Sweating bullets
I'd better come up with a game plan for the next four days, lest I lose what's left of my marbles. The anxiety level is rising, there's no question about it, and so setting limits on screen time and budgeting my attention are going to be essential.
Sports will provide the usual degree of distraction. I've got work to do. And there's always physical exercise. Maybe I'll set aside two one-hour slots a day for doom scrolling and dread, and try to limit it to that.
I don't expect any good news on the local front – Oregon, Portland, it's all pretty hopeless – but the federal government is what I'm actively worrying about. The biggest, baddest government in the world. It'll never be what I wanted it to be for the kids, but at least let it not descend further, into hell.
The angst certainly is not lessened by the Saturday print edition of the New York Times. I never thought I'd say it, but I can't support those people any more. They're behaving so badly, they don't deserve the money.
Trump inciting people to shoot Liz Cheney? It's on page 14, at the bottom:
But on page 1, we're reminded that it's all just an act, ha ha, that funny guy, he doesn't mean it.
Meanwhile, an exposé of the relentless stream of Republican lies gets buried on page 12, on a Saturday no less.
Whereas, above the fold on the front page, it's the economy, stupid, and MAGA's going to win on account of it.
You know what? I'm done with the editors who are doing this. They've been at it all year. Time out on that monthly credit card tapper.
Of course, saying you're going to cancel your subscription and actually canceling are two different things, but this time it feels pretty final. And so here's an early New Year's resolution: Come January 1, and before then if I can bring myself to pull the plug sooner, the blue plastic bags are going to be a thing of the past around here. I'll take the cat litter out to the garbage can in something else.
Don't want to be a told-ya-so type, but I gave up on the Times a long time ago. They are awful.
ReplyDeleteI thought I could rely on the Wa Post and used them as my go to, but now after their editorial fiasco, I am done with them as well. Double cancellation: e-subscription AND Amazon prime. I can wait an extra day for most deliveries and miss a football game a week. I simply will not be a consumer of the sludge they are dishing out.
I'll have to disagree here. Trump didn't advocate shooting Cheney. He said that people like Cheney who have never been in a battle find it too easy to support war. He said that, if she had ever had to face guns shooting at her, she might be more reluctant to support going to war.
ReplyDelete"She’s a radical war hawk," said Trump. "Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. Okay, let’s see how she feels about it. You know when the guns are trained on her face — you know, they’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in Washington in a nice building."
The Ds deliberately misconstrued this to mean he wanted Cheney to face a firing squad, but people facing firing squads don't have rifles in their hands.
When did Democrats become warmongers and Republicans become the pacifists? Why are we criticizing Trump for saying the same things that Viet Nam war opponents said 55 years ago?