Well, I’ve finally found the presidential candidate for me, folks. I’ll give you a guess: she’s named after a city in France. You’ve probably already heard of the Paris Hilton response to a recent McCain ad criticizing Obama’s energy policy while showing images of Hilton and former pop star turned nutjob Britney Spears – both Obama supporters. If not, you can see the video here.
Now, I’ve never been the biggest Paris fan (what does she even do, other than third-rate porn flicks?), but at first glance her energy policy almost won me over. She offers a reasonable solution – not a dichotomy of ‘drill more’ or ‘find alternative energy sources.’ Instead, Paris says we ought to have limited drilling offshore while offering incentives for manufacturers to produce more hybrid vehicles. Holy crap, a common sense solution not driven by party ideology, but by examining the problem and coming to a reasonable idea to solve it?
Paris Hilton in the hottest mugshot ever. Is America ready for a bimbo president?
Now, that’s not to say her solution actually makes sense. Paris says we need to drill offshore to ‘carry us through’ until the technology developed; she probably doesn’t keep up with advances in technology any better than I do. It wasn’t until I saw these that I realized much of the technology already exists. Here’s another example. It’d make more sense to offer incentives for developers to produce these things for commercial use while developing vehicles that don’t rely on fossil fuels at all. And Hell, these things even look cool.
The Aptera prototype. Wouldn’t you feel like Judge Dredd driving this thing?
It wouldn’t take us much time at all to roll vehicles like these off the assembly line, while drilling more in, say, ANWR, would not produce anything for about another ten years. The truth is, we’d have the hybrids out before ever seeing any effect from drilling offshore.
Needless to say, I had a good chuckle and went about my day, until hearing the same fake ad pop up on ABC News on the local AM radio station – right alongside the legitimate campaign coverage on the news, ABC dropped in a few sound bytes from the Paris Hilton spoof ad. That’s when the horrific realization set in: what Paris Hilton has to say in some stupid online video is as legitimate and (apparently) important to people as what our candidates for the highest office in America have to say.
It’s a sad state the world is in when a spoiled brat turned amateur porn star has equally relevant input on our country’s affairs as the two men vying for the nation’s leadership. It tells me we’ve become so divided along party lines we’re unlikely to ever come to a reasonable, common sense solution to any of our problems. It took a couple of comedy writers with a bong one afternoon in a smoky room to come up with a reasonable solution to the energy crisis, however misinformed those writers were of the development of new hybrid technology. But it took unfounded outrage over Obama suggesting folks air up their tires for that candidate to edge away from the old Democrat-Republican dichotomy.
You know, now that I think about it, screw this. Maybe instead of voting for Paris Hilton, I’ll just move to Paris, France.
| Comments | Published in | PREV | NEXT |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 |
social issues energy politics Riley's Rants |
Before this, the only somewhat intelligent thing to come out of her mouth was that guy’s cock in that video.
This will never happen. The oil companies have too much control over Washington. We all sit by and watch other countries pass us by. Look at the shit in Dubai for example. Amazing!
Nice picture. Is that herpes on her lip?
What energy crisis? Did some scientist recently discover that oil was a finite resource, or is this the same energy crisis we’ve been having since the day I was born? Hasn’t the price of gas and big oil company profits increased pretty much every year(coincidence I’m sure)? Has technology suddenly been reversed and thus made oil harder to pull from the ground?
I’m not saying we don’t have energy issues that we need/should address, but we’ve always had those. Right now we have a culmination of issues that have exasperated each other (IMO).
Hybrid vehicles are a great idea, but remember 20 or so years ago when gas hit 2 bucks a gallon (or whatever) and the Chevettes, Pintos and Yugos were going to be the answer. Then another ten or so years went by and Suburbans and SUVs were all the rage. Well, I think this is that same crisis.
Also, this is an election year, and the energy crisis is as good of a “hot button” issues as any. What was it fours years ago? I think social security was going bankrupt. Is that problem fixed now?
@QWERTY, I’m fairly sure your post directly relates to Rick’s herpes comment.
Which brings me to my next point…
@Rick, great points. I have questioned for a while the reality of our ‘energy crisis.’ It strikes me as odd that we have an energy crisis in America while we’re still not paying close to what the rest of the world has paid for gas for twenty years.
As far as oil being a finite resource, mainstream scientific evidence points toward it taking centuries to develop, so yes, it kind of is. The other problem is that even if we did start pulling more out of the ground (i.e. new refineries), it’d take us nearly ten years to see any effect. We do not have the capacity to _refine_ anymore oil than we already are. It’s not just a matter of how much we pull out of the ground.
I agree that hybrids are not an ultimate solution. But they are a stepping stone in the right direction – just as the Yugos, etc. were a step toward progress.
And you are correct. The election cycle has greatly overblown our energy crisis.
And, finally, I think our ‘energy’ crisis is two-fold: it is both part of a cultural problem and a greater economic crisis. The problem is not that we are paying $4 a gallon for gas. It is that we rely on gas to get _everywhere_ in this country, and that the vast majority of our nation cannot afford $4 a gallon gas because their pay has not increased to match inflation.
@Riley – “As far as oil being a finite resource, mainstream scientific evidence points toward it taking centuries to develop, so yes, it kind of is.”
I was being sarcastic. While your statement above is correct, my point was, it’s not exactly a new revelation. It’s not like we just figure that shit out a year ago and then said, damn we”re screwed.
“I think our ‘energy’ crisis is two-fold: it is both part of a cultural problem and a greater economic crisis. The problem is not that we are paying $4 a gallon for gas. It is that we rely on gas to get _everywhere_ in this country, and that the vast majority of our nation cannot afford $4 a gallon gas because their pay has not increased to match inflation.”
I agree.
@Riley – ‘The other problem is that even if we did start pulling more out of the ground (i.e. new refineries), it’d take us nearly ten years to see any effect. We do not have the capacity to _refine_ anymore oil than we already are. It’s not just a matter of how much we pull out of the ground.”
I admit, I have no idea how long it would take for the effects of new oil drilling to be noticeable, but watch this clip and you can understand why people are confused. Is it 22 yrs or 2 months? Funny shit!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=178663&title=indecision-2008-to-drill-or-not