Rep. Bowman has just issued a statement regarding his pulling a fire alarm switch to delay yesterday’s vote in the House on the stop-gap funding bill:
Is “Sondheim’s Final Musical” What It Claims To Be?
Two years after Stephen Sondheim’s death, “Here We Are” will premiere Off-Broadway in a 526-seat theater. Previously titled “Square One,” the show is based on Buñuel’s “The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie” and “The Exterminating Angel.” The producers are advertising it as “the final musical by composer Stephen Sondheim;” it will open this week and run until January.
Sondheim, however, never finished the musical. In fact, when he announced that he had given up on writing it, Ethics Alarms saluted him, praising the Broadway icon for “doing the responsible thing, quitting….Virtually no composers and very few artists generally do anything but decline after the age of 60, though many try to keep churning out wan imitations of their best work as long as someone will pay them.” Sondheim’s last reasonably successful Broadway musical was “Passion,” in 1994, when the composer was 64. Before “Here We Are,” he labored for a decade over a musical that hit the stage in multiple versions with several titles. None of them were successful. Asked days before his death if he foresaw when his final musical would be finished, Sondheim curtly replied: “No.”
Yet now, mirabile dictu, his collaborators are announcing that the musical is complete. Interesting: Sondheim had said he finished all the songs in the first act, but had been stuck on writing songs for Act II. No problem! The show’s producing team now says that two months before Sondheim’s death, he had agreed to let the show go forward following a well-received reading of the material that existed at that point. That reading, however, contained no music. I’ve directed and organized many readings of new works, and the amount of rewriting, cutting and re-conceiving a show that takes place after that starting point is always massive–and often a show never makes it to production.
A District Court Judge Rules That Racial And Gender Discrimination Is “Free Speech”
What a concept! Thanks, Judge Thrash!
The American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER), sued Fearless Fund, whose mission is to “bridge the gap in venture capital funding for women of color,” in the Northern District of Georgia over its grant program open only to black women. In rejecting the claim and the request for an injunction, Senior Judge Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. wrote in part,
The Defendants, in my opinion, have a message that they are trying to communicate that black women business people have suffered discrimination and lack of equal access to capital to begin, expand, and promote businesses. And the Defendants, with their grants, are trying to send a message that they recognize that and want to support black female business people with their charitable donations. Under the controlling Eleventh Circuit authority of Coral Ridge Ministries media, donating money qualifies as expressive conduct and is entitled to First Amendment protection. That was not a 1981 case, but I have no reason to believe that the Eleventh Circuit would have decided the case any differently under Section 1981.
And the Plaintiff disagrees with that message. They want the Defendants to communicate a different message. Well, that’s not the way it works. The First Amendment protects the Defendants’ right to decide what message they want to promote, and that’s what the First Amendment is all about. So for those reasons, I’m going to deny the Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and deny the Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction pending appeal.
Judge Thrash’s subsequent formal Order Denying Prelminary Injunction repeated the same reasoning.
Incompetent Elected Official Of The Month (And A Disgrace To Congress Too): Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) [Updated]
This amazing story—one more step down into the muck by Congress—dawned earlier today. I was going to wait until the morning to post about it, but I didn’t sleep well last might, and I can’t take another might of ethics nightmares.
As House Democrat were trying to delay a vote on a stopgap spending bill yesterday despite a looming government shutdown, a fire alarm sounded in the Cannon House Office Building, forcing an evacuation. It was a false alarm, and the reason it sounded was that Representative Jamaal Bowman, Democrat of New York, pulled it. Great idea! Bowman’s chief of staff, Sarah Iddrissu, eventually confirmed in a statement on Twitter/X, that Bowman, who represents the north Bronx and parts of Westchester County, had done the deed; she didn’t have much choice, since he was caught on a security camera..
“Congressman Bowman did not realize he would trigger a building alarm as he was rushing to make an urgent vote,” Ms. Iddrissu wrote. “The Congressman regrets any confusion.” Showing an excess of chutzpa or a deficit in respect for the public, Bowman was claiming, at last report, to have set off the fire alarm by accident. How do you do that? That’s Bowman caught in the act above. I guess a sound track would receal taht he said, “OOPS!” when he pulled down the switch.
Added 1, from Axios: “Bowman later told reporters he “thought the alarm would open the door” because “the door that’s usually open wasn’t open.” My wife’s reaction: “That’s an insult to everyone. He thinks we’re all stupid.”
Added 2: Sources are now telling reporters that Bowman ripped down the signs at the door he now claims he thought would open by pulling the fire alarm. Those signs made it rather clear how to leave through them. They have been put back up: here’s the photo of the exit:
More On The Unethical “Stand Up For Science” Mug (I Can’t Help It…I’m “Triggered”)
The asinine “Stand Up For Science” mug I wrote about earlier today still rankles, and I just realized that a video that surfaced this month is relevant to it. I had seen a recently released TEDTalk given in 2013 by S. Matthew Liao. He is the Director of the Center for Bioethics and Affiliated Professor in the Department of Philosophy at New York University, and has previously been on the faculty of Oxford, Johns Hopkins, Georgetown, and Princeton. He’s also the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Moral Philosophy. Several conservative commentators had freaked out over the video; naturally, the mainstream media buried it. They did that because it represents the outer limits of a climate change panic whackadoodle, and this guy is unquestionably not just a SCIENTIST of the sort that the mug-makers want us to fall down and worship as the all-knowing, all-seeing societal architects they are, but also an ethicist as well. I considered it as a post topic but decided against using it, because, well, it seemed too silly to have to point out how irresponsible Liao is.
Then came..the mug.
Addendum To The Senate Dress Code Fiasco: Althouse’s Ethically-Muddled Analysis
Well, I’ve been nice to Ann lately, but as she does sometimes, she botched her analysis of this story badly, and attention should be paid. I’ll have Ann’s words in italics, and my comments without them…
Ann wrote, beginning with the NPR quote, “The Senate’s move to relax its unofficial dress code has led to a surprising development: an official dress code,”
“It’s not the way it always goes, but it shows the risk of seeking a new rule. You may end up with a reinforcement of the old rule. More precisely, it shows the risk of ending the enforcement of an informal practice. It led to the formalization of the old practice into an official rule.”
Why is that a “risk”? The risk of ending the enforcement of an old rule is that the consequences the old rule was designed to prevent occur. There were reasons for the old rule, and as Herman Kahn once told me, people have a tendency to take traditions and standards for granted after a while, forget why they existed, and have to learn, often painfully, all over again. That’s what happened here. As the Ethics Alarms motto goes, “When ethics fails, the law steps in.” Fetterman was unethical, and Schumer, rather than being a responsible leader and telling him to shape up, eliminated the ethical standard he was breaching instead.
Ethics Dunce: Ex-Pitching Star And Big Mouth Curt Schilling
It’s been more than a month since the last baseball-related post. I fear it’s because the whole topic has left a bad taste in my mouth since the Red Sox essentially choked away what should have been a fun season right about the time I wrote the last one, which was childish of me. But I can’t ignore this ugly ethics story.
Curt Schilling, the former Orioles/Houston/Phillies/Diamondbacks and Red Sox starting pitcher justly credited as being the hero of Boston’s “Curse of the Bambino”-banishing World Series championship in 2004, revealed on a podcast last week that former Red Sox team mate Tim Wakefield is being treated for “brain cancer” and that Wakefield’s wife is being treated for cancer as well. This led to an outpouring of support for Wakefield, the knuckleball specialist who is as beloved by Red Sox Nation for his community work as much as for his always entertaining pitching as the last of the great knuckleballers. However, the Wakefields hadn’t authorized anyone to reveal their medical issues. The Red Sox felt compelled to issue a statement:
The ‘Great Stupid’ Woke Mug That’s Even Worse Than The ‘Great Stupid’ Woke Lawn Signs
This embarrassing thing has over 5,000 “likes” on Facebook, including many from friends of mine who I will henceforth have a hard time looking in the eye.
The mug, which is available free of charge “for a limited time only,” annoys me more than the “In this house we believe” signs with their fatuous virtue-signaling, generalizations (“Love is Love”) and rationalizations (“No Human Being Is Illegal”). because the game it plays is more sinister and confusing to the intellectually handicapped. It is a political propaganda device that deliberately uses false equivalencies in order to ridicule and denigrate legitimate dissent from current progressive cant.
The smug mug’s three statements of the obvious (“The Earth is not flat,” “Chemtrails aren’t a thing” and “We’ve been to the moon”) contradict fringe wacko conspiracy theories that don’t require debunking, since only a tiny and insignificant percentage of the public believes in them or ever has, and almost all of that group breathe through their mouths. However, mixed in among those topics as if they are in the same category are reductive generalizations about two public policy issues involving serious and valid controversies. That’s dirty pool, and worse, the statements aspire to end debates that they don’t even fairly reference.
I’m Curious About How Progressives In The Media And Democratic Party Will Try To Duck Responsibility For This Phenomenon. Are You?
News item: As of this morning, at least 61 people had been arrested in connection to widespread looting over two days in Philadelphia. The looting began Tuesday night with at least 30 people arrested for crimes including burglary, theft and participating in rioting. Those arrested included Dayjia Blackwell, aka. “Meatball,” a Philadelphia social media influencer who helped organize and then live-treamed the looting barrage. The viral lawlessness continued for two more days, with shoe stores, pharmacies, beauty parlors and liquor stores being attacked, among other businesses. At least 25 people were arrested for the looting that took place the nextt evening, Wednesday.. Thursday night businesses across the city hired private security. Police officers were stationed outside several establishments, including drug stores and liquor stores. Claudia Silmeas, the owner of the beauty supply shop that was targeted, told reporters, in tears, “I just want them to stop. Stop. Just stop. We are innocent of all of this. I just want them to stop.”
Someone ask Claudia if she voted for a city government that has emphasized the de-criminalization of non-violent crimes and has enabled hostility to law enforcement to flourish in the wake of the demonizing of police following the Black Lives Matter pathogen. If the answer is yes, she is assuredly not innocent.
Comment Of The Day: “Ethics Quiz: The National Cathedral’s New Windows”
A lovely and thoughtful Comment of the Day by Sarah B. on the post, “Ethics Quiz: The National Cathedral’s New Windows”:
***
I look at these windows and I am disappointed. Our culture has moved away from what should be presented everywhere: the true, good, and beautiful. Let us put these windows to the test.
Are these windows depicting what is true? Yes, things like this have happened. No one can argue on this. Are they depicting what is good? This is harder. The windows have the intent of being understood in several ways, some of them, NOT good. Finally beautiful. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, that is true, but no one seriously thinks that the rose windows in Notre Dame are ugly. I certainly do no see much beauty in these windows. The signs are jarring and take up most of the space on the windows. The emphasis, therefore, is on signs and messages, not on beautiful pictures.
In addition, I look at this from the Catholic standpoint of stained glass typically showing multiple scenes of import or people to be admired. From that standpoint, I can come up with many better pictures for an attempt at a mostly apolitical set of windows. If one wants to tell the history of slavery even, I have some great ideas. I think our history has more important matters than that, but I’ll give the slavery a shot first. Of course, all of these will have to be simplified for the material of stained glass, but we have had Jesus feeding the multitudes on stained glass for centuries, not to mention all the other Bible stories. A true student of stained glass can simplify anything and do so meaningfully.
Ethics Alarms 