a hard time believing the Hilton's are stark raving mad over the McCain commercial. All McCain stated was that she was a infamous celebrity.
After seven years of globally showcased dissolute and hedonistic behavior, bad acting, drunk driving, prison time, nude modelling, sex tapes, tawdry hamburger commercials, disclosed herpes, and playing up her brainless socialite persona among many issues I've got to believe the Hilton family was relieved that's McCain's portrayal of her as a celebrity was all he pointed out.
"I'd just like to thank y'all, the liberals and conservatives both, for sharing your differing opinions in a very measured and matter-of-fact way rather than turning this into one of those "Bush is Hitler"/"Obama is an empty-suit commie"/"get your head out of your ass!" sissyfights that these comments threads so often get turned into. On behalf of both my blog and my blood pressure, I thank you for your intelligence and maturity."
Yeah but, all that name calling keeps us coming back.
BTW Doug, it was you who first called Bush Hitler.
Oh, I can't wait for you to prove that.
Go on. I'm waiting.
Well, maybe you just agreed and embelished on it but, I know that you would like to credit for it so I accused you.
BTW, I wasn't the first to accuse Obama of being an empty suit but, I agree and have labeled him with worse.
You know surprised me? All this talk about Paris, and there's not one mention of STDs (or even a "yeah, the video was better than I thought it'd be, but I still needed a Valtrex after watching it.")
Doug,
I know what a stickler for facts you are so I thought I would let you know that offshore oil can flow within 10 months of restarting mothballed wells off the coast of California that were shut down by the Dems. That's 10 months, not 10 years. Also, it will take more than 10 years for meaningful wind and solar contributions. Enjoy the facts.
Oil drives -> commerce drives -> capitalism drives -> investment drives -> innovation drives -> alternative energy sources.
No oil, no commerce, no investment capital, no innovation, no jobs, no tire guages, no nothing.
If I could draw cartoons for you liberal idiots, I would.
Hey anonymous- if you're talking about drilling in ANWR (which I'm sure you are because Republicans seem to have no respect for environmentally protected land)then here's these facts for you:
"It would take at least a decade for oil companies to obtain permits, procure equipment, and do the exploration necessary to get the oil out of the ground, most industry analysts say. And even then, they add, the amount of new oil produced would probably be too small to significantly affect world oil prices."
So its going to be 10 years before we get any of this oil, prices aren't going to go down, and there's not that much under there anyways? Remind me again of the positives of drilling please.
McCain might be dementia in office waiting to happen, but for now he's Ananias on roller skates. Like the kids tormenting Happy Jack, he lies, lies, lies, lies, lies.
My opinion, anybody that can't differentiate between an exhausted misstatement like "57 states" and claiming Iran is training Al Quaeda terriss in Iraq, well disenfranchisement seems in order.
Canvas those bikers in SD and ask them whether they'd prefer the heiress bimbo that can read a teleprompter or the heiress bimbo whose Botox treatments have induced terminal strabismus. Who knows, without the banana competition?
McCain's become the poster child for an old saw. You know he's lying because some oil guy is making his lips move.
ladyinblue,
I always love when you libs use the "most industry analysts". That's keyword for a few liberal dumbasses who you can find to promote your lunacy.
How long is going to take to be able to run 230 million automobiles on wind and solar power? Ask the industry anal-list that one.
BTW, You can take all that Global Warming and Environmental BS and move to some remote island. Take the Polar Bears, Spotted Owls, and, Snail Darters with you and, live in a cave.
Whether you like it or not, there is a finite amount of oil in the ground. The lack of new OIL discoveries (natural gas discoveries are still coming in) in this country are not due to the over regulating tree huggers nor due to lack of price motivation. No, we are not discovering new oil fields in the US of A because there aren't any. Our economy is currently oil driven, sure enough. No denying that. And in the future that oil will be available in lesser and lesser amounts, even when we consider OPEC sources. No amount of drilling in ANWR or the continental shelf is going to change that. Yeah, it would be so nice to have a domestic oil supply so we could thumb our noses at the Saudi's but it isn't going to happen, no matter how much McCain and his supporters may want us to believe it.
We should direct our efforts and tax incentives towards what the future holds, and that is an economy driven by energy in some other form than oil. No, I can't tell you what the answer will be, but if we don't start working on it soon, we will be behind the rest of the world in this advancing new field of energy alternatives.
B
...dammit, that's awesome. DAMMIT.
Cite some specifics about those "moth balled" oil wells in California. I don't believe you have your "facts" straight. The oil wells we have shut in in Alabama are shut in because they are stripper wells, not because of regulatory concerns. When you can't get enough oil out to pay for the pumping operation, you shut it down. The oil left in these reservoirs are so thick as to be tar. Someday, it might be worth it to work on getting the last few drops but these wells won't be solving any oil shortages even if they all went back on line today.
Can I sell you a nice bridge they have up in Brooklyn?
B
"Too bad the government isn't run more like a business in some respects."
I tend to think the government is run EXACTLY like a business. You know, a business like IndyMac, AIG, Bear Stearns, or Countrywide.
Large businesses are just as inherently incompetent as the government. They just have funny accounting rules that hide all of it. Call in to a 1-800 call center sometime or try dealing with an HMO. They're just as stupid. There are plenty of dumb people in the private sector as well.
As for taxes, income taxes should be on a sliding scale adjusted to regional cost of living, but that's an entirely different conversation that's way to difficult to have here. Suffice it to say, making $112K+ in North Dakota is a helluva lot different than making $112K+ in California.
The funny part about all this, for me at least, is that the 'hybrid proposal' that paris endorses is the same proposal that McCain is endorsing. Off-shore drilling with environmental oversight in conjunction with more and better funded research in alternative sources of energy and more effiecient transportation. If you'be listened to the actual content of his speeches instead of yelling at the TV, you would probably know that.
'Most industry analysts' isn't some catchall concerning peak oil or the 70% of oil-lease property lying fallow, it's actually the raging Bolsheviks at the American Petroleum Institute. You know, Exxon and Mobil.
The point of all this Bushwa isn't actually oil, it's contracts for oilfield services. Guess which executive branch vampire's 'blind trust' gets richer off that scam.
Um, I do live on an island with all the other liberals. Its called Manhattan. And if you continue to ignore the threat of global warning, which by the way is not disputed by ANY scientist, you'll be living on your own little island too. As for the quote I put in, it is exactly that. A quote. I did not write that. I researched oil drilling, because I like to have facts before I agree or disagree with something, and saw both sides of the issue, including that quote. Oh, and as far as timetables for wind and solar energy go, New York carmakers are making and estimate to have on the market an air-powered car in 2010 that gets 106 mpg. That's 2 years away. Much less than the 10 years for a small supply of oil.
Also, I'm not against all drilling. I'm against drilling in environmentally protected areas. There are 68 million acres of land approved for drilling, 33 million of which are offshore. Drill in those acres and leave ANWR alone.
"New York carmakers are making and estimate to have on the market an air-powered car in 2010 that gets 106 mpg. That's 2 years away. Much less than the 10 years for a small supply of oil."
ladyinblue, here's some of those facts that you're fond of:
When air is expanded in the engine it cools dramatically (Boyles_law), and needs heated to ambient temperature using a heat exchanger, similar to the Intercooler in internal combustion engines, to obtain a significant fraction of the theoretical energy output. The heat exchanger is practically difficult, as while it performs a similar task to the Intercooler, the temperature difference between the incoming air, and the working gas is smaller and in heating the stored air, it gets very cold, being prone to icing in most climates.
Refueling the compressed air container using a home or low-end conventional air compressor may take as long as 4 hours. Service stations may have specialized equipment that may take only 3 minutes.[9]
Early tests have demonstrated the limited storage capacity of the tanks; the only published test of a vehicle running on compressed air alone was limited to a range of 7.22 km. [11]
That would be about 4.5 miles in non-liberal speak.
India’s largest automaker is set to start producing the world’s first commercial air-powered vehicle. The Air Car, developed by ex-Formula One engineer Guy Nègre for Luxembourg-based MDI, uses compressed air, as opposed to the gas-and-oxygen explosions of internal-combustion models, to push its engine’s pistons. Some 6000 zero-emissions Air Cars are scheduled to hit Indian streets in August of 2008.
Barring any last-minute design changes on the way to production, the Air Car should be surprisingly practical. The $12,700 CityCAT, one of a handful of planned Air Car models, can hit 68 mph and has a range of 125 miles. It will take only a few minutes for the CityCAT to refuel at gas stations equipped with custom air compressor units; MDI says it should cost around $2 to fill the car’s carbon-fiber tanks with 340 liters of air at 4350 psi. Drivers also will be able to plug into the electrical grid and use the car’s built-in compressor to refill the tanks in about 4 hours.
Of course, the Air Car will likely never hit American shores, especially considering its all-glue construction. But that doesn’t mean the major automakers can write it off as a bizarre Indian experiment — MDI has signed deals to bring its design to 12 more countries, including Germany, Israel and South Africa.
I especially like the part about going 68 mph. I bet that reduces the 125 mile range significantly?
Oh, and how about the high quality all-glue construction?
I also would not want to be in a wreck. Can you imagine being around a compressed tank with 4350 psi when it ruptured.
WTF people!?! No jokes about 'Paris Hilton's positions are well known and documented. 69...Doggie...' or 'It's great that Paris is for drilling in America because America has been drilling Paris for years'?
What the hell is happening to this board? Has everyone lost their sense of humor or is it an issue like making fun of George W. Bush where it's just too easy and ends up being neither clever nor funny?
"if you continue to ignore the threat of global warning, which by the way is not disputed by ANY scientist, you'll be living on your own little island too. As for the quote I put in, it is exactly that. A quote."
Here's some real facts:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070315&articleId=5086
http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm
To the person who posted the links... Don't you know that if a site does not agree with global warming it is either stupid or propaganda by big business?! Just like when something good happens it is because of congress and if something bad happens it "must" be Bush's fault.
If Bush were to cure cancer, the headline the next day would be "Bush contributes to global population crisis".
Bush has his faults, but to compare him to Hitler is just sad.... (Has lots of faults, just for the record.)
(Oh... and I enjoyed my tax rebate. I used the money to drive my Expedition some extra miles out in a national park.)
Here's my facts:
http://www.un.org/works/sub2.asp?lang=en&s=15
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q3
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
While there are some uncertainties(what exactly is causing it, when exactly the earth will self-destruct if we continue to ignore the problem etc)that is not a dispution of climate change existing. The earth is significantly warmer, and in some places cooler, than it has been. Also those extreme changes in temperatures? Climate change. It was dubbed global warming because people started to notice it as the earth was significantly warming.
As for you links: Your first link is from 2003. There has been many more information and research done since including another installment of an IPCC assessment; you might look for more current information as you can find. Not to mention the fact that the author of that article, Joseph Bast, is an economist and not an environmental scientist.
The second link is not disputing global warming, it is disputing the causes of it. It is admitting that global warming exists; it is just saying that it is not due to human activities.
Your last link is more concerned with disproving Al Gore and the Democrats rather than disproving the existence of global warming. This article repeatedly states that there is no proof of global warming existing, while simultaneously not giving any proof that global warming does not exist.
ladyinblue, tell you what......
When Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, etal. stop driving around in their 10 seat limos and jetting around in their private jets and begin driving these air-powered mopeds then I might be willing to listen to their stupidity?
If you people believe in this shit then start practicing it and, maybe everyone else would stop laughing at you.
Just because you pick two rich Democrats who talk about global warming as the reality it is, does not mean that they are driving around in 10 seat limos and riding in private jets. They very well might be but they also might be doing more to be eco-friendly at their homes and businesses. Also as I'm sure you'll say next, Al Gore did use a lot of energy at his mansion but after he took a lot of flack for that he spent millions of his own dollars to redo the entire house into solar and eco-friendly power. And one final thing: just because there are some famous figures in the world who do not practice what they preach does not mean the rest of us are the same way. I happen to live a very eco-friendly existence and try to go even greener whenever possible. Kindly do not lump me into the category of others who are not the same. But I think we can agree that neither one of our opinions is going to be swayed by the other's so let's just agree to disagree and end this on a friendly note.
You should take no offense as I do not.
My hope is that one day there can be some common sense applied to problems but, I am not optimistic.
One other thing, I have no use for people who want to tell you how to live while they live another way.
If driving air-powered cars and reading by candle-light is good for me then, it's good for you, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Tom Hanks, Whoopie Goldburg and, the rest of the elitiest liberal crowd. Sheryl Crowe wants everyone to wipe their butt on one piece of toilet paper. That's probably why Lance dumped her.
Set me an example or shut up!
I can certainly relate to that. Let me offer you some celebrities that do practice what they preach: Laurie David, Leonardo DiCaprio, Cameron Diaz, & Green Day are a few examples I have.
As a side note: I'm having trouble differentiating between the two anonymouses (or are you the same person?)!
Wow, first Yost at the M-zone decides to get a life and go get married, then Doug's blog starts to become a serious political blog...What's next? West Virginia fans stop acting like soccer hooligans, Tech fans give up making girl robots and start dating real girls? The end is nigh!!!
Its not him making the blog serious; its us commenters. Sorry Doug. But Doug's still the same, right Doug?
I just pulled my head out of my ass, Doug, to make a simple observation.
The same people who believe in global warming crap believed that Edwards wasn't dicking around. Fact.
Oh, and they will be the same people whining about everyone piling on Edwards. Afterall no one is perfect, you know. Fact.
23 mothballed coastal CA rigs are waiting to be turned back on. Fact.
There ain't a little oil available to us, there are trillions of barrels for the taking. Enough to fund the innovation necessary to move to viable alternative energy sources over the coming decades. We can start now or face the same debate a decade from now. Fact.
When are we going to put these environmentalist dweebs in their place? Drilling on a spot the size of a period on the front page of the NYT ain't going to make a shits difference to the ecosystem in ANWR. Fact.
Excuse me, I've got to get back to my rectal cavity where it's more fun than kicking a barrel of dumbshit liberals around.
Well, after reading through all these comments I can say with certainty that your second label for this post is apropos.
And all that after I had the temerity to thank everyone for being such temperate, reasoned debaters, too. So much for the audacity of hope -- maybe the book Obama really should've written was The Audacity of Fuck You, Motherfucker.
Post a Comment