< Previous
Hem Hem >

[Comments] (19) I had some dreams, they were clouds in my coffee: I've been so upset since subjected to Fox news during work yesterday morning, I was too depressed to work on my story much so my word count is shaping up pathetically while everyone else doing nanowrimo seems to have 8,000 words already. Cheerful. I don't think I need to say I was upset my election results, but life goes on (or in some cases, not...). The eternal optimist in me made a list of "on the bright side" and here is some of what I came up with:

1. I'll get more mileage from my "american traveller apology shirt."

2. He can't run again!

3. Maybe Hillary will run in 2008.

I won't post the rest because I couldn't think of any more real ones and they got pretty sarcastic.

To top things off, my new job is Not That Fun. Maybe it's just because I'm in training and that's always boring. But I am seriously wondering why I'm going to put on a skirt and shoes and drive over there to stand on my feet for 4 hours when I could stay here in my PJs and keep working on my summary and make more than twice as much.


Comments:

Posted by Sumana at Thu Nov 04 2004 22:45

There are cool things about working in a bookstore. Perhaps we can gab about them sometime.

Posted by John at Thu Nov 04 2004 22:50

Yes, I think Hillary is very, very happy about the outcome of the race (secretly, of course). And look on the bright side of working outside the home:

1. If you look as good as Susie does in skirts (and you do, but I'm not flirting with you) then it will brighten others days. I mean that as a sincere compliment, so try not to read anything wierd into it.

2. You get to watch Fox News! Just kidding. I'm a conservative and I only watch it on the rare ocassion that I feel CNN is being a little too liberal.

3. When you come home, Gretel will jump up and down and greet you at the door. That one takes the cake.

Posted by Susie at Fri Nov 05 2004 01:08

It will be good experience. And a good back up, and you don't have to go to LA. And getting dressed in the morning is good, it feels good to be productive.

Posted by Frances at Fri Nov 05 2004 01:52

It's always good to be out in the world interacting with people.

Posted by :) at Fri Nov 05 2004 06:36

another good thing: at least you'll always be able to say "well, at least kerry wouldn't have done that...."

Posted by John at Fri Nov 05 2004 16:57

Isn't that exactly what Kerry has asked the nation NOT to do?

Posted by Joe at Fri Nov 05 2004 21:30

***Joe with his unsatiable desire to discuss topics gets poised to write and hopes he does not offend anybody***

I was in Washington D.C. last Febuary and I noticed that in the receiving room of many of the congressmen's offices that Fox News channel was on, irrespective of political party (Dems and Repubs). I was suprised but I didn't see CNN on in one (out of the 10 or so offices I looked in).

Also, You have to give credit to the network that employs people like Geraldine Ferraro and Alan Colmes.

Anyways, I also visited the CNN headquarters in Atlanta during the Summer, and I was also very impressed with them. My personal choice is to have a slugfest (yes, I am like those of old who would have enjoyed the gladiator rings :) of Ideas rather than a thinly veiled bias cloaked in the solemn monologue of a news anchor.

I Love all mediums...the New York Times, NPR, Fox News, CNN, (MSNBC, but not very much), but you have to admit that all of them have some kind of bias.

Posted by Kristen at Sat Nov 06 2004 00:32

I watch all of them and the only difference I see is the Primetime shows(Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly..). All the hosts have different opinions, but as far as the news reporting I don't see much difference.

Posted by Sumana at Sat Nov 06 2004 01:10

1) All the commercial tv news, from Peter Jennings to Bill O'Reilly, chases sensational "stories" and simplifies the nuances out of things to keep viewers, avoid chafing advertisers, avoid chafing the corporate ownership, and make issues fit into soundbites. And lots of them think "objectivity" means "parroting both sides of a story" even if one side is obviously wrong. This is basically the Jon Stewart critique and I agree with it. On PBS, Frontline is awesome and you should watch it.

2) Rachel, Frances, and I (and probably Alyson) wish Kerry had won. John, Joe, Kristen, you are probably glad that Bush won. I think that you will either never agree with me or you will eventually agree with me because of events that happen in the next few years. About 51% of the voters in the US just signed off on Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, misleading statements that led the US to war, a soaring deficit, no-bid contracts for war reconstruction, and the Iraq quagmire. Among other things. About 51% of the country said, "Okay by me." So we can expect more of that.

3) Conservatives watch Fox News to validate their worldviews. Liberals watch it to check what the other side is saying so they can respond. There is no liberal equivalent of Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity or Michael Savage or Ann Coulter on any major cable network.

4) I'd love a slugfest of ideas. That's what we have here in the weblog comments. But you need the moderator too. Gladiatorial combat should only happen within an arena. Outside an arena, that's called mob rule.

Posted by Sumana at Sat Nov 06 2004 01:12

Rachel, nice use of Carly Simon.

Posted by Kristen at Sat Nov 06 2004 01:56

"Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, misleading statements that led the US to war, a soaring deficit, no-bid contracts for war reconstruction, and the Iraq quagmire. Among other things. About 51% of the country said, "Okay by me."" These issues are much more complicated than that.

You said something once Sumana that I completely agree with: "We live much different lives." I don't think these issues are black and white, or easily remedied. People think differently and it is ok to disagree, but I don't think it is ok to be disagreeable. For example the "anyone but Bush mentality". (Not implying anyone has that here) That solves nothing either. I understand that you come from a different walk of life, but I don't think that the Pres of the US is going to ruin America. I think that the local leaders and even the state leaders have way more control of what goes on in our lives day in day out than the Pres of the US. I also think that the liberals’ answers to Coulter, Savage, and O’Reilly... are NY Times, PBS, and NPR.

Posted by Frances at Sat Nov 06 2004 04:25

I don't want to be called a liberal. I prefer to be a "progressive."

Posted by Susie at Sat Nov 06 2004 05:20

Kristen, I agree with you about local leaders. I know I'm only 23, but I have yet to see something the actual President of the United States do anything to affect me. Especially not like, say, the previous governor of California.

Posted by Frances at Sat Nov 06 2004 17:39

He has affected me dreadfully. He has cut the funding for AIDS research. There were dozens of new drugs under Clinton. Under Bush, zippo. American firms aren't even doing the research anymore because they can't get funding and they don't have an administration that with kick start the drugs through the FDA.

Posted by Stacy at Sat Nov 06 2004 18:03

A comment about offices in Washington watching Fox News: As a former intern for elected officials in BOTH the democrat and republican parties...

I would just like to inform you that we watched everything. We read everything. It's the name of the game. To know what's being said and said to whom.

There are also often more than one TV in an office.

Thanks.

Oh. and as a person who didn't even like President Clinton-- I'd just like to say that I've been really impressed by his humanitarian work post-presidency.

I want a president who remembers about human rights. fighting poverty. fighting disease. helpin the maasses. Mother Teresa for President.

Posted by Susie at Sat Nov 06 2004 18:10

Didn't she die?

Posted by Alyson at Sat Nov 06 2004 18:16

Sumana: Guilty as charged. There were two counties in Kansas that overwhelmingly voted Kerry over Bush. Mine was one of them, and I was one vote in that majority. I would never admit it on my weblog, because I am afraid of offending my in-laws. Must be diplomatic.

Posted by Joe at Sun Nov 07 2004 03:01

I love reading the responses. Sumana you are a genius: You have finally helped Alyson to get out of the "closet" if you will, and that is something that has never happened before in my memory or experience.

Alyson, I am glad that you voted Kerry. I know that will incite serious backlash for some family members. (I won't tell Dad, I think he'd disown you;) I think that there are various reasons why people move this way and that way, and they are usually all valid. I am not one of those "Blockhead" republicans (as they say in England), and I also don't think that all of you who voted Kerry are "kneejerk" liberals.

There are some important issues, however, and I think that they should be discussed. I think that it is counterproductive however for somebody like Coulter to gloat and widen the divide of america or for somebody like Paul Krugman to do what he did in his Post-election column and call the 51% of the electorate that voted Bush and increased the republican majority in the Legislature "stupid."

There is a reason why people vote Republican even when there are serious mistakes and problems from the policies that come from them. Those reasons should be understood. As Bill Clinton said today "lets stop whining and get to work"

By the way, I am very impressed with the way that Kerry conceeded even when all of his lawyers were poised to attack and sue. He was very graceful, and prevented further division and hatred from being spread. He should be credited for that.

Posted by Joe at Sun Nov 07 2004 03:13

BTW...Francis is right. There are some things that Bush does that isn't right with science. (cutting funding and programs, ignoring scientific counsel, etc)

But, during his term, he is on track to double the NIH budget by the year 2005. 2003 found the largest one-year increase in funding for all types of medical research ever in the history of the NIH comprising more than a 3.7 Billion dollar increase. Clinton did some good things, but the NIH was anemic by the time he left office and that is the veiw of most research scientist (blame it on congress.
>:(


[Main] [Edit]

© 2002-2010 Rachel Richardson.