<blockquote>First, Ms. Landman is wrong about "Most people don't like the mounting number of unsolicited ads..." except maybe most of her friends. In fact 74% of Americans prefer their advertisements through the mail than any other medium.</blockquote>
I'm sure most Americans prefer losing a limb to losing their life, but that doesn't mean most Americans LIKE losing a limb. Similarly, folks may prefer receiving solicitations in the mail to receiving them by phone, but that doesn't mean they LIKE receiving solicitations in the mail. It just means they hate junk mail less than the other mediums.
The fact is, polls consistently show that 80 to 90% of the public dislikes junk mail. (See the 2007 Zogby poll I cited above.) Direct marketers may play dumb to this fact, but they know it's true. Otherwise they wouldn't be so intent on denying consumers an easy, comprehensive way to exercise their right to be left alone.
<blockquote>Now let's talk about the numerous ads that are in newspapers... How about those unwanted ads in the magazines as well? ...That is almost as annoying as those phone solicitors. Same for radio.</blockquote>
This is what's called a false analogy. Direct mail is different from other mediums like magazines, newspapers, radio, and television in three very important ways:
1) The other mediums provide value / content in exchange for viewing ads. It's a give-and-take relationship, whereas junk mail is all take and no give. If junk mail were TV, it would be all commercials and no programming. If junk mail were a magazine, it would be all ads and no articles.
2) The other mediums are opt-in. Consumers must specifically request (and often pay) to receive them. Conversely, consumers must request (and often pay) to NOT receive junk mail. If junk mail were TV, it would turn itself on at will and have no off switch. If magazines were junk mail, we'd all be getting Good Housekeeping and Hustler whether we wanted them or not.
3) The other mediums are easy to opt out of. I can cancel cable service or a magazine subscription with a single phone call. I can turn off the radio with a flick of the wrist. There is no easy and comprehensive way to stem the flood of junk mail. Not with a thousand phone calls and a thousand dollars can I guarantee myself a completely junk-free existence.
Junk mail is more analagous with telemarketing and spam, and we all know what happened there. Congress created the Do Not Call registry and passed the CAN-SPAM Act. In fact, one could argue that junk mail is more intrusive and destructive than either telemarketing or spam. After all, spam doesn't kill trees, telemarketing doesn't consume landfill space, and of course, there's no caller ID or spam filter for your mailbox.
<blockquote>Finally, Article 8 of the US Constitution grants the US Congress sole authority "To establish post offices and post roads. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers...". </blockquote>
Not so fast. Article 8 may grant Congress the authority to establish a post office, but that's a far cry from granting junk mailers the authority to invade our homes with communication that we don't wish to receive. You would be far wiser to argue that junk mailers have a First Amendment freedom of speech. Even then, you would still lose the argument. The Supreme Court ruled in [http://supreme.justia.com/us/397/728/ Rowan v. Post Office] that a junk mailer's right to send junk mail is superceded by one's right not to receive it:
"[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."
Furthermore, failure to give people an ability to opt out of unwanted mailings "would tend to license a form of trespass and would make hardly more sense than to say that a radio or television viewer may not twist the dial to cut off an offensive or boring communication and thus bar its entering his home. Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit; we see no basis for according the printed word or pictures a different or more preferred status because they are sent by mail."
<blockquote>Maybe these state legislators need to brush up on the US Constitution. </blockquote>
I couldn't agree more. However, I don't think it would result in the outcome you seem to expect. I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't favor invasive commercial speech over the fundamental right of individuals to peacably enjoy their privacy and property.
Rezzie Dannt
[http://www.junkmailrevolt.org Junk Mail Revolt] (Launches May 12, 2008)
<blockquote>I argue that consumers already have choice -- the DMA website is one place to exercise mail preferences</blockquote>
Mr. Broder,
It's time we stop pretending that the DMA's mail preference service is a comprehensive cure-all for unwanted junk mail. There are millions of junk mailers in the United States, and only about 3,600 of them have access to the DMA's registry. That means a large number of junk mailers must be contacted individually, which is a time-consuming, costly, and often frustrating task. Junk mailers often ignore or refuse repeated requests for removal from their mailing lists, even when consumers take drastic measures like filing Prohibitory Orders with the Postal Service. When junk mailers do comply, it often takes months to be removed from their lists. See the story above about the guy who spent two years trying to eliminate junk mail.
In short, the DMA registry is grossly inadequate. It does nothing to stop local junk mail. It does nothing to stop rogue mailers and scammers who prey on the elderly and the mentally ill. It does nothing to stem the flood of junk mail that inundates small business owners, who the DMA prohibits from ever signing up. It offers no legal recourse for the consumer. And although the registry is about 40 years old, polls show that nearly 90% of us are still unhappy with the amount of junk mail we receive. The DMA registry's primary function, I believe, is to foster the illusion of self-regulation in order to thwart legislation.
Furthermore, let me ask you this. If consumers already have a multitude of options, then why is the junk mail industry so desperate to prevent us from having one more to choose from? If what you say is true, that consumers already have sufficient choice, then a new registry would only be one more option among many, and few of us would want to sign up. In reality, the junk mail industry knows that consumers don't have adequate choice, which is why it feels so threatened by the prospect of government intervention. The fury with which your industry fights against legislation demonstrates the degree to which it doesn't believe its own talking points.
Which brings me to my next point. Why should consumers trust the DMA, whose track record is abysmal at best? These are the same people who fought alongside telemarketers to prevent the Do Not Call registry. These are the same people who fought to perpetuate spam. These are the same people who right now are actively fighting legislation that would offer consumers control over their mailboxes. These are the same people who promote junk mail with the kind of sleazy spin that's better suited for a sweepstakes offer. With all due respect, sir, allowing the DMA to regulate junk mail is like letting the fox guard the proverbial hen house. The DMA is not the solution to junk mail, it's the problem.
<blockquote>On the forest question, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations noted, in its 2007 State of the World's Forests report (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/a0773e/a0773e00.pdf) that the world lost a total of 3% of its forest cover from 1990-2005, or an average of 0.2% per year... The same UN report notes, by the way, that forest coverage in the US and Canada is stable.</blockquote>
On the issue of forests, you neglect to mention a few vitally important facts:
1. Three percent deforestation in 15 years is not as insignificant as your industry would like to make it sound. That seemingly small percentage represents tens of millions of acres of forest destroyed every year. According to some estimates, "That destruction amounts to 50 million acres - or an area the size of England, Wales and Scotland felled annually... [O]ne days' deforestation is equivalent to the carbon footprint of eight million people flying to New York." [http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/deforestation-the-hidden-cause-of-global-warming-448734.html (1)]
2. A deforestation rate of 0.2% a year might not sound like much, but in reality that's an alarming figure. In just 150 years, a 0.2% annual deforestation rate obliterates a whopping 30% of the earth's forest cover. (0.2% x 150 = 30%) According to the World Resources Institute, 80 percent of the earth's post-glacial forest cover has already been destroyed or seriously degraded. [http://www.geic.or.jp/jerry/cvs/Summary.doc (2)] National Geographic refers to the current rate of deforestation as a "Forest Holocaust." [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/eye/deforestation/effect.html (3)]
3. According to some organizations, like the World Resources Institute, deforestation rates may actually be higher than the FAO numbers you cite. Furthermore, it appears they may be accelerating.[http://archive.wri.org/item_detail.cfm?id=51§ion=newsroom&page=newsrelease_text&z=? (4)]
4. If you count "forest degradation" along with "forest deforestation" (as you should), then the 3% figure you cite more than doubles. It's important to realize that the FAO defines the term "deforestation" in a highly specific and idiosyncratic manner. For example, if a forest's tree density falls below 10%, then the FAO calls that deforestation and includes it in their statistics. However, if a forest's density falls to, let's say 11 or 12%, then the FAO does NOT count that as deforestation. Instead, they call it "forest degradation." When you cite deforestation statistics and ignore degradation, you're essentially committing a fallacy of omission.
5. You state that "forest coverage in the US and Canada is stable." However, you neglect to mention that it's only stable in terms of deforestation. It's far from stable in terms of forest degradation. Furthermore, you neglect to mention that our junk mail industry isn't just destroying trees here in North America, but in places around the world where deforestation rates are anything but stable (e.g. endangered Indonesian rainforests).
6. You overlook the issue of quality versus quantity. Chopping down an old-growth forest and replacing it with a newfangled tree plantation diminishes it qualitatively if not quantitatively. In other words, "The state of the world's forests is not simply a matter of their extent... [but also] the health, genetic diversity, and age profile of forests, collectively known as forest quality. Measures of total forest area do not reveal the degraded nature of much regrowth forest. For example... logging often... degrade[s] forest quality, inducing soil and nutrient losses and reducing the forest's value as habitat." [http://archive.wri.org/item_detail.cfm?id=1368§ion=pubs&page=pubs_content_text&z=? (5)]
7. The paper industry's notion of sustainability does not account for the fact that killing trees carries a double jeopardy. It's not just the absence of trees that's harmful, but the physical act of killing them, which releases huge amounts of stored carbon into the atmosphere. In other words, we're penalized for the end result of deforestation, as well as for the process of deforestation itself. Even if you plant a new tree for every one that's destroyed, you're still only accounting for half the equation.
Rezzie Dannt
[http://www.junkmailrevolt.org Junk Mail Revolt] (Launches May 12, 2008)
From the Shepherd piece: "The idea that I can't think for myself is what I find so disturbing about The Times' piece," said Scales.
The first stage of non-repentance is non-denial denial.
I don't feel his pain.
It would be nice to have nutritional information about each dish in the menu. People who have health problems, e.g. suffer from obesity need to know what they are eating and how many calories one or another dish contains. That`s great, I think. Heathy eating is very important for our health in general. People who don`t care about the calories can just don`t pay attention.
Seems to me the Super Delegates are afraid of the Clinton machine after the way they went after Richardson and now their latest defector. They know that with the Clintons, your either with them or they will try to destroy you. This morning on CNN the spokesmand for Hillary said, no big deal on the jump to Obama by Mr Andrews, Super Delegates come and go! So, what's the hold up? By now, it seems the delegaes know the difference between the 2 candidates---and, that's why they can't make a move toward Obama.
We the common peopledon't know better. We aren't waiting to see Obama get attacked to see how he reacts. We just know he has courage to stand up for what's right and not give in to polls. He knows he could 'pull the wool over the eyee' of the listeners if he was as manipulating as the Clintons. But, instead he tells the truth. If Hillary's lying, embellishing, negative aura and rhetoric aren't enough to convince the Super Delegates she's just another Bush, they aren't that Super.
It would be nice to have nutritional information about each dish in the menu. People who have health problems, e.g. suffer from obesity need to know what they are eating and how many calories one or another dish contains. That`s great, I think. Heathy eating is very important for our health in general. People who don`t care about the calories can just don`t pay attention.
Pages