You know how people are. They can't stand to see you be exactly who you are.

 Six more days. Less than a week. Is it getting dumber? Yes, yes it is.

 I think it's time I do a little more explaining on how I approach the News. For what it's worth, for the Gibberish - this here - I do whatever I damn well please. Anyhow, when picking sources for links, my only rule is if it's a local story, try to use a local link. Otherwise, go nuts. There are a couple of far-right sources I won't mess with because anything useful they might provide will come from someone not skirting libel laws. But as far as it goes, Fox News or The Wall Street Journal is just as good as MSNBC or The Washington Post to make my point, and there's little intrinsic difference in The Daily Beast or Politico.

 I trust you to wade through whatever bias there is because as I've said a number of times before, every news source has a bias and anyone that claims not to is lying. Impartiality is a goal to strive for, sure, but in the real world, it's almost impossible out of stock quotes or box scores. That's just how it is. Even at the very bottom, every news source is a business trying to make rent, so there'll be bias there. And hell, that's probably the strongest bias there is.

 The same goes for partisanship. Back in the day when your average city had half-a-dozen daily publications, most of them wore their partisanship on their sleeves. The election of a particularly controversial official might spawn three or four new rags all by itself. So long as they acknowledge the partisanship - or at least wear it close enough to their sleeve that it makes no difference - I have no problem with it. Again, I trust my readers to be able to see past the partisanship. News doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's not like the speed of light.

 By that same token, I don't put much stock in names. When I was a baby journalist, sure, there were reporters I took far too seriously. And, sure, there are folks I like to read because they're good writers. But most of the journalists I follow because of the beat they're on, like David Neiwert on white nationalism or Greg Palast on voting rights. The rest? Well, your heroes will always, always let you down usually through no fault of their own, just because they're human. I mean, I admit to my admiration of Hunter Thompson's skill as a wordsmith and the way he approached the job, but I know enough to not take him too seriously.

 Now, I said all that to say all this. The big kerfuffle on Twitter today - or one of them anyway - was the split between Glenn Greenwald and the publication he helped to found, The Intercept. Apparently, it's over the mag's disinclination to take the Hunter Biden laptop pseudo-story as given while like the overall narrative that sometimes the big-time media's selectiveness in what it chooses to cover is to the detriment of the public. Here's The Intercept's take and since I can't find Greenwald's take, here's one from fellow traveler Matt Taibbi.

 Before we get too deep in the weeds here, I have to say I really don't give much of a shit about Glenn Greenwald. He's won a Pulitzer, good for him. I read his blog back during the Iraq War days on a fairly regular basis and he was good on that beat. I cooled towards him as the decade wore on, mainly because he had such a hard-on for Ron Paul, a man I've considered a pseudo-fascist con man and just another political dirtbag for going on 20 years. If that upsets you, tough titty, it's not up for debate.

 I dropped out of things halfway through the Obama administration, so by the time I got back to politics in general and Twitter in specific, around 2016 or so, Greenwald for all intents and purposes seems to have morphed completely into a tweet-feud champion. I think the first time he drifted back across my radar was his first appearance on Tucker Carlson's show. Carlson is not only a complete joke and a rotten human being, he's a white supremacist in the "lapdog for billionaires" mode. It was said Greenwald only went on his show because no one else would take him, but that doesn't speak highly. Again, this is not up for debate, and you're welcome to cry more about it.

 So I am obviously not "unbiased" about this and I'm not claiming to be. But I'm not expressing the outright glee a lot of folks on Twitter are at this news. Again, I really don't think the particulars are important much less interesting, the whos and the whats. What I do think is worth discussing is Greenwald's claim he's being censored, and that is incredibly stupid.

 What he's being is "edited" and that's part of the gig. It's being said he had a clause that no one could edit his stuff and that is, well, fucking stupid and disastrous for a writer. Really, for any creative endeavor, not having someone in the process with the swing to say "hey, let's think about this first" runs the danger of choking to death on the smell of your own farts. Doug Sahm's best music was made when Jerry Wexler was at the helm, for example.

 I won't lie, when I was a baby journalist I hated being edited for content. Especially when I wasn't involved in the process, it used to drive me nuts. But the older and wiser Matt understands that having an editor helps make things better and more focused. God knows, this stuff tends to ramble on and would probably be better with someone reading behind me.

 If that's true, though, it's pretty sad as Greenwald is 53. Furthermore, any claims of him being "censored" when by all appearances he quit on his own does little more than damage actual claims of real censorship, like when a state government prohibits its staff from talking about climate change or the federal government makes demands on Voice of America to pump up the Trump Administration.

 Best I can gather, Glenn wasn't forced out. He quit and the folks at The Intercept told him not to let the door hit him in the ass. Sort of like when Bari Weiss quit The New York Times op-ed staff in a huff, no one was all that bothered she wouldn't be in the office Monday morning. There's undoubtedly a lot of office politics going on here that's finally bubbling up, but I don't think it's really important and I really don't care.

 What this all boils down to is whatever censorship is, it is emphatically not "people disagreeing with you." Because you decide to quit a gig that won't let you do whatever the hell you want without any criticism, it doesn't mean you were "forced out." And people who disagree with aren't necessarily doing it because they're "neoliberal shills," they may simply think you've shat the bed once too often to be taken seriously anymore. Just how it goes, buckaroo.

 That's all of that, I think. Billy Joe Shaver died this week and that's a bummer. Johnny Bush died last week and that's a bummer. Otis is going through his nightly freak out and it's making my blood pressure spike. Where it goes from there, nobody knows.

All is not lost, it is only mistaken. That's small consolation, but I know just how you feel.

 The internet's dropping in and out again. Hasn't done this all week after Momma got the new modem from the telephone company. She thinks it's due to the heat, and hell, I don't know, it might be. It's in the high 80s outside and fairly humid.

 Anyhow, I got the screen open, so we can do what we do. I can always add links or look up stuff later. Since I'm remembering it this weekend, let's take a lot at what we saw with the News this week.

Monday

Wednesday

Friday

 I'm particularly proud of Friday's offering, a fairly deep dive into the Breeona Taylor execution. Another black person murdered because white shooters had to kill someone, another cover-up by local law, and another killing that went unknown for months until social media raised hell about it. This time, however, the killing was done by the local police in the most murderously Barney Fife way possible. They thought they were hitting a drug den which was actually 10 miles away, searching for a suspect who was already in custody.

 Check out the piece and keep your eye on this one. Wingnuts may raise Cain about how their First Amendment rights are being trampled because they can't post Nazi propaganda on Facebook or gun losers think it's perfectly natural and sane to go to Starbucks loaded for bear, but if the Fourth Amendment gets anymore tattered, none of that will matter. There is definitely a racist element, sure, and the American people as a whole are far too generous to cops who kill the wrong black person when killing anyone wasn't necessary. But if we as a culture keep giving authoritarians more and more leeway, we're going to wake one day wondering how that boot got on our neck.

 Governmental authoritarianism is nothing new. Once nations started actually becoming nations rather than kingdoms, their governments felt the need to keep a close eye on the populace, for good or ill. It is what it is. Read your Roman history. Read about John Dee. Read about the development of the Chinese Empire. I don't know how much we'd fight it, either, as we all carry locator beacons in our pockets as a part of the super computers and Hitchhiker's Guides. Hell, I'm using Google to look up some of this stuff, and they've long since given up on the whole "don't be evil" thing.

 As an aside, I don't fret too much about the "surveillance state", either from the government or Corporate America. I don't like it and know it can be abused, and it is, but I don't have to worry about it. I'm a straight white male, I'm good. I hope the System comes crashing down, but figure since it will do it to itself anyway, there's nothing I can really do to help. But the main reason is I don't think I should have to hide what I say or think from anyone. There's nothing I do that needs to be hidden, I feel. Not my love of mind-altering substances or flirtations with anarchism, I don't see any of that as anything to be ashamed of. The law changes, as the Good Doctor said, but I don't feel I have to.

 Well. I've reached word count. During my constitutional, I thought about writing about the corporate press, the mainstream media, and why most people who complain about it really don't know what they're talking about. I don't really feel like doing a deep dive now, but in a nutshell, the mainstream, big corporate press - CNN, the networks, The New York Times, even the big-time websites like Slate or Politico - are all owned by rich people or groups of rich people who incorporate themselves. Most of them are worth ridiculous amounts of money themselves. CNN is worth about five billion dollars, and Fox recently sold assets to Disney for $71 billion.

 These companies and people have a vested interest in keeping the Status Quo. That is, whatever societal changes (you think) they promote, the cold, hard economics of things aren't meant to change. That's how they got rich and how they get richer; they're not going to change that. If you honestly think CNN or the Times wants to destroy capitalism, you are a goddamn moron. Ted Turner might have wanted to change the world for (what he thinks is) the better, but he doesn't own CNN anymore.

 This is reality, but people don't want to acknowledge it and that's where the problem comes. Everything about it makes much more sense if you can recognize that little bit of wisdom and keep it in mind when using the media. It's easy to rage at Maggie Haberman and her limp approach to the Trump Administration, but her job and The New York Times' mission isn't shaking up the Status Quo. They are the Status Quo, just as Trump is, and both of them have a vested interest in keeping the gravy train going. The mainstream press is still useful, just keep that in mind.

 So, one of these days I'll get deeper into it. I keep saying that about a number of things but I haven't yet. That being said, I would totally do it if someone wants to pay me. I'm getting pretty good at deep dives to explain things, especially when I'm getting paid. Just something to think about. Just putting it out there.

Look how far I had to come to get back where I started from.

 Another programming note. I have some more Actual Paying Work due tomorrow. It's going to take a little research and thought, more so than the usual APW takes. So, I might not get past this before the night's out. The sleeping situation's been a booger and I just don't have the energy.

 Not a whole lot to get into anyway, stuff that won't go to the News. If this pace keeps up, I may have to pick a day to take a break. Probably one of the weekend days. In any event, Otis is fussing so we'd better hit the road. If I come back to this, I'll come back to this.

UPDATE: 7 P.M.

 Well, the walk was pleasant, although Otis doesn't appreciate it. He'll take a quick nap and thinks he's ready to go on another one. He'll stand at the door and cry like he's being beat. I appreciate that he enjoys the little constitutionals but it can be very annoying indeed.

 I've yet to start on the APW apart from doing a bit of research, saving some links and outlining in my head where I'm going with this. Long story short, I'm doing a COVID-19 update blog for a law firm in another state, which is about as interesting as this gets. Still, I enjoy it and it's a challenge to do it straight. That is, no smart-ass remarks, just uncut journalism. I keep telling the Bossman that it helps to have someone else's thumb on things.

 I've been waiting on supper to get done, which is why I haven't actually started the work. I hate to be interrupted when I'm working on a piece. It just completely throws me out of whack. I never developed good outlining habits, though, so even the smallest disruption could ruin the whole thing. The other problem is I've smoked my memory to hell, so unless I write it down it is gone. I'm getting better at it, though it's always been an issue. It's like never learning how to properly type, which I never did. I can hunt-and-peck like a beast, but that has its downsides.

 Okay, supper's done. Again, maybe I'll come back to this and maybe I won't.

UPDATE: 10:20 P.M.

 Well, that's that. Done with the update and when my brain cools down, I'll give it the going-over. I'm just under 400 words with this, so let's see if we can't finish it off.

 I'm sure we've all seen the daily Trump Dump where he asked if maybe using disinfectant or UV lights could get rid of COVID-19, all the while claiming super-genius status. Amusingly, the base didn't wait 30 minutes before claiming "that's not what he meant" before moving onto "he was just asking questions," apparently not realizing there's a time and a place for that which isn't in front of a national audience. It's merely latest in a long line of rock-stupid shit said by a rock-stupid man who's never been told he's rock stupid or had to suffer for it. And if anyone's surprised the Base is defending this and insisting that he is indeed a super genius, well, you haven't been paying attention the past three years.

 There is nothing that will shake them loose. Nothing. Give up. They're a lost cause. All the Trump voters who're going to peel off by November are long gone and even there most of them will vote for the dingbat because Joe Biden is a socialist or some dumb shit.

 I will defend the media, though. A bit, anyway. "Why do the networks keep showing this?" Because he's the president and that's their job. That's what "reporting" is, repeating what important people say. Is it a drag that they don't do more fact checking? Yeah, it is, but at the same time that's really not the job, not at that level.

 Some people should be fact checking the dopey bastard and people are. Daniel Dale, for example, has been doing a superlative job reporting on Trump's dopiness and why it's all horseshit. Another thing to keep in mind is the media at that level - the networks, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. - are owned by either extremely rich individuals or business concerns that are made up of extremely rich individuals. They have a vested interest in keeping the Status Quo and for all his dopiness, Trump does not threaten that. He might be a danger to its stability, but he's making the same money they are.

 It's the height of naivety to believe the ownership doesn't have influence on the in-the-trenches reporting. That's just a fact no matter how much we try to pretend it isn't. The Deadspin business last year when they canned all those writers for, and let's be honest, their political opinions not meshing with the bosses' should be the final word on that. I never was a reader but all reports say the rejuvenated Deadspin is less than zippy. But they're not going to buck the bosses, I bet you.

 That's just life and it is a booger. It's also one of the reasons I'll never go back to straight journalism. I've dealt with that shit more than once in almost every publication I've worked for, and it's not always been my fault. As I've said, I do consider what I do at the WordPress site anyway as "journalism". And as much as I'm soured working for them, the ongoing slow death of newspapers isn't something I enjoy seeing. I don't care about networks, for what it's worth, because I've never had much truck with them.

 Anyhow, we're pushing midnight and this is plenty. XCOM: Chimera Squad is released tomorrow and I'll probably pick it up before the weekend's out. I've read a few reviews which have, for the most part, been okay. It's a different beast than the first two games, but that's fine. I'm also thinking of picking up The Long Journey Home, which looks to have a neat premise. Need to do some more research first.