Who Dunnit?

 When I turn on the radio news or podcasts or whatever cute new terms are used for what some journalistic formats do to entertain and inform us, I hear little but blaming. It's rampant blame aimed at governments, institutions, businesses and so forth. Few of the blamers, appear to see that, clearly, they or their acts or lack of them, caused the situation over which they grieve.  Most of the time, they seek monetary retribution and sue to get it. Few are successful. We all see this happening daily, and one would think that journalists would, too, but they don't. They are journalists, and will continue to milk a situation far beyond reason. Often times, boredom forces listeners and readers to segue off. It's what media does to make its living. Today, however, too many of this cut, are going beyond what their profession calls for. The longer their story makes the "page" the longer they will find any way to keep it there. But we who listen to, or read the news stories, perhaps, as you, are becoming adept at simply switching off what we're bored with. Click and it's gone. Logic and reason come first, when I peruse text or listen to a broadcaster spouting off a story most of not written by themselves but an intern or fellow.  Often times, the interview is largely controlled by the interviewer, not the interviewee. The interviewer sets in all the information and hypes it, while the person on the other side of the mike, nods or speaks a yes or no.  Now,  it's true that we all have natural human sympathy for  persons suffering difficult problems, but perhaps, as you, I want them to see that they, in fact, are part of what they complain  about. Somewhere along the line, they made a decision or choice, that caused, in part or whole, the harmful outcome. Why don't we hear that side?  One of the recent examples of this is the idea that if a certain label is posted on an item, it will save lives. How many of us read an entire label and adhere to its advice? We take what we want over what we should. It's being human and making choices. In this case about the label, reason and logic, for applying the label, we are told will save one's life. The theory is not true, scientifically. The theorist claims it is, but doesn't appear to have any definitive authority in such claim. In an attempt to send a comment to this individual reminding him of  his error he tried to argue back by annihilating  his own case. In short, I was right and his logistical reasons worked wholly against his own ideas. I won. I could almost hear the judge banging down the gavel. Case closed. Unfortunately, this theorist, didn't hear that sound and won't, but will continue ranting on the dangers of this certain item and that putting a warning label on the very popular product, will stop people from using it, thus it will save lives. Absolutely untrue. His theory is that if A does B, then B is A. Or, if an orange is a fruit, then an apple, also a fruit, is an orange. That sort of thing. The man who presents this theory, is dead wrong in terms of actual science, but he refuses to accept the fact due to his passions. I congratulate his motivation because it's very boldness, does hold one's attention and challenges thought. But sadly,  it's just another theory and a weak one to boot. But he is entitled to the right of free speech. Click.