Risk Responsibility Transfer?

Some of the newer generations of Americans are relying increasingly on cell phone apps on their own cells phones that let their parents track their locations.

Gen Z respondents to a recent survey from Life360 said they share their location when they drive, when they go on dates, and when they attend concerts and other large gatherings. Many keep location sharing on at all times.

As Julie Jargon points out in her article, though,

[T]racking may be creating a false safety net for both parents and teens. Knowing where kids are doesn’t necessarily keep them safe when disaster strikes.

The problem is larger, yet. Michele Borba, an educational psychologist—and spokeswoman for Life360:

These kids have been helicoptered, snowplowed, and bubble-wrapped[.]

Indeed. And those kids have no clue how to take care of themselves. Their parents will come bail them out. The kids are transferring more than a small measure of responsibility for their own safety to their parents, and that transfer might—might—make them safer in the near-term, but it leaves them less safe in the mid- and longer-term, especially when they no longer have their parents to rely on because they’ve left their cozy nest.

The problem goes even beyond that once they’ve left their nest. The mindset they’re learning is that someone else always is looking out for them. That someone else, ultimately, is Government, and they no longer are independent actors; they’re wards of the State.

Progressive-Democratic Party Runs the House

In the latest round of House voting for Speaker, the Republicans failed again. And once again, the Progressive-Democratic Party Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries got more votes than did the Republican candidate. What’s despicable, though, is Jeffries’ comment about the latest Republican candidate Congressman Jim Jordan (R, OH). He is, according to Jeffries, a

clear and present danger to the American people[.]

Jeffries’ smear and deliberate divisiveness alone should have made Jordan the unanimous choice of the Republican Party.

Unfortunately, the once again failed vote is the Hurt Feelings Caucus, who are so thin-skinned, and the Chaos Caucus, who only know “No,” surrendering the House to the Progressive-Democratic Party.

Separately, as cited by Just the News, [Jeffries] later added that the GOP needs to stop embracing extremism. And

I’ve said repeatedly that there are many Republicans on the other side of the aisle who we believe are good Americans, good patriots and good men and women[.]

Sure. Good little Republicans. Credits to their party. They’ll politely speak and then be quiet and quit arguing.

This is how far to the radical, extreme Left—and bigoted—the Progressive-Democratic Party has gone, that Jeffries can insist that center right and right are somehow extremist.

Private Citizens and Firearms Licensing in Israel

Israel has some firearms licensing requirements that would greatly please the Leftists in our nation. The particular requirement of interest to me is this one:

Firearm licenses for private citizens in Israel are typically only granted to individuals who can prove a need for extra security in their line of work or daily life.

And those who do succeed in getting licenses are limited to 100 rounds of ammunition at any one time.

Israeli citizens live in a small nation surrounded by terrorists that routinely and frequently attack that nation, particularly targeting civilians and civilian gathering spots. That’s their need for extra security.

In the immediate aftermath of Hamas’ current butchery, Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir is relaxing the nation’s gun control laws. More permanent and broader reaching relaxation/easier access to firearms for the citizenry may be in the offing.

Such moves are late, but that’s better than never. If they actually happen.

“Why Did Harvard Students Cheer on Hamas?”

That’s the title of one section of The Wall Street Journal‘s Wednesday Letters section. One Harvard student wrote regarding the plethora of Harvard student groups’ open support of the terrorist Hamas gang,

The morally bankrupt claims made by these groups are not representative of many of their members. They used theirs, Harvard’s, and their members’ names to lend credence to their outrageous claims. These statements were published by organization leaders, often without serious debate or voting by members.

Say that’s true. How many of those members, allegedly omitted from open debate or voting, have resigned from those student groups?

…

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Another Letter writer wrote,

I received the mass email sent to Harvard alumni by President Gay, addressing the war in Israel. One line was especially notable: “It’s in the exercise of our freedom to speak that we reveal our characters.” Well said. Harvard’s character has been revealed.

Indeed. As well as are, via their decision not to speak or act, the characters of some student group members.

Too many illiberal Liberal and mainstream Left “students” at Harvard are terrorist sympathizers. None of them should be employable in the United States, not just a few lawyer wannabes singled out by a couple of law firms.

Common Ground and Mutual Understanding

Michael Schill, Northwestern University President, in a message to “members of the Northwestern community” regarding the terrorist Hamas attack on Israeli women, children, and babies:

This is a moment for us to pull together, to support each other, and seek common ground. That does not mean we need to agree with each other about divisive issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But we must have empathy for each other and strive to build understanding.

Common ground is precisely that shared territory of overlap that disparate positions and whole belief systems have. How can there be any shared territory, any overlap, between those who butcher innocents as their goal and method in pushing their position and those who support…civilization?

How can there be any empathy for those who inflict such evil with deliberation and careful planning?

It’s easy enough to understand such evil and those who seek to inflict it—the evil is plain before us. But such understanding neither requires, nor supports, empathy, nor is there common ground with such. If evil cannot be eradicated, those who do evil certainly can be destroyed, and they must.

Schill’s moral equivocation (his words are so far afield that I almost did not use “moral”) is illustrative of the utter failure of the management teams of our higher “education” edifices.