Comments on: The Department of Modest Proposals

By: ajay

ajay — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:51:44 +0000

6203. For paragraph 147(1)(c) or 601DC(1)(c) of the Corporations Act 2001, a name is unacceptable for registration if the name:
(e) in the context in which it is proposed to be used, suggests a connection with:
(i) a member of the Royal Family; or…
(iv) Sir Donald Bradman.

…but we repeat ourselves.

By: mollymooly

mollymooly — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:43:59 +0000

There goes my plan to open the Bradman Cyfyngedig Institute of Friendly Sheffield Chemistry .

By: jackd

jackd — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:41:33 +0000

This conversation is incomplete without reference to one of the most highly-regarded 'toots on the net.

By: Per Kurowski

Per Kurowski — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:10:07 +0000

So Companies House has to approve the use of some sensitive words before they can be institutionally used “because they are thought to convey an impression of authority or trustworthiness”?

How sad that “credit ratings AAA” did not submit an application. It would have saved the world quite many trillions of dollars or what´s almost the same pounds sterling.

By: marcel

marcel — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:46:58 +0000

This being the US, at least where I sit, I plan to begin my own Department of Sensitive Words (TM). I'll start with Anglicisms that make our hearty, robust language sound too prissy, too sensitive. First on the list is 'withal' (see 23 above). Second is 'walk the talk' (see link at 23 above), which all right thinking people know is "walk the walk". If you doubt me, google 'walk the talk' and you'll see that the most prominent links are to management consulting firms; you will also see one that explains the decline from the true form of the phrase (for more on this Orwellian phenomenon, see this.).

By: KCinDC

KCinDC — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:46:15 +0000

What about all those “mints” that sell limited-edition medallions and other similar “collectible” junk?

And United Parcel Service and Federal Express chose names designed to imply governmental affiliation, though nowadays they’ve become such well-known brands that no one would think that (plus they’ve abandoned their names in favor of abbreviations anyway).

By: Pete

Pete — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:48:29 +0000

See also the history of “Black Sheep Bank” : http://www.pjsymes.com.au/articles/Private03.htm

Of course, in the UK it’s still legal as an individual to have any name you like, so long as it is not for fraudulent purposes. I don’t think there’s even a requirement that it be writable in Roman lettering, although the inevitable introduction of ID cards may enforce that.

By: A. Y. Mous

A. Y. Mous — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 07:56:59 +0000

I suggest the department be named “Governmental Omdudsman for Denotations”, in keeping with the tradition of having a TLA, plus being an Ombudsman, the American penchant for non-Govt. entities is indulged.

So, should Ed Liddy file a case against me for encashing all Treasury checks made out to “AIG”, I can tell the court that God sanctioned my company’s name to be American Institute of Greed.

By: Helen

Helen — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 06:08:29 +0000

In Australia, also, we have a plethora of mickey-mouse “institutes” – as I’m sure you have too – like the ‘Adelaide Institute’, which is a sad old racist and his kitchen table. Other institutes, not much further up the evolutionary scale from that one, are forever having articles by their “fellows” published in the dailies. So, a meme has grown up whereby people write letters to the paper signed, not by A. Guy from Narre Warren(for example) but “A. Guy, director, Narre Warren Institute.”

By: ChrisB

ChrisB — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 05:16:03 +0000

In Australia, now,

By: dsquared

dsquared — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 03:26:42 +0000

“Bank” and “Pharmacy” both belong to a category that goes beyond sensitive btw – you simply can’t use them unless you have a license to be one (Damien Hirst and Matthew Freud fell foul of this in the 1990s, when they opened up a restaurant which they thought it would be amusing to call “Pharmacy” because of all the drugs people took there. not allowed, chaps).

For anyone worried about governmental control of sensitive words, btw, I proposed a private property solution to the problem a couple of years ago (frankly, it was built around the joke about Peter Tatchell having a “monopoly on virtue” but I like it withal).

By: Cryptic ned

Cryptic ned — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 03:15:10 +0000

It’s useful to see US societies and organizations named exactly what they want to be named, though. For example, if an organization contains “Freedom” or “Liberty” in its name, it’s devoted to either the abolition of taxes, or the abolition of anti-gun laws. If an organization contains “Family” in its name, its goal is probably to exalt the Lord Jesus Christ above all false religions by denying the rights of homosexuals. If an organization contains “Taxpayers” in its name, it was founded to defend the interests of the 500 richest people on earth. These are useful heuristics.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:32:18 +0000

Of course, understanding the difference between “Orwellian” and “Dickensian” requires you to understand the former with recourse to the writing of George Orwell, and not the Orwellian flattening of the term into something approximating doubleplus ungood. Or, we can all just agree that government’s the problem and not the solution, and call it a day. George! Charles! Highfive!

By: P O'Neill

P O'Neill — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:46:03 +0000

There's no truth to the rumour that George Bush is hesitant to call his Dallas outfit The Freedom Institute because an Irish predecessor with the same name did such damage to the brand.

By: larry c wilson

larry c wilson — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:12:11 +0000

Personally, I like the idea of eating fat Irish babies.