Slow service, slow shipping, ubiquitous 'Now Hiring' signs, etc.

[jpmist]

I did raise an eyebrow seeing this post as I'd forgotten we had a "public square" type subforum and I had to laugh seeing it was a 2 year post-Covid thread. As folks are chiming in I'll add my own 4¢ (inflation . . .)

Covid was such a dramatic event in the lives of every single person on the planet that it's effects are still reverberating and will for a while. So eager to prevent the economy from seizing, our Federal debt skyrocketed past the point where even the supposed fiscal conservative party have no practical ideas on how to even start addressing. We've gotten away with it this long because the US dollar is the world's reserve currency, there is no shortage of demand for US debt.

Prior to 2020, corporate CEO's were specializing in off-shoring manufacturing and "just in time" inventory management, and boy did that not work out well due to supply line seizures. Many of the issues we have now spring from the Covid era, inflation, heightened political drama, work from home, loss of confidence in medical science, a flood of questionable sources of "news" etc.

For an event dramatic enough to have stopped all economic commerce for weeks Covid bears little discussion now, - possibly because what's there to say? And who would be a position to say it since all our former respected institutions are no longer. This would be the opportunity for a wise charismatic political leader to rise from the ashes to unify us and get us all on the same page to work together to fix what's broken. I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

[Silence Dogood]

On raising an eyebrow, etc...  It is never my intent to stir the pot or try and get political, etc. 

As far as someone "uniting people" goes,  I don't believe that's possible in this cultural climate at this point.  There are too many trigger issues that make people stop (or start) listening anytime they are broached.  The media has done such a truly wonderful job (on both sides) overly sensitizing people that I'm not sure the average person would even want to "unite." We are at the place now where people with another viewpoint aren't just different, they are seen as evil.

I'll give you a personal story to show how nuts all this can get.  My wife and I were at a local microbrew a while back, just sitting there minding our own with some friends.  My wife had on a t-shirt with the names of some podcast hosts on it, but it was made to look like one of those candidate shirts.  A young women down from us finally chimed in and said, "I just have to know what's on your t-shirt..."  My wife stretched out the front and showed her.  The woman then said, "Oh, ok!  I thought it said (you can guess whose name she said), and if it did I was going to move to another table..."  So if my wife had this fellow's name on her shirt, it was going to bother this woman to the point of moving to another table (this place has large picnic tables).  That's where we are at.  Good luck "uniting" people like that. 
    

[StringPicker6]

As long as people choose to get their news from social media, and as long as Russia, China and Iran keep up their psychological operations in social media, I don't things can improve much. We need Walter Cronkite back!

[mike in lytle]

As long as people choose to get their news from social media,

Just curious.... where do you choose to get your news? Please let us know, so we can avail ourselves from those sources as well as all the others that are available.
Mike

[StringPicker6]

One place I've found that seems to have the most unbiased news reporting is www.reuters.com

British, I believe, and good world news coverage without a political party slant.

[jpmist]

One place I've found that seems to have the most unbiased news reporting is www.reuters.com

British, I believe, and good world news coverage without a political party slant.

I'll offer the following link for two charts that rate media bias of many large news outlets

https://www.mediabiasmap.com

I kinda favor the "Ad Fontes" chart on the left that shows AP and Reuters dead center as well as WSJ slightly right. "Allsides" has the WSJ news dead center which I'd call arguable. Certainly the WSJ editorial page isn't dead center but I can't help but suspect the editors have a conservative bias concerning news.

I often ponder if the lack of a shared narrative of how the society works is worse now than it ever has been, but then we had a civil war a century ago where no one was on the same page then either.

[jpmist]

On raising an eyebrow, etc...  It is never my intent to stir the pot or try and get political, etc.

LOL (as the kids say) you write that as if it were a bad thing. Flip that up side down and perhaps it's that no one's views being challenged might be the bad thing. I can't help but think that if the most vigorous supporters of either candidate were fact-checked on why they support their candidate they would get quite a few "facts" wrong.

But your second point got me thinking about an online article I came across that made the argument that the post WW2 era of politicians were the most sober and conscientious in recent history as many had observed or experienced the trauma of a World War with so many deaths at the hands of lunatic foreign leaders. There was a greater level of responsibility and mutual respect in Congress then that we'll never have again as those politicians have aged out.

[Silence Dogood]

"The news" has been mentioned. 

I realize I'm likely in the minority, but I don't read/watch/listen to/consume "the news" anymore and haven't in well over a decade.  No matter what happens, I still end up finding out (even if I didn't want to) and it turns out I haven't missed a thing. 

I have made some observations about this and concluded that I still ended up knowing "what's going on" but without the anxiety/angst/frustration that often accompanied reading the news.  So much of the news is about what might/could/very well may happen vs. what actually has happened.  The might/could stuff is the part that stresses people out (and what gets them hooked and keeps them coming back).

Example: "the pandemic" breaks out and it's not enough to report about the thing itself, because that's not really want people wanted to know.  They wanted to know what might/could/will likely happen.  So then the news folks start talking about how many might die, get seriously ill, who is more at risk, etc, etc, etc.  And when most of that turns out to be hogwash, we are already onto the next "thing." 

Another topic: some war breaks out.  It's not enough to say what happened, but people want to know what will happen next and that's where the news folks really do their thing again.  On and on it goes, and on any given topic. 

So over the years, I have ended up just seeing what's happening and how I am to face it, rather than endlessly speculating on what's coming up next, etc. 

"Hey, there's no TP in the store."  "Ok, we will figure it out." "Hey, so and so just bombed so and so, and thus WWIII is about to begin."  "OK, I guess I'll wait and see."  Etc, etc.  There is really nothing for me to do about any of these things save just deal with them if they land in my lap. And that has always and ever been the truth.  So why should I worry over some future trouble or disaster scenario, which is really what fuels the entire industry of the news? 

Someone will likely chime in there (here I go prognosticating too!) and talk about the value of being prepared, "informed," etc.  Ok, I'll give you that, and if that's what you enjoy doing, I'd be the last person to stop you from doing it.  But for me it has proved to have mostly no value.  Life just ends up being life, and always has.   

The bottom line for me with the news is: Who gets to decide what is "the news?" Who gets to direct everyone's gaze to this or that story?  And why should I care about most of that (because most times I don't)?