That's a true fact

So yesterday this guy walks into my office with an angry and determined demeanor, and says in a tone of voice that suggests he longs for demagoguery, "You boys have cell phones, right?" Without waiting for an answer he throws a piece of paper down onto my desk and says "That's a true fact" and starts to walk out. I yell after him "What's a true fact?!" and he just says over his shoulder "That's a true... FACT"... and then he's gone! The paper turns out to be a printout of an e-mail warning me that:

6 days, from today all cell phones numbers are being released to telemarketing companies and you will start to receive sales calls.....you will be charged for these calls. To prevent this, call the following number from your cell phone.

888-382-1222. This is the National Do Not Call List.
It will only take a minute of your time. it blocks your number for five years. You must call from the phone you want locked
You can not call from a different phone number. Pass this on to your friends an associates. it takes about twenty seconds.


I have recreated this e-mail in as much accurate detail as possible, because there was just something about it that struck me as wrong. I don't know if it was the grammatical errors or the pushiness of it, but I immediately thought it was a hoax. Actually, it occurred to me that it might be a scam and that calling this number might be hazardous to my wallet. I decided to bypass Snopes and go straight for the horse's mouth, so I went to the Federal Trade Commission's website and tried to look up the number for myself. Turns out that IS the number for the Do Not Call registry, but they've also got a whole page called " Despite Re-Circulating E-mail, It is Still Not Necessary to Register Cell Phone Numbers".

What I really find fascinating about this is how CERTAIN this guy was that "That's a true fact." His certainty was based not on his knowledge, but on how fired up he got over believing that it was true. Almost operating by the maxim "If it offends me enough, I'd rather assume it's true so I can go ahead and be angry." He really was "looking it up in his gut" as Stephen Colbert would say. The funny thing was he could tell I was skeptical when I asked what it was about, and he repeated "That's a true fact" with a lot of emphasis the second time... almost trying to pressure me into believing him. I think it says a lot about the desire for "recreational conflict," as my father would say. It's no good being mad at something if you can't get other people on board with you. Being an oppressed individual just sucks, but being a member of an oppressed CLASS of people that you can commiserate with... now that's entertaining.

I've seen the same tactic deployed against accused murderers on cable. A lawyer with the ACLU will start defending the accused with some flimsy thing like DNA evidence or some such nonsense and Nancy Grace will interrupt with "A CHILD IS DEAD, AND YOU JUST WANT TO LET THIS MAN WALK?!?!" See because whether the guy actually did it is besides the point. The real goal of the entire show is to work viewers into a nice angry lather over the outrage of the day. Not so angry that they actually get involved and, you know, investigate this apparent rash of outrages (because it's invariably part of a national trend, isn't it?). Juuuust angry enough to provide a nice emotional release and remind viewers that they are among the few people left in this world with the brains or decency or sanity to come to the proper moral judgement on this and any other issue after a 30 second summation.

It seems I have wandered from my original point. And yet, somehow, I don't care....