So What Else Is New?

I have made a dip or two, but nothing sustained, into the practice of presenting some posts by category, and one category that lately I've been thinking of starting would be called "So What Else is New?"   This was prompted by noticing that quite a few items that make the news, especially scientific studies, come under that heading, and the item is presented as something novel or new or surprising when actually it's something that anybody with an ounce of common sense would have already known for decades, or, if he was born just yesterday, would still be able to conclude after only a moment's thought.

I thought my first entry under this category would be about the very winsome movie actress, Scarlett Johansson, and her husband, a photographer named Ryan Reynolds, who are now in a well-publicized process of breaking up.   That alone puts their actions smack dab in my category, because that kind of thing has always been a Hollywood trademark.   But there's more.   This guy who was lucky enough to win her hand (of course I'm only guessing he was lucky, but it must've been at least interesting to look at her for long and varied moments and to see what, if anything, she's into, without the ticket he had bought for the privilege having been obtained at a theater booth) -- this guy is quoted as saying that Ms Johansson had treated him badly.

Intrigued by the question of how Scarlett Johansson could possibly have treated a man badly, I just had to find out what she had done.   But alas, the one article that I bothered to read -- all the effort that this matter merited -- only said that Ol' Temporary Hubby had not been one of her priorities.

Bam!  Bingo!   A great candidate for my new category!

But then I thought of another Initial entry, a better one because it is less frivolous..  (There are several other movie actresses that I feel much more serious about.  Sorry, Scarlett!)

Lately the progressive sites have been making much of a finding that they express as saying that  checking out Fox News makes a person stupid.

Well, like the Johansson/Reynolds matter, that immediately dumps  this "news" into my category, but again there';s more.

I disagree with this finding, or at least this expression of it.

Being a fan of  Fox "News" can't possibly make a person stupid, because of the obvious fact that  -- short of having fallen into the site or the program one day and then only by accident, which should be an impossibility because of the way that Fox's incredibly noisome reputation so widely precedes it -- that person is by definition already deeply steeped in stupidity to begin with, the same as a cup of tea would be if a mob of teabags had sat in it for, say, two centuries.

What else, then, is new.?