Arts & Entertainment

Oh No! Not The Redskins/Commanders “Racist Logo” Nonsense Again!

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

I resent having to waste my time writing about this astoundingly stupid story. I have bills to pay, clients to satisfy and other much more interesting ethics stories to cover (like how the mainstream media can get away with ignoring the damning evidence that Trump’s first impeachment was a Deep State/Axis conspiracy to illicitly remove an elected President, as some of us <cough!> had figured out it was anyway).

But I’ve followed the political correctness, fake victim-mongering, Native American white guilt power play involving sports team names, mascots and logo too long not to take on this latest outbreak.

To summarize the past EA analyses of the contrived Washington Redskins controversies:

  • The team nickname was created to allude to both Boston baseball teams that hosted the first Boston NFL team, the Braves and the Red Sox. There was no intended derogatory homage to an Old West descriptive term for Native Americans, which some tribes used to refer to themselves.
  • The assault on team names, mascots and logos was a particularly silly side-effect of the outbreak of wokism and political correctness in the 90s. It wasn’t about the sports teams, but simply a means to the end of demonstrating the power of race-baiting and bending organizations and companies to the will of the Perpetually Offended.
  • The most annoying manifestation of this fraud was the “Would you accept a team called the Washington Negroes?” argument. Teams are named after people and things that the public views as admirable. Being referenced by a team nickname or mascot is a compliment, and nobody seriously considers such an association as “dehumanizing” unless there is a benefit to the imaginary victims in doing so.
  • Few of the teams under attack based on the contrived “racist” theory had the courage and fortitude to avoid capitulating, the Atlanta Braves being one worth saluting. (Ironic, because the Braves was the original name of the Redskins). Even Congressional Democrats (under Harry Reid, now roasting in Hell) tried to get into the act and force the D.C. team to ditch “Redskins,” because Democrats don’t believe in personal freedom and the First Amendment when either gets in the way of the party’s agenda.
  • Finally, a new owner changed the Redskins name to the bland “Commanders.” Many fans in D.C. still call them the Redskins anyway. 

That brings us up-to-date until this week, when the NFL team unveiled a new logo that alludes to the old Redskins name and legacy by shooting a graphic arrow (or a “native spear,” which is somehow more politically correct) through the generic “W” that has stood for “Washington Commanders.”

Demonstrating how petty and desperate for significance and publicity they are, some Native American activists crept out of their teepees to feign being offended again.

“The Washington Commanders’ decision to update their logo is disappointing and inappropriate to say the least,’’ the Association on American Indian Affairs said in a statement. “It is time to stop repeating this cycle and listen to Native Peoples who have been clear, consistent, and unwavering on this issue: We are not your mascot.’’

The association speaks with forked tongue, or, if you prefer, is lying. “Native Peoples” have repeatedly answered pollsters to the effect that they don’t care what the Washington NFL football team calls itself, and didn’t mind “Redskins” when it was still the team’s nickname. The “clear” message from the association is that the anti-Redskins activists do not speak for the people they claim to speak for, so that statement is flat-out false. I hold that nobody should respect, trust or pay attention to lying activists.

Becky Clayton-Anderson, president of the Native American Guardians Association (NAGA), says that her group’s members approve the new logo, and that NAGA “is pleased to see the Washington Commanders incorporate a Native spear into their new logo design. It’s encouraging to have a small piece of Native imagery represented again, honoring the deep connection between Native heritage and America’s sports traditions.’’

The result of the movement to erase all cultural references to Native Americans is to further alienate that rich part of U.S. cultural history from the rest. NAGA’s opposing activists will be considered successful when they expunge all Native American imagery and traditions from American life.

But wait, there’s more! There are “experts” to heed! Stephanie Fryberg, a social psychologist, suggested the new logo will cause harm.

Fryberg claimed in a statement, “Research has long shown that Native-themed mascots and symbols cause psychological harm, particularly to Native youth, by reinforcing stereotypes and contributing to the ongoing erasure of Native peoples in contemporary society.”

Yeah.

1. What research, Stephanie? We know: research created and manipulated to confirm the theory of the 10% of activists who were upset about “Redskins.” Please: show me. Show me a single individual who is tangibly “harmed” by the addition of an arrow or spear to the Commanders logo. Presumably that individual also was traumatized every time Steve Martin posed with that gag arrow through his head. If not, why not? Do Indian Head nickles also cause such victims distress?

2. Anyone who is truly harmed by the design of a logo for a local sports team has serious underlying emotional and intellectual problems that go far beyond that.

Confronting My Biases #28: Shannon Elizabeth

/ Jack Marshall / 24 Comments

I know this particular bias is probably indefensible. I know how I’m supposed to feel. I just don’t. A little help here?

Remember Shannon Elizabeth? I’d place her in the same category as Andrea Dromm, Michelle Johnson and Pam Austin, three earlier sexy, attractive starlets who had brief moments of B-level film success before they were pushed into obscurity by younger Hollywood “It” girls. It’s a cruel business, and especially cruel for young women whose main assets are their assets and not the potential to play Medea.

Shannon Elizabeth gained 10 minutes of stardom playing the sex kitten in the raunchy hit “American Pie”: that was her peak. “America Pie II” is where that photo above comes from, and professionally it was all downhill after that…a few forgettable flops, a TV series that was cancelled in its first season, nothing since 2006. Her Wikipedia page describes her as an “activist,” a professional poker player, and an actress. Her major recent accomplishment seems to be being named “one of the leading celebrity poker players”20 years ago.

I find all this ineffably sad, but that’s not the topic today. It is this: at the age of 52, Shannon just filed for divorce and announced that she was opening an Only Fans account, where horny middle-aged men can pay to see her ta-tas, and presumably other things.

“I’ve spent my entire career working in Hollywood, where other people controlled the narrative and the outcome of my career. This new chapter is about changing that, showing off a more sexy side no one has seen, and being closer to my fans,” Elizabeth told PEOPLE . “I’m choosing OnlyFans because it allows me to connect directly with my audience, create on my own terms, and just be free. I really do think this is the future.”

Fans can subscribe to her page starting today. Let me translate what her statement says to me.

“I have never developed any special skills and have the intellectual life of a salmon. My career was based entirely on my looks, my marriage went to hell, and I couldn’t write a book or host a podcast on a bet. Yeah, I’ve got some money saved up, but I’m addicted to being looked at. I’ve slid all the way down the usual greased poll of fading B-level celebrity: reality shows, Dancing with the Stars, so now it’s come to this. I know forty and fifty year-old men will pay to see me naked because they liked ‘American Pie.’ At least that’s something.”

Pages: 1 2

On Baseball Players Flipping “The Finger” To Obnoxious Fans

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

No, Bill Maher isn’t a professional athlete, but that’s my favorite graphic of a celebrity middle finger. Besides, it reveals Bill’s essential ugliness.

Red Sox outfielder Jarren Duran talked about his 2022 suicide attempt in a Netflix docuseries about the Red Sox released last year. He received a lot of praise for his openness, which he said was intended to increase awareness among others struggling with depression and mental health issues.

But jerks reign supreme, especially in sporting event crowds. Last night, as the Sox played the Twins at Target Field in Minneapolis, a Twins fan sitting in field box seats shouted at Duran that he should kill himself after he grounded out in the fifth inning.

The player responded with the obscene middle finger gesture. “I shouldn’t react like that,” Duran said after the game. “That kind of stuff is still kind of triggering. It happens.“

Flipping off a fan during a game is typically an automatic suspension and fine. Should it be in this case?

Pages: 1 2

I Just Can’t Give Trump a “Julie Principle” Pass When He Says Things Like This…

/ Jack Marshall / 25 Comments

“For Fox executives only, take Jessica Tarlov off the air. She is, from her voice, to her lies, and everything else about her, one of the worst ‘personalities’ on television, a real loser! People cannot stand watching her.”

….quoth the President in a Truth Social post two days ago. Tarlov is one of the rotating progressive Democrat co-hosts on Fox News’ talk show “The Five” and routinely does what she was hired to do, which is to be the house contrarian on a biased news channel, like Scott Jennings on CNN.

It’s a lonely and crummy job, but somebody’s got to do it. Jennings does it much better, but 1) he’s smart, articulate, and usually has the right side to defend, 2) the wokies and Axis agents on the panels with him are hardly the best and the brightest, and 3) Tarlov isn’t the worst of Fox’s hired Lefties, and I’d rank her as better than Juan Williams, the thankfully departed long-time holder of that role on Fox. Faint praise, I know.

But Ethics Alarms correctly slammed the Biden White House when it dishonestly attacked Greg Gutfield of “The Five” in 2023, so I shouldn’t use The Julie Principle to give President Trump a pass now. Presidents should only carefully criticize journalists and pundits by name if at all, and Trump doesn’t do anything carefully. It is punching down by definition; it looks petty, it makes him look thin-skinned and weak, and worst of all, it hands his principle-free and shameless critics an opportunity to say he’s pro-censorship.

This has been true for years, and yet Trump has a flat learning curve. It’s like a man who keeps smashing his head against a wall without figuring out that it’s not a good idea.

The Tarlov nonsense is even worse that that, in fact. After Trump has “demanded” (he can’t demand, because its none of his business) that Fox fire someone like Tarlov, he’s given that individual immunity from getting dismissed no matter what she does. Fox News has to keep Tarlov or look like Trump is running the network. Fox News is too much of a Trump and MAGA lackey already.

Pages: 1 2

Stop Making Me Defend “Law and Order”!

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

A recent study accuses Dick Wolf and his various “Law & Order” shows of “manufacturing white criminals.”

Depictions of criminality and violence on “Law & Order,” the researchers say, are misleading and divisive. “Results suggest whites are disproportionately portrayed as criminals five to eight times more often on police dramas compared to actual crime statistics for the city of New York,” we are told, “and exposure to police dramas leads to elevated perceptions of white criminality among non-whites.”

Oh, bite me.

Don’t get me started on all the ways “Law & Order,” “Law and Order SVU” and TV procedurals in general commit routine demographic whoppers. All the police women are trim and gorgeous, for example, except for Mariska Hargitay, who is 62 and way past her pull-date. These shows, see, are make believe. They aren’t documentaries, and anyone who thinks they represent real life should be watching Nickelodeon.

If you believed television shows or streaming series were accurate, you would conclude that half the population is gay. You would also be convinced that all illegal immigrants wonderful people just trying to have a better life. Commercials tell us that about 60% of couples are mixed race. The procedurals also pretend that most computer and tech whizzes are female, black, or both. It’s nonsense, but why should anyone care? Yes, it’s indoctrination by trying to erase somewhat accurate stereotypes, but so what? That’s entertainment.

And we all know—why don’t the researchers?—that if L&O showed the disproportionately high rate of black on white crime consistent with the statistics, it would be boycotted and attacked as racist. At least pretending that almost all inner city crimes are committed by whites gets white actors hired while Hollywood is actively trying to DEI them onto the unemployment line.

Divisive?

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

The Great Stupid’s warped values have made the term “divisive” particularly problematical regarding societal ethics. If, for example, a sign condemning sex with children is deemed to be divisive to some sick SOBs, my reaction is, “Good. Live with it. You’re wrong and normal people are right. We don’t care if you feel denigrated. You should be denigrated. And shunned.”

Then we have the divisive appeal for funds I highlighted earlier today. I firmly believe that an appeal for charitable assistance for one “tribe” or group to the exclusion of others who have exactly the same claim to charity, empathy, humanitarian aid and generosity is divisive, destructive, and wrong.

Two examples of controversies involving art and messaging also came across my ethics metaphorical radar screen today….

I. The mural honoring murdered refugee Iryna Zarutska in Providence, Rhode Island. The last moments of the innocent young woman slaughtered for no reason in particular by a deranged criminal repeatedly released to prey on an unsuspecting public is on the left, the now condemned mural in her honor is on the right. Mayor Brett Smiley (D, of course) ordered the unfinished mural, largely funded by Elon Musk, taken down. “The murder of the individual depicted in this mural was a devastating tragedy, but the misguided, isolating intent of those funding murals like this across the country is divisive and does not represent Providence,” he said in a statement. “I continue to encourage our community to support local artists whose work brings us closer together rather than further divides us.” Smiley’s Democrat primary challenger, Rhode Island state Rep. David Morales, said, “We’re seeing a right-wing movement that is exploiting the death of the refugee for the purposes of trying to spread division. Ultimately, we want to make sure that every community member that calls Providence home feels safe … and we can both agree that this mural behind us does not reflect Providence’s values.”

That’s interesting. What values do the honoring of a young woman who died because of elected officials, judges and law enforcement officials determination not to punish criminals and wrong doers “not reflect”? The fact that Iryna Zarutska was a Ukranian refugee is irrelevant, isn’t it? A young woman named Ann Jones, or a young man named Bill Shaw, or an old fart named, oh, say, Jack Marshall, being murdered while using public transportation would be equally worthy of public anger, wouldn’t it? Is dividing people who care about law abiding citizens being murdered because of irresponsible policies from those who shrug such horrors off as “collateral damage” a bad thing? What kind of people is Mayor Smiley and David Morales standing up for? Killers? Maniacs? Is the mural divisive because this particular maniac was black and his victim was white? I think the message of the mural is “Shame on you!” to all of the progressives, “restorative justice,” “defund the police” activists whose hands are stained with the blood of victims like Iryna Zarutska. Why should that message be suppressed or discouraged?

In its groveling statement sucking up to the woke and offended by justice, the owners of the building where the mural appeared mewled “We heard you [Providence]. We are deeply and sincerely sorry for everything that has taken place over the past week. After reflecting and learning, we have made the decision to discontinue this project and will move forward with removal as soon as possible. We remain committed to fostering unity, safety, and care for all members of our community, and we will continue to listen, learn, and act with those values at the forefront.”

Sure, you foster safety by supporting the removal of a strong statement against pandering to criminals. Got it. You’re disgusting.

[Pointer: JutGory]

Pages: 1 2

Kim Novak: I Hereby Introduce You To “The Golden Rule”…

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

Kim Novak is now 92 years old. She is one of the more forgotten sirens of the Hollywood Fifties Golden Age, and to the extent that she is remembered at all, it is because she was one of Alfred Hitchcock’s interchangeable blondes somewhere between Doris Day and Tippi Hedren. Her Hitchcock vehicle, “Vertigo,” is for some reason regarded by film schools as Hitch’s best, but it can’t be because of Novak, who was cool, sexy, but not much of an actress.

They are making a movie about one aspect of Novak’s life because it can be twisted into some kind of woke message: she had a relationship of some sort with quadruple threat (drama, comedy, singing and dancing) Sammy Davis Jr., at a time when white sex symbols weren’t supposed to hang out with black superstars. Chosen to play Kim is current hot blonde Sydney Sweeney. It’s a high profile opportunity for the young woman, who is looking for opportunities to be taken seriously as an actress before her window of genuine stardom closes, just a Kim was, once upon a time.

So what does Kim Novak do? She gives an interview to the U.K.’s scandal The Times and trashes Sweeney, whom she has never met. Novak called Sydney “totally wrong” to play her in the upcoming biopic “Scandalous,” sneering that she “would never have approved” of Sweeney’s casting in the film, because she “sticks out so much above the waist.”

Funny, the degree that Kim was regarded as “sticking out above the waste” was substantially responsible for her having a career in films at all; Bette Davis she wasn’t. The size of women’s breasts that caused them to be lusted after as unusually busty has increased substantially over the decades: Raquel Welch, whose endowments were the object of endless jokes in the Sixties, would be regarded as unremarkable today.

But never mind the fact that Novak’s complaint is silly: she is 93 after all. Because Kim was a rising young actress once, she demonstrates ethical incompetence by not considering how would she have felt if she got a plum part in a Hollywood film biography portraying an earlier era’s blonde sex symbol like, say, Mae West, and Mae had announced in public that Kim was wrong for the role. She would have regarded Mae as a vicious bitch…and she would have been right.

Now Novak has laid the foundation for critics to crush whatever Sydney does in the film, something many of them are itching to do anyway. Woke World hates Sydney because she made a jeans ad that they absurdly claim advocated white supremacy. Yes, they are that desperate.

Nice, Kim. Here’s a little bit of advice that somehow you’ve managed to miss in your nine decades: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Bi…never mind. You owe Sydney an apology, Kim.

Theater Ethics: Those Troublesome Playwrights

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Oh Curmie, Curmie, wherefore art thou?

Once again an ethics issue has surfaced that would have benefited from the shrewd analysis of Ethics Alarms’ AWOL columnist “Curmie.” (I know his real name.) I admit, I keep alluding to his abrupt abdication from his regular column here because I am both sad and pissed off about it. I don’t like the phenomenon of Trump Derangement, but I really object to it hurting my blog.

But the topic at hand is one on which I have some expertise myself, so screw Curmie, I guess.

The New York Times reported that rehearsals for a new stage adaptation of “Dog Day Afternoon,” Sidney Lumet’s 1975 movie about an odd Brooklyn bank robbery (“Attica! Attica!”), banned the production’s Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright from attending for three days over the past week. The show’s producing team told the playwright, Stephen Adly Guirgis, that he was no longer welcome at rehearsals after he was part of a dispute that disrupted a rehearsal. The Times said it had no further information regarding why this confrontation occurred.

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: The Mark Twain Prize Mess

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Although the exact sequence of events is in question, the basic fact seems clear: Bill Maher was given the impression that he had been selected for the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor, but the offer, or the award, or the honor, was rescinded by President Trump, who has installed himself as the overseer of the Trump Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, which decides which wits and comics are honored and that hosts the annual ceremony.

Maher is…annoyed. I don’t blame him. I don’t blame the President for not wanting to approve Maher getting the award either.

Bill Maher has been one of the cheap-shot artists who has compared the President to Hitler. He has made the indefensible claim that Trump is a hypocrite because he has married immigrants but opposes “immigration.” I have made it clear that I rank Maher as smug, unethical and lacking integrity, kind of like a stand-up version of Tucker Carlson. He is not half as smart as he evidently thinks he is, but is not without talent, not without career accomplishments, and on his merits, not unqualified for the Mark Twain Prize. Nor would he be the least justified recipient; that distinction would be a tie among Tina Fey, Julia Louis Dryefus and—yuck—Adam Sandler. Will Farrell was a weak choice as well.

The award is also permanently discredited by the many superior comics and wits it has snubbed since the awards began in 1998, such as Mel Brooks, Woody Allen, Dave Barry, Larry Gelbart, Phyllis Diller, Larry David, Jerry Seinfeld, P.J. O’Roark, Joan Rivers, Robin Williams, Gene Wilder, Eugene Levy, Catherine O’Hara, John Hughes and others.

The Mark Twain Prize didn’t take a hard partisan turn until it honored Letterman in 2017, Tina Fey (who was chosen then primarily because she mocked Sarah Palin) in 2018, then Jon Stewart in 2022. Maher can be counted on to stand up in the Kennedy Center and insult his putative host, if not call call Pam Bondi a “cunt,” as he is wont to do. I see good reasons why the President of the United States might choose not to allow that.

Politics ruins everything now, and it may be that partisan venom has made the Mark Twain Prize impossible to continue. I would say that would be too bad, if the award weren’t already corrupted and arbitrary.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is...

Was it unethical for Trump to block Bill Maher’s Mark Twain Prize?

Boy, That Double Standard Became A Thing So Fast I Didn’t Even Notice…

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

During the #MeToo phase of “The Great Stupid” and even before, the Woke and Wonderful were lecturing men that to take any pro-active romantic action that involved touching required express consent, otherwise a mere impulsive kiss would constitute sexual assault. So now Clark Gable, Richard Gere, John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart and the rest are sexual predators because they didn’t say “please.”

I am watching the (excellent) series “The Madison,” and, as I had noticed in another Taylor Sheridan vehicle “Landman,” in an awkward moment of sexual tension between a man and a woman who were virtual strangers, it was the woman who instigated the surprise, passionate kiss.

That’s all right, see. If a man kisses the woman, it’s assault and battery, but the other way around it’s exciting, romantic and natural.

Got it.

Assholes.