The Unwanted Blog

Not wanting to delve too deeply into Weinergate; The Daily Show has done a surprisingly good job there. But this particular story caught my attention:

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/06/weiner-dirty-emails-traci-nobles-weinergate-scandal-twitter-facebook

It didn’t interest me for the pedestrian, tawdry sex-chat. What interested me was this:

Please understand i am a very important man. I’m always busy, but I promise i will make time for you soon!” Weiner wrote to Nobles in an email dated May 6, 2011.

Urk.

“I am a very important man.” I put this in the same category with “Don’t you know who I am?” In other words, indicative of an attitude often seen displayed by celebrities and politicians… expecting special treatment.

Fuggem.

The United States is a rare thing: a nation formed not on ethnic lines, or language lines or religious lines or even necessarily geographical lines, but on a shared ideal of a government that treats every man the same as every other. Obviously it’s an ideal that often isn’t lived up to. But… “I am a very important man” is, it seems to me, the very antithesis of what it means to be an American.

Isn’t it about time we had an agreement in this country that there should be some sort of response to “Don’t you know who I am?” At the bare minimum, pointing and laughing. And the right, nay, obligation to kick out the self-important celebritard from whatever establishment they are in and trying to dominate. But I’m thinking something more drastic. Anyone who is documented using their self-importance to cut in line, or demand free goodies or services, should be declared in a very limited self Outlaw.

Back in the Viking age, what passed for governments in the Norse lands didn’t have the resources for things like prisons. So if someone was a lawbreaker, they could be declared Outlaw. Which meant they were outside the law. Which meant that if someone else clubbed an outlaw over the head, stole his gold and cut his throat, the legal response would be… nothing. The Outlaw had decided that the laws didn’t apply to him; and thus, the authorities decided to let him have his way. The result of this was that it led to a lot of voyages of exploration, as Outlaws decided that it was a good time to hightail it out of town before the people they’d pissed off decided to come calling.

Clearly, that would be excessive. But a limited version would seem appropriate. Start with… loss of image and identity rights. Celebrities of course loses a lot of rights to maintain their image and privacy rights by simple virtue of being a public person… but they can control the way their image is used. Celebrities can’t prevent their image being used in parody and satire, but they can file legal claims against, say, fraudulent claims that “Celebrity X endorses Product Y” or “Celebrity X supports stomping puppies.” Perhaps losing the ability to sue for damages over libel or slander for a set period of time would be an appropriate response to anyone who announces that they are more important than the average slob?

Or perhaps declaring them Outlaw insofar as they can be pelting with rotten veggies or cream pies or some such.

Am I alone in this? If not, feel free to post your own ideas.