I'd feel successful if I can make my kids' lives SIMPLER than our generations. Between cell phones, IPods, DVDs, cable, Internet, it's hard these days to take an hour of silence and call it good. That's not progress, that's sad.

We took our kids lambing yesterday to a coworkers 18-acre farm. We held a lamb that had been born in the last 24 hours, fed the cows their hay and stepped in cow pies. My kids will never forget it, and I never had that opportunity in my lifetime until yesterday. That's progress in my book.

As a new dad, this whole idea challenges me because I actually have had a pretty fortunate life – at least so far. I’ve certainly had an easier life than my parents. Could I have a “better” life? Well, I suppose. In the ways that count, I’m doing okay. And I’ll be happy and consider myself a good parent if I can give my son as good a life as mine. I’ll be happy if he discovers what it means to love and be loved, but also gains the wisdom earned with a broken heart. I’ll be happy if he understands the difference between confidence and arrogance, and right and self-righteousness. I’ll be happy if he appreciates the meaning of words like humanity and humility, passion and compassion, responsibility and respect. I’ll be happy if he knows it’s possible for a quiet man to take a quiet stand. I’ll be happy if he doesn’t have to struggle, but still knows what it means to struggle. I’ll be happy if his imagination always remains younger than him. I’ll be happy if he thinks and cares about the world around him, without losing sight of who he is. And I’ll be happy if by the time he is the age I am now he can add better things to this list.

Some of these are things his mother and I can give him. But more than anything I just hope we give him the same thing my parents gave me - the ability to find most of these things for myself.

I think the children of the next generation will have a "better" life if we can show them how truly fortunate and blessed most of them are and teach them some humility and generosity to those less fortunate as a result of their good fortune.

They will be better off than we are if they can laugh fully and much, but never in unkindness or at the expense of others.

If we can teach them (hopefully by modelling it ourselves) that it is critically important to believe in something (a career, a family, a country, a cause, or even all of the above!) and to be willing to sacrifice and work hard for the benefit of that something, so they can appreciate the sweetness of accomplishment honestly and honourably earned, then they will have a solid foundation to stand on with their children, and we can be proud of the attention and time we have given to the children we love.

We shouldn't want our children to "have it easier" or "have more" than we did. We should want them to BE BETTER PEOPLE than we are, whatever the fickle, unpredictable, often unavoidable circumstances of their lives.

These are interesting reflections, and I'm tempted to cobble them together:

"I'd feel successful if I can make my kids' lives SIMPLER than our generations. ... If we can teach them that it is critically important to believe in something. ... I just hope we give him the same thing my parents gave me - the ability to find most of these things for myself. ... We should want them to BE BETTER PEOPLE than we are, whatever the fickle, unpredictable, often unavoidable circumstances of their lives."

Lots of wisdom here.

But what in blazes are the politicians talking about? They can't do any of the above. And I guess that's what gnaws on me as we all nod our heads in agreement that we owe our kids a better world than we had.

Is this the mutual agreement that creates "helicopter parents"? Is it also a cop-out that excuses US from making our own damned change during the next 40 years we're on the planet? Is it also the fuzzy far-ahead gaze that allows politicians to put off health care reform indefinitely?

I guess I think we owe our kids the same chance we had. The rest, I think, they've got to do on their own.

And if we've taught them anything about life, they wouldn't have it any other way.

Of course the politicians can't do any of the things mentioned above. But they want us to think they can. Because they know it helps ease our own fears that we'll fail to give our kids what we want them to have. It makes us feel like it's not entirely our responsibility. They're playing to our own insecurities.

But maybe the message would be better, or at least more accurately, framed as: "I can't give your kids a a better life. But I can and will join you in shaping a society that allows your children to build a better life for themselves."

Insofar as politicans are concerned, if my children were to have a better life, I'd want them to understand (as most people currently DO NOT) that being telegenic and coming across as "sincere" is not the same thing as being a decent, respectable, principled public servant. I'd want my children to have a strong enough intellectual foundation to actually want to know - and be able to find out by getting and comparing information from various sources - what candidates actually stand for. I'd want them to know enough to hold those whom they elect responsible for doing the right thing rather than mugging "sincerely" for the camera and taking campaign contributions from big pharma (or big biz in general). That's the political end. For the rest of it, in terms of a better life, I wish I could do a better job of teaching my kids that their lives aren't about 24-hour-a-day entertainment. I wish I could teach them that the world doesn't revolve around them, but it does require their active participation and concern. Honestly, I spend so much time trying to protect and sheild them, trying to make sure they're "happy," that I'm really not sure I'm giving them that "better life." David, in future, we need easier questions, please.

Political campaigns are never about truth, honesty, or realistic promises.

The irony of all this is that for all this talk of making a better world for our children, we'll all get old and be increasingly convinced the world is going to hell in a hand basket.

Yup. And then we'll blame our kids because, despite our hopes and dreams, the little runts still grew up to be selfish, lazy adults who expect politicians or someone else to solve all the world's problems for them. Honestly, I don't know where they got it from...

I don't think the world's going to hell in a handbasket. It's just I get my honesty from sources other than politicians. The game they play doesn't allow for it. Anyone who really, really REALLY needs something from someone else (affection, love, continued employment, their vote) will do and say whatever it takes to get their needs met. WE are the idiots for paying so much attention to what they say and so little attention to what they've done in the past.

We're also idiots--and I am chief among us--for focusing on national-level politicians while the local guys either fix our streets or pick our pockets. How many hours of windbaggery have I listened to and expended in about the national elections over the last month, during which time a ridiculous and dangerous trench has been left unfilled in the street right in front of my house, because I am too lazy to call Alderman Ocasio's office.

We need to make it a better world for our children, so when we get older, we can complain about how easy they have it, and how soft they are.

We need to make them richer, so when we get older, we can complain about how they're spoiling our grandchildren.

We need to make them more technologically advanced, so we can scoff and belittle them for having communication gadgets implanted in their heads and allowing their children to give up playing with each other entirely.

Oooooh, darn you! No, gosh darn you, better world!

Now that would be a campaign commitment that would get some media: "If I'm president, I'll make sure all our kids and grandkids have communication gadgets implanted in their heads and that children no longer play together! That's what I stand for: no more play and gadgets in kids heads - remember that when you mark your ballot!"

If nothing else, the candidate would get credit for not being afraid to take a controversial stand. And the sad thing is, he or she would probably get a surprising number of votes.

Holtz for President!

Give 'em hell Shel!

>>Holtz for President!?<<

Nah, he has the wrong DNA to be president...he was born with the "ethics" gene.

My parents tried to make us better off than they were. They gave us education, a work ethic, an appreciation for all the wonderful gifts we have, and love. They could not have done better.

The greater "we" of this generation has given the U.S. a split society that John Edwards addresses truthfully. Will your kids be middle class? Will there be a middle class? The rich get richer and the rest get poor. You better be rich, or you might not enjoy the new and better world. Let's solve this problem now.

Well gee, Johnny B, Edwards is already getting criticized for the negativity of that "two Americas" stuff--Mitt Romney, quite frankly, resents it--so how would it go down if Edwards said we need to stop dragging our middle class down and risking plunging its children into poverty while a a couple of rich families trade the presidency back and forth?"

I can say that. And you can say that. But John Edwards--the fringe candidate--cannot, or at least he does not think he can. (And he points to Kucinich as proof.)

I gave my kids a college education -- that's more than my parents gave me. They're on their own now and doing just fine carving out their own "better world."

Will

Well, I got a college education from my parents, so I'm thinking: What more can I, should I, give my little one?

And: Geez, it's hard enough just keeping my own head above water!