My Amendments [FR: Exactly how stupid is this NYT "Ethicist" columnist on a scale of 1-10?]

The NYT Sunday Magazine ^ | October 9, 2005 | RANDY COHEN

[summer]

Perhaps it was the long, wet winter or its abrupt transformation into a hot, humid summer, but my own vision seems to have been obscured by low-lying fog in May and June. Below, I revisit several columns from those days that prompted particularly vigorous - and persuasive - disagreement from readers.[...]

A woman wanted to build a lakeside dock but feared that applying for a permit would alert the authorities to her neighbors' unauthorized docks. I stated that her neighbors' flouting the law did not require her to do likewise, but instead of quitting while I was ahead,

I went on to offer an "adventurous" - and foolish - alternative: build your dock without a permitbut so that every joist and piling meets the most exacting demands of all laws and building codes.

Many readers - impressive, really, how many are up on the laws governing coastal construction - rightly chided me for failing to consider that building permits do more than set construction standards. Permits can be a source of revenue, a way to alert officials to new building, a way to assess property values, a means of limiting waterfront growth. These are legitimate public concerns; I should not have encouraged anyone to undermine them.

[...]

[summer]

I posted this in "editorial" because this NYT Ethicist Columnist, Randy Cohen, now admits: his readers' opinions are of higher quality than the content of his opinions in his "ethicist" column.

Well, kudos to him for being honest about THAT.

But, here's what I want to know from fellow FR posters: Based on what I posted from his column today, on a scale of 1 to 10 -- with 10 being the BIGGEST JERK -- how would you rate this "ethicist" columnist for his so-called "advice?"

I would say he is a solid 10 -- meaning, he is in the TOTAL JERK category. I will explain why I think that, below.

[summer]

In my layman's opinion, his advice STINKS because in addition to the other legitimate reasons given by readers: this columnist is basically saying to people -- GO AHEAD AND PUT YOURSELF AT ENORMOUS LEGAL RISK BY BUILDING WITHOUT A PERMIT. That way, if someone has an accident on your ILLEGALLY BUILT dock - which has no permit - you might not only lose your shirt in that lawsuit, but your entire house, too.

GREAT ADVICE FROM THE NYT, HUH?!

WHAT AN IDIOT HE WAS TO ADVISE PEOPLE TO BUILD ILLEGALLY, WITHOUT A PERMIT!!!!! TOTAL JERK!

[summer]

FYI.

[summer]

Who exactly is doing a new book on how stuipid liberals can be? Is it one of you guys? If so, please consider including this thread in some chapter. Thanks, summer

[summer]

Who exactly is doing a new book on how stupid liberals can be? Is it one of you guys? If so, please consider including this thread in some chapter. Thanks, summer

[summer]

And, no, like many others -- I did not always know these things. But thank goodness I am not relying on Randy Cohen of the NYT for how I conduct my life. He is a JERK, IMHO.

[summer]

Maybe you have some sort of dissenting view you wish to share on this issue.

[summer]

FYI. And, I'm out of here! :)

[Syberyenta]

I wrote this guy a letter a while back criticising him for using a sentence without a verb.
( He had written "Just for some fresh air.", or something like that) I told him it was a bad practice to have that kind of poor grammar in a column that set itself up as an example.

His reply was snippy and defensive: "It was ok with the Times' Style Book blablabla" leading me to conclude that he is, in short, an a$$h@l3.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

The legalities aside, most municipalities, should they discover you've done permit-required work without obtaining a permit, will cheerfully triple (at least) your permit fees and force you to pay them by condemning your improvement(s). They can even, in some cases, revoke the certificate of occupancy for the structure, which could mean you might not be able to get insurance, and that, in turn, could lead to a foreclosure due to a default in the terms of your mortgage. In these days of computer-based records and bldg inspectors who need to find violations to justify their jobs against shrinking budgets, building w/o a permit is pure insanity.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

Nightmare story: The sister of a good friend wanted to build a pretty expansive deck on the side of her fairly large home overlooking a lake (or river) in Aspen, CO. The cost of the deck et al was maybe $150K. Serious deck. Anyway...the contractor 1: forged the permits 2: co-mingled the money she paid him with other monies he was paid for other work he was doing for other clients, 3: co-mingled materials from other jobs, and 4: when he was found out, he committed suicide in the travel-trailer she graciously allowed him to park in her driveway.

The deck turned out to be so utterly prohibited by the building codes in the area, she not only had to pay to have it removed, she also had to do significant remedial work to the house as it was "grafted" onto the house and incorporated into a more general remodel. (eg; sliding glass doors that opened onto a deck that couldn't be there, plus the headers and wall openings for the sliding glass doors...stuff like that)

The end result was that she paid out nearly $250K to obtain utterly nothing except a huge pile of lumber, which she couldn't use for anything and so had to pay to have THAT removed.

[68skylark]

WHAT AN IDIOT HE WAS TO ADVISE PEOPLE TO BUILD ILLEGALLY, WITHOUT A PERMIT!!!!! TOTAL JERK!

I think you're being too critical. We all make mistakes. In this case, the writer admits his mistake in print. That's a very un-jerk-like thing to do. And if more writers could do this, it would go a long way to repair my anger at others in the MSM.

A jerk is someone like Paul Krugman.

[luv2ski]

I wrote this guy a letter about a month ago regarding a column where some college kids asked about the ethics of voting in a local election when they would not be involved in funding the new schools that would be built if the measure passed. He went on and on about how it was important for them to vote and that they didn't forfeit their right to vote just because they were transient, etc.
I pointed out that he should have mentioned that, should they decide to vote in the local election, that they would then give up the right to vote at home where they were presumably more informed and or interested. I also pointed out that he should have been very clear that they would not be able to vote both places and that in recent elections the perpetrators of multiple voting schemes were primarily college students and "snowbirds". He wrote back that they weren't asking about voting twice. He obviously didn't want to consider my point, so he just blew me off.

[Kiss Me Hardy]

True story: a few years ago my wife and I decided to capitalize on the rising property market and sell the lake home (a weekender) we'd bought a decade earlier and fixed up real nice. I was sick of spending my weekends in the crawl space/on the roof/repointing the chimney/refilling the hot tub/collecting the empty bottles from beside said hot tub. Not only that, our son had reached an age when his idea of hell was spending the weekend in a forest retreat with Ma and Pa, so on the whole it seemed a good and timely idea to cash in and move on.

We had a buyer ready. We had his deposit. Everything was sweet and we're heading for closing.

Then the local council intervened.

A decade earlier, not long after we bought the joint, I had built my son and his pals a tree house. It was solid as a rock (I know; I once had to sleep in it when I'd said some indiscrete things to my mother-in-law that resulted in being no longer welcome in the matrimonial bed -- and I couldn't sleep in the guest room because said mother-in-law was polluting the mattress with her vile presence). But basically, it was just a kids' tree house, albeit a very neat and tidy one.

Well the building inspector said it had been erected without a permit and the sale couldn't go ahead until it had been inspected by a structural engineer or taken down.

Then the buyer got wound up. One of the reasons he was buying our house, he said, was because of the neat tree house, which his kids loved. If it came down, he wanted $5000 off the price!

So I asked the building inspector to be reasonable.

You know what the bastard did?

He said, "If that's your attitude, pal, I've got a lot more grief for you. Your front fence is two inches higher than code, so take that will have to come down as well."

By the time we had done everything this petty bureaucrat wanted, it had taken $10,000 out of our profits.

Building permits and building inspectors -- may they all rot in hell. (And if the Almighty isn't prepared to go quite far, may they at least spend eternity listening to my mother-in-law whine and whine and whine.)

[summer]

His reply was snippy and defensive: "It was ok with the Times' Style Book blablabla" leading me to conclude that he is, in short, an a$$h@l3.

ROTLMAO....Thanks for sharing that.

I read his column -- or, I should say: I DID read his column regularly, because I doubt I will any longer -- and I honestly try to understand what is the basis for his logic, as some of his replies are, to my way of thinking, TOTALLY INANE. Thanks again for your post, Syberyenta. :)

[summer]

...building w/o a permit is pure insanity.

I agree with your entire post. Thanks very much, Attention Surplus Disorder.

PS I don't want to say I agree with every city's "basis" for every permit each city requires -- but, if local law DOES require a permit, and YOU ARE A HOMEOWNER, well, then, you need a permit. (Even if this NYT "ethicist" jerk says you don't.)

[summer]

...The end result was that she paid out nearly $250K to obtain utterly nothing except a huge pile of lumber, which she couldn't use for anything and so had to pay to have THAT removed.

My gosh, that really IS a nightmare story!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[summer]

A jerk is someone like Paul Krugman.

I just saw Krugman on a C-SPAN show last night (The Great NYC Read In The Park or something), and I have to agree with you. He is REALLY a jerk.

But, with this Times JERK Ethicist columnist -- yes, you are right; he admitted he was wrong. However, in the meantime, how many people relied on his NYT advice and built an illegal dock -- without a permit?

In light of that, I think this ethicist's column should contain some kind of LEGAL DISCLAIMER at the bottom or top, saying something like: EVERYTHING PUBLISHED HERE IS JUST MY JERK/NON-EXPERT/NON-ETHICIST OPINION, SO DON'T RELY ON IT.

[Cicero]

I honestly try to understand what is the basis for his logic

The very definition of a contemporary "ethicist" is that there is no underlying logical or philosophical basis. If there is any basis, it is more like shifting sands than a firm foundation: Is it currently fashionable? Is it politically correct? Does it feel good?

[summer]

RE y our post #13 - He wrote back that they weren't asking about voting twice. He obviously didn't want to consider my point, so he just blew me off.

I REMEMBER THAT COLUMN! I HAD THE SAME THOUGHT YOU DID! I wondered: why isn't he mentioning the fact you can't vote TWICE? I thought he was VERY WRONG to NOT POINT THAT OUT IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE!!!