In Bush's League

Though I've been constantly disrespectful to our President, whom I consider an accident of birth, I must admit that not all of his priorities are wrongheaded. Sure, he dementedly proposes to amend the constitution to legally restrict the rights of a certain minority, and his Social Security privatization scheme, while not appalling in theory, would certainly do nothing to sustain the program's solvency; it will in fact do the opposite. But when he maintains that our judicial system is bogged down in frivolous and/or extravagant lawsuits, I can only nod in agreement.

Americans are very insistent at avoiding responsibility for their own lives; they prefer to deflect difficult problems to their parents, God, and/or the legal system. Well, parents eventually die or become dependent themselves, and God either Doesn't Care or Isn't There. This leaves us with the courtrooms, now expected to deal with every aggrievement from cradle to grave (or beyond in both instances, from Roe v. Wade to Ted William's frozen head case). Now it is surely our right and occasionally our need to secure redress from injustice, and the Little Guy or Gal can often be trampled upon by Big Industry or the Medical Institution lacking this outlet. Many, even most lawsuits are valid for adjudication, even if the rewards demanded are outlandish. The Republicans have a point asserting that medical malpractice suits, in particular, are an underlying cause of higher medical costs. When every physician who ever comes into contact with a patient has to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for malpractice insurance, this fact becomes clearer. Capping penalties, as is done in California, is one way to approach the problem, though it's one of those heavyhanded solutions, like three-strikes-you're-out and term limits, that needs modification.

My greater objection is to the frivolous lawsuits that clog the arteries of our legal system. Most of them are just nuisances, and while backing up the dockets, are trivial personal affairs. Then occasionally one pops up that is totally offensive to notions of American ideals. I am referrring to the "sexual harrassment" charge filed by a former writer's assistant at "Friends" (and I'm going to call this little clut a "secretary," just to put her down). Seems she was working at some late-night rewrite sessions when the creative staff started bandying about off-color jokes concerning the actors and characters on the show. These jokes were not aimed at the secretary. Had she been the target of such cracks, her dismay would be understandable; but she was merely in attendance, and simply took offense. Now she has a lawsuit pending in the California Supreme Court demanding redress. (Yeah, I'd like to redress her, in tars and feathers and a very scratchy thong).

This bitch has since left the show and the country, but the suit is still pending, and could have a devastating effect on the creative process in all scripted shows, if the judge or jury decides that her sensibilities are more important than the First Amendment. Having been a staffer on comedy shows I'm familiar with the process of joke-making and pitching. A writer's room is like a handball court with six players serving at once; jokes go flinging by in a frenzy, usually off-target, often bouncing off each other. To energize this group process, off-color, politically incorrect gags are carelessly thrown about, to loosen the mood. It is a kind of mental calisthenics, just like doing a crossword puzzle or writing a blog sharpens the mind for the psychic demands of the day. Sitcom creation is fundamentally a group-revision process, and very demanding. How could it proceed if the entire staff is afraid to lapse into occasional bad taste because it could ruffle the feathers of some venal assistant who could sue them for making dirty jokes? Is this a writer's room or the fucking Vatican?

I believe that this particular suit will not be upheld, though the producers of "Friends" are so wealthy (a fact that certainly encouraged the plaintiff) that a few dollars could make the problem go away. But a settlement here would set too damaging a precedent. In a perfect world there would be a penalty imposed for a lawsuit deemed frivolous, and I mean something more than the legal costs. For a suit that tries to undermine the Bill of Rights, I'd suggest a prison sentence for a losing plaintiff. Gee, maybe the secretary could bunk with Leona Helmsley and Martha Stewart. I'm sure they would be perfectly polite.