The Ignorant Axis “Lobstergate” Nonsense

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

I’m going to rely heavily on Michael West’s commentary on this morning’s Open Forum, because 1) I was all set to post on this when my computer crashed 2) when I finally got it up and (sort of) running, I saw that he had covered the topic well in the first entries on our weekly ethics free-for-all.

The National Review, still a pit of NeverTrump die-hards, did a good job covering the latest desperation Axis bile, the petty criticism of the Trump War Department for giving the troops steak and lobster dinners. A disgusted veteran on the staff wrote in part,

Pages: 1 2

Friday the 13th Open Forum!

/ Jack Marshall / 31 Comments

Here’s how my day started: I had one thing that I just absolutely had to accomplish, just one—get my inspection sticker updated. That means, for me, since I now have no one to help with such annoying tasks, getting to the service station I have used for 40 years before they open at 8 am and making sure my car is first in line. Then I have to kill 45 minutes at a coffee shop while they do the inspection, get a call when they are done, walk over to the place, pay, pick up my car and drive home, a less than ten minute drive. To make sure I was first in line, I set the alarm clock that has served me well for 20 years to ring at 7:10 am. That would give me time to wake up, ablute, and get to the station by 7:45.

The alarm rang at 5:35 am. I had set the clock correctly: it just malfunctioned. It’s old, and picked today to break down. Half asleep, I got my super-duper, newest model Apple smart-phone, which I have never once used as an alarm clock, unlike its predecessor. To my horror, the alarm-setting controls were completely different from the earlier model, and absurdly complicated. (This made them better, see.) Half- awake, I tried to puzzle out the device’s twists and turns, which involved two screens, a dial-a-time, a pick-a-sound, volume, a damn check mark, and shifting little buttons to indicate a 7: 10 am wake up alarm. The thing had said “no alarm” and now it didn’t say “no alarm,” which I, fool that I am, assumed meant “alarm.” It didn’t, though I have yet to figure out why. I woke up in a panic at 7:55 am.

I threw on some pants, grabbed my wallet and keys and ran out the door, only to see Spuds looking needy standing behind me. So I hooked him up to his leash to let him relieve himself, which he took his own sweet time doing. Deposited my dog, who promptly went upstairs to take over my bed, ran to the car, sped to the station, and arriving at 8:05 am, found two cars ahead of me, meaning instead of 45 minutes stuck in a shopping and restaurant area, I would be stuck for over two hours, which I can’t afford.

So my inspection sticker is still expired, I got only about 5 hours sleep, I still don’t know how to use my smartphone, and I’m considering either beating my face in with a brick or getting a Jason Voorhees hockey mask and a machete as a prelude to a murder spree.

Amaze me with your ethics eloquence, on the off chance I’m still around to read it.

Case Study: Casting Ethics and When Experts Prove They Are Untrustworthy…[Gift Link Added!]

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

I suppose because the Oscars (that nothing could make me watch again) are coming up, The New York Times, presumably with the help of its movie critics, published a feature called “When Casting Goes Wrong”[Gift Link], purporting to be their picks “from recent decades” of the worst cast movie roles. A new Oscar recognizes the process of matching actor and role—it’s a bad idea, but never mind. My problem is that the list of 14 manages to miss such flagrant, infamous casting botches that it forces me to doubt any future judgments of these alleged film experts.

True: of the films represented on the list that I have seen, the casting choices flagged were indeed terrible. However, the list somehow omitted what had to be the most inexcusable, bizarre, inept and offensive casting decision in Hollywood history: “Hyde Park On Hudson”’s casting of Bill Murray…BILL MURRAY!…as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I wrote about this 2012 fiasco here. An excerpt:

“There is no artistic or historical justification for having Murray play the iconic FDR. All I can hypothesize is that the producers knew that the movie would be a hard sell to anyone under the age of 80, so they decided, “Hey, Boomers love Bill Murray: they’ll pay to see him in anything!” The result is disrespectful to one of our most important leaders, ruinous to the movie (which has other problems), and the antithesis of artistic competence, integrity and responsibility.I watched this thing looking like the audience in “The Producers” after the completion of “Springtime for Hitler,” with my mouth in what Stephen King calls “a rictus of horror.”

“… [Murray] doesn’t speak like Roosevelt, sound like him, carry himself like him, or display his gravitas, power or personality. To me it looked like the actor wasn’t even trying…that, or the role was completely beyond his narrow talents. Did he do any research at all? To be fair, FDR was special, with a magnificent voice, an actor’s mastery of projecting the desired emotional messages, and physically imposing despite his disability. John Voight, an infinitely more talented actor than Murray, still flopped when he tried FDR in “Pearl Harbor” despite being covered in so many layers of latex that he looked a bit like him, or at least a rubber dummy of him…

“I was shocked to see that there were actually critics who praised Murray’s performance. This is one more bit of evidence that critics can’t be trusted. Presumably, these ignoramuses wouldn’t know FDR if he sat in their laps. One critic wrote that Murray “humanized” Franklin. I suppose one could argue that playing one of our most calculating, politically brilliant, ruthless, astute, complex, essential, influential  and towering American historical figures as a clueless, shallow, unengaged and ironic jerk is “humanizing.” I would argue that it’s just irresponsible and defamatory.”

Pages: 1 2

AI Robocall Ethics

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

This has to be illegal. If it isn’t, it is certainly unethical.

I got a call this morning with a caller ID that stated it was from a hospital. If I say “hello” and there is an odd pause, usually followed by a telltale <click> and voice saying “Hello?” I hang up immediately. because it’s a robocall. This time, however, there was no click, and a clear, unaccented, assertive voice called out, “Hello!” I was curious, so I responded,”What do you want?” “We’ve been trying to reach you,” the cheerful young woman said. “Have you been made aware of Medicare cash paybacks?” THEN I hung up. I know an AI bot when I hear one.

The problem is, most people over the age of about 40 do not. This one was good, the best I’ve heard yet. Way back in 2015, Ars Technica wrote about the then-new use of interactive robocalls, but that was before the AI revolution. Last night I had been watching a new streaming series starring Nicole Kidman and Jamie Lee Curtis in which a character is addicted to conversing with an AI version of her dead wife. These fake people are improving at a logorhythmic rate, and in about a week the non-humans calling me will be undetectable. That doesn’t mean they will be the same as real callers, which means neglecting to announce to an individual that the voice on the other end of the line is AI-generated is fraud, dishonest, a lie, and, of course, unethical.

There needs to be a tough law or regulation against this practice. Now.

The Rest of the Story: CNN’s Abbe Phillip Forced To Issue On Air Apology

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

As chronicled here, CNN’s talking heads lied repeatedly in an attempt to blame the attempted terrorist bombing in New York City on anti-Muslim, right-wing bigots. First Abbe Phillip repeated the Big Lie that had already been proven false, then she deceitfully continued it with a misleading “clarification” on X, and then “The View’s” fake conservative Ana Navarro repeated the fake Axis narrative a day later. The criticism of Phillip’s lie was so loud on social media that CNN apparently told their incompetent (but black and female, so she will be hard to fire) to do an on air apology, so we got this:

Verdict: 1. Too late. 2. Not good enough. She’s still lying.

Pages: 1 2

Addendum to “Yet More Evidence [That]…Our Journalists Are Disgustingly Biased and “Enemies of the People”

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

It’s even worse than that. Abby Phillips, the openly biased and incompetent host of CNN’s “NewsNight,”repeated the dishonest Axis media spin that the ISIS attack against a group of protesters outside Gracie Mansion was against NYC’s Muslim Mayor Zohran Mamdani last night.

ABBY PHILLIP: Up next, two Republicans say Muslims don’t belong here after an attempted terror attack against New York’s Mayor Zohran Mamdani, and the House Speaker Mike Johnson says nothing, really, to condemn those comments.

This lie, as discussed in the earlier EA post,had been debunked far and wide by that time, but never mind! It was apparently too good a Big Lie for a dedicated Axis propagandist like Phillip to surrender. Nobody spoke up on CNN (of course not!) to correct her, but enough abuse was heaped on Phillip that she issued a foxy “correction”…

Not “specifically” targeting the Muslim mayor, Abbe, you irredeemable hack?

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quote of the Week: Quentin Tarentino Slaps Down Rosanna Arquette

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Good for Quentin.

Arquette, once considered a rising superstar in her “Desperately Seeking Susan” days, took a swipe at the director in a recent interview, saying of his “Pulp Fiction,” in which she had a memorable scene,

“It’s iconic, a great film on a lot of levels. But personally I am over the use of the N-word…I hate it. I cannot stand that he [Tarantino] has been given a hall pass. It’s not art, it’s just racist and creepy.”

Tarantino replied with the “X” message above, and appropriately so. Among the legitimate ethics complaints against Arquette, perhaps the least is her breach of a duty to support fellow artists in their perilous and capricious profession. On the other hand,

  • She is disloyal and ungrateful. Her career was already on the wane when Tarantino cast her in “Pulp Fiction.” It was a gift. For her to gratuitously criticize him now is revolting.
  • Her blatant virtue-signalling to Hollywood’s Woke World is transparent, self-serving, and desperate. “Oooh, Rosanna Arquette is knocking Quentin Tarantino! Wait, who is she again?”
  • Arquette’s  contention is idiotic. “Nigger” is just another word, and like all words, a legitimate tool in pursuit of character, nuance, plot, shock, surprise and humor. She’s “over it”? Swell, she doesn’t have to use it. I dare her to take a stand if she finally gets another chance at a major role and the word is contained in her dialogue. I double-dare her.
  • Of course she’s looking for headlines, social media controversy and renewed relevance, and throwing Tarantino under the metaphorical bus for her own gain. A Kantian violation at best. 
  • Accusing anyone in show business, that most stultifying of partisan bubbles, of “racism” is deliberately trying to inflict harm, endangering a career, income stream, popularity and reputatation.

I have sympathy for Rosanna Archette. She must feel like Moonlight Graham—“We just don’t recognize the most significant moments of our lives while they’re happening. Back then I thought, ‘Well, there’ll be other days.’ I didn’t realize that that was the only day.”.She was ready to be a star, but from a combination of bad luck and bad management, she missed her moment. Her less attractive younger sister became a bigger star. Her one-trick pony of a brother had a major role in a popular horror franchise, the “Scream” films. Even her grandfather Cliff, who was a staple on “The Hollywood Squares,” had a better career.

And her reaction to her own failure and disappointment is to take a shot at Quentin Tarantino? How sad. This is a business that creates monsters.

Yet More Evidence Of An Already Self-Evident Proposition: Our Journalists Are Disgustingly Biased and “Enemies of the People”: The NYC ISIS Terrorist Attack

/ Jack Marshall / 24 Comments

I have mused several time here that anyone who seriously asserts in a comment that the mainstream media isn’t fatally biased against conservatives, Republicans, and, naturally, President Trump risks being banned from the commenting wars. I have yet to act on that threat, because only one respectable commenter has challenged me on that assertion, one who has earned a multitude of Ethics Alarms brownie points for good faith and courageous arguments that often run counter to the currents here.

Nonetheless, the position is untenable, and has been for years. The latest example days ago when a smoking IED was tossed at a group of protestors outside Gracie Mansion by an ISIS-supporting terrorist yelling “Allah Ackbar!” Since the U.S. is in the process of attacking Iran, and since the mainstream media is committed to elevating the welfare of Muslims (and illegal immigrants, and violent criminals, Somali fraudsters, anti-American elected officials and international foes of the U.S….) over the interests of law-abiding, loyal and patriotic American citizens, the mainstream media immediately framed the attempted terrorist act as a bigoted attack on NYC’s Muslim Communist mayor Zohran Mamdani:

CBS announced, “Improvised explosive found at protests near Manhattan’s Gracie Mansion, Mamdani’s official residence, NYPD says.”

NBC:

UPI: “Suspicious devices ignited at anti-Islam protest in New York”

The Hill: “Device ignited at Gracie Mansion protest was explosive: NYPD.”

I admit it: I was fooled. I thought, based on perusing the reports, that the bombs, which the NYT initially described without noting that they were explosive, were hurled by anti-Islam protesters.

CNN’s framing was so disgusting that the Axis news network had to issue a retraction, which itself was misleading:

Pages: 1 2

The Classic Ethics Problem That Isn’t As Hard As Everyone Thinks It Is…

/ Jack Marshall / 38 Comments

I’ve been hearing and reading debates about the old (1884) criminal case The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens since law school, and I must say, I’m a bit sick of it.

A wealthy lawyer from Australia purchased bought a yacht named the Mignonette and hired a Captain Dudley to sail it to him it from England. Dudley and his three crew members encountered a violent a storm off the coast of Africa, and the Mignonette was swamped. Its captain and crew escaped in a lifeboat with minimal provisions. After more than three weeks adrift, the captain decided that all of them would die of hunger and thirst unless extreme measures were taken, so he took them. He decided that cabin boy Richard Parker, a 17-year-old orphan, should be slaughtered and eaten. The captain’s reasoning: Parker was already delirious from drinking seawater, so he was deemed the weakest and least likely to survive anyway. The three men killed to boy, collected his blood in a bailer and drank it, then removed his heart and liver and ate them.

It worked! They were rescued in time, just a few days later in fact. Dudley and the First Mate Edwin Stephens were also prosecuted and found guilty of murder, a result that was considered revolutionary, since resorting to cannibalism in such dire circumstances was considered a normal course of action, “the custom of the sea.” In the U.S. at the time, the courts widely accepted the “necessity doctrine,” which excuses some illegal acts if they are performed in good faith to prevent a greater harm.

Pages: 1 2

The Most Trump-Deranged, Privileged, Aging Progressive Facebook Post Ever…

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

A long-time friend, part of a retired two-lawyer couple, just posted a furious anti-Trump rant on Facebook because “Trump’s” war on Iran has interfered with their planned three-week luxury cruise. “The mid-terms can’t come soon enough!” she concludes.

Naturally, no one is pointing out in the comments the warped values and priorities such a post conveys. The outburst also shows how confident bubble-dwellers on social media become that their world-view is the only one decent, intelligent and respectable American could possible adhere to.