Prius Haters.

Re: Take Over Iraq

Well, it's how we got started (we invaded America itself and stole it from the Indians) and it's how we've behaved ever since (invading and robbing Mexico, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Panama, not in that order, and to name just a few of our victims.) We tried it in Vietnam after the French gave up, but we lost. (The Vietnamese were too stubborn to let us take over their country, and they were too close to China.) We also invaded Canada and tried to rob them, but we were defeated. We invaded both Cuba and the Philippeans, and controlled both for a while. During the centuries of the slave trade I don't think we sent actual military to invade Africa, but we definitely sent mercenary invaders to steal human beings, male and female to be sold into slavery.

On the other hand, we didn't rob either Europe or Japan when we invaded them in WWII, so we're not all bad.

But invading Iraq to steal their oil would not be at all out of character.

 

Re: Take Over Iraq

Unfortunately, the rest of the world refers to what we are doing in Iraq as an "occupation". To them, they see it as just taking what we want. After all, why would we spend $200,000,000 and sacrifice 1,000 troops just to liberate a country.

Sad, huh?

Kind of makes you wonder how they view our acceptence of Prius. That actually is a good thing, a geniune step in the right direction.

Who knows. Perhaps we will help prove some of our intentions are for the benefit of a better world by purchasing every single hybrid as fast as Toyota can produce them.

The US production site for Prius should make things interesting. I can't even wait until they finalize those plans. The first one built there will seem to take forever...

 

Toyota makes a lot of cars in the U.S. Does anyone know how the reliability compares, between Toyotas made in the U.S. and Toyotas made in Japan?

 

Daniel,
Unfortunately, it's becoming a fact that Toyota vehicles made in the U.S. have a noticeably lower quality than Toyota's made in Japan. I strongly hope that the Prius will always be built in Japan. The Wall Street Journal had an interesting article 2 months ago about how Japanese representative's for Toyota are having a very difficult time teaching American workers what Kaizen is because of language barriers. Kaizen, being that the worker always improves in a small way, eventually leading to great improvements. In short, the article explained that Japanese workers are frankly more disiplined and have "more on the line" than American workers. The article centered around Toyota's Georgetown, Kentucky plant and how the 2002 Camry only scored average reliability in Consumer Reports (abmissal for Toyota) and how the Canadian plant where the Impala is built outscored the Georgetown plant in a quality survey done by J.D. Power and Associates. I heard many people complain about their Camrys from failed taillights to the interior roof lining coming off. The Japanese built Toyotas (and Lexus) all have flawless quality ratings. I am interested as to why Honda doesn't seem to have this problem at the Maryville plant in Ohio with the Accord.
I personally would go beyond Japanese engineered, and also demand Japanese made. Look at the Jetta: it's German engineered, but built in Mexico, it has the lowest quality ratings in its class.
I am frankly nervous about the future of American built Toyotas.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jkash\";p=\"40467)</div>

Which is why we should keep our hands in our pockets!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flyingprius\";p=\"40641)</div>

I was afraid of that. I once bought a Panasonic stereo made in China, and it was terrible. (To make matters worse, I bought it at Sam's Club in Mexico and the warranty was void outside of the U.S.!)

Like you, I think things have to be made in Japan to have the Japanese quality we are so used to.

(Interestingly, when I was young, "Made in Japan" meant garbage. It must have been some time around the late 1950's or early '60s that the Japanese government called in the leaders of industry and laid down the law: for the good of the nation, you need to stop making garbage and start making quality. And they made it happen. And on the bedrock of that quality, they built an industrial powerhouse.)

 

ahh i take it you have not heard of the story of W. Edward Deming. Deming was a man who during the height of the American industrial boom coming right after america met the enomous challenge of arming and supplying the WW2 needs of allied troops, complained that american industry was in trouble because of poor focus and a lack of direction concerning building a quality product. he preached this at a time when "built in america" was considered the top of the line in nearly everything.

he worked in Washington DC as a consultant but companies got tired of him quickly because all he did was insult their methods and predict their doom if they didnt change their ways.

well the japanese who had a major quality problem and invited Deming to help them out. so in 1959 he went to japan and single handedly change the face of industrial balance of the world. he did so by making japan an industrial power virtually overnight. he did it by preaching quality over quantity. he proved that if it was done right the first time, then in the long run, it would be cheaper to make them instead of more expensive to as all american manufacturers believed.

his most famous story (of which he had many) was when a japanese manufacturer decided to build a factory in the US. they started asking local suppliers if they could provide parts they needed to build their cars. the americans said yes without even looking at the part in question. they then took off with the blueprints to the new part with all the bravado expected of a company that knew they were better than the japanese in all things mechanical.

soon they came back with problems. the americans said that the plans were incomplete. they said there are no tolerances for the measurements. so they didnt know what was acceptable. the japanese said they did not know the meaning of tolerance. when americans explained what tolerance meant, the japanese said we dont allow mistakes in our parts. the americans were flabbergasted. they said tolerance was a normal part of the manufacturing process.
well the next day, the japanese manufacturer went out to get a new supplier.

that is what Deming taught the japanese and that is what he tried to teach the americans, but we told him he was crazy.

today Deming has near god-like stature in japan. he is the only non-japanese to receive japan's highest civilian honor. today the Deming award is awarded in japan to japans brightest scientist and is considered one of the greatest honors bestowed upon a civilian in japan.

 

Re: Take Over Iraq

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel\";p=\"40529)</div>

Geeze Daniel, are you sure you aren’t a fact checker for Dan Rather and CBS (SEE B.S.) ???

It is so easy to tell “half history†stories.

“During the centuries of the slave trade I don't think we sent actual military to invade Africa, but we definitely sent mercenary invaders to steal human beings, male and female to be sold into slavery.â€

(Cut and paste quotes)
" . . . It is easily assumed, therefore, that the African slave trade pit brutal, gun-wielding European slaver traders against unsuspecting, passive African victims. . .In fact, Europeans often acted as junior partners to African rulers, merchants, and middlemen in the slave trade along the West African coast from the mid-15th century on. . . Not only was slavery an established institution in West Africa before European traders arrived, but Africans were also involved in a trans-Saharan trade in slaves along these routes. African rulers and merchants were thus able to tap into preexisting methods and networks of enslavement to supply European demand for slaves. . . Some African elites benefited from the enslavement of their rivals, their enemies, their poor, and other culturally foreign groups from the 15th century through the 18th and even into the 19th centuries. . . African complicity in the slave trade neither justifies today's social problems nor minimizes their seriousness. . ."

PBS SLAVE KINGDOMS EPISODE

"On the other hand, we didn't rob either Europe or Japan when we invaded them in WWII, so we're not all bad. But invading Iraq to steal their oil would not be at all out of character."

(Cut and paste quotes)
" . . .It shouldn't come as a shock that rebuilding Iraq will be, as many are predicting, long and costly. The same was true when Americans led the massive reconstruction efforts of Germany and Japan after World War II and South Korea in the 1950s.
"Occupation is always expensive, and the cost of the Marshall Plan represented 3 percent of the gross national product," said Conrad Crane, director of the U.S. Army Military History Institute.
In current dollars, the United States gave nearly $90 billion to war-torn Europe between 1948 and 1952. At least $8 billion went to Germany. . . Estimates of the cost of rebuilding Iraq range from $30 billion to $100 billion . . .â€

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Yep, you are right - we GAVE money to Europe to rebuild after WWII and are doing the same in Iraq. So exactly how is it that the USA is stealing from Iraq?

 

Interesting.

I've had 1 negative comment. A guy said it looked like a squashed football.

Another friend mentioned acceleration wasn't great. but it was adequate to the day to day tasks, like CA freeway merge. He LIKES muscle cars.

But they all agree, even though I get crappy mileage due to my short commute (typically 40-42 mpg) and I visit the gas/carwash once a month whether it needs a fill or not... it's a pretty cool car, based on ride, comfort and "toys" and I'm running a #7 not the true geek toy. Stealthmode seems to pique their interest, but engine not running at stop lights freaks 'em out, until they think about it.

Cas (who LIKES his prius '04 driftwood #7)

 

I do hope no one misinterprets the PBS story quote above. Although it is quite true that slavery existed in Africa way before the Europeans came, and that African leaders often did run it with the Europeans as junior partners, the overwhelming bulk of the trade was organized and financed and implemented by Europeans and Americans.

But Americans tended to not be the enslavers themselves. Americans tended to be the transporters and the buyers. But it was American businessmen and not the American nation.

And Europe outlawed slavery and the slave trade about 100 years before the USA did. But many Europeans stayed in the Business illegally.

The USA banned the importation of slaves in 1820. It was in our Constitution.


And there are been a lot of attempts to compare Iraq to Germany and our spending money in Iraq to the Marshall plan. Unfortunately for those trying to make those comparisons, many of those involved back then are still alive. After the liberation of Germany, history tells us that only one American may have died at the hands of ex nazis. What are we up to in Iraq? I think it's about 800 since the war ended and about 150 since that handover.

And as for money, one of the reasons the Marshall plan worked was because all the money that went to Europeans was dispersed by Eruropeans and European items were bought. The money went without strings. That is not true in Iraq. All the money is tightly controlled with all kinds of strings. And this affects the Iraqis and how they judge us.

The fact that the USA is staying very hard to remain in control, whereas after WW2 we relinquished it so quickly, is very telling to the Iraqis.

There is nothing in Iraq that remotely compares to Germany or Japan after WW2. Suggesting it is is propaganda.

The Washington Times, isn't that the right wing Washington Paper that is owned by Sun Myung Moon? Or is that the Post?

 

Prius4, what you are saying is taht because americans didnt actually float over to africa and net the slaves themselves that they are somehow less responsible??

that is stretching it a bit doncha think? that is like saying pedophiles are ok because they are not the ones taking the pictures of children...

fact is, if there is no market for slaves, then it will cease to exist. there was a market in the US (70% of slaves were sent to the US) and that is why it took a war and 100 years of attitude adjustment to make progress in acceptance of others not like oneself.

 

Prius Haters are just Stupid people - STS

STS
Slaughter the Stoopid

 

DaveinOlyWA

I'm sorry, I meant exactly the opposite.

I was responding to an earlier post that I thought some might miscontrue that Europeans might be somehow less culpable in the slave trade because black Africans were enslaving Africans long before Europeans were. But that is FAR from the truth. Black Africans actually imposed something that was more akin to involuntary servitude that did not tend to apply to the offspring and amounted to a small amount of the slave trade. And it usually was not for life. It was only when the Europeans got involved did the slave trade skyrocket to extremely high numbers and became a lifetime of slavery and even applied to the offspring.

And there was another post that suggested that Americans sent mercenaries to collect slaves. This is also not true though I'm sure our military did help the "businessmen" of the time carry on with their business. I only meant that Americans tended not to get involed in the procurement of the slaves on the continent of Africa. But once captured, most of the ships that did the transport were American and since Europe banned slavery and the slave trade about 100 years before the USA did, for the last 100 years of the slave trade, all the slaves came to the Americas. That included the USA and the Caribean.

And since as you say you can only have a slave trade when people are willing to buy them, the culpability of Americans is high.

I certainly did not mean to imply that Americans are less culpable. Now that "compensation" for slavery is in the news there have been numerous web sites out there that suggest that Europeans and Americans are no more responsible for slavery than Africans themselves. Whenever I see something that might suggest that to be true I jump on it and that is what my intent was here.

Africans were minor players in the slave trade and the slavery they imposed was quite diferent from what happened to Africans that came to the Americas.

 

I used the word "mercenaries" to refer to the "businessmen" (actually a kind of pirates) who operated the slave trade, and I agree with Prius04 that the critical part of the equation was the market for slaves. I probably should have used the word pirate rather than mercenary.

Also, not all slavery is equal: African slavery required the slave to work, but respected certain of the slaves human rights. American slavery denied every scrap of humanity of the slave, gave the slave-owner the right to rape and even kill the slave, as well as beat him or her mercilessly with no limitations whatsoever. And American slavery virtually depopulated the working-age population of Africa.

There has never, before or since, been a creature as low, as vile, or as despicable as the American slave-owner, nor has there been a nation that has allowed this most brutal form of slavery to continue longer.

The reason the honest history of our country is not taught to our schoolchildren is that they would all commit suicide in shame. They (we) need to get a bit older first, to learn to deny responsibility, before we can be allowed to know our forebears.

 

oh i realize that the main supply of slaves were simply the tribe of the moment that lost the war of the week in africa...(yes they have been fighting for that long)

WHICH brings up another interesting point. some justify the war in Iraq because at least it disposed of a dictator that killed hundreds of thousands of his own people.

well in africa, dictators have been killing MILLIONS of their own people every year for centuries. and why do we let that go on? in one year, (1983 i believe) two different countries let over 8 million of their people die . so why do we let this go on?

well couldnt have nothing to do with oil could it?

 

Clinton went after Milosovic in the Kosovo war simply because Milosovic was a horrible genocidal dictator. The Kosovo war had no obvious connection to American interests other than Christian compassion. it was probably the first purely moral war the USA ever entered. (If there is such a thing as a moral war.)

Clinton was attacked for that war by the Congress at the time and GW Bush used the Kosovo war as an example the kind of war that the USA should not get involved in. He said this during the 2000 debates.

This is part of the reason I find it so despicable that Bush is now using the arguments of genocide and "freedom" and "liberty" so freely now that we are in Iraq. That’s because all the reasons he gave us back in March of 2003 have now collapsed. So his fall back reasons are the very reasons he condemned back in the 2000 debates.

Simply despicable.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"40961)</div>

I dont really want to enter this debate, but I would like to point out that at that time, slavery was quite normal and not regarded as immoral. Times have changed, and now slavery is not normal (in most of the world) and is regarded as bad.

We can not change the past and I dont think we should condem our ancestors for the behaviour which in there time was acceptable. I am sure that in the future, our decendents will say how we act now in certain areas is equally bad.

We need to ensure that we live today to the best of our abilities in a way which is not going to harm others or our planet.

 

I beg to differ. Slavery was not considered immoral by the slave-traders and the slave-holders, nor by the political leaders, who have always represented the wealthy, but it was considered altogether immoral by the slaves. Slavery was also condemned by people who took their own religion seriously, such as the Quakers and the Unitarians, and it was condemned by poor laborers who had to compete in the labor market against the free labor of slaves.

And I point out, again, because it is essential to understand, that we are talking about a very different and infinitely more brutal form of slavery than anyone involved had ever experienced before.

 

Whenever I mention to some people that I'm planning on buying a prius they dissmiss it with the not enough power excuse, this is gettting quite old. I'm getting way fewer questions about the plug though maybe this is setting in.

I've convinced one person to seriously consider getting a prius, they like the gadgets.

 

To ckacey,

The power argument also comes out of lack of knowledge. (The correct English word is that it comes out of ignorance, but that word is a little pejorative these days and I don't mean to be.)

On my first tank of gas I drove very meekly and softly. I got 55 MPG on my very first tank and the car was not broken in.

On my second tank, I drove a bit more agressivly but not as if I was in my old BMW 325. I got 50 mpg.

Now I've got 1100 miles on the car. Now I'm gonna drive like I'm in that old 1987 BMW. And so far I'm quite impressed with the power. Yes, it's not a race car, but there is absolutely no lack of power. I'm pulling away from every red light and stop light way faster than everyone around me. I even heard the tires sqeek once. And I'm not even "flooring" it.

I am VERY impressed with the power. Today I was driving with the fast drivers into work. I kept up with them at 83-84 MPH and I still had power to pass if I needed it. Very impressive. So far for the first 50 miles, I'm at 44 MPG. Even that is very impressive though not all of it was at 83 mph.

So it's clear that power is absolutely not an issue with this car unless your yardstick is a Muscle car. If your yardstick is a car, the Prius is right there in the mainstream.