Italian winemakers are saying that Paris Hilton is not a worthy poster girl for Prosecco white sparkling wine. Hilton stars in the advertising campaign for Rich Prosecco, nude and painted in gold in one ad reminiscent of actress Shirley Eaton in the James Bond film “Goldfinger”.
From what I read, Italians do not object to seeing Paris Hilton in the nude. What has caused the anger is that she has not only used the name “Prosecco”, which Italians regard as their copyright, but also — sacrilegiously — put the drink in a can and mixed it with fruit juice.
Winemakers say Paris Hilton unfit for Prosecco
Hotel heiress Paris Hilton dressed provocatively in a skimpy leopard print outfit and showing off her bare legs is not an image Italian winemakers feel is fitting for their Prosecco white sparkling wine.
Yet Hilton, in various high-heeled stages of undress, graces the ads of Rich Prosecco, an Austrian company selling the bubbly in 27 countries. What’s worse, in the eyes of Prosecco producers, Rich Prosecco also comes in cans and in two fruit varieties.
“Hilton hotels are a sign of quality; Paris Hilton is not,” said Fulvio Brunetta, president of the wine growers association of Treviso, the northern Italian city in the Veneto region where Prosecco is made.
Paris, a symbol of celebrity privilege in America, gained notoriety in 2003 when a home video of her having sex with a boyfriend was posted on the Internet.
She parlayed her notoriety, fueled by tabloid headlines about her partying lifestyle, into a celebrity career that has included reality television, a book and film roles.
Last year she spent more than three weeks in jail for violating probation in a drunk-driving case.
“Paris Hilton is sensationalism. It’s not good. It’s not adequate for Prosecco,” Brunetta said.
The association is planning two meetings next week to decide on ways to protect the Prosecco name and insure that any company selling Prosecco is actually using wine made from the Treviso area.
“Without stricter rules, Rich Prosecco or another company could sell Prosecco made in Brazil or wherever,” Brunetta said.
That’s not going to stop Rich Prosecco, which says it sources its wine from the Treviso area.
“We follow exactly European laws, which are very strict, especially concerning wine,” said Rich Prosecco Chief Executive and owner Gunther Aloys, who founded the company in 2006 in the Austrian ski resort of Ischgl.
To respect wine laws, Rich Prosecco’s two fruit varieties, with a lower alcohol content and called Rich Passion and Rich Royal, are not labelled Prosecco.
Last year Rich Prosecco sold 10 million cans, primarily in Germany but also in China, India and South Korea, for about 2 euros (about $3) a can.
The company’s rapid growth mirrors the rise of the Prosecco region, which last year produced 50 million bottles, up 14 percent from 2005, and is increasing exports to Canada and the United States, though Germans remain the top foreign buyers.
The winegrowers are concerned that Rich Prosecco may give their wine the image of a cheap fruit drink.
And then there’s the cans, advertised by Paris, nude and painted in gold in one ad reminiscent of the James Bond film Goldfinger.
“In the U.S. and Australia they toast with beer bottles,” Brunetta said. “That’s their culture. The culture of Prosecco is one of friends meeting around a good bottle.”
Rich Prosecco’s Aloys says he is helping build the wine’s world renown and does not understand the fuss.
“It’s as if someone from Champagne would oppose us selling champagne cans with Kate Moss for example. It’s just marketing and Paris Hilton is the most famous girl in the world.”
Last year Paris’s grandfather Barron Hilton said he would donate 97 percent of his $2.3 billion fortune to charity.
Jerry Oppenheimer, who profiled the Hilton family in his 2006 book “House of Hilton,” has said Barron Hilton is embarrassed by the behavior of his socialite granddaughter Paris and believes it has sullied the family name.
Barron Hilton has not commented on the book.
Another season, another meltdown! Why does Paula Abdul always make the news just when a new season of “American Idol” is about to start? Could this be a publicity stunt? I wonder…
Paula Abdul’s Airport Flip-out
Paula Abdul, the braying, oft-drunk judge of landmark cultural institution American Idol, caused quite the scene at LAX over the holidays, according to a source. Says a tipster who saw her in the Continental Airlines terminal: “She had an insane nervous breakdown that lasted 10 minutes. One minute she was hyperventilating and on the verge of passing out; the next she was yelling into her cell phone in this deep, rage-filled Poltergeist voice. She kept screaming three names over and over—Michael, Sidney, and Leslie. Everyone was staring at her, but she didn’t care.”
There were no cameras around, so she wasn’t filming a scene for her train wreck reality show on Bravo. Still, hysterical outbursts aren’t exactly new territory for Abdul. Anyone have an idea what prompted this one? Or who Michael, Sidney, and Leslie might be? Let us know!
Pat Sajak has written the most common sense practical solution to Man-Made Global Warming. This satire shows just what a load of crap the new Liberal religion is.
Oh, by the way. If there is anyone out there looking to alleviate their Global Warming guilt please let me know by sending me $100 dollars and I’ll plant a tree in your name so you can continue to leave your ‘carbon footprint’ wherever you want this year. You can continue this program annually and you’ll not have to adjust your lifestyle like Pat has suggested. You can even ‘Spin the Wheel’ to see which tree would best represent your family’s personality. I will be more than glad to be of service.
A Solution to Man-Made Global Warming
There are apparently tens of millions of people around the world who are convinced global warming is real, and mankind (particularly American mankind) is responsible. Further, they believe utterly catastrophic results are imminent unless we drastically alter our lifestyles—and soon. These alterations include the things we eat, our transportation, our daily work and leisure habits, and even the number of children we should have. The problem is there are also tens of millions of people around the world who are skeptical of this theory, and, despite one side’s claims the debate is settled, a significant and growing number of climate experts keep challenging their conclusions.
So, those who believe disaster is around the corner face a dilemma: while they’re educating their fellow citizens and demanding governments regulate believers and non-believers alike, the problem continues, and the date of the world’s doom draws ever closer. But there is a solution. It’s relatively simple, can begin immediately, and will change the dynamics of global warming overnight. Instead of continuing to preach to the rest of us, the true believers need to step forward and set an example. I’m not talking about recycling Evian bottles; I’m talking about giving up cars and moving into smaller houses or apartments, or even forming communes where people can live simpler, more Earth-friendly lives. Yes, I’m talking about living the kinds of lives they want all of us to live.
Such a movement could literally start tomorrow. It would need a leader, of course; someone who could inspire others to choose a more spartan lifestyle. The obvious choice would be Al Gore, who already has a loyal following. If he would eschew large homes, gas-guzzling cars, private jets and the consumption of meat, millions more would likely do the same. If enough people joined the cause, Mr. Gore and his followers would be able to demonstrate the results of this new way of living in very short order. They could lead by example. They could create a movement. They could have uniforms and badges and secret handshakes. The could have their own reality TV show. In short, they could become a major force for change. Carmakers would be driven out of business or forced to dramatically alter their products to meet the demands of this eco-friendly Gorian tsunami. Companies of all stripes would, similarly, have to adapt or perish.
Once the rest of us saw the presumed reversal (or at least slowing-down) of global warming, it would do more to convince us than any lecture or study signed by UN scientists, and it would likely add millions more to the cause. So what if you can’t get one-hundred percent co-operation initially? Wouldn’t half (or a third or a quarter) of the population make a huge difference if they made substantial sacrifices? You could argue it wouldn’t be fair to have some of us going on abusing the planet and leading our lives of consumption and gluttony while others are putting aside the trappings of modern life, but this isn’t about fairness; it’s about survival.
The time for talk is over. The time for action is now. Just think of millions and millions of committed Americans making the personal sacrifices necessary to demonstrate their resolve to combat man-made global warming. And, most important, thanks to their efforts, theory would be replaced by fact. It’s much easier to argue about a study than it is to refute the demonstrable results when the temperature drops and the ocean levels stabilize. When future generations write of the sacrifices of these men and women, they’ll use words like “inspirational” and “heroic”.
And so, I urge the advocates for change to embark on this important mission. Do it for the children. Godspeed.
Don’t know who to vote for? Minnesota Public Radio wants to help you figure it out. They have a survey you can take that will use your answers to identify the candidates that hold similar views.
