Randy's metaphorical shoes are too big to fill

In August 2009 I wrote that ‘I live my life almost if not totally within my comfort zone. I don’t know if that’s a good or bad thing…(but it’s)…one way of minimising stress [1]’. Staying in my comfort zone maximises my life’s predictability. An example? Every Saturday (Tasmanian time), like clockwork, The Ethicist podcast’s arrived in my iTunes’ Podcasts folder. I’ve adored this podcast. Not least due to Randy Cohen – who I think’s terrific [2]. The Ethicist podcasts – which were readings of Cohen’s weekly New York Times column – were only a few minutes each. But their pithy succinctness defined them. As if the ethical solutions to the conundrums Cohen dealt with came readily to him. An astute reader of this post will’ve perceived I’ve been writing in the past tense. Alas, the final episode of The Ethicist – with Cohen at the helm – was last week’s. It’s his 614th. Here it is [3 ,4]. It seems his parting of the ways with the NYT wasn’t initiated by him [5, 6]. I hope the NYT’s decision comes back to bite it. Apparently they’ve engaged a replacement ethicist. But I doubt anyone could replace Cohen. For his metaphorical shoes are too big to fill. However I’m delighted he and his work won’t be lost to his loyal followers – including me. He has a new programme – A Question of Ethics – in development for public radio [7, 8]. I hope it starts soon. And that it appears regularly. Because my comfort zone’s important to me.

Updates on recent posts

Today’s Farmdoc’s Blog post comprises updates on post in the last few months. Links to the original post are in square brackets:

1. Yesterday the ram we bought on 10.4.10 met his 35 new girlfriends [1].

2. I haven’t yet sent the billy goat hiring saga to the Randy Cohen the NYT’s Ethicist [2].

3. F1 driver Lewis Hamilton’s been charged for his pre Grand Prix burnout on a public street [3].

4. Thus the rule of law’s been applied. But not to police chief Overland for the bullets affair [4].

5. My number of unlistened-to podcasts is down from 29 a month ago to 13 now [5].

6. I haven’t yet read Les Carlyon’s two Great War books, or watched the ANZACS film [6].

7. And I haven’t yet read The Man Who Left Too Soon [7].

8. I haven’t yet bought a hand-operated flour mill [8].

9. Our pantry’s mouse free. There were only two mice. The pantry smells sweet again [9].

10. Catherine Deveny’s not been hired by another media outlet after the Age sacked her [10].

11. I haven’t yet asked Sweetheart Vivienne what her primary love language is [11].

12. I hope to survive my flight to Melbourne this morning [12]

13. I haven’t taken the Marshmallow Challenge (pictured) [13].

14. No feedback yet from the 22.4.10 fox scat seekers [14].

The billy goat and the ethical conundrum - part 2

My recent post ‘The billy goat and the ethical conundrum’ [1] snagged the interest of Farmdoc’s Blog readers, several of whom have asked me what’s happened since then. So here’s Part 2:

On 24 March, over dinner (fish and chips, FYI), Sharon and I decided to speak further with Mr Smith (still not his real name) by phone. As a day after her phone call with him, Sharon was still very upset by his verbal attack, we agreed I’d phone him. I did, in Sharon’s presence. Calmly and courteously but firmly, I reiterated to him our clear recall of the agreement, i.e. payment via one nanny kid of the Smiths’ choosing. After a long silence, Mr Smith said: ‘I’m speechless’. Then he hung up on me. The next day (25 March) Sharon received this email [2]. (She forwarded it to me on 27 March.) We decided the appropriate response would be for her to email him back, acknowledging his email and reiterating our eagerness to abide by our side of the deal as we recalled it, i.e. the Smiths to choose the best nanny kid in the mob. Sharon sent a short email along these lines over a week ago. There’s been no response from the Smiths. I intuit they won’t communicate further. Time will tell. But if anything further does happen, I’ll post it on Farmdoc’s Blog.

P.S. I’m considering sending this conundrum to the NYT Ethicist Randy Cohen [3, 4], seeking his response. Stay tuned.

farmdoc's blog post number 683

Randy Cohen (pictured). He’s an interesting fellow. Wikipedia says that after obtaining an Arts degree majoring in music, he spent several years writing humour pieces, essays, and stories for leading US newspapers and magazines. For seven years from 1991 he was a writer on 950 episodes of Late Night with David Letterman, winning three Emmy Awards along the way. His fourth Emmy was for his work on TV Nation. Since 1999 he’s written ‘The Ethicist’ column in the New York Times Magazine. I subscribe to, and love, his weekly Ethicist podcasts. They’re succinct, fast-moving, and highly thought provoking. Nowadays, when I come across situations – in my life or in the news – with ethical connotations, I ask myself ‘What would Randy say?’ Two recent examples are: What would I have done had I, like Messrs Briggs and Jones, found $125,000 cash in a handbag in a supermarket carpark? And what would my reaction have been had my passport data been used by one of the team who bumped off Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai in January? Sweetheart Vivienne and I discussed these two questions over dinner last night. I can predict fairly accurately what Randy would’ve said about the money. But his response to the passport matter’s less certain. You see, he received his fifth Emmy Award as a result of a clerical error. And he kept it. So how could I not add him to my list of favourite journalists [1, 2]. Keep it coming, Randy.