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….”
This contrasts with the Washington Times’ Commentary section the next day, which ran three pro-Reagan pieces on its front page, two of which summarized the new report about Mr. Reagan’s economic and domestic policies from the Carleson Center for Public Policy titled “The Reagan Resolve.” One of them, by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, reminded us that Mr. Reagan succeeded because he applied timeless economic principles.
Getting back to the Sunday Post, the Metro section had a four-column, color photo feature on – what else – the Post’s favorite “cause.” The photo was of two lesbians raising children, and the story was about the District of Columbia’s plunge into miseducating schoolchildren in the name of stopping bullying. The headline over the photo was, appropriately: “Redefining Family.”
If that wasn’t enough of a shot at marriage, an article from Slate in the Post’s business section was headlined: “How a boom in divorces could boost the economy.”
The writer, Matthew Yglesias, made the case that a recovering economy will lead to more marital break-ups as couples feel they can afford to get a divorce. Others might lament this collateral damage from prosperity, but not Mr. Yglesias. Here’s his last paragraph:
“And each new household carries with it not just a home, but appliances, furniture and other durable goods. An income boost, in other words, could create a wave of household formation that drives nationwide incomes even higher. That’s why I, at least, will be rooting for more marriages to fail in 2012.”
Oh happy days.
Going back to Outlook, the lead article was: “Romney is the right’s cup of tea after all.”
Mind you, this was before Rick Santorum’s decisive victories two days later in Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota. But before that reality check, writer Theda Skocpol was able to assure us that “the former governor is the tea party’s stealth candidate.”
Somebody had better tell the Tea Party who the Post thinks should be their favorite candidate, because they don’t seem to have gotten the memo.
Now, please excuse me. I have to wash some ink off my fingers and roll up a certain paper for use in the fireplace. Ah. That’s more like it.
NYT Editoral Board: The Indictment Against Rick Perry "Appears" to be "Overzealous" | Daniel Doherty