Sex Sells Scions

Do you know what a Scion is? In general, it's a fairly ugly-ass car. I've never been a fan. And I'm guessing that I might not be the only one who isn't a fan of this particular vehicle. I say that because they seem to have some new ads out and...holy crap! I honestly don't know how these were cleared for the public airwaves. Maybe they'll just be on late at night. I don't know. But I'm going to go ahead and say that this is probably at least a little bit NSFW. I don't know how to describe it other than I guess the Scion people are really taking the "sex sells" concept to a completely different level to sell their ugly-ass cars. Is this what we're resorting to now? How did this start? Was it Carl's Jr. and their half naked chicks slurping down messy cheeseburgers as half of the contents drips all over them? Did they sell like a gazillion of those burgers and now Scion wants to up the ante with their ads? I don't know what happened for us to get here, but I think we might want to back off just a little bit. Just a bit. You tell me. Behold!

Sphere: Related Content

The Crate Gate Fakeroversy

For God's sake, could everyone please just pipe down about Mitt Romney's freaking dog?! The dog is long dead. How is it that I keep hearing about this dog and what may or may not have been inappropriate travel conditions for the beast? Aren't there more important issues to discuss? We have an unstable economy, outrageous gas prices, a couple of wars and unemployment that is still a bit too high. And all these yahoos want to talk about are birth control and Seamus! See how doomed we are?!

If you haven't heard the story, here it is: This happened back in the eighties. (Yes, the eighties. Yes, when Reagan was President. Yes, those eighties.) Apparently, Mitt Romney and his large family were taking a road trip somewhere. Along with the family traveled the family dog, Seamus. Seamus appears to have been some sort of Irish setter. He was definitely a dog. That I know. Anyway, for some reason, Mitt decided that the best way to go traveling with a bunch of kids and a dog would be to put the kids in the car and to put the dog on top of the car.

Now, when I first heard about this, I pictured a dog just strapped to the top of a station wagon. (You know the kind. The ones with the faux wood paneling on the outside. Whose idea were those, anyway? Why is it that someone out there wanted us to think that a car was carved out of a tree? I've never understood the reasoning behind wood paneling on things that would never be made out of wood. But I digress. Where was I? Right! The dog.) But it turns out that ol' Seamus was inside of a pet carrier crate that was strapped to the top of the family vehicle. But the way that everyone has reacted to this, you'd have thought that it was my original scenario that actually occurred.

I suppose that I should mention that the little trip that they went on was a twelve hour drive. That's pretty long. I should also mention that at some point, ol' Seamus apparently had a violent bout of diarrhea whilst he was up there. This was evidenced and noticed by the passengers of the vehicle when said diarrhea began dripping down the car windows. So gross. But why am I the only one who is thinking that it was good that the dog wasn't inside of the car when his bowels exploded? You want that IN your vehicle? While you're driving for twelve hours? When you already have five boys all under the age of thirteen in there with you? I don't think that you do.

At some point, they stopped at a gas station or a rest stop and Mitt cleaned up Seamus and hosed out his crate. Then it was back to driving with the dog on top and the people inside. Normally, this is where someone would type "The End". But it hasn't ended. It won't end. I'm afraid it may never end. People keep bringing this up as if Mitt had put one of his kids in that crate. (And let me tell you, having been a child, that would have been awesome. I would have donned a cape (aka, a pillowcase) and crawled in there for what would have been sure to be the adventure of a lifetime for a six year old!) And for some reason, the North Carolina-based Public Policy Polling decided to ask American voters questions that referenced this incident about a dog (who wasn't killed or anything) from 1983.


The Wall Street Journal had a story yesterday (almost thirty years after the freaking fact) about said poll. (How this has anything to do with Wall Street is beyond me. And people wonder why newspapers are struggling. I can't imagine.) They asked people "... whether they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of both Barack Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s treatment of dogs". Because...that's important? It says that "20% of the 900 voters polled last week said they have a favorable opinion of Mr. Romney’s treatment of dogs, compared with 29% who hold an unfavorable opinion." The good thing about this particular result is that the percentages only total to 49%. That leaves me some hope that the other 51% said, "Are you effing kidding me?" (By the way, President Barry managed to get 44% of the people polled to see his treatment of dogs favorably, compared with only 14% who saw his dog treatment as unfavorable. How do you see President Barry as having unfavorable treatment toward dogs. Does Bo seem particularly unhappy to those folks? He's a dog who lives in the White House. I'm pretty sure that his life is rather luxurious for any animal.

But get this: They actually asked "Who do you think would be a better president for dogs?” What the crap does that even mean?! A better president for dogs? Dogs don't have presidents! They're dogs! Isn't that the sort of question that you would expect to be asked of first graders or something? How is that a polling agency's question? If you didn't think that we've totally come off the rails before now, are you thinking right about now that might be a little too optimistic? If you weren't, you should be. A better president for dogs?! Good Lord...


There is even a website called Dogs Against Romney. Now, while that's a catchy name (I suppose), I highly doubt that there are any actual dogs involved in that website. Why is this even an issue? I don't get it. How is having your dog in a dog crate on top of the car any different than having your dog in the back of your pickup truck? I'm not seeing this as a problem. The dog wasn't hurt. The dog was just fine. Probably because it's a dog. I don't know that I would recommend this as a way to travel with your animal, but I'm not seeing it as being particularly cruel or harmful. I realize that the dog has evolved into a rather domesticated beast, but it's still an animal. I think it would be OK. But the real point here is that everyone has lost their minds. Keep your eye on the ball, people! FOCUS! This is not, I repeat, NOT important! Also, let me reiterate that there is NO SUCH THING as a "president for dogs". That's NOT a thing! FOCUS, people! Keep your eye on the ball! A president for dogs?! We're so doomed.

Sphere: Related Content

Jatravesty

Every single day I keep seeing more and more signs of our imminent demise. (Aka "We're doomed.") Here's what I saw today. Behold!

Wow. Are we...are we sure that those are actually names? I guess we kind of have to assume that they are (as that's usually how these sorts of things work), but I'm pretty sure that I haven't heard of most of those before. And that's not to say that there is something wrong with that. It's just saying...oh, come on! You know what it's saying as well as I do!

Wow. Memaw sure does have a lot of baybays. Does that actually say Jamodesty? That's gotta be a joke. Jamodesty? Sort of like Jermaine Jackson's kid, Jermajesty? I guess Jermajesty was a little too self-indulgent, so they went with Jamodesty? Or maybe that's the feminine form. If Jermajesty is the masculine form of Ja'highness, then that might make sense. All of these seem like derivatives of Heywood Jablowme, but I think I digress.

Actually, wait a minute. Maybe I've figured out how this whole thing works. You take a word that starts with an "M" and ends with a "Y", put a little "Ja" at the beginning of that and BAM! You've got yourself a ghetto name generator. Jamatrimony, Jamalady, Jamilitary, Jamercury, Jamelody. I'm a genius! I'm also ashamed! Moving on!

Now, to be fair, since these are "Memaw's" baybays, I can't really bag on Memaw as she didn't name them. She is advertising those names, however. That's a punishable offense right there when you're talking about E Monte and Jerodius. And while I can give her a little bit of leeway because she wasn't the actual namer, she still loses those points for the misplaced apostrophe in "BayBay's" Oooh! Oooh! Japostrophe!

Oh, God. I've clearly lost it. Must be late. OK, in conclusion, don't do this stuff. If you know someone who does, just turn around and walk the other way. They're beyond help. Save yourself.

Sphere: Related Content

IH8THIS

So, the other day we discussed how the lovely state of California is currently trying to pass a law which will dictate what sort of sheets that hotels will be able to use. Thus, it should come as no shock to you that there are at least TEN people (all collecting a government salary with government benefits) and up to TWENTY people (depending on if there is an appeal) who are involved in determining who gets the personalized license plate that they've requested and who does not get the personalized license plate that they've requested. TEN people. Let's see what their day involves. I guarantee you that it will likely be absolutely nothing like the sort of days that you and I have.

According to NBC Bay Area, there is a four person team that reviews between 200-500 submissions for vanity plates every day. Between 20 and 40 of those plates are up for review by a separate 6-person team. Their decision as to whether or not the vanity plate is acceptable hinges on one question: "Would you find it offensive?" Oh, for cryin' out loud!

What is the point of this? I have no idea. And there are at least ten people who are being paid to participate in this nonsense. Look, I'm probably against any outright profanities on license plates. Probably. I'm not real sure how I feel about it because regardless of what is allowed on license plates, it just seems kind of futile to me considering that you can stick a bumper sticker on your car (right next to the license plate if you'd like!) that says damn near anything and no one can stop you. That's why I'm kind of on the fence about whether or not to allow profanities. I still think I'm against it, but I don't know why.

Back to their rules. There are certain things that they simply don't allow on vanity plates. These are things that I had no idea about and I can't imagine that a lot of other people know anything about either. Like did you know "A few numbers are off limits for plates, such as 13, for its gang association." Thirteen has a gang association? Not just bad luck? How in the world would I know that unless I'm in a gang? And if I am in a gang, is that what I'm going to do? Go get a "13" on my license plate? Because all gangbangers make sure that their vehicle is properly registered and licensed with the state of California? Uh-huh. What else, you ask? Well, "Fourteen and 88 are banned for their connection to white supremacists." What connection is that? 14 and 88 and the KKK? I had no idea. Wait. Now that I know, am I supposed to be offended? 'Cause I'm not. I don't think that anyone is.

But wait. It gets better. They will let you explain yourself if there is a logical explanation. See, "'Ice' can be used for cocaine...So if you're an ice machine repair man, you can send in pictures of your truck with the name of the company." Right. Because if you're dealing coke, the best thing to do to help your business is to advertise it on your license plate! Seriously? What if I just happen to like Vanilla Ice, then what? Do I send them a picture of Robert Matthew Van Winkle with a heart drawn around his head? That just sounds silly.

And in that article over there at NBC, they have a list of 100 banned California vanity plates. I don't even get a lot of them. Like these:

• OQOOQOO Why is that bad? Are the Q's something bad? What is it?

• MERKTR I don't get that one. Merkin trader? No, that'd be weird. Hmmm...

• ETAMPON I don't really want to know what that is, but I would like to meet any pansy ass who would be offended by it.

• WTF HAXX I don't know what the HAXX stands for, but I'm OK with the WTF. I'd rather see that than the f-word wrote out. (And can everyone please just stop acting as if they never say the f-word. It's not some sort of a mortal sin to say 'wtf'. It's actually kind of polite if you think about it.)

I'm dying to know if the salaries of the at least ten people is easily surpassed by the amount of revenue that is brought in from having vanity plates. I'm hoping that it is. But I'm still guessing that you don't need ten (up to twenty) people to do that job. How could you?

Sphere: Related Content

No One Wants An Electric Car

Even though yesterday I said that this subject made my ass tired, I think that I'm going to have to talk about it now because I just paid $3.85 a gallon for gasoline and I'm not happy about it. Maybe, if I thought that prices would go down anytime soon, I wouldn't be so concerned about it. Maybe, if I thought that there was a reason for it (gasoline goes up all the time for no reason at all, so I'm not so sure that unrest in Libya is not so much of a reason as much as it is a semi-reasonable sounding explanation), I wouldn't be so annoyed by it. Or maybe, even if I thought that there were people working on a solution that wouldn't involve such a dependence on oil, it wouldn't cause me great despondence. But none of that is happening. The price isn't going to go anywhere but up. I have no idea if the craziness in Libya has anything at all to do with it. And the people who are "working" on getting us all something besides a gasoline powered automobile have their heads so far up their collective asses, I don't know how they'd come to be able to drive the thing in the first place if they ever did manage to create a viable alternative method of individual transportation.

See, I've been hearing about the Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf for at least three or four years now. Both are supposed to be wonderful electric cars that will be the beginning of a beautiful friendship with things that don't run on gasoline. And believe me, I would take great pleasure in being able to flip both barrels at every single gas station that I drove by, were I given the opportunity or the alternative to drive something that doesn't require gas. And before you start harping about public transportation to me, just stop it. I'm not about the environment. I mean, I am. But I'm not so much about it that I'm going to be inconvenienced by the bus. Good Lord, no. I'm about not having to feign any sort of a relationship with abhorrent dictatorships in the Middle East simply because they're sitting on top of a bunch of oil that we want. That's what I want. I want to not give a flying crap what happens over there in the sand lands. Give me an alternative to gasoline and I'll be able to not give that flying crap.

And briefly, before I move onto ranting about the Volt and the Leaf, I need to mention that while I don't want to have to worry about what happens in the sand lands, there is an alternative at our fingertips that doesn't require any innovation what so ever. If people would stop being so damned concerned about whether or not a pigeon gets a drop of oil on its wing and let people start drilling out the 100 to 200 year supply of oil that is underground in the United States, we would have a great deal less to concern ourselves with. Y'all in Afghanistan want to blow the crap out of each other because you're fighting over a group of rocks? Have at it! Think I give a crap? I don't! You know why? Because we have oil, you backwards living weird beards! Fight amongst yourselves. I'm outta here!

Whew! That felt good. Now, on to the electric cars. I'd like to start with the name of the Nissan Leaf. Um, that's not exactly the coolest name that you ever could have come up with. It's a little sissy-like. The Leaf. Does it run on leaves? No? Does it have anything to do with leaves? No? OK, then. So how about naming it something that doesn't make you feel like a freaking pansy when you mention it? "I drive a Leaf." Yeah, I'd never tell anyone that. At least the Volt sounds kind of cool. Unfortunately, that's about all that they got right.

A car that runs entirely on electricity must get that electricity from somewhere. The Leaf and the Volt are able to be plugged in directly to an outlet in your home (provided you buy some sort of an adapter that runs, from what I can figure out, somewhere between one and two thousand bucks). Thus, they're using the energy that is generated to electrify your house. Where does that energy come from? Why, it comes from coal! Wait. I thought that the idea of the electric car was to get away from coal usage so that it would be 'green' and good for the environment? It was! But is it really doing any good for the environment when the electricity that it uses is produced by coal? Hard to say, but my guess is no. My guess is that it makes it so that you don't pump all of the harmful emissions into the air. So that's good. But is it really a 'green' product? I take umbrage with that statement (mainly because it's extremely rare that I can take umbrage with anything).

With both the Volt and the pansy-ish Leaf in production, let's take a look at how sales have gone so far. We'll even do a little comparing to other vehicle models that are not electric. First the Volt. According to their monthly sales report, there were 281 Chevy Volts sold in February. 281. That's it. What was GM's best selling vehicle? Why, that would be the behemoth Chevy Silverado C/K Pickup. They sold 31,728 of those bad boys in February. That's almost 113 times as many Volts as they sold. Oh, and their mileage? Right around 15-17 mpg in the city. Yeah, if that doesn't tell you that people don't care about electric cars, I don't know what does.

But maybe the Leafs numbers will tell you that very same thing in a different way. According to Autobloggreen, while Chevy was only able to unload a mere 281 Volts, Nissan could only get rid of a paltry 67 Leafs in February. 67. And it's ten thousand dollars cheaper than the Volt! 67! Why do I have the feeling that they could give these things away and people still wouldn't want them?

And that brings me to my final point. The price of these things. The base price of a Chevy Volt is $40,280. Yes, you can qualify for a federal tax credit of up to $7,500 and that will take it down to $32,780, but that is still a lot. (Personally, I don't see why my tax dollars should help someone else buy a car that may or may not do any good to the environment. Then again, I don't see a lot of the need for a bunch of crap that my tax dollars are spent on, so maybe that's my problem.) In comparison, the Leaf starts at $32,780 and with the maximum tax credit, that could go as low as $25,280. Then again, without the maximum tax credits, you're looking at two very small cars that are over $30 thousand and $40 thousand dollars. There aren't a lot of people who are going to pay that for a car. Wait. I take that back. The Chevy Silverado is more than the Volt and people seem to have no problem paying for that.

What have we learned here? Plenty. But the main point is that people don't want electric cars. People want big, big cars. And they want to drive them fast and they want to pull a boat behind them all the time and without using a trailer! That's what we want! Drill on US soil or in US waters for our own damn oil! Make big-ass cars and stop trying to make us drive shoe boxes with solar panels! This is a failed experiment! Please stop! Please! I can't take any more inane-ness in this department! No one wants an electric car! Got it?! Good!

Sphere: Related Content

Cars And Freedom - Together At Last

Look, I'm all good with all of the patriotism that is being displayed these days. I really am. But is this what we can look forward to in terms of automobile commercials? Because if it is, I don't know that I'm totally on board with it. George Washington driving a Dodge Challenger as he scares off hoardes of redcoats? Um, OK. I guess. It a slight "Dukes of Hazzard" feel to it. Maybe that's my issue. I'm not sure. What's next? The signing of the Declaration of Independence on the tailgate of a Dodge Ram? Why do I have the feeling that it will be?

Sphere: Related Content

White Trash Tweet

If you're a business that is going to sponsor an individual (probably an athlete), you're going to want to be sure that the person that you're sponsoring will be a good reflection of your business. If you have a classy business, you're going want to make sure that you're not sponsoring someone like Tonya Harding, for example. That won't look good at all. (Even if you're a lead pipe manufacturer. It's still probably not a good move.) So if you're a company like, say, Jaguar, you're going to want to sponsor someone who would seem to have a great deal of class. Maybe that's asking too much. How about a classy person? Some class? Let me put it another way. If you're Jaguar, don't sponsor someone who is going to Tweet "Suck on that faggots!" Wait. What?

Correct. It would seem that there is an Australian swimmer named Stephanie Rice. She's apparently a fairly big deal. At least in Australia she is. Then again, she was also a pretty big deal at the Beijing Olympics where she swam her way to three gold medals. And since three gold medals is nothing to sneeze at (unless you're allergic), Jaguar decided to sponsor this young dolphin-esque swimmer. And just like a Jaguar, she sure isn't difficult to look at. Behold!

Ah, yes. In the typical pose that one would expect from a swimmer. Laying atop rumpled bed sheets with hair all a-flowing. Sure. That's how all women look when they're just hanging out. Uh-huh. All the time. But I digress. The point here is that this woman is apparently a big fan of the Australian rugby team, the Australian Wallabies. Huh. For such a brutal sport, that's kind of a wussy name, isn't it? The Wallabies? (Granted, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers of the NFL went for years with their mascot as a guy with a feather in his cap who was winking. Not the most manly mascot anyone has ever dreamed up.)

But the Wallabies apparently beat the South African team. (I cannot locate the name of those blokes in any report of this because the media is now sucking worldwide. Thanks for that, sucky worldwide media.) They won 41-39 in a game that was described by The Telegraph as "a nail-biting victory". I'll take their word for it. I have no idea if that is a high scoring game or just an average score that was tight in the end or what. Not a clue. None. I guess that I just need to learn more about rugby, as I can't really assume that every publication reporting on this sort of thing is going to spell it out, but I really wish they'd maybe just give us a little clue.

Now, Ms. Rice was so excited about the victory that she did what anyone would do in that situation. That's right. She tweeted. Good Lord. I'm so over people and their tweets, I cannot even tell you. But what I can tell you is what she tweeted. And it wasn't very Jaguar-esque to tweet out to the entire world "Suck on that faggots!"

I wasn't the only one who thought that it wasn't exactly the kind of person that Jaguar might not want to sponsor. Yeah, Jaguar thought the same thing as well. They dumped her. They were more elegant about the announcement than I was just then, of course. A one Mark Eedle, who is the marketing and public affairs manager for Jaguar Australia, said, "We made a decision yesterday, and we've terminated the agreement with her."

They terminated their agreement with her?! But...but...she made a really weak apology after she was told how stupid she was! You mean that it didn't matter to Jaguar that she said, "I made a comment on Twitter on Saturday night in the excitement of the moment. I did not mean to cause offence and I apologise." That's what she says in the "excitement of the moment"? She gets so excited that she tweets "Suck on that faggots!"? You know, some people simply shout, "Yipee!" What if they had been playing a German team? Would she be tweeting what she thought the Jews should do? I certainly hope not.

Sphere: Related Content

Enter The Invisible Monkey

Who would have ever thought that those car commercials that we are bombarded with when they're having a "special event" would turn out to be rather amusing? Enter Dodge and enter PETA and you've got yourself a recipe for a wee bit o'hilarity ensuing. The hilarity ensues immediately after the annoyance over the emergence of PETA subsides, by the way.

See, Dodge made an ad that promoted their Dodge tent event. I don't know when the practice of erecting a tent became equated with a good deal on a shiny new vehicle, but it has been that way for quite some time now. They mention what a great deal you can get yourself on a brand new Dodge Charger, Dodge Journey or Dodge Grand Caravan. (What's a Journey? Is it named after the band? Shouldn't they have had Steve Perry in this commercial? I'm pretty sure he's not doing anything these days.) Not only that, they'll give you sixty days to see if you want to keep the vehicle. (There is, of course, no mention of the eight gazillion strings that are inevitably tied to such an offer. Things that I would imagine might include not having driven the car over 30 miles in those 2 months and never having turned on the air conditioning.)

That's when voice-over guy (the lovely and cancer-free Michael C. Hall) says that this whole thing could not get more amazing. He soon realizes that he is wrong when a little monkey wearing an Evil Knievel jumpsuit comes out and presses down on one of those ACME detonator things that Wile E. Coyote was always using to try and do in that sneaky roadrunner. The monkey pushes it down and a bunch of confetti blows out of somewhere. Voice-over guy deadpans, "I stand corrected." Not bad. Funny. I liked it. Maybe you will, too. Behold!

But who did not like it was PETA. PETA doesn't like anything having to do with cute animals being mistreated. I know. I know. All the monkey did was push the lever. But that is bad, according to PETA, because that little monkey had to be taught how to do that. (It's also bad because the little monkey is really a chimpanzee and there is, apparently, a difference. I don't know if it offended the chimp, but it really seemed to rile up PETA.) According to the website "Where's the Monkey?" in which Dodge tries to explain why they altered their commercial, they informed them "...about the poor conditions of working animal "actors." They told us how these animals are usually separated from their mothers at a young age and are usually discarded at seedy roadside attractions after they get too old to act." What sort of "seedy roadside attractions"? The only seedy roadside attractions around here are taco trucks and fruit vendors. None of them have monkeys. I'm not saying that what PETA is saying is false, I'm just saying I want more information of these primate abusing attractions that allegedly congregate roadside.

Dodge said that this made them sad and they took the spot off of the air. They also said that "Dodge is firmly committed to never using great apes in our advertisements again." While I suppose that is good, they don't mention anything about never using mediocre apes in their advertisements, so...fingers crossed!

But, wait! There's more! They took the ad off of the air and tweaked it just a little bit. They removed the chimp from the footage. Oh, don't get me wrong. They left the jumpsuit and the walking over to the blowy-uppy thing and the confetti that booms out from somewhere. That's still there. There just is no monkey. The monkey is invisible. Wait. Invisi....? Behold!

Most awesome! Very amusing! I'm glad that Dodge didn't completely ditch the ad. I'd like to see Dodge keep the invisible monkey in upcoming future ads. I'd also like to see PETA burn off of the face of the earth. I'm all for animals not being mistreated. And with everything that you can do digitally these days, there's probably no reason why Dodge can't just make a cyber-monkey instead of using a real one. But I'm never for PETA making an appearance. From what I can tell, they do one thing really well, and it's not caring for animals. It's their own attention whoring that they're so successful at.

Sphere: Related Content

Say Cheese and Lock Up!

Here's a new one. Tiburon, California. A small town with a population of around 9,000 located along the San Francisco Bay has decided that they're going to take an extra step in their efforts to prevent crime and to solve crimes after they've taken place. But don't you worry! It only involves taking a picture of the license plate of EVERY SINGLE CAR that drives into or out of Tiburon. That's all. Oh, and we're doomed.

Yes. From the Land of the Free, we have a town wanting to take pictures of everyone's car and license plate "just in case" there's a crime that needs solving. And in a poorly written article about this Orwellian implementation, the AP states that "In 2008, police report there were 99 thefts, 20 burglaries and two auto thefts." Compare that to the 2007 figures given in the Tiburon Talk newsletter which states that there were "...99 thefts from vehicles,15 residential burglaries and 10 auto thefts." So the number of thefts remains about the same. (I'm assuming that they're both for "thefts from vehicles" as they've covered burglaries and auto theft in separate categories and there aren't any other numbers for crimes involving thievery.) Burglaries are up, but auto thefts are WAY down. So from 2007-2008, their crime rate has actually decreased and all without the use of roadside cameras documenting every single vehicle that goes through town. Amazing. How DID they do it?

Apparently it doesn't matter that their crime rate has decreased, because they're pretty hell bent on this camera idea. In 2007, the estimated property loss from theft was $500,000 and half of that was the value of the cars. And without their extremely invasive camera system, the Tiburon authorities managed to recover about $190,000. That's 38%. But in 2008 things got WAY better, as the total loss from theft was only just over $200,000 according to the City of Tiburon's Proposed Security Camera Information Sheet. According to that same document, the system is expected to cost between $50,000 and $100,000, an estimate which seems to be clearly fabricated as if pulled directly from someone's arse. (Seriously. They're saying, "It's either going to be this number OR it's going to be twice as much." You don't think that they could narrow that down just a bit for people? I mean, saying that something is going to cost a certain amount is fine, but then saying that it MIGHT be twice that much? That doesn't sound like there's been a lot of shopping around for this dealio.)

According to that same document, the question "Is this a cost-effective use of public resources?" is at least ASKED. And the answer blows me away. "No one can say for certain whether the system will help the TPD capture criminals, but it is likely to provide a very valuable tool to develop leads for solving crime."

Wait. What? Oh, riiiiiight. That means "No, but we think it's pretty cool, so we're going to go ahead with this anyway."

According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, the average percentage of all stolen property that is recovered in this country is 33.4%. But while vehicles have the highest rate of recovery at 63%, the next highest rate of recovery is 12.9% and it goes downhill from there. But the point here is that Tiburon is doing just fine on their own, way better than the national average, without having Big Brother monitor every single vehicle moving through town. I can't imagine that their crime solving rate is going to improve SO much that it will pay for itself. But then again, the reason I can't imagine this is because no one is really explaining how this is going to work. Wait. What?

They explain how the SYSTEM of the photographing of vehicles would work, but they don't explain how that information is going to help them take a bite out of crime. They claim that, "Officers would search for plates of vehicles in town at the time of the crime that are connected to someone with a criminal history. Any hits would be used as leads." Um, used as leads HOW?

And what exactly would constitute a "criminal history"? Does the criminal history have to be related to the crime that the Tiburon police are investigating or can it just be any old thing? And how far back are they planning to go before deciding that an individuals "criminal history" isn't relevant in a particular instance? Yeah, NONE of this is addressed. (Again, NICE job, AP! Way to go!)

So let's say that 10 years ago "someone" was drunk and disorderly (and boy, was I were they EVER!) and let's just say, hypothetically of course, that there was some sort of an incident in a park involving, oh, say...one too many wine coolers, a couple of pigeons, and almost NO frontal nudity. And all of which led to an arrest for public intoxication. Hypothetically. Is that a criminal history that would concern the Tiburon authorities is that person had been driving through Tiburon at the time when a crime was committed? (Assuming it's a crime NOT against pigeons.) Granted, in general, it's something that's cause for concern, but in this case, is it going to be considered one of their "leads"? And if so, then what? Start hanging out in parks with decoy pigeons trying to lure the almost totally rehabilitated former criminal out into the open? I don't get it.(Also, this whole idea also makes the grand assumption that the person driving the vehicle is the person who owns the vehicle and to whom the vehicle is registered to. I see loads of problems with that aspect of this as well.)

Obviously, this idea is highly disturbing as far as the right to privacy aspect of it goes. Aside from that, there's the cost of the program, how the program will work and be implemented and whether or not it will even be effective AT ALL. I cannot see one positive aspect of this idea other than the POSSIBILITY that it MIGHT help solve crimes. But what if there were a way that would likely only cost a small fraction of what this camera idea is going to cost that would make it so that the number of crimes dropped and dropped by a lot? Less crimes would lean toward less of a need for this sort of thing, wouldn't it? couldn't it? Sure! Of course it "could". But how could that happen? How could they get the number of crimes to go down without having to use ANY taxpayer money, without having to use ANY city funds, without having to use ANY police hours, without having to do ANYTHING really? Here's an idea: Lock your damn cars.

What now?

According to the Tiburon Talk, "Most of the crimes occurred between midnight and dawn and most were thefts from unlocked cars." MOST? MOST?! You want to implement a program to help solve crimes and MOST of those crimes were because people were too boneheaded to lock their cars?!? Are you kidding me??

How does the stupidity of vehicle owners justify the "need" to take a picture of the license plate of every single damn car going in and out of your town all the live long day? Let me just see if I've got this straight. You leave your car unlocked AND you're stupid enough to keep valuable items in there and then, to your COMPLETE surprise, your stuff gets ripped off and that indicates that CRIME is a problem. How is it not an indicator that stupidity is a problem?

MOST. Most of the thefts were from unlocked cars. That is amazing. Sure, don't do a public awareness campaign encouraging people to lock their vehicles or, at the very freaking least, don't keep stuff in there that you don't want to have stolen. Why is that not an alternative to the camera thing? Why hasn't that been brought up? MOST of the thefts are enabled by the person who was stolen from. That seems to be an important factor if you're trying to decide if ANY system to help "solve crimes (that could have been prevented)" is warranted in Tiburon. But of course, that isn't mentioned anywhere.

Note to self: Detour around Tiburon.
Next note to self: Lock your damn car.

Sphere: Related Content

Another Moron Calls 911

Who knew that 2009 was going to be the year of 911? I have heard of more instances of people using 911 for the stupidest reasons this year than I remember hearing about in previous years. I don't know exactly what it means. Have people always been this dumb, but they're just now starting to act on their stupidity? Or have most of the real morons just evolved over time into the super-morons that they are today? Well, if the first 3 months of this year are any indication, I can pretty much guess that it means we're going to be hearing more moronic 911 tales of woe and doom in the future.

But why wait?! I know it will be hard to believe, but once again, the cess pool of all that is genetic mutation goodness, Flori-duh, is the setting for the latest unnecessary 911 incident. According to The Orlando Sentinel, a woman called 911 from the parking lot of a Walgreen's because she was having a problem with her car. The problem was her car wouldn't start. Actually, that wasn't the entire problem. The real problem was that she was calling 911 from (wait for it) inside of the car. Wait. What?

That is correct. The woman was inside of the car and called 911. She told the 911 operator that she couldn't unlock the doors and she couldn't roll the windows down because nothing electrical worked. She also added that it was "getting very hot in here and I'm not...I'm not feeling well." Oh, for cryin' out loud! Why do I feel like I'm getting yanked around here? Is this even possible? Not the situation, but the thought process that one would have to go through to come to the conclusion that one is locked inside their own car because it won't start. Has this person never unlocked or locked the door manually? Well, she was calling 911 (due to the increasing warmth of her predicament. Good thing it wasn't winter or overcast that day. She could have been in there until the 4th of July.) so I'm going to have to assume that manual labor, in this case, unlocking or locking your car doors by hand, has not been a part of her existence. Somehow.

And kudos to the 911 operator for being able to spit out a coherent sentence after hearing this woman explain her dilemma. Total silence for about 5-7 seconds. You know that operator was just sitting there thinking, "Are you kidding me?" And really, I don't blame her for the silence. I mean, you'd really have to put some serious thought into what to say to the person sitting in their car and calling 911 because the automatic door locks won't work and they can't get out.

The 911 operator asks the moron if she can pull up on the door lock knob. "You should be able to pull that up even if it's electrical," she said, with a tone of disbelief and amazement in her voice. And then comes the frazzled voice of the locked in moron, telling her, "I've tried that! And I..."

:::: click-click ::::

"Oh, OK. Ok, I've got that going." Dead silence. Enter the 911 operator again. "Are you able to get out of the car now?" (God bless that woman. Ma'am, you have the patience of a saint.) "Yeah, I've got the door open." See, I was afraid that wasn't going to be the case. I was afraid that the whole 'opening of the door' process was really going to throw this chick off of her game, but by some miracle (and you know as well as I do that at this point, her actually opening the door without difficulty or further instruction was, in fact, a miracle if there ever was one), she got it open. She's FREE! Good Lord.......

It was at the point of the door handle release that I think I detected a moment of silent revelation on the part of the bimbo in the car. It's unclear exactly how long she was sitting in her car trying to figure out what she was going to do, if she could eat her own body parts for sustenance until help arrived, scribbling her will on the back of a Big Mac wrapper, etc. I'm guessing she was in there for a while, as she did say it was starting to get rather toasty. So let's just say that she was in there for an hour (a low estimate in my opinion, given the circumstances). When she finally opened that door after the detailed and step-by-step instructions from the 911 saint, that very moment is when it actually hit her: She's an idiot. And she knew it.

Insert another long, extremely awkward pause before the woman says, "Well, OK, I guess I'll go find Triple A or something." Now, why in the hell she didn't call Triple A in the first place if she thought she was locked in her car is beyond me. If you're locked out of your car, you call Triple A. Why would the same not apply if you were locked inside of your car? Well, perhaps because IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO GET LOCKED INSIDE YOUR CAR! Sorry, didn't mean to holler. Blatant stupidity in others seems to make me a bit shout-y.

You can listen to this gem of a 911 call here at: The Orlando Sentinel. It's fairly short (as you can imagine) and is totally worth hearing. It will likely make you laugh and then make you cry as you realize that someone thinking they are locked inside of their car is one of the signs of the impending apocalypse. The only thing that would have made this story worse is if she had been in a convertible.

Sphere: Related Content