Pros: Great pickup, automatic headlamps and auto climate. The car has a nice roadfeel. For basic seating it was still relatively comfortable. Compass on the dash with the temperature, not something I expect in a basic car.
Cons: Rear visibility sucks. The seats are so high and the headrests are fixed so you can't do anything about it. At slow speeds like the parking lot, the steering is cumbersome. It feels like there's no power steering at all. When I shut off the car at night, the headlamps look like they project the Chrysler wing logo. Maybe that's not a con, but it's gimicky and it's blatant product placement, to which I'm opposed. I don't like how all the doors unlock at once when you open the car, but that's probably a setting somewhere. The trunklid is heavy to open, like the little air pistons are fighting you instead of assisting. Plus, the liftover is quite high. Not a candidate for long-term driving, for sure.
It's not one of the cubish little cars my boss gets from time to time, so that's a plus. I don't know that I could take myself seriously in a Kia Soul or one of those little Nissans. But it's also not the new 200, a beautiful departure from the 2011 model I had.
Overall, I could be nitpicking because it's not as cool as the 300. I still think the car is quite drivable and not bad looking in its own right. Once I figured out the climate control, it was a polar excursion for me, a nicety in hot, humid weather. I give it a tentative B-.































Meanwhile, our systems have been experiencing outages all day, so clients can’t access our system. And their clients can’t access our system. 
When I came back from lunch, my desk fan wouldn’t turn. After a few minutes disassembling, turning, flipping switches and banging it on my desk, it’s finally running again.
And I just read that my favorite magazine, Gourmet, is stopping publication after 68 years.
Can I get a do-over on my week? Because this one just isn’t working for me. 


(Anything, ladies?)
The same holds true of tacos. Burritos, yes, if they aren't the modern large-as-your-head burritos, but instead come from that tintinabular pseudo-Mexican place that we all know and love. Last year I nearly choked to death on an Egg McMuffin. I've been known more than once to attempt an ice cream cone during a hot summer month. 
But really, people will eat nearly anything in their cars. Same as we'll answer the phone, fumble for maps, scratch an itch in a 'personal area', apply makeup, read the paper (or a novel) or carry on face-to-face conversations with people in the back seat.
Remember. We don't judge here. Openly mock, perhaps, but we don't judge. What's the worst car-unfriendly food you've attempted to eat on the run? What's your secret driving faux pas?




I love Bond films, and I am biased toward Sean Connery. Especially when compared to the wacky, '70's episodes with Roger Moore and wacky music and bad stop-motion photography. Which begs the question. Obviously James Bond in a finely tailored suit is NOT the same as James Bond with his tweed safari jacket and Sansabelt bell-bottomed trousers. Why then did '70's babes like Britt Ekland, Jayne Seymour, Maud Adams and Lois Chiles simply fall into bed with him? If we're going to do a parody of Bond in the NOW era, wouldn't it be far more empowering for them to reject him cold? To simply chuckle in his face when he tries to be suave in his bell-bottomed Sansabelt slacks? To scream 'Rape' when he grabs their arms tightly and throws them down on the bed?




Look at that! No discernable theme, not even any segues. The road to enlightenment blurs before you. Sorry about that. I'll try harder next time.