dam the flood of gossip

I sort of deplore the way it seems "gossip" is being mainstreamed and "fed to" us as "news," which it isn't: and then last week, what stories did I read in NY Times on line? The silliest, most gossipy ones.

It's like a drug. Very bad for you. Me. (As Bridget Jones would put it, "V. bad."

Example: Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver getting divorce. Someone had sex. Blah blah blah. Why did I read that? Do I follow the careers / lives of these people? No I do not! Felt bad about self, reading that story. AND I read a bunch of the comments. Am awful person of weak intellect.

Do I care that they are Quote, End Quote, "splitting up"??
NO -!
None o' my business.
25 years is a long time to be married.
And -- am pretty sure they can afford "stuff" like liability insurance on their car
-- some of us have actual problems, the shrivers - schwarzeneggers - et. al. have Non-Problems and (tired of this word, but it is so apt) "dramas."
-------------------------------
Also -- it sort of seems like, as Shriver met with Oprah and all this, looks to me like she (Shriver) is set to have her own TV show and the Story Of Her Split attains public attention / sympathy / attention, which makes more $$$$$$$ for the show.

The only "story" I read last week sillier than the schwarz-shriv split was the bizarre predictions of World Ending -- or rather, all the "best people" were going to be, like, vacu-sucked up to heaven. Saturday.
I knew better. I knew most people don't believe that. I kept my plans for Sunday. So why did I read that story, when there were More Intelligent things to read? (Got vacu-sucked IN.)

Today, determined to read a news story that was Actual News and Not Dumb, I read a New York Times article:
"A Slice of Afghanistan Well Secured by Afghans." I think that was about my last "free" article for the month of May. (You only get 20 free ones per month, now.) It was worth it; feel somewhat better about self.

-30-