Pretty funny!

Well... she certainly sounds a lot more confident about her energy policy than either McCain or Obama. If she wanted to run on a third party ticket, I'd vote for her. Hell, if she really fixed the energy crisis, I wouldn't care if she painted the White House pink and put a damn merry-go-round on the front yard. And hey, we know she has no dirty little secrets that aren't all over the tabloids, so yes, Ms. Hilton is an open book. We all know she can host a party, and I'm sure dancing on tables can become a new executive tradition.

I'd better stop before I seriously think that electing her would be a good idea.

You know, electing her just might be batshit crazy enough to abxolutely scare hell out of America's enemies. And a Paris Hilton foreign policy almost HAS to be an improvement over the one we're mired in now.

Wow! Legally Blonde moment. She must have staged it like the movie on purpose which is creative anyway. I've never been one of her fans but this is great! And it is nice to see someone just not lie back and take it when used for someone else's purpose and the really scary thing is that she did indeed make more sense than the two of them put together.

Oh, please. She's not as hot as she thinks she is! T's Grammy, Paris couldn't stage a panty raid - her people did all that. She didn't even memorize the script, it was in the magazine she was "reading". But gods bless her for actually doing a little something to earn herself some pocket jing. At least she left the dog out of it. o_O

Perhaps I expect too little, but she projected confidence, charisma and knowledge. She could have Katie's job!

You all do understand that her "energy plan" is pretty much the Republican that San Fran Nan is blocking with her little snit about "I'm trying to save the planet".

So Paris is a Republican. Who knew?

People who bitch about Paris are always doing it out of simple jealousy. I stopped bothering myself about "other people's money" some time ago, when I realized that public fascination with celebrity actually has no direct connection with either a person's success or lack thereof.

Yes, it's a delight watching somebody who can speak, especially without a script. That's why we all love Newt Gingrich, right?

Of course not. We want a leader with charisma first.

Electing a character like Paris is a fascinating idea because of one simple fact about Americans: they think the President is the only person in government.

So do you. Do you know the name of anyone in government but George W. Bush?

BTW, the "energy" issue is very much beholden to physics, which will not, in any way, nor for any moment, bend to the wishes of someone who thinks spending $40K-plus for a vehicle rather than for college is a good idea. That's why I started this thread.

Driving is so easy that it never occurs to the driver just how wasteful it is. Want the absolute lowest total environmental impact you can get? Find a Chevette and drive it. That will tell me how serious you really are.

Flynne, that's different from other politicians how? :)

Heh! Got me there, T's Grammy! o_O

So do you. Do you know the name of anyone in government but George W. Bush?

Are you seriously under the impression that the majority of the people that read/respond to this blog are uneducated enough that the only person in the American government they could name is George W. Bush?

bend to the wishes of someone who thinks spending $40K-plus for a vehicle rather than for college is a good idea.

Yes, because it is so often the case that people who have $40K for a car are the people without college educations.

You may or may not have good ideas about energy conservation, but when you start out with such silly arguments it is difficult to take you seriously or even give you a chance to make the arguments.

Whatever else you say about Paris, she seems to be a good sport who is not above having a laugh at her own expense.

Kristyle, evidently you can't recognize a goad.

Why did you have to reply with another question? Does that actually apply to you?

Ask around. That's all you have to do. TV ads are on right now where politicians blame Mr. Bush for American fiscal policy. These ads succeed because of public apathy and a craven desire to consider themselves superior. Senators appear on TV blaming the President for not doing their actual public duty, and the public sops it up. They actually applaud the candidates for promising to do as President what their JOB already is in Congress - and which they will be Constitutionally prohibited to do if elected. That has been reflected in posts here, as well as on assorted fora nationwide. Are you, in fact, not one of these people? Then you may successfully stand out from the pack.

Please see your copy of the Constitution to determine just who has the duty of funding all government and controlling American currency. It's my experience that people in general do not, in fact, know this.

It's not George W. Bush, or his "buddies", but asserting that it is, is an easy alternative to learning just what Congress is doing. "Congress" is a wholly unsatisfactory epithet next to a name you could call. And all of those bills Congress puts out - I mean, really! Who has time to read that? {Clicks link to video again} What's Paris doing?

Proving my point.

The public doesn't pay any attention, normally. A bunch of people are going to pay attention to what Paris said because she has notoriety, is fun to watch no matter what, and is not one of those slimy pols. They didn't - and probably won't - look into the issue beyond this.

You're making unhappy noises because you are offended, but do you really know about the issues? If so, I applaud you. In that case, you will see that my points about the physics of energy expediture are correct.

Maybe not. Your "Yes, because..." doesn't cut it. I work with degreed engineering professionals, for whom the facts of automotive engineering are a revelation, simply because the field is not their job; unless you make an effort, you simply won't recognize the ease with with you expend energy, no matter your level of education.

And yes, I state without reservation that most people won't expend that effort, for various reasons.

Looking at Paris, you might be entertained to know that Anna apparently isn't a figment.

These are whole people. What's fair about you if you act as though their public persona is all there is to them?

Rad, I agree. Congress gets a free pass.

Congress has sole budgetary authority. The entire fiscal policy of the USA is entrusted to the Congress, not the President.

The administrations of the government, the EPA, Dept. of Labor, et. al., are under de facto control of Congress. These administrations are wholly unconstitutional because they violate the separation of powers. Indeed, they were created by Progressives specifically to violate the separation of powers.

Worse, Congress has ceded much of its lawmaking authority to "regulators" in the administrations. Tax laws can be changed by the IRS without Congressional authorization because congress delegated "regulatory authority." Same is true for other agencies like the EPA. Congress blames the agencies for laws the people don't like, even though Congress unconstitutionally gave over the authority in the first place.

The Founders feared an over-powerful Congress, not an imperial President. They were right. And the Progressives were immensely destructive of liberty.

Better Paris than McCain.

And better my scrotum than Obama.

I followed Raddy's link to find out "Anna who?" How-quickly-they-forget and all that.

Nice story. Know what I think the secret is? (Other than supernatural health and symmetry?)

No drugs.

"even though Congress unconstitutionally gave over the authority in the first place."

Not really, Jeff. Administrative regulations are perfectly legal, so long as they don't contradict their enabling statutes. The Courts are pretty good at reining these in, where appropriate.

"The Courts are pretty good at reining these in, where appropriate."

Ahh, there's the "where appropriate" condition. I suggest you're trivializing the number of regulations there are - if you actually know.

As a passenger, you'll be tickled to have airline cutlery confiscated on the way to the plane, even though a) they hand them out on said plane, and b) you're the pilot, in uniform. Thanks, TSA.

As a trucker, you'll be happy to be fined $950 and forced to leave your load at the scale for not having the overweight load permit stapled to the bill of lading. Having it in the same binder isn't enough. Thanks, DOT.

There's a measure out there affecting you immediately: alcohol blending in gasoline. It used to have the salient effect of reducing emissions from more-primitive car engines. Today, 10% ethanol costs you about 8% in fuel mileage, because car computers recognize emissions changes and recalibrate, and alcohol actually sucks as a motor fuel. That's about 32¢/gallon, effectively. That's out of your pocket. Go on - get that rule overturned! Thanks, EPA.

Have you ever tried to initiate action to overturn a regulation? I suggest that it's harder to do than amending direct legislation. Practically speaking, you have to have standing and address an issue you can individually afford to bring up. The burden of regulation can add billions of dollars of unproductive shuffling without once standing up.

Monday, I'll be going to work at my Federal facility, which has a 30-meter "buffer zone" established around it against car bombs. By regulation. Oh - if you have a Government tag you can park in there. Or a "Handicapped" sticker. This has apparently proven effective against car bombers and dynamite clothing. Intent on murder, suicide bombers freeze at the idea of parking in the wrong spot, and balk at the extra room they now have to crash into any Federal building. Thanks, DOE.

What the delegation of authority has done to the public is to place an agent in charge who has no direct tie to the public. Their duty is to the charter of their organization. Hey, you should recognize that the DOE has not generated one erg of energy, that there is overlap between FBI and BATFE (hack, spit!), that the first job of any organization is to preserve its existence. Regulatory agencies do this by consolidating power, not serving the public. Where there is congruence between the wishes of the public and the agency, that's fine, but don't mistake it for altruism or a sense of honor on the part of the agency.

Bah.

Um...she just spelled out McCain's energy policy.

She must be a Republican.

Go girl!