Commercial Product Fail of the Week: Toyota Prius

Oh Toyota - where to begin? Cutting corners in recent years led to a plethora of recalls on your vehicles BUT you still had your golden pony, the good ol' hybrid Prius.

Too bad that's a big FAIL. And, no by fail I don't mean, the inability to stop because of the acceleration issues previously noted, I mean FAIL because the number one thing the Prius prides itself of, is the fact that it is eco-friendly - your very own friendly planet advocate.

Okay, so for consumers who want to save money, the gas mileage is still a plus (I will give the vehicle that) but for the hipster, tree-hugging population of America that boycotts Hummers and such, ironically your planet-happy Prius is enemy number 1 to this planet.

Yup, that's right. Those super special batteries the Prius has that enable such great gas mileage, well those batteries cause a ton of damage. Here's an except from one of many articles written about this matter:

The Prius' battery contains nickel, which is mined in Ontario Canada. The plant that smelts this nickel is apparently nicknamed "the Superstack" because of the amount of pollution it puts out; the area for miles around it is a wasteland because of acid rain and air pollution.

But the main problem that the "Dust to Dust" study has with the Prius' impact on the environment comes next.

That smelted nickel then has to travel (via container ship) to Europe to be refined, then to China to be made into "nickel foam," then to Japan for assembly, and finally to the United States. All this shipment for each tiny step in the production process costs a great deal, both in dollars and in pollution.

The study then concludes that -- all the production costs in mind -- the Prius costs about $3.25 per mile and is expected to last about 100,000 miles. The Hummer, on the other hand, with all the same factors counted, costs about $1.95 per mile and is expected to last about 300,000 miles.

Boo hoo, my planet-friendly car is actually a major contributor to those evil pollution concerns!

Ponderings on Black Friday commercials

It's almost that time - the day that I am sure most husbands look forward to almost more than their wives, Black Friday. Women awake in the wee hours to get special 4 a.m. deals (meanwhile they could all wait until Cyber Friday and just order stuff online), and commercials advertising these sales and other Christmas deals are force-fed to us on every channel.

I kind of enjoy watching these commercials for a number of reasons - the approach used by companies, the cool items going on sale and the perception of buyers that companies seem to have. I also get to giggle a little about the impression most viewers are left with.

Car commercials: These ones get me - do people really buy each other cars for Christmas? I mean, maybe the 1 percenters do, but who else in the world awakens to a brand new lexus in their driveway. The absolute best part about the Lexus commercials, is the infamous big, red bow. You know the one, it sits atop of the luxury vehicle in a snowy driveway.

Here's a "did-ya-know" for you. You don't get to keep the bow. That's right - if you are planning on spending 50k to buy one of these bad boys for your significant other or spoiled teen, you still have to return the bow. I think you get it for like 24 - 72 hours then it must be returned to the dealer. For 50k, you get a terrible warranty and a false sense of excitement about a big red bow. It's kind of comical.

Toys: Toy commercials are the best; I think mostly because Christmas really is the most exciting when you have a child to buy gifts for or when you are a child yourself. I pick toys as one, but specifically, Crayola. I mean, we give kudos to NASA and Apple for innovation but what about Crayola. How do they make these special coloring tools that only react to certain paper and not your carpet? Glowing pens and pencils and neon light fixtures; we don't give props to Crayola quite enough but when you think about it - they are doing some sort of chemical reaction technology development over there that maybe we should consider for other things?

Department/All-in-one Store: I wonder when K-Mart is going to get it. There are so many issues with K-Mart it's no wonder America has been Walmartized. Though half the things I buy from Walmart come with Spanish-only directions or flimsy assembly parts, I'd rather deal with them then spend double at K-Mart. Does K-Mart not realize that their target audience is the low income class of America? That lack-of-realization combined with their stupid Blue light bulb who boasts Black Friday sales on bedding sets really makes me wonder if they hired a homeless person to do their advertising and marketing.

Now, while I can't stand Walmart commercials, especially the "match it" price matcher's commercials, they know what they are doing. Like K-Mart, they tend to reach a low income class of folks, and for them, a $199 flat screen TV is what they are looking for, not a comforter.

Okay, I am sick of griping - until I see new commercials to comment on for Christmas shopping, that's all.

OMG lame celebs the sequel

How excited is the entire world to go see the upcoming "New Year's" movie? I mean seriously, who is sitting there on the edge of their seat waiting for the release of this movie?

Remember "Valentine's Day?" Let's see how many high-paid celebs we can pack into one extremely lame movie. And, what is more bothersome is how these celebs end up in the movie. It can't be that they get the script and think, 'wow, this is riveting, oscar-worthy stuff. I need to sign on rightaway!'

No. They are all vain. I have no other explanation. It's like they all think it's fun to play around on sets with other celebs for a bit then look at themselves in HD in movies. It's not like they do it because it's what the world wants to see because, let's be honest, there is ZERO substance to these movies. Just a blockbuster cast of people who love to see themselves on big screens.

These idiots need to put their time to better use - volunteer, pay off the country's debt, do drugs...I don't care but STOP expecting us to share the same fondness for your faces in some terrible, commercialized movie. We are over it.

Ponderings: social views and celebutards

I haven't had a specific train of thought about one single topic in awhile, just a bunch of ponderings/annoyances about some observations I have had lately. I will try to organize as best as I can...

The art of being PC about sexuality/race/etc: Someone was telling me a story about how their coworker opened up a presentation with a light-hearted joke that mentioned "homosexuals" which apparently resulted in being repremanded. This individual was repremanded not for gender bias but for the term "homosexual" itself.

This strikes me as odd and hypocritical. The homosexual population declares themself just that, outwardly. There are parades boasting gay pride - without avail, we do not judge or hate - I could care less what sexuality these folks are - it is them who feel the need to celebrate their sexuality. Okay, no problem - you outwardly declare yourself something and celebrate it for the world to see, but if we identify you as such, it is offensive.

Are we supposed to acknowledge your sexuality but never refer to you as such though you identify yourself by it? The same kind of idea can be seen with BET or Miss African American USA - should we not refer to you as black or African American even though you seek to be identified as such?

We are all humans; people - however you want to identify the population as a whole - I would much rather think of us all as the same - but we are constantly desensitized to recognize the difference and when we practice differentiation, we are wrong?

The Hollywood art of bearing it all: Through photos and videos, some celebrities take it all off; in some ways this is quite annoying and in others it is a career-ender.

I hate the recent headlines about starlettes who get all up in arms about nude photos being leaked. I will say the same thing that I tell my friends' high school-aged sisters...nothing good comes from documenting yourself naked. If you let someone take a picture of you nude, or if you pose nude for a camera phone picture, then you probably deserve it be leaked because YOU ARE THAT STUPID.

Yeah, yeah the usual defense is that they are sharing with their partners - well your partner has the priveledge to see you in the flesh, why does he or she need physical, sharable proof of it? THEY DON'T. I will feel no pity for you when/if the world sees it if you were dumb enough to let it happen.

Okay - onto my theory about porn and celebs. I think that the longevity of a career and relationships is significantly shortened when celebs first get famous because of sex tapes. There, I said it.

Why? Well because the world has seen absolutely all there is to see already. What more is there? They have seen you butt naked and having intercourse. You may get a few years of unfounded publicity (ahem Paris and Kim) but really, you're not going to land a respectable man and you aren't going to be the next Silver Screen starlette.

Ride it until it dies - figuratively and literally. Though I can't stand Kim K, I can't blame her for dragging out the annoyance of her life in front of cameras while she can - what else can she do? She is famous for a sex tape.

The irony of modern day superheros

It has been said that the closest thing to a superhero in today's world are professional athletes. I find it ironic, especially when looking at the NFL. The NFL is a league filled with some of the richest, most athletic men in the USA. Additionally, some of these "superheros" have criminal records - not DUI, petty theft incidents but more severe.

I tried using google to find the actual number of NFL players who have spent time in prison, the most relevant result was found on yahoo answers from two years ago and reads:

Rae Carruth: Carolina Panthers, conspiracy to commit murder, 24 years

Cecil Collins: Miami Dolphins, burglary, 15 years

Dwayne Goodrich: Dallas Cowboys, criminally negligent homicide (hit and run accident), 7 1/2 years

Thomas "Hollywood" Henderson: retired from Dallas Cowboys, sexual assault, bribery, 4 years, eight months (was released after 28 months)

Terry "Tank" Johnson: Chicago Bears, probation violation relating to weapons possession, 120 days

Jamal Lewis: Baltimore Ravens, using a cell phone to facilitate a drug deal, four months

Dexter Manley: Washington Redskins, drug possession, evidence tampering, 4 years (1996) 2 years (2002)

Byron "Bam" Morrism: Kansas City Chiefs, drug trafficking, 30 months

Eugene "Mercury" Morris: retired from Miami Dolphins, drug trafficking, 20 years (conviction overturned - reached plea bargain and released after serving 3 years)

Nate Newton: retired from Dallas Cowboys, drug trafficking, 7 1/2 years (two separate convictions), released after serving about two and a half years

Robert Rozier (a.k.a. Robert Rameses): retired from Arizona Cardinals, multiple murders, convicted of four murders, served 10 years and placed in witness protection after testifying against Yahweh Ben Yahweh, later sentenced to 25 to life on check kiting charge under three strikes rule

Art Schlichter: Indianapolis Colts, forgery, theft, others, 16 years

Alonzo Spellman: retired/cut from Chicago Bears, interference with a flight crew, simple assault, 18 months

Stanley Wilson Sr.: retired from Cincinnati Bengals, burglary, 22 years

Michael Vick: Atlanta Falcons, dog fighting, 23 months

Mercury Morris, Wide receiver for Miami Dolphins, 1970's, Cocaine charges

Plaxico Burress, Wide reciever for the giants, 2008, had gun without permit

We look at the league today and see two very famous examples - Michael Vick and Plaxico Burress. One man drowned, and electricuted dogs for sport (oh and had a bit of a gambling ring based on these dogs ripping each other to shreds) - the other shot himself with his own gun.

I mean besides the cruelty of Vick's sport and the idiocracy of Plaxico's - imagine they were Joe Shmoe. The same two men wouldn't be able to get a job bagging groceries at your local supermarket.

Criminals in the everyday world can't even get blue collor, non-degreed jobs, yet put them in a colorful jersey and they are adored by their fans who sport their jerseys, chant their names and pay upwards of $100+ to watch them play.

They drive luxury cars, get VIP tables, free meals, apparel sponsorships, millions of dollars to spend as they please and are worshipped by sports announcers on any given channel.

Ironic, right? Our kids read comics about people with supernatural powers and spend weekends intently posted up in front of the TV with us watching these criminal "superheros" who have the life they only dream of.

Now I wonder why ADHD and youth gang memberships are on the rise - let's face it - these "superheros" aren't doctors or scholars; why pay attention in school? These "superheros" torture animals and tout guns - could it be that criminality and professional athletes are interchangeable in the eyes of the naive, adolescense?

Who knows...either way, there is something seriously wrong with a country that idolizes someone like Mike Vick - and we can only blame ourselves for our own competitiveness and entertainment-seeking lifestyles that we are willing to ignore how absurd the actions of these criminal players are for a good team and a superbowl title.

Media influences presidential election

Though I wrote about this 2 years ago on my other blog (the posting will be shared below), I can't help but feel deja-vu; sadly.

In last night's Fox News debate, candidates were given the following opportunities to speak:
Romney– 16
Perry– 11
Bachmann– 9
Huntsman– 9
... Santorum– 9
Gingritch– 7
Cain– 7
Paul– 6
Johnson– 5

For Ron Paul, this was a whole seven minutes

Well that's a bit of an improvement from 2008's MSNBC debate, where Paul spoke only 6 minutes and 31 seconds

Here's my posting from January 24, 2008 from my previous blog:

Proof the Media has picked your President

I can barely express how truly disappointed I am in the ignorance of the American people and the huge corruption of the news in this presidential election. Call me naive, but I also wasn't old enough to vote until Bush's second term.

First- I watched the MSNBC debates tonight. Censorship is brutal- I won't deny my acclaim for Dr. Ron Paul. But when his total time speaking is 6 minutes and 31 seconds, by far the least- the second least amount belonging to Mike Huckabee at 12 minutes, how can you justify feeding the Romneybot 21 minutes of face time? Sure I can bitch and moan till the cows come home about the blatant censorship of Dr. Paul and things probably won't change...

But, seriously Mitt Romney is the winner? He had the most time talking tonight and from the looks of it he also had a prompter. When asked if he would respond the same way Reagan did... a whisper is loud and clear "he raised taxes" and Romney starts "What by raising taxes?". Sure give me the bullshit answer to this like a good media pawn.

Who said it? Cameras don't have mics. In fact only the moderators and the candidates had mics. MSNBC is going to blame Russert, but did he need to whisper that in order to get a relevant answer from Mitt? If Mitt is a great economic candidate he would know that raising taxes is what Reagan did right? Since he name drops RR frequently enough would he in fact need Russert to add "he raised taxes" to the question? Doubt it. What's more disturbing is that along with his "help" and his 20% of the show air-time, the debate winner er I mean owner is...

Oh that's right- Mitt Romney. He purchased the media empire "Clear Channel Communications" in November of 2006. Those that say he is a good businessman are certainly correct. Clear Channel is an umbrella company consisting of 1200 radio stations, various billboard sites, newspapers and local cable channels like Fox and ABC.

So the news we are getting is from a station that's owned by presidential candidate Mitt Romney- I guess we have our very own explanation for censorship. So if you want to welcome today's soft Republicans in to change the ways of President Bush- with the exception of Ron Paul you are welcoming full control of your lives, even what you watch on TV.

*Another link to Romney's first-hand connection to Clear Channel has been posted, and as of January 11th Bain Capital, Mitt's company, has gotten FCC approval for the buyout- from the Huffington Post.

Conspiracies aside, I am just not certain I understand why the media whose sole purpose is to inform the public of the news instead tries to influence the outcome of an election - in term creating "news."

Oh and for you "journalists" out there, news is defined as follows:

1)a report of recent events
- previously unknown information
- something having a specified influence or effect
2) material reported in a newspaper or news periodical or on a newscast
- matter that is newsworthy


Same gripe, different year.

Commercial product fail of the week: GARMIN GPS

Though I am certain we all have our complaints about GPS systems, nothing can be worse than the "bitch" I have in charge of my car, or Serena.

Serena is a GARMIN GPS I recieved for Christmas a year or so back. Often I curse at her for various reasons, however, my problem goes deeper than that. These car GPS systems have changed the way we navigate. The evolution of navigation went from recieving directions from a friend (and writing down) to printing directions from Mapquest to being heavily reliant upon our digital GPS systems (whether embedded or detached).

My issue is about the purpose of the GPS. On Mapquest we could choose between fastest route, shortest distance, avoid tolls, etc. Supposedly, our GPS finds a combo of the first two - this is it's purpose. Serena FAILS at this.

I have tested this theory - I have printed directions from Mapquest that show the approximate distance/time and I have plugged the same address into the GPS. Without fail, Serena always takes me a route that is both longer distance-wise, and more time-consuming. I know this because when I have ignored her "take the exit in ___ miles" prompts, the ETA adjusts to a shorter TIME than with her calculated route.

This new route is the same route I have printed out from Mapquest, the same route that is less mileage.

I just don't understand. Does Garmin have some kind of stock sharing with STS or JiffyLube? Why does she continously intend to take me on a longer route with higher mileage?

Also, why does she have me U-Turn through toll booths? I won't elaborate - I could guess there is some partnership with EZ-Pass or something. Either way, I hope to investigate these things sooner as I am a heartbeat away from going Office Space on her.