Beyond Beyond the Fringe category archive
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.
At Psychology Today Blogs, Joe Navarro, without naming names, offers a guide.
El Reg reports that the hits just keep coming with a marvelously well-turned phrase:
One more time, “freedom of speech” does not mean freedom from consequences.
Words fail me.
“No one is saying you can’t go and write a review,” (plaintiff’s attorney Dave–ed.) Wishnew said. “Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. Things you put on the internet to attack a business have real-world consequences and that really resonated with the jury. You can’t go and burn someone’s house down and claim free speech.”
El Reg reports:
The case, just kicked off in an Illinois district court after six years of wrangling, pits Barry Epstein against his former spouse of 46 years, Paula Epstein, who filed for divorce in 2011. During their separation, Paula obtained, read and used his emails as leverage to get a favorable settlement, it is claimed.
Frankly, I don’t see how the “wiretapping” allegations can hold water between a married couple, even if they were in the midst of a divorce, but I do find it disturbing if, as clained, she shared communications between her husband and his lawyer with her own lawyer. I find even more disturbing that her lawyer didn’t tell her to stop.
Then, again, she may have done none of these things. It may just be the husband flailing about. Lots of flailing goes on during bitter divorces.