patrick.net

Intersting, although I would have to take issue with #3, the schools "educate for compliance." Schools work in a group setting. The idea that cooperation, and acting in a way that benefits the group, is detrimental, or that school could easily work in another way is questionable.

Yes students are asked to comply with rules, and sometimes to make an effort to be interested in things that they may not be interested in. That is and always has been the nature of schools. Thank goodness that 10 year olds don't have total freedom to learn whatever they want to learn (although they do that on their own time - as servants to what is marketed to them).

Do we need to improve education ? Yes, definitely. And it might even involve giving more choice to students, at certain times what they study. But once they are in a class, working within a large group, learning how to cooperate, or comply, and follow rules that benefit the group, that is to learn that everything is not all about them. This is not a bad thing.

#3 is very weak.

Maybe the point can be taken, that our relative passiveness, is something we have learned partly in school. Just as being civilized humans, in most social contexts requires us to not be obnoxious.

In learning to get along, and not to see "friction" or something stronger as a way of meeting our needs, is not a problem in a fair and just society. So I guess it's true, when friction or even violence are required (I am not suggesting we are ready for a revolution), we are ill prepared, because of how civilized we are, and because we are accustomed to social structures that have worked for us, and we have not needed to rebel (recently).

It could just as easily be asserted that we, not just the young, in fact more so older folks, have had it so good, and have never really learned to protest (with the exception of a few ex hippies, and some bought and paid for folks from the asylum, working for the tea party).

Give us a generation or two of having a lot to protest (where we are now) and I'm sure we will do just fine.

I prefer healthy 18 - 34 year olds to remain uninquisitive and tethered to their moving pictures. They play an important role for gentleman of my merit and stature as organ incubators. I'm on my fourth liver, and I must say each generation provides a more well preserved specimen. I feel like I'm seventy-two again!

kentm says

Among 18- to 34-years-olds, 76 percent of them said no.

That's because they aren't working and don't feel entitled to it. When I was 18 to 30 I didn't think much about SS either. But working almost 20 years and having it taken out or having to pay it at the end of the year. I'll either expect it or a refund with interest.

Tenouncetrout says

That's because they aren't working and don't feel entitled to it. When I was 18 to 30 I didn't think much about SS either. But working almost 20 years and having it taken out or having to pay it at the end of the year. I'll either expect it or a refund with interest.

SS doesn't seem like a monster of liability when compared to Medicare and Medicaid. But our government sure loves spending future money they don't have and let the rest of us get stuck with nothing.

I'm surprised they are not cutting Medicare/Medicaid more. Its much bigger than SS, and payouts are much higher than for the same by private sector insurance. Making these cuts wouldn't actually hurt seniors, it would just make healthcare sector more efficient.