The morning paper

I would get out of bed around 10, go to the kitchen to heat instant coffee, and I would sit in a cream-colored wing chair in the living room and read the newspaper.

It was Houston, the ’80s and ’90s. I would be alone because my second wife would be at work by that hour. I think she and I lasted so long, almost 20 years, because we saw one another so rarely.

She worked days, and I worked nights. We even had separate bedrooms so I would not bother her hitting the sack in the middle of the night bringing a faint hint of Boodles gin, and she wouldn’t bug me with her rising and dressing at dawn.

We said hi mostly on weekends.

So there I would sit every weekday morning around 10. I would have hot instant, and I would read the newspaper, which was The Wall Street Journal. I subscribed because it’s a sensational newspaper, much more than business.

Since I moved below the Rio Bravo 12 years ago, I have not subscribed to a newspaper. I don’t think subscriptions are even available down here. You buy newspapers at newsstands like in the old-time movies.

You don’t even buy them from news racks because there are no news racks. News racks would get ripped off in a nanosecond.

So I’ve been getting morning news from the internet, primarily from Yahoo.  Most newspapers have websites now, and some are good. My old buddy, The Wall Street Journal, has a superlative website, but only a small part is free.

The print version, not available where I live, of course, is very pricy. The online version is only somewhat less so, and I am a tightwad sort of guy.

But I have surrendered and subscribed, and it’s like Old Home Week here on the second floor of the Hacienda every morning near dawn.

I am smart again. The coffee is still hot but better because it’s not instant. The view through the window is improved — the Sierra, not my suburban neighbor.

My snazzy office chair is nicer than the wing. And I am not alone because my child bride is downstairs baking cake, and I can say hi whenever it suits me.

15 thoughts on “The morning paper”

  1. Too bad WSJ is not available on your Kindle. I read my old hometown newspaper on mine each morning for less than $10 a month. But it is hardly a first class read.


    1. Steve: When I first bought my Kindle (I now have two! One for my wife, plenty of Spanish books available), I subscribed to a newspaper. I think it was the Christian Science Monitor. And I sampled others. It’s a lousy delivery method for newspapers. The Kindle works okay with magazines, but it’s really designed for books, and it excels at that.

      I think newspapers simply need more physical space to be satisfactory.


  2. Interesting choice of “papers” gents.. I luv the iPad, and enjoy USA today, the Guardian, the bbc world news, and the Irish Independent on a daily basis – and at no cost. Today gives overviews of the news, and if I desire in-depth coverage, I go to the other sources. I gave up my “hard-copy” paper last year, as I realized it was providing day old news… I still get good reporting, but in a newer format …..and one that I can adjust the print size!
    Dan in NC


    1. Dan: The WSJ has one of the largest circulations in the world, which tells you something. It’s top-shelf.

      I just looked at the USA Today website, and see they consider Tom Cruise’s upcoming divorce front-page news. You won’t find that fluff in the WSJ, much less as a top story. Strange you should mention The Guardian. I actually have that one bookmarked, as well as The Los Angeles Times. I invariably find myself getting my panties in a twist due to the baldfaced leftward, politically correct slant they give any story that can possibly be slanted. I guess they think it’s subtle, but it’s more likely that their mindset is such that it’s simply taken for granted that everyone thinks their way. I don’t accept their premises.

      I think it was The Guardian and The LA Times that finally made me throw up my hands and cough up the big bucks to subscribe to a real newspaper.

      As for the BBC, don’t get me started.



    2. PS: The Guardian actually deleted a comment I left on a news story once for no other reason than it did not parrot their world view. I emailed them to point out that their comment guidelines said they embraced contrary views. Never got a reply. Big surprise there.


    1. Voz: I have put the proverbial demon rum, using the phrase loosely, behind me. In real life, I was more a Plymouth man than a Boodles fellow. I just like the way the word Boodles sounds, and I did buy Boodles now and then.

      Plymouth, you may not know, was the preferred gin of Travis McGee, the dashing fictional fellow invented by the late John D. MacDonald.


  3. So far, I’ve managed to get plenty of news for free via Google news, and the free bits of sites like WSJ, NYT, FT, and others. I last subscribed to a paper at home some time in the mid-90s, but dealing with throwing it all out was a terrific nuisance.

    Given the quantity of free news available, I find it remarkable that there’s still so much of it, particularly of the low-quality “me too” variety.

    But I agree with you on the WSJ. It’s a fine paper, though the opinion pages lean a bit wacky in my view.


    Kim G
    DF, Mexico
    Where we are maintaining a lively debate as to whether the presidential election was rigged or not.


    1. Kim: The WSJ opinion pages are quite wise, hardly wacky.

      Speaking of wacky, I’m sure your Mexico City buds think the election was stolen yet again from their demagogue AMLO who is, characteristically, refusing to admit somebody else won.

      Fact is that since somewhere roundabouts the year 2000 Mexico has had one of the more honest voting systems in the world.


  4. Very happy to be able to read the newspapers online. No more ink all over my hands, and the disposing of those huge pages that would end up all over the house, is no more. NYT and WSJ are a joy, and a variety of reads they have. If I want more entertainment there are plenty of others to goggle or giggle.


    1. Laurie: You continue to show your smarts. I recall that when Rupert Murdoch bought the WSJ, lots of folks thought it would go straight to hell. But it didn’t.


  5. Yup! WSJ the best for as long as I can remember. I am amazed that the L.A. Times is still in business – get better news from Yahoo (and that is NOT saying much!)


Comments are closed.