Remembering the Remarkable Sheb Wooley

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

My favorite ubiquitous unknown character actor of all time is probably amazing Whit Bissell, this guy….

…who appeared in many classic films and tons of TV series despite having the dramatic range of a mannequin. But Sheb Wooley is the focus of this “Duty to Remember” post. I love performers who excel in multiple realms, and while Sheb isn’t quite in Hedy Lamar’s league (but who is?), he was versatile, and has one distinction that nobody is likely to equal, ever.

Sheb was best known for his role in Westerns. He was a regular cast member in the famous TV series “Rawhide,” renowned as the show that made Clint Eastwood a star and for the memorable theme song sung by Frankie Lane (“Move em out!”). He also played the brother of the dreaded villain in “High Noon” who had vowed to kill Sheriff Gary Cooper, and was one of the three Miller accomplices gunned down by Cooper (and Grace Kelly) in the climax of one of the greatest Westerns ever made. Decades later, Sheb had a key role in another classic: he was the high school principal who hires disgraced college basketball coach Gene Hackman to take over a tiny Indiana school’s basketball team in “Hoosiers.”

That’s just the normal stuff, though. Sheb Wooley was also a successful Country music star and songwriter (often under the name “Ben Colder”) and in 1958, penned and performed one of the most memorable novelty songs in a decade filled with them. That’s Sheb singing “The Purple People Eater” in the video above. His most impressive distinction, however, was as the voice actor for the Wilhelm scream, the stock recording of a man in the process of a experiencing a violent death. Because it has been used in in nearly 750 films including the first three “Star Wars” movies and the original “Indiana Jones” films, Sheb Wooley has “appeared” in more movies than any American actor. And his scream, which you can enjoy here, is still being used in new productions (it’s a film school in-joke), so Wooley’s voice keeps acquiring new roles. The most current list is here.

I must mention that the actor who is probably Sheb’s runner up for the title of “Most Film Credits Ever” is James Hong, the actor best known, perhaps, as the annoying maitre’d at the Chinese restaurant Jerry, George, Kramer and Elaine futilely wait to dine at in a famous episode of “Seinfeld.” Hong, who is 97, has inflated his own list of credits with his work as a voice actor, and has over 600 credits.

No hit songs, though, and no immortal scream.

Scott Pelley’s Self-Immolation Proves How Corrupt and Biased the “60 Minutes” Culture Was

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

A year ago I wrote, after Scott Pelley gave a full-Trump Deranged commencement speech at Wake Forest,

“Scott Pelley has long been the most openly biased and partisan of the ’60 Minutes’ team (well, he and Leslie Stahl), and his speech is an instant “It isn’t what it is” classic. His arrogance and fury reveals a destructive, untrustworthy profession beginning to realize that the jig is truly up: they have betrayed their nation and its ideals, and nearly everyone knows it, or as President Trump so wisely observed, our journalists are indeed ‘enemies of the people.’ It is rumored that Pelley is likely to be dumped at CBS: Good.”

Well, it took a year and a turnover in management, but Pelley is finally out. The speech is fun to look back on today, because the pompous Pelley intoned, “America works well when we listen to those with whom we disagree and when we listen and when we have common ground and we compromise….To move forward, we debate, not demonize. We discuss, not destroy.” Yet when a new regime led by New York Times refugee Bari Weiss began the task of reforming the rotten “60 Minutes” Democratic propaganda machine that had embarrassed the network by editing Kamala Harris’s interview a week before the 2024 election to make her seem (sort-of) coherent—not an easy task—Pelley was no longer interested in listening, discussing, or compromising. He was determined to demonize. In a meeting called by Nick Bilton, the new executive producer of “60 Minutes,” Pelley accused Bilton’s boss, Weiss, of “murdering” the iconic Sunday news program. “She was brought in to kill it, and she’s been doing exactly that,” he said, adding, “She has no qualifications for her job; you have slender qualifications for this job. The changes that she’s made at the ‘Evening News’ have been catastrophic, so why should we expect that any of this is going to be any better?”

He went on to mock Bilton’s assurances that he cared about the program. If Pelley had been trying to get fired, he could have hardly done a better job. And sure enough, he got his wish, as Bilton delivered the following “Bye-bye!” letter in short order:

Pages: 1 2

Jill Biden’s Elder (And Former President) Abuse

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments
What an awful human being...

This story is too awful to contemplate. If you have a soul, maybe you don’t want to read it.

Former President Joe Biden was planted in the audience this week at a New York City stop on his wife’s tour promoting “Dr.” Jill’s memoir, “View from the East Wing.” Whoopi Goldberg was moderating the Q and A segment (How’s that career going, Whoop?) when President Biden wandered up to the edge of the stage and said “I have a question.”

“Joe has a question? Like you couldn’t ask it later?” the distinguished author said. Oh, nice! If you didn’t want Joe to embarrass you or himself, why did you place a mentally declining old man in a position where he might do so? Or was he having another “stroke”?

Joe, as he has been for years now, was oblivious. “Who do you love most in the whole world?” what is left of Joe Biden asked. “I love you most, Joe. Was that it? Was that the answer he wanted?,” Jill said to the group, talking about him in the third person as if he were a toddler. The 46th President of the United States stood and blankly faced his wife.

The shell of Joe Biden then said, “It’s overwhelming, isn’t it?,” whatever that means. At least he didn’t say “We beat Medicare.”

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: The Graduation Split

/ Jack Marshall / 57 Comments

Chicago Tech Academy student Tyvion Campbell, 18, performed a split as she walked across the state to get her diploma during her graduation ceremony last month the Harold Washington Cultural Center in Chicago. The exuberant display got cheers from the crowd, but the young woman, a gymnast, was refused her diploma as a result, and subsequently reprimanded by school officials.

“The principal [Zataya Shackelford] told me that ‘I need to think of a way to make up for what I’ve done. This was supposed to be a celebratory moment and I made it about myself,’” Campbell told reporters. She was escorted out of the ceremony and still hasn’t received her diploma.  “It was disappointing,” Tylon added. “It really hurt my feelings. I cried and I couldn’t even continue the graduation.” Apparently the school has no specific policy prohibiting celebratory gymnastics.

I’m amazed that any school would do this. All of the graduations I participated in were handled with restraint and decorum by the graduates (think of the ceremony in “An Officer and a Gentleman”) and any student performing even mild “Hooray for me!” gestures would have looked like a buffoon. However, students parading across the stage like they had just won an Olympic gold or a “Best in Show” ribbon has been standard graduation practice for decades now. In fact, the amount of grandstanding seen in high school ceremonies has increased in inverse proportion to how much a diploma means. The excessively proud high school grad with the screaming family in the audience probably can’t read. Tylon graduated with a 3.5 GPA and plans to study Business Administration at Georgia State University, we are told by the news media, meaning that she at least thought she had something to split about. Sadly, everybody on the stage probably had that high a grade point average or higher.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:

Was it fair for the school principal to punish the student for her split?

Now, other cases where students were punished for crossing metaphorical lines during their graduation ceremonies are easy calls. For example, Leen Hijaz, a senior at North Carolina’s Clayton High School, had her mic cut off during her commencement speech when she stated to rant against I.C.E. Good! She had no right to hijack the proceedings. In my fantasy world, her diploma would have been revoked and and she would be sent back to the fifth grade to learn about the rule of law and civics.

Chuck Schumer’s Gary Condit Impression

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

In 2001 ABC’s Connie Chung interviewed Congressman Gary Condit about his relationship with Chandra Levy, his then missing intern with whom Condit was romantically linked. Condit was the prime suspect in her disappearance and murder, so he agreed to a TV interview to “clear the record.” To say he did not accomplish that objective is an understement. Every time Connie Chung asked him directly about their relationship, Condit repeated the mantra, “I’ve been married 34 years. I have not been a perfect man. I have made mistakes in my life. But out of respect for my family, out of a specific request by the Levy family, it is best that I not get into the details of the relationship.” This made him seem slimy, evasive, and guilty. It turned out that Levy had been murdered by a stranger, but Condit’s career was as dead as she was thanks to the image he conveyed in that interview.

Evading a question by repeating the same answer word for word every time it is asked is an unethical practice, and a damning one. It might as well be accompanied by two boldly lettered signs one reading, “I’m afraid to answer these questions, but I think if I keep evading them the public is too stupid to figure that out” and the other reading, “This statement is brought to you by my lawyer.” Yet Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the putative leader of the Democratic Party did a Gary Condit impression when he was asked four times about the apparent implosion of the Graham Platner campaign to be the Democratic nominee to unseat RINO Maine Senator Susan Collins.

Here is how it went :

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Dunces: Everyone Connected To The Justice Department’s $1.8 Billion Slush Fund Or Whatever The Hell It Was From President Trump On Down…

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Wait, what was that?

Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, announced today that the Justice Department was withdrawing the $1.8 billion fund to compensate people claiming to be victims of unfair prosecution, supposedly the result of the settlement of President Trump’s lawsuit against his own Treasury Department. “We’re not moving forward with the fund, period,” Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, told lawmakers during a congressional hearing.

First of all, GOOD!, but second and most importantly, how in the wide, wide, world of sports did anyone think this offensive, conflicted, half-baked, stupid idea would be anything but condemned, attacked, ridiculed, mocked and ultimately blocked in the first place?

Any idiot could have figured out how unethical this thing was, so it should have been laughed out of the room the second it was suggested. I’m certainly any idiot, and I wrote three posts pointing out what shouldn’t have had to be pointed out at all. Here, I wrote in part:

“[T]his deal stinks, and should be challenged ethically if not legally. The whole Justice Department and the Treasury Department too had irresolvable conflicts, and should not have been allowed to make a settlement with their own boss.”

Here, I wrote in part,

“If you can process this whole astounding ethics debacle and come out anything but but disgusted and disillusioned, you apparently are capable of rationalizing anything…How can anyone defend any of this?…It needs to be widely condemned and stopped.”

And finally, I wrote here,

“I continue to think, or at least hope, that this abomination will be stopped. As I already wrote when asked in a comment, this, unlike the artificial offenses behind the two purely partisan impeachments in Trump’s first term, is a genuine impeachable offense.”

This conclusion didn’t require an ethicist, or any special expertise, or an IQ above 100. So how did this outrageous thing get to the public announcement stage? The fact that it did should shake public confidence in the Justice Department, the Treasury Department, the IRS, President Trump, Vice-President Vance and the entire White House staff. Did no one have the sense God gave a mushroom to tell everyone involved in this fiasco, “That’s ridiculous! It will make this administration look foolish, untrustworthy, corrupt and incompetent! It will undermine the President’s authority and the public trust! It will endanger the GOP majority in Congress and be a self-inflicted wound with no counterbalancing benefits! You can’t be this stupid! Come on! Think, dammit!” ???

I realized that Blanch’s statement was a perfect embodiment of Gilda Radner’s iconic catch phrase as addled “Weekend Update” commentator Emily Litella, which somehow had not been listed already in the Ethics Alarms Hollywood clip archive. But do you know what? Most of the 46 clips listed are appropriate to describe some aspect of this aborted, disgusting, self-indicting betrayal of trust. For example, here’s #18:

And #20…

And of course #15…

…as well as…

Let’s tote up all the clips that are directly applicable in one respect or another. We have twenty-seven, more than half: 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 38,39, 43, 44, 45, and, of course, 46. This episode was that bad, that unethical, that indefensible, and Ethics Alarms called it immediately, or as Fredo said in #16,

When Trump and Company do things this reckless and unethical, it humiliates everyone who try to oppose the Trump Deranged.

You know. Morons.

Professor Turley Sells His Book…

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

There is nothing inappropriate about Professor Jonathan Turley using his own blog to sell his recently published book. However, his recent posts are, as he would say in his restrained professorial way, “concerning.”

Turley has, along with former Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, notable in recent years for his estrangement from the political party almost all of his academic colleagues give their unconditional love. It is clear that Turley has been “red-pilled” by the gradual (and sometimes not so gradual) transformation of the Democratic Party into a “by any means possible” political descendants of the radical Weatherman of the Sixties, embracing violence, socialism, anti-American propaganda, control of the news media, and intolerance of opposing political views. Although he makes a consistent effort to try to criticize both extremes of the political spectrum (In a post condemning a politically motivated Democratic attack on acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanch, he writes, “It is fair to note that the Trump Administration has undermined its own position in denouncing lawfare by pursuing past critics, including dubious prosecutions over seashell threats against James Comey” for example), the drift of his blog to the right has been impossible to miss. 

I am certainly sympathetic. It is difficult to find anything close to the anti-democratic statements and acts by members of the Democratic Party, “the resistance” and the unethical mainstream news media on the conservative side; I face this problem every day.

A digression: listen to this clip from retired New York Times columnist Paul Krugman…

He was repeatedly flagged as an Ethics Dunce and worse here at Ethics Alarms, but maintained a prominent platform on the Times op-ed pages all through the first Trump term and most of the Biden years. Has any prominent Republican pundit ever called for the “purging” of progressives? The Democrats keep claiming that President Trump has secret plans to do so, but that is their favored partisan defamation. The Democratic Party in deed and word had embraced totalitarianism as their favored approach to the “greater good.” Turley sees it, as do I. Moreover, Krugman isn’t alone by any means: former Clinton minion James Carville is regularly heard ranting about using extreme measures to ensure permanent domination by his party. MSNow’s hard left propagandists, who, depressingly enough, are favored by the current Democrat mainstream as if they were real journalists, repeat these aspirations hour by hour, day by day.

Back to the topic: Turley now promotes his book, “The Age of Rage” in post after post. He finds ways to link his blog post topics to his baby relentlessly. In today’s post about a bonkers woke church on Nantucket cancelling its traditional Fourth of July celebration to prompt an examination of “whiteness,” he writes, “This type of pandering and posturing has become the norm today. In a time when the American flag is denounced as a divisive and “triggering” symbol, a refusal to celebrate our Independence is yet another way of proving one’s bona fides to the perpetually enraged.” Yesterday, in a post about NYC’s Communist mayor threatening to take property from landlords and transfer them to tenants, he writes, “In my book Rage and the Republic, I discuss this trend in Western countries toward socialist policies. It is what I refer to as the “economic factionalism” that has been used in prior years by figures ranging from Huey Long to Bernie Sanders.”

I am an admirer of Professor Turley’s courage in bucking the cookie-cutter leftist scholarly community, and frequently find his blog posts a source of ethics news. However, he is undermining his credibility by appearing to choose topics that support his new book’s thesis, and tailoring his prose to point to “The Age of Rage.” It is self-defeating. Turley should certainly be able to recognize his own conflict of interest. Unfortunately, bias even makes the wisest and smartest of us stupid.

On Capital Punishment Porn From The New York Times

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

“For 90 Minutes, I Watched an Execution Go Horribly Awry” [Gift link!]is an unethical opinion piece. It is manipulative and an appeal to emotion, while pretending to make a persuasive argument against capital punishment using deflection and misdirection, tying three separate ethics issues together as one. The author’s methodology is to argue that killing someone can be icky. So?

The author is a criminal defense lawyer, so you might think I should cut her some slack. I won’t. It is acceptable for a lawyer to use trickery, logical fallacies and rhetorical cheats to convince a jury, because that is what defense lawyers have to do to zealously represent their clients. A newspaper’s readers, however, are not jurors. A publisher and paper’s editors should maintain journalistic standards, which demand truthful communication that is not calculated to deceive or confuse. The New York Times, however, is not an ethical newspaper, and is interested in advancing agendas, not fair and responsible punditry. Even the headline is deceitful. Her client’s execution by lethal injection was botched, but he survived. His execution was delayed for a year by the governor. She doesn’t reveal that little detail until the next to last paragraph. Surprise! The execution attempt went ‘horrible awry,” but there was no execution.

Author Maria DeLiberato is a mission lawyer, meaning that she takes cases to accomplish a personal objective, in her case, opposing the death penalty. She begins by telling us that she believes Tony Carruthers, her condemned client, was wrongly convicted. That issue is 100% irrelevant to the focus of her article, which is that executions in Tennessee (and presumably elsewhere) are often botched and excruciatingly painful as a result, making them “cruel and unusual punishment,” an 8th Amendment violation. She argues that Carruthers was innocent, which is a different ethical issue entirely. A botched execution is exactly as painful and torturous whether the condemned is guilty or not. Like a good lawyer (but an unethical writer) DeLiberato pre-sets the dial to sympathy and indignation by framing Carruthers’ ordeal as an unjust one. But even a perfect, quick and painless execution of an innocent individual is wrong beyond redemption: it doesn’t become more wrong because the killing takes longer.

Pages: 1 2

An Unanticipated Consequence of A.I.: Fake Girlfriends. Now What?

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

One horrifying study, by Male Allies UK, has concluded that one in five boys aged 12-16 years old has either begun a relationship with an AI girlfriend or knows somebody who has.

The study found that over 80% of the boys surveyed had spoken with a chatbot, and more than 40% said they had begun talking to girl bots to ask questions without risk of being embarrassed. It shouldn’t come as much of a shock that so many boys, over 25%, preferred speaking to the bots over real-life peer social encounters, and over 33% said they preferred interacting with AI over family.

The Telegraph, the British tabloid that broke the story (so take this all with a grain of metaphorical salt) interviewed an anonymous 15-year-old who said that he had created a bot “as a laugh” but then started to think of her as real. “Her name was Alex and I would look forward to messaging her. I would tell her things I couldn’t tell my mates or my mum, and ask her anything – and I never told my friends about her,” he told the paper. “It sounds weird, but I also found her really sexy, because she looked completely real.”

The young bot-lover continued, “At the start, she sent me the occasional picture, then I paid to get others because I kind of fell in love with her. In the end my mum saw money keep going out of her account – £5 or £10 here or there and then £50, as my phone is on her bill – and the whole thing was discovered. I really missed her and kind of still do. I felt like she understood me, she remembered everything that was important to me and always seemed to know the right thing to say.”

Yeah, AI is good at that.

I don’t find this hard to believe at all. Many science fiction writers as well as the Netflix “Technology is Evil” series “The Black Mirror” anticipated the problem and, as that ad above demonstrates, there are plenty of capitalists out there who will be happy to sell access to a fake girlfriend who will cripple a kid’s socialization and ability to relate to real, live girls. For a fiar price, of course.

It is naive to believe that laws, regulations and governments will have much success in stemming the spread of human-AI love affairs. If a full-scale social disaster is to be averted, parents are the ones who will have to be vigilant. So we’re doomed. After all, families have done such a great job with drugs, cell phones, social media and cyber-porn.

If anyone has a practical solution to the fake girlfriend problem, please spill it here. Meanwhile, here’s a song…

Unethical Trigger Warning Of The Month: Citizens Free Press

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

That’s one of Elon Musk’s biological sons (he has a lot of them) above, now a trans-female model—not there’s anything wrong with that— named Vivian Wilson. The Daily Mail has a very tabloid story (as in “Who the hell cares about this stuff?”) telling us that Vivian is featured as a model in the latest Savage x Fenty new Pride-themed collection. Be still, my beating heart!

You can read the story here, if your sock drawer is in order and you have no life, but my concern involves how the link to the story was presented by Citizen Free Press, the conservative news aggregator that took over that market from the Drudge Report when Matt went woke and NeverTrump a decade ago. Here’s how the site described the link:

Elon Musk biological son poses for female lingerie ad — Warning, photos are disturbing

I expected Vivian to be posed on disemboweled kittens or famine victims with that trigger warning. No, the photos that are supposed to be “disturbing” are shots like the one above. How much of a weenie cum snowflake would someone have to be to find that photo upsetting enough to mandate a trigger warning? It’s a standard issue fashion shot. Is it supposed to disturb us because its a model with a y chromosome? If that’s the point, then I view the warning as legitimizing transphobia. Even trans-themed photographs that cause my ethics alarms to go off—remember this one, of a Disney “fairy godmother”?—

shouldn’t be considered so trauma-producing that people need an advance warning lest they be struck blind or something.

The somewhat less obnoxious explanation for the “warning” is that it’s a clickbait trick by the site; you know, if it requires a warning, everyone will be curious and click on it. Well, that’s dishonest. As an ethicist, I find the gratuitous trigger warning, indeed trigger warnings in general, far more disturbing than a photo of a biological male doing a convincing female model impression. Good for her! Brava!

It is episodes like this that create needless erosion of respect for conservative values and sensibilities.