The moment Arnold entered the ring, it was all over…much to the chagrin of Issa, the GOP millionaire who set the entire recall into motion so he could become governor without having to bother with messy things like the Republican primary.
And now we’re faced with the reality that eighteen other states have recall provisions. Now that wealthy politicos have seen how the process can be abused, you can bet that governing in those other states is going to be that much more problematic. When you govern, sooner or later you’re going to wind up making decisions that won’t be embraced by the populace. These are the tough decisions, the ones that separate the leaders from the tentative and cautious. But now any governor serving in a recall state is going to have to spend as much time watching his back as doing his job, because now–thanks to California–every year is an election year, and every decision is going to have to be scrutinized six ways from Sunday as to how it could backfire.
Look how quickly and emphatically the government can get things done when they’re sure voters won’t protest, such as the law against telemarketers…which, by the way, I think just might fly in the face of the First Amendment. I mean, isn’t this a classic example of congress making a law infringing? Not only does Congress not have the power to tell someone they can’t call someone else, but they specifically *don’t* have that power. Doesn’t matter. It’s a popular move, so they embrace it.
The California recall is a giant step toward making governing what it should never be: An incessant drive to win a popularity contest. And when one considers the words of Thomas Jefferson about a people getting the kind of government they deserve, well…’nuff said.
PAD
• 
Naive question, since IWNSLS (I would not survive law school):
a restraining order, saying “Don’t call me or contact me” from person X to person Y, is legal, yes?
So the nat’l do-not-call list would then be a class-action restraining order (terms may be wrong; see IWNSLS above) whereby inviduals declare in advance “I refuse to receive a call from any person calling for unsolicited commercial reasons.”
I understand the argument to be one of freedom vs. license. I am free to advertise a product, but I am not free to stick an advertisement anywhere I please.
PAD? Bob Ingersoll? Bueller?
I find it interesting that the people of California are desperate for a leader, yet they elect a man whose primary job has been to wear what he’s been told to wear, to say what he’s been told to say and to do what he’s been told to do.
I’m not so sure recall fervor will sweep the nation, in Alaska we have a recall provision, but its failed whenever it was tried.
But who knows?
I’m not eniterely sure that the Don Not Call List violates freedom of speech. I think that this comes under the same heading as the laws of commerce that prohibit cigarette ads from TV. Certainly, I think of telemarketing as being in the same category of activity as advertising.
And while I am on the Do Not Call Lists, I haven’t gotten a call from any telemarketers in years, and never from anyone selling me anything besides long distance service and the Daily News. Beyond which, I find them a lot less annoying than phone calls from charities. I want to give to a lot of them, but the “will you pledge $xx” call drives me batty.
None of which has to do with Arnold or recalls. There was a time when I thought that Bustamante might reach out to the Latino population and sell himself as their best hope of seeing a non-Anglo elected to the governorship. Silly me for forgetting that in a popularity contest, actors tend to be more popular.
I’m not a lawyer, but it’s my understanding that cause has to be shown to obtain a restraining order. A threat has to be involved.
Likewise, the ban against cigarette ads was an acknowledgment that smoking presents a threat to health.
Telemarketers are just annoying. They pose no threat. It’s just that nobody cares about protecting that form of speech. But every time we lower the bar on what type of speech we don’t care about and won’t protect, it brings us that much closer–and sets that much more precedent–about getting to types of speech we *do* care about.
PAD
The FTC and FCC have the power to regulate. And that, I feel, is the power that they are using in this case.
As I’ve said, 50 million can’t be wrong (unless it’s the 2000 election).
But then, politicians and charities aren’t harassing me all day long every day, calling over and over if I don’t pick up and tell them no half a dozen times, only to have them call me again next week.
For us, it’s the power of control over what comes into our home via our phone lines.
Nothing wrong with that.
His replacement notwithstanding, it’s not like Gray Davis made one unpopular decision…His approval rating had dropped below 20% – that’s pretty abysmal. You can’t please all the people all the time, but pleasing 1/5 of the people some of the time is pretty poor.
About the Do Not Call List – I take your point about limiting free speech, but it’s my understanding that telemarketers are already required not to call you if you request it. Centralizing that request via a national DNC list seem to me like it would save a lot of time for both marketer and marketee…
Here’s my take on Do-Not-Call Listing: If Peter David is giving a speech in your hometown, and John Byrne wants to protest it, he can stand outstide the building and show/spew any signs or slogans he wants. He can’t come into the building and interfere. We shouldn’t be forced to listen to advertisers, BUT for the ‘quality’ programming we choose to receive on television, we’re stuck with commercials. We choose to accept them. Telemarketers invade our homes. Not physically, but they do steal time from us. They tie up phone lines, interupt our goings-on and ask for delicate information from us. There’s a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of advertising. Just because we pay a phone bill doesn’t mean we have to accept phone calls. If ATT or Verizon had sponsors, like television ads, I think there’s very little we could do to stop it, but making a law preventing people from intruding into our lives doesn’t seem like a loss of freedom of speech to me.
The do not call list isn’t a freedom of speech issue. It’s a nuisance issue following the opt out in legal disclosures and the fair credit reporting act. You are giving notice to not call you or to have you home phone number shared on phone lists. IF you tell a collections agency to not call they can no longer do so. If you inform a credit agency (such as Equifax) not to share your info with out your permission, they can not do so. As it stands now, if you tell a phone solicitors not to call or share you info they have to comply. The national list simply sends that request to all of them with the same penalties as telling each one individually.
There has ALWAYS been time and place restrictions placed upon speech. It’s certainly not allowable to make political speeches at 100+ decibels in your neighborhood at 2 AM. And door to door marketers are not allowed to ring your doorbell if you clearly have a “No solicitors” sign on your door.
Given that (and the fact that commercial speech like telemarketing is given fewer protections than other speech), it’s not a clearcut case that a telemarketers ban is a first amendment violation.
I can’t imagine that telemarketing is free speech any more than pressing a bullhorn to my front door and shouting into it is.
Congress would (probably) declare it has the power ton institute the Do Not Call List under the Commerce Clause, which grants it the power to regulate interstate commerce.
A freedom of sppech argument sounds very shaky. You don’t really have a right to call someone. It’s more of a priviledge. Nor does anyone have a right to give you a sales pitch.
I accept that advertising underwrites the cost of print and broadcast media. I don’t pay a dime for radio or purely broadcast TV and basic cable channels would be much more expensive without advertising revenue to the networks. Comic books, newspapers and magazines would also be much more expensive without advertising. Telemarketers don’t contribute anything to my phone bill. I pay the entire fee for that service and therefore I think I have the right to refuse the intrusion of unwanted calls. Advertisers have the right to advertise in public. My phone line is not public.
Rant over
Since I pay for my phone service, I fail to see how telemarketing can be a freedom of speech issue. Certainly, one has the luxury — the right even — to talk about whatever they darn well please in a public place. But my phone line isn’t public. It is private.
Come to that, I wish we could develop some law to keep door-to-door sales people off my front porch.
Most major political contests have been nothing but beauty/popularity contests since Watergate. As the world gets more and more “PC”– style will always win out over substance and reality. Recall elections will do NOTHING to change this annoyingly growing fact of life… And if Arnold follows through on almost any of his promises… He might help swing the power back to the people and give these pampered politicians a much needed reality check.
I have lived in California for almost 20 years. I voted for Davis the first time. I voted for Davis the second time… But the only reason Davis got the second vote was the GOP found a way to put up a candidate (Simon) that was seemingly “inferior/objectionable” to Davis (at least to me) on several different levels.
Can Arnold do any worse than Davis? The long answer: NO. I’m betting the decent people who had their power bills tripled and quadrupled under Davis’ gross mismanagement don’t think so… And the hardworking people who were about to have their car tax tripled by Davis to make up half of his $4 BILLION deficit don’t think Arnold can do any worse either.
Having a near record voter turnout can’t ever be a bad thing. Regardless of who won, this is a triumph of the process– period. Even though I am a Democrat– I wish Arnold nothing but the best of luck.
And as far as the “Do Not Call List” is concerned… Someone calling me to sell me something I didn’t ask for is INVADING my privacy. I also consider their unsolicited calls to be torturous harassment. This “Do Not Call List” is really no different than the list maintained for decades by states and participating companies that allow millions of consumers to “opt out” of junk mailings. The only difference is the “Do Not Call List” is a law (or will be… maybe… if it isn’t struck down) and not constructed as a voluntary resolution.
In an era and time when so many events/people and things seem to be conspiring to take away some of the tiniest of my freedoms… I am finally glad politicians came along and GAVE me back even a little something like… MY PEACE OF MIND WHILE I AM TRYING TO EAT DINNER.
PAD I respect your thoughts on these issues… just like I do on all the things you bring up– but why don’t you touch on something your readers may really find interesting…? Given your distribution background… What do you think of the flap between DC and Bulldog Comics over Bulldog repeatedly violating DC’s “Terms of Sale”?
As for Arnold –
At least it’s not Ventura.
The Do Not Call List:
I have delt with telemarketers at my parent’s home and my girlfriend’s place. If I happen to answer the phone and one begins to address me, I treat them with no respect and a fair degree of vulgarity. They do not deserve to be treated with any form of dignity, respect, or understanding. They are raping my home by interrupting me, and I do not take kindly to such actions.
Yes, sorry… I know the California deficit is currently projected to be $8 BILLION. I just got caught up in the moment. 🙂
The relative merits of Arnold notwithstanding, I have to think the recall election was a good thing for California, and a good thing for the rest of the country. As has been noted above, Gray Davis was a horrible governor. Perhaps the nation got to see a lot more of the effects of Davis’ administration because his mistakes directly affected Hollywood (who remembers that episode of “The Tonight Show” they did last year where they purposely turned the lights off to film the show?), but that doesn’t mean that the problems weren’t there.
PAD wrote: “any governor serving in a recall state is going to have to spend as much time watching his back as doing his job, because now–thanks to California–every year is an election year, and every decision is going to have to be scrutinized six ways from Sunday as to how it could backfire.” My question is, how is this a bad thing? Won’t the threat of removal ‘inspire’ said civic leaders to make better decisions, or at the very least to better represent the will of their constituents (which, um, they’re supposed to be doing anyway)? Given the perception that big business and the rich control the political processes of America (a perception I largely agree with), then how is giving the power of recall back to the people at a grass roots level a bad thing?
Granted, there’s the potential for abuse… but isn’t the system as it stands now being abused by the politicians already? Besides, if you think about it, the control valve is kind of built in. Little known factoid: since George Washington, virtually every President who has even taken office has had (sometimes several) impeachment movements making the rounds through Congress during their term. Of course, since it’s only one or two Congresspeople sponsoring the bill, and since the remaining great majority of Congress has no reason to lend their political support to some silly impeachment, those bills just kind of float around in limbo. The incentive is always there for one politician to end another’s career… it’s just usually impossible to bring about that end. Recall makes it possible for a thoroughly horrible politician to be justly ousted from office. Politicians who are doing their job and representing their constituents have nothing to fear, because American political apathy basically guarantees any politician can stay in office unless they’re really, really hated by a majority of people willing to get up off their butts and oust them.
As far as telemarketing goes, well, I pay for the phone line I use. It’s a service rendered. It should be protected from abuse the same way other business services are protected from predatory business practices. If my telephone was a state-sponsored service, then I’d agree whole-heartedly that the do-not-call list is unconstitutional. 🙂
The OTHER John Byrne
Re: Recalls
Generalizing from California wackiness to other states is probably a stretch. California’s somewhat anti-government/pro-democracy (for some definition of democracy) can be seen by the much larger number of propositions and direct voter initiatives than other states. Overturning elections was just the next logical step.
I’m not sure whether this is because of California having such a large and heterogenous population or whether there’s something intrinsically different about Californians, but I’d find it difficult to say that other states will follow the lead.
Re: Do-Not-Call
Rowan v. U.S. Post Office, 397 U.S. 728 (1970), a Supreme Court decision holding that an individual could request the USPS to issue an order barring a business from sending him mailings, stated that “[a] vendor does not have a constitutional right to send unwanted material into someone’s home, and a mailer’s right to communicate must stop at the mailbox of an unreceptive addressee” and “the individual’s right to be left alone plainly outweighs the First Amendment rights of an intruder.”
If ATT or Verizon had sponsors, like television ads, I think there’s very little we could do to stop it
“Thank you for calling your sick Aunt Doris! This call was brought to you by Miller Lite…tastes great, less filling, Miller Lite! And by “Kill Bill!” “Kill Bill,” in theaters everywhere October 10th. Thank you for using AT&T!”
/bizarro world…
Brak Yeller: Won’t the threat of removal ‘inspire’ said civic leaders to make better decisions, or at the very least to better represent the will of their constituents (which, um, they’re supposed to be doing anyway)?
But…people are idiots.
As implied above, the CA recall was something of a “Perfect Storm” situation; the number of signatures needed was relatively low (compared to other states as a percentage), due to voter propositions there’s an established industry for getting signatures (I’ve read the current expected cost per valid signature is $2), Davis had no solid base of support beyond the groups making large campaign donations (I doubt 98% of Californians could name any issue on which they thought Davis personally had strong feelings/made a strong stand on other than ones for which he got large contributions), the last election was noted for how many people either just stayed home or *really* wished “None of the Above” was a choice for Governor, and Davis had sunk to a 20% approval rating. Even given all that, a high number of people opposed the recall on principle. I really don’t think we’ll be seeing governors recalled on a regular basis.
Side note: It’s being reported that it appears that Schwartzenegger will actually get more votes than Davis got in the last gubernatorial election. Another “perfect storm” element, in the sense of a ridiculously high name recognition and apparently Q rating person jumping into the election.
There was a time when I thought that Bustamante might reach out to the Latino population and sell himself as their best hope of seeing a non-Anglo elected to the governorship.
I know you are not using “Anglo” to mean “from an English-speaking country”. I know you are using “Anglo” to mean “not Hispanic, and not African-American, and not Asian-American, and not Arab-America, and not Jewish, and not Native American — not from any minority group currently being discriminated against in America”
But still, I find it odd that you think of Arnold as Anglo. He is, after all, a recent immigrant from a non-English-speaking country. Someone who came to America as an adult and still has an accent. And I would argue that, as a group, immigrants with accents (whether they are “white” or not) do face some discrimination, and shouldn’t be lumped in with “Anglos.”
(Of course, I don’t think Arnold has faced much discrimination personally, because he has been insulated by wealth and fame. But we’re talking about group traits here.)
Won’t the threat of removal ‘inspire’ said civic leaders to make better decisions, or at the very least to better represent the will of their constituents (which, um, they’re supposed to be doing anyway)? Given the perception that big business and the rich control the political processes of America (a perception I largely agree with), then how is giving the power of recall back to the people at a grass roots level a bad thing?
Well, it’d be a GOOD thing if the grass roots spoke with one voice.
But they don’t. They speak in many voices, some of which are contradictory. And THAT’s the problem…when the “will of the people” want contradictory things. Initiatives and recall allow for no compromises at all, nor do they recognzie that there are tradeoffs that have to be made if the community’s overall goals are to be met.
Business and money DO affect politcs…but it’s also true that single interests also affects politics, and these various single interests (unlike business, like it or not) really don’t play well together.
Not to be too obnoxious but the last time I remember seeing PAD use the line “Was anyone surprised” or some variation thereof, was when the republicans won the midterm election and it struck me then that this would be a lot more impressive if he had actually predicted this “obvious” turn of events beforehand. Which he may have and I just didn’t see it
My point, if I have one, is that it’s amazing how every event, no matter how unexpected, is immediately followed by a chorus of Crossfire Kreskins who claim to have had it figured out all along.
Or maybe I’m just ticked because I was pretty sure Arnold would lose when the LA Times finally got around to reading that Premiere article. I think I seriously underestimated just how far Clinton lowered the bar on scummy behavior toward women.
As far as the Do Not Call law…I’m with PAD in principle, but given the laws regulating advertising of tobacco products it would seem that advertising is exempt from many if not most first amendment protections.
But hey, we live in a country where presidential candidates can demand a guy get fired from a TV commentary job for claiming that reporters are pulling for a quarterback based on his skin color. The rights of telemarketers may be the least of our worries.
In re: do not call, I’ve always felt like if you’re paying for a service (like we do for phone service) we can make certain demands of that service. In this case – since there’s a regulatory agency – it’s reasonable that they be the ones to handle it. I actually think the case for baring mailed advertisements is much weaker, since we don’t pay for our mailboxes. But as a legal matter, none of this may be relevant.
Holy crap…Peter writes a politically-oriented post that I actually agree with.
With something improbable like that happening, it should only be a few more days before we get that Cubs/Red Sox World Series and the universe as we know it ceases to exist.
-Dave O’Connell
Holy crap…Peter writes a politically-oriented post that I actually agree with.
With something improbable like that happening, it should only be a few more days before we get that Cubs/Red Sox World Series and the universe as we know it ceases to exist.
-Dave O’Connell
I have a free market approach to Telemarketers: I pay to have my phone line unlisted and I also pay to have any calls from private numbers (which nearly all telemarketers call from intentionally) routed through an announcing system. It requires no government intervention, I don’t have to register a thing with the FCC, and I get about one call every three months. It’s great, and well worth it.
I have to differ on the recall, though, mostly because elections are already popularity contests. We have huge debts because neither party has been willing to cut spending or raise taxes. As long as the American people continue to have their cake and eat it too, the politician who promises the most will win.
Peter,
I agree with most of your post and think that now would be a good time for these states to pass legislation getting rid of recall initiatives and leave outing a sitting govenor to the state legislature.
Regarding the Do-not-call list, are the numbers on the list available for public viewing? I would assume not, but we know what happens when one assumes. The reason I ask is because I wonder how the press found out that judges who struck down the do-not-call list as unconstitutional have themselves submitted their home numbers to the list. Sounds to me like it is a freedom of speech issue, and perhaps a privacy issue. My own personal solution to the phone solicitors has been to talk politics and/or religion with the person calling. My phone almost never rings anymore.
Is there any difference between the right to send unsolicited email messages (spam, which was discussed a few days ago here) and the right to make unsolicited phone calls (telemarketing)? Both are annoying, both are about 99% unwanted (if anyone did get a better phone plan or larger pëņìš thanks to these, by all means — share), and I would say both infringe on the recipient’s right to privacy. If I don’t want to get phone calls from, say, MCI, I don’t believe their freedom of speech should allow them to keep calling me. If there’s a registry where people can voluntarily restrict others (telemarketers) from bothering them, so much the better.
(BTW, in this week’s Dave Barry column — http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/dave_barry/6934584.htm — he talks about telemarketers, who said the Do Not Call registry would be ”like an asteroid hitting the earth.” He then gave out the American Telemarketers Association phone number, and the ATA was deluged with so many irate people calling them that the ATA had to change its #. And the article gives the ATA’s new #, in case you want to exercise your right to make unsolicited phone calls.
As for Arnold, I can’t wait to hear Davis’s resignation speech. Wonder if he’ll acknowledge that he was so hated that his constituents would rather have an inexperienced action movie actor?
Do Not Call List:
I seem to consistently find myself as the only one sticking up for telemarketers. I feel rather strange and awkward about that because I get interrupted by telemarketers constantly, just like everybody else. I always screen my calls with my caller ID and if I don’t recognize the name or the phone #, I let the answering machine take it.
The thing that’s causing me to take this understandably unpopular stance from the national do not call list is I keep thinking about all the telemarketers that are going to be losing their jobs. I believe they’re anticipating over 1 million jobs to be lost by the end of the year over this new list. I just keep thinking that our own government placed over 1 million in unemployment to regulate what has been at best (at least for me), a minor inconvenience in a life and society filled with other, considerably harder inconveniences.
Again, please understand me, I do not answer telemarketing calls myself. Even before I got caller ID, I let my answering machine screen my calls for me. But ever since I learned about the list when it was being proposed and started reading about its implications, I haven’t been able to get my mind off of all those Americans losing their jobs so we won’t be inconvenienced by a simple, harmless phone call.
Recall:
The United States is always promoting democracy. This will go down in history as the one and only true democratic election in this country’s history (at least the only one I am aware of). There were no primaries, literally any citizen in the state could run, and the winner was elected purely by popular vote. Sure, the media did a truly embarrasing and unfair job of convering Arnold Schwarzenegger’s campaign and practically no one else’s, but the election itself is a true example of democracy in action.
That having been said, now you see why the United States is a Republic.
Elie
A friend in California just wrote to tell me about the full page anti-Arnold newspaper ads taken out by celebrities all over the state and all I can think is in New York we just wouldn’t fall for this šhìŧ.
The Do-Not-Call List is very important. I suffer from insomnia that I just can’t seem to get over; about the only rest I ever get is during the day, and very rarely do I get any because I’m bombarded by unwanted phone solicitation. Why are prank calls considered illegal, yet telemarketing isn’t? Both are unwanted. Should be allowed to storm into someone’s home without permission and ask them to sell something they’re not interested in? You should not intentionally be calling ANYONE you do not know. If I wanted anything they offer, I would have it. Obviously I don’t want whatever they’re selling, so they SHOULD be forced to quit hassling me and disturbing the little rest I’m actually able to get! Or at least give me their home numbers so I can call them when they’re trying to sleep!
Sorry…after seeing Conan taking office I was reminded of Conan’s view on life…
“Conan, what is best in life?
To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!”
Life imitating fiction or vice versa…
Where do we go from here?
Everlost_MI
here’s the thing. You vote someone in power who has had training and practice in dealing with these situations. (or in the Case of California maybe not)
but there are always going to be unpopular decisions for long term benefits. With the recall there’s a good chance no one will make those decisions and nothing will ever get done.
and what if the side that wanted bustamante decides to recall the election. then what? a constante state of appeals?
My point, if I have one, is that it’s amazing how every event, no matter how unexpected, is immediately followed by a chorus of Crossfire Kreskins who claim to have had it figured out all along.
The “Was anyone surprised” referred to the recent polls indicating the growing likelihood of the recall getting a “yes” and Arnold being voted in. Jon Stewart summed it up “The Daily Show” last night when they were live and no numbers were available, and yet he said, “C’mon…you know Arnold’s gonna win.”
In the blog entry the “it was all over” referred specifically to Issa. It was all over *for him*, much to his chagrin. Again, he as much as said so at the time, quickly pulling out of the race once Arnold announced on Leno.
Now, yes, I do make predictions from time to time. Of course, when they’re political, it’s certain that right wing yahoos will show up and make snide comments, so, y’know, *there’s* incentive.
But…hey! Who nailed that the main villain on 7th season BtVS was the First after the opening episode, months before they revealed it? C’mon. Admit it. I had that cold. In the grand scheme of things it’s pretty trivial, but I said it way in advance and was right, so that should count.
PAD
Won’t the threat of removal ‘inspire’ said civic leaders to make better decisions
No, it will force them to make only decisions that are popular with the majority of voters, most of whom are too uninformed about the potential consequences of their heedless whims. This leads to what Alexis de Tocqueville called “the tyranny of the majority,” which a good deal of the US Constitution was written specifically to prevent.
or at the very least to better represent the will of their constituents (which, um, they’re supposed to be doing anyway)
No, um, they’re not. Again to quote from antiquity, on the nature of democracy Edmund Burke wrote, “[y]our representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement: and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
Meaning: elected officials who just follow the whims of the populace aren’t doing their job. Unless, of course, you purport to have a better understanding the nature of democracy than Burke and de Tocqueville.
In re: do not call list, yeah, telemarketers are annoying. But to all the people whining about their rights in this specific case, perhaps you could point the rest of us to the place where the word “privacy” appears in the Bill of Rights.
Some will say that it “isn’t a legal matter” and that “legal arguments” shouldn’t matter. We’re talking about making laws. In that case how, exactly, can legal arguments not matter?
In re: Brian Gibbons’ invocation of Rowan v. USPS, yes, it’s true that this is technically law, but is it GOOD law? I’m not sure how much you really want to prove your point with a decision from the Burger court, which took, shall we say… a somewhat “loose” view of what came under the Court’s purview (i.e., pretty much anything).
I mean, really. There’s loose constructionists, there’s extraordinarily loose constructionists and then there’s the Burger court, which was pretty much “what is this ‘constructionism’ of which you speak?”
JLK
Telemarketers:
I bought my telephones. I pay a useage fee to the phone companies to use their systems. A business should not be able to use these things I pay for to operate their business. The kicker is that they call at times convenient to THEM, and not to me. Spam mail falls in the same category, but I have the choice to read it or delete it at my own leisure.
Just because someone has the freedom of speech, it does not obligate me to listen.
First off, about Peter’s predictions–the only time anyone EVER acknowledges predictions is when they’re right, or more reliably, when they’re WRONG. “See? You said this would happen, and it didn’t. We’re SOOOO much smarter than you because we knew it was going to happen….”
Second, about the do-not-call thingy. I used to be a marketing director for an insurance company, and all I used to call were insurance agents, but you know how many not-happy-to-hear-my-dulcet-tones people I had? Most of my agents. Not that that REALLY has anything to do with the price of weenies this week, but I thought some different perspective might be appreciated.
Third off, Arnie as governor? All I can say is look what happened to the LAST actor they had as governor…..
C ya, pipples…Pax….
I would think the Do Not Call list would make the telemarketing companies *more* profitable, because they wouldn’t have to waste time with people who don’t want to be called. Therefore they can service a particular customer in a shorter amount of time and using smaller numbers of people, thus allowing them to either charge less and therefore become a financially viable marketing option for new customers, or charge the same amount and just take on more customers that they may have otherwise had to turn away because they’d reached capacity.
I also notice nobody’s talking about the jobs that are going to be *created* by the DNC list. You need programmers who can develop programs to integrate the data collection from the List into their systems, for example.
davidh
Forgive the mass quote:
Kozemp: No, [the threat of removal] will force [politicians] to make only decisions that are popular with the majority of voters, most of whom are too uninformed about the potential consequences of their heedless whims. This leads to what Alexis de Tocqueville called “the tyranny of the majority,” which a good deal of the US Constitution was written specifically to prevent.
My, how quickly words can be twisted. I wasn’t trying to imply that politicians are in office solely to act as the embodiment of their constituents’ will, though I believe that is an important part of why someone should elect a given politician to a given post. There’s a rather obvious host of valid reasons one elects a person to a given post; I won’t insult your intelligence by attempting to list them. You must admit, though, that politicians tend to make decisions that are popular with voters anyway; thus recalls just cut out the middleman.
As far as de Tocqueville goes, “majority rules, minority rights.” Works every time against the dreaded specter of the ‘tyranny of the majority.’ And I’m sorry, but the ‘mass stupidity’ of uninformed Americans exercising their voting rights isn’t a good enough excuse to keep a lackluster politician in office. It’s precisely that “oh well, what can I do?” mentality that keeps American politics in its perpetually SNAFUed state.
or at the very least to better represent the will of their constituents (which, um, they’re supposed to be doing anyway) No, um, they’re not. Again to quote from antiquity, on the nature of democracy Edmund Burke wrote, “[y]our representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement: and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
Kozemp, are you saying the will of a given politician’s constituentcy should have no effect whatsoever upon the decisions that politican makes in actual practice? While the will of a politician’s constituents shouldn’t be the sole reason behind their actions in office, it should act as a pace-setter or path-charter for what a politician takes on in office, and it’s been my experience that politicians who willfully and obviously disregard the interests of their constituents get voted out of office, often spectacularly so. Look at what happened to former Georgia governor Roy Barnes in 2002, for example: he systematically alienated much of his constituentcy while in office, and I don’t think you can find a political pundit who’ll despute that his alienated constituentcy cost him the election.
Granted, there are always unpopular decisions which need to be made by ‘someone in charge,’ and people who should otherwise know better will always fight off bitter medicine, but the people who can balance on that fine edge make the best politicians. If that ‘someone in charge’ shows (by Burke’s standards) both a lack of industry and a lack of judgement, couldn’t it fairly said that that person has no business remaining in office? I don’t think I’m too far out in left field to say that Gray Davis was a poor politician.
I’m sure I could dig up a musty old quote from some ex-Colonial to back up my point, but then it just becomes a game of “my quotes are pithier than your quotes,” and that’s just plain no fun. Which leads me to my next point…
Meaning: elected officials who just follow the whims of the populace aren’t doing their job. Unless, of course, you purport to have a better understanding the nature of democracy than Burke and de Tocqueville.
I certainly don’t contend to be the end-all, be-all of political theory. But as Burke and de Tocqueville are long dead, and the American breed of representative Democracy has changed considerably in the twentieth century alone, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that some of their esteemed observations may be slightly out of date. And given the advent of faster methods of mass communication, some of their observations may well be inapplicable. Are we to cling to tradition in the face of much-needed change? I honor tradition, but I’d rather take that seed and grow it instead of encasing it in lucite to collect dust on my shelf. Again, I’d dig out my copy of “Democracy In America” and find a suitable quote, but I doubt it’d get me anywhere.
The OTHER John Byrne
The Edmund Burke quote was once brought up on “West Wing,” and Bartlet replied, “Yeah, and Burke was voted out of office five years later.”
Telemarketers are just annoying. They pose no threat.
I disagree. They always call when my wife is in school, and I have my hands full with my five kids. Every time they call it ends up with one of my kids screaming and some sort of permanent graffiti on the lower section of one of my walls. I admit I have a temper; but even if I didn’t, I’d still like to hunt down all telemarketers like that “castaway” dude in the Bud Light commercial. Speaking of which, the only reason I can even stand television commercials is that they’re sometimes more entertaining than the show they interrupt. Also, they pay for the show they interrupt. Now, if a telemarketer wants to change my sons diaper and prepare supper while entertaining me with a clever skit that shows me the usefulness of his fine product, at a time when I can sit down and listen to him, I might not want to destroy him any more. That being said, “freedom of speech” in its purest form (i.e. – in theory) just doesn’t happen any more; maybe it never did. Just ask the half-dozen or so sportscasters that have dared to mention an athletes’ color (we’re all the same race; human) in a less than flattering way. I’m not saying that they were right there, but the only freedom going on was that they were set free of their jobs.
Now, about California. I don’t want Arnold to be governor any more than anybody else does, with the possible exception of half of California. I mean, now I’m going to have to wait another 3-7 years before I get to see “King Conan”. Then again, Arnie will know a hëll of a lot more about being king when he does do the movie, so maybe it’ll be worth the wait. And speaking as a guy with as much experience governing as PAD, I say why don’t we wait until after he’s done the job a while before we judge him (look at what judging the BoSox prematurely got you – I know, cheap shot). California certainly gave Davis time to prove himself.
Not only does Congress not have the power to tell someone they can’t call someone else, but they specifically *don’t* have that power.
The do not call list is not Congress say telemarketers can’t call me, it’s ME telling the Telemarketers they can’t call me.
Telemarketing is commercial speech and not as protected as regular speech. Besides, as Tony said, it WE THE PEOPLE saying don’t call us, but since the stupid M-F’ers at teh telemarketing firms won;t listen, and since it would be illegal to firebomb every last telemarketer, we had to turn to the goverment for help…
No one has the the right to use the phone YOU PAY FOR to try and sell you anything…
this is because of California having such a large and heterogenous population
Hey, don’t forget that San Francisco has a large and homogenous population. No that there’s anything wrong with that….;-)
Guess I’ll add my wooden nickel to the pot overflowing with them…
Yes, I see the dangers inherent in the current recall process. Yes, the bar should be set higher than California currently has it.
Had it been set to the appropriate height, would Gray Davis still be in office?
No.
While the bar is too low right now, Gray Davis’ actions went beyond simply “unpopular”. He manipulated the previous election by using his vast campaign contributions from special interests to support a right-wing candidate so as to remove any credible alternative to him (namely, LA mayor Richard Riordan). He grossly deceived the public as to the state’s financial situation. He continued to make decisions that served his contributors at the cost of the public, and sent the state into worse and worse circumstances. And then he blatantly contradicted his previous positions on a number of issues (licenses to illegal immigrants, for one) in a shameless attempt to pander to save his job.
Yes, the bar needs to be higher, but Gray Davis got what he deserved, and I see nothing to regret in the outcome. And I have no doubt that lawmakers across the country will make the necessary changes to recall laws to ensure stability of government.
RE: Telemarketers
I’ve got to agree on the theory that the telemarketers are using our phones, thus nullifying the freedom of speech issue.
There’s even another precedent for this. Aren’t there rules prohibiting junk FAXes, since the advertiser is using the customers supplies?
Why should a junk phone call (or e-mail for that matter) be any different? They are using resources (time, phone line access, equipment) that are not theirs to use.
“For us, it’s the power of control over what comes into our home via our phone lines.”
I’ve had that power all along. It’s called ‘hanging up’.
“But my phone line isn’t public. It is private.”
The number is, however, if it is ‘published’. Which is why some of us choose to go ‘unlisted’.
“Thank you for calling your sick Aunt Doris! This call was brought to you by Miller Lite…tastes great, less filling, Miller Lite! Thank you for using AT&T!” /bizarro world…”
Don’t give them ideas. In Ottawa we may be getting televised ads courtesy of seat-back screens. How, oh how may I express my joy?
“Meaning: elected officials who just follow the whims of the populace aren’t doing their job.”
How about those who ignore them? One government in Canada decided we needed a retail-level federal sales tax. The most favourable poll was 85% against. Yet the government ignored it and went ahead anyway. How is this serving the population? If one hired a plumber who decided to renovate the brickwork without asking you and charge you for it, you’d fire him. Why can’t we do the same with politicians? And waiting for the next election isn’t good enough because, by then, the damage is already done.