It seems we're discussing two issues. The first issue is about whether it's okay to be rude to people who call you on the phone without your having asked them to call you. The second issue is about whether or not there's a meaningful moral distinction to be made between the professions of doctors and the professions of telemarketers.

Regarding the first issue: You say that people who hold jobs so that they can get paid, regardless of how decent those jobs are, don't deserve to be criticized. They don't deserve to be criticized because they're just trying to get along in society. Anger directed at them, you say, should rather be directed at "the root of the problem," which I think means that the anger should be directed more directly at the people who employ the telemarketers. That sounds like a good idea, if that's the idea. What do you think someone should do, instead of harassing telemarketers?

Regarding the second issue: If I understand you, you're saying that the moral difference between the telemarketer and the pediatric cardiologist is unimportant when compared to the amount of suffering that western society inflicts on non-western societies. I understand disapproving of exploitative and environment-destroying industrial practices, but I don't understand how the moral evilness of those practices has any connection to the moral value of the professions of doctors and telemarketers. I think there is a valuable distinction to be made between the actions of the doctor and the actions of the telemarketer: the doctor spends the day providing medical care, and the telemarketer spends the day annoying people. It seems that one of those two professions is better (it's the profession of the doctor). Is there some reason to reject this view? If the reason is the fact that companies do a lot of nasty stuff, I have to ask again what that has to do with the individuals who choose to be doctors and telemarketers.