So you’re David Brooks, pundit/columnist who’s contribution to the status quo is Thomas Friedman quantities of vagueness that pepper your columns. So afraid of biting the hand that feeds, that you refuse to acknowledge the very vague notions you are presenting in your articles. Mr. Brooks has tried to break down our current economic nightmare in to economic “tribes” trying to find their way, has wondered aloud where all the liberals are, poorly peddles the notion that the GOP is really the party of the working class, and now claims that “our generation” has borrowed from the future like no other generation before.

Firstly, what is Mr. Brooks’ “our generation”? The vague notion is key to his status quo clutching baloney of an article, but I think if it was given parameters would definitely allow this article to be more substantive than it ultimately turns out to be.

Like most of his columns, Mr. Brooks spends an inordinate amount of time selling you a bill of goods you must buy or his entire article don’t make sense…relatively speaking. They’re all boiler-plate, run-of-the-mill, status quo maintaining non-articles generally, but the amount of slack you have to cut the articles so the ideas can even be taken seriously is pretty ridiculous.

Because older generations didn’t have the luxuries of modern technology and were so often one misstep away from utter catastrophe that they remained insecure. “[the older generations] developed a moral abhorrence about things like excessive debt, which would further magnify their vulnerability.” So if you completely ignore American history where expansionism and risk are inherently the “American way“, sure this makes some sense. If you believe, like Mr. Brooks seemingly does, that indebtedness is a modern trope, and that peaks and valley’s in our economy didn’t occur with such veracity until the late 20th century, then sure Mr. Brooks is on to something.

Because modern generations are more secure, we’ve become complacent with debt, according to Mr. Brooks. Which, arguably, the point can be made to this. But I think it’s less compliancy with debt, and more that debt is utterly necessary in this day and age. The standard of living has gone up, while the wages that are paid have plateau-ed and stagnated for decades so that some debt is necessary to the modern nuclear family, even if both parents are working.

It seems Mr. Brooks is making the argument that people just take on debt because they don’t see any harm in it. That people are so stupid as to be tricked by credit card companies to accumulate more debit, or to take out student loans to pay for college and view it less as debt and more as an investment in the future, which is the general line that is used when attempting to pursue higher education. This right-wing ideal that the blame for America’s larger economic ills rest squarely on the general public is old and tired and who’s refutation must become louder and known to all.

That’s not to say there isn’t some truth to “the general public is over entitled and spoiled”, but it doesn’t rest on the general public who’ve paid their taxes and spent their money like the good citizens they are. These citizens were told by the older generations that if they did so they needn’t worry when it was their turn to rest and depend on the next generation. Meanwhile that older generation misrepresented their lessers and filled our “entitlements” with IOU’s that must be paid back more than the government needs to diminish it’s deficits.

The center right and GOP want to keep painting their plan of economic recovery as “we’re all in this together”. It’s utter bullshit, and slowly but surely the voting public must become aware of this, as history has shown, it takes entirely too long to figure this out. In the meantime, the very pundits of status quo that peddle this shared sacrifice narrative are attempting to chain the current economic climate on to a new boogeyman.

Also, what do we have to make of the “We’re not a nation of have and have nots, but a nation of have’s and soon to have’s”? Perhaps this could be related to the tolerance of indebitude that Mr. Brooks seems to think is the major problem our nation is facing at this moment. Is it not inconceivable that an optimistic citizen would view taking on loans or accrue a large credit card debt, if they think that eventually their number will be pulled and their wildest dreams and riches will be at hand?

Mr. Brooks refuses to use this because it would show the sham of that right-wing rhetorical device. Can’t tip the status quo boat, so it’s best to just assume that the American dream has a price tag that many of it’s citizenry can no longer afford on their own because it’s tolerance for debt is soo great.

What the general public is to blame for is being a schizophrenic, ill-informed voting bloc. This constant notion that if that one guy with the “D” next to his name isn’t getting it done, that we may as well get that guy with the “R” next to his name in there is what is truly fueling this continued political strife. That our political parties are becoming more and more similar isn’t helping either, but I believe that is more the fault of a disjointed voting public and the political class evolving to pander to it.

This is why when Mr. Brooks mentions in his article that states are struggling with pensions promises that should never have been made, you have to, as a reader see that he’s pissing on your back and telling you it’s raining. That unions and their desires are crippling our states economies is utterly false. It’s when these Republicans governors are trying to please their corporate overlords with generous tax cuts, subsides and incentives coupled with previous “pension promises” that you have the current deficit debacle that states are supposedly going through. Not even to mention the regressive legislative agendas towards women’s rights, the educational system and public works.

Unfortunately, states can’t run the deficits that the federal government can. So when a republican governor passes a regressive economic agenda, he knows full well he won’t have to deal with the fiscal fall out that will occur long after they have left office. The short term political gain is ALWAYS the prime agenda of the right-wing and GOP, because they are so ideologically bankrupt that they can’t even fathom nuanced, pragmatic policy of any kind.

Mr. Brooks article then switches to the recall of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. According to him Scott Walker turning a $3.6 billion deficit into a $150 million surplus. What David Brooks doesn’t’ relate is that Scott Walker was the chief agent of the $3.6 billion deficit when he propelled a regressive tax plan furl of corporate subsides through the republican dominated legislature. His attempt to fix the deficit he created was to gut the public unions of Wisconsin.

According to pollster Scott Rasmussen that Scott Walker keeps his job will be proof that voters do value deficit reduction and will vote for people who accomplish it. There is no truth in that whatsoever. It proves that voters only turn out for the big elections (your senators, presidents, and governors), and that their ambivalence is not complicit agreement to anything set forth. It also refuses to acknowledge that Tom Barrett, the man running against Scott Walker was limited by campaign rules and only had about $3.9million to campaign with, whilst Scott Walker had $45.6 million dollars, was not confined by rules, which allowed him to collect more than state regulated $10,000 per donor, due to a loop-hole for incumbents. Three-fourths of the funds for Walker came from out of state donors. It’s an unfair fight, and one that laissez-faire “independent” voters will be completely oblivious to. It’s also kind of shows that unions aren’t nearly as powerful and government killing as the right-wing would like you to believe.

Mr. Brooks assertion that a move to populism is what will fix our economic ills is also a right-wing tale as old as time. It’s about as close to “remember how awesome Ronald Reagan was (so awesome)" that you can get without being yet another Ronald Reagan myth fellating right-wing blowhard. And honestly just how much more populist can Obama get and still be tagged with the liberal socialist banner by the right-wing? If by populist we’re referring to kowtowing or caving to House republicans on most of his “liberal socialist” agenda.

The shift back to economic awesomeness isn’t going to be lead by a cultural shift. It’s going to happen after our society reclaims it’s equilibrium and we can tip back to a sort of political pragmatism that’s sorely been lacking. Sadly, it’s just not going to happen any time soon, and maybe not even in MY generation. The conclusion that the current generations need to come to is that the boomers and their ilk have let us all down, and they’re too delusional to admit to as much. The art of kicking the can down the road and “borrowing from the future” was an idea mostly held by them, and sure as hell wasn’t brought on by any insecurity born of a classical age. At a certain point they must be held accountable for the current trend of our politics and socio-cultural trajectory.

If there’s one thing I love more than anything else about Bill O’Reilly it’s his never ending supply of blue collar platitudes that “form” his world-view. You’d think that by now, someone who’s spent predominantly more of his life as a millionaire than a blue collar fella, he’d can it with the “tough guy” business.

In his article "Are teenagers really Americans?” starts off by commenting that he knows one of the great challenges in education is getting teenagers interested in their country. He knows this because he was once a high school teacher. For two years. 40 years ago. He doesn’t relate the length of his tenure as a teacher or how long ago it was presumably because it’s boring. But I think it speaks volumes as to why some old white guy insists that teenagers aren’t interested in their country and that only he has the answers. Teenagers according to Bill O’ Reilly “…are too busy keeping up wit the Kardashians to absorb John Adams.”

What’s exactly so wrong with that? The right-wing is always pooh-poohing young voters for making poor voting decisions. The decisions are poor because that don’t involve much support for right-wing agenda, and the republican party may as well be an old white man factory of utter uncool to young voters. So why now is it so important that teenagers learn how to be “real Americans”? Does “real American” mean that the voter is informed has their own opinions on the things they are about to vote on. More likely “real American” means conservative, all republican voting, and ill-informed.

Bill O’Reilly then takes it upon himself a new project: teaching a 13 year old girl how to care about being an American. I hope that this is some sort of satire, and not a real project. I think there’s Geneva Convention stipulations against this sort of thing. Also, he doesn’t appear to say whether or not this 13-year-old girl is relation or not. Did Bill O’Reilly kidnap a 13-year-old girl, take her to a sub-basement on his compound/lair, and attempt some odd psychological experimentation on how to care about being an American? Is the Department of Justice following up on this? Where’s the law enforcement community in all this or are they being complicit in a kidnapping of a 13-year-old girl?

His first lesson: Obey the rules. This is definitely a kidnapping scenario if he’s dealing in “lessons” and “rules”. The enforcement of such involves all doors being open, “unless there is a dressing situation”. So I guess bath time isn’t covered in that rules, sorry young lady. If Bill O’Reilly wishes to engage in conversation, you’re going to have to hide in the shower with the curtain drawn, or be in a constant state of “dressing situation”. Bill O’Reilly’s reasoning for the “open door” policy: “To discourage internet chicanery and encourage lively conversation”. Has Bill O’Reilly raised any children, in the last decade, or ever? There are computer programs that you can use to stop “internet chicanery”. And I think Bill O’Reilly is using chicanery wrong. How exactly is this 13-year-old girls clever manipulation of language. If he’s being literal, then he shouldn’t allow this 13-year-old girl on the internet at all! It’s chock full of chicanery, and not even to mention things like messenger services, or e-mail, or social networking sites. Also, the internet is full of informative information. Does reading Huffington Post count as chicanery, if the 13 year-old isn’t on BillOReilly.com? What if she doesn’t want to sign up for his e-mail list?

Lesson 2: Discuss Intelligent things - not just reality shows and music maniacs. First of, music maniacs? What is this, the town of Bomont? I can understand things like The Black Eyed Peas or LMFAO being considered “music maniacs” as I do believe they are terrorizing our young people with some sort of noise and light chicanery. And that by it’s very nature would frighten an old white man like Bill O’Reilly. But really, how far would a conversation involving “music maniacs” go between Bill O’Reilly and a 13-year-old girl?

13-year-old girl: Uhh, ummm so have you seen “Party Rock Anthem” By LMFAO
Bill O’Reilly: A what?
13-year-old: NO…it’s a group called LMFAO, they’re pretty cool.
Bill O’Reilly: A what? You know, when I was growing up in the tough streets of Levittown, we beat up LMFAO’s all the time. They were punks and burnouts…and they even asked me to join them, because I was so cool. But I didn’t because they were "hoodlums".
13-year-old: What’s that go to do with anything?
Scene

The greatest thing about lesson 2, aside from the “music maniacs” portion, is that in his scene the 13-year-old girl says “Nobody wants to talk about politics. That’s boring!” To which later in the scene he replies “I do just fine talking about them. Millions of people listen.” It’s phenomenally awesome to read that scene not even two weeks after he went on an entire bender about politics being boring. Is Bill O’Reilly having his Factor writing staff just write his editorials? I mean, it wouldn’t be the hardest thing to do. But to not even have the wherewithal to notice that he literally had a 13-year-old girl tantrum-read-column that said the exact same thing is delicious! I also love the classic Bill O’Reilly “how awesome am I? so awesome” of dropping his “millions of people listen” right in the middle of this column. He’s not done with that stuff either.

Suddenly, the lessons fall away and “rules” begin! This has to be a hostage situation, as this is a classic psychological turn. The ole’ switcheroo! Caring benevolent caretaker, suddenly becomes cruel dominator! Rule 3: Learn about your country’s past. Doesn’t it kind of seem odd that Bill O’Reilly would reach for this when so much about his politics and the very channel “millions of people listen” to him on a nightly basis are revisionist historians and sheer ignorance/fear based ideology? As a former teacher, wouldn’t Bill O’Reilly also remember just how poorly written and fallacious history books can be? Especially in America, where the “history” books we give our children should just be titles “White Guys: Yup, we sure did kick some ass! Oh and we wrote most of history because most brown people are liars. Volume One: How Hard Columbus Kicked Ass!”

The Bill O’Reilly fun zone doesn’t stop there. This 13-year-old girl has just been assigned to read over the summer Bill O’Reilly’s (with "historian" Martin Dugard as co-author) new book "Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever”! Whoa! Even the education system is complicit in this hostage situation, having to assign something like that AND make the child buy the book (he actually has the temerity to say the book is $20). Surely this material is a bit over the head of a 13-year-old?

The disdain that Bill O’Reilly shows this 13-year-old girl, doesn’t just stop at his young hostage, it spills out onto all today’s young people. He calls them urchins that need to be forced or bribed to pay attention to “important things”. Sadly, I don’t think the 13-year-old girl really thought that paying $20 for “Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever” was a bribe of any kind. And this idea that kids today just need book learning, is absurd. Bill O’Reilly says in his article that as a child you had to read to fight off boredom. Yet, he’s a part of such a monolithic entity that preys on peoples ignorance, and buoys itself on rhetoric and misinformation.

What exactly is so important about learning about the value your country? I thought the idea was to be a “real American”, not being informed about your country’s value? It seems rather vague right? At least he didn’t actually say “Hey, watch The O’Reilly Factor every night at 8pm EST on the Fox News Channel and be a “real American!”

Apparently Bill O’Reilly thinks the lessons and rule in his article are a successful way of educating America’s youth about the value of their country. He also tosses in that current right-wing gem of how this election is a battle for the souls of the next generations. It’s kind of sickening that the very thing Bill O’Reilly represents is the chief agent in darkening those souls, and poisoning generations further down the road as well. That he thinks his teaching plan would somehow be approved by Abe Lincoln would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic. The right-wing is literally turning our history and politicians in to those whacky animatronic monstrosities that resides in museums and amusement parks. The bullet point list of achievements that white wash away the context and human nature that actually surrounded those men. While I can’t argue that they need to be eradicated from existence, as I do think they have some place in helping to inform children under the age of six, the idea that these caricatures are made mythological and important should be terrifying to those of us who do know our history.