This does remind of a habit I developed during the Vietnam War.
If I read the news, my blood pressure would go up, I’d grind my teeth, and I’d suffer from all the effects of anger and stress. But if I didn’t read anything, my life would continue on its pleasant way, and the idiocy would all happen anyway.
This is a policy I’ve followed ever since.
Grikath
3 years ago
Wouldn’t it more be like: “And I have no doubt my Opinion is biased, and my Twitter timeline heavily censored curated,”
dearieme
3 years ago
@BB: looking back I’m mildly surprised how little about the Vietnam War was explained in the British papers.
Plenty of reporting about the war itself, some of which might well have been true. But what had happened since, say, 1945 to bring it about – very little. I can see that JFK’s mutton-headed contribution would be downplayed once he’d become a secular saint, but why was so much more suppressed?
For instance, just one detail – why did I not learn about “McNamara’s Morons” until decades afterwards? All very strange.
Dennis, Inconveniently Noting Reality
3 years ago
The fact that he’s paying attention to a Twitter account tells you he’s a jerkoff.
People with real lives and real jobs don’t have time for Twitter.
BniC
3 years ago
Agree the history of the Vietnam war has been shady, some more light on the role of the French would be a start
Wonko the sane
3 years ago
do you think he ever has nagging doubts?
Can you help support The Blog?
If you can spare a few pounds you can donate to our fundraising campaign below. All donations are greatly appreciated and go towards our server, security and software costs. 25,000 people per day read our sites and every penny goes towards our fight against for independent journalism. We don't take a wage and do what we do because we enjoy it and hope our readers enjoy it too.
Can you help support The Blog??
If you can spare a few pounds you can donate to our fundraising campaign below. All donations are greatly appreciated and go towards our server, security and software costs. 25,000 people per day read our site and every penny goes towards our fight for free and fair journalism. We don’t take a wage and do what we do because we enjoy it and hope our readers enjoy it too.
This does remind of a habit I developed during the Vietnam War.
If I read the news, my blood pressure would go up, I’d grind my teeth, and I’d suffer from all the effects of anger and stress. But if I didn’t read anything, my life would continue on its pleasant way, and the idiocy would all happen anyway.
This is a policy I’ve followed ever since.
Wouldn’t it more be like: “And I have no doubt my Opinion is biased, and my Twitter timeline heavily
censoredcurated,”@BB: looking back I’m mildly surprised how little about the Vietnam War was explained in the British papers.
Plenty of reporting about the war itself, some of which might well have been true. But what had happened since, say, 1945 to bring it about – very little. I can see that JFK’s mutton-headed contribution would be downplayed once he’d become a secular saint, but why was so much more suppressed?
For instance, just one detail – why did I not learn about “McNamara’s Morons” until decades afterwards? All very strange.
The fact that he’s paying attention to a Twitter account tells you he’s a jerkoff.
People with real lives and real jobs don’t have time for Twitter.
Agree the history of the Vietnam war has been shady, some more light on the role of the French would be a start
do you think he ever has nagging doubts?