Ever have someone call you, and then ask to put you on hold? Sure is irritating! But when it happens, hide that irritation: this is opportunity knocking. It's best to agree to their request with a cheerful tone, and when you hear the line click off, cheerfully hang up on them.
The smart ones will get the hint and learn their lesson. "Hey, I called that guy and then put him on hold; that was a dick move. I feel really bad about that and will alter my conduct in the future." The other 99.5% of the population will call you back:
::ring ring::
You: "Hello?"
They: "Hello, I just called? We got disconnected."
You (Act innocent): "I know. I thought they fixed that! That seems to happen when people call in and then put us on hold. I'm glad you called back. So what can I do for you?"
They: "Well, I...."
You: "I'm sorry, can I put you on hold a second?" Hang up.
By now all but the dumbest and rudest will give up and leave you alone. But there are still those out there who either can't or won't help themselves: "Wow, disconnected twice! That's a really unreliable phone system...I'd better call back! They must be frustrated!"
::ring ring::
You (with fake Middle-Eastern accent): "Hello, White House switchboard, Hakamel speaking."
They: "Oh, sorry, I must have the wrong number...uh...well, that's strange...I hit redial!"
You (briskly, with Scandinavian accent): "We change this number on a regular basis, for security purposes. Please hold." Hang up.
The rude ones will give up at this point: clearly, you're the victor. You're unstoppable: they cower at your feet. But the dumb ones remain. They're too stupid to beat: their lack of intellect renders them invulnerable. So you have to entertain yourself. Pick up the ringing phone and put it next to your keyboard. Type loudly. If it's a cordless, bring it into the bathroom. Have a loud conversation with someone (imaginary, if necessary) about the complete moron who called and tried to put you on hold. Mock them mercilessly. Pick up the phone and tell them their haircut reminds you of a kid from the short bus. Then put it back down and cue up a porno movie at full volume.
If they're still on the phone after that, pick it back up and ask if you can put them on hold. Being put on hold is really irritating.
So I'm reading Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies. If you haven't read it, and have ever wondered about the history of the Middle East from 1980-2000, it'll help. If not, you may not particularly enjoy it. But one thing from it really grabbed me as being hysterical, and may help to convince those who hate us that it's all just a big misunderstanding.
Picture this: you're a Saudi named Hani el-Sayegh. You hate America. You work for Saudi Hezbollah. And one day you're ordered to attack a United States Air Force base in a place called "Khobar." So you do it. And of course, as you expected, the Americans find out you did it. If there's one thing America likes more than big business, it's getting it's man! But they can't prove who ordered you to do it. So they fly you to...Canada!
The director of an investigative agency called the "FBI" sits down with you and the Canadian officials. He asks you to agree to a lighter sentence in exchange for betraying your superiors. And despite their expectations, you do agree, probably because you're terrified. So they bring you to the United States to stand trial. But once you get there, it occurs to you that maybe you should be more terrified of the people you'd be betraying, so you decide you don't want to do this deal anymore. And so you refuse to cooperate. The country that's apprehended you gives you a lawyer to help you defend yourself against it. So you stand trial against America (with your American lawyer), and you refuse to betray your superiors. And you're let off, because they don't have any evidence against you! This vindicates your American lawyer, who wanted you to win your case, but it aggravates the American FBI, who wanted you to lose your case, and give up evidence while you did it.
The Saudi officials will kill you if you return, because you're a murderer. So you do the only thing you can do: seek asylum in the country whose soldiers you killed. Another American agency is assigned to consider whether you should be protected for killing its citizens. And by now you're thinking, "this is some really fucked up bureaucracy!" This is subsequently confirmed by the fact that your asylum review is taking so long. While that review is pending, the director of the FBI, who apprehended you and brought you to America in the first place, orders you detained because...wait for it...you're in America illegally!
How can you hate a country like that? We're completely incompetent! We're not evil: we're stupid! So lighten up!
That's right, you heard it here first, or fiftieth: Bill Gates has been fined $800,000, for failing to disclose a purchase of stock that gives him a certain amount of control in the biotech company that manufactures boner drug Cialis. The amount of the fine would cause some financial concern for a lot of the population. But for Bill? $800,000?! It seems a laughably small sum, but how laughable is it? There's a lot of 0s happening here: we should put this in perspective.
According to this Forbes Article, Gates is worth $46.6 billion American dollars. $800,000 is roughly 0.00171674% of $46.6 billion. So what does that mean for someone likt me? Well, totalling my assets and debts (in my sleepy state), I calculate my net worth (as of this moment) at roughly -$10,000. So essentially, the fine on Gates is about like someone giving me...wait for it...$0.17. Yeowch. That'll teach him!
Jonathan A. Knee, director of the media program at Columbia Business School, has written an editorial at NYT. I think he starts from a good premise, one I would wholeheartedly agree with. Then he goes in the wrong direction, fast.
First, the premise: "The Federal Communications Commission's well-publicized post-Super Bowl campaign against broadcaster "indecency" is misplaced, if not downright comical.... It's time to consider a more radical approach to censoring pornography."
Good. I agree. Sex sells. The networks may claim not to want to display it (which I think is a bit of a say-one-thing-and-do-another situation), but financially, it's too tempting. They'll skirt the line as often as possible: if they get punished, they'll apologize and do it again in a month. If they get away with it, the line has moved, to be re-challenged another day. So yeah, the FCC's campaign seems silly and problematic. And therefore, we need a new plan. I'm with you up to here, John!
Mr. Knee cites the problems with the current law: butting up against the cherished first amendment, the long and doubtful process of case-by-case judicial review, and finally: " ...the problem isn't only what minors see. With 70 percent of men aged 18 to 34 visiting a pornographic Web site at least once a month, this material affects everyone." His conclusion: outlaw the practice of paying people for sex acts.
I have a better proposal, one that respects the views of everybody: let's eliminate indecency laws.
John's proposal works against capitalism, the only thing America values more than democracy and freedom. Mine aids capitalism! His proposal inhibits liberty: mine expands it. His proposal gets rid of the problem of case-by-case judicial review of what constitutes pornography: so does mine. However, his introduces a whole new, much much thornier case-by-case judicial problem: what's a "sex act?"
Holy shit! You've gotta be kidding...Clinton's out of office for three years and already we've forgotten how complex this issue is?! For the sake of argument, let's make the assumption that oral sex is a sex act. What about digital stimulation? What about mutual masturbation? What about touching without the intent to stimulate? Do breasts count? What about the posterior? If Donovan McNabb throws a touchdown pass, and a fellow player, being paid to play in the game, gives him a congratulatory ass-pat, does that player go to jail? Does McNabb? What about kissing on the lips? What about kissing on the cheek? What about a foot massage? Does it matter if you have a foot fetish? What if you're paid to appear in a movie scene where you ejaculate on a photograph of John Ashcroft? Stripping? Lapdance? Bending over and revealing cleavage? What if you whack off at work?
Yeah, Mr. Knee, your proposal really gets around that judicial review problem. Nicely done. Remind me to leave the country if you ever attain a federal judicial position.
But Chris, you say, the airwaves are federal property! The Supreme Court has ruled that the FCC may govern content transmitted over them. Sure, they may, according to that ruling, which (to my untrained legal mind) relies on a rather tenuous interpretation of law and precedent. But even granting that, the ruling doesn't say the FCC MUST do so. Nowhere does it say "obscenity MUST be prevented," it only says "obscenity CAN be prevented." And frankly, I see more benefit in allowing it than attempting to prohibit it. We save money and manpower. We have more liberty. We eliminate a precedent of state-controlled information. And there's another capitalist benefit.
What if we let the states take back legal control of transmitted content? Use that 10th amendment! "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." More regional control! Let Utah require women to wear long pants and face veils! Let Nevada air hardcore group sex all day long on the childrens' channel! Then there will be a market for TVs with real decency controls, the way there's a developing market for programs and even hardware that prevent children from accessing pornography. But don't force people to buy these products (you right-wing commies! :D): let the market forces prevail. Let advocacy groups attempt to change thought and behavior. Don't rely on laws to do it.
I've only thought about this for about as long as it took me to write this entry. I may be wrong. Feel free to tell me so.