evatt.com

Reader S. says:
I went to a local Sears to return some parts (don't get me started) and the attached [photo] amused me.

They're just so enthusiastic about it. Sale! No, Really! Don't look too closely! Keep moving along! Nothing to see here!

Meg Marco

quack1701 posted a photo:

Playing with my outdoor Christmas lights before installing them.

Flickr Group Roulette -- Christmas Lights

nobody@flickr.com (quack1701)

quack1701 posted a photo:

Happy Thanksgiving!

The turkey is ready, time to start the ham. Today will be a fun day with family eating way to much food.

Flickr Group Roulette -- Happy Thanksgiving

nobody@flickr.com (quack1701)

quack1701 posted a photo:

Adine's new watercolor painting "Christmas Tux".

Christmas cards with this image can be found on cafe press.

nobody@flickr.com (quack1701)

quack1701 posted a photo:

Creating a digital version of Adine's new watercolor painting "Christmas Tux" so we can make Christmas cards on Cafe Press.

nobody@flickr.com (quack1701)

quack1701 posted a photo:

Which snack food should I eat? I went for the broccoli, but me thinks the ice cream would have been more fun!

Flickr Group Roulette -- Never Eaten Gherkins

nobody@flickr.com (quack1701)

The NRDC has released some numbers about video game consoles and their power consumption. If you're one of the 50% of gamers who leave their consoles on all the time — you're wasting a lot of money.

The NRDC report suggests that video game console manufacturers update the consoles with a power saving mode that would kick in after a period of inactivity — but the quickest fix is for gamers to turn their consoles off (or use the console's power saving features) when they're not actively playing them. The NRDC says that consoles use about the same amount of power just sitting there as they do when you're actually playing them.

How much could you save? At the high end, the NRDC says that PS3 owners who shut off their consoles could save as much as $145 a year. Wii users won't save as much, because the Wii uses less power over all. The XBOX 360 is somewhere in between.

The good news is that the XBOX 360 and PS3 do have power saving features, but they're disabled by default. Why not turn them on and save some cash?

Lowering the Cost of Play [NRDC]

Meg Marco

David didn't have the money to pay his account (for some mystery service—we don't know what), so he decided to see if they'd accept a drawing instead. Turns out they won't. The email exchange that follows is hilarious, and much more entertaining for both parties than the old put-the-wrong-check-in-the-envelope trick.

Please note that we didn't include a picture of the drawing because David might try to charge us for it. We really can't afford $233 right now.

Good Idea!: Man Submits Drawing Of Spider Instead Of Payment For Overdue Account [Geekologie] (Thanks to Anthony!)

Chris Walters

Economic times being what they are, Gawker must refocus its efforts on its most commercially successful blogs. Which means, yes, The Consumerist is for sale.

We seek a new home where our kickass blogging team can continue to thrive and grow. We get 14m+ pageviews according to Sitemeter, and 2m+ uniques according to Quantcast. Direct inquiries to gaby@gawker.com.

Ben Popken

"South Park" co-creator Trey Parker was elated when he heard the news Tuesday night that Barack Obama had won the presidency. That's not because he bought into Obama's promises for change, or because he dislikes John McCain -- in fact, Parker says McCain is "a great guy."

Parker was crossing his fingers for an Obama victory because he wrote and directed an episode of "South Park," which aired Wednesday night, based on the premise that the Democratic candidate had won the night before. If the results had flipped, Parker says they would have aired the episode anyway, and later dealt with their own "Dewey defeats Truman" moment. (For a video clip of the Obama episode, click on the Read more line below and scroll down.)

The team considered doing an alternate version for a McCain win, but it proved to be ...

... too daunting a task. So, finally they decided, "Well, we're just going to make the Obama version, and if McCain somehow wins, we're basically just totally screwed," Parker said.

But throughout production, Parker says he had no doubt that Obama would win. That's because the sports betting website he uses to gamble on football games placed the odds heavily against the Republican nominee. "Who do we trust the most?" Parker said he asked himself when deciding whether to write the episode. "Who knows the most about who's going to win? And we just went to Vegas."

Parker even threw some of his own money on the line, placing a bet for Obama in October, when the odds were slimmer, he said. Just before the election, Las Vegas parlors upgraded their prediction to -800 -- what the odds might be for an NFL matchup between the undefeated Tennessee Titans and the winless Detroit Lions. (In other words, not close.)

Luckily for Parker, the house doesn't always win.

But just because the episode had been written before the election's fate had been decided doesn't mean Parker was partying in the streets Tuesday night. Like every Tuesday during a "South Park" season, he didn't get a wink of sleep.

The episode still wasn't completed on the eve of its air date. They needed to replicate the stage on which Obama gave his acceptance speech, and record voice-over excerpts from the transcript for the episode's cartoon reenactment of the oration. They finished production on the episode Wednesday morning, about three hours after they normally wrap.

Still, Comedy Central had only seen bits and pieces of it before airing at 10 p.m. One scene executives asked to see involved a joke about Obama's grandmother faking her death, which Parker says wasn't intended to be insensitive. "It's kind of nice," he said. "She's OK, and helping her grandson out."

Parker was committed to doing an episode on the election for this week's show once he heard about a McCain-Nazi joke on "Family Guy," which recently stirred some controversy. He called the scene, which showed the Stewie character dressed in a Nazi uniform and outfitted with a McCain-Palin button, "lame" -- amongst a series of expletives not suitable for publication.

"South Park" creators have publicly condemned "Family Guy" in the past, and Wednesday's episode was an attempt to one-up the Fox cartoon. But Parker wasn't going to make his version a political commentary.

"We've all heard about everything; we've talked about everything to death," Parker said of the exhausted political sphere. "And it's like, let's just put him in a diamond heist movie. They're just diamond thieves, and it's not about the politics at all anymore."

But what about change? Isn't Obama going to singlehandedly fix all our problems, and swiftly transform the nation into an eternal utopia? "I think this whole country is supposed to be based around the fact that one guy doesn't have that much power," Parker said.

-- Mark Milian

Photo credits: Comedy Central

Speaking of regular episodes, don't miss a single Ticket item. Register here for free cellphone alerts when new ones are posted.

Monroe, Washington, police officers and FBI agents catch a man who allegedly hired help for a robbery using Craigslist. The cops used DNA matching from the holdup of an armored car in September.

Noah Shachtman

Seeing where our bail out money is going... Very interesting. http://bailoutsleuth.com/

On my way to Albany, I listened to Resistance, an fun sci-fi short story on Escape Pod by Tobias Buckell. Resistance is about a society that is a "techno-democracy", that is every person in the society votes on every issue. After some time, they realize this is impractical. Their solution is to create computer models, "avatars", for each person to vote the way they would have voted. Eventually, each of these "avatars" does the same thing and creates a master avatar to rule as a "benevolent dictator".

I really enjoyed the story, especially the timing of it being around the election. I only wish the story had ended about two minutes earlier.

 Standard Podcast [47:46m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

read more

steven

quack1701 posted a photo:

I had an hour layover in the Cleveland airport on my way to Albany. I loved their giant "paper" airplanes.

nobody@flickr.com (quack1701)

There was an amusing little tangent in my conversation yesterday with an Orbitz rep when I went to change my ticket. Talking with her was the first time I've ever hinted to a telephone customer service rep that I write for The Consumerist.

ORBITZ (in clipped, offshore-outsourced call-center perfect English diction): Mr. Popken, is this a business trip?
BEN: Yes.
ORBITZ: What business are you in, Mr. Popken?
BEN: I'm a blogger.
ORBITZ: What is a "blogger?"
BEN: Someone who blogs. Heh. It's a special kind of website with lots of posts arranged in reverse chronological order.
ORBITZ: I see.
Long silence.
ORBITZ: So you are like Perez Hilton?

BEN: Sure, we're both bloggers. But we write about different subjects.
ORBITZ: Do you write about celebrities?
BEN: Ah, no, I write about customer service and consumer affairs. So watch out!
ORBITZ: I always deliver an excellent customer service experience every time so I have nothing to fear from any blogger.
BEN: That's excellent.
ORBITZ: How am I doing so far?
BEN: Great, you're doing a great job.
ORBITZ: Thank you for that compliment, Mr. Popken.
BEN: Anytime.

(Photo: Getty)

Ben Popken

Washington told taxpayers a major rationale for us to fork over $700 billion to banks was to save the American economy by making loans more accessible, but it looks like at least at Chase they rather use it to buy other banks, NYT reports.

Times reporter Joe Nocera listened in on a Chase employee-only conference call and one employee asked, "Chase recently received $25 billion in federal funding. What effect will that have on the business side and will it change our strategic lending policy?"

Translation: When are we going to start making loans?The executive moderator replied:
Twenty-five billion dollars is obviously going to help the folks who are struggling more than Chase.. What we do think it will help us do is perhaps be a little bit more active on the acquisition side or opportunistic side for some banks who are still struggling. And I would not assume that we are done on the acquisition side just because of the Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns mergers. I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way and obviously depending on whether recession turns into depression or what happens in the future, you know, we have that as a backstop.

Later, the same executive said,
We would think that loan volume will continue to go down as we continue to tighten credit to fully reflect the high cost of pricing on the loan side.

Translation: We'll use that $25 billion as a war chest to buy other banks, and hoard it in case times get tougher.

"Read that answer as many times as you want," wrote NYT, "You are not going to find a single word in there about making loans to help the American economy."

Furthermore, a new tax break allows banks to immediately deduct any losses they that are on the books of the banks they acquire.

What is the government doing to make banks use the money for loans? Apparently, jack, except for asking really really nicely. If this continues and banks don't use their government handout to open up loans, this bailout will be the single greatest ripoff in American history, and those responsible are naive if they don't think they'll have a giant bloody revolution on their hands—and I mean that in the literal sense.

So When Will Banks Give Loans? [NYT] (Photo: Getty)

Ben Popken

Washington told taxpayers a major rationale for us to fork over $700 billion to banks was to save the American economy by making loans more accessible, but it looks like at least at Chase they rather use it to buy other banks, NYT reports.

Times reporter Joe Nocera listened in on a Chase employee-only conference call and one employee asked, "Chase recently received $25 billion in federal funding. What effect will that have on the business side and will it change our strategic lending policy?"

Translation: When are we going to start making loans?The executive moderator replied:
Twenty-five billion dollars is obviously going to help the folks who are struggling more than Chase.. What we do think it will help us do is perhaps be a little bit more active on the acquisition side or opportunistic side for some banks who are still struggling. And I would not assume that we are done on the acquisition side just because of the Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns mergers. I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way and obviously depending on whether recession turns into depression or what happens in the future, you know, we have that as a backstop.

Later, the same executive said,
We would think that loan volume will continue to go down as we continue to tighten credit to fully reflect the high cost of pricing on the loan side.

Translation: We'll use that $25 billion as a war chest to buy other banks, and hoard it in case times get tougher.

"Read that answer as many times as you want," wrote NYT, "You are not going to find a single word in there about making loans to help the American economy."

Furthermore, a new tax break allows banks to immediately deduct any losses they that are on the books of the banks they acquire.

What is the government doing to make banks use the money for loans? Apparently, jack, except for asking really really nicely. If this continues and banks don't use their government handout to open up loans, this bailout will be the single greatest ripoff in American history, and those responsible are naive if they don't think they'll have a giant bloody revolution on their hands—and I mean that in the literal sense.

So When Will Banks Give Loans? [NYT] (Photo: Getty)

Ben Popken

Washington told taxpayers a major rationale for us to fork over $700 billion to banks was to save the American economy by making loans more accessible, but it looks like at least at Chase they rather use it to buy other banks, NYT reports.

Times reporter Joe Nocera listened in on a Chase employee-only conference call and one employee asked, "Chase recently received $25 billion in federal funding. What effect will that have on the business side and will it change our strategic lending policy?"

Translation: When are we going to start making loans?The executive moderator replied:
Twenty-five billion dollars is obviously going to help the folks who are struggling more than Chase.. What we do think it will help us do is perhaps be a little bit more active on the acquisition side or opportunistic side for some banks who are still struggling. And I would not assume that we are done on the acquisition side just because of the Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns mergers. I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way and obviously depending on whether recession turns into depression or what happens in the future, you know, we have that as a backstop.

Later, the same executive said,
We would think that loan volume will continue to go down as we continue to tighten credit to fully reflect the high cost of pricing on the loan side.

Translation: We'll use that $25 billion as a war chest to buy other banks, and hoard it in case times get tougher.

"Read that answer as many times as you want," wrote NYT, "You are not going to find a single word in there about making loans to help the American economy."

Furthermore, a new tax break allows banks to immediately deduct any losses they that are on the books of the banks they acquire.

What is the government doing to make banks use the money for loans? Apparently, jack, except for asking really really nicely. If this continues and banks don't use their government handout to open up loans, this bailout will be the single greatest ripoff in American history, and those responsible are naive if they don't think they'll have a giant bloody revolution on their hands—and I mean that in the literal sense.

So When Will Banks Give Loans? [NYT] (Photo: Getty)

Ben Popken

There's a bit of a backlash brewing against Nike after the woman with the fastest time in the Nike Women's Marathon wasn't declared "the winner" because she wasn't among the elite group of marathon runners who start separately from the rest of the pack.

Arien O'Connell, a fifth-grade teacher from New York City, had the best time in last Sunday's marathon, in fact, she beat the next best time by 11 minutes. So why isn't she the winner?

From SFGate:

In the statement, Nike officials said that "because of their earlier start time, the runners in the elite group had no knowledge of the outstanding race Arien was running and could not adjust their strategies accordingly."

Weary of the backlash growing against them, Nike declared Ms. O'Conell "a winner." Not "the winner." This appears to have made things worse.

It turns out that there was really no need for an elite group of runners, because no one was running an "elite" time.

...the Nike marathon in San Francisco doesn't have anyone running a world-class time - which would be something around 2 hours and 20 minutes - for the 26.2-mile course. Only O'Connell broke 3 hours - and she'd never done it before.

"I think that's what it comes down to," O'Connell said. "There is not a real definition of what it means to be in an elite field."

That's where the Nike event got in trouble. If it had recognized that there was no need for an elite pack, and everyone had lined up and run, the fastest time would have been the winner. No argument.

In fact, that was the other part of Nike's announcement Wednesday.
"Learning from the unique experience in this year's race," it said. "Nike has decided today to eliminate the elite group from future Nike Women's Marathons. Next year, all runners will run in the same group, and all will be able to win."

Marathoner 'a' winner; Nike looks like a loser [SFGate] (Thanks, Guy!)

Meg Marco

A base was stolen last night in Game 1 of the World Series (yes, it seems that they do still bother to televise baseball after the Red Sox are eliminated,) meaning that everyone in America is eligible to receive a free taco. You have the Tampa Bay Rays and shortstop Jason Bartlett to thank this year. Be sure to send him a note.

Much to our delight, the Curiously Australian President of Taco Bell, Greg Creed, was on hand to make the announcement. We love Greg Creed. He's so... curiously Australian.

To get your free beef crunch taco, go to any participating Taco Bell from 2pm to 6pm on October 28th. Oh, and if you were wondering (as we were) if the base had to be officially stolen in order to qualify for tacos — it did. There were to be no free tacos awarded for defensive indifference.

Steal A Base, Steal A Taco
(AP Photo/Charles Krupa)

Meg Marco