When it's unexpected chilly outside and we're feeling frigid and unmotivated, there's nothing that gets us pumped up in the morning quite like reading a crotchety lament on the pitfalls of celebrity culture sponsored by the always-curmudgeonly New York Times. Like this one, from the Sunday paper.

How can Tila Tequila have become enormously famous having done little of note beyond appearing as Playboy’s Cyber Girl of the Week? When exactly in the Warholian arc of fame did we arrive at a point where we create celebrities of people so little accomplished that they make Paris Hilton look like Marie Curie?

And while we're guessing the aforementioned questions are rhetorical ones, we're just glad to see Gray Lady turn her venerable powers of authority, influence and unparalleled senior angst to yet another worthy cause: Hurting Tila Tequila's feelings.

And, we know what you're thinking: 'Great, another knee-jerk article probing the tawdriness of instant fame and pondering the societal ramifications.' Well, you're right. But because it's the Times instead of, say, the Daily News, they use phrases like "Warholian arc of fame" instead of "15 minutes" and "Marie Curie" instead of "Oprah."

Ultimately, however, more impressive than the article itself is the caption contextualizing Tequila's accomplishments which reads: "Tila Tequila’s talents may be hard to discern, but that hasn’t stopped her from having a hit show on MTV."

Weird! Although less weird when you consider that lack of talent hasn't stopped the girls from The Hills, Kim Kardashian, the Real Worlders, the Gastineaus, the Gottis, the Osbourne spawn, the brats from My Super Sweet Sixteen, Brooke Hogan, Kimora Lee Simmons, Danity Kane or Vanessa Minnillo, either.