More stuff you couldn’t make up.
You can’t make this stuff up.
But a judge who heard the case at Court Number 1 in Almeria, came down firmly on the side of the mother declaring that “evidently” she was “well within her rights” and took “the correct action” as a responsible parent.
At Psychology Today Blogs, Stanton Peel posits the existence of “addictive experiences.” I personally have qualms about using the term “addiction” for anything other physical addiction, as to tobacco, narcotics, and the like–substances for which cessation of use produces physical withdrawal symptoms. Much of my skepticism is based on claims of “sexual addiction,” which too often seem to be rationalizations for bad behavior.
Without putting my skepticism aside, I offer here his list of criteria for “addictive experiences.”
1. The activity/experience alleviates negative emotions for the individual, particularly those supporting his identity and self-image.
2. The addictive activity operates in a rapid, predictable way so that the gratification is instant.
3. The consequences of the action are negative, thus exacerbating the person’s negative feelings.
4. The person responds again in the only “safe” (meaning reliable) way he knows how to perform.
5. The addicted individual thus fails to develop alternative, more effective coping mechanisms to produce the emotional reassurance he seeks and requires.
At this final point, when the individual is wholly dependent on a behavior or involvement for his emotional stability, he can be called addicted.
I’ll give you one guess as to whose what type of behavior inspired the post. Follow the link to see whether you got it right.
Pandora recognizes the formula:
Lying in a reality show leads to drama, and drama increases ratings. Real World, any of the Real Housewives series, The Apprentice, The Bachelor, etc. all have a standard formula. It goes like this:
- Put a group of people together
- Let the different personalities mingle
- Conflict will arise between two people
- The others will choose sides
- Lies will be spread – lies that benefit/hurt each side
- Drama = fights
- Two episodes later everyone is getting along
- Rinse and repeat
More reality at the link.
Sportswriter extraordinaire Bog Molinaro comments:
Will Bunch applies Trump’s razor to this weekend’s Trumpstorm alleging that President Obama tapped the Trump phones.
Look, the reality is that trying to detect motive, or some grand strategy, with Donald Trump is a fool’s errand. The Donald is usually living proof of Occam’s razor, that the best explanation is usually the simplest one. The guy had a terrible week in which he got hammered on the Russia scandal, then tossed and turned all night in his plush Mar-a-Lago bedroom, got up before dawn, turned on Fox News and scrolled through Breitbart News — and took out all his frustrations on one of his favorite targets, a kind of Twitter blast from the past. The idea that it might be more than a little improper for the sitting president to accuse his predecessor of lawbreaking — especially with no proof — never crossed his mind.
Politeness shoots grammar in the foot (emphasis added):
The department says no one was injured in the incident. There was some damage, however, and the office will need a window replaced.
“An employee” “their”? Really?
Grammar is not an affectation. It is the rules of the road for discourse. Otherwise, said what doesn’t have you meaning.
Clearly, the author of this news story was weaving drunkenly down the road with his or her head up his or her cellphone, like the bozo who stuck me at a stoplight a couple of days ago.
When it comes to picking a fight over verifiable facts,* just where does one draw the line between silly and stupid?
Inquiring minds want to know.
*All facts are verifiable. That’s what makes them “facts.”
Trudy Rubin, who is currently touring the Far East, notes that twitting twits cannot be equated with diplomatic diplomats. A snippet:
Yes, there is justification for a firmer U.S. stance toward China on trade imbalances and freedom of the seas and Beijing’s reluctance to squeeze North Korea. But berating the Chinese with no strategy behind the bluster won’t work to America’s advantage, as I heard repeatedly from Chinese officials, academics, and think tankers, as well as from American businessmen in China.
Nor do tweets convey toughness to the Chinese.
Indeed, Trump’s modus operandi is more likely to provoke Chinese retaliation than produce a great deal.
Do read the rest.
The inherent weakness of relying on the Bully’s Pulpit as one’s go-to strategy is that, when you meet someone who won’t be bullied, just what the heck do you do next?
Addendum, Later That Same Afternoon:
Dick Polman has more. A snippet: