I have written about Boeing and I have been very critical. But sometimes, humor is just more effective. I give you, my kind readers and viewers, this little gem I found on You Tube (with enormous gratitude) and I hope you enjoy as much as I did.
James Alan Pilant
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kris-kristofferson-singer-songwriter-actor-223141066.html
One of the good things about American society is that often talent succeeds. One of the talents of my generation was this man. A great singer and a wonderful actor he brought quality and depth to everything he was in. It is with great sadness that I must report that he has died.
He will be missed.
This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice, and its copyright was not subsequently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within 5 years. (according to wikipedia where I found it – JP)
https://www.yahoo.com/news/age-scams-184034965.html
Alana Semuels wrote an essay called “The Age of Scams” for “Time.” It makes me genuinely envious to see this quality and content in writing. Not only is the writing lively and clever, she is absolutely right about our generation unfortunate arrival at the peak of a world of scams. Here is a paragraph from her work:
Cotelingham’s experience is increasingly common. We are living in the golden age of scams. U.S. consumers lost a record $10 billion to fraud in 2023, according to the Federal Trade Commission, a 14% increase over 2022. That tally is almost certainly an undercount. More than three-quarters of victims, including Cotelingham, don’t report to authorities that they’ve been defrauded. We are constantly baited by scammers—by text, by email, by phone. The average smartphone owner in the U.S. gets an estimated 42 spam texts and 28 spam calls per month, according to RoboKiller, an app for screening calls.
We all suffer living in this golden age of scams. I can take a quick glance at my e-mail spam folder which is many times in size the contents of legitimate e-mails and get an immediate grasp of the giant growth industry that scamming is.
It is obvious that the pathways we use to communicate, e-mail, the internet and the phone have all become corrupted. Surely as a larger society something can be done to curb these disgraceful practices.
I recommend you read the original essay and like me contemplate what can be done about this moral and ethical disaster.
James Alan Pilant
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/m-flight-attendant-passengers-annoying-141610163.html
Apparently the term, gate lice has been around a long time. Let me quote from the article referenced at the top of the page:
Allegedly coined in a 2005 FlyerTalk discussion thread, “gate lice” refers to passengers who hover around the gate like insects before it’s their turn to board so they can ostensibly secure overhead storage space.
The article goes on and while discussing the pros and cons of the practice, it is generally critical.
My job as a writer in business ethics is not to simply accept what I am told. And I’m not happy about what I’m being told here.
Airline travel has transformed over the years into a difficult and often miserable experience with the principal and only defense of this decline is that it is cheaper. That doesn’t make what the airlines have been doing to cut cots ethical or right.
Why isn’t there enough storage? Do the policies concerning baggage make any sense or are they just a way of generating a new revenue stream?
My general impression isn’t that people are acting badly but are acting in response to how badly the airlines are being run.
You can call them gate lice all you want but what you really have our customers being treated badly.
James Alan Pilant
https://www.yahoo.com/news/jd-vance-appears-admit-tale-151656091.html
Let me lead with a quote from the article listed above:
“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do,” said the senator.
Kind readers, perhaps I am misunderstanding the quote. My impression, perhaps foolish, is that he is saying that he can make up any story no matter how outlandish if it furthers his political narrative.
So, if a story of, oh say, a Bigfoot sighting, plays well in drawing attention to, say, interest rates,, no doubt an important issue — the Bigfoot story will be told with great passion. The fact that it is just a story is irrelevant if the story is effective.
Wow, generally speaking when we talk about the Big Lie, (not the 2020 election big lie, the one before that), the one in “Mein Kamp” that if you repeated a lie often enough many will believe it, this is a whole new take. If you have a “higher” purpose making up stories is okay.
That, of course, is nonsense. It is also a direct contradiction of morality and ethics.
Is it not written that lies are wrong? For instance: Proverbs 13, Verse 5: The righteous hate what is false, but the wicked make themselves a stench and bring shame on themselves.
When someone admits that they will make up stories to get media attention, we get what we have now, a series of cruelties and nonsense perpetrated on an American community, which apparently is okay with J.D. Vance. I suppose all that suffering, the bomb threats and the demonizing of Haitians is also useful in furthering the narrative. So, it’s a twofer, you get the benefits of a made up story and the havoc that the false story brought.
This may be considered a success by some in the political game but not by me. I can’t help but think that real stories of real people with a strong factual basis are superior and call attention to actual issues of importance to all Americans. I am sure to some this appears naïve. But no matter what people say and think I continue to believe that truth is better than lies. I also believe that knowingly using lies as a part of your narrative is a dramatic indication of a lack of a moral character.
There is still right and wrong even in divided America.
James Alan Pilant
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/home-depot-pay-2-million-133019838.html
Home Depot is paying a settlement of around two million dollars for “scanner violations.”
Here is a direct quote from the article referenced at the top:
The complaint filed in San Diego Superior Court said that when people at Home Depot brought an item to checkout, they would be charged more money than was written on the shelf tag or on the item itself. Such violations are called “scanner violations,” the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office said in a press release Thursday.
Why isn’t this a crime? These customers were charged more than the listed price. Is there anyone, anywhere who believes this was just a mistake?
And missing from the article is the most important piece of information of all — how much did Home Depot profit from this nefarious scheme? I suspect that the two million dollars penalty is but a tiny fraction of the amount taken from consumers.
Apparently living as we do in the declining and predatory phase of capitalism this is regarded as a success ful business decision. It is also, evil, morally bankrupt, and a profound insult to the duty of honesty and fair dealing. Jack Welch and Milton Friedman would undoubtedly be impressed by the business skills here displayed by Home Depot.
Do we want morality and ethics in our business dealings in the United States? Apparently not very much or hardly at all. A fine which appears to be but a small fraction of the amount stolen by scanner violations is not going to discourage the company from stealing again.
What are we becoming as a nation, as a people and as a civilization where we routinize simple theft as just part of doing business? It is not too much to demand that businesses abide by the listed prices. It is not too much to demand that businesses abstain from theft. It is not too much to expect that businesses treat their customers as guests and assets rather than easy marks.
We do what is right because it is right, not because it is profitable, or that people might like us. We have duties as Americans to our fellow citizens and the nation as a whole. And if I may speak frankly, a duty to Almighty God to live as just human beings.
James Pilant
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/king-charles-reportedly-ultimatum-prince-165723091.html
Difficult people present themselves throughout our lives. A badly designed political system makes more difficult people than a functioning government like a republic or a democracy. One of the most, if not the most horrible forms of government is a hereditary monarchy. These are based on the idea that breeding is blessed by God to produce Heaven’s choice for a government. All of that, and in particular, the blessing of God, is complete and total nonsense.
History has demonstrated constantly and repetitively, over and over again, that giving people power, money and influence purely based on the circumstances of their birth is a formula for disaster.
For an example of a royal gone badly wrong, we only have to point to Prince Andrew. I believe that currently he is the worst of the Royal family. You may disagree and I freely admit in a world where royal descendants are common and their crimes and behavioral nonsense often well known, that maybe to you he doesn’t stand out. But I believe he is the worst.
Now the headline at the top of the page says that the King of England, (Scotland and Wales), wants him to move out of the official residence. Apparently because of all the bad press. And he does not want to go. Did I mention that besides being odious, that Andrew is also greedy and entitled? Please add that in.
There may be someone out that who does not know what Andrew is about. The “Prince” has labored all of his life to get more money in addition to the large sums from the British tax payer and he has had a laser like focus on young women, so much so that Jeffrey Epstein was a close personal friend.
There are books, magazine articles and pod casts about this person. I recommend you take my word for his awfulness not because I’m lacking in evidence but because it is so vile and disgusting. I’ve read about him at some length and as an American, I can’t help but think that with his position, all that money and power, that he could have made something of himself and been a bright and shining light with the example of his life. And that would have been a rebuke to me and my contempt for aristocratic government. But there was no danger of me being rebuked by a Royal’s good behavior. When presented with incredible opportunity, the prince chose the path of greed and sexual gratification.
And now, kind reader, you are probably wondering why I, who hold myself out as an expert on business ethics, am writing about an errant and foolish prince?
It is very simple. We still have the problem of those favored solely by birth, the boss’ son, so to speak. Nepotism and other forms of evil are still with us. Andrew is just an outstanding example of a problem that is never totally going away.
Okay, so what is the great truth here? In the United States, we should promote and reward based purely on merit. That should be our guide when choosing our leadership and much else. It is the right thing to do, the morally correct thing to do.
And every single time that Prince Andrew wiggles out of another predicament, gets forgiven for awful behavior and continues to act entitled and outside the conduct of a gentleman, he is an example to others of how goodness, mercy and kindness as well as all of morality and the law can be ignored in the race for money, sex and influence.
People like him make life harder for the people who follow the rules, work hard and depend on others realizing their merit.
It is with deep regret that I must confess that even Andrew is thrown out of his official resident, I am sure he will continue to misbehave and I may reluctantly, regretfully and painfully have to return to this topic. He and his ilk are just generally not fixable.
James Alan Pilant
https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-hollie-strano-fired-wkyc-165747706.html
Hollie Strano was fired after a DUI and fleeing from police resulting in a collision with a tree.
My first thought upon reading the story was that meteorology is not particularly affected by drinking as far as I can tell. However, she is very much a public figure having delivered the weather on television as part of the news program for twenty-two years.
Business ethics suggests we do an ethical analysis. Let’s start with social responsibility. Does the television station parent company have obligations toward the public and/or the fired meteorologist? Yes, it does and it is more to the public than to the employee.
So, once we’ve established moral obligation, how should the company act? Was firing her, the best or the correct decision? I hold myself as an expert on business ethics but here I have to admit – I just don’t know. I am doubtful that firing her benefits the public in anyway. It shamed her and damaged her financially and impinged on her reputation but you can easily argue that the legal system had already done that and I suspect for many people that would have been enough. On the other hand, alcoholism is a serious behavioral problem and television meteorologists are not precious commodities. There are more out there if you want them. So, as a practical matter, firing her was a straightforward decision but that still leaves the question of right and wrong here.
I read the comments on the story and they were united in condemning her behavior and suggesting that she got what was coming to her. I don’t think that I could have written one of those. Addiction straddles the line between mental illness and choice in many ways. I have heard people with addiction claim that it was beyond their control but a society really can’t embrace that. Because if we find those addicted are incapable of acting otherwise, than imprisonment and the removal of access to dangerous machines becomes essential to societal order. And once you do that, you have made them into a lesser form of citizen unable in many ways to function not to mention the social cost of jail and prison.
And as a people in the twenty-first century we have a general belief that individuals can choose their own actions. I agree with that sentiment. It is probably right but the only real way forward in dealing with this kind of misbehavior is to assume that people can change.
But as in all discussions of ethics and morality, sometimes firm and simple conclusions defy our best judgment. She was punished but how much was too much or not enough. I don’t know.
James Pilant
https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-suggests-support-replacing-214454335.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-amplifies-bizarre-post-135721642.html
One of the most hideously destructive ideas in all of human history is the concept of hereditary monarchy and we’re still dealing with it today. But there are other ideas of incredible stupidity and mindlessness wandering about in search of a home amongst the foolish.
So, that brings us to hegemonic masculinity, the idea that only high testosterone males are capable of discerning truth. I feel very uncomfortable even writing that sentence. It is such a pathetic idea. It is roughly comparable to the governance of the alien race in the cartoon, Invader Zim, where status was determined solely by height.
I once explained to my class the lure of being in the Klu Klux Klan. You join the organization. You rise in the morning and you look in the mirror. And you can go back to bed. Why? Because everything is done. Everything is accomplished. You are a member of the Anglo-Saxon race. All culture and art flow from the blood in your veins. You are number one. There is no work, no thought, no effort. You are perfect. That’s the allure. Just like every other lunatic body of thought, the first impulse is the denial of the simple fact that we achieve by effort.
You see this over and over again. “What we are right now is wonderful.” In actual life, we become by learning, actively thinking and having experiences. That’s it. Beliefs that shortcut the route of actual effort are a dime a dozen and all of them are ridiculous. And so we come to this nonsense and to no one’s surprise, people who consider themselves high testosterone males originated this “concept.”
And Elon Musk has embraced it. Just a thought – if I were trying to run a business selling things like cars, I might keep my more controversial thoughts to myself. But, of course, that might require a certain level of humility. I would assume if all your underlings mutter quietly about you being a sort of a business demi-god striding the earth, I might acquire over time a very high opinion of myself and issue the occasional proclamation of my wisdom to the ignorant masses.
And here we have one of those proclamations. High testosterone males good, everyone else bad. Wow! What level of thinking do you think that is? Does it rank as high as grade school? I doubt it.
We have enough craziness to deal with without looney billionaires with visions of testosterone generated critical thinking dancing in their heads.
I personally have embraced enlightenment thought and democratic ideals. And that means that to establish worth I have to achieve it by thinking, experiencing and accomplishing. it is often hard. But real life and real achievement demand what is difficult.
James Alan Pilant
Pilant's Business Ethics Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.