Paris Hilton Responds

by hilzoy

I'd try to summarize this for people who can't watch videos, but it defies description.

Comments

[bedtimeforbonzo]

I don't know, Hilzoy, but she summed up her energy plan as concisely as anything I have heard from Obama or McCain -- and she din't even mention tire pressure.

[gwangung]

I run a comedy group.

I am sooooooooo jealous.

[Jeff]

she summed up her energy plan as concisely as anything I have heard from Obama or McCain

She summed up Obama's plan. (I kind of wish she'd mentioned that, but probably didn't want to irk her Republican parents.)

[Ugh]

"I'll see you at the debates, bitches."

That was awesome.

Ugh, I can't believe I just said that about Paris Hilton.

Wha? Stop talking to yourself.

[publius]

curses -- scooped by hilzoy. i didn't think anything could be better than my tribute to kelly youtube, but this is.

"see you at the debate, bitches"

"thanks for the endorsement white-haired dude"

[Charlie Martel]

Brilliant Paris! First, she looked fabulous. Second, her energy plan makes sense and she sold it in less than 30 seconds.

Third, she has totally humiliated the McCain ad hacks who provoked this, because her video is actually funny and hits him where it hurts--he's old and out of touch.

Fourth, a wonderfully good humored treatment of the candidates that subtly suggests an preference for Obama (who she called "Barack") over McCain (who she refers to much less charitably). No anger or flat out Obama endorsement, neither of which probably would have served him well.

Fifth, and more seriously, does anyone agree that the McCain celebrity ad beating up on a couple of young blonde women, plus his suggestion that his wife participate in a "beauty" contest that includes some pretty vulgar components, are offensively, mean-spiritedly, condescendingly sexist to everyone involved, including the audience?

If you disagree, imagine what would have happened to Obama if he ran the same ads, and treated his wife the same way, during the Democratic primaries. He would have rightfully been run out of the campaign and probably permanently discredited as a candidate. Of course, it is unimaginable that Obama would run these types of ads because he is clearly someone who respects everyone and demeans no one, and who would never publicly diminish anyone--much less someone he loves--to curry voter favor.

[felix culpa]

I do think McCain has the Apocalyptic Hee-Haw Vote sewn up fer sure.
He even has balls, in his cheeks!

I gotta say, all the creative talent seems to be on one side in this campaign,
All those creative class types are just going to go ga-ga over the Antichrist; you just wait and see. They think they’re so smart. Ha! Suckers!

And hey, Paris would make a Great Whore of Babylon.
It all fits!

Where’s my tinfoil homburg?

Thanks hilzoy. Prime Grade-A.

[Feddie]

I agree. That kicked ass.

[Delicious Pundit]

Observe how she got the whole energy plan out, needing only one cut to the wide shot. She really is a pro!

[Adam]

I just thought of three things I really wish Obama would say:

1. "My opponent's campaign has been running some increasingly negative ads in the last two weeks claiming that I'm this arrogant celebrity. But they never talk about anything I've said or proposed -- instead they show these shots of people who came out to participate in this campaign. They're trying to make this campaign about me, when it should be about the American people and where they want to take this country. About the 1.5 million people who've contributed to and the thousands of people who are working on this campaign because they believe that we can change America for the better."

2. "But, you know, being a typical politician, I've thought a lot about how I could address this, and... actually, I honestly don't get it. I think they're saying that too many people are interested in this campaign. So is the message, 'Ohhh, that Barack Obama, he's not trying hard enough to make people dislike him.'?"

3. "Now, that's not to say that I don't sometimes say things that come across as maybe... too self-assured. I'm not always a quiet person. But if I come across as strong-willed, I think it's because I truly and deeply believe the things I say. And I don't think that politicians should just repeat what they think people want to hear -- they should care about what they say. If John McCain thinks that I should be less passionate about this historically important campaign, well, I respectfully disagree."

[Catsy]

Adam, you really ought to send that to some Obama campaign people. When I was reading those bits, they sounded just like they could come from his mouth, in his voice.

[Slartibartfast]

I've always loathed Paris Hilton, but that was actually semi-amusing.

[Nathan]

I've always wondered if Paris is actually a talented, intelligent person who is playing an elaborate practical joke on the world. Or maybe she's America's greatest living performance artist.

[joejoejoe]

"That wrinkly white haired guy used me in his ad which I guess means I'm running for president..so thanks for the endorsement white-haired dude!"

My favorite bit -- the image contrast of McCain with the Golden Girls.

[Jesurgislac]

I'm just... cracking up over here.

McCain: pwned!

[Decided FenceSitter]

And this is why you don't irritate heiress who have little else to do then make your life miserable.

[SeanH]

I've always suspected the performance artist theory, Nathan. The woman makes tens of thousands of dollars just for showing up at LA bars and clubs. I'm trading a third of my life for much less money than she makes socializing on a slow Friday night. Who's the dummy in that equation.

[ajay]

I dunno... I think Paris Hilton underestimated the time that exploration and infrastructure development would take before offshore oil drilling really started to produce significant amounts of crude.

Oh, Lord, I can't believe I wrote that.

[OCSteve]

That is pretty funny. I didn’t realize that she was capable of that kind of self-deprecating humor.

Also funny though is the response here, that she is somehow endorsing Obama’s position. She’s endorsing the Republican position, which Obama has gotten closer to the last couple of weeks out of necessity.

Jes: McCain: pwned!

In the unkindest cut of all, McCain’s spokesperson Tucker Bounds tells TMZ that on the subject of energy, Paris is deeper than Barack. He says, “Sounds like Paris is taking the ‘All of the Above’ energy approach that John McCain has advocated — both alternatives and drilling. Perhaps the reality is that Paris has a more substantive energy plan than Barack Obama.”

[Jesurgislac]

McCain’s spokesperson Tucker Bounds lies.

Obama's policy position is that current or increased exploitation of oil has got to fund renewable energy resources/alternative-energy cars.

McCain's never talked about using current or increased exploitation of oil in that way.

Tucker's lying to you and you believed him. OCSteve: pwned!

[OCSteve]

Obama's policy position is that current or increased exploitation of oil has got to fund renewable energy resources/alternative-energy cars.

Said position having been announced on August 1 – 5 days ago. Previously he opposed expanding off-shore drilling unequivocally.

Nothing wrong with that – I applaud him for changing his position to match reality (by which I mean the election reality, not that new drilling is a panacea).

But let’s not pretend that has been his position…

6/24:
I realize that gimmicks like the gas tax holiday and offshore drilling might poll well these days. But I'm not running for President to do what polls well, I'm running to do what's right for America.
…
And that's the choice that you face in this election. When you're facing $4 a gallon gas, do you want a gas tax gimmick that will save you at most thirty cents a day for three months and a drilling proposal that won't provide a drop of oil for ten years, or a second rebate check and $1,000 tax cut to help your family pay the bills?

7/11:
I understand the politics. In a country desperate for action, ideas like a gas tax holiday or expanded oil drilling in the waters off our coasts are popular. And I'll say this – if there were real evidence that these steps would actually provide real, immediate relief at the pump and advance the long-term goal of energy independence, of course I'd be open to them. But so far there isn't.

Obama on the Environment (PDF):
As a senator, Barack Obama has been a strong leader on clean water issues. He fought against offshore drilling in the U.S. Senate, and he supports maintaining current moratoriums on new offshore oil and natural gas drilling.

Etc.

For the record, McCain has not been consistent on this either. He was for it before he was against it before he was for it again.

[AndrewBW]

"I'm Paris Hilton and I approved this message because I think it's hot."

Awesome!

[NonyNony]

I can't believe you guys are arguing over the "Paris Hilton Energy Plan" like it has some kind of merit to it.

Reality really is hard to satirize sometimes.

[Jesurgislac]

OCSteve: Previously he opposed expanding off-shore drilling unequivocally.

*sigh* Not even in the quotes you c&p'd yourself.

[Jesurgislac]

NonyNony: I can't believe you guys are arguing over the "Paris Hilton Energy Plan" like it has some kind of merit to it.

I can't believe McCain is so desperate for any driblet of positive attention that he claims the "Paris Hilton Energy Plan" is his plan. (And he not only got pwned by Paris, he got bitchslapped by her mom:

"It is a complete waste of the money John McCain's contributors have donated to his campaign. It is a complete waste of the country's time and attention at the very moment when millions of people are losing their homes and their jobs. And it is a completely frivolous way to choose the next President of the United States." - Kathy Hilton, former donor to the McCain campaign, 3rd August 2008.

[Turbulence]

This is a stupid question, but does anyone have evidence for the belief that:

1. There are substantial offshore oil deposits near the US, and

2. the largest oil companies know precisely where they are,

3. the concentration, quality and quantity of this oil is such that drilling it is not only profitable but would generate significantly more energy than said drilling would consume?

Maybe this is stupid and obvious for everyone else, but I haven't seen any indication that this is true. I mean, I'm sure there are eleventy-quadrillion barrels of oil offshore the US, but I'm not sure that anyone knows where they are, or that they're not trapped in isolated individual ten-barrel pockets, or that they're not such a grade as to be too expensive to refine, or that they're not so inaccessible that they're to expensive to extract. Exxon can't just say "we know there is oil somewhere, so we'll start digging everywhere" -- they need an extremely well targeted idea of where to dig. And it can't just be one location among billions -- they have to know where not to dig as well. So, is there any reason to believe that Exxon and friends have this information? If they did, wouldn't they be speaking up about it right now? I mean, if everyone utterly despises you, couldn't you get a public relations coup with a big ad campaign talking about what you're going to do?

Alternatively, we can just ignore this question and pretend that offshore drilling will obviously solve all our problems because SHUT UP SHUT UP ADOLESCENT WISH FULFILLMENT!

[OCSteve]

Turb: does anyone have evidence for the belief that

Not me. I’ve been discussing it primarily in terms of market psychology and the election. If I haven’t been clear enough on that – I don’t believe that drilling offshore would actually accomplish much in reality. And I’d just as soon save it for a time we may really really need it. (One exception is that “seeping” business I brought up a while ago.)

[KCinDC]

I didn’t realize that she was capable of that kind of self-deprecating humor.

Isn't that a lot of what she does? Next you'll be saying the same thing about William Shatner.

[javelina]

First saw this last night and have been laughing intermittently ever since. Mind you, "artistically" I have some issues with it - the pacing is very odd at times, especially when Ms. Hilton is looking at Conde Nast Traveler, and also Yoda should've been left out of the old dudes collage because Yoda rocks. Am not going to enter into the energy policy argument, because it's Paris Hilton, y'all. But really ... McCain asked for it, and man is he ever getting it. And from the daughter of two of his major donors!

Just priceless.

[Terragone]

The "energy plan" does not make sense: drilling can help in the long run; not this year or next year or the year after that. And Honda will have LOW COST hybrids out next year. But why quibble over something priceless?

[Terragone]

The "energy plan" does not make sense: drilling can help in the long run; not this year or next year or the year after that. And Honda will have LOW COST hybrids out next year. But why quibble over something priceless?

[cleek]

Sullivan:

And Obama's staggeringly swift rise to super-stardom is bound to unleash McCain's inner Norma Desmond. It can't be fun when you were such a stud for so long being ridiculed nightly as Abraham Simpson.

funny.

[Hogan]

I'm still big--it's the campaign commercials that got small!

[ThatLeftTurnInABQ]

This is a stupid question, but does anyone have evidence for the belief that:

1. There are substantial offshore oil deposits near the US, and

2. the largest oil companies know precisely where they are,

3. the concentration, quality and quantity of this oil is such that drilling it is not only profitable but would generate significantly more energy than said drilling would consume?

That is a really good set of questions.

IIRC while these questions cannot currently be answered with great confidence in detail using publically available data, the offshore areas in the US which are under discussion have been extensively studied using a wide variety of exploratory techniques (drilling, seismic reflection and refraction surveys, gravity anomaly and geomagnetic surveys, etc.), as a result of which their gross level geology and geophysics are about as well understood as any part of the earth which is currently under water.

If current theory concerning the plate-tectonic and paleogeographic control of oil reservoirs is correct then there are some areas in US costal waters which look extremely favorable from an exploration standpoint and which share some of the characteristics of other major oil fields currently in production.

In other words, it is always a roll of the dice, but the odds look very favorable of finding something economically suitable for exploitation if we were to conduct drilling on a much larger scale than what has been done already. We may not know exactly where, but chances are there is something big out there worth drilling into (from a purely economic standpoint and disregarding environmental issues).

Having said that, you never really know how much recoverable oil is in a proven reservoir until you actually put it into production and even then forecasting future production is something of a black art, even for a mature field. Much depends on the details of the reservoir in question, e.g. its time integrated history and the current porosity and permeability of the source rock, and the degree to which injection techniques (pumping immiscible fluids down into the source rock to help push the oil out) can be used to boost production. These things can vary significantly over the breadth of a field so it can be very hard to tell from a small number of test wells what you will get, and the results from injection techniques can be very hard to forecast as strange things can happen when you start injecting an oil reservoir, so the production characteristics of a field can change over its lifecycle in unpredictable ways.

In other words, it is very hard to tell just how large a fraction of total global reserves are located in US costal waters; probably a small but non-trivial fraction, but at this point we don’t really know.

Personally, I think it would make sense to do the exploration now (so we have a good idea where to find the oil) but postpone putting these fields into production for as long as possible, treating them as a gigantic extension of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That makes sense to me from an economic-nationalist US-centric standpoint - the longer it stays in the ground, the more valuable it becomes, and we should not be squandering now something which in the future will become a disproportionately valuable resource once we pass peak oil.

The problem with this approach is that (1) Exploration is very expensive so oil companies will be reluctant to invest in finding fields which they then have to postpone putting into production, and (2) it seems to me politically unlikely that we would refrain from putting fields into production immediately once they have been located in detail, if energy prices continue to rise.

In this context it is worth noting that most of the large oil producers active in the market today are nationalized rather than private companies. The US is something of a global exception in that our oil exploration and production strategy is still decided by private entities. Most other major oil producing countries subordinate their energy strategies to larger national geopolitical concerns, whereas we do it the opposite. IMHO part of our national conversation about energy policy should be: should we nationalize our oil companies, and when and how will that happen?

[Yukoner]

As I watched the video I wondered how Paris Hilton would respond to having somebody do up a fake ad using an actress. Then, reading the comments, I realised that it was Paris herself in the ad. Finally, I realised that I am so far out of touch with popular culture that I did not have a clue what she looked like.

[wonkie]

Re: Obama's evolving energy strategy.

He has changed slightly on the drilling issue. The best explanation of his change ( both what the change is and why he made it) is on a video link up at Daily Kos right now, a recommended diary. Teh video is of an interview in Las Vegas.

The bottom line is, he says, that in order to get any kind of bill passed the Gang of ten Senators have to be persuaded and they won't be persuaded by anything that doesn't include some increase in drilling. So, he says, he isn't willing to sacrificed his ideal policy out of an unwillingness to face the realities of the legislative process.

I am willing to believe that he is right: policies are easy to propose but getting them enacted into law is hard. However, I also think that a politician runing for office, as a political tactic, probably shoudl stick to some simple message that the MSM can't screw up and not discuss the messy compromises necessary in the real world in front of reporters.

[LFC]

Turbulence, there are no definites but the DOE has estimates of the amount they believe is available.

And I'm still waiting for anybody who supports opening up new offshore areas for oil exploitation to explain how adding 8 billion available barrels to the 40 billion barrels that are available but untouched can possibly have any effect. When we are pumping the 40 billion currently available, it might make some sense to add new sources that can be drilled, but just adding to unexploited inventory is the dumbest energy plan to come out this year. (Thank you John "I Don't Know Much About the Economy" McCain.)

Anybody? OCSteve, you seem to be kinda' supportive about drilling. Can you explain how increasing unexploited inventory by 20% will increase production?

[OCSteve]

LFC: OCSteve, you seem to be kinda' supportive about drilling. Can you explain how increasing unexploited inventory by 20% will increase production?

c/p from above:

Not me. I’ve been discussing it primarily in terms of market psychology and the election. If I haven’t been clear enough on that – I don’t believe that drilling offshore would actually accomplish much in reality. And I’d just as soon save it for a time we may really really need it.

[LFC]

And I’d just as soon save it for a time we may really really need it.

True enough. Even if we became 100% energy independent over the next 30 years, there will be the future need for oil for plastics, manufacturing, and a host of other applications.

[Tony P.]

TLTIABQ said the N-word! And mentioned SPR in connection with unexploited reserves. Excellent.

'Nationalizing' what the GOP proclaims to be national resources would seem eminently sensible -- unless your goal is to enrich oil companies rather than reduce costs for Americans. But our national discourse is so sloppy that Gramps can get away with saying, "We need to drill ..." without anybody pointing out that "we" doesn't mean 'we the people'.

Treating ANWR and off-shore oil as a second-tier SPR is exactly the right approach for the nation. Oil in the SPR is not sacrosanct, and neither is the unexploited oil. Both belong to 'we the people'. Both can be used, if 'we the people' decide it makes sense. What does not make sense is arguing that the only way to use the latter is to let the oil companies sell it to us.

-- TP

[Observer]

The oil companies want these leases for one reason. As soon as they get a lease it is represented as an asset on their books. Increased asset is seen on Wall Street as a reason to buy stock. Buying stock allows executives to exercise more free options to sell more free stock to "earn" more tens of millions of dollars every quarter.

This is not about America. It's not about our national security. It's not about what we pay at the pump.

[Turbulence]

Observer, that might be true, but it seems unlikely to me. Can you cite an oil company's public filings or shareholder reports showing how much they value current leases and how that compares with other assets they hold?

Heck for that matter, are the oil companies actually pushing for this? I haven't seen any public action from them on this issue, but I also haven't been looking.

[Observer]

Working leasehold costs are detailed.

Leasehold potential revenue is covered in the Prospective and the Risk sections. A quick google of any recent return will show you example language.

No lease, no place to drill, no future revenue. More leases than last quarter, more prospective successes to mitigate ineffective leases.

If Big Observer Oil announces it tripled its successful bids for leasehold from last quarter's filings then likely to register future earnings and lower expense ratios.

In other words I'm at minimum a value stock play assuming I'm perceived as a company that actually works its leases. Otherwise I'm a short term momentum play since I'm likely to flip those leases to a player that will actually work them.

Either way watch me as I exercise my options. In a few more years I retire with my personal revenue, my ongoing free options, and my pension plan paid for by the mail room clerk.

Somebody else's problem. Likely the poor shmucks who used to harvest shrimp and oysters, and the small towns that once enjoyed tourism.

[cleek]

Somebody else's problem. Likely the poor shmucks who used to harvest shrimp and oysters

ya can't run a Hummer on shrimp !!

[Tony P.]

Heck for that matter, are the oil companies actually pushing for this? I haven't seen any public action from them on this issue, but I also haven't been looking.

Whatever you do, Turb, avoid looking here.

-- TP

[Adam]

ya can't run a Hummer on shrimp !!

Sure, now you tell me.

[Adam]

Adam, you really ought to send that to some Obama campaign people.

I wish I knew where to send it to :)

When I was reading those bits, they sounded just like they could come from his mouth, in his voice.

I was thinking while I wrote it that it's really not too hard to ape Obama's speaking style -- his message discipline over the last year in terms of adopting and repeating keynote phrases has been pretty astonishing in retrospect. Can't say the same about McCain -- much like Kerry.

Then I realized that it's just that Obama is actually The One, so now I am just cheering him on against Hugo Weaving. Missster Anderson.

[Gary Farber]

"Then I realized that it's just that Obama is actually The One, so now I am just cheering him on against Hugo Weaving."

Crap. This means his second and third terms are going to be huge disappointments.

[trilobite]

Adam, good start. Needs some tweaks -- it doesn't make sense to complain that by showing crowds instead of Obama, McCain is making the campaign about Obama instead of the people. Also, it's too much about the other side's tactics, generally too defensive, too many denials. These are easy fixes.

2nd draft:

The Republican campaign has run some increasingly negative ads in the last two weeks or so. Apparently, I'm this arrogant celebrity. You know, this election has never been about me, or about my opponent either. This election is about America. It's about the thousands of people who have volunteered in this campaign and the millions of you who have trusted us with your contributions, because you believe that together we can change America for the better. It's about the people who show up at these speeches, for either campaign, not because we candidates are celebrities, you all show up because you love this country and you want to make it better. It's about all of us, the American people and where we want to take this country.

But, you know, being a politician, I've thought a lot, I've "strategized," about how I could address this, and... actually, I honestly don't get it. Too many people are fired up about this election? That's a good thing. When people care about politics, when people care about where we are all going, that's the best thing in the world.

So is it that I may sometimes say things that come across as maybe... too self-assured? I'm not always a quiet person. I think it's because I truly and deeply believe in what we are doing in this campaign. I believe, we believe, in the limitless hope and promise of America. And a President must care about his country. So at the risk of being a celebrity, I'm going to keep caring, I'm going to keep loving this country. Everybody in this campaign, everybody who votes in November should continue to be passionate about America, passionate about our future, about our promise. Thank you, and God Bless America.

[The Crafty Trilobite]

Gary, if he has a third term, that will definitely be a huge disappointment. :)

Hmm. I'm going to change back to my longer net-alias.

--The commenter formerly known as trilobite

[Adam]

Good improvements certainly, t. (Do you have a custom symbol or something, or a purple guitar maybe?) :) But really, I would like to hear Obama point out what the McCain campaign is really saying here -- these are vacuous criticisms and should be discussed as such.

That is, when they make ads that don't discuss policy and that don't even mention John McCain, but just show a bunch of crowds, what are they trying to say? They're not saying that Obama wants to do x bad policy, or doesn't want y good policy. They are literally saying that too many people are excited about his campaign. That's all.

So what's the alternative? Be boring? Be unenthusiastic? Parrot the party line? (All good questions, since that's what McCain does and you can say it without calling him old.) Obama needs to point to places where he hasn't treated the election like a popularity contest -- standing up to the CW of the liberal hawks on Iraq, standing up to some parts of the netroots on FISA. "Believe me, my campaign staff sometimes wishes I would try harder to please everybody. But I always say what I believe, and I think that if people respond to it enthusiastically, it's because I'm doing my job speaking to their concerns as citizens."

So -- Obama needs to point out that this transparent "use-his-strengths-against-him" (seriously, their argument is that too many people are interested in his campaign and that he's a strong advocate for things he believes in... that's it) is a tactic that they're using to avoid discussing the fact that they have no new policies to defend, and they know it.

"John McCain can't decide whether he supported George Bush or not. He can't even decide whether he's pro-tire-gauge. The Republican party in Washington has run out of ideas so now they're trying to make the election about me -- because they know if it's about them and the failed policies of the last 8 years, they'll lose. Don't let them do that -- this election isn't about me. It's about you and about whether you think this country needs a change from the policies implemented by George W Bush and supported by John McCain over the last eight years. It's your country, not mine or theirs."

[Harald K]

About the three good questions: I'm rather confident that if there was much oil in US coastal waters, oil companies would already be drilling. I don't buy the "huge environmental lobby" BS. It's the oil companies who have the lobbying power. The push to drill in ANWR has been half-hearted at best - I believe they're going slowly because:

1. Right now the excuse is very convenient ("But you're not letting us drill!")

2. They will get the oil eventually anyway, and prices will be higher then, so it's not so much they lose.

Remember the strategic importance of oil. This alone would trump any environmental concerns in a heartbeat with the decision-makers, if there were any significance to the size of these supposed reserves.

[russell]

ya can't run a Hummer on shrimp !!

Sure you can. All you need is a biodiesel conversion and a blender.

Thanks -

[blogbudsman]

Leonard said it best in Night Shift - "That Barney Rubble, what an actor!"