How Sad

[analog]

These are the same parents who'll plop the kids in front of TV, where they're barraged by insidious advertising intentionally designed to infuse young psyches with insatiable craving. Talk about a deal with the devil...........

[hal 9000]

Originally posted by analog:
These are the same parents who'll plop the kids in front of TV, where they're barraged by insidious advertising intentionally designed to infuse young psyches with insatiable craving. Talk about a deal with the devil...........

<img src="http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/32.gif" alt=" - " /> Whoa! Be careful what you say! You don't want to get *gulp* expelled from the BB, do you? <img src="http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/19.gif" alt=" - " />

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by analog:
These are the same parents who'll plop the kids in front of TV, where they're barraged by insidious advertising intentionally designed to infuse young psyches with insatiable craving. Talk about a deal with the devil...........

YES! That's it!!!

I was a stepfather for a couple of years, and I watched the kid watch TV, and for a period of time, every commercial that came on during her show was accompanied by "I want that." It was so knee-jerk, that if I asked her 15 minutes later what it was she wanted, she wouldn't know. It didn't matter what the product was, the marketing was so finely tuned to elicit a consumption response from the vulnerable target(I'll say a kid age 4 - ????), it triggered an automatic response.

I think the gulf between commercial marketing and program marketing was bridged by Poke'mon(contraction of "pocket monster"), the poster child of mindless consumption, IMO. Even their slogan of "Gotta have 'em all!" was blatant(Am I the only one here who finds that a positively absurd slogan for a cartoon?!). Back to stepchild: She started asking to have these toys and asking to watch the cartoon, mainly due to exposure to the crap from her peers at school, so her mom got her a couple, and I watched a couple of the cartoons while she did. The cartoon was worse than being devoid of any moral value(which, BTW, I don't necessarily think is a requirement of a cartoon - it should simply be harmlessly entertaining, at the least), it taught that the way to move up was to be violent - ALL the characters ever did was fight each other to acheive higher status. The child's mom would never completely forbid her to watch the garbage, but I tried to reason her out of being interested in it, to no avail. It ended up being a constant loop of:

"Why do you like Poke'mon?"
"'cause they're COOL!"
"Why are they cool?"
"I dunno."
"Well, what do they do?"
"They fight."
"Isn't fighting bad?"
"Yes."
"Is fighting something you want to do?"
"No."
"Then, what do you like about Poke'mon?"
"They're COOL!"

Every once in awhile I have little pangs of missing things like the History channel of TCM ever since we decided to largely cut commercial TV from our lives. But they're just little dinky pangs, and they pass quickly....

...

To me, the larger picture I find disturbing is how that is indicative of the conditioning we all undergo to consume. Let's face it; at the children's level it's obvious, but at the adult level, it's far more subtle, and dare I say, insidious. Just because Wesley Hogan says he can get me an equity line of credit doesn;t mean I need to go further into debt. Did you ever stop to think of that kind of ad as motivating you to find a way to go deeper in debt for something you most likely don't NEED? For example, does transferring accumulated unsecured credit debt into your 30 year fixed rate mortgage really sound like prudent financial planning? Does using equity to buy a car, essentially financing for as long as 30 years, something you'll own for less than five years and depreciate greatly, sound like sound financial planning?

Then there's the other poster child for conspicuous consumption: SUV's. One question:Why?! Why own one?

It's one of the fundamental value sets we seem to have lost as a society. To be happy with basic needs met, and to fully utilize what we already have.

To be happy with what we've got; not to be unhappy about what we don't have.

<small>[ 02-13-2006, 02:59 AM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[Schmeelkie]

Well, I don't know opera, but I doubt that a teacher familiar with an opera would show something inappropriate for kids in a little 10 minute snippet.

Yeah - the Bible can be downright harsh. Probably why the Catholics kept the common folk from reading it for so long. Hurray for Guttenberg and Luther!

As for TV, I'm trying to keep Pumpkin on PBS and video/DVDs as long as possible. I grew up on PBS - but we did watch Saturday morning cartoons. I remember my mom watching some with us (after she got up) and talking about how the toys don't really do all that they seem to on TV and isn't using your imagination better? Also, we didn't have a lot of disposable income growing up - easier to resist temptation when you know there's no chance of you getting toys except for your birthday and Christmas and not a heck of a lot then. Helped us to pick what we REALLY REALLY wanted. Guess since we have a bit more income than my folks did, we'll have to do it the hard way with Pumpkin. Just teach him to have a critical view of commercials, and think about what he really wants/needs before asking for something.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
SUV's. One question:Why?! Why own one?

They're cool.

[barfle]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
Then there's the other poster child for conspicuous consumption: SUV's. One question:Why?! Why own one?

'Cause they're COOL!

Actually, I have one ('92 GMC Jimmy), and the "utility" parts of it have come in quite handy for things like driving in the snow, carrying three cats and hauling a VW beetle across the country, and carrying planks for building cabinets.

[DavidEB310]

People, people, people...

We shouldn't even discuss this until we can form a roundtable panel of experts to provide us true insight.

Will someone please contact Dr. Phil, Ellen, and Oprah, so we can be told what and how to think about this?

America can't move without "the experts'" opinions!

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Dr. Phil, Ellen, and Oprah
Who?

I'm OK without their opinions: I've plenty of my own.

[OperaTenor]

Okay, give me practical justification for owning a Hummer.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Hummers are way cool. Practicality is not a selection criterion, unless you plan to use the preexisting structural reinforcement to mount artillery on the roof.

We do not select our vehicles solely for practical reasons. SUVs sell because people like them. This makes them COOL.

[DavidEB310]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
Okay, give me practical justification for owning a Hummer.

I would, but not before, I read the following:

1. Dr. Phil's book, "How to own a Hummer while getting along with your Partner."

2. Oprah's book, "The Hummer -- what secret could really be lurking under the hood?"

3. Ellen's book, "Out of the Closet and loving my Hummer!"

[piqaboo]

Originally posted by barfle:

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
[b]Then there's the other poster child for conspicuous consumption: SUV's. One question:Why?! Why own one?

'Cause they're COOL!

Actually, I have one ('92 GMC Jimmy), and the "utility" parts of it have come in quite handy for things like driving in the snow, carrying three cats and hauling a VW beetle across the country, and carrying planks for building cabinets. [/b]

Cool being a matter of taste, and mine apparently being non-mainstream.

Ive done everything except haul the VW bug with my hatchback honda accord and ford escort. Took a full grown peachtree 100 miles with the honda. Have taken both along dirt desert roads, being the only car in a line of SUVs and having more success with the trip. (Not caring about my paint job made my little cars easier to navigate thru the 'hazards' than all those shiny new 'off road' vehicles which had to stay far away from rocks and brush)

SUV style vehicles, formerly known as caravans, have a certain comfort factor for us older moms. Its a heck of a lot easier to handle the whole child-seat issue up at that height. And waybackwhen, the ForeRunner and PathFinder were good adventure vehicles. Most of the rest, with hummers topping the list, dont meet my required balance of practical/useful vs whatever. I personally see no cool factor at all in the current SUVs

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by Selma in Sandy Eggo:
Hummers are [b]way cool. Practicality is not a selection criterion, unless you plan to use the preexisting structural reinforcement to mount artillery on the roof.

We do not select our vehicles solely for practical reasons. SUVs sell because people like them. This makes them COOL. [/b]

Yup, the same rationale(or gross lack thereof) that keeps Harley Davidsons(aka Hardly Runninsomes) selling.

Define "COOL".

I select my vehicles for primarily practical reasons.

What was that I said about screwed up values?

David, !

[Schmeelkie]

Have to admit I think SUVs look cool too. But I'll never actually buy one. We're still working with our Saturn SL1's - but it's getting a little cramped for travel and when we get around to getting Pumpkin a sibling, the Saturns will not cut it for travel at all. So this summer we'll be minivan shopping. Why minivan and not SUV?
Minivan - more space, less chance of tipping over and better gas mileage. So I won't be cool, but it's definately practical.

[OperaTenor]

I was a hard sell even on a minivan, but now understand and completely appreciate their practicality. We've hauled 7 adults and 2 kids in car seats in the 95 Villager(aka Nissan Quest) we got. I can load the pram into the back. The entire doo wop group plus our PA equipment fit in it. Piq hauled a Berkline recliner plus a boatload of hand-me-downs to OC with Altoid last weekend in it. It performs lots of practical fucntions relatively economically.

You can't do any of the above with an SUV.

[Shapley]

My wife drives a Toyota Sequoia. Excellent SUV. We live in the country, so the four-wheel-drive was handy getting up the drive during the recent snowfall. The Sequoia being one of the current crop of 'ladies SUV's', the four wheel drive is automatic, so she didn't have to get out to lock the hubs, etc.

Travelling with a handicapped child, we find sedans unsuitable. Our choices boil down to vans or SUV's. The Sequoia has as much interior space, if not more, than most minivans, offers a very comfortable ride, and four-wheel-drive. As a bonus, the seat arrangement allows us to store the wheelchair while losing only half of the rear-seat space, which, with the center bench design, actually allows us seating for two more persons than was available with the minivan we drove previously.

Add in the accident survivability factor, and you'll see there are several practical reasons for owning an SUV, specifically a Sequoia. The Hummer being out of our price range, I can't speak for the interior arrangement and comfort of one, but I'm sure most of the reasons cited for the Sequoia will apply to one.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

Originally posted by piqaboo:
Cool being a matter of taste, and mine apparently being non-mainstream.

Ive done everything except haul the VW bug with my hatchback honda accord and ford escort. Took a full grown peachtree 100 miles with the honda. Have taken both along dirt desert roads, being the only car in a line of SUVs and having more success with the trip. (Not caring about my paint job made my little cars easier to navigate thru the 'hazards' than all those shiny new 'off road' vehicles which had to stay far away from rocks and brush)

SUV style vehicles, formerly known as caravans, have a certain comfort factor for us older moms. Its a heck of a lot easier to handle the whole child-seat issue up at that height. And waybackwhen, the ForeRunner and PathFinder were good adventure vehicles. Most of the rest, with hummers topping the list, dont meet my required balance of practical/useful vs whatever. I personally see no cool factor at all in the current SUVs

Rock rash is a badge of honor among true SUV owners. Shiny paint is for show cars (which I also like, but that's not the topic of this discussion).

And there have been a few times when the 4WD was more than handy, it was a necessity, including in the snow.

One thing I really enjoyed when I lived in CA was taking the GMC to Anza-Borrego and seeing how lost I could get. I also had a lot of fun trying to figure out where the *&@#! I was outside of Canyonlands NP with just a compass and a slightly out-of-date topo map (new trail cut, not on my map).

Most of the current generation of SUVs are based on cars, not on trucks, which changes their cool factor to tepid.

[barfle]

Back on topic, how about we REALLY scare the snot out of the kids and play Hansel and Gretel? And what parent would complain, them being brought up on the Diznyfied version?

[OperaTenor]

Yes, there are exceptions, but I see far more people around here commuting solo in sparkling SUV's than I do SUV's that even look like they might've engaged FWD once in their lives.

It would seem I'm not alone in my convictions:

Safe Car Guide: The Dangers of SUVs

Fewer than 5% of SUV owners will ever use their off-road capabilities, and SUV drivers are far less safe than motorists driving regular cars. Bradsher points out that SUVs contribute to more than 3000 needless highway deaths annually - a toll greater than that of Sept 11th's World Trade Center disaster. The public needs to know that rollover death rates for sport-utes are double those of regular passenger cars and that SUVs kill non-passengers as well, causing an additional 2,000 deaths a year in vehicles they strike. Less well known is the tendency of SUVs such as the Ford Explorer to flip over after striking a guardrail or having a tire fail - problems that don't affect cars. Sport-utilities pollute more, are harder to control, utilize under-sized brakes and consume more fuel than cars, all because of increased weight. SUV buyers need to think twice before purchasing these tanks on wheels.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
[b]I select my vehicles for primarily practical reasons.[/b]

No, you selected your bike because you love your bike, and because you think your bike is cool, and because you enjoy riding your bike.

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
What was that I said about screwed up values?

And it's only screwed up if you completely dismiss personal pleasure and emotional gratification as valid selection criteria. Which I don't, and which you don't either (witness the very, very, very cool bike!).