Sunday, September 28, 2003

Column to be published Oct. 3:
Last week a second federal judge sided with telemarketing companies and ruled that the Federal Do-Not-Call list is unconstitutional, citing free speech. To borrow from John Stossel, give me a break.
US District Judge Edward W. Nottingham blocked the list because “…The First Amendment prohibits the government from enacting laws creating a preference for certain types of speech based on content, without asserting a valid interest, premised on content, to justify its discrimination” (Washington Post, Sept. 26). The basis for the ruling was the fact that charitable organizations will not be bound by the list; they will still be able to solicit at will. According to Nottingham, this constitutes favoring one type of speech over another.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the government already enacts laws creating preferences for content, so that the public can expect a certain amount of decency and respect. Why will you never hear “fuck” on FCC-monitored commercial radio?
More importantly, the ruling is based on recognizing telemarketing as its own form of speech. Telemarketing is a mode of speech, a way to deliver a message; it is not a message in and of itself. The list does not outlaw the language of the solicitations; it simply prohibits delivering the solicitation by phone. The First Amendment doesn’t apply, so Nottingham’s ruling is invalid.
The ruling also doesn’t address harassment. We should reasonably expect to be able to walk down the street without being harassed by salesmen and political activists right and left. Having a table with flyers is one thing; following people down the street or blaring annoying propaganda over a loud speaker is another. Telemarketers fit a unique mold in that they are not exactly following you down the street, but they certainly aren’t just standing there either. Ads on the internet, in newspapers, on the television and on the roadside can be passively ignored; all you have to do is not read the ad or go get a snack during the commercial break. As a consumer, you are not engaged unless you want to be.
Telemarketing, however, is frustrating precisely because it requires engagement; you have no idea who is calling when you pick up the phone. That unrecognizable or “unavailable” number could be a telemarketer; it also could be someone from work who got your name and needs to talk to you immediately about the report due tomorrow. Either way, you have to pick up the phone to find out. And once you’ve picked up the phone, there are only three ways out: go along with the schtick and politely refuse, play with their minds, or hang up. When you hang up, frustration mounts at the time lost to a pointless call. Did you really lose that much time? No. That’s not the point. The point is that you were engaged against your will concerning a product you don’t want to buy with a person who doesn’t care that you’re eating dinner. It’s like a salesman walking in uninvited or the TV turning itself on to show a commercial.
Can the government really regulate rudeness? Actually, to a certain point it can and does. The government protects private property from unwelcome visitors with laws against trespassing. If an individual continues to call and harass someone on the phone, without even coming near private property, the government can issue a restraining order. That’s what the Do-Not-Call list is: a universal and preemptive restraining order. Sure, any one telemarketer only calls once, but to the consumer they’re all the same unwanted nuisance. The popularity of the Do-Not-Call list speaks to the breadth of the nuisance. 50 million people are already on it and it hasn’t even been enforced yet. The House of Representatives voted 412-8 and the Senate 95-0 to approve it. Americans clearly expect to be protected from unsolicited phone calls by law as much as the law currently prohibits trespassing.
As far as the distinction between charitable and commercial telemarketing, I think it is appropriate to allow charitable solicitations. I am willing to be guilt-tripped into helping the needy, as should we all. There is a difference between selling something and appealing for help. But that leads into a whole different argument.

Friday, September 19, 2003

My column from Sept. 5 concerning media bias on the Middle East:

On Friday, August 29, The New York Times demonstrated once again the apparent inability of our western media to report fairly on the issue of the Middle East.
That day, a front page article titled Visits Stir New Tension at Jerusalem Holy Site reported the resumption of visits to the Dome of the Rock plaza by non-Muslims. The site, known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif, had been closed to non-Muslims since November 2000, except for a brief period earlier this summer.
These appear to be the only facts presented in the article. The rest is biased and misleading.
Jews believe the Temple Mount is the location of the first and second Temples, yet the article deemphasizes this by saying “Orthodox Jewish religious authorities differ on the location of the Holy of Holies.” The article pointedly describes the area as “Islam’s third holiest site,” favoring the Islamic claim to the Temple Mount.
Three times in the article, Palestinians are quoted or references as saying the Jews were being allowed back to the Dome of the Rock plaza to pray. Only once is it mentioned that Israeli police are posted to prevent Jews from praying on the site, that they turned one individual away, and that Israeli intelligence agents are also posted to prevent an attack on the site by Jewish extremists. As some Jews believe the Dome of the Rock must be destroyed before the Third Temple can be built to herald the Messiah, this is not an unreasonable threat.
The article closes by quoting a tour guide and Rabbi concerning his belief and hope that animal sacrifices could one day be resumed on the site. This is a total misrepresentation of mainstream Jewish and Israeli thought; Judaism long since has given up animal sacrifice, and many Jews are against it. By closing the article this way, there is a subtle implication that Jews want the site back to reintroduce sacrifices, far from the truth. This is biased reporting.
The article is only a small example of the extended history of Western media misrepresenting the facts of the Middle East situation.
Perhaps you remember the incident in March when American college student Rachel Corrie was run over by an IDF bulldozer on its way to destroy a Palestinian home. The implication was the IDF razes homes and runs over protesters without compuction. But there is more to the story.
The house was being destroyed in an operation to root out tunnels used by terrorists to smuggle weapons into Gaza. Corrie ignored multiple warnings from the IDF to keep clear of the operation for her own safety. And the bulldozer did not simply run her down. Corrie fell from atop a pile of rubble, out of sight of the driver of the bulldozer, which was armored and therefore had a very limited visibility. An autopsy determined that the cause of Corrie’s death was from falling debris, not the bulldozer running her over. Suddenly, the implication becomes an overzealous protester entered a dangerous area and was the victim of a terrible accident; tragic, but hardly the same story as that of a ruthless army killing innocents.
Another example is the “massacre” of Jenin. March 29 to April 21 of 2002 witnessed an Israeli military incursion into the refugee camp of Jenin and a pitched battle between the IDF and Palestinian gunmen. Palestinians claimed the IDF leveled homes without cause and that a massacre occurred. As examples of many such allegations, Palestinian spokesmen were quoted on CNN as saying Israel performed “blanket bombing today of the cities of Nablus and Jenin…” (Hassan Abdel Rahman, April 6) and that “…the Jenin refugee camp is no longer in existence.” (Saeb Erekat to Jim Clancy, April 10).
In fact, aerial photos of the area show the camp is still very much there, and that perhaps ten percent of it was destroyed. No “blanket bombing” of any sort occurred. Interviews of Palestinian fighters by Palestinian media reveal that houses and streets were indeed booby trapped with explosives. International observers sent to investigate the claims of a massacre refused time and again to so label the events in Jenin. The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting published extensive articles concerning the Jenin incursion in their Fall 2002 edition (Vol. 12, Number 2), revealing allegation after allegation as being an outright fabrication.
Obviously, what we read, see, and hear about what is happening in the Middle East in the Times, on CNN, and other western outlets may not be the facts. The most important point to consider is that even if the version of events pointed out in this article are not the truth, they are at the very least a perspective that has been absolutely drowned out by the allegations of the Palestinians.

Addendum:
And isn't it interesting that no one went back after all these allegations were proven false and said to the spokesmen who perpetuated them, "Hey, you lied!" No one said that...more to say on this subject, but we'll save it for another time.
Another blurb from ABC a few weeks back: the government is training 5,000 new air marshals to keep us safe. Excuse me, but I already wait two hours to get on a plane for security already. I don't want to pay for air marshals unless security on the ground is reduced. Air travel is still the safest way to travel, and I believe there's statistics out there that says you're more likely to get hit by lightning than have something happen on a plane. As such, I think the security should either be on the ground or in the air, but both is overkill. Frankly, I prefer the air marshals, so that way we could actually carry our toiletries in our carry-ons!
Back on the scene, haven't had time for SO LONG....I will be posting much more once I get the chance, including my columns from my new writing job, but for now, here's a tidbit from ABC News Online. Its an exclusive interview with our favorite player in the Middle East, Yasser Arafat.


Woodruff: Is it international pressure that has kept the Israelis from moving against you?

Arafat: I have been elected by my people under international supervision. Even President Carter was one of the observers who was supervising the election campaign.

Woodruff: But the [Israeli government] did make a threat against you. Do you take it seriously? Do you fear for your life?

Arafat: For your information, I am here under siege for about three years. And not only that, the damage and what we have faced from their airplanes, from their tanks. But the most important thing is not what we are facing here, although it is against international law, but what our people are facing.

Woodruff: What is your opinion of the [Israeli] wall?

Arafat: They are not only building a wall around Jerusalem, which is preventing our people — Muslims and Christians — from going to pray, but also they have started building quickly this wall around all our cities and towns. But not only that, this wall is confiscating 58 percent of the West Bank. Who can accept this? We have accepted 22 percent only! 22 percent!

Woodruff: Is there any wall you would accept?

Arafat: If they want to make their wall in Tel Aviv, who can prevent them? But not in our land!

Woodruff: What is the line that you would accept?

Arafat: I am not speaking! It is not my business! My business is only when they make fatal mistakes on my land according to the agreement. How can this be accepted internationally?

Woodruff: How do you think it has been accepted internationally?

Arafat: Even President Bush had refused it!

Woodruff: President Bush said yesterday, on Thursday, that you are a failed leader.

Arafat: This is what he's saying, but he has to remember that President Clinton was dealing with me, his father was dealing with me. And he was in the beginning with me.

Woodruff: Are you saying you are the only one who can make peace for the Palestinians?

Arafat: No, the Palestinian leadership, which I am one of them, [is] making the peace, and I've been accepted to make the peace with the Israelis.

Woodruff: Are you able to control the street?

Arafat: I am doing my best.

Woodruff: Does Hamas have more control than you?

Arafat: You have to know we are the authority of the Palestinians — that has been recognized by all the Palestinians.

Woodruff: If you want to control suicide bombers, can you stop them?

Arafat: We have stopped them and we've succeeded.

Woodruff: Can you stop them again?

Arafat: Yes, and yesterday they had called, they are ready to return back to truce.

Woodruff: Do you want to stop them now?

Arafat: What?

Woodruff: Do you want to stop the suicide bombers now?

Arafat: Ask them and ask your American representatives how many times we have succeeded to stop the suicide bombers and arrest them.

Woodruff: But do you have the power now to stop them?

Arafat: You are not fair and thank you.

"You are not fair and thank you?" Give me a fucking break. You either have all the control you need and are using it to stab the Israelis in the back, or you have no control and its just fundamentalists running loose. In either case, how the f*%k can ANYONE expect the Israelis to make peace, or to even hold their fire?