Just saw 'Thank You for Smoking' yesterday. I was intrigued by the title and the fact that Rotten Tomatoes had given it an 87% fresh rating, made it at least for me, a 'must see'. Centered around a lobbyist who works for big tobacco (Aaron Eckhart) and has flexible moral convictions, the film explores the morality of big tobacco companies selling cigarettes while still being aware of the obvious health risks of smoking.
The film explores the moral ambiguities of the climate of lawsuits against big tobacco companies by long-time smokers who hope to receive a large settlement from the defendant, or if the case goes to court, a juicy award by a sympathetic jury. The film asks whether the individual who chose to smoke while being fully aware of the health risks should have some ownership of the problem.
In a particularly funny scene, one of the hero's drinking buddies asks him "When a plane crashes due to pilot error, do you sue the Boeing Company?" Ironically, someone actually tried to sue the airline and Boeing for a crash that occured due to pilot error, claiming that the airline did not provide adequate training to its pilots, and that Boeing made its planes complicated to operate, causing the pilot to make the error resulting in the crash.
Tobacco companies dearly want to keep selling cigarettes to an ever expanding market, but the inconvenient fact is that the more their customers use their products, the less likely they are to be around in the long term. Big tobacco attracts more revulsion and public derision than any other category of company. But they quietly go about their business, making smoking appear cool and selling cancer sticks to poor pathetic losers.
The tobacco industry is probably the only one which spends billions of dollars in campaigns ostensibly intended to keep people from using their products. But their revenues keep increasing.
Altria, the holding company that was previously known as Philip Morris owns the Marlboro and Virginia Slims brands amongst others, is a $97 Billion corporation whose revenues grew 9% from 2004 to 2005. From all accounts 2006 looks like it will be a banner year as well.
But revile them as you will, the libertarian in me believes that for as long as there are people in this day and age stupid enough to believe that they look cool when they smoke or that they will lose weight if they smoke, the tobacco companies deserve to sell them cigarettes and despatch them to an early grave.
Think about this: Wouldn't we be doing a lot of good to clean up the gene pool of the world if the idiots who are dumb enough to smoke, wiped themselves off the map? And paid handsomely for the privilege too?
There is sweet irony in that. Thank you for smoking, indeed. Here, light up another.
Smoking
Cigarettes
Thank you for smoking
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Friday, October 20, 2006
On having nothing to say
For the first time in a long time, I find myself with nothing to say. I am not suggesting that there is nothing blogworthy going on. All I am saying is that I cannot think of anything remotely interesting to say about anything.
Lest you start wondering whether my listlessness portends deep depression, let me assure you that I am not listless in the least. If you're thinking that I don't have anything to say because I am so jaded and cynical that nothing surprises me any more, I can assure you that's not true.
I can manage a fair bit of outrage at the antics of the Republican Congressman Mark Foley with young male Congressional pages. In fact I can even manage some surprise, when there should be none, that a Catholic priest has acknowledged that he cavorted in the nude with a young Mark Foley in 1967, when the latter was a choir boy. Wouldn't surprise at the news of a Catholic priest having abused a young boy, be akin to expressing surprise that bears occasionaly use the woods as a bathroom? But despite feeling this surprise, I cannot find anything interesting to say about it.
I am baffled by the latest wave of political correctness to have overtaken Britain, where common sense has been overtaken by a craven desire to appear unbiased. British Airways ground staff are allowed to wear turbans, veils and headscarves, but a Christian employee was sent home for wearing small crucifix around her neck. Even the British Home Office has got in on the act, allowing Muslim women to wear head-scarves in passport photographs. You could even say I am dismayed by this obvious and blatant double standard. But I can't find anything remotely interesting to say about it.
If all these happenings cause such surprise, anger and outrage, why then am I not able to find anything pithy and memorable to say about it? Not for me apparently, the well-turned phrase that lampoons the creators of these situations. Just a general air of incomprehension and befuddlement.
The world seems to be providing us all with such surreal opportunities to witness a system of order gone so completely awry, that I am left quite speechless.
I am just going to lie down until the feeling passes. Perhaps then I'll have something to say.
Mark Foley
Headscarves
Islam
Lest you start wondering whether my listlessness portends deep depression, let me assure you that I am not listless in the least. If you're thinking that I don't have anything to say because I am so jaded and cynical that nothing surprises me any more, I can assure you that's not true.
I can manage a fair bit of outrage at the antics of the Republican Congressman Mark Foley with young male Congressional pages. In fact I can even manage some surprise, when there should be none, that a Catholic priest has acknowledged that he cavorted in the nude with a young Mark Foley in 1967, when the latter was a choir boy. Wouldn't surprise at the news of a Catholic priest having abused a young boy, be akin to expressing surprise that bears occasionaly use the woods as a bathroom? But despite feeling this surprise, I cannot find anything interesting to say about it.
I am baffled by the latest wave of political correctness to have overtaken Britain, where common sense has been overtaken by a craven desire to appear unbiased. British Airways ground staff are allowed to wear turbans, veils and headscarves, but a Christian employee was sent home for wearing small crucifix around her neck. Even the British Home Office has got in on the act, allowing Muslim women to wear head-scarves in passport photographs. You could even say I am dismayed by this obvious and blatant double standard. But I can't find anything remotely interesting to say about it.
If all these happenings cause such surprise, anger and outrage, why then am I not able to find anything pithy and memorable to say about it? Not for me apparently, the well-turned phrase that lampoons the creators of these situations. Just a general air of incomprehension and befuddlement.
The world seems to be providing us all with such surreal opportunities to witness a system of order gone so completely awry, that I am left quite speechless.
I am just going to lie down until the feeling passes. Perhaps then I'll have something to say.
Mark Foley
Headscarves
Islam
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Top 10 things about writing a blog no one reads
10. You can't get your mother to read your blog. (It doesn't help that she doesn't have a computer)
9. You can say whatever you want without offending your readership.
8. You get your friends and family to blog, so that they can link to you.
7. Technorati says there are precisely 0 blogs linking to your blog.
6. You send emails to your friends and family saying 'Check out my blog'.
5. Sitemeter was not built for you.
4. You get 0 Diggs on Digg.com
3. Even though Google owns Blogger, they don't know your blog exists.
2. You're a link whore.
1. No one tags you.
Sitemeter
Digg
Technorati
Blogger
Google
9. You can say whatever you want without offending your readership.
8. You get your friends and family to blog, so that they can link to you.
7. Technorati says there are precisely 0 blogs linking to your blog.
6. You send emails to your friends and family saying 'Check out my blog'.
5. Sitemeter was not built for you.
4. You get 0 Diggs on Digg.com
3. Even though Google owns Blogger, they don't know your blog exists.
2. You're a link whore.
1. No one tags you.
Sitemeter
Digg
Technorati
Blogger
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Plane Wars
The New York Times reports that delivery of the Airbus A380 is going to be delayed by a further year. This is after an announcement some months ago that the largest commercial airliner ever built, was going to be delayed by as much as a year. This puts the A380 a full 2 years behind schedule and the first few airlines who ordered these $300Million monsters are feeling a bit peeved to say the least.
When Airbus first announced the 380, there was much crowing in Toulouse, the headquarters of EADS, the parent company of Airbus, that they had surpassed Boeing as the pre-eminent manufacturer of large commercial aircraft in the world. They outsold Boeing and shipped more planes than Boeing in 2005 and now had shown off the A380, a plane larger than Boeing's 747, at the Farnborough Air Show in the UK. They were the Masters of the Universe!! A combination of spectacular Gallic Engineering and European Unity (parts for the Airbus are manufactured in 6 European countries) had succeeded in showing the lazy Americans the door.
Boeing meanwhile was reeling from internal scandals ranging from the then-CEO writing x-rated emails to his head of Human Resources, to promising a Director level job to the head of procurement at the Defense Department. Undoubtedly Boeing, having gone through the acquisition and digestion of McDonnell-Douglas, the only other manufacturer of large commercial aircraft in the US, had become complacent and overconfident.
However, Boeing's retort when Airbus announced the A380 was that the world of airline travel had changed. People didn't want to travel to big hubs in major cities from smaller cities so that they could then get on enormous planes the size of small planets and travel to another large city. Boeing's bet was that people would prefer longer range planes that were smaller, making it possible for them to fly directly between city-pairs.
If you think that's sophistry, consider this: If you live in the Greater Denver area as I do, the only direct non-stop international flights out of here (other than to Canada and Mexico) are to London (British Airways) and Frankfurt (Lufthansa). For all other international flights you have to fly to a hub like Chicago, Newark, Washington Dulles, Atlanta, San Francisco or LA and then get on another plane. Would I like to fly non-stop from Denver to Honolulu or Amsterdam? Absolutely! Is there enough traffic to justify direct flights? Again, absolutely!
Enter the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner. It's designed to do exactly that - to connect city-pairs in a cost effective way so that airlines can make money in their capital intensive, fossil-fuel dependant, terrorism-prone business, by offering passengers more choices. And it uses existing airport facilities, and doesn't require the building of massive new terminals like the A380 does.
While Boeing's bet on the 787's city-pair concept seems to be paying off - Boeing has 315 firm orders for the 787 as Aug 20th -the A380 has only 168 firm orders , and that's the most optimistic estimate. According to EADS, Airbus needs another 150 orders to just break even on the program.
But there are those airlines that absolutely need the ability to move approximately 500 people a pop, on a massive globe-girdling aircraft, without worrying about city-pairs. That's because they don't have two cities in their countries. Singapore Airlines and Emirates Airline, both big customers of the A380 come to mind. Qantas, another 380 customer has 2 cities - just about. Let's face it: other than Sydney and Melbourne there are no cities in Australia that have the terminal capability or the traffic to justify a monster the size of the 380.
And for these airlines, Boeing has the new 747-8. A new take on an established theme, the reconstituted 747 with a new wing profile and the next generation of GE and Rolls-Royce engines, is quieter, more fuel efficient and vastly cheaper than the 380 and costs 6% less per seat-mile to operate than the 380, while carrying only 46 fewer passengers. And it will operate out of more than 200 airports in the world that can accommodate the 747 today vs. only 22 airports in the world today that can accommodate the 380. As of the end of September Boeing had 41 firm orders for the 747-8.
With the recently announced delays in the delivery of the A380, Emirates and Singapore Airlines are looking at switching at least part of their A380 orders to the 747-8. So expect the 380 number to go down and the 747-8 numbers to go up, to say nothing of the 787 Dreamliner.
So who's crowing now?
Boeing
Airbus
A380
747-8
When Airbus first announced the 380, there was much crowing in Toulouse, the headquarters of EADS, the parent company of Airbus, that they had surpassed Boeing as the pre-eminent manufacturer of large commercial aircraft in the world. They outsold Boeing and shipped more planes than Boeing in 2005 and now had shown off the A380, a plane larger than Boeing's 747, at the Farnborough Air Show in the UK. They were the Masters of the Universe!! A combination of spectacular Gallic Engineering and European Unity (parts for the Airbus are manufactured in 6 European countries) had succeeded in showing the lazy Americans the door.
Boeing meanwhile was reeling from internal scandals ranging from the then-CEO writing x-rated emails to his head of Human Resources, to promising a Director level job to the head of procurement at the Defense Department. Undoubtedly Boeing, having gone through the acquisition and digestion of McDonnell-Douglas, the only other manufacturer of large commercial aircraft in the US, had become complacent and overconfident.
However, Boeing's retort when Airbus announced the A380 was that the world of airline travel had changed. People didn't want to travel to big hubs in major cities from smaller cities so that they could then get on enormous planes the size of small planets and travel to another large city. Boeing's bet was that people would prefer longer range planes that were smaller, making it possible for them to fly directly between city-pairs.
If you think that's sophistry, consider this: If you live in the Greater Denver area as I do, the only direct non-stop international flights out of here (other than to Canada and Mexico) are to London (British Airways) and Frankfurt (Lufthansa). For all other international flights you have to fly to a hub like Chicago, Newark, Washington Dulles, Atlanta, San Francisco or LA and then get on another plane. Would I like to fly non-stop from Denver to Honolulu or Amsterdam? Absolutely! Is there enough traffic to justify direct flights? Again, absolutely!
Enter the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner. It's designed to do exactly that - to connect city-pairs in a cost effective way so that airlines can make money in their capital intensive, fossil-fuel dependant, terrorism-prone business, by offering passengers more choices. And it uses existing airport facilities, and doesn't require the building of massive new terminals like the A380 does.
While Boeing's bet on the 787's city-pair concept seems to be paying off - Boeing has 315 firm orders for the 787 as Aug 20th -the A380 has only 168 firm orders , and that's the most optimistic estimate. According to EADS, Airbus needs another 150 orders to just break even on the program.
But there are those airlines that absolutely need the ability to move approximately 500 people a pop, on a massive globe-girdling aircraft, without worrying about city-pairs. That's because they don't have two cities in their countries. Singapore Airlines and Emirates Airline, both big customers of the A380 come to mind. Qantas, another 380 customer has 2 cities - just about. Let's face it: other than Sydney and Melbourne there are no cities in Australia that have the terminal capability or the traffic to justify a monster the size of the 380.
And for these airlines, Boeing has the new 747-8. A new take on an established theme, the reconstituted 747 with a new wing profile and the next generation of GE and Rolls-Royce engines, is quieter, more fuel efficient and vastly cheaper than the 380 and costs 6% less per seat-mile to operate than the 380, while carrying only 46 fewer passengers. And it will operate out of more than 200 airports in the world that can accommodate the 747 today vs. only 22 airports in the world today that can accommodate the 380. As of the end of September Boeing had 41 firm orders for the 747-8.
With the recently announced delays in the delivery of the A380, Emirates and Singapore Airlines are looking at switching at least part of their A380 orders to the 747-8. So expect the 380 number to go down and the 747-8 numbers to go up, to say nothing of the 787 Dreamliner.
So who's crowing now?
Boeing
Airbus
A380
747-8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)