NY Times hack David Brooks is shocked and saddened by a new study showing that young adults don’t really understand the concept of morality.

During the summer of 2008, the eminent Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith led a research team that conducted in-depth interviews with 230 young adults from across America. The interviews were part of a larger study that Smith, Kari Christoffersen, Hilary Davidson, Patricia Snell Herzog and others have been conducting on the state of America’s youth.

Smith and company asked about the young people’s moral lives, and the results are depressing.

It’s not so much that these young Americans are living lives of sin and debauchery, at least no more than you’d expect from 18- to 23-year-olds. What’s disheartening is how bad they are at thinking and talking about moral issues.

The interviewers asked open-ended questions about right and wrong, moral dilemmas and the meaning of life. In the rambling answers, which Smith and company recount in a new book, “Lost in Transition,” you see the young people groping to say anything sensible on these matters. But they just don’t have the categories or vocabulary to do so.

When asked to describe a moral dilemma they had faced, two-thirds of the young people either couldn’t answer the question or described problems that are not moral at all, like whether they could afford to rent a certain apartment or whether they had enough quarters to feed the meter at a parking spot.

This is certainly no surprise, but here’s the key part:

Many were quick to talk about their moral feelings but hesitant to link these feelings to any broader thinking about a shared moral framework or obligation. As one put it, “I mean, I guess what makes something right is how I feel about it. But different people feel different ways, so I couldn’t speak on behalf of anyone else as to what’s right and wrong.”

Smith and company found an atmosphere of extreme moral individualism — of relativism and nonjudgmentalism. Again, this doesn’t mean that America’s young people are immoral. Far from it. But, Smith and company emphasize, they have not been given the resources — by schools, institutions and families — to cultivate their moral intuitions, to think more broadly about moral obligations, to check behaviors that may be degrading. In this way, the study says more about adult America than youthful America.

I can’t imagine why anyone in academia would be surprised by any of this. Moral relativism is a hallmark of higher education. Not making judgements about any kind of behavior is how you increase “diversity” and create an atmosphere of “tolerance.” Young people can’t describe a moral dilemma because they have been taught that moral dilemma’s don’t exist. There’s no good or evil, right or wrong, it’s all just a matter of opinion.

Conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt confronted the editor of Politico yesterday over the site’s left wing coverage of the Tucson tragedy.

Hugh Hewitt Confronts Politico Editor Over Left-Wing Biased Tucson Coverage from Breitbart on Vimeo.

Unhinged WaPo columnist Dana Milbank is still refusing to back down from his belief that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are responsible for violence. Incredibly, he told Howard Kurtz that even if they aren’t tied to the AZ massacre they should still be held accountable for inciting the unstable.

Rabid left wing partisans like Milbank don’t give a damn about facts or evidence. It’s pointless even having him on. You already know what he’s going to say regardless of the facts presented to him. Had Jared Loughner been a member of Green Peace and a card carrying Communist, Milbank would still insist that Beck and Palin were at fault.

What this is really about is Milbank trying to boost sales of his horrible Glenn Beck biography — which I will not link to. He can’t let an opportunity like this go to waste. He has to try and generate as much blood money as he can through lies and deceit before the media moves on to a new story.

We now know Pima County sheriff Clarence Dupnik isn’t the only mentally handicapped person speaking out about the Arizona shooting. It seems MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell is also unable to cope with the fact that political rhetoric had nothing to do with Arizona massacre. Like Dupnik, she too is psychologically unable to process the clear cut evidence in this case. Not one shred of evidence exists linking the AZ guman to any kind of political idealogy, yet Mitchell continues flogging the narrative that somehow Sarah Palin is to blame. It’s disgusting.

Bill O’Reilly was in rare form last night. He went after The NY Times and the liberal media with a vengeance for their lies and hypocrisy regarding the Arizona shooter. It was his best “Talking Points Memo” in a very long time.

As Alan Grayson’s short and ugly political career comes to a close, The NY Times couldn’t resist doing one more puff piece on him. True to form, Grayson went on the attack. He says Republicans are “rich and selfish” and believes what Americans really want are much more liberal policies from Obama.

…while surveying the wreckage of the November elections that cost him his seat and looking to the Congressional term ahead, Mr. Grayson posits that many Democrats have not been acting Democratic enough.

Clearly, Grayson is living on another planet.

Predictably, The Times sugarcoats Grayson’s outrageous statements during his time in Congress calling them “colorful.”

In office, he quickly earned renown for colorful floor speeches and elaborate props. During the health care debate, he declared that the Republican plan was for Americans to “die quickly.”

To fight the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, he produced cardboard posters detailing how the richest 1 percent of Americans could spend their tax savings. “Buy 20,000 jars of their favorite mustard, Grey Poupon,” was one suggestion.

[Watch Grayson's infamous "Die Quickly" rant]

[Watch Grayson rail against "tax cuts for the rich"]

Despite his constant class warfare rhetoric, The Times never mentions that Grayson is in fact a multi-millionaire. He’s a rich lawyer who pretends to hate rich people. However, this telling little nugget did make it into the piece:

Outside of politics, much about the congressman is also unorthodox. He bought a used white limousine to shuttle his young children around. “You can’t change a diaper in a van,” he explained at his home.

Wow, I can certainly change a diaper in a van. Honestly, can you think of a more hypocritical jackass than this guy?

The Times also fails to mention Grayson’s horrible “Taliban Dan” ad against his Republican opponent during the last election. An election Grayson lost by a gruesome 18 percentage points. His “Taliban Dan” ad is widely considered one of the most dishonest attack ads ever run.

[Watch Grayson's "Taliban Dan" ad]

The only legacy Alan Grayson will have in Congress is his bomb throwing rhetoric. He authored no legislation nor made any meaningful contributions. He’s the lefty blogosphere personified.

[Watch Grayson act like a jackass in his last Fox Business interview]

Ed brags about not having Republican guests on his MSNBC show. That means two of MSNBC’s primetime shows do not allow Republican guests. The would be Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz.

The irony here is that Fox News is somehow vilified as a bastion of biased right-wing thought. I can’t think of a single Fox News show that bans Democrats. Hannity has more than one liberal guest every single night. Same for O’Reilly and Greta.

That’s why MSNBC is such a ratings bomb. It’s boring and predictable. The left-wing hosts only have on guests that agree with them. By contrast, Fox News encourages lively debate and features guests with opposing points of view.

While totally unrelated to this story, I can’t resist bringing back the story of Ed Schultz breaking down into tears after MSNBC brass yelled at him.

This is definitely a Twilight Zone moment. The man who relentlessly shills for Obama and gets thrills up his leg is calling out a guest for blindly defending Democrats. Wow.

Remember when Dr. Laura repeatedly said the “n-word” on-air and was forced to quit? The media howled, the NAACP howled, Al Sharpton howled. The entire democrat media complex was up in arms. It’s simply unacceptable to use that kind of language if you’re white.

Or is it?

Here’s Bill Maher on Larry King dropping the word as casually as Jay-Z. If you start hearing a loud roar after the clip it’s the deafening sound of silence from the media.

To be honest, I wouldn’t even be highlighting this under normal circumstances because I don’t think it really matters. I’m not trying to be the word police. But what makes this story important is the blatant double standard. A leftist can say racially insensitive things all day long and nobody says a word. Meanwhile, a conservative can something completely innocuous and he/she is accused of using “code words” — which is the accusation Maher is making.

N-Words aside, it’s laughable that the far left is still trotting out this code word bullshit. Nobody is buying into it. If they were Tea Party candidates wouldn’t be kicking ass all over America.

The only people who are obsessed with Barack Obama’s race are Democrats. They can’t stop thinking about it and talking about it. When I look at Barack Obama I see our president. When Democrats look at him they see the first black president.

Speaking of race, this seems like a fine opportunity to plug the article I just wrote for Examiner.com about the “Diverse Tea” campaign that FreedomWorks recently launched.