I get a lot of news online, but I still love to read real newspapers, too.
For one thing, you can physically flip pages with gusto to show your contempt for what some editor thought should be holding your interest.
I do it when I’m online, too, even on my iPhone, where I tap something into oblivion. But in terms of tactile satisfaction, flipping can beat tapping, at least for people born before the country turned into a sex-obsessed, Tim Burton nightmare celebrity blowout.
Anyway, after consuming a couple of real newspapers (The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal) each morning, and seeing what’s new on Townhall, I peruse The Washington Post, which never fails to spark spirited flipping, which also saves time.
Recently, I especially liked flipping past the sentimental pieces about the squatters and their love lives at the Occupy Wall Street trash dump that the cops finally swept away at McPherson Square, only two blocks from the White House. I also enjoy, almost daily, skipping past goo-goo articles that run on for pages about some new plan to “save” public education.
Reading the Post is like wading through weeds in a neglected garden. You can find some real news and information springing up like wildflowers, and even some good writing from the likes of Charles Krauthammer or George Will, but you have to plow through acres of PC articles and some trash. I really don’t care about Snooki’s weird cravings.
Last Sunday’s edition showed why sensible people read the Post with a grain of salt at the ready. Some might even keep a roll of Tums handy, but I do not, since I am made of stern stuff.
The Outlook opinion section, which occasionally features a genuine conservative but more often features fake conservatives who trash their peers, had a half-page article about Ronald Reagan on the day before the Gipper’s 101st birthday: “What would Ronald Reagan do? Who cares.”
The subhead said: “Reagan advisor Bruce Bartlett says the GOP candidates should get over Reaganomics.”
Well, everyone has a different way of celebrating Mr. Reagan’s considerable achievements. The Post’s way is to give space to a now apparently disgruntled former Reaganite who assures us that Mr. Reagan’s historic economic boom was time-bound and “not appropriate today…. Those who say otherwise are engaging in cookie-cutter economics….”