Once again, I chose not to go to church this morning. Though I feel reasonably good this morning, the fact that my chemotherapy side-effects could blossom at any moment (coupled with advice to minimize social situations that could expose me to infections) suggests I should not attend. I had hoped to be able to watch the service online, but the last word I heard about streaming was that it is temporarily unavailable. Such is life. I might opt to sleep, instead. Last night, for the first time in a great while, I did not sleep well at all. I was awake for at least half the night; maybe more. My napping time has declined quite a lot in the last several days, as well. I will bring this (lack of sleep) up during my next visit with my oncologist.
+++
Is it healthier, mentally, for a person to worry about a large array of issues or to limit concern to just a few (assuming, for the moment, that worry is not a bad thing)? My thinking on the matter is that a large array of issues might lessen the strength of individual concerns, thereby reducing the stress caused by worry. But the reverse may be just as likely to be true: the more matters one worries about, the the greater the anxiety one must combat. My worries seem to sweep into my mind in waves; some with numerous concerns, some with just a few overwhelming issues. Lately, my few issues are: the upcoming presidential election (and its potential to spark massive problems, no matter the result); my own cancer; and my sense that the decay of compassion in the human species may be irreversible. When the number of matters grows, it grows exponentially: the food supply; poverty; Christian nationalism; homelessness; culture wars; the existence of Fox News; military actions and military wars; forest fires; highway safety; inflation; collapsing infrastructure; climate change; dozens of concerns about specific other people…the list could go on for days and days. I realize, of course, the near-universal advice is don’t worry because, unless one can do something about the matter, worry is pointless. But that is far easier said than done. And maybe my question is nonsensical. No matter, it’s still something I think (or worry) about.
+++
Increasingly, reading through online English-language newspapers and other news sources based in other countries disappoints me. Though not an everyday habit, I like to at least skim a few headlines from England, Germany, Iceland, China, the Middle East, Canada, Mexico, etc. If the headlines suggest I might learn something interesting or valuable that I would be unlikely to learn from domestic sources, I read the article. There was a time no so long ago that I learned quite a bit about those countries’ domestic issues and their published perspectives on world events. During the past few years, though, many international news sources focus very heavily on US news, with domestic matters receiving considerably less attention. I wonder whether a global collapse of traditional journalism is contributing to this change or whether other factors are bringing about the transformation? Perhaps the sources I follow are adjusting to a English-speaking centric readership whose interests focus on the U.S.? If only I could read and understand other languages, I might find completely different information and opinions; the sort of stuff I have always enjoyed reading. Lately, though, I feel I am being fed limited, oddly parochial information—no matter the source—that has a very narrow, US slant. Our thinking about globally relevant matters is far more valuable, I believe, if we analytically and critically process information delivered from multiple sources—with different perspectives. Judgments still must be made as to the likely veracity of the information stream, but at least reading several viewpoints gives us opportunities to choose on the basis of various inputs.
+++
I should shower this morning. And I will…well, sometime today. Maybe I will skin an alligator, as well.
Yes, Bev…1 day prior and 2 days after. I’ll have to explore other news sources…mine have gotten stale.
Do they give you 2 or 3 days of steroids of some kind to take before your chemo? Also, they usually run some steroids before they do the chemo to protect you from adverse effects. If so, that usually increases appetite on and for a few days after, but also can create sleeplessness and, for some people, make them a bit wired.
Yes, as Wordsworth wrote: The world is too much with us. I guess I’m past the worrying about it stage, but I’m still paying plenty of attention — or at least recording observations and inputting them into nature databases.
As for America-centric news. It probably does have a lot to do with which publications you are viewing. There are some Canadian online news sources where America’s affairs rarely raise a blip, but if you read the National Post or the Globe and Mail (both catering to readership with capitalistic concerns), you’ll find plenty of news slanted toward whatever is happening in the United States. I expect that’s the same for mainstream media in other countries around the world.