I cut my corporate teeth in customer service - an inbound call center. I estimate that during that seven-year span, I took over 125,000 calls. I know that was quite a while ago, but I do not recall ever...EVER...confusing unhappy customers with homophobes.
Or vice versa.
In his weekly column in the July 17, 2008 edition of the Philadelphia Daily News, Michael Smerconish recounts a tale about a recent event in Fort Smith, Arkansas. In brief: Sacha Baron Cohen, he of Borat fame, staged an elaborate, Borat-like hoax for an upcoming Borat-esque film. The Borat-ly ruse involved enticing people to attend a cage-fighting event at the Fort Smith Convention Center. The advertising promised: HOT CHICKS, COLD BEER, HARDCORE FIGHTS. I've been to weddings that fit that bill.
About 1,600 people showed, paid a buck-a-beer, got free t-shirts and were treated to a couple of warm-up fights. That's about when the mood changed. While cameras (under the premise of shooting a documentary) rolled, a disguised Cohen and another actor began a cage match that morphed into something homoerotic, with the men undressing each other down to their underwear and kissing each other's chests. The crowd turned, a riot ensued, beer and chairs were hurled at the cage, security struggled to keep patrons out of the ring, Cohen and Company escaped...and it's all coming soon to a theater near you!
I may never say the word "Fandango" with the same innocence again.
The key question Smerconish raises in his piece is about the reaction of the crowd. Should they be considered homophobic for turning so violently against what they witnessed, or is there something else? It amazes me that the question is even asked.
Truthfully, I like Smerconish; he also hosts a morning radio talk show on conservative 1210-AM (WPHT) in Philadelphia. I don't always agree with him, and there are times I think he drones on for no other reason than he loves the sound of his own voice broadcasting out to the seventh largest market in the country. (Eat it, Seattle-Tacoma! Nobody cares who comes in fourteenth!) However, Smerconish is honest and fair, and while he might subscribe to the conservative talking-points newsletter, he is openly disdainful of those points he doesn't care for, like chickpeas on the salad bar of politics.
But this time Smerconish went all hummus on me. He believes that the crowd's violent reaction was not borne of homophobia, but rather of the simple dissatisfaction any customer feels when he has not received something as advertised. Seriously.
Remind me to find cover the next time Smerconish falls prey to a barcode snafu and is not given the two-for-one deal on hot dogs at the local Acme.
He writes, "...Americans, no matter what part of the country they're from, want the show they paid to see." He later continues, "The producers didn't deliver on a heavily advertised promise of bikinis and brawls, and Fort Smith raised hell. It had nothing to do with homophobia."
Smerconish has taken the issue of mob violence against gays and turned it into an unhappy customer situation. Nice. I don't dispute that all Americans expect to get what they paid for, and they should. But if riots broke out every time they didn't, fast food drive-thru workers would need to wear a cheap headset, bad polyester, and full riot gear. The magnitude of this crowd's reaction says there is more at work here than "not what we paid for."
Sure, Cohen's actions seem carefully calculated and they probably garnered the expected response. But I can't imagine that Cohen said, "Let's do this thing, and when people go crazy because they didn't get what they paid for, it will have the appearance that they went crazy because they are homophobic! It's the old 'perception is greater than reality' gag!"
Smerconish's biggest mistake is giving people too much credit. What he fails to see are what some are capable of when it comes to their hatred of homosexuality.
There are those out there who will cherry-pick verses from Scripture in an effort to use the Word of God to further their discriminatory agenda. Their entire system of faith seems to hinge on one 12-word line from Leviticus, and completely disregard the other 780,000 (or so) words of The Bible. Maybe these folks are just dissatisfied Borders customers.
A few lone kooks not enough for you? How about a well-organized bunch of kooks...and powerful ones at that? Many politicians, those men and women whom we all put into office (and really, what were we thinking), support a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Can you imagine the notion of using this country's most important document as a discriminatory weapon? Maybe the elected elite are just dissatisfied customers of the National Constitution Center's gift shop.
And if that isn't enough to convince you, how about this for a number: 14,631,024. That's the number of people in Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, and yes, Arkansas, who, in the 2004 election, voted on ballot measures banning same-sex marriage from their respective states. (Source: CNN.com)
None of those 14,631,024 votes are visually sensational enough to make the new Cohen picture, and while the 2004 election lacked beer-tossing and chair-hurling, a homophobia-fueled riot by any other name is still organized hatred.
What were all of those customers dissatisfied with, I wonder?
Monday, July 21, 2008
Monday, July 7, 2008
The Speech Isn't Free, But the Ham Is
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
The line is a classic one, uttered by the late (not tardy, but dead) John Belushi, in his role as Bluto in the 1978 film Animal House.
Of course, everyone knows it was the Ukrainians who bombed Pearl Harbor on July 4, 1776, that "date which will live in infamy," called such by then-president Gerald Ford.
What? Did you say that my statements are not factually accurate? Facts-schmacts! I'm exercising my right to free speech!
In a story picked up by various news outlets, including a piece on thebulletin.us by Katrina Trinko of The (Philadelphia) Bulletin, three Philadelphia tour guides, with help from the libertarian law firm Institute for Justice (think ACLU without the sexy brand name), have filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia. Before I continue, a brief aside:
I'm no lawyer. Everything I know about the law (as well as medicine, home repair, most religions, processed cheese, and the Canadian government) I learned from Hollywood. Since I might have missed an episode or two of the complete Law and Order canon, I will caveat this entire piece by saying that nothing in it should be construed as legal advice.
The issue is a law the city passed in April 2008, effective October 2008, that will require tour guides to pass a test to become licensed to offer tours for compensation. For most readers, that last part is crucial. The law only applies to those who charge others for tours. If you live in Philadelphia and you are responsible for entertaining out-of-town family members, you do not need a license to be their tour guide. And this is not limited to tours involving quill and parchment, either; I think it applies to tours involving pole and dollar bill, as well.
The Institute for Justice (which calls itself "IJ" - see what I mean about no sexy brand?) believes the law to be a violation of free speech, which we all know to be protected by the First Amendment. (If you didn't know that, and you are older than, like, twelve, consider evening classes in something, please.) According to a release on their website (IJ.org), IJ's suit seeks to "...overturn a law enacted in April that will make it illegal for anyone like [the tour guides] to give a tour of much of the city’s downtown area without first passing a test and obtaining a government license—without, in essence, getting the government’s permission to speak."
I know. It reads like an episode of Law and Order: Test Pattern. Hang in there.
IJ's site goes on to say: "The government cannot be in the business of deciding who may speak and who may not...." It adds, "The Constitution protects your right to communicate for a living, whether you are a journalist, a musician or a tour guide."
It comes as no surprise that the suit - with its Constitutional subtext and its Cradle of Liberty locale - was filed days before July 4th, the anniversary of our nation's independence. Is the timing hammy? Of course it is. Is it as hammy as, say, Apollo Creed dressing as George Washington and throwing money at people before the fight? Oh, IJ can only dream.
But would IJ care if, instead of historic tours in Philadelphia, the complaint was about Tennessee tour guides being required to pass a test about the Backwoods Barbie Tour coming soon to Dollywood? I cannot say, but a Dollywood issue would lack the quality ham the Philly issue brings.
To me, this is not a free speech issue. The government already can, and does, restrict speech in at least one workplace: public schools. The state tells teachers what they can and cannot teach, at least to some degree. Should we change that? Should we simply hire the cheapest labor and let teachers say what they want? Consider the potential consequences: One day, your child comes home and asks you to help her study history. She pulls out her study guide and reads aloud, "The Ukrainians bombed Pearl Harbor on July 4, 1776." When this happens, will you call for heads to roll, or will you shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh well! Free speech!"
(Okay. I can't take it anymore. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Yes, it was called the "date which will live in infamy," but not by President Ford; it was President Franklin D. Roosevelt.)
In the real world, we require testing of plumbers and stockbrokers and doctors and teachers. Why not of tour guides? Why not of those who have chosen as a vocation the art of passing along the oral history of this great nation? Why not of those who have before them a classroom of new students every day; students who have traveled great distances; students who are not there because they have to be, but because they want to be; students who yearn to be there because they are eager to learn about this country's infancy? Is it so bad to want to ensure that the knowledge imparted upon these students is accurate?
Tour guides, you should not only welcome this law, you should embrace it! Tour guides, when you are at a party and you are asked what you do for a living, you should hold your head high with arrogance and say, "I'm a tour guide, and I'm SO good at what I do, I'm licensed by the government to do it!" Tour guides, you should dress as George Washington and throw money at people!
Oops. I got a little hungry for some ham there. Sorry.
The line is a classic one, uttered by the late (not tardy, but dead) John Belushi, in his role as Bluto in the 1978 film Animal House.
Of course, everyone knows it was the Ukrainians who bombed Pearl Harbor on July 4, 1776, that "date which will live in infamy," called such by then-president Gerald Ford.
What? Did you say that my statements are not factually accurate? Facts-schmacts! I'm exercising my right to free speech!
In a story picked up by various news outlets, including a piece on thebulletin.us by Katrina Trinko of The (Philadelphia) Bulletin, three Philadelphia tour guides, with help from the libertarian law firm Institute for Justice (think ACLU without the sexy brand name), have filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia. Before I continue, a brief aside:
I'm no lawyer. Everything I know about the law (as well as medicine, home repair, most religions, processed cheese, and the Canadian government) I learned from Hollywood. Since I might have missed an episode or two of the complete Law and Order canon, I will caveat this entire piece by saying that nothing in it should be construed as legal advice.
The issue is a law the city passed in April 2008, effective October 2008, that will require tour guides to pass a test to become licensed to offer tours for compensation. For most readers, that last part is crucial. The law only applies to those who charge others for tours. If you live in Philadelphia and you are responsible for entertaining out-of-town family members, you do not need a license to be their tour guide. And this is not limited to tours involving quill and parchment, either; I think it applies to tours involving pole and dollar bill, as well.
The Institute for Justice (which calls itself "IJ" - see what I mean about no sexy brand?) believes the law to be a violation of free speech, which we all know to be protected by the First Amendment. (If you didn't know that, and you are older than, like, twelve, consider evening classes in something, please.) According to a release on their website (IJ.org), IJ's suit seeks to "...overturn a law enacted in April that will make it illegal for anyone like [the tour guides] to give a tour of much of the city’s downtown area without first passing a test and obtaining a government license—without, in essence, getting the government’s permission to speak."
I know. It reads like an episode of Law and Order: Test Pattern. Hang in there.
IJ's site goes on to say: "The government cannot be in the business of deciding who may speak and who may not...." It adds, "The Constitution protects your right to communicate for a living, whether you are a journalist, a musician or a tour guide."
It comes as no surprise that the suit - with its Constitutional subtext and its Cradle of Liberty locale - was filed days before July 4th, the anniversary of our nation's independence. Is the timing hammy? Of course it is. Is it as hammy as, say, Apollo Creed dressing as George Washington and throwing money at people before the fight? Oh, IJ can only dream.
But would IJ care if, instead of historic tours in Philadelphia, the complaint was about Tennessee tour guides being required to pass a test about the Backwoods Barbie Tour coming soon to Dollywood? I cannot say, but a Dollywood issue would lack the quality ham the Philly issue brings.
To me, this is not a free speech issue. The government already can, and does, restrict speech in at least one workplace: public schools. The state tells teachers what they can and cannot teach, at least to some degree. Should we change that? Should we simply hire the cheapest labor and let teachers say what they want? Consider the potential consequences: One day, your child comes home and asks you to help her study history. She pulls out her study guide and reads aloud, "The Ukrainians bombed Pearl Harbor on July 4, 1776." When this happens, will you call for heads to roll, or will you shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh well! Free speech!"
(Okay. I can't take it anymore. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Yes, it was called the "date which will live in infamy," but not by President Ford; it was President Franklin D. Roosevelt.)
In the real world, we require testing of plumbers and stockbrokers and doctors and teachers. Why not of tour guides? Why not of those who have chosen as a vocation the art of passing along the oral history of this great nation? Why not of those who have before them a classroom of new students every day; students who have traveled great distances; students who are not there because they have to be, but because they want to be; students who yearn to be there because they are eager to learn about this country's infancy? Is it so bad to want to ensure that the knowledge imparted upon these students is accurate?
Tour guides, you should not only welcome this law, you should embrace it! Tour guides, when you are at a party and you are asked what you do for a living, you should hold your head high with arrogance and say, "I'm a tour guide, and I'm SO good at what I do, I'm licensed by the government to do it!" Tour guides, you should dress as George Washington and throw money at people!
Oops. I got a little hungry for some ham there. Sorry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)