Latest news with #GeorgeCarlin
Fox News
6 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
MORNING GLORY: Defining vulgarity down
The Federal Communications Commission has long forbidden licensees from using the airwaves allotted by the federal government to broadcast obscene, indecent or profane content. The rules are very easy to understand. Lenny Bruce and George Carlin did a public service when they made comedy schtick out of the generally agreed-upon standards for broadcast content. Every broadcaster in America got the standards hammered into them before they took to the air. In 35 years, I've never had a complaint about breaching this rule. I don't know any broadcaster who has. Because the rules are pretty much common sense about language that doesn't merely offend, but which usually is intended to simply shock. Before there was "clickbait" there were the "seven dirty words," precursors to "clickbait." There isn't a reader of this column who doesn't know some, if not all, of the trip wire terms. Similarly, there isn't an elected official in the land who uses the forbidden language in paid advertising. That's because they know it won't be cleared for broadcast. Most of them also think the use of obscene, indecent or profane language will lose, not gain votes. It is also understood that most adults and certainly the vast majority of teens routinely let loose with a phrase that would be condemned if aired by a licensee. In the not-so-distant past, however, candidates would never let the language slip their lips in a public event or most private settings. That day is now past. This week California Governor Gavin Newsom —a skilled communicator whatever you think of his policies— let loose with the "MOAP" —the mother of all profanities, not least because it includes the word "mother." That California's governor did so on a podcast and not in public tells you he knows the rules. Applying the term to podcaster, Joe Rogan, as the governor did could have been a calculated olive branch to the most popular podcaster. It certainly was a conscious decision, not the "excited utterance" of the sort that makes it into court records. The Federal Rules of Evidence provide for an "excited utterance" as an exception to the bar of hearsay evidence, and is admissible to prove the truth of the statement itself. And Governor Newsom is hardly alone. A growing number of public officials and legions of public figures have almost no filters on their public utterances. The very few filters that remain are still so disgusting as to not even pass the "I'm trying to impress with my casual profanity" bar because they carry a real political price. They do not carry a price for comics and podcasters. The reverse in fact. Casual use of the FCC's forbidden fruit is actually a branding mechanism and serves thus on both left and right wing podcasts. It would be a very good thing for a pollster or ten to test the public's views of profane, obscene or indecent speech. Candidates and the attention-addicted seem to have concluded that there is no downside to the use of such terms. My guess is that there is still a cost and that the new approach impacts the dead center of American politics, with both blue and red America reluctant to socialize the shocking. "Prude" or "Victorian" are thought by many to be insults, but when applied to those who simply object to the coarsening of the country's discourse, such designations are compliments. There are few if any people who don't slip into obnoxious, vulgar or profane speech, which is still instantly regretted by most normal folks if uttered within hearing distance of kids, especially those from toddlers to pre-teens (who have many superpowers including a capacity to recall every phrase used by parents and relatives.) For some reason, folks on the left side of the spectrum seem convinced that the causal use of the formerly forbidden is now a plus. Doubtful. But it would be useful to have evidence that there is no upside and some downside —if only a few percentage points. Hugh Hewitt is a Fox News contributor, and host of "The Hugh Hewitt Show," heard weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on the Salem Radio Network, and simulcast on Salem News Channel. Hugh drives America home on the East Coast and to lunch on the West Coast on over 400 affiliates nationwide, and on all the streaming platforms where SNC can be seen. He is a frequent guest on the Fox News Channel's news roundtable hosted by Bret Baier weekdays at 6pm ET. A son of Ohio and a graduate of Harvard College and the University of Michigan Law School, Hewitt has been a Professor of Law at Chapman University's Fowler School of Law since 1996 where he teaches Constitutional Law. Hewitt launched his eponymous radio show from Los Angeles in 1990. Hewitt has frequently appeared on every major national news television network, hosted television shows for PBS and MSNBC, written for every major American paper, has authored a dozen books and moderated a score of Republican candidate debates, most recently the November 2023 Republican presidential debate in Miami and four Republican presidential debates in the 2015-16 cycle. Hewitt focuses his radio show and his column on the Constitution, national security, American politics and the Cleveland Browns and Guardians. Hewitt has interviewed tens of thousands of guests from Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump over his 40 years in broadcast, and this column previews the lead story that will drive his radio/ TV show today.
South China Morning Post
10-07-2025
- Health
- South China Morning Post
Smoking on planes has been banned for years. So why are there still ashtrays?
In the beginning, there were no separate smoking sections because everybody smoked everywhere. And I mean everywhere: with kids in the car, in cinemas, buses, trains, McDonald's (and everyone else's) restaurants, maternity wards, doctors' clinics, supermarkets, lifts, bathrooms, classrooms and aeroplanes. Pretty much the only place you couldn't smoke was at the petrol pump. Even kids like me got in the act, 'smoking' ever-popular candy cigarettes. (It made me look cool and grown-up, just like Dad. And Steve McQueen!) Then slowly, sympathy for long-suffering non-smokers drove momentum for areas set apart for smokers. Cinemas reserved the balcony or side sections, their smoke swirling in the light of the projector. My high school even had a students' smoking section! 'Smoking or non?' became the standard greeting when you entered a restaurant. (But as George Carlin said, 'Isn't making a smoking section in a restaurant like making a peeing section in a swimming pool?') Passengers light up on a Transocean Air Lines Boeing 377 Stratocruiser in the mid-1950s. And then, radically, in 1971, courting great controversy, United Airlines created the first smoking section on planes. The tobacco industry was livid. Smokers marginalised! A publicity exercise! What a concept – a loosely curtained-off ghetto at the rear of the plane was somehow supposed to hermetically protect the non-smokers and seal off the smokers and their haze from all but the back few rows of the plane. To be fair, to a certain extent, it worked – most of the smog stayed at the back, leaving only the smokers back there gasping for breath. Anyway, an improvement. I remember well that there was a hack: to avoid getting stuck in the noxious smoking section, nicotine addicts would book non-smoking seats (so they wouldn't have to inhale everyone else's cigarettes through the entire flight). Then when they were finally desperate for a smoke, they'd simply do a 'Sorry, Babe, back in a minute', slink back to the smoking section and slip through the curtains. They'd light up and slouch there guiltily in the aisle, huffing down a fag before returning to the relative purity of the non-smoking section. In 1990, Hong Kong's Cathay Pacific was the first airline in Asia to introduce non-smoking flights. Photo: SCMP Archives
Wall Street Journal
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
Jews Can Defend Themselves
Cynthia Ozick's excellent op-ed 'Antisemitism and the Politics of the Chant' (June 4) reminded me of a quote from the comedian George Carlin (1937-2008): 'Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.' In a letter Nathan Diament counsels that while condemning these mobs is important, 'taking steps to keep American Jews actually safe from violence' is all the more so ('How Can Congress Keep American Jews Safe?,' June 6). With respect, relying solely on politicians to keep American Jews safe isn't the answer. To quote the late Holocaust survivor and educator Simon Wiesenthal: 'Freedom is not a gift from heaven, it's something we have to fight for each and every day.' In that light, perhaps more Jews should avail themselves of that great American innovation: the Second Amendment.
Forbes
03-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Will Avatars Turn Employees Into Surrogates In An AI Workforce?
Will Avatars Turn Employees Into Surrogates In An AI Workforce? I've been playing around with a few online platforms that let you create an avatar of yourself that looks and sounds a lot like you. The one I tried most recently, created a version of me where the mouth movements didn't quite match how I normally speak. It was basically my face, but the way the mouth moved gave it away. The voice was close, but not exact. Still, it reminded me of the Bruce Willis movie Surrogates. That film showed a world where people stayed home while sending robotic versions of themselves out to live their lives. We already have filters on Zoom that make us look less tired or smooth out a few wrinkles. But creating a video presence that speaks for us without us actually being there feels like a bigger shift. It raises some real questions, especially now that companies are experimenting with AI workforce tools that blur the line between showing up digitally and showing up in person. How AI Workforce Technology Is Changing The Way Employees Show Up Several platforms are pushing the limits of what is possible with AI avatars. With just a few clicks, someone can create a professional video of themselves delivering a message, hosting a training session, or participating in a meeting without ever being live. The message they deliver comes from a script that is just copied and pasted into the software, and then the avatar reads it. It's not unlike a video I saw of a complete standup routine that imitated George Carlin's voice and his style. His estate sued for that creation, but it's a different situation when we create avatars of ourselves. It is easy to see the appeal. No more rushing to get camera ready for Zoom calls. No more worrying about lighting, background noise, or even your energy level. As AI workforce options expand, it becomes tempting to wonder if showing up personally is even necessary in every situation. Why AI Workforce Solutions Are Appealing In A Remote Work Era Remote work is not going away. In fact, many companies are embracing it more fully than ever. AI workforce solutions offer a way to stay visible and productive without the constant drain of live video appearances. There are practical benefits. Employees who feel uncomfortable on camera might feel more confident sending an avatar. Teams can create consistent training content without repeating themselves. Leaders can appear across multiple meetings at once without ever leaving their office. In a way, the rise of AI workforce tools feels like a natural next step in a world that is already blending digital and human experiences. What AI Workforce Trends Could Mean For Trust And Authenticity Even though the technology is impressive, it raises real questions about authenticity. If an AI avatar shows up for a meeting or delivers a message, how can you be sure the real person was involved? In education, although not allowed, there have already been examples of online professors hiring others to teach courses under their names. Imagine how easy it would be to use AI workforce avatars to replicate a presence without any personal involvement. How much trust might erode if we cannot tell whether we are interacting with a real colleague or just their digital twin. How AI Workforce Innovations Raise New Questions About Responsibility There is also the issue of responsibility. If an AI avatar says something inaccurate, misleading, or even offensive, who is accountable? Is it the employee, the company, or the technology provider? As AI workforce innovations become more common, the lines could blur quickly. In fields like customer service, sales, and leadership communication, getting it wrong could have serious consequences. The legal system has not fully caught up yet, leaving a lot of gray areas around what happens when avatars act on someone else's behalf. In the Carlin case, the lawsuit ended in a settlement, and the creators agreed to remove the content and stop using his likeness. It set an early precedent, but when people start creating avatars of themselves for work, it opens up a whole different category of questions the courts still haven't addressed. Are AI Workforce Avatars Making Human Connection Harder To Build? One thing to consider is the role imperfection plays in building trust. Live conversations are messy. People pause, stumble over words, laugh at unexpected moments, and show real emotion. Those small signs of humanity are part of what helps us connect. If AI workforce avatars start replacing more human interactions, will we lose something important? A perfectly polished video presentation can deliver information, but can it create real relationships? It is an open question, but it seems worth considering before we trade too much authenticity for convenience. Real Companies Are Already Using AI Workforce Avatars This may still feel futuristic, but some companies are already using AI avatars for real work. Synthesia is used by more than half of the Fortune 100, mostly for training videos and internal updates. BESTSELLER, a global fashion company, uses it to reach thousands of employees while cutting back on classroom time. Other platforms like Hour One and Colossyan are being used to speed up everything from compliance videos to investor updates. Companies like HP, BMW, and Vodafone are already exploring these tools. Most current examples focus on communication and training, but with this kind of momentum, it's not hard to imagine how quickly that could expand into meetings, customer service, or even leadership messaging. Even Zoom is experimenting with AI avatars. They are working on photorealistic avatar options that would let you record messages or participate in meetings asynchronously, which is something that takes all this to another level. We are not talking about future tech anymore. These tools are here, and companies are already testing how far they can go. What Companies Can Do To Prepare Now For An AI Workforce Whether or not companies adopt AI avatars this year, it makes sense to start talking about what this kind of presence means. Is it okay to use an avatar in a team meeting? When is live participation required? What kind of training should be offered to help people use these tools responsibly? Companies that begin defining expectations now will be in a better position later. It is easier to build trust when people know the rules and understand how these new tools fit into workplace culture. Final Thoughts On Where The AI Workforce Might Take Us The idea of outsourcing our real selves to technology is no longer just a movie plot. As AI workforce tools become more advanced and accessible, they are shaping the way businesses operate and how people show up professionally. There is no clear roadmap yet. Some companies will likely embrace AI workforce avatars quickly. Others will move more cautiously, trying to protect human connection wherever possible. As exciting as the technology is, I keep coming back to the same feeling I had when I first saw Surrogates. Just because we can send a version of ourselves into the world does not mean we always should. Maybe the real question is not whether avatars will become part of the AI workforce. It is how much of ourselves we are willing to hand over to them.
Yahoo
03-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
George Carlin warned us: When we ban words, we surrender freedom
In 1972, comedian George Carlin delivered one of the most iconic bits in stand-up history: 'Seven Dirty Words You Can't Say on Television.' It was a profanity-laced masterclass in satire, pointing out the absurdity of a society obsessed with policing language. The words in question were crass, sure, and some people undoubtedly found them offensive — but they weren't dangerous, by any reasonable standard. Banning them from the airwaves, as Carlin observed, gave them power they wouldn't have had otherwise. Fast-forward to today, and the list of forbidden words has changed, but the game hasn't. The U.S. government is once again policing language, this time on the websites of federal agencies. But the new 'dirty words' aren't profane. They're words like "diversity," "equity" and "inclusion." Words like 'women,' "LGBTQ," "immigrants" and "disability." They are basic, real-world terms used every single day by ordinary people, in everything from education to health care to workplace policy. Now, suddenly, they are deemed too controversial to say out loud. According to recent reporting from The New York Times, federal departments under the current administration are being quietly instructed to remove or replace this language. There are no detailed press releases laying out these changes. There are no official bans. Just a slow erasure of the vocabulary that recognizes inequity, and those impacted by it. But just as with Carlin's original list, banning these words doesn't make them go away. It only proves their power. And that's exactly why they're being targeted. These are the ones that make you laugh until you realize they're serious. Women: That's right. Half the population. A basic demographic. Too controversial, apparently. Disability: A term protected by law (thanks, ADA). Now also too edgy for a government webpage. Immigrants: You mean the people most of us citizens descended from, and the group that built much of our country? Also out. Sex: Not in the risqué, baby-making way, just the standard biological data point used in everything from medicine to surveys. Too messy, apparently. Tribal: Try writing about Native sovereignty or federal treaty obligations without this one. Good luck. These are the words that make it easier to name and fix what's broken. Which, of course, is why they're under attack. Systemic Racism: If you can't name it, you don't have to address it. That's the whole point. Equity: Not 'equality,' which is aspirational. Equity is about meeting people where they are. That scares people who benefit from the imbalance. Underserved: It's hard to justify budget cuts to public health and education if you're forced to acknowledge that some communities lack access. Inclusion: Heaven forbid we try to create cultures where everyone gets to participate and feels like they play an important role. Justice: Perhaps this is the most revealing of all. If the word 'justice' is too political, ask yourself who benefits when it disappears. And then there are the words they fear most: the ones that empower people, organize movements or point out the imbalance of power. These words aren't controversial because they're confusing or unclear — quite the opposite. They are controversial because they carry weight, demand change and acknowledge lived realities. LGBTQ: It says 'you exist, and you matter' to a community of millions. And that is somehow too controversial. Diversity: Once a word embraced by corporations and government alike, based on empirical evidence that more diverse teams make smarter decisions. Now labeled a threat. Antiracism: If racism is bad, then antiracism must be… also bad? The logic doesn't hold, but the fearmongering works. Cultural Competency: A foundational concept in health care, education and law enforcement. This term is meant to describe understanding and dealing with people from all kinds of different backgrounds — and that's a direct threat to willful ignorance. Allyship: You don't have to fall within one of these groups to care about what happens to them and use your privilege to advocate for them. Perhaps it isn't surprising to learn that makes some people squirm. History tells us that the first step toward controlling thought is controlling language. In totalitarian regimes, censored vocabularies create the illusion of consensus and the impossibility of dissent. No words, no resistance. This isn't a conspiracy theory; it's a tactic. If you remove the words that describe injustice, you are attempting to make injustice invisible. If you silence the terms used to advocate for equity, then the concept itself becomes suspect. If you erase identity from public policy, then the people who hold those identities lose visibility — and power. Company leaders are watching this language shift closely. Many have already pulled back on inclusion efforts, often citing potentially real legal concerns. Some are clearly responding to genuine regulatory risk — especially those with federal contracts. But let's be honest: Many such companies and their leaders are also reacting to noise, and reacting out of fear. In a society where many leaders are risk-averse, conservative and conflict-shy by nature, the temptation to 'just drop the language' is strong. But such instincts have consequences. When we avoid speaking or writing certain words, it becomes much easier to avoid the work behind the words. And when institutions abandon shared vocabulary, they abandon shared purpose. Some argue that the left has censored language too, by pushing too hard for 'woke' terms that are understood as more accurate, inclusive or respectful. And yes, language evolves. 'Handicapped' became 'people with disabilities.' 'Indian' shifted to 'Native American' or 'Indigenous.' These aren't bans; they're cultural corrections rooted in empathy and dignity. You are free to choose whether you use these terms or not, although you can't control how other people may view you for those the difference: Choosing kinder language isn't enforced by law. Use an older term and you may offend someone, or even be called out for it. But banning words that give voice to the marginalized from official language is an attempt to silence opposition and, literally, to control the narrative. Let's not forget what this is really about. These aren't abstract concepts. These words represent real people, employees, clients, neighbors, citizens. When we erase the language of inclusion, we take a crucial step toward erasing the people that language is meant to protect. We're telling those people, in no uncertain terms, that they're not worth naming. We can't let that slide. Not in public policy, not in the workplace, not in daily conversation. Say the words. Say them loudly. Say them with clarity and care — not because they're fashionable or polite, but because they're real. Because they describe who we are, what we face and what we hope to build. As Carlin reminded us: Words are all we have. Let's not let them disappear.
