you've got to be kidding me

I'm all about innovation and improving the quality the life, and I applaud the times when such things happen in our world. But there are times when I have to step back when something "new" comes along. I step back because this new thing boasts to have the ability to make life easier, when in reality it's just making matters worse. Or, it provides a distraction to the real problem, which is the worst thing to do.

I came across a story this morning on ABCNews.com about something they're calling "express board games". The logic behind this "innovation" from Hasbro is that kids these days are just too busy to play a full game of Monopoly or Scrabble. Ergo: a new version needs to be made in order to fit their busy schedules. The knee-jerk reaction to this would be: hey, that's a smart idea . . . kids are extremely busy and are not able to play a "real" game. But then five seconds a rational thought comes in and sees the really bad logic driving this new idea.

If kids are too busy with soccer practice, trumpet practice, internet (items listed on the video version of this same story), and are not able to play a simple board game with their family; then the kids have some pretty jacked up priorities--and the parents are basically enabling it. The marketing VP of Hasbro, Jill Hambley, is even applauding the parents in their enabling habits:

"We're not asking parents 'stop everything you're doing and let's play a game.' We're saying we're going to fit games into the day that you already have schedule."

I personally think parents should be able to say, "Hey, kids, put down the cell phone . . ." or "get off the internet . . ." or "step away from the Wii/X-Box/PS2/etc . . ." and "let's have some family game time". And who cares if it takes hours to play--the kids spend hours on the cell phone, on the internet, or in front of some gaming system. So, in asking the kids to do such things, we're not really jeopardizing their time; we're simply redirecting it--to where it should be.

But this raises a larger question for me: where are these kids learning this habit of needing to have busy schedules? I think Ms. Jill Hambley implicitly revealed the source of the problem: the parents are the teachers of this habit. Kids learn by watching--especially during their formative years (i.e., birth to 4- [or 5-]years-old). If kids see their parents doing nothing but running around like crazy people, living overly pack schedules, and use distraction techniques in order to deal with the busyness; then, chances are, the kids are going to grow up thinking such a life is "normal".

The bigger problem is that such a lifestyle makes the real priorities afterthoughts. In the midst of crazy-busy schedules, what really matters is lost. Parents should have the ability to tell their kids to put down the cell phone (most kids don't really need one anyway), to turn off the internet and/or gaming system without any problems. And this should not be a problem because the precedent should have already been set with respect to what really matters. And the process of setting this precedent should have happened long before kids even knew how to spell "Wii" or "cell phone".

This new set of "express games" from Hasbro are a joke because they make spending quality (and quantity) time with family a joke.

some who complain, really shouldn't

*Warning: this is a long post.

While taking in the nightly does of mind-numbing news, Jenn and I saw a quick blurb about the whole increasing gas price epidemic. It was noted that prices will be on the higher end during this month and in August, with a slight decrease during the summer months.[1] They followed this announcement with another that seemed to typify the modern consumer attitude: "In spite of the increase in gas prices, Americans have not showed any change in purchase choices. 53% of the automobiles purchased this year have been SUVs and pick-up trucks."[2] What this translates into is quite simple: this 53% better keep their holes shut about gas prices--they do not have a real reason to complain.

But then, two things occurred that were quite amusing to me: 1) many of the people they interviewed about the struggles of gas prices were people who drove SUVs;[3] and 2) the commercial that immediately followed this story showed the superiority of Toyota's new full-size pick-up in a test on acceleration (0-60 mph) and breaking ability (60-0 mph). The "contest" was between four other well-known trucks--all of which get excellent gas-footage (especially when the drivers "step on it"). It, to me, was a little bit of media paradox: first, there are complaints about gas prices and the blame being placed on SUVs and pick-ups; then, an advertisement reveals why the blame is justifiable--stupid tests are run, wasting valuable(!) fuel, in order to prove a point. (The gas that was more than likely blown in that commercial--between all of the trucks in the context--would allow my Honda to go for about a week).

This raises a larger concern for me: if a contributing problem to the increase of gas prices can be pinned on SUVs and pick-up trucks; and if SUV and pick-up sales make up better than half of automobile purchases in this country; and if automobile makers are showing little desire in either radically improving the gas mileage of larger vehicles or cutting back on the number of SUVs and pick-ups made; then, what does this say about the overall concern for improving the quality of our planet--which is the true innocent victim in this whole deal? Superficially, it shows a lack of concern for the more pressing problem and a deep concern that SUV (or pick-up) will look good in the driveway. It exposes the struggle between what needs to be done and what people want to do--and the former is getting ignored at the expense of the latter.[4]

SUVs in particular are nothing more than a social fad--at least, that's my opinion (so take it for what it's worth). People are, for the most part, driving SUVs because it's the cool thing to have regardless of the feasibility of owning one. Consider this: the majority of SUVs are made in a way the defies not only their very acronymic name (i.e., Sport Utility Vehicle) but also the tradition and heritage from which they came. The SUVs of the past were true SUVs. They could go off-roading, they could blaze through just about anything, and they were designed to take it. Now, SUVs come with warnings and even requests not to go off road.[5] If an SUV is designed only for the "normal" road, why have an SUV in the first place? Oh, it's because they're cool to have and they're the hot thing right now. (What are we, in high school?).

Some (weak/poor/bad/dumb/etc) justification is generally offered for why people do buy SUVs: "they have great storage space and you can see the road better." (But they're incredibly expensive and they get crappy gas mileage, which adds to their expensive nature). This type of justification is not a legitimate reason to buy an SUV. There are plenty of cars that have great storage capacity. Surprisingly enough, my wife's Mini Cooper has a good deal of space if things are done right. About two months ago, she and I packed her car with: a large duffle-bag full of clothes, a lamp from IKEA that was still in a somewhat large box, two stuffed bookbags, a shoulder briefcase full of books, golf clubs, an old 27" TV, three pillows, and a few other random items. Even with all of that stuff, we almost made it back to Cincinnati (from Atlanta), with the AC running the whole time, on a single tank of gas, which cost us about $30. We only needed $1o more to make it all the way back. Beat that SUVs!

Let's return to the real issue. What is troubling overall is that the automobile industry is enabling crippling purchases and they are showing little concern for environmental consequences which stem from the very products they create. By "crippling purchases", I simply mean tempting the average consumer into buying a product they ultimately cannot afford. For example: Porsche Cayenne starts at $43k (for the really basic model--the turbo starts at $93k); Cadillac Escalade, the new Mercedes GL, and Hummer H2 all start at a little over $55k (again, for the basic models); and Mercedes G500 starts at $84k (the G55 AMG starts at $104k). Ford is one of the only ones who is somewhat more reasonable in their prices (but only with the smaller SUVs). The crippling idea continues when the gas mileage for these vehicles is factored into the financial equation:

1. Cadillac Escalade: 14/18 (26 gal. tank)
   
2. Mercedes GL: 15/19 (n/a), which also requires 91 octane
3. Mercedes G500: 12/14 (25.4 gal. tank)
   
4. Mercedes G55 AMG: 12/14 (25.4 gal. tank)
   
5. Hummer H2: no data on mpg is given for this model (32 gal. tank)--the H3 gets 16/19 (23 gal. tank)
   
6. Porsche Cayenne: 13/19 (26.4 gal. tank)
   
7. Ford Escape: 19/24 (16.5 gal. tank)
8. Ford Expedition EL: no data on mpg is given for this model (33 gal. tank)--the non-EL gets 14/20 (28 gal. tank)

The average cost per fill up to run these bad boys is around $70, and the average yearly fill up cost is around $3000.[6] The overall financial burden of owning one these is not factoring in the insurance fees that come with them, which are certainly not gentle to the average wallet.

With respect to the lack of environmental concern, each of the above listed SUVs scored incredibly low with respect to their eco-friendliness. In fact, the average score for these vehicles was below average. The first number given refers to the tons per year of greenhouse gas emissions, and the second is the air pollution score (with 10 being the highest/best rating):

1. Cadillac Escalade: 11.70 / 3
   
2. Mercedes GL: no data given (it's a new ride, so there is still some testing--I guess)
   
3. Mercedes G500: 13.90 / no score given (probably because it's really bad)
4. Mercedes G55 AMG: 14.60 / same as G500
   
5. Hummer H2: no data given for this model--the H3, however: 10.60 / 2
   
6. Porsche Cayenne: 11.00 / 3
   
7. Ford Escape: 8.30 / 2 (6)
   
8. Ford Expedition: 11.70 / 0 (3)

The average amount of greenhouse gases is around 11.70 tons per year, and the total amount is 81.80 tons per year--and that's just from 7 individual cars. In light of these figures, the number of SUV purchases continue to increase, which means: with each purchase, the above figures raise exponentially, which means: the cost of gas is going to continue to raise in order to keep up with the demand, which means: the overall condition of the environment is not going to improve. But why are SUV makers continuing to make SUVs? Because somebody who really doesn't need one (and who could truly give a rip about the environment) really, really, really, wants one. (I can imagine their inner child stomping the ground like a 5-year-old who is begging for a candybar). And if that's the case, then all parties involved (i.e., the maker, the seller, and the buyer) better shut their holes when things do not get any better.

___________________________________________

[1] They say it that to make it sound bearable, when in reality it's only about a 60-day relief before the pain returns.
[2] This is my remembrance of the quote--it was a couple of nights ago.
[3] Hey, SUV people: you chose to sleep in that bed. On the other side, others were interviewed who were considered the innocent victims of this increase in gas prices--those who are on the lower end of the financial spectrum (which includes me; but alas, I was not interviewed).
[4] Consider the article that was run by a Forbes magazine writer who openly admitted that it was a bit insensitive to write a story about the best SUVs shortly after the release of An Inconvenient Truth.
[5] The Porsche Cayenne's owners manual will tell you that this vehicle was not made for off-road use.
[6] The high number for the fill up is $77.22 and the low number is $45.29. The high number for the yearly is $3749 and the low number is $2082. These figures, and the comment about the environmental problems associated with these vehicles comes from this site. Also, these price figures are built on 15,000 annual miles of "normal" driving and an average fuel cost of $3.05.