Similar attacks — some resulting in death — have previously been reported in Missouri, New Jersey and Decatur. The game also goes by the name “Knockout King,” and experts say it is a grab for attention....
“We know that juveniles don’t think out consequences clearly,” Beth Huebner, an associate professor of criminology at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, told the Associated Press after a 72-year-old Vietnamese immigrant was killed in another “Knock ‘em out” case in St. Louis last year.
“They see something on YouTube and say, ‘I want to get that sort of attention, too.’ They don’t think about the person they’re attacking maybe hitting their head."
July 23, 2012
"Three teenagers accused of killing a 62-year-old father-of-12 in West Rogers Park were playing a game called 'Pick 'em out and knock 'em down' when they videotaped themselves punching him in the face..."
They were caught after they posted the video on Facebook.
Sexology, 1960s.
More disturbing Sexology covers here.
For relief from this 1960s-style sexual oppression, look at these refreshing 1960s paintings — book cover illustrations — of women.
"What is the fair market value of an object that cannot be sold?"
"The object under discussion is 'Canyon,' a masterwork of 20th-century art created by Robert Rauschenberg that Mrs. Sonnabend’s children inherited when she died in 2007."
Because the work, a sculptural combine, includes a stuffed bald eagle, a bird under federal protection, the heirs would be committing a felony if they ever tried to sell it. So their appraisers have valued the work at zero.
But the Internal Revenue Service takes a different view. It has appraised “Canyon” at $65 million and is demanding that the owners pay $29.2 million in taxes.
“It’s hard for me to see how this could be valued this way because it’s illegal to sell it,” said Patti S. Spencer, a lawyer who specializes in trusts and estates but has no role in the case.
"Seinfeld isn't talking to the media about his new [web-only] show..."
"But the premise sounds a bit like his TV show, which focused on the minutiae of life....."
I'm a big fan of the 2-guys-talking-in-a-restaurant genre. My favorite movie is "My Dinner With Andre."
In the promo for the new webseries, Seinfeld's old partner Larry David affirms that connection: "It's comedy in cars with coffee. What does that mean? ... You have finally done a show about nothing!"Here's the first episode of "Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee." Nice attention to the car (a 1952 split-window Volkswagen). The episode title is "Larry Eats a Pancake."
I'm a big fan of the 2-guys-talking-in-a-restaurant genre. My favorite movie is "My Dinner With Andre."
"I come to them not so much as president as I do as a father and as a husband."
Well, what was he supposed to say? If you think Obama has exploited the Aurora murders, you have to posit an alternative response that would have been both nonexploitative and duly presidential.
ADDED: Romney says Obama did "the right thing." And saying that is also the right thing. What else could he possibly have said?
Now, the candidates need to get back to normal. Life goes on, and their work is with the living.
ADDED: Romney says Obama did "the right thing." And saying that is also the right thing. What else could he possibly have said?
Now, the candidates need to get back to normal. Life goes on, and their work is with the living.
The Tony Robbins fire-walkers who got burned must have slowed down and stopped.
Just keep moving and you won't get hurt. Don't blame Tony Robbins. Blame those losers who didn't do it right.
The sister of one of the burn victims "said Mr. Robbins had 'worked all night to prepare people' before the walk. If some people were injured, she said, 'it’s not his fault.'" Now, now, let's think about this. People are responsible for themselves. If you got a poor outcome, it's because you didn't do it right. You were given an education, and then it was up to you. Think about the people who did walk across the coals without getting burned. Are you going to say it wasn't really them? It was their teacher that did that? It was Tony Robbins? They didn't walk across those coals? Tony Robbins gets credit for that?
Thousands participated in the walk, which stretched down 24 lanes, each around eight feet long.The linked NYT article — "A Self-Improvement Quest That Led to Burned Feet" — doesn't mention the number of people who "reported second- or third-degree burns" until the very end. (The number is: 20 (out of 6,000).) The article stresses the positive:
“It transformed people’s lives in a single night,” said Carolynn Graves, 50, a real estate agent from Toronto, who crossed the coals without injury. “It’s a metaphor for facing your fears and accomplishing your goals.”Out of state? Great phrase. In my line of work, it's what we say about people who will have to pay much more tuition. The state you need to be in to not get burned is Wisconsin. In this self-confidence cult business, the "state" you need to be in is — what? — really believing that you won't get burned?
Ms. Graves suggested that the people who burned their feet “were out of state,” a term that participants said meant having the proper mental attitude.
The sister of one of the burn victims "said Mr. Robbins had 'worked all night to prepare people' before the walk. If some people were injured, she said, 'it’s not his fault.'" Now, now, let's think about this. People are responsible for themselves. If you got a poor outcome, it's because you didn't do it right. You were given an education, and then it was up to you. Think about the people who did walk across the coals without getting burned. Are you going to say it wasn't really them? It was their teacher that did that? It was Tony Robbins? They didn't walk across those coals? Tony Robbins gets credit for that?
July 22, 2012
Quite the photo op.
Removing the statue of Joe Paterno.
A good one.
ADDED: "The 14 Most Unintentionally Terrifying Statues in the World." Just something I ran across while trying to satisfy my curiosity about the exact line in the category of sculpture between what is a statue and what is not a statue. Obviously, the Joe Paterno sculpture is a statue, but what's right on the line, where we could have a debate about whether this sculpture is a statue?
The OED defines statue as "A representation in the round of a living being, sculptured, moulded or cast in marble, metal, plaster or the like materials; esp. a figure of a deity, allegorical personage, or eminent person, usually of life-size proportions."
So it can be an animal. It's usually life-size, but I think that when it gets too small, we stop saying statue (and start saying "figure" or "figurine"), but it can get as large as you can make it and we'll still say "statue" — as with the Statue of Liberty — even though there is an alternate word: "colossus." (Note that the poem displayed at the Statue of Liberty is "The New Colossus.")
I note that if there is more than one figure, we don't say "statue." For example, "Burghers of Calais" isn't called a "statue." Also, it needs to be the entire body, so we don't call that Chicago Picasso a "statue."
A good one.
ADDED: "The 14 Most Unintentionally Terrifying Statues in the World." Just something I ran across while trying to satisfy my curiosity about the exact line in the category of sculpture between what is a statue and what is not a statue. Obviously, the Joe Paterno sculpture is a statue, but what's right on the line, where we could have a debate about whether this sculpture is a statue?
The OED defines statue as "A representation in the round of a living being, sculptured, moulded or cast in marble, metal, plaster or the like materials; esp. a figure of a deity, allegorical personage, or eminent person, usually of life-size proportions."
So it can be an animal. It's usually life-size, but I think that when it gets too small, we stop saying statue (and start saying "figure" or "figurine"), but it can get as large as you can make it and we'll still say "statue" — as with the Statue of Liberty — even though there is an alternate word: "colossus." (Note that the poem displayed at the Statue of Liberty is "The New Colossus.")
I note that if there is more than one figure, we don't say "statue." For example, "Burghers of Calais" isn't called a "statue." Also, it needs to be the entire body, so we don't call that Chicago Picasso a "statue."
"Three young men are being hailed as heroes for their old-fashioned chivalry and courage under fire in saving the lives of their girlfriends."
Matt McQuinn, 27, Jonathan Blunk, 26, and Alex Teves, 24 — each died protecting a woman in the Aurora theater massacre. That is, out of 12 individuals who died, 3 were men instinctively performing the traditional, masculine protective role.
If the liberal media go big on gun control, will it help elect liberals this fall?
Post-Aurora, the Daily News comes out with "Blood on hands of Obama, Mitt and NRA!" That's the most extreme outburst I'm seeing right now, but there's plenty of outraged/earnest/passionate talk about gun control. I presume these liberal media outlets imagine they are bolstering the case for electing Democrats this fall, but I don't see that working out very well. Should liberals want to forefront gun rights?
Pinterest — where you display pictures of stuff you like — fosters "the feeling of being addicted to longing for something..."
"... specifically being addicted to the feeling that something is missing or incomplete. The point is not the thing that is being longed for, but the feeling of longing for the thing."
The author of the linked piece Carina Chocano (writing in the NYT Magazine) makes a big point of distinguishing Pinterest picture-posting as different from "curating" and more like advertising, because a curating makes us "more conscious" (like the creative professionals in their exclusive provinces), while advertising makes us less conscious (you peons!).
Why less conscious? Chocano seems to think that operating in the dimension of intuitive desire is lowly — a notion that spikes me to a higher level of consciousness where I observe that Chocano is dealing in elitism and snobbery. (In the New York Times!) She even refers to these pictures as "lifestyle pornography," calling to mind the old feminist argument that pornography shouldn't get First Amendment protection because it doesn't express any ideas. It merely stimulates feelings.
Here's Pinterest if you want a taste of the feeling of being addicted to longing.
ADDED: I just happened upon an aphorism that seems relevant: "In every object there is inexhaustible meaning; the eye sees in it what the eye brings means of seeing."
The site’s name combines the words “interest” and “pin,” in reference to “pin boards,” which are also known in various creative professions as inspiration boards or mood boards — basically a large board onto which appropriated images... are juxtaposed to evoke in the viewer a certain feeling, atmosphere or mood. Once the exclusive province of advertising art directors, designers and teenage girls in boarding-school dormitories, mood boards and their electronic equivalents have exploded online. Not just on Pinterest, but also in the form of dopamine-boosting street-fashion blogs and cryptically named Tumblr blogs devoted to the wordless and explanation-free juxtaposition of, say, cupcakes and teapots and shoes with shots of starched shirts and J.F.K.Mood boards used to be an "exclusive province," something for the "creative professions," and now ordinary people are doing them too. Reminds me of the relationship between journalism and blogging. There's something disconcerting about everybody getting into the act. And the riff-raff who do what was once exclusive must be disparaged. Something missing with these people.
The author of the linked piece Carina Chocano (writing in the NYT Magazine) makes a big point of distinguishing Pinterest picture-posting as different from "curating" and more like advertising, because a curating makes us "more conscious" (like the creative professionals in their exclusive provinces), while advertising makes us less conscious (you peons!).
Why less conscious? Chocano seems to think that operating in the dimension of intuitive desire is lowly — a notion that spikes me to a higher level of consciousness where I observe that Chocano is dealing in elitism and snobbery. (In the New York Times!) She even refers to these pictures as "lifestyle pornography," calling to mind the old feminist argument that pornography shouldn't get First Amendment protection because it doesn't express any ideas. It merely stimulates feelings.
Here's Pinterest if you want a taste of the feeling of being addicted to longing.
ADDED: I just happened upon an aphorism that seems relevant: "In every object there is inexhaustible meaning; the eye sees in it what the eye brings means of seeing."
Fighting for reelection, Obama spent $58 million — $38 million on TV ads alone.
According to this L.A. Times article, which is illustrated, for some reason, with a photograph of Sheldon Adelson — a Romney donor — gesturing at some lit-up models of what are presumably models of casinos. (He's identified as a "casino mogul.")
A "mogul," which originally referred to "the successive heads of the Muslim dynasty founded by Zahīr-ud-Dīn Muḥammad Bābur (1483–1530), which ruled an empire covering a large part of South Asia from the 16th to the 19th centuries," now denotes "An important, influential, or dominant person; an autocrat," according to the OED, which gives the early example "I am the Sultan of this place: Mr. Limberham is the Mogol of the next Mansion" — a line spoken by a character named Brainsick, in the play "Limberham (or The Kind Keeper)," by John Dryden.
The photo of Adelson in the L.A. Times makes him seem capable of moving skyscrapers like big chess pieces. What a manipulative fellow! He gave $10 million in June to a Romney super PAC called Restore Our Future. ("Restore" means to bring back. Back to the future.) Restore Our Future raised $20.6 million in June. Meanwhile, Obama's super PAC, Priorities USA Action took in only $6 million.
Romney's campaign raised much more money than did Obama — $106 million to $70 million (in June). So Obama is lagging in the fundraising and also spending much more.
A "mogul," which originally referred to "the successive heads of the Muslim dynasty founded by Zahīr-ud-Dīn Muḥammad Bābur (1483–1530), which ruled an empire covering a large part of South Asia from the 16th to the 19th centuries," now denotes "An important, influential, or dominant person; an autocrat," according to the OED, which gives the early example "I am the Sultan of this place: Mr. Limberham is the Mogol of the next Mansion" — a line spoken by a character named Brainsick, in the play "Limberham (or The Kind Keeper)," by John Dryden.
The photo of Adelson in the L.A. Times makes him seem capable of moving skyscrapers like big chess pieces. What a manipulative fellow! He gave $10 million in June to a Romney super PAC called Restore Our Future. ("Restore" means to bring back. Back to the future.) Restore Our Future raised $20.6 million in June. Meanwhile, Obama's super PAC, Priorities USA Action took in only $6 million.
Romney's campaign raised much more money than did Obama — $106 million to $70 million (in June). So Obama is lagging in the fundraising and also spending much more.
Heading into July, Romney and his party allies were left with nearly $170 million on hand, while Obama and the Democrats had $147 million.That's not that huge of a difference, but Obama is such a big spender. And what did he get for all that spending? I think the idea was to frame Romney as an evil capitalist, and it hasn't worked out that well. 1. Despite the heavy attack on Romney, Obama hasn't moved up in the polls, and 2. The attack on capitalism went too far and touched off an effective counterattack. Not only has Obama depleted his funds, he's depleted his argument against Romney.
The Obama campaign’s attempt to portray Mitt Romney as the villainous Bane from “The Dark Knight Rises” appears to be a big flop. And the problem for Obama is, he really doesn’t have a Plan B.ADDED: The Obama campaign spent more than $2.6 on polling alone, just in June. What are they finding out? Why isn't that information giving them more useful ideas about how to win? Reminds me of the stimulus program, dumping huge amounts of money on things that done even pan out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
