Like most of you out there, I read a lot of stuff on the Internet: blogs, news, entertainment, sports. Now, with the blogs, there are some I peruse just to get a bit of what’s happening and others of which I am a loyal reader of and commenter on. Sometimes, without us knowing it, a post we innocently throw up turns out be one of those that generates a lot of controversy – a rumble dumble as it were. My blogging buddy, MetroDad, had one of those last week. In his post titled “It’s ‘bling, bling’ not ‘bling, bling, BLING,'” Metro carefully and thoughtfully laid out his views on the absurdity of spending $10,000,000 on a bat mitzvah. He made it known, on several occasions, that sure, Mr. Brooks can do whatever the hell he wants with his money – he earned it, he can spend it any way he damn well pleases. In fact, Metro nonchalantly stated: “And if Mr. Brooks wanted to burn hundred-dollar bills off a hooker’s ass? Well, shit, I’d be first in line to pat him on the back and lend him some matches.” But, he also closed off that same thought with: “But my problem with the whole bat mitzvah brouhaha is the fact that children were involved.” He wanted it known that he plans to instill in Peanut a strong moral balance; wants her to still have drive and ambition; and keep her grounded. But, with the assahattery around her, especially in NYC, he knows he will have to work twice as hard to instill those values. Hell, we all will, given what’s on television, in magazines and on the big screen.

Reading this post, I never once thought about where Metro lives, what he does for a living, where he vacations or what he does with the money he earns. Some of you may disagree, but I don’t find any of that relevant to the post. Others out there found it wholly appropriate to judge the merits of Metro’s post based on just those things with the rationale being that if he can afford to live this way, he has no right to speak ill of how Mr. Brooks spends his loot – some even went so far as to suggest Metro move to somewhere less expensive and modest in order to set a good example. First off, let’s just reject the premise of this argument as it is completely false. As an example, is Peanut going to grow up a superficial, hollow soul because there were four iPods laying around the condo? Well, no more than your child who’s surrounded by six TVs.

No, the point of the post is that we need to set good examples in front of our children regardless of how much or how little we have. Catering to their every whim only serves to create an entire generation who feel entitled to everything with no understanding of personal, career and wealth development; no understanding of drive and ambition or, more importantly, modesty; and certainly no understanding of the value of hard work. Dropping millions of dollars on a party is not a good example to set for a very impressionable 13-year-old girl.

Rate this post