06/24/2008

In Honor of Today, a Travel Day, I Bring You Robert Crandall

Robert Crandall is the former CEO of American Airlines, and in a recent speech to the Airline Pilots Association he put forward a plan to "save" the American airline industry. His plan seems to be limiting competition by making it harder for new players to enter the marketplace, regulating airfares so that low-cost players like Southwest have to raise their rates to equal those of the major carriers, and limiting collective bargaining.

It's an interesting set of proposals that is offensive to my capitalistic soul, but in any case it's worth remembering three things: Crandall has a long history of reversing deeply held positions when they prove untenable, was accused of price fixing in 1982, and is absolutely right when he says the airline industry as it exists today is unsustainable.

Read the thing, and when I'm back in touch with the Internet this evening, we'll discuss.

06/19/2008

All In All, There Are Worse Places For a Dead Guy To End Up

ChePantsA capitalist entrepreneur has adorned teeny panties with pop art imagery of unsuccessful revolutionary Che Guevara. Guevara's daughter, who I'm guessing wears sensible undergarments symbolizing her dedication to socialism, complains that the hottie-wear is disrespectful.

Go here to purchase more respectful Che Guevara t-shirts, caps, berets, keychains, cigarette lighters, sweatbands, belt buckles and -- perhaps ironically -- wallets.

06/11/2008

In Which We Explore the Possibility That Some Businesses Fail for a Reason

I don't know how I missed this, but a couple of weeks ago struggling American auto manufacturer General Motors announced that it was exploring the possibility of selling its "Hummer" brand.

Had they done so three years ago, they' would have realized billions of dollars in profits. Now, with gas prices headed up up up, the powerful symbol of "fuck you" consumption will sell, if at all, for nearly nothing. The reason for that is obvious:

Oil at $130 a barrel, the messy conflict in Iraq, the crash in housing prices and a sluggish economy have taken the sizzle out of Hummer's sales. It takes 99 days for a dealer to sell one, more than twice as long as five years ago. And if sales continue at their current rate, only 8,000 H2s will sell this year, less than a quarter of the 34,529 sold in the U.S. in 2003.

Pardon me a moment, but anyone paying even a little attention could see that gas prices, long-term, were going to go up. They've been going up, in fits and starts, for years, and the amazing thing is how long behemoths like Hummer were able to hold on. Any company with an ounce of awareness would have unloaded the brand years ago.


06/04/2008

New Corporate Euphemism

"Making a change in the org chart," which means someone's getting fired.

05/29/2008

Which Gives Me An Opportunity To Assert My Ownership of the Word "Disappointing"

Victoria's Secret, women's underpants purveyor to mallgoers across America, claims ownership of the word "sexy." The federal Trademark and Appeal Board disagreed, but lawyers bill by the hour so Vicky's crack legal staff decided "what the hell" and filed a lawsuit against Sexy Hair Concepts of Chatsworth, California.

There is nothing at all sexy, by the way, about Chatsworth, California.

In related news, Victoria's Secret won a lawsuit against a Louisville, Kentucky, seller of lingerie and sex toys. The Victor's Secret store will have to change it's name, probably to "Victor's of Hollywood."

04/29/2008

Meet the Enablers

It's an age-old question: does taking action to mitigate a problem cause more of that problem? Conservative doctrine would say yes, that you don't offer a cure for a deadly sexually transmitted disease because it will cause people to have more sex, just for example, or that you allow the poor the dignity of starvation so that they'll be inspired to forage on their own.

What we're talking about here is more dire, however, than simple, awful death by disease or starvation: the problem of the American affinity for icky clothing at shopping malls. The question is, do you solve the whole problem by somehow convincing the nylon-and-stretch-fabric-clad masses that they could improve their lot in life simply by ordering everything a size bigger or maybe not wearing their jammies out in public, or do you do something to make whatever it is they're wearing less appalling without actually requiring that they stop wearing it?

On this issue I have historically taken a conservative stand. That is, I'm an optimist about human nature and believe that big change is possible. I've assumed that inappropriate attire and unintentionally-bared midriffs and butt cracks are unconscious mistakes, artifacts of the difference between standing still in front of a mirror and wearing clothing while in motion, however lumbering that motion might me. I've believed that with social opprobrium pushing on one end and fine role models like myself pulling from the other, we can move the lethargic masses into a more enlightened way of life.

But there's a company that makes the case that the clothing choices of the typical food court denizen are deliberate and worthy of respect in the same way that some liberals think that Ebonics is a language that should be taught in schools. It's a company that proudly proclaims that it provides "apparel solutions" and uses the phrase "crotch area" on its website more often than I, personally, am comfortable with.

The company is Product Masters, and the product they're mastering is called "NoRiders." NoRiders are stiff cloth pads that can be ironed-on into the insides of the the thighs of problem shorts to keep them from "riding-up," which will also eliminate the most horrible of public displays, "tweezing." If you're brave, you can watch the demonstration video here.

NoRiders, like most inventions good or bad, is the product of a single visionary -- in this case, Catherine "Cas" Chetelat, a mother of eight from Baltimore. Here's some background from a press release:

It all began when Cas became fed up with the annoyance and embarrassment she experienced as her favorite shorts kept riding up her inner thighs, and she decided to do something about it.

The thing that most people would do about that particular problem would be to wear different shorts. But Cas isn't most people, and she started instead to sew various patches and stays into her "favorite" shorts to try to keep them in order. Eventually, she hit on a solution, and her enterprising son took it to market and the rest, as they say, is history. 

According to Product Masters, there are 150 million Americans -- fully half the population -- who experience the horror of shorts that scrunch upward in defiance of gravity, confronting their wearers with a terrible dilemma: to tweeze or not to tweeze. (This number sounds about right to me, by the way, based on unintentional research at malls around the country.) That's their target market.

Still, we're left with a basic, moral conundrum: do we enable the wearing of terrible shorts by solving only one of the many problems associated with those shorts? Or do we leave the symptoms of the problem to fester in hopes that mall walkers will be motivated to depart their swishing nylon clothing in favor of something more civilized? Or, perhaps, do we go so far as to make the horrible clothing worse (perhaps requiring that it be made out of highly flammable material so that it will burst into flames after repeated thigh-to-thigh contact) to speed the process of change?

As I've said before, ordinarily I would come down on the side of letting things be and hoping that the market will provide the pressure to inspire change. I can shop somewhere else. But last week I wandered unthinkingly into a mall and saw something so horrible that I think maybe I'm going to get on the NoRiders bandwagon. There was this woman...no. No, I can't talk about it yet. It was too...too...well, you're going to have to take my word for it. 

04/28/2008

Chew On This

The enigmatic, privately-held Mars company and the obvious, publicly held Berkshire Hathaway are on the verge of paying $22 billion for Wrigley, a company that makes food not intended to be swallowed. This makes no sense to me.

04/22/2008

Well, If Dick Cheney Doesn't Count, Then I'm Going To Go With Chicken Etouffe On Ivory Silk Lingerie

Laundry detergent Tide has launched a search for America's Favorite Stain.

04/01/2008

High Oil Prices

One more time: Oil exists in a world market. Demand is rising almost everywhere. Production is not rising. Prices are going to go up in accord with the law of supply and demand

Oil companies have hundreds-of-thousands of wells around the world pumping oil. When the price of oil rises, those wells produce the same amount of oil at the same cost, but that oil is worth more. Revenue from that oil goes up; costs stay the same; profits skyrocket. This is not the result of a grand conspiracy or criminal swindle. It is a matter of basic math. This same math means that vile, oil-dependent regimes around the world are growing richer and richer, and more of that money will be used to damage the United States.

Drilling a couple of hundred more wells in Alaska will not appreciably impact the quantity of oil produced in the world, and thus will not appreciably decrease the price of gasoline. Lowering gasoline taxes will make it necessary to pay for roads out of general tax revenues, so no money will be saved. At the same time, lowering taxes will -- perhaps paradoxically -- enable OPEC to charge more for oil without paying a price in the marketplace. Market equilibrium will be reached approximately where it is now, except that the bad guys will be making more money and our government less.

Politicians holding hearings on high oil prices are charlatans. Going on strike against high petroleum processes is as sensible as protesting against gravity.

The only way to cut the cost of gasoline is to use less of it. Conservation is not, as Vice President Cheney once said, a sign of personal virtue. It is, in fact, the only viable method for decreasing the amount of our money that goes to people we don't like very much, some of whom are trying to kill us. It has the added benefit of improving the environment.

That we did not embark on a national conservation program on September 12, 2001, is the greatest of a long list of failures for the Bush Administration. If we had, we would not be in the mess we are now.

That we, as individuals, spend energy bitching about the price of oil and even accept going to war to continue indulging what is obviously a bad, self-indulgent habit says much about our society, none of it good.

02/05/2008

I Would Never Have Imagined

Yesterday's brief post on chewing ice leads to this: an article from the Wall Street Journal about businesses competing to create the most chewable ice.