A G K Y R A

BBC News reports the results of a worldwide poll (conducted on behalf of the BBC World Service): according to almost everyone, internet access is a fundamental human right.

Don’t these people know what a human right is? It’s not just something you happen to like or enjoy. Or is watching American Idol also a basic human right, together with ski vacations and ice cream?

It’s also not just something convenient. Or are dishwashers, electric razors, and cell phones also fundamental human rights?

The secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union, Dr. Hamadoun Toure, says that “the right to communicate cannot be ignored.” How did internet access suddenly become equated with a so-called right to communicate?

The BBC report tells us that “countries such as Finland and Estonia have already ruled that access is a human right for their citizens.” If we’re talking about human rights, we’re not talking about rights that are particular to citizens of one country or another. There is such a thing as a legal right that is particular to one country or one kind of person. Ancient Roman citizens had the legal right not to be crucified. Slaves had no such right. People on trial in the U.S. have the legal right not to incriminate themselves. No claim is made that people in Mongolia have such a right. It’s not a human right but a legal one.

There is so much confusion evident in this BBC report that I wonder how much of it is due to poor survey design incorrect interpretation or reporting of the results, or just plain shallowness by the respondents. Let me help shed some light: when we’re talking about human rights, we’re really talking about human obligations and duties. If someone else has a human right, then I have a moral obligation and duty to that person, and so do you, to protect and preserve whatever it is he has a right to. If to life, then I must not take the person’s life and must do all I can to protect it. If to religion, then I must not try to coerce a person to believe something or to act in a way that would violate his genuine religious scruples, and I must defend a person’s right to hold his religious beliefs and act according to their dictates.

If you believe internet access is a fundamental human right, then you should by all means act immediately to fulfill your own personal obligation to give internet access to anyone who doesn’t have it. Have fun!

I’ve never been one to accuse the mainstream media of bias, even though I’m fully aware that liberalism dominates the culture of that industry. It’s bad business to air your political views, in most cases, so they don’t.

(Don’t tell that to Manhattan Mini Storage, whose embittered advertising compares the size of a person’s closet to the narrowness of Dick Cheney’s mind. Har de har har. I’ve always wondered how the guy who owns that company can stand the embarrassment of knowing that his ham-fisted ads are seen everyday by world-class businesspeople and advertising professionals. New York City is where the big boys are … It’s a little like singing for your supper outside the Met.)

I stayed home from church this morning (I’m sick) and was watching a few minutes of ABC News’ “Good Morning America” over breakfast, when on comes a segment about Sarah Palin’s glasses, pardon me, “eye wear.” This promises to be light and innocent, if anything does, or so I thought.

The on-air personality went around to eyeglasses stores here in Manhattan and asked people about Sarah Palin’s glasses. They’re a very fashionable rimless variety, I come to learn. One eyeglasses professional they talk to says, “I may not agree with her political views, but her eye wear is a good choice” (I’m paraphrasing).

That’s helpful, to know the political affections of this young, fashionable eyeglasses expert.

I wonder what was going through the producer’s mind when he decided not to trim that brief one-second remark from the piece before they aired it. Is that relevant to the report on her eye wear? Is that helpful to the audience?

Then the on-air personality (what’s the best term for that job, since it falls so far short of either journalist or reporter?) went to another eye wear retail store and tried on a rimless model herself. “Do I look like Sarah Palin?” she asked the fashion-conscious metrosexual helping her. Yes she did. “Do I look like an Alaska Republican?” she came back. He doubled over in his chair, laughing.

What was the producer thinking when she decided to include this segment?

See, nobody in the media made fun of Sarah Palin, at least not directly. Buy don’t forget that the segment is a composition. The producer, whose identity is unknown to us viewers, communicates a message without having to say anything herself.

Everything that appears in the finished segment reflects a deliberate, conscious choice on the part of the producer.

So we are entitled to ask: why the unsolicited political opinion from the eye wear saleswoman? why the shot of Fashion Man laughing uncontrollably?

Cut to a short video clip of Sarah Palin, in camouflage pants, firing a rifle (she was in Iraq visiting Alaska National Guard soldiers) and a quip about her glasses helping her take aim, or something like that. Then we’re back in the Good Morning America studio, and the college of on-air personalities laughing together about the video, how much their friend does look like Sarah Palin, if only she had a rifle to complete the look, etc., etc., etc.

I’m so glad I eat a quick breakfast!