The Phone Company

A short play out of Carbondale Illonois:

Today, my head almost exploded. Now, let me tell you why. George Bush recently annouced that he wants a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriages (As I'm sure you've all heard). What makes matters worse is that I work in a newsroom and for a good portion of the day I'm surrounded by satellite feeds and videotape editing systems. Today, those satellite feeds and editing systems were spewing out sound-bites of the President's speech. So, for about 4 hours I had to listen to some of the most obnoxious, idiotic, offensive shit I've ever heard. To make matters worse, this recent news story prompted a discussion in the newsroom that made me almost lose my mind.

It was about 6pm. Our 5:30pm newscast had just ended, most of the newsroom staff had gone to the studio for our post-show critique, and The News Hour with Jim (spelling mistake in 3..2..1) Leheir was now on. Of course, the gay marriage story was part of his newscast. This is where the discussion began..

THE PLAYERS

Idiot Number 1- A short girl with curly black hair. About 18 or 19. Her eye
sockets looked as if someone had grabbed them when
she was young and twisted them in a direction away from her nose.
She basically just looks like something is wrong with her.

Idiot Number 2- A bit taller than Idiot #1. The same age. Not only does it look
like something's wrong with her, but something really is. She has
blond hair that's matted to her head with a ponytail, big hullahoop
earings, thick, clearly defined eyebrow makeup, chunky mascara,
long nails, and always chews gum. Naturally, she has a
stereotypical valley-girl voice where every other word out of
her mouth is "like". Need I say more?

Me - You know me.

(remember Jim Lerigh has just finished mentioning the gay marriage story)

IDIOT NUMBER 1: You know, I think that marriage should be bewteen a man and a woman and all, but I feel sorry for them-

IDIOT NUMBER 2: -I don't! Like..if your gonna live like that.. like.. you've gotta accept the fact that you're not going to be treated..like.. the same as everybody else.

(Okay. This is where I lost it. Discrimination by choice? What the hell is that? That's right, this short discussion only a few sentences long is what nearly caused my brain to shoot out my left nostril. Everyone has snapped on someone else in the newsroom at least 2 or 3 times. It was now my turn.)

ME: Oh my god! I've felt like throwing up all afternoon, now this. D-D-Do you hear the words coming out of your mouth? Do you? Holy shit! (raising back of hand to my face) Just..just (exhale)
(MUMBLING): Jesus Christ, I don't fucking believe this, oh my god, jesus chirst....

This is what I believe I said. I was pretty worked up so I don't remember every word. But anyway. I then left the newsroom and went home trying to keep my brain in my head. And That's it. This story has no ending, as I am hungry now and must get some food. I now leave you with how I feel about gay marriages. If two people love eachother, it's none of my or your fucking business!! And no...I'm not gay.

Greg

posted by Kermit at 2/25/2004 05:43:00 PM |

I just can't decide between the two. Every time I think I've decided which one I want to win, I end up having pretty large doubts. I prefer Edwards on a gut level. He is likeable, no idiot, passionate, and I haven't heard any real dirt on him yet. It's hard to believe that he's fifty sometimes. But then I imagine him in a room negotiating with Putin and then I'm just not so confident. It might just belooks deceiving me, but is Edwards the guy you want playing diplomacy with Vladimir? I don't know. Kerry on the other hand doesn't do much for me at all. He's flat and robotic. If you watch multiple interviews in succession with him, something that I'm none to proud to admit I've done, you'll hear the same talking points over and over again. Same wording, same intonation. Doesn't this guy realize that people have remote controls and might see him on two different channels on the same evening? So on a gut level, he just whiffs. But, he does exude something presidential. He's the type of guy I may not like personally, but could respect presidentially. He has a long voting record that will be picked apart and there are some potential pitfalls for him that will not come across well in a 10 second sound bite. For instance, his vote against Gulf War I. (Funny how in this case, the sequel gets the name "The Phantom Menace") But he does have experience and contrary to what many say, experience in Washington can be of assistance when taking on the job of, oh I don't know, the leader of Washington, ie president. But I would feel comfortable putting him in a room with the Russkie.

So what this al really means is that I think I support Edwards. At least my gut tells me to. The problem is, I'm not so confident in my gut. If I were in NY to vote... I would vote Edwards. There, I've done it. posted by Kermit at 2/20/2004 01:49:00 PM |

Everything's just getting smaller.
And while you're there scroll down to the post below. Heaven help us... or not. posted by Kermit at 2/09/2004 10:58:00 AM |

...Atrios. posted by Kermit at 2/07/2004 06:37:00 PM |

Well, we have a new budget proposal from the White House. A little sticker shock all around. After proposing his budget, with a predicted deficit of $364 billion, Bush then passed the buck to precisely where it belongs by saying:

"And at the same time, we're calling upon Congress to be wise with the taxpayers' money."

He proposes a budget with a massive projected deficit and then admonishes congress to keep spending in line. Cute. But we know how budget predictions go. Back in 2002, mind you after the newly renamed "Day that justifies everything" had already transpired, the White House predicted a 2003 budget deficit of $80 billion, a figure that is now projected to be around $521 billion. You can see this in the White house's own report on table 1.1 on page 22. For a more succinct and palpable explanation of their 2002 predictions, I offer this.

"The White House announced that estimations for this year's deficit would be approximately $160 billion. Under President Bush's proposal, the 2003 deficit would be around $80 billion dollars and end in 2004 with $14 billion. After 2004, deficit spending would end and the budget would return to projected surpluses."

So forgive me for being a little concerned when I see a projected deficit of $364 billion because it's safe to assume that it will be much higher. Remember that this is the same government that got the projected costs of the prescription drug plan wrong by upwards of $100 billion, a plan that was just recently approved.

The new budget also includes the message:

"The federal budget - like America itself -; is in solid shape, considering the extraordinary strains placed upon it: a stock market collapse that began in early 2000; a recession that was fully under way by early 2001; revelation of corporate scandals; and, of course, the Sept. 11 attacks and ensuing war on terror,"

Of course it's interesting to note that the aforementioned deficit predictions from 2002 were released after all these "extraordinary strains" had been revealed. For the editorial that sparked this, visit Paul Krugman at the NYT. Oh and one last thing, though we will hear a lot about how the bad economy and terrorism have given us no choice but to spend that which we don't have, it seems that Canada, our northern neighbor, has been able to cope with this changing world and still manage to avoid deficit spending. Oh yes some will point out Canada's high tax rates and the like, but they actually PAY for what they get rather than running out on the check. posted by Kermit at 2/03/2004 12:06:00 PM |

Superbowl schmooperbowl. My question is, who's going to win the Bud Bowl? I had to explain that to some germans today. How are you really supposed to explain the Bud Bowl?
posted by Kermit at 2/02/2004 12:51:00 AM |