Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Paris Hilton Rips Off Pretty Lady

See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die


Goodness knows that Pretty Lady has never particularly approved of Paris Hilton. Indeed, the few times that she has bestirred herself to notice Miss Hilton's existence at all, the phrase 'taking vacuous vulgarity to new extremes' has veritably surged to mind.

However, she must admit that in this instance, Paris has mastered her Elite Femininity Technique #7: Demonstrating Ironic Mastery of Complex Policy Issues While Retaining One's Feminine Essence.

The only quibble that Pretty Lady has with Miss Hilton's most elegant effort is that she has gotten her timetables a wee bit mixed up. Offshore oil drilling (with stringent environmental constraints, of course) will not produce any appreciable difference in oil supplies within the next decade; alternative energy sources, such as inexpensive, mass-produced solar panels, are much farther along than people think.

(Pretty Lady has Inside Information that this is so. Paris, for all her cosmopolitan pretensions, does not apparently run in nanoengineering circles.)





10 comments:

george said...

Pretty Lady

First the New Yorker Obamas cover and now this. Odd to say the least. Has the Left lost all sense of satire/irony? A refresher course or tutor would serve them well right about now.

Adam McKay, a rabid Hollyood left-winger, wrote this ad. I imagine it was meant to be a retaliatory dagger to the heart of McCain for his political add dumping on Obama. Instead we have an add extolling, to a great degree, Republican sentiments on the subject – and yours too, with stated exceptions. Goes to show, no good deed goes unpunished.

Pretty Lady said...

George, I haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about. The satire seemed to me to be quite excellent. The New Yorker cover failed only because it failed to depict the paranoid irrationalities of the jingoistic right wing to sufficient excess; it was merely illustrative, not satirically exaggerated.

It has been noted, too, that this Paris Hilton ad contains more substantive discussion of energy policy, by an order of magnitude, than the McCain ad which prompted it. Miss Hilton also demonstrates much greater facility with a teleprompter than the Republican candidate. That is truly sad.

george said...

Pretty Lady

“New Yorker cover failed only because it failed to depict the paranoid irrationalities of the jingoistic right wing to sufficient excess: it was merely illustrative”

Please PL illustrative? It failed only with some of the population. The vast right wing conspiracy got it. Everyone got it except the insensate “sensitives” on the left who howled as they only know how – because they alone didn’t get it.

I was not comparing ads. Merely stated that the ad pretty much compliments the Republican position on energy whatever you may think of it (see recent Republican House floor revolt).

Pretty Lady said...

George--What. Are. You. Talking. About???

The Republican position on energy is, and has always been, to drill, drill, drill in fragile habitats, despite the fact that there is not possibly enough oil in these habitats to significantly increase our reserves or to offset rising fuel costs. Not to mention the environmental destruction that is always caused when we drill for oil. That matters to me, if not to you or to Republicans.

We. Can't. Fix. It. That. Way.

I have just come back from visiting my brother, who is a mechanical engineer in the nanotechnology industry. There are some astonishing leaps being made in alternative energy technology, funded at the moment by venture capitalists, many of whom made their money in the oil industry. Higher energy costs are now making these technologies marginally viable, where they were hopelessly cost-ineffective before.

My feeling is that we probably shouldn't be trying to push down oil prices, nor should we be desperately drilling to support our gas-guzzling habit. Economics are getting Americans to do what environmental scare tactics have so fair failed to--reduce energy consumption and purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles. This is the obvious moment for making an all-out push for renewable, environmentally friendly energy.

Government investment can very well be a part of that. I have just seen, firsthand, what an enormous difference can be made by some investment in new technology, versus none. My brother's company would not exist at all if it hadn't been for government subsidies to university research; the venture capitalists only came in after major breakthroughs had already been achieved.

I do not see either the Republicans in Congress or John McCain acknowledging these facts, which the Obama campaign has made a central issue since it began. All I see is McCain ads that slanderously distort Obama's position on energy, when they attempt to refer to any serious policy issues at all. Which they usually don't.

george said...

Pretty Lady

Fragile habitats? I can remember no habitat matching that description. Nature is resilient.

At the beginning of the industrial boom in this country, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Texas, and California were drilled, drilled, drilled, and none of them is worse for that wear. I am not suggesting drilling as a fix-all. Prices,, however, may well stabilize and that would be a benefit to the MANY PEOPLE WHO DEPEND ON STABLE OIL PRICES FOR A LIVING. Not everyone is a gas guzzling, SUV driving, charter jet flying, yacht cruising, globe trotting, two homes and a chalet living, celebrity.

Also, don’t remember any troglodyte Republicans ever standing in the way of alternative energy, no matter how basic or advanced. That more money should be funneled in that direction – well you have me there – more money should be targeted in that direction.

Finally, slanderous campaign ads. You’re obviously shocked, SHOCKED! This has never happened before. No one would stoop that low would they?

David said...

I say Paris for VP. Where is Jane Austen when you need her? And PL for the Jane Austin of her milieu ( I wouldn't presume to say just what that milieu is, but I keep reading).

David said...

But seriously. The thing that McCain has in common with Bush is that they're both buffoons - crackleheads. I mean the New Yorker cover? The Paris Hilton ad? It's just too easy. Even Trent Lott said he wouldn't want McCain anywhere near the nuclear button. Did no one hear this?

george said...

David

Buffoonery does not preclude one from becoming President. This country has managed to overcome them at regular intervals. A better reason might be found at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25154267/

The country’s present financial order is a house of cards – and McCain seems more likely than most to make matters worse. All this from someone who already has his name attached to a financial debacle/scandal – the S & L caper.

Gorilla Bananas said...

I favour the low tech solution of harvesting natural flatulence as a source of natural gas. The gorilla position on energy is fart, fart and fart again.

The Aardvark said...

As running in circles can make one think himself a big wheel, would it follow that running in nanotech circles would make one a very small wheel?

As to fragile habitats, if the Cuyahoga River and Lake Erie could rebound to environmental health, then any place can. The target area in ANWR compared to the whole reserve is like a postage stamp placed on an area rug. The intense scrutiny of the public has made (Western) oil industry far more environmentally sound than it used to be, and exponentially better than say, China and Russia. The biggest problem with alternative energy has always been inefficiency. A coal plant requires about 3 sq. miles to produce X megawatts. A nuclear plant, 2.5 sq. miles to produce an equal amount. A wind farm will require 300 sq. miles to equal the wattage produced by the other sources. That's not even considering the transmission lines to connect the generators. What is the answer? All of the above, and more. Drilling will not affect us today. It WILL affect those living ten years hence. Had our leaders-from-behind not used the same dreary excuse , oh, ten years ago, we would be in far less of a pickle today. Let's not saddle our children with the opportunity to live as a developing nation. We need a robust industrial base to produce the next generation of energy sources. That alone is reason to increase domestic production now, so we CAN produce the sci-fi technology needed tomorrow.

C'mon, it's the 21st Century. I'm still waiting on my rocket pack, not to mention my Li'l Atom Home Reactor.

BTW, have you ever read about the big wind generator in Vermont, 50-some years ago? I'll have to do a blog entry about it. That was neat.