to whine about poor parenting, apparently. On Millenials:
that there are more avenues for us to entertain ourselves than ever before, yet we are more bored than ever before. It is this boredom that has led to a pervasive ennui amongst us….Entertainment has never been more diversified. We have more cable channels, critically acclaimed television shows, and formulaic movies than ever before. Beyond the small screen, Internet providers like Hulu and Netflix allow instant viewing of almost any movie or television program ever created….
….We have filled our lives with trinkets and toys, most of which appear on our screens, but all lack any real meaning or substance.
And correlating to another article:
This Saturday is the fourth annual “Take Our Children to the Park…and Leave Them There Day.”
by “play” I mean: Stand around, get bored, wonder what to do, wish there was an Xbox around, feel hungry, feel a little too hot or cold, feel mad at mom for not organizing something “really” fun, like a trip to Chuck E. Cheese, feel bad all around, realize the other kids are feeling bad too, and then—in desperation—do something.
What comes with Millennials? Helicopter parents.
Too many kids have no idea how to entertain themselves because there really aren’t opportunities presented to just play. Just look at their parents calendars & you’ll see why.
Whatever the case – at some point, whatever generation it is, either you make something of yourself, or you live unfulfilled, unhappy lives wondering why you couldn’t have YOUR dreams come true – like Disney tells you is possible. So what do they do? Live vicariously through someone ELSE’s princess dreams. People magazine can make it possible!
Our age is lousy with celebrities. They can be found in every sector of society, including ones that seem less than glamorous…The obsession with celebrities …obliterates old distinctions between high and low culture, serious and trivial endeavors, profit making and philanthropy, leading to the phenomenon of being famous for being famous…
…Their superficial diversity dangles before us the myth that in America, anything is possible …As mindless diversions from a sluggish economy and chronic malaise, the new aristocrats play a useful role
The celebrity monuments of our age have grown so huge that they dwarf the aspirations of ordinary people, who are asked to yield their dreams to the gods: to flash their favorite singer’s corporate logo at concerts, to pour open their lives (and data) on Facebook, to adopt Apple as a lifestyle
With CO2 levels rising, we’re starting to harken back to those days, as science tells us, that sea levels swamped the land. Well, we think that’s what science tells us, because that’s all that news is telling us that science tells us. But that might not be what science is telling us…
Not so much, according to new research.
The idea that the seas were 35 metres higher 3 million years back comes mainly from scientists examining ancient high-tide marks found along coastal cliffs and scarps – particularly some often-used ones on the US eastern seaboard. By determining the ages of the rocks and marks, scientists have come to the conclusion that the seas were much, much higher then – and thus, that the Greenland ice and large parts of the Antarctic ice as well must have been melted at the time.
According to a crew of top boffins led by Professor David Rowley of Chicago uni, the problem with this is that over these sorts of timescales, areas of the Earth’s crust rise and fall as much as the sea does. And nobody thus far has taken account of that – it has just been assumed that the rocky coasts have remained fixed with respect to the centre of the Earth, which means that the studies thus far have been – basically – wrong.
Oh, continental drift? Yea, we forgot about that when we were predicting doom.
Look, I’m down with the fact that the environment is changing. It always changes. Is it because we humans are so positively messing up the planet that we’ll not survive as a species? I doubt it. Of course, I have no proof. So therefore, I’m not out predicting that we’re all going to die of being dumb, which would be legitimate given how, um, dumb we can be.
What I do argue is that people take one piece of science and come to a stunning conclusion. While I’m happy to cite contrarian intelligence to make an argument against, I’m not doing it to say my point is right. I’m testing the corner cases to see if your theories and strategies hold up. If all that does is make you mad, then maybe your theories and strategies aren’t really that good.
But enjoy your little panic. It gets the blood flowing.
Speaking on his weekly radio show on Friday, Bloomberg suggested that ‘so-so’ students might want to consider going to trade school and becoming a plumber as a better economic bet than obtaining an expensive undergraduate degree.
Hang on, I have to find something to disagree about…
‘Compare a plumber to going to Harvard College – being a plumber, actually for the average person, probably would be a better deal.’
Bloomberg’s reasoning is that plumbers make a good living without having to pay off college loans.
‘You don’t spend… four years spending $40,000, $50,000 in tuition without earning income,’ he explained.
The fees quoted by the mayor are typically those for elite schools, many students could get a good education at a much cheaper university, but the mayor said being a plumber had other advantages too.
They don’t have to worry about their jobs being outsourced or being replaced by computers.
‘It’s hard to farm that out… and it’s hard to automate that,’ he said.
Nope, I still agree…
There are plenty of kids who aren’t really ready to go to college right after high-school. There are plenty of jobs that don’t require a college education to do effectively. I’d agree that some jobs are easier to get with a college degree. Heck, there are many places where even my four-year degree isn’t enough, and I can’t get considered for a job without an MBA. 20+ years in business still says I don’t matter. So sure, it’s unlikely that you’ll get a research scientist job, but does everyone want that? There are great jobs that give a person time to make money and start a family if they want, and college can come later if that’s in the plan.
It bothers me when I hear a certain class of people say that you’re not a contributing member of society unless you have a BA in Art History as opposed to a job doing electrician or plumbing work. For once, I hope someone listens to Bloomberg. I just hope they don’t legislate on whatever he says.
Talk about a Friday news dump… The California AG office released a statement yesterday that all new handguns sold must have microstamping technology in place. Like now.
A hotly contested gun-control law that was passed in 2007 is finally ready to be implemented, Attorney General Kamala Harris said Friday: a requirement that every new semiautomatic handgun contain “micro-stamping” technology that would allow police to trace a weapon from cartridges found at a crime scene.
The law, signed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, made California the first state to require micro-stamping, which engraves the gun’s serial number on each cartridge. But the legislation specified that it would take effect only when the technology was available and all private patents had expired.
If you’re not familiar with the technology, it basically puts a unique mark on each firing pin that then stamps the primer in the brass. Theoretically the brass can be traced by the police at crime scenes. The concept is a great idea, since it helps with law enforcement.
Whenever I test a strategy, I always start with the corner cases. For instance:
- What happens over time? Does the pin wear and lose the stamp?
- Couldn’t you just file the pin once or twice and get rid of the stamp?
- What if criminals case gun ranges and steal brass so that they can throw the police off the trail?
There are boatloads of other cases. This isn’t to say it’s a bad idea. There are plenty of other reasons to say it’s a bad idea. I just wonder what this does to one of the few industries — firearms sales — that’s actually thriving in California right now.
Keep an eye on this one.
I was hoping that listening to Steven Miller this morning as he testified in front of Congress would put me back to sleep. No such luck. The commentators kept breaking in and saying how he was stonewalling the questions.
(As an aside, listening to Steve Miller in the morning usually wakes me up, since he’s a killer guitar player. I felt that needed to be said.)
Honestly, though… the guy is under oath with an IG sitting next to him that has in-depth details of the report. The way the two answered questions bespeaks their individual roles. Mr. Miller is a guy who could say something even slightly wrong and get hauled back for another round, AND busted for perjury. Of course he’s not going to remember all the details.
I’ve never been deposed, but I’ve gone through a fair amount of legal training. You do not give specifics of something that you do not precisely remember. If you don’t know, you say you don’t know. If you think you know, but you’re not sure, you say you don’t know. When it’s your butt on the line, it’s very likely that any altruism goes out the window.
Now, that said… Mr. Miller knew the line of questions he’d be asked, and he didn’t come prepared with any detail? Hmmm. That sounds to me like a person who’s not interested in actually providing information to help the case move forward.
I had to stop listening to the testimony and come to work, so I can’t come to any conclusions. It just seems consistent to me that this guy isn’t going to provide any relevant info, which will inflame once side and prove a point to the other.
The idea is to produce guns that can only be used by the gun’s owners. Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.) cited the latest James Bond movie, Skyfall, as inspiration for the bill.
Under his bill, guns made in the United States would have to be built with this technology two years after the bill becomes law. Older guns being sold by a business or individual would have to be retrofitted with this technology after three years.
The bill says the cost of retrofitting these older guns would be paid out of the Department of Justice’s Asset Forfeiture Fund, where confiscated assets from criminal investigations are placed.
So, my first thought would be: pick a better movie if you’re going to pull some science fiction idea out of the air. My second thought is probably along the lines of how bad Hollywood would feel if the brave heroine who’s never shot a gun couldn’t save her leading actor because her DNA is wrong for the trigger.
I’m not even thinking about how silly and unworkable this scheme is. And I have to also think that Rep. Tierney probably does, too. But if one can make a very “reasonable” proposal that could capture the imagination of a crowd of people that thinks Hollywood is reality… well, then one could be a real-life hero to his constituency.
I’ve heard these ideas on and off for years. Let’s mark each bullet with a unique ID (and hope it doesn’t deform beyond recognition when it hits something). Let’s put a microchip in the handle to track location and firing data (and hope that people don’t just disconnect the batter you’d need to run it). Let’s tattoo the gun serial number on your forehead! Whatever.
How about: Let’s train people who want to own a gun on how to safely handle it? If you want to spend some form of government money, encourage people to learn how to shoot and handle weapons. Oh, but most anti-gun advocates know that a program like that would probably end up selling more guns. I guess real safety measures don’t work in some fantasy world.
Updated: Charles Cooke breaks down the “number of lives” that might be saved at all this expense.
Somewhere along my almost-English Minor in college (I had the credits, I never applied for it, it would have been a strike on my engineer’s resume, that was partially a joke), I learned that the worst conjunction you can put into an argument is “but.” So, as NRO pointed me to USA Today for a supposed mea culpa, I was waiting for the weasel phrase, and I didn’t have to wait long. Mr. Miller, take it away:
The Internal Revenue Service recognizes that we should have done a better job of handling the influx of applications by advocacy organizations.
Mistakes were made, but they were in no way due to any political or partisan motivation. We are — and will continue to be — dedicated to reviewing all applications for tax-exempt status in an impartial manner.
Sorry, pal, you just lost me. For reference, the rest is a no-details explanation of why they’d want to focus on non-profits without ever actually talking about what non-profits they focused on. People who don’t actually read the news and just read USA Today are probably wondering what the heck the dude is talking about, if they got past the charts on the first page while running on the bad treadmill in the hotel.
The intent here is to diffuse the situation, which has already gone well beyond a bad non-apology in an unread paper. I still wonder why they even trotted this out, unless there’s panic in the Obama Administration that this is actually going to steamroll. If there’s panic, it’s likely that we haven’t heard of all the places where this was “known” even as it was being denied.
From one viewpoint, this looks like an administration that got caught using strong-arm (Chicago, Alinsky, pick a phrase) tactics on its opponents, and now is explaining that there’s nothing to see here. Jedi mind tricks don’t work, though, when you have a stick in the other hand.
From another viewpoint, this is all just opposition tactics trying to discredit the hard-working government employees who are just saving government money by checking up on credentials. I suppose you can decide which one is more correct.