“Ick” Or Ethics? Michael Crichton’s 1981 Film “Looker” Is Coming True…

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

In “Looker,” a 1981 science fiction thriller starring Albert Finney, James Coburn and Susan Dey, involves a high tech research firm that concludes that real, live models, even after cosmetic surgery, can’t approach the physical perfection that will optimally influence consumers. Models are offered a contracts to have their faces and figures scanned to create 3D computer-generated avatars, indistinguishable from them, which are animated for use in commercials. Once their bodies duplicated digitally, they get lifetime paychecks (though not for as much as Miguel Cabrera, currently at $400,410,623 and counting, gets) and can retire, since their computer-generated, more perfect dopplegangers will be doing their work for them. For some reason, the evil tech firms has all of the models murdered, but that part of the plot is irrelevant here.

42 years later, Levi Strauss & Co. announced in a press release yesterday that it is partnering with an AI company to “increase the number and diversity of our models for our products in a sustainable way.” Yeah, those digital models in “Looker” were also “sustainable,” even though the models’ flesh and blood models were disposable. Levi’s will test the use of AI models to “supplement” real-life models later in 2023.

“While AI will likely never fully replace human models for us”, “—-yeah, tell it to Susan Dey—-we are excited for the potential capabilities this may afford us for the consumer experience,” said Dr. Amy Gershkoff Bolles, global head of digital and emerging technology strategy at Levi Strauss & Co, sounding a lot like James Coburn, the evil advertising genius in “Looker.”

Meanwhile, in arguably related news, Levi Strauss & Co. will be laying off 800 employees — almost 20% of its corporate jobs.

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce And Weenie Of The Month: Scholar And Author Mary Eberstadt

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Bullies have a right to protest, but that right doesn’t extend to dragooning others into untruths—including the untruth that people who join a hateful mob have any intention of listening to a speaker in the first place. They don’t, and the rest of us are under no obligation to help them live that lie by playing along.

Continue reading →

Eberstadt, recently the writer of “Primal Screams: How the Sexual Revolution Created Identity Politics “was scheduled to give a speech about her book’s thesis at Furman University today. Prior to her scheduled appearance, the South Carolina campus was festooned with protest fliers. The online student newspaper accused Eberstadt of perpetuating “dangerous myths.” Letters denigrating Ebestadt’s character and demanding that credit for attending her speech be denied were sent to the university’s Cultural Life Program.

So she bailed out, ran away, and capitulated to the mob. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Eberstadt complained that though the odds of physical violence being inflicted on her if she appeared were low, they were not“not non-existent.” She defended her flight from conflict by writing in part,

Bullies have a right to protest, but that right doesn’t extend to dragooning others into untruths—including the untruth that people who join a hateful mob have any intention of listening to a speaker in the first place. They don’t, and the rest of us are under no obligation to help them live that lie by playing along.

Continue reading →

Morning Ethics Spring Cleaning, 3/28/23: What A Mess! [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Ugh. It’s been a long time between multiple issue posts, and I apologize for that. When I neglect the inventory, important stories, issues and lessons get lost. It’s just been unusually chaotic around here, but that’s my problem, and it shouldn’t be yours.

I do have a satisfying follow-up to relate. This post, about my customer service experience at Staples, attracted some useful critical comments making the case that I was unreasonable. A few days ago I had to go back to the Staples I had sworn never to enter again, because it was the only convenient source for the specific ink cartridge the office required for the crummy HP printer we have (it was supposed tohave been replaced by now with a better model, but I’m behind in everything), and I had a deadline to meet. The manager whose responses to my complaints I had found so unsatisfactory (“We have no customer service”) made a point of chasing me down in the store and asking if he could be of any help. I replied that I was fine, and he said, “I wanted to tell you that I was sorry about our conversation last week. You should be able to expect better customer service than that, and I was being defensive rather than responsive. I promise we’ll do better if you give us the chance.” I told him that I really appreciated his apology, and that I had also been at fault for being so confrontational. Then he offered me his hand, I I took it, and went on to buy my ink. The fact that the ultimate outcome of my “showdown” was a good one doesn’t prove that I handled it correctly (consequentialism alert!), but it was gratifying nonetheless.

1. The Apocalypse is upon us…a few days after listening to a stand-up comic’s very funny riff on the excessive and inappropriate use of “awesome” as a superlative, DC’s Fox affiliate had a graphic on the screen telling viewers that the next day’s weather would be “awesome.” Apparently teenagers are now doing the weather segments. To me, awesome weather would mean cyclones, hurricanes and literal showers of cats and dogs.

I’m waiting for the next stage, which will be when the graphic says that the weather will be “Like, awesome.”

2. Speaking of Fox…the one news network that does not reflexively echo woke and progressive propaganda would benefit the nation and culture more if it at least tried to play its news reporting straight and not pander disgracefully to niche markets. The topic at hand was a poll released yesterday. From Axios:

NORC at the University of Chicago polled 1,019 adults this month by web and phone (margin of error: ±4%).

  • Asked to describe the state of the nation’s economy, 1% (not a typo) chose “excellent.”
  • 56% said a four-year college degree is “not worth the cost because people often graduate without specific job skills and with a large amount of debt.”
  • 33% said they have very little or no confidence in public schools.

Look at the tectonic shifts from a Journal/NBC poll 25 years ago, in 1998:

  • Patriotism is very important: Dropped from 70% to 38%.
  • Religion is very important: Dropped from 62% to 39%.
  • Having children is very important: Dropped from 59% to 30%.
  • Community involvement is very important: Dropped from 47% to 27%.
  • Money is very important: Rose from 31% to 43%.

The bottom line: The poll quantifies a generational and political divide that shows a rot at the very soul of our nation.

Continue reading →

Tracks Of The Great Stupid

/ Jack Marshall / 31 Comments

Imagine a society where these sentences in the New York Post account of the transgender 28-year-old former student, Audrey Hale, who shot and killed six people, including three kids,today at the Covenant School in Nashville can even be conceived, never mind published in a conservative newspaper:

In online profiles Hale had indicated they used he/him pronouns and also went by the name Aiden. It is unclear whether Hale identified as a man or woman at the time of the slayings.

“They” used he/him pronouns…?

Never mind imagining such a batty society; you’re living in it.

It’s important to know which sex “they” was (were?) identifying as when the guns were fired, to determine whether this was a typical example of a male mass-murderer, or the rare anomaly of a female shooter. The linked Times article hints that because the shooter was born female, maybe it’s fair to list “them” in the female category. But that can’t be right. Isn’t the rule that if a trans individual does something that earns awards or titles, she can pick her gender, but if it’s something bad, he must be a guy?  It was quite irresponsible for Audrey to fail to clarify this before getting shot herself.

I wonder what kind of a swimmer Audrey was….

 

NPR Wonders If Transgender Athletes Have A Physical Advantage Over Female Competitors

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Huh! Good question, NPR! It’s a mystery! A real head-scratcher! Oh if only there were some convincing evidence that going through puberty as a male confers some kind of advantage for trans female athletes! When will we have such information?

Oh, I almost forgot: “Nah, there’s no mainstream news media bias!” Also: “We pay taxes to support this crap???”

The World Athletics Council, the governing body for international track and field, announced last week that it will bar transgender women athletes from competing in events with everyday, normal, biological women who have been so from birth. This isn’t rocket science. What is ridiculous is that so many organizations are so devoted in their loyalty to Woke World that they are still in denial. That’s trans Ivy League swimming cheat Lia Thomas above with one of the little women who finished second to her during the past year’s contests, and no, they are not standing on platforms.

Continue reading →

Ethics Observations On “Digital Blackface” (Huh?)

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

You learn something every day, as the saying goes. This morning, it was that there is something called “digital blackface,” and Ethics Alarms engaged in it by posting the viral video of Tyra Banks flipping out on a contestant on her reality show “America’s Next To Model” 14 years ago.

Just to cut to the ethics verdict in case you have a sock drawer crisis: “digital blackface ” is G-A-R-B-A-G-E. Keep reading to learn why.

Naturally, CNN is promoting the concept, probably to intimidate people like me from posting videos of Don Lemon making an ass of himself. Here is how the article by CNN’s John Blake (who “writes about race, religion, politics and other assorted topics”) defines “digital blackface,” which he calls “one of the most insidious forms of contemporary racism”:

Digital blackface is a practice where White people co-opt online expressions of Black imagery, slang, catchphrases or culture to convey comic relief or express emotions… racialized reactions…mainstays in Twitter feeds, TikTok videos and Instagram reels, and are among the most popular Internet memes… White people laughing at exaggerated displays of Blackness, reflecting a tendency among some to see “Black people as walking hyperbole”…  it “includes displays of emotion stereotyped as excessive: so happy, so sassy, so ghetto, so loud… our dial is on 10 all the time — rarely are black characters afforded subtle traits or feelings”…If a White person shares an image online that perpetuates stereotypes of Black people as loud, dumb, hyperviolent or hypersexual, they’ve entered digital blackface territory. 

Continue reading →

The “Shizzle My Nizzle” Saga

/ Jack Marshall / 27 Comments

There are a lot of angles that I was tempted to apply to this Weird Tale from The Great Stupid about a longtime, popular talking head for a Jackson, Miss. news broadcast. It is obviously a “when ethics alarms don’t ring” story, for example. It could be used as evidence of persistent racial insensitivity in Mississippi, or the South, or the nation. The episode might be cited as more evidence that public apologies are usually meaningless, and that after-the-fact trainings for employees who utter words that suggest they have, let’s say, racial, gender and ethnic biases are window dressing and just about useless.

However, I’m going to cite the episode as an example of how broadcast journalists are hired more for their non-intellectual assets than any genuine talent in analysis and reporting, and also to illustrate how incomprehensible the current rules are regarding who can say what during The Great Stupid.

Barbie Bassett (above) was a popular news anchor, weather lady and a traffic reporter for WLBT, an NBC affiliate in Jackson, Mississippi. The former beauty queen—beauty queens are innately talented as journalists, did you know that?—has been a fixture at the station for 23 years, but hasn’t been seen on the air since March 8 though the station hasn’t make any official announcement. She has apparently been sacked, since her image and any traces of her have been purged from the station’s website.

Bassett’s demise was triggered when she participated in a segment on a new variety of wine from Snoop Dogg’s Snoop Cali Blanc wine collection. (Now there’s news the public has a right to know!) Barbie was chattering away and quoted Snoop’s trademark gibberish, “Fo’ shizzle, my nizzle!” “Nizzle” is Snoop for “nigga.” Even though the rapper is featured in national TV ads for a couple of products and treated as a cute and harmless celebrity, white people aren’t allowed to say “nizzle,” though heaven knows why they would want to.

Continue reading →

“Republicans Pounced” So Hard That Biden’s FAA Chief Nominee Who Was Completely Unqualified Had To Withdraw [Link Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

That’s the embarrassingly unfit Biden nominee to head the Federal Aviation Administration above during his confirmation hearing, in the process of saying, “Huh?” or “Whaa?” which characterized his response to material questions from Senators regarding the job he irresponsibly agreed to take. Ethics Alarms wrote about the awful performance of Phil Washington here, concluding in part,

What is ominous about Washington’s hearing responses is that he apparently didn’t feel it necessary to educate himself regarding the subject matter of his appointment at all.

This is a pattern with Biden’s “diversity” appointments, as illustrated just last week by the hearing responses of a nominee for a district court judgeship. Apparently, however, the mainstream news media considers Republicans mean and probably racist to ask questions designed to find out if the designated head of the FAA knows enough to keep planes from falling out of the sky. Here’s Reuters:

Exclusive: Biden nominee to head FAA withdraws after Republican criticism:

WASHINGTON, March 25 (Reuters) – U.S. President Joe Biden’s nominee to head the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is withdrawing his nomination after Republican criticism that he was not qualified to serve WASHINGTON, March 25 (Reuters) – U.S. President Joe Biden’s nominee to head the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is withdrawing his nomination after Republican criticism that he was not qualified to serve as the top aviation regulator.

False. Washington withdrew his nomination because his pathetic responses to legitimate questions raised serious doubts that he was qualified to serve as the top aviation regulator. Naturally, the media wants to blame Republicans, because that’s how journalists see their job now. Only two people are at fault for Washington’s fall: Washington, for accepting a nomination for a position he seemingly lacked qualifications for and not having the diligence or integrity to prepare for questioning, and the President, who again seemed to elevate skin-tone over experience and qualifications for an important position. Reuters dutifully related the White House spin: “an onslaught of unfounded Republican attacks on Mr Washington’s service and experience irresponsibly delayed this process, threatened unnecessary procedural hurdles on the Senate floor, and ultimately have led him to withdraw his nomination today.”

Reuters didn’t think the serious allegations that Washington was corrupt were worthy of mentioning. Senator Ted Cruz provided details on a criminal investigation involving Washington:

“Unfortunately, the problems with Mr. Washington’s nomination don’t end with his lack of aviation experience. There are also serious concerns regarding outstanding allegations that Mr. Washington engaged in misconduct during his time as the head of the Los Angeles Metro. He has been named in multiple search warrants in an ongoing criminal public corruption investigation, and he’s been the subject of multiple whistleblower complaints.

“One search warrant was executed just last September, not very long ago. It contained allegations that Mr. Washington pushed forward lucrative no-bid contracts to a politically-connected nonprofit to run a sexual harassment hotline that was hardly ever used, and that he did so in order to stay in the good graces of a powerful politician on LA Metro’s board. The allegations are the kind of local corruption sadly we see far too often across this country, in both parties.

“But a whistleblower who exposed the details of this alleged pay-to-play contracting scheme claims to have been retaliated against by Mr. Washington. After Mr. Washington left the LA Metro the agency settled these claims with the whistleblower for $625,000. I practiced law for a long time. you did as well. A $625,000 check is not a nuisance check. It’s not a “go away” check. It’s indicative that there’s a real there, there. Whistleblowers don’t get settlements for more than a half a million dollars if their claim is baseless.”

To Washington’s credit, if he had any choice in the matter, at least he had the sense to pull his name.

Latest Admittees To The “Do Something!” Hall Of Fame

/ Jack Marshall / 50 Comments

The consistently ridiculous U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared last week that the world has just ten years to reduce “global emissions” beyond what any reasonable or politically viable measures can accomplish, and if it doesn’t, heat waves, famines and infectious diseases could claim millions of additional lives by century’s end. Or maybe not. The IPCC is not at all embarrassed about all the other supposed deadlines politicized climate change “experts” have confidently predicted and that it has relayed with absurd certainty. It doubtless will spit out yet another doomsday prediction after this one has passed. (That U.N. warning on the right dates from 1989. The deadline: 2000.)

As plenty of rational, honest scientist have pointed out, “the world” is nowhere close to ready to dump fossil fuels. Alternative technologies and energy sources have not shown that they can achieves what the slick TV commercials claim and promise. All of the targets, some of them supposedly mandatory, established by national and state governments are cynical, manipulative grandstanding. The useless U.N., as is its wont, is aspiring to world dominance and influence it does not have and (I hope) never achieves.

If you have no options, a wise man once said, you have no problem, but the theoretical climate change Sword of Damocles has been a useful device for unethical politicians–incompetent, irresponsible, dishonest—to attract public support through demagoguery. Spurred on by the U.N. jeremiad, two New York Times readers nicely illustrated this bizarre phenomenon in heartfelt letters to the Times editors:

Continue reading →

Ethics Observations On The House Passage Of H.R.5 (The Parents Bill of Rights)

/ Jack Marshall / 31 Comments

In a 213 – 208 vote, the House approved the Parents Bill of Rights, which would require school districts to post their curriculum online, allowing parents to review the materials. It has many other provisions, none of which unreasonably burden schools, and all of which are aimed at letting parents know what their children are being taught, what speakers are addressing their classes, what books and publications they will have access to, and what special needs and problems are arising that parents should be aware of.

I have read the entire text of H.R. 5, as should you, as should every parent. If there is anything in the bill that is excessive or that forces schools and teachers to compromise their duties as educators, I would be eternally grateful for someone to point it out to me.

The conventional wisdom is the bill will not pass the Senate to become law (I would dare Joe Biden to veto it). I find that astounding, just as I find it astounding, and damning, and signature significance for a party that obeys the dictates of its powerful constituencies, in this case, the teachers unions, to the detriment of the public at large. It is equally astounding that not one single Democratic House member voted for a bill that as far as I can see only establishes by law an obligation to inform parents of what parents want to know, out to know and have every right to know about the content of their children’s education.

Additional points:

Continue reading →