Beyond Beyond the Fringe category archive
Sometimes, when I walk into a restaurant and see four persons all seated at a table with their heads buried in their phones, I can’t help but wonder, “Why the hell did they bother going out together?”
David distills the weirdest moments from Donald Trump’s bizarre CPAC speech.
I suspect that my two or three regular readers did not watch the speech. I certainly didn’t. As you know, “I’ll read about it tomorrow” is my M. O. even for things I’m interested in, but this is truly beyond beyond the fringe.
(I found the missing link!)
Steve Albrecht remembers his time in the air.
After 30 years
as a road warrior in jobs that required lots of travel, I hope never to step on an airplane again, especially as the airlines seem committed to making cattle cars seem attractive by comparison. I must, however, say that none of my flights was as eventful as the ones he relates. The worst things that happened to me were nearly getting bumped in St. Louis (when the ticket agent saw my expression, he silently changed his mind) and a missed connection in Phoenix (my American Express travel agent had me reaccommodated in one phone call).
All you folks who just had babies, remember, in just 13 years, you will have a teenager.
Lay off those double vodka-and-tonics.
Words fail me.
Michael Wiegold tries to figure out why persons are fascinated by selfies, both their own and those of others. A nugget:
The theory’s originator, Leon Festinger, proposed that people have an innate drive to evaluate themselves in comparison with others. This is done to improve how we feel about ourselves (self-enhancement), evaluate ourselves (self-evaluation), prove we really are the way we think we are (self-verification) and become better than we are (self-improvement).
It’s a list that suggests a range of motives that appear quite positive. But reality, unfortunately, is not so upbeat. Those most likely to post selfies appear to have lower self-esteem than those who don’t.
In sum, selfies draw attention, which seems like a good thing. But so do car accidents.
Follow the link for the complete article.
Quite the carnival on Carnival . . . .
The trouble started after the Carnival Legend, which can carry more than 2,000 people, set sail from Melbourne to New Caledonia last week – though there are disputes of exactly when and why it all began. . . .
Others, however, said a single family of about two dozen people seemed intent on provoking conflicts – spitting in the pool, screaming in the smoking area and fighting with passengers and staff over any provocation.
“They were looking for trouble from the minute they got on the ship,” Kellie Peterson told 3AW. “Anyone and everything. They even picked on a 16-year-old boy because they thought he looked at them.”
Much ink and many electrons have been consumed in wondering about the motive for the Las Vegas shootings. As I write this, no possible motive–at least not one that would make sense to most of us–has been proposed.
At Psychology Today Blogs, Joe Navorro suggests that such a motive may not be the issue.
Why did Ted Bundy, a good-looking man kill women who would have easily dated him? Because he could. Why did Luis Alfredo Garavito kill over 150 children in Colombia? Because he could. You see, the psychopath doesn’t need to have reasons, at least not like the rest of us. Psychopaths can exercise God-like powers over humans and that is gratifying enough. They can take a life or not, it is up to them. But why? To have God like powers is to be a deity—it is to be omnipotent. That is a powerful elixir for the psychopath and that is sometimes satisfactory enough. Maybe Stephen Paddock needed to exercise that power. We don’t know yet, but we should not ignore that possibility. The reality that there are predators like him among us, who think that way, should not come as a surprise.
Leonard Pitts, Jr., notes the death of facts. A snippet:
It’s not just Ken who makes me doubt (follow the link for the story of Ken–ed.). It’s also Fox “News” and talk radio. It’s Donald Trump’s lies, his war on journalism and people’s tolerance for both. And it’s studies dating to the 1970s, when researchers at Stanford first documented a counterintuitive phenomenon. Namely, that people tend not to change their minds when facts prove them wrong. Instead, they double down on the false belief.
More stuff you can’t make up.