https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/felicity-huffman-breaks-silence-on-varsity-blues-college-admission-scandal-arrest/ar-AA1kQHxc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_Blues_scandal

Here is what Felicity Huffman had to say about buying her child a SAT score:

“It felt like I had to give my daughter a chance at a future,” Huffman said. “And so it was sort of like my daughter’s future, which meant I had to break the law.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/felicity-huffman-breaks-silence-on-varsity-blues-college-admission-scandal-arrest/ar-AA1kQHxc

This is complete nonsense. I have been involved in colleges and universities for decades. There are a myriad of college and university choices if you don’t get your first pick and doing poorly on an admissions test like the SAT and ACT does not automatically doom you to a life in salt mine. It is very common for students to study guide books and take classes to improve their test taking and then re-take the test. That is exactly what a good mother would have recommended to her daughter. Maybe stay out a year, work and accumulate some hours at a local college while prepping for a second test score.

Just to test the water on SAT remedies, I ran a search for SAT test preparation and got 719,000 hits. There are alternatives to cheating.

I entitled this “A Truly Bad Mother.” What did I mean? Instead of teaching her daughter to compete successfully or do what was right, she taught her that money and privilege rule – that if the subject if important enough breaking the law is okay. She taught her that working hard for your goals is unnecessary and that the hard work and achievements of those outside their class matter not at all. That’s a bad mother.

The “Varsity Blues” scandal demonstrates a moral vacuity and ethical stupidity among many in American’s ruling class. Thirty three sets of parents were involved in this particular atrocity. But that raises the question of how many parents are out there paying to cheat their children’s way into college? And don’t get me started about the hideously evil practice of legacy admissions where ability and achievements aren’t even considered. Admitting students to an ivy league school solely because one of their parents attended is more like the divine right of kings as opposed to any form of democratic merit. No school that commits this horror should get a dime of taxpayers money. But this is just another way the game is rigged in favor of the wealthy and well placed.

If you look at Felicity Huffman’s wikipedia page, you will discover a life of incredible privilege, the very finest schools and a solid and secure membership in America’s elite families dating back generations. We like to pretend we live in a classless society but that is not true. As of this writing, I am researching for an article on the hubris of Stockton Rush, another member of America’s elite ruling families. So, it is here.

I call them the no-fault class because while they can fail, they can commit crimes, (lots of crimes and very serious ones), be incredibly drug addicted, be obviously stupid or mentally challenged and yet there is always a second chance, another nice place for them to live, another source of money for them to use and an almost infinite supply of family friends and rescuers. Their mistakes are not important. When I was a young man, one of the members of this class, murdered his girl friend in a fit of rage beating her skull in with a hammer. But never fear, he had many powerful friends and under the battle cry (I kid you not) of “Let’s not destroy two lives here,” he did not go to prison and after he did a stint of probation I found an article about him living on a tropical island with a local girlfriend.

What should we do? First we should have a national, an American standard for admission to colleges and universities. Merit should be the first consideration. After merit we should consider other factors. But merit must be first. And while that would be good and important, it is not enough.

The practice in the United States of local financing for schools mean that many students are disadvantaged simply by geography. Where you live should not be a determinate of academic success any more than it determines the quality of air, food and water. But that is the case all over the United States. We can do better than this.

In our current political system, reining in the unfair advantages of wealth and privilege is simply not going to happen. They own most of this place. So, work hard, follow the rules and live as a good citizen of the United States. This nation has a culture that very often rewards work and achievement. But even if work and achievement are not fairly rewarded, that is the way good Americans live their lives.

James Alan Pilant

A 5,000-ton cargo ship crashed into a Scottish island while the officer on watch was ‘snoring loudly’ after a night of drinking, report finds (msn.com)

The Marmara a German owned vessel flying the Portuguese flag was peacefully sailing along when suddenly and without any provocation whatever, Scotland loomed in front of it, striking the bow with considerable force.

In a world where most cargo ships, the vast majority, in fact, manage to stay in shipping channels, avoid reefs and shallow water, this one ran directly into Scotland.

Many times discussing business ethics, you have to weigh the arguments for one side against those of the other side. In this case, three hours of drinking and then falling asleep at the wheel of a five thousand ton cargo ship must be weighed against Scottish unwillingness to move their nation. In my wise and seasoned judgment, the drunk helmsman is to blame. Not a difficult analysis.

According to news reports, the ship’s warning system went off fifteen times apparently indicating that Scotland was at hand. The crew drunk and happy slept on, and in consideration of their fellow crew men, should have slept on their sides because they were snoring loudly according to the ship’s black box recording of the ship’s abrupt arrival at the minor obstruction of a 30,414 square mile semi-independent nation.

I am very pleased that while the ship was seriously damaged, no lives were lost either on board or in Scotland. It does not take much reflection to conclude, that this could have been a much more serious tragedy but huge amounts of sheer luck were on the side of the ship (and Scotland).

James Pilant

The picture of Scotland above is from wikipedia and this is the attribute they asked me to copy. By Users Angusmclellan, Angusmclellan, Angusmclellan on en.wikipedia – Originally from en.wikipedia; description page is (was) here, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=714472

My sincere thanks to Wikipedia!!

I believe this film is in the public domain but since I am editorializing based on it – I only intend fair use. JP

Business trends can be tricky. Right now, virtually every business in the world is thinking of jumping on the bandwagon of AI which is undoubtedly right for some and wrong for many others. I consider John Wayne’s foray into the genre of the singing cowboy, a cautionary tale. Not every business trend suits every business.

In the years of the 1930’s, the Western was already well established as a genre. The advent of sound had changed the stories only a little, and they were looking for some new angle to bring people into the theatre. Bob Steele and Ken Maynard had starting singing in their roles as cowboy heroes as early as 1930 and by the year 1933, the trend was well established.

Wayne’s career was deep in the doldrums in ’33. He had starred in Raoul Walsh’s “The Big Trail” in 1930. It was supposed to be his big break but the film was made to be seen in a new broad screen format and the Depression made theatres reluctant to make the investment. So the film’s failure had nothing to do with his performance but nevertheless it put his career back into b-movies until his next big break, “Stagecoach.”

So, in 1933, we have John Wayne embarking on a role as the character, “Singin’ Sandy Saunders,” in a series of eight motion pictures. His take on the genre was more pessimistic than the others. He wore dark clothing and sang songs with serious undertones. Wayne was unhappy in the genre and decided not to renew his contract when it expired. He continued making b-films until “Stagecoach” which re-defined his career.

I have added a link to the first of his singing cowboy films, “Riders of Destiny.” I enjoyed it. It was much better than I expected considering the low budget and high speed at which the film was made.

But if you don’t mind my suggestion, whenever you think of going with the latest business fad or any other fad, you might think about “Singin Sandy” and re-consider.

James Pilant

Sports Illustrated had a reputation for many years as the best of sports journalism. My father was a subscriber when I was in my teens and in spite of having little interest in sports (I played Chess and followed the then current Vietnam War), I often enjoyed the writing.

Imagine my surprise when on my news feed began appearing stories about Sports Illustrated using AI to write articles.

So pursuing a business ethics story I began to do research on AI and its effect on journalism. The proverbial image of “opening a can or worms” is not adequate for this situation. It was more of an explosion.

I have been reading about AI for years but not closely. Close examination reveals multiple disasters and constant crisis. I was not surprised by this. In writing about business ethics, you constantly encounter situations that threaten the planet and human life. These are almost always resolved or limited or subject to human intervention – – and things often got better.

AI is an exception. When you research it, the most striking things about the writing is the air of inevitable disaster. It is viewed by experts and industry observers as well as many in government as the coming unavoidable tragedy, the oncoming storm.

I share this point of view.

It cannot be stopped. It will change how we do financial transactions, how the internet functions, how warfare is conducted and the list is almost endless.

Philosophically it raises the question of “what purpose do human being serve?” It does that because much of what we think of as creative or intelligent, AI programs can do.

Let me give you example. Vincent Van Gogh lived long before the concept of AI. But less us bring him to life for just a moment. He will create at this current time, one painting. Just one. He paints stars and sunflowers. We hand this off to an AI graphics program and tell it to create versions of this painting in high definition picturing a variety of things from pictures taken in the past. It can create thousands (really millions) of new and original renditions of his work. That one painting patterns, brush strokes and technique can be duplicated by machine over and over again almost to the state of infinity.

The same can apply to writing, composing music, architecture and the list goes on. And while the AI lacks originality in the class human sense, it can and will and has combined works. You could take our Vincent Van Gogh painting and combine it with a Turner landscape. The AI program will happily churn out millions of those hybrid works if you so desire. You can combine authors, musicians, and so on – and in a real way create new and original work.

Am I suggesting that AI will replace art? No, it will make it less profitable and less human. There will probably be a lot more of it. We will see “new works” from Dickens, Beethoven and Whistler.

But that’s just creativity. What about routine activities like selling, buying and just general blue collar work? AI allied to robotic devices could make virtually all of that doable without humans.

And do I really need to get into the implications of the military use of AI? Presumably in a few years, AI’s could autonomously launch, win and conclude conflicts on their own. Just the idea of a small drone autonomously, patiently, unemotionally hunting down a human being gives me chills. And that is the smallest imaginable chuck of the military effects.

Can we as a species limit the power and use of this new technology? I say species because the problem of AI is far larger than the modern nation state can successfully cope with. Unless there is some worldwide agreement, the chance of preventing abuse is simply non-existent.

Consider how AI could revolutionize crime, espionage and political harassment. Stopping bad actors from using this technology is essential if we are to preserve the basic elements of civilization because AI is a massive wrecking ball of technology.

The last time we faced anything like this was with the development of nuclear weapons. We have successful so far in dealing with that technology in the sense that we yet survive. And that gives me hope for the future.

We human beings have survived ice ages, wars and our own failures of judgment over the ages. Our track record for survival is pretty good.

You might say, “Well James, you’ve led us into a dead end of horror and failure? Is that the best you can do?”

I’m still wrapping my mind around the concepts and, of course, I expect to return to the topic again.

This thing is very, very bad in its implications. We are about to see change at a rate, human beings have never experienced before. The Great Depression, the collapse of the Weimar Republic, the end of colonialism and all the other massive changes in the past are going to be trivial by comparison.

This is going to change every element of our lives and it is going to do it with considerable speed.

I promise you if I can find answers to this problem, I will share them with you.

James Alan Pilant

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sports-illustrated-accused-of-using-ai-for-stories-report_n_65662118e4b028b0f3cdf145

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/28/artificial-intelligence-openai-non-profit-money

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/south-park-blames-kathleen-kennedy-144049731.html

I have another blog on Facebook simply called “Business Ethics.” Many times I have commented on the destruction of the Star Wars franchise at the hands of Disney. Kathleen Kennedy was a key player in the decision making that resulted in “The Last Jedi.” I have been fierce in my criticism.

South Park is taking on Kathleen Kennedy. I have only seen the clips provided but they are devastating. And I suspect this satire is going to have an effect. Maybe under this kind of comedic assault, she will finally face some consequences for what she has done to Disney and in particular the Star Wars story.

But this is making me reflect on what I do. I write and comment and have for a good number of years and yet this satire is going to have far more effect in the real world than my writing has.

However, my audience is not South Park’s and their audience isn’t mine. We aren’t speaking the same language and while I may admire their effectiveness. I often find their work offensive and in poor taste.

So, I will enjoy the satire and continue with my work.

Colorado judge chides company that tried to pay $23,500 settlement in coins weighing 3 tons (msn.com)

A firm paid a legal settlement in loose coins in a great metal box. This is what is know in the law as “bad faith.” It is to be assumed that people live and negotiate without vile intent. Paying a fine by a cumbersome means is not a legitimate form of payment or obedience to a court order.

Reading the comments on this article was a horrible experience. People seemed to feel that payment can be made any way you want under the law. They flashed the term, legal tender, as if that mattered in this circumstance. The truly pitiful delight they seemed to want to take in paying in loose coins spoke poorly of their character and judgment.

There is right and wrong. There are right ways to do things and clearly wrong ways to do things. Paying a multi-thousand dollar fine in loose change is a very real middle finger perhaps attractive to the boors and barbarians among us. But courts and settlements are not to be mocked and there will be penalties for this kind of nonsense.

We as American citizens have a responsibility at all times to conduct ourselves in a reasonable manner. I would add that we should adhere to the standard of ladies and gentleman. Although these last years of horrid politics has called into question whether or not Americans any longer understand the duties of a gentleman.

Nevertheless, we should do what is right and keep our symbolic middle fingers to ourselves and always, always appeal to the better angels of our nature.

James Pilant

Most of Justice Thomas’ $267,000 loan for an RV seems to have been forgiven, Senate Democrats say (msn.com)

Apparently a great number of people find Clarence Thomas’ conduct to be just fine. If a man has spent his life as a hard cold right wing warrior, you will have many defenders. Clarence Thomas (and his wife) have many allies in government, media and among the punditry. They say there is nothing wrong with him taking gifts and trips from the wealthy. Not even loans, the kind that you don’t have to pay back disturbs their equanimity.

He lives a life of enormous privilege paid for by wealthy conservatives. His actual salary pales in significance to the number and value of what he receives.

Yet, we are told over and over again on conservative media that there is nothing wrong in having wealthy friends and taking the occasional goodie. That’s just common practice. This does inspire a certain curiosity for what is “common practice” among conservatives. There does seem to be a certain craving for luxury items among the conservative elite. I could refer to an certain governor’s lectern, for instance.

And Clarence Thomas’ failure to report these many, many items? Why, that’s just a grey area of the law. Thomas says he spoke to apparently completely and utterly anonymous lawyers of great repute – who tole him he did not have to report these kinds of gifts. I have one of those law degrees and I an unable to envisage any attorney under any circumstances telling Thomas that these gifts did not have to be reported. But who I am compared to the many anonymous figures in law that he says he consulted?

And then we have the wife of Clarence Thomas, Ginni Thomas. She has a non-profit political advocacy organization that she founded. So, people can make contributions to her organization. And we are told there is nothing wrong or unethical about the wife of a sitting Supreme Court Justice gathering political contributions. I am not so sure of that. It appears to me that you could give money to her organization and it would not be far-fetched to assume that you had gained some influence with her husband. However, much this may be denied.

I believe that the evidence provided publicly can lead to only one conclusion.

Clarence Thomas’ conduct is unethical and wrong.

No judge should take expensive gifts. No judge should fail to report accurately on their financial disclosure forms. No judge should have a wife who runs a political organizations that take contributions.

It is true that some of this falls into a grey area of legality or illegality. But a good and honest man would not have found so many grey areas to live in and Clarence Thomas appears to frolic in them.

He won’t resign, of course. To his allies, he is shining example of what is right and true. After all, aren’t his decisions vital for their interests?

But I will call him out for his moral failings.

It must be done. If we are to live in a moral world where evil and immoral acts have consequences, tolerating his conduct with out speaking or writing is just wrong.

We have an obligation as citizens of the United States to rebuke our leaders when they have strayed from morality and ethics.

Let us not be afraid to carry out our duty.

https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-09-30-23/h_79cabaddb694215355e81219150f9515

My first thought is that – it is amazing how many strange stories start with the words: “These two guys …”

These two guys in Ukraine found an advanced missile system abandoned in a back yard. So, dollars signs appeared before them or whatever passes for value in a just invaded area, and they apparently decided to hide it and maybe get some value out of it later.

And it turns out, that they hit the jackpot, they hadn’t found just any old advanced missile system but a very expensive one. According to the authorities, a little less than a million dollars. (I suspect it might be a reload for a SA-22.)

However, when a foreign nation invades and leaves stuff in your yard, it doesn’t belong to you. So, they’re in some kind of trouble. That in the midst of this war, that the Kyiv Regional Police are still in business and enforcing the law is truly amazing.

The patriotic thing to do would have been to give it to the military so they could very kindly and speedily return it to the Russians.

The Business Ethics lesson here for Americans is that if a foreign power or one of our branches of the military leaves a whole bunch of interesting stuff in your back yard, you are supposed to return it. And by the way, hiding it under a tarp is unlikely to be effective.