Today (and I don't think it will last very long) everyone is talking about Syria, but the reason just offered for a possible retreat by the west has begun with Britain's decision (for now anyway) not to get involved, before the debate even took place. Obama may go it alone, and I hope he does as it'll be his problem and possibly reduce his popularity among the idiot left supporters who are blind to his absolute agenda of evil. The fact it's almost certain the side Obama supports actually carried out the chemical attacks which he may use as a reason to attack the legitimate government is another marvellous potential nail in the coffin of his arrogance. Lateral thinking involves among other tricks reversing a situation to see how it would play out if that were the case. If you assume Obama or anyone else is the enemy of their citizens and using them to both destroy their country and hand it over to their opponents, then whatever actions they carried out can be seen to be consistent with similar agendas but include saying one thing but doing another. When you operate this mechanism and it works better when turned round you can be almost sure that is the actual situation. Try it with a few and you'll see how easily it does.
I personally aren't the least bit worried about Syria or any other tinpot bunch of savage bastards competing for the top position over all the other mafia tribes. The east-west hotline set up in 1963 after the Cuban Bay of Pigs incident has worked pretty well since, stopping any outside countries pitching in against the countries the west invaded for whatever reasons, and keeping each conflict within its borders. Why anyone thinks it would be any different over Syria is a mystery to me.
So that aside, I look at the news in general and continue to maintain the position it is filling space for the great majority of the time. Unlike our blogs, which expand and contract in relation to what is around to fill them, the news has a fixed slot every day and the papers have a number of pages to fill which people expect to have news in them whatever happened. So rather than replace some of the programmes or pages with cartoons, which most people would prefer anyway, they kill themselves either looking for it or making it up on quiet days. The general public are not discriminating enough to even notice most of the variations in quality, and treat surveys people are happiest in Elmbridge council on a par with the new royal baby. Or thereabouts. I do as well, I don't give a shit about either, but sadly most people do. I freely admit there are vast gaps in my life which the news used to tease at filling, but it's crap. Every few years like the lottery a decent story pops up, like the government finally making squatting illegal and Julia Gillard getting booted out recently. But the rest is no different from watching the activity during the day in the average office or school. The same disputes, accidents, intrigues and cliffhangers are part of all aspects of group dynamics, and world news simply trawls the large and small scale areas finding what they consider to be the most significant.
Then even when you whittle down the few decent stories then how many affect you directly? Certainly since the short time I let my flat in 1989 when the market crashed I doubt I'll ever have tenants again or would anyone in my family, but it's a moral situation and feel happy for all the previous victims unable to get into their own houses without waiting months and then having to pay to repair all the damage caused in the meantime. But no, it doesn't really affect me. Julia Gillard shows at least my discretion is not unique as enough other people could see the evil woman for what she was and kicked her out before she lost them the election, much like the way everyone can see what a useless piece of wet toilet roll Ed Miliband is. But it doesn't really affect me unless it means the other lot win Australia's next election and get rid of the carbon tax if they do, which again is closer to getting 5 numbers in the lottery. I expect one or two news items did help me over the last 53 years but I can't think of one besides giving us back the odd thing we had taken away from us, like the right to drive through the west of London without paying (which I still don't think I've needed to do since). And I expect the same applies to everyone. But the bad news usually affects me. Lowering interest rates, being in the EU, charging to drive through the centre of London which I did use a lot before, every carbon tax, and half the other stories. So you'd hope the good and bad news would even out, but in fact it's either bad and directly affects me or totally irrelevant. So the bottom line is I personally would be far better off not knowing any of it. I'd still pay the same massive taxes and earn the same fraction of what I ought to, but I wouldn't be reminded of it every day when they announce the interest rates won't go up for years and the carbon taxes are rising exponentially.
Gossip is personal news. What happens to friends and family, like being in a soap. Again, if you've got a friend with a lousy wife you can't stand (like Julia Gillard) and they finally split up, so bloody what, it doesn't help you- you didn't live with her or will benefit from not having to see her again if you even did that often while they were married. It's just filling in the same empty space I tried to fill looking for interesting news stories which never happened, the lives of those around you do not usually affect you or are any more or less interesting than any others or people at work, but fascinate most people far too much, even though if some bird you've fancied for ages finally splits up with her awful boyfriend it doesn't mean she'll go with you instead. Life is not a fairy story and carries on the same whether you are there or not, much like a real soap opera.
My personal addiction was grown on having no one to talk to on a very long term basis, so only the media was there to occupy my spaces on a constant basis. Unlike watching old films or random TV series at least it is not scripted and only partially predictable, so as it could directly affect me (even though 99% that did was negative) it became the best available drug. When anything almost kicks off (it seems far worse when things look like they may happen than the extremely rare times they actually do) it seems most people are also addicted as I was, and flood the radio with comments and opinions, even though they only know the tiny fraction the media chooses to let us know. Then most of the time nothing actually does happen and everyone goes back to whatever they were doing before until the next piece of garbage floats up from the depths of hell. I know I shouldn't do it, and no one else should either. If you didn't know what was going on would you notice? If not then you don't need to, and if you do then you would anyway. Probably best to wait till that happens but it's a bugger to avoid it if you decide to.