“Curmie’s Conjectures”: Curmie Doesn’t Like Being Lied To, Part 2

by Curmie

It would seem that prevarication has supplanted baseball as the national pastime.  Name a politician you’d trust to tell you the truth if a lie would be more convenient.  I can’t, and if there’s one out there, it sure as hell isn’t one of the frontrunners in the next Presidential election.

My most recent post concerned getting lied to by the post office, and their subsequent bewilderment that I didn’t appreciate their mendacity.  It’s not just those with ties to the government, though.  Companies feel the need to get in on the act, too.  So, here’s Part II of my rant.

We’ve been in our current house a little over 22 years.  The garage door opener wasn’t new when we moved in.  A few days ago, the chain snapped.  So I went to the local Lowe’s, checked out the possibilities, came home and discussed the options with my wife, and ordered a new opener online.  So far, so good. 

Continue reading

Quick Ethics Takes On A Wasted Trip To D.C.

  • I was supposed to testify in an arbitration hearing today. I headed to D.C. through the usual awful traffic, finally arriving at my destination after a 45 minute trek, and was informed that my commentary had been postponed suddenly despite being scheduled months ago, and despite my arranging my schedule around it in what has been a very busy September. This occurred after I stayed up until 2 am prepping for my testimony. I could bill for the wasted 90 minutes this fool’s errand took me, but I won’t; ditto the 14 bucks for parking. There were some messed-up communications from the attorney who retained me, but I should have double-checked that all was still as scheduled, and I didn’t.
  • Walking from the parking garage to where the hearing was scheduled, I counted the number of people or all ages walking along looking at their cell phones compared with those who were not: 28 with, only 6 without! This is a genuine social malady with, I suspect, long-term negative consequences that we haven’t begun to understand or prepare for. It reminded me of “Bowling Alone.”

Continue reading

When Too Late Is Unethical: The Strange Case Of JFK Assassination Witness Paul Landis

Paul Landis, one of the Secret Service agents near John F. Kennedy when he was assassinated in Dallas in 1963, has suddenly decided to reveal relevant actions and observations from that terrible day 60 years ago. His new perspectives, as the New York Times puts it, may “rewrite the narrative of one of modern American history’s most earth-shattering days in an important way,” and “encourage those who have long suspected that there was more than one gunman in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, adding new grist to one of the nation’s enduring mysteries.” The appropriate responses to Landis’s sudden urge to tell all are 1) “What took you so long?” and 2) “Oh, shut up.”

Continue reading

It Only Took Nearly Three Years And 9-11 Exploitation, But CNN Finally Treats A President Biden Lie The Way It Treated President Trump’s

This is progress, I suppose, and it doesn’t auger well for President Biden’s 2024 campaign if the most Democratic propaganda-minded members of the mainstream media (like CNN) starts actually critiquing his persistently embarrassing performance as President. Some of the usual suspects mentioned Biden’s increasingly typical imaginary story, but most buried it in their news report. MSNBC was one of the few that did headline the lie, but did so to explain that Biden did visit the site of the tragedy nine days later (the White House “explanation”) so don’t be so nit-picky. It also had Lawrence O’Donnell engage in a bit of obvious whataboutism, as he ignored Biden’s falsehood but ranted about “Donald Trump’s most vile lie about 9/11” that he “lost hundreds of friends” on 9/11. Otherwise, Biden’s false claim was highlighted by the New York Post, the National Review, Fox News (of course), and other conservative media, plus the least biased and most reliable (but still left-leaning) of the fact-checking services, Fact-check.org.

Continue reading

“Curmie’s Conjectures”: Curmie Doesn’t Like Being Lied To, Part I

by Curmie

Jack’s posts about his experiences at local CVS, 7-11 and McDonald’s outlets have emboldened me to discuss my own recent dealings with respect to a couple of recent purchases.  I’ve experienced two separate incidents over the past few days.  What they share is not simply that someone failed to provide a service they were obligated to provide, but that they lied about it and showed literally no remorse for having done so.

So… here’s incident #1; more next time.

Although I’m retired from teaching, my university has a provision that <i>emeritus</i> faculty are entitled to an office if one is available, and one is.  Because I’m still doing some academic writing, I’m grateful for the workspace, the use of a computer, access to a printer and scanner, etc.  We’re now back in the building we occupied from the time I came here until the summer of 2020, when we were displaced to across campus while renovations and expansions were happening to our “home.”  (We were told we had to move out by the end of May 2020 or we couldn’t move back in the fall of 2021; we couldn’t move in at all until August of this year, and the building won’t really be ready for at least another few months.  But that’s a rant for another day.)

The problems are two-fold.  First, my new office is less than half as big as the one I moved out of three years ago.  Second, it was designed by an idiot, or, more likely, a committee of idiots.  The desk, made of cheap but heavy material, is far too big for an office of that size.  There are permanently mounted cabinets above the desk, but no place for files.  I could go on.  The biggest annoyance is that the offices on my side of the hallway (the smaller ones, with windows offering a view of the convenience store across the street) got only a single bookcase.  I seriously doubt that whoever decided that has ever as much as met a faculty member in the humanities, let alone listened to one.

Continue reading

An Invitation To Be An Unethical Lawyer…

Just as I was preparing yesterday for today’s 3-hour legal ethics CLE seminar (which, coincidentally, contained a section about the unsettled status of lawyers using artificial intelligence for legal research, writing and other tasks in the practice of law), I received this unsolicited promotion in my email:

Let’s see: how many ways does this offer a lawyer the opportunity to violate the ethics rules? Unless a lawyer thoroughly understands how such AI creatures work—and a lawyer relying on them must—it is incompetent to “try” them on any actual cases. Without considerable testing and research, no lawyer could possibly know whether this thing is trustworthy. The lawyer needs to get informed consent from any client whose matters are being touched by “CoCounsel,” and no client is equipped to give such consent. If it were used on an actual case, there are questions of whether the lawyer would be aiding the unauthorized practice of law. How would the bot’s work be billed? How would a lawyer know that client confidences wouldn’t be promptly added to CoCounsel’s data base?

Entrusting an artificial intelligence-imbued assistant introduced this way with the matters of actual clients is like handing over case files to someone who just walked off the street claiming, “I’m a legal whiz!” without evidence of a legal education, a degree, or work experience.

On the plus side, the invitation was a great way to introduce my section today about the legal ethics perils of artificial intelligence technology.

Surprise Open Forum!

I don’t know when I’ll have access to my blog tomorrow, so to allow the ethics wisdom to flow unabated, I’m declaring an Open Forum right now.

Cover for me…

Encore: “Regarding ‘Athlete A’….”

[I watched “Athlete A,” the infuriating Netflix documentary for the second time, and completely forgot that I had written about it here when it first came out. (I’m sure glad I checked.) It is gratifying, I guess that most of what I was prepared to write today was what I wrote in 2020. I was not, however, emphatic enough about the implications of the multi-level failures of ethics decency, responsibility and accountability that allowed this disaster to occur. For in addition to Larry Nassar, the sick, manipulative doctor who used his position to sexually molest hundreds of young girls for more than 20 years, this mass crime was inflicted by stunning corruption and cruelty by key officials in the U.S. Olympic Committee, gymnastic coaches, Michigan State officials (where Nassar worked when he wasn’t sexual assaulting female gymnasts) and—is this even shocking any more?—the FBI. Then there are the parents of the gymnasts, who shipped their daughters off to be cared for by strangers who often abused them.

I suppose this story bothered me more this week than it did in 2020 because we have finally learned the truth about the Russian collusion hoax, the multi-level failure of integrity and trust that marred the 2020 election, and the horrific betrayal by so many institutions that inflicted the pandemic lockdown on us with the incursion on basic liberties that it involved, the discovery that schools are secretly pushing their students into life-altering gender confusion, while Big Tech and social media platforms conspire with the government to censor speech. I confess that I am less inclined to look at the Larry Nassar scandal as an anomaly today than three years ago. Now I am thinking: if we can’t trust our institutions to have sufficient ethics alarms that their leaders and key personnel choose the health and welfare of young girls over power, profit and selfish personal agendas, how can we trust them at all?]

Athlete A,” the Netflix documentary that tells the awful story of USA Gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar’s decades of sexually abusing young female gymnasts—perhaps as many as 500 of them—, how he was allowed to continue his crimes after complaints from parents and others, and the young women who finally sent him to prison with their testimony, is both disturbing and depressing. I watched it last night with my wife, who was horrified that she didn’t know the Nassar story.

Ethics Alarms wasn’t as much help as it should have been. Its first full post about the scandal was this one, which, in grand Ethics Alarms tradition, slammed the ethics of the judge who sentenced Nassar to 60 years in prison, essentially a “Stop making me defend Dr. Nassar!” post. I’ll stand by that post forever, but it didn’t help readers who are link averse to know the full extent of Nassar’s hobby of plunging his fingers and hands into the vaginas and anuses of trusting young girls while telling them that it was “therapy.”

The second full post, in August of last year,  was more informative regarding Nassar, but again, it was about the aftermath of his crimes, not the crimes themselves. That post  focused on the the Senate hearings following the July 30 release of the report of an 18-month Senate investigation  that found that the U.S. Olympic Committee and others failed to protect young female athletes from Nassar’s probing hands, detailing “widespread failure by the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (the “Committee”) and other institutions to keep athletes safe.”  Then there was this: Continue reading

The Nation’s Moral, Legal And Ethical Incoherence On Abortion, In Two Articles

In the first, “In Post-Roe America, Nikki Haley Seeks a New Path on Abortion for G.O.P.,” we learn that

“We need to stop demonizing this issue,” Haley said at the first Republican debate. “It’s personal for every woman and man. Now, it’s been put in the hands of the people. That’s great.”

No, it’s not just “personal.” It is societal. Moral and ethical principles exist, and they aren’t principles if any individual can reject or ignore them as everyone shrugs and says, “OK! Different strokes for different folks!” That’s how we end up with mobs shoplifting at Walmart with no consequences. Is theft right, fair, acceptable and ethical, or is it wrong and damaging to society and humanity? Is that a hard question? No?

Great! Now lets do killing growing human beings.

The Times, naturally, quickly establishes itself as a flack for “choice,” writing about Haley’s search for “an anti-abortion message that doesn’t alienate moderate Republicans and swing voters,” because, presumably, anyone who isn’t a radical, extremist Republican will be alienated by advocating anti-abortion policies that treat abortions as they should be treated: legalized killings of human beings. Those who won’t recognize abortions as what abortions are—the word “kill” doesn’t appear anywhere in the Times news story, nor is there any reference to ending a life or lives—either haven’t thought very deeply about the matter, don’t want to, or won’t admit to themselves what the issue is. For example,

Molly Murphy, a Democratic pollster, doubted whether Ms. Haley could square her “respectful and middle-ground, compromise approach” with a decade-long record of “actually not doing that when in office.” Republicans, she said, have far to go before voters will give them the benefit of the doubt on the issue. “Those candidates trying to walk back their previous positions on abortion look incredibly political and non-trustworthy,” Ms. Murphy said. “Their credibility is so low on this issue that voters just fundamentally believe Republicans want to ban abortion.”

Ethically and morally, how is legalizing abortions when the birth doesn’t genuinely imperil the life of the mother a “respectful and middle-ground” or “compromise” approach that can pass any ethical system without setting off sirens? Kant held that using another’s life as a means to an end was per se unethical. “Reciprocity” fails, obviously: would abortion advocates be supportive of their own mothers aborting them because their births would be inconvenient and a career handicap? Or are a half-million aborted babies every year in the U.S. just the price of equal opportunity? The ends justifies the means: brutal utilitarianism.

Continue reading

When Ethics Alarms Don’t Ring: Chris Christie’s Revealing Comment

On a podcast called “All In” hosted by a bunch of people I never heard of, deluded Presidential candidate Chris Christie ( I might not get quite as many votes as he will if I declared my candidacy tomorrow, but it would be close) said, among other things, in discussing Vivek Ramaswamy: “To me, he looks like the guy you wanted to stuff in the locker in the 11th grade.”

Good to know, except that if you’ve been paying attention to Christie’s character as he’s revealed it over his up and now downdowndown career, you probably know it anyway. Nobody who isn’t a toxic, ethics-challenged bully ever wants to stuff anyone into a locker when he is a kid, or would have the thought even enter his mind. Nobody who isn’t still a bully would think that comment is anything but damning—to the speaker. So…

1. Christie is still a bully, and with that line, is trying to appeal to bullies, people who admire bullies, people who haven’t learned yet how bullies think, and people who don’t understand what’s wrong with bullies.

2. The ex-New Jersey governor, who is running primarily to try to get even with Donald Trump, shows that in this way, at least, he is exactly like Trump. Trump would say that. Trump is a bully without functioning ethics alarms too.

3. There is much to criticize about smug political tyro Ramaswamy, beginning with the fact that he has no relevant experience to be President whatsoever and has no business running and wasting our time. What he “looks like,” however, is not one of them. The reason so many Americans stoop to ad hominem attacks when they should be focusing on substance is that the culture keeps teaching them that it is valid and acceptable, in instances like this one.

4. I no longer will defend Chris Christie when a critic mocks his weight. He has officially consented to that form of juvenile discourse, which, of course, is also a specialty of Christie’s bête noire, Trump. One of Althouse’s commenters (Ann found this, Lord know how) wrote in part as a reaction, “You fat fuck. If I saw you doing something like that I’d kick you fat ass and beat your ignoramus head head on the locker door till you apologized for your stupid behavior.” Yes, Chris Christie is a fat fuck.