Baseball Park Naming Ethics Again: Getting Closer and Closer to “Chico’s Bail Bonds Park”

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Bad News Bears

The Detroit Tigers will be playing in a ballpark named “Fifth Third Park” next year.

They have no shame. It’s bad enough that there is a bank with the ridiculous name of “Fifth Third Bank” (In 1908, Third National Bank and Fifth National Bank merged and nobody had the wit to come up with a better name. I wouldn’t entrust my money to a bank run by such dimwits), but a ballpark? What’s a fifth of a third out? A third strike? Houston briefly had its park named after Enron, and San Diego’s ball park is named after supplier of dog and cat merchandise, but at least “Petco Park” is alliterative.

I was sure that I had already written a rueful post about baseball teams that sell out their fans, history, traditions, cities and dignity for filthy lucre and name their home fields after any company who will pay to turn a stadium into its billboard. In 2010 I wrote a  post  about the adultery website Ashley Madison tried to by the naming rights to the NFL Giant’s stadium, and sure enough, decade ago I covered this revolting topic thoroughly. In honor of Fifth Third Park, I’m posting it again below, with a couple of additions and edits.

***

The Washington Nationals announced this week that it has partnered with Major League Baseball Advanced Media and the consulting firm Korn Ferry to sell naming rights to Nationals Park, as the team’s home field has been known since it opened in 2008.

After all, the team explains, plastering a corporation’s name on the ballpark could add between ten and twenty million dollars a year to the team’s revenue, and imagine how much better the team will be with another starting pitcher or slugging outfielder. Why wouldn’t a team sell its home’s name, and a large chunk of its identity, to a bank, a website, or a pet supplies company?

[Update: I am happy to announce that the Nationals did not ultimately give in to greed and name its stadium MSNow Park. It is still Nationals Park.]

I admit it: being a life-time fan of the Boston Red Sox, who play in one of the the ten major league parks ( the others: Angel Stadium of Anaheim, Dodger Stadium, Fenway Park, Kauffman Stadium, Marlins Park, Nationals Park, Oriole Park at Camden Yards, Turner Field, Wrigley Field, and Yankee Stadium ) belonging to teams that have not accepted filthy lucre to mar their stadium entrances with the names of companies Bernie Sanders would hate, I find the idea revolting.  A baseball team represents its community; its lore becomes part of the culture and shared memories passed down through generations.. That has value, and symbolic significance. How much is it worth? It’s priceless, or should be. Continue reading →

The Converse Ad Controversy: Oh-Oh…”The Great Stupid” May Even Be Gathering Momentum

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

I wonder if and when enough people will wake up to the fact that when they vote for progressives, this is the kind of culture they are voting to live in. You know: hysterical, power-mad, and insane.

The footwear and apparel company Converse was attacked this week by the woke social media mob for an ad in a new sneaker campaign. It featured the bottom half of a person wearing a white garment and holding a pair of black sneakers.

The shadows that suggest the outline of a long, tapering triangle was obviously reminiscent of the pointed hood of a Klan robe, see. And the lighting makes the black sneakers look like someone is being hanged. The sneakers are black, get it? And have a single leg in two shoes, or something. The alleged lyncher was K-pop singer Karina wearing a skirt and holding a pair of Chuck 70 X sneakers, but never mind: some genius figured out this was another opportunity to hold 21st century America guilty of racism.

Naturally, Converse groveled an apology, thus ensuring more of this crap from the race-baiters and political correctness thugs. “We’re sorry,” Converse said in an emailed statement. “We understand why this image is deeply upsetting and recognize that we got this wrong. We removed it from our channels and are working to remove it everywhere it appeared,” the statement added. “This should not have happened and we will do better.”

I wish I bought Converse merchandise so I could boycott the brand. Their craven behavior harms every American, the culture, society, commerce, kids, brains, everything. Just listen to these idiots:

“As a Black man and someone who loves Converse shoes, I find this very insensitive and distasteful,” Kendall Peacock, who runs the Education Firm, a tutoring and mentorship program in Atlanta, said on social media. “Deliberate racist intent hasn’t been established yet, but that doesn’t erase the impact,” he added.

Lee Merritt, a civil rights attorney based in Texas, posted on Instagram that Converse’s apology “doesn’t undo what got past legal, marketing and leadership at every step.”

Stephanie Schwartz, a social justice photographer, wrote on social media, “Every photographer can tell you, whoever did this ad knew EXACTLY what they were doing.”

I discovered the racist sneaker ad because Holly Mathnerd wrote about it on her exotic and eccentric substack. I can’t do better than Holly’s evisceration of the latest woke obsession, and besides, she’s sharp, she’s funny, she writes well, and she deserves attention. She wrote in part,

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Lyrics of the Year: “Is a Puzzlement” From “The King and I”

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

Lyricist Oscar Hammerstein Jr. had many moments of great ethical clarity, as did his pupil and protege, Stephen Sondheim. I don’t think either topped this song, however, from the 1951 Rodgers and Hammerstein musical, “The King and I.” I’ve highlighted the key sections.

When I was a boy,
World was better spot.
What was so was so,
What was not was not.

Now I am a man—
World have change a lot:
Some things nearly so,
Others nearly not.

There are times I almost think
I am not sure of what I absolutely know.
Very often find confusion
In conclusion I concluded long ago.

In my head are many facts
That, as a student, I have studied to procure.
In my head are many facts
Of which I wish I was more certain I was sure!

[spoken]
Is a puzzlement. What to tell a growing son?

[sung]
What, for instance, shall I say to him of women?
Shall I educate him on the ancient lines?
Shall I tell the boy, as far as he is able,
To respect his wives and love his concubines?

Shall I tell him every one is like the other,
And the better one of two is really neither?
If I tell him this, I think he won’t believe it—
And I nearly think I don’t believe it either!

When my father was a king,
He was a king who knew exactly what he knew,
And his brain was not a thing
Forever swinging to and fro and fro and to.
Shall I then be like my father
And be willfully unmovable and strong?
Or is better to be right?
Or am I right when I believe I may be wrong?

Shall I join with other nations in alliance?
If allies are weak, am I not best alone?
If allies are strong with power to protect me,
Might they not protect me out of all I own?

Is a danger to be trusting one another,
One will seldom want to do what other wishes…
But unless someday somebody trust somebody,
There’ll be nothing left on earth excepting fishes!

There are times I almost think
Nobody sure of what he absolutely know.
Ev’rybody find confusion
In conclusion he concluded long ago,

And it puzzle me to learn
That though a man may be in doubt of what he know,
Very quickly will he fight,
He’ll fight to prove that what he does not know is so!

Oh-h-h, oh-h-h!
Sometimes I think that people going mad!
Ah-h-h, ah-h-h!
Sometimes I think that people not so bad!

But no matter what I think
I must go on living life.
As leader of my kingdom I must go forth,
Be father to my children,
And husband to each wife—
Et cetera, et cetera, and so forth.

If my Lord in Heaven, Buddha, show the way,
Ev’ry day I try to live another day.
If my Lord in Heaven, Buddha, show the way,
Ev’ry day I do my best for one more day,
But…
Is a puzzlement!

It sure is.

Random thoughts:

Pages: 1 2

The President’s Negotiation Strategy Worked With Greenland, and the Axis Doesn’t Have The Decency and Integrity To Admit It

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

…because it is petty and disgusting….and unethical, of course.

President Trump Truth Socialed this out at the end of last week:

BREAKING NEWS: I am pleased to announce that the United States of America has entered into an Agreement with The Kingdom of Denmark, and Greenland, that gives the United States permanent control over security, and all other needs, in Greenland, completely addressing ALL of our many U.S. concerns.

There will be NO COST to the United States! At my direction, we worked with representatives of Denmark and Greenland to guarantee that the United States will FOREVER have the complete ability to do what is necessary in Greenland in order to secure and defend the security of Greenland, and the United States of America.

Additionally, from now on, no U.S. adversary can EVER have a base in Greenland, have a military presence in Greenland, or make sensitive investments in Greenland, without our express written approval.

For over 100 years, Presidents have known the strategic importance of Greenland, but NONE of them were able to do anything about it. I am proud to be the President that permanently and conclusively addressed this very important situation. This is an “Infinite Life” Agreement, there is no end! We are very honored and proud of what has just taken place, and everything agreed to today will be cherished by the American People.

We will immediately begin the process of developing a large Military presence in the appropriate part of Greenland, of which there are many. We will work with the people of Greenland in its development and construction. This solution is a great one for the United States of America, Denmark, Greenland, and all of our Allies. We look forward to working with the wonderful people of Denmark and Greenland toward a magnificent future with respect to this large, and highly strategic, parcel of land. We will be very protective of it!

This is a dream come true for the United States of America, one that is very important, historic, and special. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

President DONALD J. TRUMP

Also last week, ancient crooner and current Fifties station disc jockey for Sirius-XM Pat Boone respectfully suggested, as a passionate Trump supporter, that President Trump should shut up more often. Of course that’s good advice, and also futility exemplified. In the President’s defense, however, he feels that he has to salute himself because the Axis news media won’t report honestly on his successes, which have been considerable. Getting what Trump wanted out Greenland proved that his meat-axe negotiating style worked to the U.S.’s advantage after all the mockery and nastiness from the Democrats and the Trump Deranged. Here’s how the news media covered it:

The New York Times said, “U.S. Has Reached Security Deal on Greenland, Trump Says — The full contours of the deal were unclear, but Denmark and Greenland both indicated they expected an agreement to be signed soon.” trump made the “contours” pretty clear, I thought: It costs us nothing, it is permanent, the U.S. can build military bases, and to all intends and purposes, the U.S. has control of that big chunk of ice.

The Washington Post reported, “Trump hails Greenland security deal that falls short of takeover.” The U.S. doesn’t want or need ownership, but the Post has to frame Trump’s success as a failure. Nice.

The Economist sniffed: “Donald Trump drops demands to own Greenland, but the harm has been done.”

Bloomberg reported, “U.S. Strikes Greenland Deal to End Row That Threatened NATO.” That’s certainly misleading framing. Here’s The Atlantic: “The Greenland Fiasco Stumbles to an End.” How exactly is it a fiasco if the U.S. gets what it wanted? “President Trump announced an agreement that appeared to satisfy all parties but came at a great cost,” the magazine continued. Not monetary cost: what is the rag talking about? Oh: the episode got Denmark annoyed at us? The Horror.

The President may have scored a victory with major implications for U.S. security, but we shouldn’t be distracted from the more serious problem: the Kennedy Center is closing down for repairs.

Ethics Quiz: The “Impossible” Wheel of Fortune Puzzle

/ Jack Marshall / 25 Comments

Devoted fans of the long-time TV game show “Wheel of Fortune “—“You know, morons!”— are enraged, as least based on the uproar on social media, because the puzzle board above foiled a competitor in the “bonus round,” costing him a car.

David Shepard of Atlanta, Georgia, was the unfortunate contestant. The pop culture media seems to think it’s relevant that he’s a cancer survivor. It isn’t. If the puzzle was unfair, then it was just as unfair whether he was cancer survivor, Sydney Sweeney, a convicted felon or Eric Swalwell. The amplified fury is another example of “toxic empathy,” as well as ethics ignorance.

But back to the issue at hand:

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:

Is that puzzle unfair?

I can’t tell you the answer, because if you know it on your own, it will probably influence your answer to the quiz. According to TV Insider, fans of the show are screaming that “nobody uses that word” and that it was part of a conspiracy to avoid giving away a $50,000 Audi. I didn’t solve the puzzle in the time allowed ( I tried before my coffee) but I certainly know the word. “Have you ever heard that phrase? Let us know in the comments,” asks TV Insider.

Take me now, Lord.

And it’s a word, not a “phrase.”

On the side of the protesters as much as I can stand to be, that puzzle reminds me of the gag in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” where the mystical keeper of “The Bridge of Death” asks three easy questions of one of King Arthur’s Knights (“What is your name? What is your quest? What’s your favorite color?”) then replaces the color question with “What is the capital of Assyria?” for Sir Robin (who is magically flung into the gorge) and “What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?” for King Arthur.

Nonetheless, it is a real word, and the show never promised that its puzzles could all be solved by people who never progressed beyond Junior Scrabble…

Post Script: According to the AI bot I just asked, the average airspeed velocity of an unladen European swallow is about 24 miles per hour, or 11 meters per second. Of course, that answer could be completely made up, and I don’t care enough to check.

A Popeye For A Trump Deranged Facebook Friend…

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Slowly but surely, they are forcing me to tell them how full of shit they are.

Posting this from the Kennedy Center’s marble slobber over our most over-rated President,

…a friend of many decades proclaimed on Facebook, “Can you imagine ANYTHING approaching this coming out of the current administration?”

As Popeye memorably said (many times) before swallowing his un-canned spinach and going bonkers, “That’s all I can stands, I can’t stands no more!!!” I responded, as nicely as I could,

“There just has to be some way to make your point without advancing shameless Kennedy hagiography, Jon. JFK always talked a good game…there is also substantial evidence that he organized a gang rape, compromised US security by having an affair with a foreign spy (as well as with a Mafia don’s moll), and was saved from being the man who triggered WW3 only because a Russian Premier decided it was worth backing down and getting purged to save millions from death. No, JFK wasn’t afraid of Jackie’s grace and beauty so he humiliated her by being a serial adulterer and sexual predator. Marilyn writhing at his birthday party in a dress that made her look naked, basically broadcasting their sexual relationship, may be the most disgusting public moment in US political history. And of course, Kennedy didn’t write most of his fine words, not even the ones that got him a Pulitzer Prize for “Profiles in Courage,” which was mostly authored by Ted Sorenson. It’s amazing what being assassinated or dying young will do for one’s reputation. As SNL writer Michael O’Donahue said when Elvis died, “Good career move!” Kennedy was a bad man and weak President. I really don’t care what he “said” and neither should anyone else.”

I can’t wait to see how the blithering idiots who “loved ” “sad-faced” and “angry-faced” his post try to spin that. I’m betting my friend, who knows I know what I’m talking about when it comes to Presidential history, will default to “But Trump…!” because that’s all he’s got.

Little by little, drip by drip, these people are forcing me to point out their ignorance, bias and stupidity.

[Oh…and someone tell Jack’s ghostwriter that it’s properly “that,” not “which.”]

Unethical Quote of the Week: Miriam Pawel

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

“What has made the University of California exceptional is its commitment to increase access without sacrificing excellence. In recent years, California has proudly defied a national trend: On average, about 40 percent of its students are the first in their families to attend a four-year college. More than half qualify for free tuition. The percentages of underrepresented students have crept up, through a variety of initiatives. The California Dream Act gave undocumented students access to financial aid, as well as in-state tuition. Students on University of California campuses may struggle with basic math, but they are graduating at record rates.”

—-Woke book author and writer Miriam Pawel, in a gobsmacking op-ed (gift link) in the New York Times.

You might think that I am being unfair, that the quote above is obviously taken out of context. Surely, surely, such a paragraph must be preceded by a convincing set of statistics proving that indeed the University of California system has not sacrificed excellence in its quest for “access” [Translation: “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion”].

Nope. There is nothing. This woman, marinated in progressive cant her whole adult life, truly believes that DEI is excellence. Not knowing how to read, add, reason or write. The diploma is the sole benefit and the sole objective. That the diploma falsely conveys the belief that its holder actually is competent, responsible, knowledgeable, skilled and accomplished doesn’t matter to Pawel. “Students on University of California campuses may struggle with basic math, but they are graduating at record rates,” she writes. “The percentages of underrepresented students have crept up, through a variety of initiatives. The California Dream Act gave undocumented students access to financial aid, as well as in-state tuition.”

Yay.

The “Get Trump!” Files: The Washington Post Weaponizes “The Streisand Effect”

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Of course it did.

Some, or many, Trump-haters out there…or the Democratic National Committee—after all, Democrats cheat—sent out into social media the above fake photos of the President kissing White House aide Natalie Harp, the young aide who has been targeted by the Angry Left as a possible object of Trump’s sexual attention. This went “viral,” The Washington Post claims, though if my fanatically Trump-Deranged Facebook friends didn’t peep about it, and they believe anything if it can be interpreted a barely negative about the President, I am dubious.

So the Washington Post decided to make certain that as many people see the photos as possible. Althouse’s immediate reaction was “WaPo wants you to know it’s fake… but you’ve got to see this, got to get it imprinted on your fragile brain.” Bingo. The Post even introduces the fake photos with “‘Hoaxes like these are “death by a thousand cuts’ that chip away at people’s trust, one expert said.” And here’s another cut! I wonder if the Post staff stood around in a mob while the article was being prepared, chanting “CUT! CUT! CUT! CUT!”

The Post did include references to BBC journalist and fact-checker Shayan Sardarizadeh’s nine-part thread on X, explaining his process for determining that both images were resolutely fakes. That arrives deep into the article however.

In 2003, Barbara Streisand sued to force an aerial photographer to remove a photo of her Malibu cliff-top mansion from a website. The lawsuit made the photo into global news, and hundreds of thousands of views and downloads when the photo had only been downloaded six times, twice by Babs’ lawyers, before the controversy. Techdirt later coined the term “The Streisand Effect,” which has come up many times on Ethics Alarms. Frankly, I’m surprised that the Axis of Unethical Conduct hasn’t been using AI-generated fake photos far more than it has so far. “CUT! CUT! CUT! CUT!” Of course it is an unethical and despicable practice, but as Harry Reid will remind us from the Lake of Fire in Hell, “It works!”

“The Ethicist” Gets A Question That I Would Answer:

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

But if I were running “The Ethicist” column, I wouldn’t dignify such a dunderheaded query with publication at all.

“Name Withheld” says that her boyfriend admits to “sexting women on the social platform YikYak, which lets you message anonymously with other people at your college.” She continues in part:

“I don’t know if I should break up with him. If he were cheating, I would do so instantly…This is a weird middle ground where he’s not really cheating, but he’s definitely crossing a line. He also told me that he first started sexting people (on other platforms) when he was in middle school… I worry that it may be a mental-health issue…We share a fair number of friends, and despite this major failing, I still think that my boyfriend is an upstanding guy. I don’t want to cause him harm by telling people why we broke up… But I also don’t want to harm my reputation — I can’t afford to lose friends because they think I’m in the wrong for breaking up with him.”

She closes her epically clueless letter with a surprise question. I assumed she was asking whether The Ethicist (NYU philosophy professor Kwame Anthony Appiah) thought she should break up with the creep. Her actual question: “Is sexting anonymously cheating?”

My runner-up answer to the letter after “RUN AWAY!” would be, “What the hell is the matter with you?” What’s the difference whether sexting women anonymously is technically “cheating” or not? Her sicko boyfriend has been sending anonymous sex messages to women since he was in junior high school! (“Dear Ethicist: Is torturing small animals cheating?”) Whatever you choose to call it, such conduct is signature significance: no “stand up guy” behaves like that. Case closed, boyfriend disqualified as trustworthy love-interest beyond a reasonable doubt, no appeal, end of story, bye-bye!

The number of flashing “IDIOT!” signs in the letter are impressive. She appears to think that “cheating” is the only permitted justification for breaking up. If she’s so worried about injuring his reputation by telling people that he’s a sick perv, then don’t tell anybody. How hard is that? But my favorite is “I can’t afford to lose friends because they think I’m in the wrong for breaking up with him.” She can’t afford to lose friends who don’t think sexting women anonymously is enough of a red flag for a boyfriend that it justifies telling him to hit the road? Who needs friends like that? Who wants friends like that? The doomed college co-ed—what becomes of women this confused? Nothing good—literally is saying that she would continue a dangerous relationship if her friends wanted her to. Wow.

Now let’s see what the Professor says….Ugh! Terrible. Equivocating academic-speak gobbledygook. Example: “Plenty of people would find his activities — para-sexual interactions with para-amours — cheating adjacent.” You can read it for yourself if, and only if, your sock drawer is organized.

From The Res Ipsa Loquitur Files…

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

A stand up comic exposes how bizarre and indefensible the woke values of Lindsay Clancy-supporting progressives are. It is also a wonderful demonstration of how the cognitive dissonance scale works…