Thank you for smoking

[royalfan5]

I'm going to see this movie tonight. I have heard good things and the premise looks very interesting. Has anyone else seen it yet, or is going to see it?

[mdklatt]

I'll definitely be looking for that one to show up on Encore in 18 months.

[GDC]

Lucky Number Slevin for me.

[royalfan5]

Lucky Number Slevin for me.
I want to see that one too.

[Jimminy Crimson]

It is on my 'to see' list. Maybe Sunday or sumphin.

Let us know how it was.

[OKC-SLC]

I'm going to see this movie tonight. I have heard good things and the premise looks very interesting. Has anyone else seen it yet, or is going to see it?
my brother in law saw it when here for Sundance. He was really looking forward to it and was a bit disappointed--good movie, just not what he thought it would be (whatever that was).

[XingTheRubicon]

The book was pretty good. Any time a woman puts 100 nicotine patches on a dude in his sleep, right after sexing him is OK in my book.

[royalfan5]

The book was pretty good. Any time a woman puts 100 nicotine patches on a dude in his sleep, right after sexing him is OK in my book.
I thought the movie was pretty good, however they pretty much gutted the plot device described above.

[TopDawg]

I just watched the movie myself. I liked it. Not great, but interesting.

Norm, there's a part of the movie where one of the guys eats apple pie with cheddar cheese melted on top. I still haven't tried that yet.

[OUAndy1807]

it was pretty good.

[StoopTroup]

Slevin and Smoking were both worth watching IMO..

[Okla-homey]

It was just a'right. My wife couldn't hang but I watched the whole thing.

For me, it invokes notions espoused by the late Milton Friedman, without specifically citing him, that a corporation's most important mission is to make money for its shareholders and the social consequences bedamned as long as no laws are broken.

Friedman believed that if an industry (like Big Tobaccky or Wal-marts) is not breaking any laws, it shouldn't bother itself with concerns about negative social impact, etc. That sort of thing should be the exclusive province of the legislature, and if those folks haven't acted to ban your product or your methods, you are morally, and indeed ethically bound to sell as much of whatever you produce as possible.

As an aside, Friedman also believed charitable contributions by corporations are absurd because it means giving away money that legitimately belongs to the shareholders. In short, ol' Milton was the Jewish equivalent of Scrooge before the spirits came to visit on Christmas Eve.;)

[royalfan5]

It was just a'right. My wife couldn't hang but I watched the whole thing.

For me, it invokes notions espoused by the late Milton Friedman, without specifically citing him, that a corporation's most important mission is to make money for its shareholders and the social consequences bedmned as long as no laws are broken.

Friedman believed that if an industry (like Big Tobaccky or Wal-marts) is not breaking any laws, it shouldn't bother itself with concerns about negative social impact, etc. That sort of thing should be the exclusive province of the legislature, and if those folks haven't haven't acted to ban your product or your methods, you are morally, and indeed ethically bound to sell as much of whatever you produce as possible.

As an aside, Friedman also believed charitable contributions by corporations are absurd because it means giving away money that legitimately belongs to the shareholders.
I enjoyed the book alot more than the movie. It was written by William F. Buckely's son, and ties things together a lot better, and Naylor is less of a hero, and all the other characters are a lot more slimey.

[OK2LA]

Thread jack:

I saw Pan's Labyrinth last night, and it was pretty freaky. Subtitles, so for those of you who don't like to read when you go to the movies - maybe you should stay at home, but it was very well done - excellent special e/affects, and not your typical "Hollywood" movie - looks like it was done in Spain. Anyway - if you're looking for something completely different - give it a try - if you can find it - apparently it's only playing at a select # of theatres.

[Rhino]

We're watching it sometime tonight or tomorrow.

[Rogue]

Apple pie and cheddar cheese = GREATNESS! Really.

[TopDawg]

For me, it invokes notions espoused by the late Milton Friedman, without specifically citing him, that a corporation's most important mission is to make money for its shareholders and the social consequences bedamned as long as no laws are broken.

Yeah, definitely.

Of course, you could also argue that the corporations owe it to their shareholders to make their society as healthy as it can be.

And, in my opinion, cheddar cheese on apple pie is bad for society.

[royalfan5]

Yeah, definitely.

Of course, you could also argue that the corporations owe it to their shareholders to make their society as healthy as it can be.

And, in my opinion, cheddar cheese on apple pie is bad for society.
or you could argue that society owes it to itself to learn how to handle their own ****, instead of expecting others to handle it for them.

[Okla-homey]

Yeah, definitely.

Of course, you could also argue that the corporations owe it to their shareholders to make their society as healthy as it can be.



Where exactly is "helped make society better" entered on the corporate financial reports? I'm kinda fuzzy on that.;)

[TopDawg]

I'm not saying that's what I believe, I'm just saying there's something there.

The underlying reason for turning out maximum profit margins for your stockholders is to make their life better by giving them more money. Well, maybe there is more room for improvement in their life if they get a few less bucks but the society they live in is healthy.

And, royalfan, the corporations ARE part of society and their contributions to charities which are also part of society would seem to be society handling its **** on its own.

Friedman's assertion is flawed, in my opinion, because the stockholder owes it to him or herself to find out if the corporation he or she is investing in is interested solely in maximum profit margins or also in helping society. It's not absurd for a corporation to donate money to charities if there are some stockholders who are drawn to those corporations.

[royalfan5]

I'm not saying that's what I believe, I'm just saying there's something there.

The underlying reason for turning out maximum profit margins for your stockholders is to make their life better by giving them more money. Well, maybe there is more room for improvement in their life if they get a few less bucks but the society they live in is healthy.

And, royalfan, the corporations ARE part of society and their contributions to charities which are also part of society would seem to be society handling its **** on its own.

Friedman's assertion is flawed, in my opinion, because the stockholder owes it to him or herself to find out if the corporation he or she is investing in is interested solely in maximum profit margins or also in helping society. It's not absurd for a corporation to donate money to charities if there are some stockholders who are drawn to those corporations.
depends on how define society. Why shouldn't the indivdual shareholder get to decide whether he or she wants to give to charity with the profits, instead of having someone else for them? What if the shareholder disagrees with the charitable organizations cause? Is it ethical to force someone to contribute to something they find morally repugnant?

[Frozen Sooner]

I'm not saying that's what I believe, I'm just saying there's something there.

The underlying reason for turning out maximum profit margins for your stockholders is to make their life better by giving them more money. Well, maybe there is more room for improvement in their life if they get a few less bucks but the society they live in is healthy.

And, royalfan, the corporations ARE part of society and their contributions to charities which are also part of society would seem to be society handling its **** on its own.

Friedman's assertion is flawed, in my opinion, because the stockholder owes it to him or herself to find out if the corporation he or she is investing in is interested solely in maximum profit margins or also in helping society. It's not absurd for a corporation to donate money to charities if there are some stockholders who are drawn to those corporations.


This is the role of the government in regulation of externalities. I agree with Friedman's assertion.

[TopDawg]

depends on how define society. Why shouldn't the indivdual shareholder get to decide whether he or she wants to give to charity with the profits, instead of having someone else for them? What if the shareholder disagrees with the charitable organizations cause? Is it ethical to force someone to contribute to something they find morally repugnant?

But the shareholder gets to decide whether he or she wants to invest in a corporation that gives to charities or one that doesn't. Just like they get to decide if want to invest in a corporation that's tied to tobacco or alcohol or anything else they may feel is bad. None of the shareholders are being forced to hold shares in these corporations. If they find their corporations actions to be endorsing the morally repugnant, they can sell their shares and find a different corporation to invest in.

And Froze, I can totally understand Friedman's stance on the other stuff, but there is another side that has a reasonable argument. If the corporation, at the cost of $2 per shareholder, can do more than $2 per shareholder's worth of good to the society, well then maybe that's better for the shareholder than returning the maximum profit possible. If the idea is that all corporations should strive to do what's best for the shareholders, well there are a lot of ways to decide what that is. It sounds like Friedman sees dollars as the only way a corporation can give back to its shareholders. I'm not saying I agree or disagree. Friedman's got a point, but so does the other side.

But the point is...I don't trust anybody who melts cheddar cheese on their apple pie.

[Rhino]

Good flick.

[TopDawg]

Tonight the wife got Friends With Money or something like that. I missed most of it. Is it worth going back and watching?

[SicEmBaylor]

Is this a big anti-smoking thing?

[TopDawg]

The part of Thank You For Smoking that I enjoyed the most was when he explained South Oval debating.

[royalfan5]

Is this a big anti-smoking thing?
The Book was written by Bill Buckley's son. Do you think it would really be anti-smoking?

[TopDawg]

Is this a big anti-smoking thing?

It sounds like the book might be...but the movie isn't. It's really just a look at the life of a tobacco lobbyist. From what I can tell from this thread, the movie glorifies it a bit more than the book, but very little of the movie is dedicated to going one way or another on the smoking issues.

[SicEmBaylor]

The Book was written by Bill Buckley's son. Do you think it would really be anti-smoking?

Every family has misfit.

[royalfan5]

It sounds like the book might be...but the movie isn't. It's really just a look at the life of a tobacco lobbyist. From what I can tell from this thread, the movie glorifies it a bit more than the book, but very little of the movie is dedicated to going one way or another on the smoking issues.
The Movie is sickle and hammer commie compared to the book. The book is extremely libertarian.

[TopDawg]

heh

I was surprised at the cast. Quite a few big names.

[SicEmBaylor]

Every time I see one of those holier than thou anti-smoking commercials I want to run out onto the street where one of those pin head artsy POS kids are conducting some stunt and personally strangle him with my bare hands ensuring that he won't have to worry about dying from smoke.

[TopDawg]

But halfway out to the street you run out of breath, right? ;)

[royalfan5]

Every time I see one of those holier than thou anti-smoking commercials I want to run out onto the street where one of those pin head artsy POS kids are conducting some stunt and personally strangle him with my bare hands ensuring that he won't have to worry about dying from smoke.
Since the tobacco companies have to pay for them, I think the point is make you want to smoke to spite the commerical.

[SicEmBaylor]

But halfway out to the street you run out of breath, right? ;)

I don't smoke. Well...except for cigars and pipes. I've never smoked a cigarette, but even if I never smoked a thing in my life I'd have the same opinion.

I don't own a gun and can count on one hand the number of times I've shot one, but I firmly believe people ought to own a bazooka if it suited them.

[TopDawg]

I don't smoke. Well...except for cigars and pipes. I've never smoked a cigarette, but even if I never smoked a thing in my life I'd have the same opinion.

I don't own a gun and can count on one hand the number of times I've shot one, but I firmly believe people ought to own a bazooka if it suited them.

Ahhh, I see. My opinion of those commericals is basically, eh...whatever. They're better than local car dealership commercials.

[SicEmBaylor]

Ahhh, I see. My opinion of those commericals is basically, eh...whatever. They're better than local car dealership commercials.

Why do you hate Danny Beck?