June 1, 2005 by s.z.

Town Hall Review

Breaking news: the identity of Deep Throat, the informant who helped to bring down Richard Nixon, has finally been revealed -- it was Paris Hilton.

Well, maybe not, but Paris Hilton seems to be our Town Hall theme for today.  Let's start our review with young Ben Shapiro, the first runner-up in the Town Hall Miss Porn contest (if Brent Bozell is unable to fulfill his duties, Ben gets to be the newer, cheaper nephew of William F. Buckley).

What kind of culture would embrace Paris Hilton?  by Ben Shapiro

Paris Hilton is at it again. The 24-year-old hotel heiress is the feature attraction in Carl's Jr.'s new Spicy Burger ad campaign, aimed at the horny male TV-watching population.

So, the male population. 

Okay, that was unfair.  I know that some of you guys don't watch TV.

Scantily clad in a one-piece leather outfit plunging down to below her navel, Hilton struts into an empty warehouse, licks her finger, then suds up herself and a Bentley automobile, as a stripper-styled "I Love Paris" rendition slowly plays in the background. At the end of the spot, Hilton bites the burger and sucks her finger clean. The commercial closes with Hilton's tagline flashing across the screen: "That's Hot."

Didn't Ben do a great job of describing the commercial?  I bet he could get a writing job in the porn industry.

The spot is pure, soft-core pornography, beginning to end.

Alas, Brent Bozell's Parent's Television Council already has the copyright on that claim ( "Paris Hilton in soft-core pornographic commercial").  But that doesn't stop Ben from expounding his hard-won porn knowledge.

And while Carl's Jr. CEO Andy Puzder defends the ad as "a beautiful model in a swimsuit washing a car," it is clearly designed to capitalize on Hilton's target audience -- porn watchers.

I. e,  men.

Yeah, I'm being unfair again -- many women watch porn, and yet aren't necessarily part of Hilton's target audience.  (Oh, and I'm guessing that James Lileks is Hilton's Target audience.)

As I explain in my upcoming book, "Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future,"

Woohoo, the first official touting of Ben's new book!  I guess Ben is going to be Townhall's official porn guy, writing about sleaze week after week so he can continually plug his tome (plus, it will give him an excuse to keep renting those nasty DVDs even though the book is finished). 

the plain truth of the situation is that Paris Hilton would be a relative nobody today were she not incredibly rich and profligate with her favors.

Ben, Ben, if you start ragging on people for being famous just because they're born into wealthy families, even though they are vacuous, self-centered, self-indulgent party girls, then you'll make Jenna Bush cry, and the Secret Service will have to rough you up.

Hilton made perhaps the most infamous porn video outside of Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee. That hard-core work, starring then-boyfriend Rick Solomon, brought her international fame. At least nine other sex tapes are said to be floating around somewhere, including a lesbian sex tape with Playboy playmate Nicole Lenz.

I did not know that.  Thanks, Ben, for keeping us aware of the latest porn news.

Here's the big question: How, as a society, did we allow Paris Hilton to become a cultural icon?

Because we didn't kill her when she was a blastocyst?

 Clearly, no one likes her very much.

I'm sure her parents are fond of her.  And her new fiance Paris2, presumably likes her okay. 

No, Hilton is today's "it girl" for one reason and one reason alone: Individual scorn, though that opinion may be shared by a vast majority, does not control the river of a culture. It is those who push the envelope who do.

Ben, the river of culture can make Hilton an "it girl" all it wants, but it can't force me to pay attention to her.  Maybe you should take some time away from the porn research, and then you too could ignore Paris.

Over the past few decades, we have implemented a "live and let live" culture whereby abhorrence for immorality is seen as illegitimate if promoted through governmental means. Instead, we are supposed to let our culture be poisoned slowly -- and if we protest, we are told that as long as we turn off our own TV's, all will be well.

That "turning off the TV" thing has worked just fine for me (but of course, I didn't seek out Paris Hilton sex tapes on the internet, so maybe that's the secret).

In any case, Ben's solution (make the government be responsible for keeping our culture moral) sounds a lot scarier than the prospect of another annoying Carl's Jr. ad, even one that stars Paris Hilton. 

But I have another idea to get rid of porn.  It hinges on the fact that Ben claims that the Hilton ad is aimed at porn watchers, and that, per previous Carl's Jr. ads, without Carl's, some guys (presumably the porn watchers) would starve.  So, Ben just needs to bring a cut-off digit into his local Carl's Jr., order one of those  Spicy Burgers, and then start screaming that he bit into a finger -- the bad publicity will cause people to stop eating at Carl's, the chain will go out of business, and then their target group, porn watchers, will starve to death, and nobody will make porn anymore.  Problem solved.

But Ben would rather just whine about how society makes him tolerate porn, live in an immoral culture, and watch XXX movies, buy Hustler, and whack off.

This is the new pattern: individual condemnation and societal acceptance. The moral among us have been forced into tolerance of immorality. Paris Hilton is a cultural icon because of it. As long as the moral majority is impotent, the lowest common denominator will continue to define us.

Ben, here's another suggestion for you: start worrying about how the moral among us have been forced into tolerance of torture, and how the moral majority is impotent to end this practice, and so the lowest common denominator will continue to define us.  That way, you won't have so much time to obsess about Paris Hilton lathering herself up and sucking her finger.

I (don't) want to be a Hilton  by Kathleen Parker

These days, the invariably dubbed "socialite" is as inescapable as dust. She's everywhere: on the Net, on TV, on everyone's lips.

Kathleen must run in the wrong circles, because nobody has mentioned Paris Hilton to me in weeks.  (And since her Carl's Jr. ad isn't airing here, I don't watch her TV show, and don't read the kind of publications that feature her, I don't think I've seen her visage in weeks either.)  A Paris Hilton-free life can be yours, Kathleen, if you will just make an effort!

At least when the voluptuous tease in the 1967 classic "Cool Hand Luke" soaped a car for the amusement of convicts on work detail, we weren't confused about what we were witnessing. The Girl, as she's dubbed in the credits, was what we amiably used to call a "tramp" - fun for a romp, but no one to bring home to momma.

Things were better in the good old days, when girls who suggestively soaped up cars were amiably called tramps, and everyone knew that while they were good for a roll in the hay, that was all they were good for -- and you sure didn't marry the kind of girl who would wash a car in public.

Ah, if only we could return to gentler, more moral days of the late 1960's, as pictured in Cool Hand Luke.

As long as we're feeling nostalgic, remember when a tramp was a tramp?

Yes, I was thinking of that just a couple of days ago, when I was watching "Police Squad!" There's this bit where  Lt. Drebin goes into a restaurant seeking a shady boxing promoter -- an informant tells him that the guy is at a table with a mobster and a couple of tramps.  And sure enough, we see that the criminals are indeed dining with two hobos.   (When Drebin wants to talk about the fight-fixing racket, the hoods send the bums to powder their noses.)

In these liberated times, there's no such thing. Yesterday's trash is today's socialite, a jet-setting culture creature who just wants to have a little fun.

Kathleen, being judgemental is never really out of style.  So, go ahead and call Paris a slutty, trampy, cheap, round-heeled, slattern.  Call her a tart, a strumpet, a floozy, and a woman of easy virtue (and a 'ho) -- you know you want to.

Brent Bozell

Brent didn't actually write about Paris in his Townhall column this week, but here's the Brent/Paris news from another source:

Sex Sells; Protests Over Sex Sell Even More 30 May 2005 (StudioBriefing)
Announced plans by Brent Bozell's conservative Parents Television Council to force broadcasters to yank a sexy Carl's Jr. commercial featuring Paris Hilton has sent millions of web surfers to the fast-food chain's website www.SpicyParis.com to download the ad. (The overloaded site reportedly crashed last week.) Jupiter Research analyst Gary Stein told the trade website MediaDailyNews Friday: "People hate advertising because they're being forced to watch it. ... But all of a sudden, if they're not allowed to watch it [it becomes irresistible.] Anything that you're told you're not allowed to see, you want."

So, Brent Bozell: secretly in the pay of the Carl's Jr. people and the porn industry, or just clueless? 

Only time will tell.

Bonus Townhaller:  John Stossel

Okay, he didn't write about Paris Hilton, but since he's basically a 'ho himself, I guess he qualifies for this week's theme.  (Plus, I know how much some of you like him.)

Protecting us from the good things?  by John Stossel

It's natural to fear freedom.

Time for a line from the "Simpsons" episode where Homer becomes an astronaut.  It's delievered by an ant, whose ant farm has just been broken: "Freedom!  Horrible, horrible freedom!" he exclaims (or so say the subtitles, translating from ant).

And here's a bonus bit from the same ep.  It comes when news guy Kent Brockman (who will be played by John Stossel in today's version) sees an image of what looks like a giant ant floating in the space capsule:

Ladies and gentlemen, er, we've just lost the picture, but, uh, what we've seen speaks for itself. The Corvair spacecraft has been taken over -- "'conquered," if you will -- by a master race of giant space ants. It's difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive earth men or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain, there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.

Now, back to John, who will help round up some others to toil in the underground sugar caves of the pharmaceutical companies.

Most people think government keeps us safe. It's why the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is regarded as absolutely necessary. It protects us from snake-oil sellers. Who could argue with that?

John Stossel, the mustached scourge of the people, that's who!

I will, because years of consumer reporting have taught me that the regulators, by protecting us from bad things, protect us from good things, too. When we let the government use force to limit our choices, we deprive ourselves of innovation that makes life better. 

Yes, we are depriving ourselves of innovative drugs, like Thalidomide.

Okay, John admits that it was good that the FDA didn't approve Thalidomide, but he claims that this success caused the regulatory agency to get arrogant and rigid, and to grow like a cancer on the body of the nation -- and now it kills thousands by not letting them have the drugs which may cure them (or kill them quicker).  But in any case, the FDA is infringing on our freedom to buy untested drugs.

But after the Thalidomide success, the FDA grew like a malignant tumor. Getting a new drug approved now takes 12 to 15 years. It takes that long because the FDA wants to be extra sure every drug is safe and effective. That seems reasonable. But this vigilant pursuit of safety also kills people.

Some years ago, the FDA held a news conference and proudly announced, "This new heart drug we're approving will save 14,000 American lives a year!" No one stood up at the press conference to ask, "Doesn't this mean you killed 14,000 people last year -- and the year before -- by keeping it off the market?"

If John had been there back then, that's what he would have said! 

Reporters don't think that way, but the FDA's announcement did mean that. Thousands will die this year while other therapies wait for approval.

Yes, by not letting the nice pharmaceutical companies release drugs without years of testing, the FDA is effectively one of the biggest mass murderers the world has ever known.  

And anyway, some people like to take possibly harmful drugs.  Shouldn't we just let the free market decide if drugs are dangerous or not?

Many of us want to be absolutely sure a drug is safe before we take it. It's natural to want the "experts" to protect us. But why isn't the choice left to us? Why does the FDA get to force us to wait and, in some cases, die, when there are experimental drugs, however risky, that might save our lives?

The FDA isn't the boss of us!  If we want to buy new, untested substances and basically be human guinea pigs for Pfizer, that's our perogitive, and the FDA should just mind its own bees wax!

Thousands of Americans die prematurely because they are too fat. Drug companies have invented fat substitutes -- ingredients that taste as good as fat but are not absorbed by your body. This would help the obese, but they are not permitted to try them, because the ingredients are still squeezing through the FDA's 12-to-15-year pipeline. After all, there's a tiny chance that something in these innovative products might hurt us.

I'm pretty sure we already have tried some of those fat substitutes, and found them wanting (and prone to give us diarrhea).  Or did I just dream that whole Olesta thing?

But what about the thousands of lives that would be saved? Don't those lives count?

 No.

Um, John, nobody's life is going to be saved by low-fat potato chips.

Am I suggesting we just junk the FDA and let the market take over? That sounds chaotic and threatening, and it's not about to happen.

But it would be great it could.

But there is a better way. That's next week's column.

Which will be brought to you by Genentech, Glaxo, Hoffman LaRoche, Pfizer, Pharmacia & Upjohn, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.   And I, for one, welcome John's new drug overlords. 

4:14:16 AM