The Pentagon has eliminated lower physical fitness standards for women in combat units via an order by Defense Secretary Hegseth announced yesterday. All physical fitness requirements for combat arms positions will now be be “sex-neutral.” Well, a) GOOD!, and b) Why did anyone ever think it made sense to have it any other way?
The New York Times, being pathetic, spins like crazy to make the order sound mean and discriminatory as well as harmful. The order “is likely to significantly reduce the number of women who meet the requirements,” the paper sniffles, and is “likely to hinder the recruitment and retention of women in particularly dangerous military jobs.” So what? The military sets standards for being qualified for combat, and having different standards for different groups is the epitome of DEI idiocy. Hegseth “argued that women should not be allowed in combat units if they could not meet the same fitness standards as men,” sayeth the Times. Why would he have to argue that at all? What’s the counter-argument? I don’t see one.
There were three distinct stages in my consideration of the sui generis Cinerama feature from 1963, “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World.” The movie’s gimmick was that it collected more comedians and comic actors in a single Hollywood production than has ever been featured before, which meant, naturally, that it had to be the funniest movie ever….or so we were told.
I first saw IAMMMMW at Boston’s Cinerama Theater when I was 12. It was the first of the new, improved, seamless Cinerama features, which meant it was inferior to the original format, which wrapped around the audience. There were few effects in the movie that took advantage of the giant screen, either. But like all boys under 20 or so, I thought IAMMMMW was very amusing and a lot of fun. Girls didn’t get it, for the most part, and that has never changed. It’s physical comedy and slapstick throughout, and often cruel slapstick. This is a real male-female divide that appears to be timeless.
I was also, even back then, an omnivore of popular culture. Seeing so many familiar comedy icons of the era (and the previous one) in one movie was a thrill; of course, that was one of the main goals of the film. Sid Caeser, Milton Berle, Jimmy Durante, Jonathan Winters, Phil Silvers, Buddy Hackett, Mickey Rooney and more, with well-conceived cameos by the likes of Jack Benny, Jerry Lewis and Don Knotts—in the waning period of Hollywood all-star cast spectaculars, the idea of doing one with comedians was irresistible.
I saw the movie a second time in my thirties, and was shocked how different my reaction to it was. To be fair, I recalled many of the sequences that would have been funnier as a surprise, but the film seemed over-long, abrasive and, most surprisingly, sad. The subplot in which Spencer Tracy plays an aging police captain who becomes disillusioned with his professional and family life to the extent that he tries to steal the money that has set off an insane race among the assorted loonies is more tragedy than comedy, and, oddly, Tracy didn’t play any of his role for laughs. Grace, my wife, hated the movie in 1963 and hated it just as much when I made her watch it again with me.
I hadn’t followed the Lizzo dieting scandal because, frankly, I couldn’t care less about the in-your-face obese pop star who has been the current champion of the “love your body”/”fat is beautiful” mob. Lizzo, who performed with svelte female dancers to emphasize her proud flab, made defiant fatness part of her brand, wearing costumes that normally would be taboo for any woman not a size 6.
Well, if it works, it’s show business! But somehow toward the end of 2024, Lizzo started slimming down via Ozempic, dieting and a personal trainer, so she is now sporting a more conventional model of female beauty. Predictably, her fat fans feel betrayed, and they should.
We’ve seen this so many times before that I hesitated to even post on it, but no previous fat celebrity so aggressively asserted that she loved her extra pounds and that society’s obsession with fit female bodies had to be rejected. All of these photos…
…accompanied past features about how the singer insisted that fat was “normal” and that she “loved her curves.” And now what is she saying? She doesn’t need to say anything; her conduct speaks for her. She decided to exploit being fat as a gimmick, not caring how it would encourage unhealthy lifestyles among her female fans, then as soon as losing weight and becoming more typically attractive seemed like a wise career move—reinvention!—she discarded “fat is beautiful” like a house guest who had stayed too long.
We shall see if a performer of Lizzo’s rather unremarkable talents can stand out among all the other comely female pop singers. If not, don’t be surprised if she starts hitting the all-you-can-eat buffets again.
Remember that little problem with the new Texas Rangers “double logo” cap? The Chesapeake Baysox say “Hold my beer!”
The Double-A minor league affiliate of the Baltimore Orioles in the Eastern League unveiled a new “alternate identity”: the team is also calling itself the Chesapeake Oyster Catchers as “a tribute to the Chesapeake Bay’s rich heritage and thriving ecosystem.” Let me interject here that I don’t understand why a baseball team wants or needs an “alternate identity,” unless it’s the Chicago White Sox, who last season broke the modern record for lousiness with 121 losses (out of 164 games). How does a baseball team turn into Batman? Well, never mind…
The team unveiled two new logos centers inspired by the oyster catcher, a distinctive black-and-white shorebird with an orange beak that flocks in Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay. The bird hunts shellfish, and thus “is a symbol of strength and ingenuity—qualities that define both the Chesapeake region and its passionate baseball fans.”
And here is a close-up of the one that no one connected with the team seemed to be paying enough attention to…
“Wait,” some social media wags noted on social media, “Isn’t that thing in the glove a…?”
Yikes and holy female anatomical parts, Batman! The Baysox/Oystercatchers quickly removed that onscene logo from its social media posts, website, and online stories. That’s a good first step: now fire everyone in the marketing department who didn’t see what that “oyster” looked like and say something before the team embarrassed itself and everyone else.
Why is the Cognitive Dissonance Scale the graphic I chose for the final word on Disney’s “live-action” remake of Walt’s biggest and most important hit, 1937’s “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs”? (For some perspective, realize that we have the same relationship on the timeline to that film that it had to the Presidency of Millard Fillmore.) It is clear that this cultural ethics train wreck, which EA has been dutifully covering (here,here, here, here here, and here), is now stuck inextricably in cognitive dissonance territory. For most viewers, what they think about the movie will be influenced far more by their biases and what they associate with the movie than the movie itself.
That’s how the scale works, as I keep explaining ad nauseam. If Disney is generally a plus-5 on a ticket-buyer’s scale (once upon a time, Disney would have been a plus-10 or higher on everyone’s scale) and the movie in a vacuum would be at “Meh”-level Zero, Disney would pull the film into positive territory. If Disney is in negative territory already for a different viewer, the film begins with an anchor chained to its metaphorical ankles.
Thus it is hardly surprising to see this as the early returns on the film (which doesn’t officially open in theaters until tomorrow):
[My first reaction to this passionate guest post was “Gee, how do you really feel, Steve?” My second was “The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the host.” My third is: I wouldn’t laugh yet. One of my oldest friends is visiting D.C. to meet his new grandson, birthed by the wife of his former daughter, now son. When I went to the memorial service of a former thoroughly Irish Catholic boss from the streets of Brooklyn, I discovered that two of his three sons, all of whom I knew as children, are now middle aged women, and seemingly very happy about it. A close member of my immediate family is “transitioning.” Whatever it is that’s going on here, its getting dig in like a tick.]
I have raised the question in an earlier essay titled, What’s Considered Normal, where I looked into the differences between what is considered to be “normal” and “abnormal”. You can read the arguments presented in the entire post if you like, but I’ll briefly summarize some of the details as I go along in this essay.
I think it’s extremely important that everyone understands the core of an argument based on the words used and how those words are defined. So with that in mind, let’s start by presenting some generally accepted “norms”.
NORMAL
Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected
Conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern..
…characterized by that which is considered usual, typical, or routine.
If something conforms to a general pattern, standard, or average, we describe it as normal.
ABNORMAL
Deviating from what is normal or usual.
Not normal, average, typical, or usual.
Something that is abnormal is out of the ordinary, or not typical
ENABLING
Supporting or allowing (whether intentionally or unintentionally) harmful or destructive individual behaviors thus preventing the individual from facing either the consequences of their choices and/or generally accepted reality.
Dysfunctional: Deviating from the norms of social behavior in a way regarded as bad.
Delusional: Characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, typically as a symptom of a mental condition.
Now that we have the terms settled, on to the core of this essay…
Once an institution publicly embraces or endorses something that wasn’t that institution’s proper role to endorse, the mistake cannot be remedied without the undesirable result of appearing to reject what should never have been embraced in the first place. The reverse is also true: as EA has pointed out, when the government starts legalizing previously banned substances, it appears that society now approves of their use.
The Trump administration is falling victim to the first version of this phenomenon in its admirable purge of DEI propaganda and practices across the government and its agencies. Naturally, this is being weaponized by the Trump-Hating news media. Today’s example: “Arlington Cemetery Website Loses Pages on Black Veterans, Women and Civil War” at the New York Times.
The story goes on to say, after the deliberately inflammatory title (President Trump is a racist and a misogynist, you know!), that the pages were taken down in response to the administration’s policy of ending promotion of the woke “diversity, equity and exclusion” fad, which is designed to inject “good discrimination” and group preferences into the culture.
The cemetery is operated by the Army, and issued a statement that it is dedicated to “sharing the stories of military service and sacrifice to the nation with transparency and professionalism.” The missing pages are being re-drafted. Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, accused the Trump administration of trying to erase the accomplishments of women and people of color.
I heard some mocking talking heads on Fox News joking about this yesterday and it made no sense to me at all, so I ignored it. Then I found out what had provoked all of the giggling about turtles.
The state of Oregon has appointed JD Holt to an Oregon Mental Health Advisory Board. JD says her pronouns are “they/them/terrapin.” She/they/it is not kidding. So she is out of her frickin’ mind.
From Fox News: “JD Holt, who also goes by “JD Terrapin” on Facebook, is one of roughly two dozen “consumers” on the OHA’s Consumer Advisory Council (OCAC). The council, established by administrative statute, is appointed by OHA Director Dr. Sejal Hathi, who was appointed by Gov. Tina Kotek (D, of course.) The purpose of the OCAC is to advise Hathi on the state’s provision of mental health services, including through investigations and reviews of current practices.”
“The principles that built great American companies are simple: Hire the best people, serve your customers well and let merit and financial results determine success. While expanding opportunity and making employees feel welcome are worthy goals, how D.E.I. policies were carried out often strayed from these foundational principles and might have even created other forms of discrimination.”
It might have even created other forms of discrimination! Gee, ya think?
In a jaw-dropping example of the “Tell me something I don’t know” variety of journalism, the New York Times gives us “Working at Anheuser-Busch, I Saw What Went Wrong With the D.E.I. Movement” (Gift link!). Anson Frericks tells us that water is wet with the solemnity of a doctor announcing a cancer diagnosis. He was shocked–shocked!—when his company, having announced its commitment to “DEI,” turned down a beneficial distribution arrangement with another company because “being associated with Black Rifle was too politically provocative, especially in progressive circles.” This, in 2022, two years after the beginning of the George Floyd Freakout, made Anson realize that his employers were more interested in virtue-signalling to the Looney Left than selling beer.
What did he think “diversity, equity and inclusion” was going to mean?
Kwame Anthony Appiah, the philosophy professor who currently writes the New York Times “The Ethicist” advice column, went off the rails (like so may other people I could name) during the Presidential campaign and the post-election freakout, but there are small signs that he’s recovering his professional equilibrium. Boy, I sure hope so.
Last week he was asked by an “emotionally and physically abused” ex-wife, now happily married, if she has a moral (she means ethical) obligation to warn the woman her ex- is now dating about his proclivities as she experienced them. She’s not a friend, but the inquirer and the girlfriend “travel in the same professional circles,” whatever that means.
Ethics Alarms 