Something else to be curious about.

Wars on multiple fronts are historically a bad idea, so why conduct a trade war that way? The fields targeted (in some cases literally) include technology and agriculture - among other things, but these are the two I'm looking at in particular here. IP theft has been named as a reason for tech tariffs on one side, but I was wondering why agricultural tariffs have been used against the other. One particular article I caught mentioned that farm subsidies were being used to benefit those who own the farms, in some cases wealthy landowners who were linked to those creating the subsidies, rather than the people who actually work the farms. How much coverage has there been on that in comparison to the knee-jerk gasp-shun stuff?

It's difficult not to be affected, but this sort of coverage might be more effective if it hadn't already been done before. When emotional outbursts and insults in cap-toothed smiles and petty issues are the stuff that gets more news coverage, it makes it difficult to see anything but the worst. (This is a dated example, but it's the one that always comes to mind - airing complaints about gun control, but prioritizing an entertainer's DUI over a discussion on legislation regarding gun control.)

Using a more contemporary example, while I want to believe that a wealthy man is using his money to create a positive impact, and while I also agree that he should be the one to make the choice on how he does so, I've seen enough of emotion on the news to be skeptical to the point of cynical at seeing his.

Curiosity may have killed the cat, but I'd rather go with something more constructive than the various forms of shooting up.