Vol. 2 No. 68 July 20, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Hen3ry
One of the games columnists play is a variation on hide-and-seek where the columnist tries to hide from armies of lawyers trying to nail defamation suits on him. Every time a writer uses a name in a fictional context, he or she had better be sure every effort is made to make clear any resemblance to any actual persons, “living or dead, is purely coincidental.”
Naturally, when people slaving away at a computer are really sure of what they're talking about, they can use names like William Jefferson (money) or Mark Foley (sex) with impunity.. They can also say just about anything about Osama bin Laden, Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro since nobody in government is going to complain about it and bin Laden's lawyers aren't likely to file suit. Cartoonists can also get away with a lot, as Gary Trudeau has so conclusively proven with his adventures of Mike Doonesbury and friends.
It's when people like me try to be wiseguys that the game gets serious. Not that I suspect large law firms in Portland or Seattle are eagerly awaiting my next column in order to scan it for possibly libelous statements, but if I happen to say that some person named Ezekiel Worg is a half-wit and there really is an Ezekiel Worg who happens to have a reputation as a minor genius in his community, Mr. Worg might be tempted to ask his lawyer to give me a call.
To avoid this, I've generally prefaced my names with the word “imaginary” or “fictitious.” For all I knew, there might have actually been a lady named Valley who happened to live in The Dalles or a priest named Brothers who lived in Sisters. Legal action is less likely to happen when I use names like Upchuck or Pfazzbazz, but this opens me up to ridicule as being a congenital idiot, which I deny.
There is one remaining option, first used by the former Harvard math professor and song writer Tom Lehrer, whose “Vatican Rag” caused a major religious debate. He tells about a person who was so unconventional he called himself Hen3ry with the “3” being silent. Using this device, one could disguise our current Attorney General as Alberto Gon5zales with absolutely no fear of legal action on the grounds that no telephone book in the world would have a listing under “Gon5zales.” At the same time, people would get a pretty good idea whom you were talking about. The same goes for Con4doleeza Ric9e.
Yes, there are downsides. The name “Clin10” sounds too close for comfort. So does “G8tes.” On the other hand, a writer might not have to worry about using “Dr. Eric Ker2oack,” the guy Mr. Bush named Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs, or, as the media dubbed him, “Birth Control Czar.” This worthy gentleman was known for presenting PowerPoint presentations using Loony Tunes characters to illustrate his theory that premarital sex can damage the female brain, making non-abstinent women incapable of forming emotional bonds. He has since resigned. In case you haven't noticed, a lot of people are resigning lately. Some feel the number should be increased.
Although Lehrer might have hit on a genuine refuge from lawyers, it is nonetheless always a mistake to underestimate the ingenuity of the legal profession. A group of sufficiently highly paid attorneys, for instance, might be able to make mincemeat of writers who pictured a character named Par7is Hil6ton, whose early tear-stained release from the hoosegow precipitated a near-revolt among the peasants, who didn't consider confinement to her Hollywood mansion a particularly harsh punishment. The rumor she was about to throw a series of house parties led to a reversal of her sentence and a dramatic kicking and screaming Par7is shouting, “It's not fair!!”
There is a temptation, not confined to the Bogus Economist, to be cruelly and absolutely unfair to Ms Hilton, who has subsequently turned to God and Barbara Walters (in that order) to lay out her new purposes in life. There's an alluring opportunity to pile on “Scoo00tter” Libby, whose bail has now been paid and for whom all that remains is peaceful probation. It's even more of a temptation to add another kick to the semi-recumbent figure of George W. Bush, whose own party is doing everything but putting on track shoes to distance itself from their leader. That people succumb to these temptations is a sad reflection on the vindictive nature of man.
Bravely, then, the Bogus Economist has determined to resist this deplorable tendency and report only confirmed facts about people in both the political and entertainment industries – or, in this election season – both. I shall not refer to Rudy Guil8iani's marital woes or John Ed9ward's hair. I shall fight for fairness in mentioning Fred Thomp3son's lack of military service as well as the immense wealth of the other candidates, currently estimated at half a billion dollars, about a tenth of Michael Bloom$berg's by itself. Above all, I shall be wary of making comments about Rich%^@#ard Che*^&%ney.
However, if I do, I'll be sure to add that any resemblance to Darth Vader or Voldemort is purely coincidental.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
Friday, July 06, 2007
Vol. 2 No. 66 July 6, 2007
The Bogus Economist
This or That
Every time I start a column intending to be bright and cheerful, something always comes up to derail me and eight out of ten times the trouble starts in the White House.
This time, I was just beginning a bright and cheerful column about the Glorious Fourth, the fun-filled summer flow of traffic in Lincoln City, the joys of parking in Newport and the return of the thirty cent a gallon gap between gas prices on the Coast and Dundee when I was rudely interrupted by the news the Vice President of the United States can't decide which branch of government he's in.
When Mr. Cheney and a group of oil company executives met allegedly to write our energy policy, Mr. Cheney refused to tell us who they were on the grounds of executive privilege, which was evidently conferred on him by Mr. Bush, who had it by authority of the Constitution. Being the number two executive, said the VP, he didn't have to tell anybody anything.
Last week, the attractive and personable White House spokesperson for Mr. Cheney, Dana Perino, told an incredulous press corps that the Vice President could ignore a congressional subpoena because he really was not a member of the executive branch. Since the Constitution said he was the president of the Senate, went the argument, he was basically in the legislative branch. Which was it? "I think that's an interesting constitutional question, and I think that lots of people can debate it," Ms Perino said. Yes, indeed.
Some members of Congress predictably exploded with frustration. "He's acting as if he's unaccountable -- a whole fourth branch of government unto himself. So my view is if you're not in the executive branch we shouldn't fund you as the executive branch," Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Illinois.) said. The Vice President's spokeswoman accused Emanuel of "playing politics.” Who would know better?
If Mr. Cheney doesn't have to tell anybody about anything because he's in whatever branch of government he decides to be at the moment, I assume since he has to make decisions on which pair of pants to wear every morning, he can also be in the judicial branch. Whatever his reasoning, the result is the American people don't know about the influence of the oil industry on our gas prices – or very much about anything else. The Fourth of July holiday might be a good time to reflect on what that means.
I'm old-fashioned enough still to like the song, “It's Got to be This or That.” Either Mr. Cheney is in the executive branch or he isn't. I don't like ambiguity, especially about the people who are supposed to lead us. In fairness, however, I have to admit this seeming doublethink isn't just confined to the White House. It's getting to the point where everybody's doing it.
As I write, the Congress has killed the immigration bill. One reason for its death had to do with allowing heads of households to bring spouses and children into the country. Without taking sides, I have to wonder how many people who voted against it are also those who promote “family values.” Are family values strictly for Americans? Yes or no.
Over the years, we've given and sold armaments to El Qaeda when they were fighting the Soviets on the basis of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Now, there is a move afoot to provide arms to the Sunni forces in Iraq if they will promise to shoot only at El Queda and not at us. Are the former members of Saddam Hussein's army good guys or bad guys?
Rev. Charles Busch, retired minister of the First Congregational Church in Lincoln City, is trying to promote a Peace Camp for adults, as he has already done successfully with children. Do we really want peace? Would we rather turn the other cheek or kick butt? Do we like to see problems solved with reason or with fists?
Do we complain about pollution or will we start driving more efficient cars? Do we want fewer kids to develop Type II diabetes or will we insist on better nutrition? Are we happy with our health care system or will we change it? Do we sit at home and gripe about the government or will we vote to make it better? It's one or the other. We're in charge. If we're not, then why have a holiday?
I've been in a lot of pretty fierce debates about whether living in a dictatorship or a democracy is easier. It's certainly less of a strain when the government does your thinking for you. The downside is the same government usually ends up deciding not only how and where you'll be buried, but when. If I give up choice, I give up just about everything else. This is what I like about independence – as in Independence Day. Think for Yourself Day.
We can't have our future both ways. We'll do something about poverty or we won't. We either believe in freedom or we don't. We'll survive or we won't. Got to be this or that.
And this is what happens when a bright and cheerful column runs amok. Have a great holiday!!
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
This or That
Every time I start a column intending to be bright and cheerful, something always comes up to derail me and eight out of ten times the trouble starts in the White House.
This time, I was just beginning a bright and cheerful column about the Glorious Fourth, the fun-filled summer flow of traffic in Lincoln City, the joys of parking in Newport and the return of the thirty cent a gallon gap between gas prices on the Coast and Dundee when I was rudely interrupted by the news the Vice President of the United States can't decide which branch of government he's in.
When Mr. Cheney and a group of oil company executives met allegedly to write our energy policy, Mr. Cheney refused to tell us who they were on the grounds of executive privilege, which was evidently conferred on him by Mr. Bush, who had it by authority of the Constitution. Being the number two executive, said the VP, he didn't have to tell anybody anything.
Last week, the attractive and personable White House spokesperson for Mr. Cheney, Dana Perino, told an incredulous press corps that the Vice President could ignore a congressional subpoena because he really was not a member of the executive branch. Since the Constitution said he was the president of the Senate, went the argument, he was basically in the legislative branch. Which was it? "I think that's an interesting constitutional question, and I think that lots of people can debate it," Ms Perino said. Yes, indeed.
Some members of Congress predictably exploded with frustration. "He's acting as if he's unaccountable -- a whole fourth branch of government unto himself. So my view is if you're not in the executive branch we shouldn't fund you as the executive branch," Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Illinois.) said. The Vice President's spokeswoman accused Emanuel of "playing politics.” Who would know better?
If Mr. Cheney doesn't have to tell anybody about anything because he's in whatever branch of government he decides to be at the moment, I assume since he has to make decisions on which pair of pants to wear every morning, he can also be in the judicial branch. Whatever his reasoning, the result is the American people don't know about the influence of the oil industry on our gas prices – or very much about anything else. The Fourth of July holiday might be a good time to reflect on what that means.
I'm old-fashioned enough still to like the song, “It's Got to be This or That.” Either Mr. Cheney is in the executive branch or he isn't. I don't like ambiguity, especially about the people who are supposed to lead us. In fairness, however, I have to admit this seeming doublethink isn't just confined to the White House. It's getting to the point where everybody's doing it.
As I write, the Congress has killed the immigration bill. One reason for its death had to do with allowing heads of households to bring spouses and children into the country. Without taking sides, I have to wonder how many people who voted against it are also those who promote “family values.” Are family values strictly for Americans? Yes or no.
Over the years, we've given and sold armaments to El Qaeda when they were fighting the Soviets on the basis of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Now, there is a move afoot to provide arms to the Sunni forces in Iraq if they will promise to shoot only at El Queda and not at us. Are the former members of Saddam Hussein's army good guys or bad guys?
Rev. Charles Busch, retired minister of the First Congregational Church in Lincoln City, is trying to promote a Peace Camp for adults, as he has already done successfully with children. Do we really want peace? Would we rather turn the other cheek or kick butt? Do we like to see problems solved with reason or with fists?
Do we complain about pollution or will we start driving more efficient cars? Do we want fewer kids to develop Type II diabetes or will we insist on better nutrition? Are we happy with our health care system or will we change it? Do we sit at home and gripe about the government or will we vote to make it better? It's one or the other. We're in charge. If we're not, then why have a holiday?
I've been in a lot of pretty fierce debates about whether living in a dictatorship or a democracy is easier. It's certainly less of a strain when the government does your thinking for you. The downside is the same government usually ends up deciding not only how and where you'll be buried, but when. If I give up choice, I give up just about everything else. This is what I like about independence – as in Independence Day. Think for Yourself Day.
We can't have our future both ways. We'll do something about poverty or we won't. We either believe in freedom or we don't. We'll survive or we won't. Got to be this or that.
And this is what happens when a bright and cheerful column runs amok. Have a great holiday!!
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
