It's not August yet, but the dog days are surely upon us where television is concerned. Perhaps in an effort to make the new season that starts in September look better, the networks are bombarding us with cheapjack reality shows made with little money but lots of hostility.
It says something creepily unpleasant about broadcast-network executives that all three of the shows debuting over the next two days are based on the principle of public humiliation of the innocent. And if any of the shows become hits, it will say something creepily unpleasant about us.
Easily the worst of the bunch -- in fact, there's a good argument to be made that it's one of the most atrocious TV shows of all time -- is NBC's Breakthrough with Tony Robbins. Hosted by the I'm-OK-you're-a-pile-of-crap motivational guru himself, the show offers help to people with hard-luck stories in return for tearful self-debasement.
It's a couples version of the original sob-sister reality show, the 1950s era Queen for a Day, in which female contestants recited every tragic detail of their train-wreck lives (My kids were kicked out of school for setting fire to a teacher! My husband left me for a cocker spaniel!) for a studio audience, which rewarded the most piteous story with a new washing machine.
Breakthrough has removed the competitive element but substituted humiliating Fear Factor-style challenges for the guests asking for help. In the debut episode, a jobless and bickering married couple, Ron and Marie, first have to endure barrel rolls in a fighter jet, then live in a Los Angeles homeless shelter for a week. Presumably they'll be more employable once they can list such skills on their resumes as ``can ride in the passenger seat of a Russian MiG at the speed of sound without peeing on myself'' or ``able to fall asleep on the sidewalk while surrounded by crackheads.''
But the real heart of Breakthrough, just as on Queen for a Day, is groveling for applause. Grovel before a committee of homeless people! Grovel in front of your families! Grovel in front of a sadistic studio audience! Confess your ineptitudes and impure thoughts, embrace your degradation, assassinate your own character! Admit that it's not just your life that sucks, but you, and now all America knows it! Or at least, the increasingly tiny percentage that watches NBC.
`PLAIN JANE'
Plain Jane, The CW's counterfeit ugly-duckling show, is too triflingly stupid to reach Breakthrough's profound depth of awfulness, but give it points for its abject phoniness. It takes young women whose fundamental prettiness has been disguised by dressing them in potato sacks and running their hair through lawnmowers, then gives them a ``makeover.'' Provided, of course, that they first stick their hands into a bucket of snails or do something else that reduces them to tears.
Plain Jane is not lacking in bizarre moments. For instance, the big romantic dance in which the debut episode's Jane gets to snuggle with her dream guy is performed to the mournful Sam Cooke tune A Change is Gonna Come. (Sample tender lyric: ``It's been too hard living, but I'm afraid to die . . .'') Yet all pales before Louise Roe, the bony British host whose previous gig was a BBC show called, I swear, Addicted to Boob Jobs. Sporting the emaciated look of a heroin addict, dispensing little-known fashion tips such as guys like cleavage, she looks like she's auditioning for the lead role in a sequel to Tim Burton's Corpse Bride.
`MASTERCHEF'
Gordon Ramsay, the host of Fox's MasterChef, is also a bit of a cartoon, albeit the type you find drawn on bathroom walls. Instead of ranting obscenities at professional chefs, as he does on Kitchen Nightmares and Hell's Kitchens, Ramsay is bellowing them at amateur cooking contestants. But otherwise this show is pretty much identical to the others.
Ramsay reduces the cooks to tears, reduces their spouses to tears, and probably beats their children and steals their kidneys, though you'll have to buy the deluxe Blu-Ray DVD to see that part. Even Ramsay's most barbarous fans are likely to find this formula so thin by now that, by comparison, Louise Roe looks like a blimp.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Chevy Volt vs. Nissan Leaf: the electric car price war
After more than three years of buzz and critics' skepticism, General Motors on Tuesday finally put on sale the Chevrolet Volt – the company's first plug-in hybrid electric car that many say represents GM’s future. The sticker price: $41,000.
The great electric car race of 2010
Why Obama is putting so much stock in battery technology
Blog: Q&A with GM's hybrid chief Robert Kruse
That cost is higher than some had expected for a vehicle that can go 40 miles on all-electric battery power before an onboard gasoline engine kicks in as a "range extender" for 300 more miles.
Will consumers bite at a car that costs that much? Some assuredly will – at least initially: GM has legions of wannabe Chevy Volt owners in online and dealer waiting lists at almost any price. But what about a year or two from now, when competitors have electric cars on the road, too?
"I do have some questions about the long-term market reaction to that sticker price," says Bradley Berman, editor and owner of HybridCars.com, which evaluates plug-in vehicles. "But the news is really the lease, which is very attractive."
Indeed, GM is pushing leasing rather than buying the car. With $2,500 at signing, a three-year Volt lease is $350 per month – making it comparable to the Nissan Leaf, the Volt’s main competitor..
Leasing matters a lot this time around because nobody, not even GM, is sure just how durable or long-lasting the new automotive lithium-ion batteries are going to be. All anyone knows for certain is that they will be costly to replace if they go bad. So a lease deals with that uncertainty – taking the load off the consumer, GM officials say.
For those who want to buy, Uncle Sam is offering a big fat tax credit: $7,500. So the net cost to consumers would be $33,500.
GM is going the extra mile with an eight-year, 100,000-mile warranty just on the battery. The warranties for other parts of the car do not last for that many years.
The Nissan Leaf is an all-electric car that can go 100 miles on a charge, but has no range-extending gas engine. It will lease for $1,999 at signing and $349 per month. The Leaf's sticker price is $32,780, but the $7,500 tax credit brings that down to $25,280.
State tax incentives could lower the price for either vehicle – by up to $5,000 in Georgia and California or $1,500 in Oregon.
For the Volt, production will be limited to about 10,000 vehicles for the 2011 model year, and it will be sold in only six states: California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Texas, plus the Washington, D.C., area. The first deliveries of the Volt will begin in November.
In line with his recent touting of battery technology, President Obama is said to be likely to test-drive a Volt next week in Michigan.
“The Chevrolet Volt will be the best vehicle in its class ... because it’s in a class by itself,” said Joel Ewanick, vice president of US marketing for GM, in a statement at the Plug-In 2010 conference in San Jose, Calif. Bragging about the Volt's range advantage over the Leaf, he added, “No other automaker offers an electrically driven vehicle that can be your everyday driver to take you wherever, whenever."
Not to be outdone, Nissan executives quickly matched GM's battery warranty for the Leaf – and wryly noted that the Volt was a compromise because it still used fossil-fuel engine technology, attendees at the Plug-In conference said.
Such tit for tat is just a hint of the marketing battles ahead, Mr. Berman says. At the same time, they will doubtless tout their environmental advantage over standard gasoline-engine vehicles – as well as their "cool factor," he says.
But GM's strategy, Berman says, is risky because three years from now, the company could be left holding a bunch of expensive Chevy Volts after their leases are over. Will GM be able to sell used Volts at a price that makes money – or be undercut by newer, cheaper entrants to the electrified car market?
Others are less troubled by that potential pitfall.
"Electric vehicles are going to be the dominant automotive technology of the future. All the trends are moving that direction," says Bracken Hendricks, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank. "GM has taken a strong leadership position in this leading electric technology. Even it if takes a loss on its first few vehicles, it's positioned itself extremely well to dominate the market in the long run."
A lot is riding on the Volt's success, both for GM and the US auto industry, Mr. Hendricks says. The Volt is the first entry by an American manufacturer in what is becoming a global race to get electrified vehicles to market. China is moving fast in this direction.
The Volt also represents the fondest hopes of "green hawks" – national-security mavens eager for America to reduce its reliance on imported oil – as well as climate-concerned environmentalists.
"The rate at which the market adopts electrified vehicles will have a lot to do with the price of gas," says Robert Kruse, principal with EV Consulting and former head of engineering for GM's global hybrid development program. "If prices for gas stay low, that isn't good for electrified vehicles that cost more upfront but are less costly to operate. But if you see fuel prices rise, watch out: You'll see the public stepping up."
The Volt can be charged overnight from a standard 120-volt outlet in a garage – or twice as fast if owners pay extra for a 240-volt outlet. The US Department of Energy is working on a program to deploy up to 15,000 home charging stations. Ideally, a Volt owner who lives 20 miles from work would need to fill up at the pump only for longer trips, GM officials note.
Felix Kramer, co-founder of CalCars, started his nonprofit group a few years ago to pressure manufacturers like GM and Toyota into making plug-in hybrid vehicles for the mass market. He and his garage-mechanic colleagues converted a small fleet of Toyota Prius standard gas-electric hybrids into plug-in electric-gas vehicles. They demonstrated the cars could go 100 miles per gallon or better.
"The GM guys are right when they said they've started the world down a different path," Mr. Kramer says. "This is a big day – and the start of something really big and really important."
The great electric car race of 2010
Why Obama is putting so much stock in battery technology
Blog: Q&A with GM's hybrid chief Robert Kruse
That cost is higher than some had expected for a vehicle that can go 40 miles on all-electric battery power before an onboard gasoline engine kicks in as a "range extender" for 300 more miles.
Will consumers bite at a car that costs that much? Some assuredly will – at least initially: GM has legions of wannabe Chevy Volt owners in online and dealer waiting lists at almost any price. But what about a year or two from now, when competitors have electric cars on the road, too?
"I do have some questions about the long-term market reaction to that sticker price," says Bradley Berman, editor and owner of HybridCars.com, which evaluates plug-in vehicles. "But the news is really the lease, which is very attractive."
Indeed, GM is pushing leasing rather than buying the car. With $2,500 at signing, a three-year Volt lease is $350 per month – making it comparable to the Nissan Leaf, the Volt’s main competitor..
Leasing matters a lot this time around because nobody, not even GM, is sure just how durable or long-lasting the new automotive lithium-ion batteries are going to be. All anyone knows for certain is that they will be costly to replace if they go bad. So a lease deals with that uncertainty – taking the load off the consumer, GM officials say.
For those who want to buy, Uncle Sam is offering a big fat tax credit: $7,500. So the net cost to consumers would be $33,500.
GM is going the extra mile with an eight-year, 100,000-mile warranty just on the battery. The warranties for other parts of the car do not last for that many years.
The Nissan Leaf is an all-electric car that can go 100 miles on a charge, but has no range-extending gas engine. It will lease for $1,999 at signing and $349 per month. The Leaf's sticker price is $32,780, but the $7,500 tax credit brings that down to $25,280.
State tax incentives could lower the price for either vehicle – by up to $5,000 in Georgia and California or $1,500 in Oregon.
For the Volt, production will be limited to about 10,000 vehicles for the 2011 model year, and it will be sold in only six states: California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Texas, plus the Washington, D.C., area. The first deliveries of the Volt will begin in November.
In line with his recent touting of battery technology, President Obama is said to be likely to test-drive a Volt next week in Michigan.
“The Chevrolet Volt will be the best vehicle in its class ... because it’s in a class by itself,” said Joel Ewanick, vice president of US marketing for GM, in a statement at the Plug-In 2010 conference in San Jose, Calif. Bragging about the Volt's range advantage over the Leaf, he added, “No other automaker offers an electrically driven vehicle that can be your everyday driver to take you wherever, whenever."
Not to be outdone, Nissan executives quickly matched GM's battery warranty for the Leaf – and wryly noted that the Volt was a compromise because it still used fossil-fuel engine technology, attendees at the Plug-In conference said.
Such tit for tat is just a hint of the marketing battles ahead, Mr. Berman says. At the same time, they will doubtless tout their environmental advantage over standard gasoline-engine vehicles – as well as their "cool factor," he says.
But GM's strategy, Berman says, is risky because three years from now, the company could be left holding a bunch of expensive Chevy Volts after their leases are over. Will GM be able to sell used Volts at a price that makes money – or be undercut by newer, cheaper entrants to the electrified car market?
Others are less troubled by that potential pitfall.
"Electric vehicles are going to be the dominant automotive technology of the future. All the trends are moving that direction," says Bracken Hendricks, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank. "GM has taken a strong leadership position in this leading electric technology. Even it if takes a loss on its first few vehicles, it's positioned itself extremely well to dominate the market in the long run."
A lot is riding on the Volt's success, both for GM and the US auto industry, Mr. Hendricks says. The Volt is the first entry by an American manufacturer in what is becoming a global race to get electrified vehicles to market. China is moving fast in this direction.
The Volt also represents the fondest hopes of "green hawks" – national-security mavens eager for America to reduce its reliance on imported oil – as well as climate-concerned environmentalists.
"The rate at which the market adopts electrified vehicles will have a lot to do with the price of gas," says Robert Kruse, principal with EV Consulting and former head of engineering for GM's global hybrid development program. "If prices for gas stay low, that isn't good for electrified vehicles that cost more upfront but are less costly to operate. But if you see fuel prices rise, watch out: You'll see the public stepping up."
The Volt can be charged overnight from a standard 120-volt outlet in a garage – or twice as fast if owners pay extra for a 240-volt outlet. The US Department of Energy is working on a program to deploy up to 15,000 home charging stations. Ideally, a Volt owner who lives 20 miles from work would need to fill up at the pump only for longer trips, GM officials note.
Felix Kramer, co-founder of CalCars, started his nonprofit group a few years ago to pressure manufacturers like GM and Toyota into making plug-in hybrid vehicles for the mass market. He and his garage-mechanic colleagues converted a small fleet of Toyota Prius standard gas-electric hybrids into plug-in electric-gas vehicles. They demonstrated the cars could go 100 miles per gallon or better.
"The GM guys are right when they said they've started the world down a different path," Mr. Kramer says. "This is a big day – and the start of something really big and really important."
Yoko Ono Fighting Sixth Parole Attempt For John Lennon Killer Mark David Chapman
Japanese musician Yoko Ono, now 77, is still fighting to keep Mark David Chapman behind bars, nearly 30 years after the loner opened fire on John Lennon, killing the Beatles legend in a shooting outside the couple’s posh Manhattan apartment building on Dec. 8, 1980.
Chapman, who has spent the past three decades locked up in New York’s gritty Attica State Prison, is up for parole next month. He’ll be interviewed by a three-member parole board panel during the week of Aug. 9. It is his sixth bid for release.
Ono’s lawyer Peter Shukat says that Lennon’s widow — who witnessed the shooting — continues to oppose Chapman’s potential release and has again sent a letter to the parole board.
He refused to say whether it’s the same letter submitted every two years since Chapman first became eligible for parole in 2000. In that letter, Ono writes that if Chapman is released: “I am afraid it will bring back the nightmare, the chaos and confusion once again. Myself and John’s two sons would not feel safe for the rest of our lives.”
Robert Gangi, head of the prisoners’ rights group, Correctional Association of America, doubts Chapman will be released because of the public outrage it would cause.
“Given that he commited a high profile crime and he killed one of the most famous and most beloved figures literally in the world, it’s highly unlikely three parole commissioners would vote to grant him release,” said Gangi.
Luxist Giveaway: Chocomize Gift Certificate
I've got a fun giveaway for you today. It's not just candy but candy that you create. We first mentionedChocomize last December. The company specializes in custom chocolate treats. Pick a 3.5 ounce chocolate (dark, milk, or white, all premium Belgian) and then the fun begins. Go nuts (macadamia, hazelnuts, and almonds are just some of the selections), add fruits (pineapple, dried raspberries even goji berries), get creative with add-ins like pop rocks and mini marshmallows or really step into the extreme with selections like beef jerky and vegetarian bacon. Then you can decorate with fancy touches like edible gold, sprinkles or a chocolate plaque. There are thousands of variations possible.
The company also donates one percent of the proceeds from each Chocomize chocolate bar to one of their selected charities. In the Chocomize spirit you get to choose which charity to support. One percent has added up raising money for Doctors Without Borders, Action Against Hunger and the Michael J. Fox Foundation.
Today we are giving away one $75 gift certificate for custom chocolates. Create your own or chose from some of their popular flavors like the milk chocolate Smores bar with mini marshmallows and graham teddy bears; the white chocolate Tighty Whiteys with mini marshmallows, sliced almonds and coconut flakes; the Spicy Special milk chocolate bar with black peppercorns, mini chipotles and cayenne pepper; or the dark chocolate Tropical Island bar with banana chips, coconut flakes and cantaloupe melon dices.
To enter leave a comment below, and, if you are inspired, let us know what Chocomize creation you would make.
* To enter, leave a confirmed comment below.
* The comment must be left and confirmed before August 2, 2010 at 5:00PM Eastern Time.
* You may only enter once.
* One winner will be selected in a random drawing.
* One winner will receive one Chocomize gift certificate valued at $75.
* Open to legal residents of the 50 United States and the District of Columbia.
The company also donates one percent of the proceeds from each Chocomize chocolate bar to one of their selected charities. In the Chocomize spirit you get to choose which charity to support. One percent has added up raising money for Doctors Without Borders, Action Against Hunger and the Michael J. Fox Foundation.
Today we are giving away one $75 gift certificate for custom chocolates. Create your own or chose from some of their popular flavors like the milk chocolate Smores bar with mini marshmallows and graham teddy bears; the white chocolate Tighty Whiteys with mini marshmallows, sliced almonds and coconut flakes; the Spicy Special milk chocolate bar with black peppercorns, mini chipotles and cayenne pepper; or the dark chocolate Tropical Island bar with banana chips, coconut flakes and cantaloupe melon dices.
To enter leave a comment below, and, if you are inspired, let us know what Chocomize creation you would make.
* To enter, leave a confirmed comment below.
* The comment must be left and confirmed before August 2, 2010 at 5:00PM Eastern Time.
* You may only enter once.
* One winner will be selected in a random drawing.
* One winner will receive one Chocomize gift certificate valued at $75.
* Open to legal residents of the 50 United States and the District of Columbia.
By The Numbers: Chevy Volt vs Nissan Leaf
It’s hard to ignore the looming EV vehicle showdown between the Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf even though the vehicles are totally different in nature and target market. While the Nissan Leaf is simply a beautifully-packaged electric vehicle with around a 100 mile range, the Chevy Volt takes a different approach by having a somewhat limited 40 mile EV range but an on-board gas-powered generator that will power the electric motor as long as there’s gas in the tank. GM is clearly targeting the a higher-end market with a $41,000 MSRP while the Nissan Leaf is a bit more down-market with a starting price of $32,000.
That’s fine. There’s more than enough room in the world for both of the vehicles. There doesn’t really have to be a winner here. In terms of sales numbers, the Nissan Leaf will enter more markets than the Volt (or its Opel Ampera counterpart) initially anyway. GM only expects to sell about 10,000 Volts during the first year where Nissan already 17,000 Leaf pre-orders, 5,000 more than the first year estimate. Clearly both vehicles are highly anticipated, though, so comparisons will no doubt be made around workplace watercoolers from now on. Here’s what we know so far.
Ex-NFL star Jack Tatum dead at 61
COLUMBUS, Ohio, July 27 (UPI) -- Jack Tatum, who earned the nickname "The Assassin" during a stellar college and pro football career, died Tuesday after a heart attack. He was 61.
Tatum, who played safety and linebacker, starred at Ohio State from 1968 to 1970 and for the Oakland Raiders from 1979 to 1989. He completed his NFL career with Houston in 1980.
"We have lost one of our greatest Buckeyes," OSU Coach Jim Tressel said. "When you think of Ohio State defense, the first name that comes to mind is Jack Tatum. His loss touches every era of Ohio State players and fans."
The Buckeyes won a national championship while he was there. Tatum was a two-time All-American and the national defensive player of the year as a senior.
Picked by Oakland in the first round, he helped the Raiders win the Super Bowl in 1976. He was named to the Pro Bowl three times, and finished with 37 interceptions and 10 fumble recoveries.
He was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame in 2004. After his playing days, Tatum went into the real estate and restaurant businesses.
Tatum played a role in one of the most well-known plays in NFL history, the so-called Immaculate Reception during a 1972 playoff game between Oakland and Pittsburgh. In the waning seconds, Tatum hit John Fuqua as he was catching a pass from Terry Bradshaw, sending the ball into the air where Franco Harris caught it and ran 42 yards for the game-winning score.
The viciousness of his hits was epitomized, however, by his collision with Darryl Stingley of the Patriots during a 1978 pre-season game that left Stingley paralyzed from the chest down for the rest of his life. Stingley died in 2007.
The wounds never healed for Jack Tatum or Darryl Stingley
Stingley spent his last three decades in a wheelchair.
Tatum's life was forever changed on Aug. 12, 1978. That can't be said without adding this:
Stingley's life was turned into a nightmare.
THE HUDDLE: Jack Tatum dies at 61
It has always been hard to mention one scarred man without adding the other.
Stingley will always be the New England receiver who ended up paralyzed in a wheelchair.
Tatum will always be the Oakland defensive back whose tackle put him there.
And here is one of the saddest things of all:
They never spoke after that terrible intersection of fates. They never reconciled.
There was never a postscript to ease any of the anguish. They were never able to look each other in the eye, and at least try to make some sense of one of the NFL's true tragedies.
They never will.
Even now, the replay is hard to watch, hinting of something ominous. You see Stingley in a white Patriots uniform cutting across the middle, reaching out for a pass, slightly off balance on his right leg. Tatum is there for the Raiders, taking aim at Stingley with one of those helmet-on-helmet tackles that earned him his feared nickname, The Assassin.
Even though it was only an exhibition game, Stingley was an opposing receiver, and in Tatum's world, that made him an enemy. Stingley never had a chance.
That lunge on his right leg was the final step of his life. There was nothing illegal about the tackle under the rules of 1978. No flag was thrown, no fine was assessed. It was the kind of hit that fans craved, and networks showed on the highlights.
Only. .. Stingley wasn't moving.
The NFL got a hard lesson that day on where the violence of its game — the violence that had won it such speedy favor on television — might lead.
New rules would come later banning such hits as the one Tatum made that day. The game would become safer. But it was too late to help Darryl Stingley
They were supposed to get together once, for a joint television interview in 1996. But Stingley found out Tatum would be pushing his new book, apparently didn't want to be part of a promotional effort, and pulled out.
Looking through various reported quotes from the two men and their camps through the years, there always seemed a chasm of misunderstanding, or mistrust, or hard feelings.
Stingley was said to be hurt that Tatum never came by after the incident.
Tatum was quoted as saying he tried, but was kept away by the Stingley family.
Stingley was reportedly upset he never heard an apology.
Tatum was quoted as saying he felt bad about what had happened, but had not done anything illegal to apologize for. The league and the fans and the media had honored him for being a hard tackler. Had everyone forgotten that?
You can find supporters of Stingley charging that Tatum never showed remorse, and indeed cherished being The Assassin to the final game of his career.
You can find supporters of Tatum saying he was deeply troubled by what had happened.
Stingley had three children and started an organization to help troubled youths in Chicago. He died of complications from his injury.
Tatum had three children and started an organization in Ohio to raise funds for diabetes research. He died of an apparent heart attack.
When news came in 2003 of Tatum losing part of his leg, Stingley told The Boston Globe: "Maybe the natural reaction is to think he got what was coming to him, but I don't accept human nature as our real nature. Human nature teaches us to hate, God teaches us to love."
When Stingley died, Tatum released a statement, "Darryl will be forever remembered for his strength and courage. My heart and prayers go out to his family."
Too bad they could never say such things to one another. They stayed distant men, but they are destined to be forever connected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)