Blog Archives

The Parents

This week I had a post called, ‘The Youth‘, which received this comment from Leap of A Beta.

Every time I hear that phrase, “Oh, kids today.” I have to make a quick judgment call on whether I want to deal with the backlash of saying, “Oh, parents today”

Hilariously enough, the person in question doesn’t even have to be a parent at all, let alone of whichever kid we’re discussing, to blow up

Well here’s the proof he’s right(as if we really needed it). Parents using melatonin to get their kids to fall asleep.

CBS affiliate KHOU in Houston reports some parents are turning to a supplement called melatonin to get their kids to bed at night.

“He’d just be up all night, all wound up, not able to sleep,” Heather Huddleston, mother of 5-year-old Blake, told KHOU.

But of course that doesn’t address the developmental issues with kids whose hormones are needed to fully promote their growth.

“Using melatonin to improve sleep in children may be relatively safe, but medicalizes a problem of childhood that is better addressed behaviorally,” Dr. Saul Rothenberg, a board-certified behavioral sleep medicine specialist at North Shore-LIJ Sleep Disorders Center in Great Neck, N.Y., told CBSNews.com in an email.

Exactly. All the pills and supplements available won’t make you a good parent. Searching “kids sleep melatonin” I came up with results from 2008 so the story is not exactly new, but neither is the solution. Sound parenting. I have a hard time beleiving any of the parents who say “we took away the TV and Ipad, blah blah blah”. The fact that the child had it in the first place, for however many years is the problem. The kid probably still can’t sleep because they’re having withdrawls. What do you expect from kids who are constantly plugged in because mom and dad are “too busy” to bother paying attention so put in a DVD instead.

I’ve said before being a parent is simple you simply have to not be a selfish prick.

Advertisements

GI Joe, Fighting Man from Head to Toe!

Now that Christmas is over I am reminded of a thought I’d recently had. If wasn’t so much of a thought as a lamentation.

I was recently playing with some action figures with one of my nephews and this moment of grieving came back to me again post-Christmas.

'Merica!

‘Merica!

Action figures have gone down hill since my own childhood took place in the 90’s. My gripe is not about the characters themselves and what they are from or attached to. Rather I lament the actual quality of the toys.

 

I was born in the mid-eighties and thus my childhood saw me grow up in the 90’s.  I think of myself as being of the last year of kids to come of age without mobile phones and the internet being truly commonplace(they did about the year I got out of high school in the early 00’s). With toys I’d say those of us born in the 80’s were the last kids before the full merchandising explosion that took place in the late 90’s to now.

However I don’t want to talk about all toys. I’m here today to talk about action figures. In my childhood GI Joes were the end all be all of action figures. Me and my brother had quite a few growing up, as did all my friends. I even saved up my own money to buy the GI Joe headquarters at some young age.Wild Bill

I spent many hours as a young lad playing with my GI Joes and remember them quite fondly. Perhaps that is why it disappoints me to see what kids have to play with today. GI Joes were special to me but it makes no difference if todays kids play with Power Rangers or Iron Man, or whatever else is the topic.

What bugs me is the lack of quality. The GI Joes are fully moveable. They have articulating elbows and knees, moveable legs at the hips and they could also bend at the waist. These are features I have never seen on any of the action figures I have bought for my nephews in the past several years.

Today’s action figures are all stiff legged and straight armed. You’re lucky if you can even find one that can move his shoulders in any direction other than up and down, let alone his elbows.

How is it that everything we have has gotten smaller and more effective yet action figures have devolved? If Moore’s law suggests that computer chip technology doubles every 2 years(and the cost halves) how is it that any modern everyday action figure couldn’t even wipe his own butt if he had too?

I understand the free market but if those wonderful flexible GI Joes could be had for $2.99 in the early 90’s than what pray tell is stopping $15 Thor from bending his elbows?

I happened to once own all the GI Joes pictured here.DukeTunnel Rat

 

Fair Share is Crap

Saturday Steve Sailer had a post about an article in the New York Times about ending the poverty rate through a plan of (drumroll please) more education and job training.

Reality and experience says that won’t work so it’s no bother even trying anyway. You know why you can’t teach a horse to do carpentry, cause it’s a horse and doesn’t give a damn. Same thing.

The author of the nyt article said he didn’t think that Robin Hood style redistribution is a viable solution, though he didn’t seem to say why, so I’ll say it for him.

The example the author used in his article was of a child with a mountain of toys, only playing with a few, while 90 other kids look on lustfully.

Here is the reply I posted to the article at sailers;

That fake kid in the story will eventually get bored playing alone and invite more kids to join. First they have to play as the bad guys but eventually they can work their way on to his team and more kids can join as the bad guys and eventually they don’t care cause most of them are playing.

Same thing in economics. The rich guy realizes the money’s worth nothing if not used and will find a way to use it by doing new things and bringing more and more people into the efforts.

Problem is communist liberals like the writer don’t realize there’s a natural path for things to happen and would rather just be “nice” and give everything to everyone because it’s “not fair” for one person to have more than others.

It’s really that simple.

If the richest people hoard their money and do nothing with it, it’s pretty much excused from the system. However a person with money will have had to have gotten it from somewhere. This means business, and as business-people are want to do, they will continue doing more and new business. When that happens, more people get more jobs. They might be crap jobs, but jobs nonetheless.

It’s not trickle down economics, it’s called whoever has the resources provides the opportunities. If the person hoards it, then someone else has an opportunity to make the market for themselves. If that kid is hoarding a pile of toys, go make your own game and get the other kids to play, now you have control.

Beyond the schemes, there is a far more important reason to avoid any and all redistributive plans.

In taking away all possession and property(which is what redistribution will eventually do), you begin to take away the natural rights of man. If the government can take your property simply because you have too much or more than your fair share, then you have no rights.

Property is an assertion of rights, it shows that the person of ownership has a claim, sovereignty, legitimacy. To take away mans right to claim his land is to take away his ability to rule himself and forces all other men into serfdom.

The liberal fair share activists are merely fools for thinking that government has everyones’s best interest in mind. The government has only its own interest in mind.

Going further into the idea there is one more simple aspect left to this farce.

Life’s not fair, and it’s not meant to be equal for everyone. When our founders said “All men are created equal”, they meant that all men are born with the same basic capabilities but it is up to each to determine what he will do with it.

No mention of everyone getting equal shares. No proportional control schemes to limit anyone else.

I remember a saying from when I played sports. “We’re only as fast as the slowest guy on the team”. It doesn’t matter how fast the rest of the team is if we have one player who’s behind the play.

It’s the same with this fair share crap. Do you think that everyone will get a glorious and impressive share? Where everyone can choose from driving a Bentley, Ferrari, Porsche, or Aston Martin and have steak and lobster for dinner every night.

No, it will be a shitty experience akin to the Soviet Union because that’s exactly what it is. Communism.

If, IF, you even have a car, you won’t get a choice. Not even between a Civic and a Corolla, you’ll get whatever turd they’ve decided is what everyone will drive.

Your home will be whatever poorly built apartment block they assign you.

And fifty years later when you’ve decided it’s not working and don’t want to do it anymore you want have a pot to piss in because everything you ever had belonged to someone else, the government.

I’ve been to the former Soviet Union and I can tell you that living in a 3-room apartment(kitchen, bathroom, and everything else room) is no joy compared to the multitude of options we have today. A lada is in no way a Honda Civic. And being old with no pension or care because the state has been dissolved and with it its promises makes for a pretty bleak existence.

Why would we take from one person, only to give control of what we took, not to ourselves but to someone else? Again, do they really think the government has their best interests in mind?

There are some places in the former Soviet Union but those would be the typical tourist spots and even still those places are far from perfect. This video is more representative of everyday life in those countries and it’s all being shown with a cellphone camera brought to you by capitalism.