The Senate yesterday unanimously passed a bill that requires members to follow a dress code that will include a coat, tie, and slacks for men. Just a bit less than three weeks ago, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, in a vulgar and obnoxious capitulation to lowered standards of public conduct and a blatant endorsement of the King’s Pass had ruled that all Senators could dress like Pennsylvania’s senatorial slob, John Fetterman, whose favorite attire is a sneakers shorts hoodie ensemble. This was an itsy-bitsy microcosm of what the party of Fetterman and Schumer are attempting to inflict on American society, and, incredibly, the vox populi rebelled. It seems that a lot of Americans don’t like the idea of their elected representatives in the U.S. Capitol appearing in public dressed like Frankenstein’s Monster on vacation.
Author: Jack Marshall
Ethics Quiz: The National Cathedral’s New Windows
The stained glass windows in the National Cathedral show different scenes from American history. Someone made the dunderheaded decision when the cathedral was being designed to have windows honoring Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, which seemed, in a setting with limited opportunities to highlight American heroes, an odd choice even back when the structure was opened to the public.
After a gunman shot and killed nine Black worshipers at a church in South Carolina in 2015 and the movement began to ban all things Confederate, the cathedral management decided that Stonewall and Lee had to go. Six years after the glass’s removal in 2017, National Cathedral has unveiled their replacement, which you can see above. The new windows , titled Now and Forever, show black protesters holding protest signs bearing the words “No,” “Not,” “Fairness” and “No foul play.”
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Is this a responsible, appropriate, ethical decoration for the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C.?
Language Ethics: Hollywood Writers Are Insulted That Their Work Is Being Called “Content.” Tough.
New York Times critic James Bailey takes offense on behalf of his pals in the Writer’s Guild, whose expensive strike is about to end, with a lament called “Emma Thompson Is Right: The Word ‘Content’ Is Rude.”He took off from a statement by Oscar-winning actress (and apparently now screenwriter—at least enough to put her in the union) Emma Thompson, who told the Royal Television Society conference in Britain last week,“To hear people talk about ‘content’ makes me feel like the stuffing inside a sofa cushion.” She continued, “It’s just a rude word for creative people.I know there are students in the audience: You don’t want to hear your stories described as ‘content’ or your acting or your producing described as ‘content.’ That’s just like coffee grounds in the sink or something.”
You see, the main impetus of the writer’s strike is the threat of artificial intelligence generating “content” and putting “creative people” out of work.
Writes Bailey (in part), applauding her indignation,
She’s right about the real-world impact of what is, make no mistake, a devaluing of the creative process. Those who defend its use will insist that we need some kind of catchall phrase for the things we watch, as previously crisp lines have blurred between movies and television, between home and theatrical exhibition and between legacy and social media.
But these paradigm shifts require more clarity in our language, not less. A phrase like “streaming movie” or “theatrical release” or “documentary podcast” communicates what, where and why with far more precision than gibberish like “content,” and if you want to put everything under one tent, “entertainment” is right there. But studio and streaming executives, who are perhaps the primary users and abusers of the term, love to talk about “content” because it’s so wildly diminutive. It’s a quick and easy way to minimize what writers, directors and actors do, to act as though entertainment (or, dare I say it, art) is simply churned out — and could be churned out by anyone, sentient or not. It’s just content, it’s just widgets, it’s all grist for the mill. Talking about “entertainment” is dangerous because it takes talent to entertain; no such demands are made of “content,” and the industry’s increasing interest in the possibilities of writing via artificial intelligence (one of the sticking points of the writers’ strike) makes that crystal clear.
Perhaps the finest example of this school of thought can be seen at Warner Bros. Discovery…The “content”-ization of that conglomerate’s holdings is the only reasonable explanation for the decision to rename HBO Max as simply Max — removing the prestigious legacy media brand that most clearheaded, marginally intelligent people would presume to be an asset. It lost 1.8 million subscribers in the process, but that’s merely the battle; it won the war, because when you visit Max now, the front-page carousel is a combination of scripted series, HBO documentaries, true crime and reality competition shows. It’s all on equal footing; it’s all content. But “Casablanca,” “Succession” and “Dr. Pimple Popper” are not the same thing — and the programmers of a service that pretends otherwise are abdicating their responsibility as curators...
The way we talk about things affects how we think and feel about them. So when journalists regurgitate purposefully reductive language, and when their viewers and readers consume and parrot it, they’re not adopting some zippy buzzword. They’re doing the bidding of people in power, and diminishing the work that they claim to love.
This is, to quote a word that arose from past Hollywood “content,” gaslighting. Reality show writers marched shoulder to shoulder with the “artists” Bailey is extolling, and what they were striking over is money, not art, as the unionized writers try to fend off the threat of robots who are either capable or soon will be of producing the kind of swill I see in 80% of the TV and Hollywood content I watch ….and I watch a lot.
The Judge’s Fraud Ruling Against Donald Trump [Opinion Link Added]
Justice Arthur F. Engoron of the New York Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Donald Trump repeatedly inflating the value of his assets, thus constitution fraud on banks and insurers. Thus New York Attorney General Letitia James will no longer have to prove fraud in her lawsuit against Trump. She is seeking a penalty of $250 million in a trial scheduled to begin next week. Justice Engoron ruled that the annual financial statements submitted to banks and insurance companies by Trump agents “clearly contain fraudulent valuations that defendants used in business.”
He also fined Trump’s lawyers $7,500 each for persisting in making arguments that he had previously rejected, and warned them that the arguments in question bordered on being frivolous. The former president, the judge wrote, ignored reality when it suited his business goals. “In defendants’ world,” he wrote, “rent-regulated apartments are worth the same as unregulated apartments; restricted land is worth the same as unrestricted land; restrictions can evaporate into thin air.” Trump’s defense was that the banks made large profits in their dealings with the Trump Organization and could not be called victims, and that valuing property is subjective. This is the classic and often successful defense offered in many tax fraud cases.
Depressed Ethics Observations On A Jury Nullification Verdict In NY
Clarence Darrow would have loved the resolution of the Jennifer Nelson case in Suffolk County, New York yesterday. The U.S.’s most famous and iconic defense attorney achieved many of his most important victories by slyly arguing for jury nullification, which is now grounds for a mistrial and ethics sanctions in all states but one (New Hampshire) See Note below. Of course, Darrow never used that term, but when he told juries to “send a message” with their not-guilty verdict, that’s what he was talking about.
Jennifer Nelson, 36, a Long Island mother, faced up to 25 years in prison for driving her car—twice— into a 15-year-old boy, the leader of a pack of bullies that had plagued her teen son last October after she concluded that he had taken his Adidas Ye slides . The jury deliberated less than four hours to declare her innocent of an intentional attack, instead finding her guilty of leaving the scene of an accident when there were serious injuries. Her attorneys say they will seek a sentence of just probation, and if they get the right judge, that may be all the punishment Nelson gets….for attempted murder.
Trump, Biden, And “The Roosevelts”
Something made me watch Ken Burns’ documentary “The Roosevelts” again last week. I was not looking for current perspective or political enlightenment, and the stories told are all very familiar to me, being an admirer of Teddy from childhood and fascinated by the complexities and contradictions that were Franklin. But history always surprises, and it often resonated differently depending on when it is examined. I realized, for the first time, that the Roosevelts have much to teach us about the conflict roiling the nation now….and the worse roiling that seems to be on its way.
Unethical Quote Of The Week—And ‘Will No One Rid Us Of This Troublesome (And Incompetent) Paid Liar?’—White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre
“This President has been so zeroed in, so laser-focused, on lowering costs for Americans — and we’ve done that!”
—Incompetent, insulting, dishonest and embarrassing White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who not only has wrapped up the title of the worst White House mouthpiece in history, but also may be the most incompetent Presidential staff member in history as well.
She is also a Rationalization #64, “It isn’t what it is” champion, which is quite an achievement in a tough field. For example, more than one member of the Biden Administration has claimed that the “border is secure.”
Biden hasn’t lowered the cost of anything. That statement is an absolute, irredeemable lie. Here is one list of how prices have gone up since Biden was elected, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
- Groceries up 20%
- Food away from home up 18.5%
- Energy costs up 43%
- Gas prices up 62.5%
- Electricity prices up 26%
- Used cars and trucks up 33%
- New cars up 20%
- Furniture up 17%
- Clothes up 11.4%
Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 9/26/23: Trump Does What He Does, And Blatant Racism In Ireland
Several regular commenters have alerted me that WordPress is making it difficult to post. I don’t know what’s going on, but I do know the platform is messing with its software again, fixing some problems while creating others.
I’m sorry. I’ll always post a comment for you if you get frustrated: just email me. (I will NOT post comments if you have been banned. You know who you are…)
1. No matter what the polls say now, Trump can screw it up: As night follows day, Donald Trump, flushed with cockiness over recent polls showing him clobbering Joe Biden if the two were to face off today in an election more than a year away, started shooting off his mouth and keyboard with extravagant claims and threats. Such as:
- On Truth Social: “They are almost all dishonest and corrupt, but Comcast, with its one-side and vicious coverage by NBC NEWS, and in particular MSNBC, often and correctly referred to as MSDNC (Democrat National Committee!), should be investigated for its “Country Threatening Treason.” Their endless coverage of the now fully debunked SCAM known as Russia, Russia, Russia, and much else, is one big Campaign Contribution to the Radical Left Democrat Party. I say up front, openly, and proudly, that when I WIN the Presidency of the United States, they and others of the LameStream Media will be thoroughly scrutinized for their knowingly dishonest and corrupt coverage of people, things, and events. Why should NBC, or any other of the corrupt & dishonest media companies, be entitled to use the very valuable Airwaves of the USA, FREE? They are a true threat to Democracy and are, in fact, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE! The Fake News Media should pay a big price for what they have done to our once great Country!”
(Psst! The answer to “why” is “The First Amendment,” you idiot.) Continue reading
Ethics Quiz: Miss Zimbabwe!
Guess which beauty won the Miss Zimbabwe title! It was 21-year-old Brooke Bruk-Jackson, the only white woman among the contestants.
Brooke was crowned Miss Universe Zimbabwe, and will represent the African nation at the next Miss Universe pageant. Reportedly fewer than 1% of the African nation’s population is white. Her victory has upset many residents of Zimbabwe. “All those beautiful melanated women, and you telling me the European woman won a contest for Black people?” one outraged X-user tweeted.
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is….
Was giving the prize to a white woman ethical?
This is a bit of a trick question. In a normal competition, the answer would be easy: if she won, she won. Beauty contests, however, are like dog shows: they are completely arbitrary and subjective contests pretending to be objective. It’s a Bizarro Wotld ethics problem: such competitions are phony (that is, unethical) anyway. They have no integrity; how can they have an ethical or unethical result?
Since any result is tainted by the inherent lie that it is based on objective criteria, isn’t this an ethics zugzwang situation? Choosing the only white woman in the competition has the appearance of bias and discrimination; so too does not choosing a competitor because she’s white, if her “objective” qualities would have made her Miss Zimbabwe if she were the “right” color.
If I were a judge, recognizing that beauty contests are absurd and that the criteria is hopelessly subjective, I would avoid choosing the only white contestant because it would raise all of these questions. If a black contestant were crowned Miss Zimbabwe, nobody would blink a metaphorical eye. Now Brooke is a target of hate mail and death threats, the pageant is under attack, the black population feels insulted, and everyone is miserable.
Good job, everybody!
Surveying The Left’s Three Desperate Reactions To The Biden Presidency Implosion
1. President Biden? Who’s that?
In order to go on covering other issues and stories in which aspects of the Biden mess would normally require a reference, the mainstream media instead just pretends there’s nothing there. Thus it can continue to run attacks on Donald Trump for “defying democratic norms,” being a threat to “lock up” his opposition if elected, and “lying” even when the current president, their client, continues to engage in all three.
Today the New York Times sent me a lament from columnist Amanda Taub headlined, “The Litany of #MeToo News Continues. Is Anything Really Changing? It can appear as though society is no closer to a future in which women can go about their ordinary lives without being harassed, assaulted and coerced into silence.” She begins with Russell Brand, but goes on to discuss how “each time a powerful man is held accountable for sexual misconduct, it seems like progress. And yet, when the allegations reveal a similar pattern of institutional actions that allowed the abuse to go on for years, and they provoke the same reactions of denial and victim-blaming, it can appear as though society is no closer to a future in which women can go about their ordinary lives without being harassed, assaulted and coerced into silence.”
Huh! I wonder why that’s happening? Could it be that the “fish rots from the head down”? Could it be that #MeToo has beclowned itself because by making it obvious that only conservatives and Republicans were in any peril of #MeToo consequences, and that powerful male Democrats could continue their harassing ways with either impunity or minor consequences? How can a serious analysts write about patterns “of institutional actions that allowed the abuse to go on for years,” and not mention any of this…
???? The President of the United States has been a serial and unapologetic groper, sniffer and cop-a-feel specialist for decades. Leaders set the standard for their organizations; Presidents set the standards for U.S. society. Biden was also accused of sexual assault by a former Senate staffer. If you want an explanation for why #MeToo has deteriorated, look no further than this White House.
But Biden’s enablers and agents want us to look away from there.
Ethics Alarms 