Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Michael Medved :: Townhall.com Columnist
It's good news when kids focus on finance over philosophy
by Michael Medved
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



p>In the midst of all the disturbing, depressing data in the new Statistical Abstract of the United States just released by the U.S. Census Bureau you can still find nuggets of encouragement and reassurance.

For me, the most significant (and welcome) change noted in this report may involve the altered attitudes of young people. Asked to identify their “primary personal objectives,” 79% of college freshman in 1970 described their goal as “developing a meaningful philosophy of life.” By 2005, 75% of the incoming students instead focused on material advancement—saying that “becoming financially very well off” represented their top aim.

Some observers may see in this change a lamentable decline in “idealism.” Why is it a good thing, they will ask, if students concentrate on getting ahead in material terms rather than focusing on philosophical explorations?

For one thing, the presence of more practical, less ruminative collegians reflects the fact that young people from every economic class now attend universities or community colleges. Close to half of all high school graduates now enroll in institutions of higher education (including 41% of traditionally disadvantaged African-Americans) – an increase of more than three-to-one in the percentage of those who pursue advanced learning compared to the famous baby boom generation. When I attended university (Graduating Class of 1969), college still amounted to an elite opportunity for the relatively privileged few: today, young Americans from every economic class and every ethnic group get the opportunity to advance their education (even though they may go deeply in debt to do so).

In other words, the rich kids who represented the bulk of college students in 1970 could afford to concentrate on “developing a meaningful philosophy of life” and to explore the profound glories of meditation, marijuana, the new left, and radical forms of sexual expression. Many of the adventurous activists and idealists and intellectual adventurers of thirty and forty years ago could explore alternative modes of living—engaging in all sorts of trapeze and high-wire stunts-- without worrying about careers or practicalities because they were protected by a safety net provided by Daddy’s money. Today’s students, in a far more fiercely competitive economy and with bigger dept incurred in pursuing their education, naturally focus on their financial future.

That future, by the way, remains brighter than ever, despite misleading propaganda about our standard of living. An unprecedented 70% of Americans now own their own homes and the floor space in new one-family houses has expanded from 1,905 feet in 1990 to 2,227 in 2005 –a growth of 10% in just 15 years. More than half of American households now own stocks and mutual funds—another marker once associated only with the upper class. The 91 million individuals who live in these stock-owning households boast a median age of 51 and a median household income of $65,000.

In other words, one of the reasons that more college students think about making themselves “financially very well off” is that this sort of progress is now possible for an unprecedented number of Americans. In 1970, a total of 35,000 earned professional degrees, with their significant earning capacity; by 2004, the total had increased to 83,000 (42,000 men, 41,000 women).

Finally, a focus on financial progress rather than finding a “philosophy of life” in part reflects the fact that more college freshman than ever before feel they’ve already developed a set of personal values – values that frequently stem from Christian commitment. Professor Alexander Astin of UCLA conducts an annual survey of incoming freshman and for more than a decade he’s noted the increasing religiosity (and corresponding pro-life attitudes) of these new university students. At the same time, enrollment in the nation’s hundreds of Christian colleges and universities has soared at a far higher rate than the growth of student bodies in secular institutions. With more young people describing themselves as religious, it’s not surprising that fewer feel a need to “develop a meaningful philosophy” with the help of their college professors. They’ve learned the philosophy they need at home or in church (or synagogue) and now want to concentrate on the practical, material advancement that helps create wealth for their own families and, ultimately, for society at large. This change may also connect with another dramatic transformation noted in the Statistical Abstract: the sharply falling rate of divorce. With 3.7 divorces per 1,000 individuals in 2004, divorce rates fell to their lowest level since 1970. Among the states, Nevada still claimed the highest divorce rate – but even there the numbers plunged from 11.4 divorces per 1,000 in 1990, to just 6.4 in 2004. In part, the falling divorce rate reflects the decreasing number of marriages, but even among those who make the decision to marry, divorce is significantly less likely to break apart a family than at its peak some 25 years ago.

Baby boomers may continue to boost our generation as uniquely brave, idealistic, even heroic, but the numbers from the Census Bureau suggest that we should stifle some of our characteristic generational pride. Young people today are better educated, more productive, more practical, more religious, and more likely to construct lasting marriages than we were. In a sense, the obsession with “developing a meaningful philosophy of life” served us very poorly indeed: think only of all the phony gurus, and religious cults, and political extremism, and free love experiments, and drug explorations, and destructive radical politics that afflicted the famous ‘60’s generation.

Retrospectively, how many of us still feel proud of these various indulgences and idiocies?

Exactly thirty years ago, I wrote a book called WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO THE CLASS OF ’65?, together with my high school classmate David Wallechinsky. It became a surprise bestseller as one of the first highly skeptical, debunking works that exposed some of the fatuous (and even tragic) excesses of the vaunted “Youth Culture” of the 1960’s. In the course of the book, we came up with a phrase to characterize the privileged kids we profiled – who had graduated from Palisades High, our notoriously posh, upper- middle class California alma mater. To some extent, we wrote that we were all “paralyzed by possibilities” – and that self-indulgent, narcissistic paralysis damaged countless individuals and the nation as a whole.

In that context, it’s hardly admirable that our generation concentrated on philosophical meanderings, nor is it in any sense regrettable that today’s students prefer to focus on economic progress and getting ahead. The kids today, in short, are closer to living and revitalizing the classic American dream, and they are serving the country while advancing themselves.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Michael Medved's daily syndicated radio talk show reaches one of the largest national audiences every weekday between 3 and 6 PM, Eastern Time. Michael Medved is the author of eleven books, including the bestsellers What Really Happened to the Class of '65?, Hollywood vs. America, Right Turns and, most recently, The Ten Big Lies About America.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Michael Medved's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
ein
To skip the history and get to the main point, maybe Medved is the right man for the times - education shouls only be about greed and the accumulation of wealth and any world of ideas, philosphy and other intangibles should be discouraged. We can be a total society of empty but rich citizens and spiritual fulfillment could be packaged in an aerosol can and marketed for someone's profit. It might not work as well, but reading through this thread has convinced me that most people won't know the difference anyway.

For Ein
I enjoy reading your posts , among one or tow others who write regualrly and I wish I had had jumped in sooner because you said many interesting things on this thread.

This is the least important, but about halfway up you said you thought wealth ws valued more among Jewish populations because historically, they could have their possessions taken from them instantly and without due process.

I have always felt that, more than wealth, Jewas have always placed an extremely high value on education, even more than wealth, because historically that was the one thing that couldn't be taken away by their Christian friends and authorities. It was not uncommon in the middle ages to have (Christian) men of wealth and power extract an unlucky set of Jewish teeth, one by one, until the original owner was persuaded to forgive a debt, and then relinquish his home, investments, etc. But you can't extract an education, or the ability to go somewhere else and set up another business or medical practice.


Lydia: The questions I ask
1) A cursory reading of the Koran suggests that a major focus of Islam is the social governance of the Islamic society. Is this fair?

2) Would you agree that Saudi Arabia's ban on women driving violates the basic principles of Islam? After all Mohammed's first wife led armies into battle on the back of a camel.

3) How do you reconcile living in a nation with a separation of church and state when your religion doesn't recognize such? What are your thoughts on the separation of church and state?

4) What are the limits of free speech in Islamic tradition?

5) Did Ayatollah Khomeini overstep his bounds when he issued the fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie? Why or why not?

6) How do you reconcile the tradition of free and even the protection offensive speech that exists in the US with being a Muslim? If Rushdie was an American who was born to a Muslim family, would it be right for the Iranian government to order his death? Why or why not?

Lydia
I think the key point is that we need to build an intelligent discussion with key Islamic individuals (including Keith Ellison) posing real concerns and asking for written replies.

I certainly agree that Islam is inherently political (in that the core of the religion is a social blueprint), and so far, I haven't met any Muslims that would disagree. The question to my mind is how people reconcile being a Muslim with the tradition of plurality in this nation. I will say that I have not been encouraged by the answers I have heard Muslims give to my questions, but as I say, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Judaism is, like Islam, largely a religion of ritual and law, but unlike Islam, Judaic tradition has rarely if ever attempted to apply Judaic law to non-Jews. Therefore there isn't much of a conflict.

Certainly the idea that it would be acceptable to the Founders to allow the establishment of Islam in any manner as a religion endorsed by the government is contrary to any reading I have seen. However, I would not deny them free excersize of their beliefs. THe best antidote for ideas that are truly dangerous is to let those who hold them expose them publically.

Lydia
Would you then disagree with me that the Founders saw religious freedom (and the freedom to dabble) as a major part of their own concept of liberty?

Having spent time overseas (6 months in Indonesia living with my parents-in-law), I will say that we are truly blessed to live in a nation with such great liberty.

Coolnout
I am currently trying to teach myself Ladino. I may not be religiously (or even ethnically) Jewish, but my tradition does teach me to value my ancestors and so this is one way to do it.

My point is not to suggest that Jews should feel sorry for themselves but rather to put into perspective the emphasis on economic advancement and self-reliance that is often found in a culture for which this was, for so many centuries, a necessity for personal survival.

Interestingly the Sephardim (the group of Jews that includes my ancestors) are far less Zionist-oriented than most other Jews. Most were living in the Middle East before WWI and the Balfour Declaration initiated a great attempt on the part of the UK to encourage Jews to leave that country. Most Sephardim up until recently were trilingual (Hebrew, Ladino, and Arabic, Turkish, Greek, or whatever the local language was).

Interestingly, you might not know this but it was the Sephardim that were instrumental both in the development of Castillian an the main language of Spain and also of its success. The pride in the accomplishments of the language is perhaps part of hte reason that Ladino as a language still survives. (Ladino is also called Djudeoespanyol and is only subtly different from the Spanish of the late 15th Century.)

david mac
I find your rant rather unpleasant. I disagree with Phylo all the time. But must you stoop to mocking and name-calling? Whether you agree with him or not, he thinks things through, asks note-worthy questions and I daresay can out argue you any day!

Mostly I am put-off by your remark about comparing respect for him with the homeless man. Actually, both are deserving of equal respect. Both are fellow humans. Sojourners on the path of life and deserving of equal and compassionate respect and dignity. Even you are deserving of that respect. In the end, we're all in this together.

Phylo
I mock you because you aren't worth anything more than that.

If you posted anything of substance, I might argue, but your leftist drivel is insubstantial and not even close to my 6th grade standards.

Yes, Phylo, I mock you. I will mock you and your kind until I die. I have more respect for a homeless wino lying in his own urine than I do for you.

Verbivore
I have done a lot of thinking about the slow death of the humanities in our educational system. In general I agree with you even to the point of saying that if you study what you love, you will always find a way to capitalize on it later.

I see several trends which conspire to destroy the intellectual foundations of our society. These are:

1) Comfort-based humanities instruction. While I am all for the general principle of Women's studies, African-American studies, etc, all too often these programs simply become self-esteem-based programs. The goal of education is to learn tools for life (and this means the search for truth too, I think). And the humanities are becoming less able to fulfill this demand because there is more and more demand to avoid asking the hard and unpleasent questions or seriously study those, such as Plato, who laid the foundations for Western civilization (including, BTW, much of Christian theology, such as the trinity, Augustin's idea of original sin, and the like).

2) Financial insecurity of the middle class. Parents often emphasize the importance of economic prosperity because there is more economic uncertainty today for the middle class than there was in '69. This results in a sharp question of why people don't want to study practical things, like engineering and scientific disciplines. Our schools invariably thus continue to de-emphasize the humanities in order to spend more time and emphasis on vocational areas. A large part of the insecurity comes from living beyond one's means.

I think there is also a slow but steady social decay evident in our society and honestly, I think that the amount of time people spend watching television is the main reason. I actually don't even think it is about what is on television so much as the fact that people watch television instead of what they used to do (socialize with neighbors, etc). Thus the rise in the amount of time people spend watching television is greatly weakening the bonds on which our society is build. So many people today are out of touch with the world around them and with other people.

Phylo Se Fizer
DavidMac wasn't arguing with you. He knows its futile to argue with conspiracy nuts. He was laughing at you.

Coolnout: Medved isn't a Christian
And Jews as an ethnic group (including my relatives) have tended throughout history to place a very large emphasis on self-reliance and economic security. This was probably because the majority populations of Europe (Christians) were razing their homes, driving them out, and the like. Hence having enough financial wealth that one could afford to lose one's home and have to leave on a moment's notice was often a matter of very survival.

Lydia
What do you think of the prepondernace of Freemasonry among the Founding Fathers (George Washington even wore Masonic regalia to the cornerstone ceremony in building the Capitol) and the vast number of statues to pagan Goddesses that seem to stand as guides to the local and federal governments of our great republic?

Mad_Mike: Root of all evil
In software engineering, we have a saying: Premature optimization is the root of all evil. Seems like a very conservative principle to me.

Going through school in search of a degree that will make you money is premature optimization.

There is a major tradeoff though
My degree is in history. That is because I really love the subject. I love searching for information, looking for meaning in source documentation, and so forth. It is a wonderful area. My goal was (and still is) to do something I love. Money was and still is secondary.

I am a software engineer. I don't have a computer science degree, and most HR departments used to pass me over for that reason. However, I can hold my own against probably 90% of the holders of BS in CS degrees out there. Why? Because I learned how to pick up a subject and learn it. I learned how to go through documentation to find information as I need it, and I learned how to put it in a pattern.

I am one of the best software engineers I know (though I know plenty that are better than me that I like to hang out with to learn more). The only people who are better are those, like me, who genuinely love the field and aren't just in it for the money. If it was financially profitable, I could also become a musician, a chef, or half a dozen other careers. Financial factors are now tie breakers.

I started my own consulting business because I was being overlooked by HR departments due to my lack of a CS degree. Because I know my stuff and produce quality work, I am now so busy that I work 6 days a week (more than 8 hrs per day). I keep trying to hire people, but it is hard to find good software engineers and the degrees are no indication of real quality.

So my advice to people is not to care what people say about being able to make money with your degree. If you go ahead and study, have a good time learning, and so forth, you will be able to make money wherever you want. But if you seek a degree for financial benefit, you will find it far harder to change careers if that becomes necessary. And you never know when ancient Egyptian history might come in useful in software engineering, for example (which it does surprisingly often, actually).

phylo
Medved makes some interesting points. I don't know if I agree with him or not. But He does make a point about the "luxury" of being able to work out a "philosophy of life," as contrasted with the nitty-gritty of actually living life. Some don't have the luxury of all that navel-gazing.

He speaks from a position of authority, having authored the book on his class of 69. He doesn't come by his conclusions lightly. How can you unequivocably declare him a sheister? After all, where were you in 69?

On the other hand...while I believe him to be sincere in his conclusions, not maniputlative, I find his conclusions surprising. Yes, the nave-gazing 60s were populated by a lot of rich kids with nothing better to do. They already were financially well off, so they pursued another course. Some might say a rather bratty course. On the other hand, I don't think I agree with his conclusions as to why the contrast today.

I agree with you that the materialism he sees flies in the face of Christianity and the search for Truth.

But what to make of the Census report and the college students desire to be "financially very well off?"

I find it sad and rather telling that students today seek financial prosperity above all else. I suspect its not so much that they already posses values as Medved suggests, but more that they believe there is no "value" to values. No point in philosophy. No more depth to life than that which lies in their grasp. More likely their god is materialism.

College is a time where you come into your own as it were, separate from your past, and question all you've been taught. Those who never do that, tend to never really grow up.

I suppose there is a balance between the two. Whos children are these? These are not the children of the hippies, are they? These are the children of the 80's me generation, right? So what does that mean??

Money
Why is it that those that condemn money are the first to try to get someone else’s?


The schools do a diservice to America
when they fail to teach kids the ins and outs of personal finance, accounting and economics. This will do them more good for the future than teaching them about somebody's two mommies or how to stuff a banana into a latex sheath.

But what about the next world? Is our education complete unless we learn about how to succeed for eternity?

Stop by my blog and read my latest post: "What in the World is the Romans Road?"

I covet you comments!

Greed
Its all about greed. Michael is the epitome of the new rich. I made it, you didn't, too bad for you, I win. Success to Michael is measured by the stuff you have, not your contributions or your personal satisfaction or even your personal integrity.

It was interesting hearing him interview Chris Gardner the subject of the new movie with Will Smith. Gardner is a self made man who knew what to do with the opportunities presented him but who overcame incredible obstacles on the way. Michael touts this as a movie saying it is good to get rich. In the interview it was clear that although the money helps, Gardner was careful to reinforce the importance of personal, non-money goals and the importance of family. To me those are important elements of a positive and successful philosophy. Michael did everything he could to make the money the only subject of the interview and failed.

Our society has changed. The desire for success for your kids was to grow up to be doctors or scientists or to work for a company that would provide a good living and a degree of job and life security though pensions and health care. Medved disdains this idea and says it is the sole job of companies to make money, the employees be damned unless it helps the bottom line. The best thing for kids now is to grow up and be a trader on Wall Street, a securities lawyer, or an executive and that is about it.

Michael spouts all the statistics about how well we live but never mentions how far we live beyond our means. It is appearances, salesmanship and debt that run the US and Michael cannot see the realities through the hype.

From illegal immigrants and the people who hire them, to trading with the communist Chinese, to getting rid of all public support systems, to protecting oil, to privatizing everything including the military, education, water, land and natural resources it is all about greed and the wealth of the few.

Lets try to remember the golden rule and move away from greed and celebrity Mr. Medved.


response to David Mac
How do I like you now?

I think you're a fool and I think you argue with all of the skill and intelligence of a dim witted sixth grade boy. There's absolutely nothing of substance in your post. It's all just juvenile mockery.

Phylo out.

Phylo
posted that he, " believe[s] that Michael Medved is nothing but a highly paid salesman for the corporate arsitocracy. "

Oh, please, say it ain't so!

Medved sold out?!?!?! How could he ignore all the sacrifice the radical leftists made in the 1960's???? Medved's a TRAITOR to the cause!!!!!
Those evil corporate bastards!! It's gotta be Halliburton and Cheney! They brainwashed Medved and now he's a corporate shill for the evil rich!!!!!

Medved's corrupting our children, too! He's making them think that success is important!! He doesn't understand that the revolution is EVERYTHING!!!

It's the NeoCon Bush-bots and Rush Limbaugh who are ruining America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They started a war-for-oil in Iraq, now they are going after our children.

(There, Phylo, how do you like me now?)


Medved's true motivation
Call me a cynic or a conspiracy nut if you will, but I believe that Michael Medved is nothing but a highly paid salesman for the corporate arsitocracy. (He's not paid directly by them. But he knows that he will recieve ample compensation by supporting their agendas.)

This column reveals his two pronged strategy for enhancing the wealth of the very few: a) He tries to discourage people from thinking for themselves, and b) He tries to encourage people to focus on material wealth.

A) For Medved, discouraging people to think for themselves is a way of ensuring that the masses will be easily manipulated through the use of shameless demagogy. All you have to do with people who can't or won't think for themselves is play to their fears and their prejudices and you can get them to support almost any public policy endeavor, including policies that hurt the masses and benefit only a very few already wealthy people.

Medved accomplishes this is in today's column by praising the kids for coming to college with preset philosophical frameworks as fine upstanding citizens, and ridiculing people who dare to think for themselves as a bunch of pot-smoking sexual perverts. And he accomplishes this on his daily radio show by ridiculing anyone who thinks or acts a little differently from the norm (like people who think deeply about philosophy for instance).

B) Medved's efforts to encourage and inspire people to focus on material wealth is a way of ensuring that the masses will want to work long, hard hours so that the wealthy few can make even more money.

He accomplishes this by continually reminding people of the blessings of wealth, and by trying to convince everyone that they can be wealthy too, if they just work hard enough.

This technique of his is particularly sinister, and it reveals much about Mr. Medved's true motives.

It's sinister because it flies directly in the face of Christianity's admirable tendency to de-emphasize materialism. Religion tells us that what is valuable in life aren't the shiny baubles and trinkets we can gather together for ourselves; rather, what is truly valuable is Truth itself. And of course, the search for truth inevitably involves a deep and earnest interest in philosophy––an interest that Medved is actively discouraging.

And this direct contradiction is revealing because, if Medved were genuinely interested in promoting religion, he wouldn't be simultaneously working to undermine one of it's greatest virtues.

After years of listening to Medved's show I've come to the sad conclusion that he is a shiester of the lowest order. He makes his living by disuading people from the puruit of truth, and persuading them to live their whole lives like hampsters chasing after what are ultimately illusory trinkets.

Shame on you Medved. You could be using your extrordinary talents for good. Instead you're using them for evil.

Phylo out.








More thoughts
My impression of the negative effects of a good college education these days is confirmed the more I speak with today's college students.

I will admit they are more articulate than the blue collar workers I associate with, and I certainly prefer them as neighbors over the rappers, the gang bangers, the Goths, or just about any other subgroup of young people these days, but I cannot get over the impression that the end result of the average college education these days is simply to be more firmly cemented into the idea that the good life consists in the abundance of one's possessions.

Add to that the illusion that their materialistic aspirations can be camouflaged by the false spirituality of a social and political conscience, sometimes in the form of religion, and you have a recipe for a very sad indictment on the day of death.

Double-edged sword
This has the potential for good, or ill. Money may not be the root of all evil, but the *love* of money is.

Practicality leads to success. Materialism leads to heartbreak. I know; I've been there.

Some comments
Mr Medved is a classic conservative. I have always voted Republican but am not conservative on most issues and in general philosophy. By classic conservative I mean that Mr. Medved seems dedicated to the proposition that the status quo is great. I disagree. I think that this nation is on the wrong track and headed for social and financial ruin, despite his promising report on replies to some arcane question. The future doesn't seem so bright.

- His hosting of a guest who tried to laugh off trade and budget deficits as unimportant was probably his lowest moment in radio. And when callers tried to refute them, they quickly got the hook after a "so what?" answer.

- House size is up because interest rates are down, way down, during this period. Also, lenders are now much more reckless in their underwriting and lending policies. 0%, 1%, 3% down loans that are common now just did not exist at the beginning of the statistical period mentioned.

- More Americans own stocks and mutual funds today because of the advent of the internet and the discount brokerages and mutual fund houses. Not because of any particular surge in wealth. While the AVERAGE holdings may well have increased, I think there is another story if you break it down into raw numbers of haves and have nots. Both groups are increasing. And the latter will sink us when they reach retirement age. This is NOT a bright picture. I happen to have a nice retirement fund, by the way. But most people I know of do not.

Divorce is down. Great. But has Mr. Medved witnessed some of the marriages of "real" people, not the celebrities and social elites with whom he socializes? I'd rather be single! Also, people today marry later, and with the social pressure to marry rather than cohabitate removed, many shotgun and sex-based marriages never happen. (and yes, I know the statistic on the non-success rate of cohabitators who marry later). With two incomes often required to "keep up with the Joneses", many marriages are simply business arrangements.

Baby boomers brave? Sure, many are. Just like many in the generation before them. Many more, probably. But think about what this generation has brought us, from the drug culture to institutionalized corporate crime, to the materialism and phone-it-in parenting skills of today. Root for your own generation if you must, Mr. Medved. But on the whole it's been a negative.

I think Mr. Medved is thrilled that more kids today are concerned with making a good living. That's a good thing. But they are also way too concerned with making a GREAT living at the expense of honor, character, and the other phases of life. Cheating in school is rampant, materialism is the new religion. Kids are bullied for not wearing designer clothes. And you are judged not by your character or talents but by who your parents are and what cool stuff you have. And rather than becoming the melting pot some would have us believe, kids are more racially hostile than ever.

Interesting column. But way too rosy a picture. But conservatism means never having to say things need changing. Because when you are a celebrity and wealthy and things are going great for you, you can isolate yourself from the real problems out there.

We're Blessed
Always count on Michael Medved to dig up some good news every now and then. It's esecially nice to count our blessings this time of year. Thanks to the great country we're blessed to live in, the younger generation has more and better opportunities than ever, and many are being more responsible with these opportunities.

I don't know about this, Michael
From the time of my high school graduation until now, I have yet to hear a good explanation as to why going to college constitutes "The Good Life".


Leading by example
Just looking around my own family, which is extensive (Daddy had 11 siblings, Mama had 7), I have noticed that the kids of my own generation are indeed more conservative, hard-working, focused and religious, and that they seem so far to be more rational about their choice of spouse and more committed to their families. I believe a lot of this stems from the terrible example set them by their Boomer parents. They have seen first hand what does not work, and they know they don't want to live like that.

However, among the five girls in my immediate family, one sees a laboratory of lifestyles and the smart kiddie can choose among them by observing what worked and what didn't. For example, marrying a succession of Third World men as a political statement does not work. (This sister's daughter has married a Palestinian Arab who scares the wits out of the rest of us except Mama who would embraze Godzilla if he'd married one of us; her son has proved steady and sensible and mature and has married well.) My own kids are imitating their Mama and one is working his way up through a business using not only his talents but that personality that would see him dropped into a nest of Martians in the morning and President of the Martians by evening; he hasn't graduated from high school at age 24 because he sees no need to, but will when he does. The other one is on full scholarshiop in physics and math, and if he knows there are such things as girls it's only philosophically, but he's self-supporting his way through life and already speaks four languages well enough to get work in any of them. Both of them realize that marriage is a career choice and like the military one volunteers and is not drafted into it.

I think the best thing the Hippies did for America was to set themselves up as the shining example of a wasted life. Young people look at them and envision a future of being regarded as a silly, irrelevant blowhard, and they reject the idea. Long live the Ponytail Hippies. They are saving a generation by their horrible example of what goes wrong when you don't concentrate on your future.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.