Doesn't that take you back? Maybe to your grade school years, to a little, slightly underfunded library full of tattered paperbacks and every horse story a girl could read. Best of all, though, there was the Dewey Decimal System. Man, if you spilled one of those card-catalog drawers it was hello wrath of Librarian Lady and goodbye lunch break for six months.

Those were the days, though. Books, old and new, lined shelves higher than you could reach. The smell was great.

A plastic e-reader just doesn't have the same gravitas or character that a hardbound book does. And if you you're lucky, a book's previous readers have lightly scribbled their own thoughts in its margins. Try writing and sharing on a Nook or a Kindle.

Bradbury added that there are: "Too many junky things around. There are too many computers, too many e-mails, and too many devices. They get in our way, and prevent us from reading. If we didn't have the computers and the e-mails, we could spend more time reading and writing."

Sometimes I want the days I spent at the library back—the days before anyone had imagined the Internet and electric "books." Kids today, it seems, are missing out on something. Something more substantial than a computer screen and Google.

We're all frustrated by the economy, our kids, our jobs (or lack thereof) and a million other things that go haywire in the daily grind of life. But to answer bad behavior with more bad behavior never solves anything, and the Steven Slater incident is just a telling sign of where we've arrived (and are probably still heading) as a culture.

Taking the higher road isn't en vogue nowadays. Only wimps do it. But in taking a cue from Jerry Springer's guests, reality TV "stars" and whatever other millions of lousy role models we have access to through media, we've lost something precious: love. Nowadays, doing unto others gets twisted into "hurt as you were hurt, and even more." And instead of reining ourselves in, we "keep it real"—which is usually a guise for rudely venting angry opinions sans any concern for others' well-being.

We all get tired of job stresses. And everyone is mistreated in some way, every day. But if we all "pulled a Slater" and let people have it whenever we've had enough, where would that get us?

I'll be exploring the whole subject more in-depth in an Up Front article, which we'll publish on Monday. I hope you'll check it out.

Just in case you were looking for another generational bone of contention between baby boomers and millennials, here it is: the common telephone.

Cell phone, smartphone or landline, most age groups are spending a lot less time yakking into a handset. Two years ago, 18- to 34-year-olds spent 1,200 minutes a month speaking into a phone, according to a Nielsen study. Now they spend just 900. Texting has more than doubled in that time period, from 600 messages a month to 1,400.

So what? you say. Well, baby boomers still rely heavily on the phone and consider it rude when their kids refuse to call them back and actually talk. Younger generations, though, now consider unscheduled, long phone calls rude, since stopping everything to talk is a huge interruption in a busy, often overcommitted day. A text is feels much less disruptive.

Georgetown University linguistics professor Deborah Tannen studies people's communication methods in everyday life, and she says older generations frequently misinterpret the way younger people use cell phones. She told The Washington Post writer Ian Shapira, "One student told me that it takes her days to call her parents back and the parents thought she was intentionally putting them off. But the parents didn't get it. It's the medium. With e-mails, you're at the computer, writing a paper. With phone calls, it's a dedicated block of time."

But Tannen also added that students' dwindling verbal communication seems to bring us one step closer to the  New Yorker magazine cartoon, in which one man tells another, "I used to call people, then I got into e-mailing, then texting, and now I just ignore everyone."

Naomi Baron, an American University linguistics professor who has studied Americans' use of mobile devices, agrees. She says, "In a very profound way, our lives changed when the remote control was first introduced. You didn't have to watch what you didn't want to watch."

Now we can seemingly flip through people we don't want to speak to just like all the TV channels we wish didn't come with our cable package. More alarming, though, that looks to be a lot of people. "Here's the issue," Baron says. "We don't want to talk to each other most of the time."

I can only wonder why. Is speaking by phone or in face-to-face conversation too emotionally taxing? Too "confrontational?" Are we gradually becoming a society that avoids open, off-the-cuff communication in favor of cautiously calibrating every word we speak? We seem to be afraid of rattling off a thought and risking appearing … gasp … human.

In 2009, 11,889 teenagers ages 13 through 19 used Botox, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. That's a 2% increase since 2008. And the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery reports 12,110 Botox or Dysport (another wrinkle-relaxing injectable) procedures were performed on patients 18 and younger.

These drugs are used for non-cosmetic purposes sometimes,  such as treating migraines and heavy sweating, but the majority of statistics point toward an attempt to improve beauty. In a world where appearances mean everything to so many, I suppose it should be no surprise that teens are trying to avoid aging—despite the fact their nearest wrinkle is at least 15 years away. It's sad, though, because the trend indicates that, instead of unselfconsciously pursuing interests, making friends, volunteering or working hard in school, these teens are already ridiculously obsessed with their looks. And to feed that obsession, they take the Botox "gateway drug." What happens at 25? A total body makeover via scalpel and suction tube? At 30 are they deemed decrepit and condemned?

The latest teen to use Botox—the latest famous one at least—is 18-year-old Filipino singer Charice Pempengco, who is said to have used the injectable drug for cosmetic reasons before filming her new role on the show Glee. Her plastic surgeon, Dr. Vicki Belo, says she used Botox to narrow Charice's naturally round face, and Charice has said she had the procedure done in order to compete with Lea Michele, the show's lead actress.

But what are they competing for? Both young women are beautiful. Both young women are extremely talented. Are we in such a cut-throat culture that even that isn't good enough? Apparently so. And unless teens realize that a) life isn't about appearance, b) life isn't about them, and c) aging is a natural part of life, they're going to be dissatisfied. Except, we probably won't see a hint of unhappiness on their perfectly preserved, immobile faces.

You tell me. The world doesn't make much sense anymore, and I need some guidance:

Is Colton Harris-Moore a role model? Until his capture in the Bahamas on Sunday, this 19-year-old "Barefoot Bandit" from Washington state had been on a two-year crime spree that's cost the public hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage and law enforcement expenses.

OK, I admit I already know the answer: The kid is merely a very intelligent but troubled dude who needs counseling and a good stint in jail. To countless people, though, Harris-Moore has become a bona-fide hero. Never mind the fact he's stolen multiple cars and several speedboats, as well as lifted and crashed at least five small planes. (And that's not including the hundreds of other property crimes he's committed.) People even write songs about him, touting him a folk legend.

I classify that fact under "Things That Make You Ask 'Why?'"

There are lots of reasons, but media is definitely involved. Harris-Moore already has about 85,000 fans on a Facebook page—and counting. National media outlets are spending hours covering the story, and millions of people have now heard about this slippery teen who's thumbed his nose at authority for half his life. Colton T-shirts are selling out, and bumper stickers, tributes and videos are all available at the click of a computer mouse. There's even talk about his mother writing a memoir.

Hundreds of thousands of people are banding together to promote Harris-Moore's legendary criminal "feats" and celebrate his ability to beat the system for so long. It's as if they're living vicariously through this kid because their own suburban taxpayer lives lack such drama.

I know. This isn't a new phenomenon. Jesse James was a far worse criminal but received similar hoopla and admiration in the late 1800s, thanks in part to the dime novels that sprung up around his legend. The difference today, however, is one of mobility and ease. Today people have access to 24/7 information of all kinds—and they comment on it relentlessly via the Internet.

Never before have so many people with so little to say said so much about a thief.

Facebook and other social networking resources are becoming big factors when it comes to divorce, according to a new study by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. In fact, four out of every five  attorneys say they've seen an increase in the number of cases that use social media as evidence against an ex- or soon-to-be-ex-spouse.

Compromising photos, comments, messages and the like all provide dirt. "Facebook is a great source of evidence," says divorce attorney Ken Altshuler in a story on telegraph.co.uk. "It's absolutely solid evidence because [the spouse] is the author of it. How do you deny that you put that on?" Lee Rosen, another divorce attorney, says about 25% of his cases include incriminating information found on social media sites. Evidence might be Facebook photos posted by a mother who continually buys and wears expensive jewelry but claims she needs more child support. Or it might be pictures of secret lovers caught unaware.

Besides providing proof against a cheating mate, social networking sites, especially Facebook, have increased the ease of having an affair—physical and emotional—since it's now fairly simple to find old flames and flirt.

All this makes me wonder how careful we are with both our own social networking profiles and marriages—not necessarily in that order. Are we talking as we should to people of the opposite sex? Are our comments above reproach? Would we mind if our spouse saw everything we wrote?

If we say we're immune to divorce, we could actually be just a bit more vulnerable to it since our guard is down. So as we steer around the false intimacy that social networking can generate, let's look out for emotional slippery slopes.

There have been many such videos, but here are few of the most recent and controversial ones. First up is "Baby Scarface," in which young kids act out famous scenes from that movie, using "fudge" in place of the word … well, you know. And then they pretend to kill one another with toy machine guns.

Then we have a group of heavily made-up, scantily clad and gyrating 8-year-olds dancing to Beyoncé's hit "Single Ladies." They're fabulous athletes, but the routine is so sexualized that it outraged many adults. The parents, however, defended their choice to allow their children to participate and to wear lingerie.

And, most recently, there's the "Baby Gaga" parody of Lady Gaga's song "Telephone." A 3-year-old acts out some of Gaga's sultry moves, dancing with adult women who wear next to nothing. The toddler herself wears handcuffs, heavy eye makeup and racy outfits. Her mother told The CBS Morning News, "It's a spoof on Lady Gaga, and it has to be a little outrageous because Lady Gaga's videos are outrageous."

No one in that family, it seems, paused to consider whether there was any need for a toddler to spoof Lady Gaga in the first place.

All of these parents (and many of these kids' "fans") say there's nothing wrong with such videos. After all, they're so young they won't remember any of it! And they're merely having fun dressing up, joking around and being with adults.

But there are serious—and multiple—problems with this mindset.

First, these children are being exposed to adult behavior that they cannot understand. By mimicking it, they're implicitly being taught that they should grow up more quickly—or worse, that they're already grown up. Without understanding the beauty of sexuality in its proper context, these kids are already on a path toward desensitization and destructive behavior in that area of their lives.

Second, it's yet another example of how our culture sends terribly mixed messages. On one hand, we say children should be protected and that pedophilia is an outrage. But then some parents themselves provide pedophiles with ample material to exploit their own children.

As Australian professor Dorothy Scott, Director of the Australian Centre for Child Protection, noted, "Commercial forces turn children into consumers. This is bad enough when it compromises health by encouraging them to consume bad food, cigarettes and alcohol. But when commercial forces turn children into sexualized commodities, it corrodes the core of the developing child and makes them more vulnerable to exploitation."

These children likely won't lose their innocence over one incident of dancing or acting that gets recorded and posted online. But if their parents continually dismiss the dangers of allowing such behavior—let alone encourage it—their children are already on a tragic path.

There's nothing good about a tiny girl wearing a bra and gyrating in front of an audience. Or a young boy yelling, "Motherfudger!" and "killing" his buddy. Children imitate behavior as they learn how to interact with others. What happens when Scarface and Lady Gaga are their templates?