Church Security

Ten years ago this month a man walked into Wedgwood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas, and started shooting. When he was done, eight people were killed and seven others were wounded. On this tenth anniversary, I decided to talk to Jeffrey Hawkins of Christian Security Network to see how churches are doing in the area of security.

For most of us, church has been a safe haven. But the events ten years ago, and subsequent incidents in others churches since then, have changed our perspective. Hawkins has found that people no longer regard their home church as a safe haven. No wonder, already seven killings have been documented in U.S. churches this year. Add to that the increasing number of assaults, arsons, robberies, and burglaries.

People working in law enforcement say that respect for the church has vanished. If anything, the church is seen as a soft target with ample opportunities for crime. In fact, as other buildings (office buildings, government buildings, malls, etc.) have stepped up their security, it makes churches look like much easier targets.

We should also mention that sometimes churches are target of hate crimes just as other houses of worship (such as mosques and synagogues). This can especially be true if the pastor has taken a strong stand on social issues. An unbalanced man might attack people in a church merely because he hates God.

So what are churches and church leaders to do? Hawkins is not calling for posting guards at every door and screening everyone with metal detectors. He says: “Good security is like an iceberg; the general public should only see about 10 percent of what you have.”

Improving security begins with increased awareness and education. A number of faith-based organizations are being formed to help churches and other houses of worship. And consultation with local law enforcement is key.

It is sad that we have to protect ourselves even in church, but that is the world we live in today. Pastors and Christian leaders would be wise to consider how to protect those to whom they minister. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Jobs Going Overseas

Listeners frequently call my radio program to complain about companies who are sending jobs overseas. Although it is easy to blame the companies, there are many cases in which the companies tried to keep jobs at home but lost out because of competition from Chinese manufacturers.

An article this month in the Washington Post tells the sad story of the Cooper Tire plant in Albany, Georgia. For years, workers heard about their rivals in Chinese factories. Managers urged employees to run production lines faster and more efficiently in order to help the company keep up. But they were unable to do so, and 2100 Georgians lost their jobs. Why?

At Cooper Tire, the wages were $18 to $21 per hour. In China they were a fraction of that. The plant was subject to all the U.S. regulations governing health-and-safety, work hours, and the environment. Chinese plants are exempt from these laws and are notorious polluters.

Trade laws also benefit the Chinese. They are granted free and equal access to the American market. But the rulers in Beijing don’t reciprocate. The Chinese manipulate their currency to keep export prices low and even grant a rebate on it value-added tax on exports to the U.S. while imposing a value-added tax on goods coming from the U.S.

The impact has been predictable. In the last three years, the number of Chinese tires imported to the U.S. has more than tripled. Their share of the U.S. market rose from 5 percent to 17 percent. Over this same period, the share of the U.S. market served by U.S. factories declined by a similar amount. More than 5,000 U.S. jobs were lost.

Pat Buchanan sees this as part of a larger trend. He notes that since 2001 (when George W. Bush took office) the U.S. has run $3.8 trillion in trade deficits in manufactured goods. That is more than twice the trade deficits we ran for imported oil and gas.

Pat Buchanan agrees with President Obama’s tariff on Chinese tires. When two people from opposite ends of the political spectrum agree, perhaps we should listen. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Driving While Distracted

Is driving while texting dangerous? I think nearly everyone (with the exception of a few naïve teenagers) know that it is. But what about just talking on a cell phone? Is that dangerous? Researchers have found that talking or texting is much more dangerous than many of us might even imagine.

Recently the Center for Auto Safety released hundreds of pages of research on the impact of cell phone use on America’s highways. Much of the research was done years ago when fewer cell phone users were texting. Essentially the problem has grown worse as texting as increased.

So far 17 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws banning texting while driving. Seven states outlaw drivers from using hand-held communication devices of any kind. This month, the Transportation Secretary is holding a summit to discuss the dangers of driving while distracted.

It turns out that some drivers multitask better than others. One psychology professor studying the effect of driving and cell phone use has concluded that only two percent of drivers are able to safely multitask while driving. In other words, most people are dangerous when they try to do so.

Nearly all users (the other 98 percent) are less influenced by peripheral vision when we talk on cell phones. We also react slower to visual cues even in front of us. Apparently our brains direct attention to the sounds we hear on the cell phone, and that causes the visual capacity of our brains decrease.

We have all probably heard that talking or texting while driving is as dangerous as driving drunk. It turns out it is more dangerous. Participants in one simulator study were faster to brake and caused fewer accidents when they had a .08% blood-alcohol content than while sober and talking on a cell phone.

Some have criticized the simulator study because it is not a real-world test, but I am not ready to test this out on our nation’s highways. We already know the dangers of driving while distracted. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Books Aren’t Dead

A recent Newsweek proclaimed: “Books Aren’t Dead.” While that might seem evident as you walk through any bookstore, it wasn’t so obvious just a few years ago. We have been told that this is a media-oriented generation that is more interested in visual images rather than reading words on a page.

Some were referred to the “Gutenberg Parenthesis” to illustrate that we were moving back to oral traditions of learning. Before Gutenberg and his printing press, knowledge was formed and transmitted orally. Scholars were saying that in this post-Gutenberg era, knowledge is formed through “secondary orality” on the Internet. In other words, books (and the written word) were merely a parenthesis in human history.

Others pointed to the cost of books and the number of bookstores and publishers having difficulty staying in business. So they predicted that book publishing would be on the decline.

But that’s not what the statistics say. The number of books in print in 2008 rose 38 percent from the year before. And that year itself was up 38 percent from 2006. It appears we have more books in print than ever before.

According to Newsweek, part of the reason is university libraries. They are hawking publishing rights to the contents of their stacks (or at least those books which are out-of-print or in the public domain). For example, the University of Michigan has partnered with Google to digitize more than 400,000 titles. Cornell will do the same with their 500,000 titles.

I might add that the electronic age has also made book publishing and book reading more inviting. At a recent writer’s conference, I told budding writers struggling to find a publisher to become their own publisher and put their book online as an e-book.

Book reading has become so much more convenient with devices like Kindle2 and other digital readers. Reading an e-book online, downloading it to your computer, or reading it on your Kindle or iPhone also significantly reduces the number of trees that need to be cut down to print books.

Books aren’t dead. There are more than ever. And many of the titles are available in electronic formats that reduce your carbon footprint. Pick up a book or a digital reader, and enjoy. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Moore’s Law

If you have ever worked around computers, you have probably heard of Moore’s Law. If not, it is very simple. Back in 1965, the cofounder of Intel, Gordon Moore, predicted that they would be able to double the number of transistors every 12 months (he later amended that to every two years) for approximately the same cost.

He surprised many the skeptics by being proven right all these years. Every few years someone would warn that Moore’s Law would hit a brick wall constructed by the laws of physics. So far, Moore’s prediction has been accurate.

Of course we are all the beneficiaries. Most of us carry around one or more devices in our pockets or purses that have computing power that far exceeds the computers I used at Yale University back in the 1970s.

So where does it stop? People at Intel say they can keep doubling the number of processors for many more generations. So the limits do not seem to be with capacity, but with speed. When microprocessors reached 3 gHz a few years ago, designers reached a limit. Make them go faster, and they overheat. In fact, they even start to melt.

To solve the problem, the industry started making chips that do several tasks at once. If you go to a computer store, you will see advertisement for quad-core chips. These are like four tiny computers on a single chip.

The challenge is how to effectively use these newer chips. Most of our operating systems were set up for a single engine not a parallel one. Many of the supercomputers at universities use parallel computing but the computer on your desk does not. Redesigning these systems for computers is a new challenge for the 21st century.

Programmers are certain they will meet the challenge. After all, the human brain is a massive parallel computer. In a sense, they will be designing programs to work just like your brain.

Isn’t that amazing? Our brightest computer scientists are attempting to write programs that essentially mimic the way our brains process information. Yet evolutionists tell us that our brain evolved by chance. Does anyone see a contradiction? I do. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Marriage and Kids

A strong marriage is good for kids. Conservative researchers have been saying this for decades. Perhaps the single best book to document this would be, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially by Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher. As the title indicates, married people benefit in so many significant ways. And of course their children benefit as well.

Not only are conservative writers saying this, but liberal ones are now joining the chorus of researchers who say that children do best in an intact, two-parent family. Writing in Time magazine, Caitlin Flanagan details “Why Marriage Matters.” She cites research that shows that: “Few things hamper a child as much as not having a father at home.”

Sociologist Maria Kefalas says: “As a feminist, I didn’t want to believe it.” She has co-authored a seminal book on low-income mothers. Women tell her all the time that they can be both father and mother to their children. She says that is not true. Growing up without a father has a deep psychological effect on the child. “The mom may not need that man,” Kefalas says, “but her children still do.”

This also turns out to be true for families at every income, though the greatest impact is on poor families. Sara McLanahan, a Princeton sociologist, has done ground-breaking research on the effects of divorce on children. She concluded that: “Children who grow up in a household with only one biological parent, are worse off, on average, than children who grow up in a household with both of their biological parents, regardless of the parents’ race or educational background.”

None of this should be too surprising. Some of the initial research on the impact of divorce goes back to the 1970s when Judith Wallerstein was tracking the impact of divorce on families and the children. But it is significant that academics and even newsmagazines like Time are publishing the same conclusion. I commend them for doing so. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Medicare

Recently John Stossel detailed the history of Medicare and talked about its future. At a time when Congress is considering a major overhaul of medical insurance, it would be instructive to look at the history and the future of the first government-run health care plan, namely Medicare.

President Lyndon Johnson won a landslide victory in 1964. His election brought many like-minded members to Congress willing to establish a medical entitlement program that would benefit the elderly. Since this was a new program and uncharted territory, government officials made their best-case estimates for costs. We now know that these estimates were off (sometimes by orders of magnitude).

To this day, many retirees believe that their Medicare bills are paid from a “trust fund” that was created with deductions from their paychecks. This is not true. Politicians spend the money they receive through these contributions immediately. The money paid to current Medicare recipients comes from the deductions from the paychecks of today’s workers.

John Stossel says: “This Ponzi scheme worked for a while. But then more people had the nerve to live longer.” Essentially, the same demographic reality that has affected Social Security is also hurting Medicare. But that is only part of the problem. Not only are people living longer, but the ratio of workers to recipients is decreasing.

When Medicare began there were five workers for every Medicare recipient. Now there are only four, and soon there will only be three. The Board of Medicare Trustees predicts the ratio will be down to 2.4 by the year 2030. They also point out that Medicare’s unfunded liability is $37 trillion. That’s $37 trillion with a T.

I have been saying for months that we should solve the Medicare problem before we do anything else. There are possible solutions to this problem, but a 1,000 page bill with additional mandates and bureaucracies isn’t one of them. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

I Am Second

Perhaps you have seen billboards that say, “I am second” or have seen people wearing T-shirts that say, “I am second.” This is all part of a campaign designed to help people discover their purpose in life through Jesus Christ. Those who are featured are saying that Christ is first and “I am second.”

The website for the multimedia campaign has received more than a million hits from visitors in nearly 200 countries. Some who have visited the website are from as far away as Burundi or the Fiji Islands.

The website houses numerous videos of the personal stories of the trials and temptations of athletes, actors, musicians, and everyday people. All testify to the wisdom of getting the right priorities (essentially making sure they are second). The videos do not gloss over real problems and struggles. And that may be why these testimonies have been so successful in reaching others.

As you might imagine some of the most popular videos are from celebrities. The most popular is the video with Brian “Head" Welch, the former lead guitarist for the rock band Korn. His story of drugs and deliverance is a powerful testimony you can share with anyone, but especially with kids caught up in drug and the rock music scene.

Other high profile videos include Texas Rangers All-Star Josh Hamilton and American Idol contestant Jason Castro. Former Arkansas Governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee also tells his story.

Dallas-based e3 Partners are responsible for the website and other creative outreaches. Those include billboards, TV, radio, and kiosk advertisement. Recently I went to a Texas Rangers game that included one of the three concert series they have used to promote “I am second.”

They are planning on expanding the advertising components into other markets. So if you haven’t seen an “I am second” billboard or commercial, you will see it soon. They are also reaching youth through various social networks like Twitter and Facebook.

I am excited about this outreach, and encourage you to check out the website at www.iamsecond.com. I’m Kerby Anderson, and yes, I am second.

Capitol Visitor Center

Should the Capitol Visitor Center in Washington, D.C. have the correct national motto? If you think that the answer to that should be obvious and without controversy, you would be wrong.

When the new visitor center at the U.S. Capitol opened last December, a number of members of Congress thought it was both incomplete and incorrect. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) felt the center misrepresented our nation’s history by downplaying the faith of the founding fathers and other prominent figures. At the time, he said that the center’s “most prominent display proclaims faith not in God, but in government.” He was objecting to a quote that said: “We have built no temple but the Capitol. We consult no common oracle but the Constitution.”

Of greater concern was the fact that the center erroneously posted “E Pluribus Unum” as the national motto. That used to be our national motto, but the current one is “In God We Trust.” Members of Congress asked that both the National Motto and the Pledge of Allegiance be engraved in a wall at the Capitol Visitor Center.

If you thought the omission of the motto and pledge were a mere oversight, once again you would be wrong. The center has been in the planning and building stages for years. When it opened in December, it was three years late and $360 million over budget. There was ample time to get it right.

Both the House and Senate passed resolutions approving the engravings of the National Motto and the Pledge of Allegiance. But as I mentioned, even this action was not without controversy. The Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed suit to prevent the engravings. They argue that posting these words would discriminate against agnostics and atheists.

Representative Steve King (R-IA) believes: “This lawsuit is another attempt by liberal activists to rewrite history and deny that America’s Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation.” First, was the bureaucratic resistance to posting the National Motto and the Pledge of Allegiance. Now there is a lawsuit attempting to prevent the words from appearing at the Capitol Visitor Center.

Welcome to the current battle over America’s history. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

CBO Meeting

Lately those pushing health care reform can’t seem to catch a break on their budget numbers. On a number of occasions the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has shot down the predictions in their bills.

First, the CBO determined that the health care reform bill would cost $1.6 trillion over ten years. The sticker shock was nearly fatal.

Second, was the claim by that the health care reform bills before Congress would “bend the curve” on spending. In other words, it would lower health care spending in the out years. The CBO said no. In fact, it said that health care spending would significantly increase.

Third, there was the attempt to fix the Medicare provision for the “sustainable growth rate” that forces the doctors’ reimbursements down if Medicare spending goes up. Proponents argued that this wasn’t an expense but a fix. The CBO disagreed.

What happened next appears to be unprecedented. The president, obviously upset with these numbers, called the CBO Director to the White House. I doubt their chat was very cordial.

Some White House officials argued that this was not unusual. Actually it was unprecedented. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the CBO Director during George W. Bush’s administration said he never met with Mr. Bush to discuss CBO policies or estimates. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell used a baseball analogy. He said: “that’s like asking the umpires to come up to the owner’s box . . . . I mean, if the CBO is to have credibility, they’re the umpire.”

Calling the economic umpire to the White House is unprecedented, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t room to challenge its assumptions and predictions. In the past conservatives have questioned CBO assumptions about tax cuts and economic development. And Dr. Merrill Matthews warns conservatives and Republicans not to praise the CBO too much because “the CBO will not be our new BFF (Best Friend Forever).”

It’s OK to argue with the umpire, but to call the umpire to the White House smacks of intimidation and manipulation. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Tonsils and Cesareans

The recent debate about health care has brought lots of rhetoric about who is responsible for the skyrocketing costs. The insurance companies have been labeled as villains, and other groups have also been vilified. During his press conference, the president focused on doctors.

He said that if you bring your child in with a sore throat, “the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out.’” Do we really have evidence of doctors taking out tonsils unnecessarily? Sure, physicians will remove tonsils in a child but usually if the child developed at least seven “significant” episodes of throat infection in a year.

Are there physicians who look at the reimbursement system and make a decision about a tonsillectomy? There are probably a few, but this surgery is hardly on the increase. Let’s talk about a surgery that has increased dramatically: Cesarean sections.

The number of C-sections that were performed in 1965 was 4.5 percent of births. Today C-sections are performed in 31 percent of births. Why the increase? Are obstetricians looking at the reimbursement system and making a decision?

C-sections are not on the increase because of doctors, but because of lawyers. The potential threat of a medical malpractice lawsuit has changed standard medical practice. A story in the New York Times on malpractice lawsuits concluded that “doctors have responded by changing the way they deliver babies, often seeing a relatively minor anomaly on a fetal heart monitor as justification for an immediate Caesarean.”

Who can blame the doctors for ordering a C-section? Even though their best medical judgment might be to wait, most doctors are probably going to take the mother into surgery rather than risk a lawsuit. So why not consider tort reform?

According to an article in Investors Business Daily, the president told the American Medical Association that he is “not advocating caps on malpractice awards.” It might be worth noting that one of the key groups that helped elect this president are trial lawyers.

The increase in health care costs is due to lots of factors. But when the president focused on doctors, he ignored members of his own profession that may be more responsible. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Read the Bill

The rush to pass so much legislation in Congress these last few months has brought a cry for legislators to read the bill. Many citizens are starting to realize what many insiders have known for some time. Most members of Congress vote on bills and have no idea what’s in them.

Debate about the health care bill brought new revelations. Representative John Conyers (D-MI) made fun of members of Congress who he said were pretending to read the laws they pass. At the National Press Club he said: “I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill.” Even if they did, he felt it would unproductive. He said: “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you’ve read the bill?”

If the bill is that complicated, then you would think that members of Congress would want to go slow and understand all the implications. Some have argued that if the bill is that complicated, that means it is destined to be ineffective.

Members of Congress should read the bill and try to comprehend what will happen if it is passed. While there are many convoluted phrases in this Byzantine legislation, there are nevertheless some basic principles that anyone can understand.

For example, the House bill uses the word “shall” 1,683 times. This assertive word sets forth the government mandates that will force doctors, clinics, hospitals, and others in the health care system to do what the government orders them to do.

The word “penalty” is used 156 times. That is what happens to people who do not do what government mandates them to do. The word “tax” is used 172 times. That is when we pay for these government rules and mandates. The House bill also creates 53 new federal bureaucracies. It also creates or expands 33 entitlement programs.

If members of Congress won’t read the bill, perhaps they should at least count the number of times words like shall, penalty, and tax are used. It sure looks like a massive government intrusion into health care. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Clash of Civilization

Back in 1996, Samuel Huntington wrote The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. He predicted the current conflict between Islam and the West.

In my new book, A Biblical Point of View on Islam, I show how this clash of civilizations has had a profound impact on missions. In the past, countries that were closed to the gospel tended to be communist countries. Even so, there was still a significant amount of Christian growth in countries behind the Iron Curtain and Bamboo Curtain. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, many of these countries are more open to the gospel than ever before. Meanwhile, persecution of Christians remains in China.

But a new phenomenon has emerged. Muslim countries are now the most resistant to the message of Christianity. Mission work is limited or even non-existent in many of these Muslim countries. This, I believe, represents the greatest challenge for missions in the 21st century: reaching the Muslim world for Christ. Already, there are over a billion Muslims in the world, making Islam the second largest religion in the world and one of the fastest growing.

Samuel Huntington also predicted a growing conflict between western universalism and Muslim militancy. In other words, the conflict is between liberal western democracies and Muslim countries. This presents a major challenge for Christians trying to reach Muslims. When they see the West with its immorality and decadence, they reject it and Christianity. After all, they reason, these are Christian countries and this is what they produce. Therefore, we should be quick to point out that Christians will also disagree with much of what some of these countries produce.

Whether we are missionaries overseas or missionaries in our backyard, we need to begin to understand the nature of Islam and bring the message of the gospel to the Muslims we meet. I believe Samuel Huntington is correct in his analysis, and we should begin to understand the changing world around us so that we can be more effective for Christ. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

Islam: A Religion of Peace?

Is Islam a religion of peace? Many commentators and even politicians have said that. But is it true?

Let's first acknowledge that many Muslims are peace-loving. But is it also true that Islam is a religion of peace? To answer that question, it is important to understand the meaning of the word "jihad."

In my book, A Biblical Point of View on Islam, I devote a section of one of my chapters to this Muslim concept of jihad. The word is actually the noun of the Arabic verb jahidi, which means to "strive hard." Some Muslims understand this striving to be merely intellectual and philosophical. If that is the case, then they do not believe that jihad involves warfare. But the more traditional interpretation of jihad involves a holy war against infidels.


Here are just a few verses from the Qur'an that seem to teach this. Sura 47:4 says, "When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly." Sura 9:5 says, "Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleager them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem." Sura 9:123 says, "O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird your about, and let them find firmness in you; and know that Allah is with those who fear Him."

Bernard Lewis is the professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University and a leading authority on Islam. He says that, "The more common interpretation, and that of the overwhelming majority of the classical jurists and commentators, presents jihad as armed struggle for Islam against infidels and apostates."

So it is important to understand how Muslims interprets the word jihad. If they see it as an intellectual struggle, then they are most likely to be peace-loving. If instead they see it as an armed struggle, then they pose a danger. The interpretation of these verses of the sword is key. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

Solar Eclipse

Does a solar eclipse provide evidence of intelligent design? That is what first got astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez thinking as he watched a total eclipse in India in 1995. In order to have a solar eclipse, you need to have an object come in front of the sun. Essentially you could watch a partial solar eclipse on every planet in our solar system that has a moon. But Earth is the only planet where a total solar eclipse can be seen.

As I point out in my book, A Biblical Point of View on Intelligent Design, the unique experience of a solar eclipse on planet earth appears to be more than just coincidence. There are a number of reasons why only the Earth can have a total solar eclipse. Our moon is 1/400th the size of the sun, and the sun is 400 times farther away from Earth than the moon. Therefore, when the moon comes between the sun and the Earth, a small area of the Earth experiences a total solar eclipse in which the sun is fully blocked out by the moon.

The scientific benefit of a total solar eclipse is significant. Because the moon blocks out the sun, scientists have the ability to see and measure the sun's corona. Normally the sun is too bright for us to see the corona, but a total solar eclipse allows scientists to measure the light spectrum of the corona. Much of what we now know about stars comes from this measurement.

The fact that our Earth experiences a total eclipse of the sun makes our planet unique in the solar system, probably unique among many other solar systems. Add to this many other factors such as the fact that our moon is the right size, shape, and orbit for human life. Those are just a few reasons why many scientists see intelligent design in our moon and even in a solar eclipse. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

Just Right Universe

Did the universe happen by chance? That is the conventional view, but the facts of science seem to be challenging that view.

As I point out in my book, A Biblical Point of View on Intelligent Design, astronomers have discovered that the parameters associated with the universe, our galaxy, our solar system, and Earth are intricately balanced. They are so balanced and finely tuned that some people have said they are essentially on a knife-edge. If there were a slight change in either direction, life (especially complex life) would not exist. In many cases, the universe itself would not exist.

For example, if the strength of gravity were weaker by only one part in a trillion, trillion, trillion, the universe would expand too rapidly for galaxies and planets to form. But if gravity were stronger by one part in a trillion, trillion, trillion the universe would collapse upon itself. Similar fine-tuning can be found for the constants in equations for gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces. It can also be found in the ratio of proton to electron mass.

This delicate balance is one of the reasons that many refer to our universe as a “just right universe.” Some even call it the Goldilocks universe because the forces are not too strong and not too weak. They are just right.

One way to imagine this is to think of the parameters of the universe like giant dials on a control panel. All of the dials are adjusted to favor life. One science reporter put it this way: “They are like the knobs on God’s control console, and they seem almost miraculously tuned to allow life.”

Of course, some scientists discount this. Peter Ward (coauthor of the book, Rare Earth) once remarked, “We are just incredibly lucky. Somebody had to the win the big lottery, and we were it.” Christians, however, have a different view: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth.” I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Darwin's Finches

Open just about any biology textbook and you will see pictures of what are known as Darwin’s finches. They appear in those textbooks for two reasons. First, Charles Darwin got his inspiration for his theory of evolution when he observed them on the Galapagos Islands. Second, they are used to prove evolution since there are various beak sizes on the birds.

In my book, A Biblical Point of View on Intelligent Design, I point out that the diversity of these finches really doesn’t prove evolution. One scientific study found that during a period of drought, the average beak size of these finches increased slightly. The reason cited for this is that during these dry periods, the most available seeds are larger and tougher to crack than at other times. So birds with larger beaks do better under conditions of drought.

I spent an afternoon looking at specimens of Darwin’s finches when I was in graduate school at Yale University and should point out that the changes in beak thickness is minimal. Moreover, the changes seem to be cyclical. When the rains return, the original size seeds appear and the average beak size returns to normal.

This is not evolution. It is an interesting cyclical pattern in natural history. It shows selection pressure in nature. But it’s not evolution.

If this is evolution occurring, then we should be seeing macro changes that would allow these finches to evolve into another species. But this cyclical pattern shows just the opposite. These minor changes in beak size and thickness actually allow them to remain finches under changing environmental conditions. It does not show them evolving into other types of birds.

The story is a bit more complex than I can describe in the two-minute commentary, but you get the idea. You can find pictures of Darwin’s finches in nearly every biology textbook in the country. And guess where you find them? You find them in the evolution section of the textbook. There’s one problem: they don’t show evolution. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Gays at Yale

Sometimes markers of social change arrive in unanticipated ways. I found that out when I received the mail recently. The Yale Alumni Magazine’s front cover story is “Why they call Yale the Gay Ivy: How student activists opened up the campus culture.”

The twelve-page article by a professor of history who also attended Yale as an undergraduate documents what he calls the “rich and revelatory queer history” of the university. It was adapted from his remarks at the Yale Gay and Lesbian Alumni reunion in April.

My reaction is not so much to the article as to the decision by the alumni association to print it and feature it as a cover story. This month is the 40th anniversary of Stonewall (an incident that sparked the gay rights movement). So you would expect various newspapers and newsmagazines to publish stories about the history of homosexuality in America. And these stories might even be provocative in treating the issue.

But the goal of an alumni magazine is not to provoke but to promote. Its primary goal is to make alumni feel good about their university so that they will provide financial support. An alumni association is not going to put a controversial article in its magazine if it fears it will drive away donations. When you have so many positive stories about the university and its graduates, there is no need to place this cover story in your magazine unless you are convinced that it will be well received. Apparently, the editors of the alumni magazine believed that those of us who graduated from this university will be encouraged by the story about gay history at Yale.

The goal of the gay agenda has been to mainstream the movement. This latest issue of the Yale Alumni Magazine is further evidence that gay has become mainstream. Expect to see more examples of this in the future. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Freedom’s Frame

What holds our freedom together? Rick Green answers that question in his book, Freedom’s Frame. The framework has four foundational pillars. The first is the phrase: “We hold these truths.” The second is that we are “endowed by our Creator.” The third is the concept of the “consent of the governed.” And the final is “the pursuit of happiness.”

All of these ideas can be found in the Declaration of Independence. The first three describe the nature of our government. The fourth idea (the pursuit of happiness) not only is found in the Declaration, but it also sets forth the economic system of America.

Thomas Jefferson used many of the ideas of John Locke when he drafted the Declaration. Locke explains this concept in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. We should be allowed to make decisions in an open and free market. Those individual choices will not only benefit us but others (led by what Adam Smith called an “invisible hand”).

Rick Green uses a great example to show the value of free markets versus regulated markets. As a former member of the Texas legislature, he talked about all the rules government placed on landline phones. By contrast, the cell phone industry has been allowed to grow and prosper with little governmental interference.

“The result has been truly astounding. . . . On our cell phones today, we can store numbers, write e-mails, send text messages, watch movies, take pictures, listen to music, find ourselves on a real-time GPS, and, oh yes, even make a phone call if we want to.”

With these expanding features has also come shrinking prices. This is due to a free market at work with minimal governmental regulation. He asks” “Can you imagine if wireless phones had been regulated in the same way we regulated landlines?” Government regulation would likely have prevented choice and competition and made the industry less responsive to consumer needs.

Freedom’s Frame provides an important reminder of how important political freedom and economic freedom are to our lives. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Rhythm

Countless time-management systems are based on the notion of “balancing” your life. Many Christian leaders talk about balance in the Christian life. But what if that paradigm is wrong? Maybe we should consider the idea of rhythm.

That’s the premise of the new book, Your Life In Rhythm by Bruce Miller. It makes sense. God has created a world that is based on natural rhythms, cycles, and seasons. Shouldn’t we live our lives in sync with God’s creation?

Bruce Miller describes two different types of time. The first is chronos that describes regular cycles like you would find with a clock or calendar. These are recurring and predictable patterns. The second is kairos that describes progressive flows. These are nonrecurring and less predictable patterns.

There are five fundamental chronos cycles. The first is the solar cycle (the time it takes for the earth to circle the sun). The second is a seasonal cycle (the quarters of the year illustrated by the equinoxes). The third is the lunar cycle (the time it takes for the moon to go around the earth). The fourth is the sabbatical cycle (the seven day week of creation). And the fifth cycle is the rotational cycle (the rotation of the earth).

A person living in rhythm will pay attention to these cycles in our lives. Many of us no longer live on a farm or are in touch with the cycles of creation, so we lost the concept of living in rhythm.

Ecclesiastes 3 provides a biblical example of kairos. Solomon’s famous poem has 14 couplets in which the word “time” is used 28 times. In this case, time is described like a season. There is a time to be born and a time to die. There is a time to plant and a time to uproot. And there is a time to weep and a time to laugh. These aren’t done at once in balance but are done at different times or seasons.

I believe this book has the potential to change our view of balance and rhythm. Not only does it provide the theological framework necessary to view life in rhythm, but it has lots of practical suggestions and charts to help you live your life according to rhythm. The result will be more joy, peace, and fulfillment. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Cap-and-Trade Costs

Over the last few months I have been finding various statistics or economic estimates that were either wrong or very misleading. But the worst of all is the one I want to talk about today. It’s the oft-repeated statement that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts that the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill will only cost the average American family $175 a year.

ABC host George Stephanopoulos used the $175 figure to claim that we can save the planet for the price of a postage stamp per day. In USA Today, when Cal Thomas pointed out that the Heritage Foundation estimated the cost would be closer to $3,000 per family, Bob Beckel replied: “I’ll take the non-partisan CBO’s word for it over the conservative Heritage folks anytime.” The $175 figure has been the mantra for proponents of cap-and-trade.

First, let’s get the prediction right. The CBO claimed that in the year 2020, the cost that year would be $175. If you look at a graph of revenue and cost, you will see that is the ONLY year the cost is that low. The costs on both sides of 2020 are significantly higher. People quoting the CBO estimate for 2020 make it seem as if that would be the cost every year. That is not so.

Second, the assumptions made by the CBO even for 2020 are questionable. The price for carbon dioxide that year is supposed to be $28 per ton. Assuming the cap of the legislation, you would have a gross cost of $141 billion. Investor’s Business Daily points out that the CBO estimate for that year is $50 billion lower.

Third, those who use the CBO numbers might also notice the disclaimers in the report. One says the cost “does not include the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap.” Well, I appreciate the honesty, even if it’s tucked away in the footnote.

So the $175 figure only works if you look just at the year 2020 and somehow fiddle with the math. Oh, and it only works if you ignore the loss in gross domestic product, ignore the loss of jobs that go overseas, and ignore the increase in energy prices and the impact on the price of everything we consume.

The next time you hear someone say cap-and-trade will only cost $175/year don’t believe it. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Cutting Costs in Medicare

The cost of the proposed health care reform is enormous. Proponents tell us that part of the cost will be covered by increased taxes, and the rest will come from cutting costs of current programs by making them more efficient. The U.S. Budget Director calculates that the potential savings could be as much as $750 billion a year. If true, that would cover about half of the estimated cost of the health care plan.

Why does he say this? Researchers at Dartmouth College have been studying Medicare spending patterns and found wide variations in costs. They have also concluded that these variations in spending have no relation to the final health of the patient. So if spending less gives you essentially the same health outcome of spending more, why not spend less? In other words, why not require everyone across the nation to spend at the same rate as the lowest-spending areas? Once you accept the assumption, the conclusion seems sound. This would reduce the total cost of Medicare by one-third without any harm to the patient.

So is there anything wrong with this assumption? Yes, implicit in this assumption is that doctors are treating Medicare patients and other patients the same way. As John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis points out, this is not true. For example, Texas is fifth from the top in Medicare spending per capita, but it is seventh from the bottom in per capita spending for the state’s population as a whole. California is eleventh from the top in Medicare spending, but eighth from the bottom in overall spending.

What is most likely going on here is “cost shifting.” When Medicare underpays, doctors and hospitals find other ways to make up the difference. Essentially what they do is overcharge non-Medicare patients. This is the reason researchers found lower Medicare costs in some areas compared to others.

The so-called “savings” on Medicare are not really possible, because the lower costs merely exist because non-Medicare patients subsidize Medicare more in some locations than others. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Digital Revolution Casualties

We are living in the midst of the digital revolution. It has changed our world, and for the next minute or so I want to talk about those changes.

Because of the digital revolution, many technologies are dead or dying. Sure they may not be extinct yet, but they are already endangered and will disappear in the future. Years ago it was easy to see that CDs would replace phonograph records. That’s exactly what happened.

Think of VCRs. For the better part of three decades, the VCR was the dominant form of watching video. Today, VCRs are quickly disappearing due to the DVD. You may still have VHS tapes in your home. You may even have a VCR. If you do, you are quickly becoming the exception rather than the rule. Soon VCRs and VHS tapes will be gone.

What are also on the way out are movie rental stores. I can remember going into stores that didn’t have DVDs. Now DVDs are all they have. But people aren’t coming to the stores because they can download videos or order them from Netflix. So movie rental stores are closing.

How about cameras? Used to be the only camera you could buy required that you also buy film to put in the camera. Now almost all camera companies make only digital cameras. Many announced years ago they would stop making film cameras.

And what about television? Most homes get their TV programming from cable or satellite. The homes that still use rabbit ears or outdoor antennae had to get a converter box. Analog TVs are about to go extinct.

Finally, think about how we write to one another. Yes, people still write letters and thank you notes. But most of the communication today takes place through e-mails and text messages. A year ago, one group estimated that two million e-mails are sent worldwide every second. Text messages are most likely sent at that same order of magnitude.

We live in a world of remarkable change. Much of it is due to the digital revolution. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Arms Control

Earlier this month when President Obama was in Russia, he signed a preliminary agreement on a new arms-control treaty. It commits the U.S. and Russia to cut their nuclear weapons to the lowest levels since the early years of the Cold War.

How should we think about this latest attempt at arms control? I would commend to you two articles. One is by Melanie Kirkpatrick who summarized her interview with former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger. He served as defense secretary for President Nixon and President Ford as well as energy secretary for President Carter. He was also CIA Director under Nixon. He makes a compelling case for “Why We Don’t Want a Nuclear-Free World.”

I would also suggest a commentary by Keith Payne on “Arms Control Amnesia.” He is currently a professor of defense and strategic studies and co-author of what I consider to be the best book on arms control from a Christian perspective.

Schlesinger makes the case that we use nuclear weapons every day “to deter our potential foes and provide reassurance to the allies to whom we offer protection.” He believes that President Obama’s wish for a nuclear-free world would be more dangerous than the one we have now. In such a world, “what we would have is a number of countries sitting around with breakout capabilities or rumors of breakout capabilities . . . and a number of small clandestine stockpiles.” He says this would make the U.S. more vulnerable.

As for the current agreement, Payne points out that the reduction in weapons and launchers is really only a benefit to the Russians. “Because the number of deployed Russian strategic ICBMs, SLBMs, and bombers will drop dramatically simply as a result of their aging. In other words, a large number of Russian launchers will be removed from service with or without a new arms-control agreement.”

Winston Churchill once said: “Be careful above all things not to let go of the atomic weapon until you are sure and more than sure that other means of preserving peace are in your hands.” When pursuing arms control, it is wise to be careful. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Abortion and Health Care Reform

If we get health care reform in America, will taxpayers have to pay for abortion? It’s a reasonable question. I just can’t get anyone to answer it. If I ask someone who is critical of the current plan to reform health care, they will ignore the question and say that there are bigger problems with the plan in Congress than abortion funding. OK, that’s true, but what about funding abortion?

And if you ask a proponent of health care reform about abortion funding, they will tell you that the details for that have to be worked out. They may even tell you that there are no current plans for funding abortion through the government option.

Fortunately, Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) gave an answer as she attempted to explain an amendment in the Senate HELP Committee (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee). Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) asked if the language of the amendment would include abortion providers, such as Planned Parenthood.

Here is how she stammered through with her answer: “It would include women’s health clinics that provide comprehensive services and under the definition of a woman’s health clinic, it would include, uh, it would include, uh, Planned, uh, Parenthood clinics. It would, um, it does not expand in any way expand a service. In other words, it does not expand, um, uh, or mandate abortion service.”

Senator Hatch followed up: “No, but it would provide for them.” Senator Mikulski answered: “It would provide for any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate.”

So there you have it. The Senate will not see the legislation for health care reform for weeks and won’t vote on it until much later. But if the latest question about abortion funding in this amendment is any indication, it is a preview of future votes. By the way, the amendment passed.

When debate begins on health care reform, we will hear how all medically necessary funding must be in the government option, Proponents will argue that since abortion is legal in America is must be part of the comprehensive services that will be provided. So will taxpayers have to pay for abortion? The answer is yes. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

DOMA and Massachusetts

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has filed a federal lawsuit against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). She took this action because she feels DOMA interferes with the state’s sovereign authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents.

Massachusetts became the first state in the country in 2003 to legalize same-sex marriage. By challenging DOMA, it is quite likely that what was started in the Bay State will spread to the rest of the country. As I describe in my book, A Biblical Point of View on Homosexuality, gay activists have wanted to use to courts (and willing legislatures) to redefine marriage and remove any legal impediment to same-sex marriage.

One of those impediments is DOMA. Back in 1996, the United State Congress passed the federal Defense of Marriage Act. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law. DOMA defines marriage “for all purposes of federal law” as the union of one man and one woman. It also clarified how states would have to apply the “full faith and credit clause” of the U.S. Constitution concerning same-sex marriage.

It is interesting that the attorney general is essentially using a conservative argument (the rights of states) to achieve a liberal end (same-sex marriage). The argument in Congress back in 1996 was that the national government had to address this issue because various states (like Hawaii and Alaska) were attempting to redefine marriage.

The attorney general argues that the federal government has refused to fund health benefits and veterans’ burials for same-sex partners in Massachusetts because it violates DOMA. The federal lawsuit effectively expands the fight against traditional marriage by demanding that federal taxpayers pay benefits in this state (and eventually in every other state).

It is likely that the appeals court will rule in favor of Massachusetts, and that will send the case to the Supreme Court. President Obama has condemned DOMA and has promised to eliminate it. A spokesman for the Department of Justice also condemned it.

Unless proponents of traditional marriage stand strong, DOMA is doomed. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Rich and Poor

Turn on a television or open a newspaper, and you are certain to hear or read someone say that the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. This is a good example of where governmental data conflict with each other.

The latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau does seem to indicate that the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. But these numbers do not reflect the economic improvement of individuals and families.

Data from the Internal Revenue Service does show this movement. It shows that people in the bottom fifth have nearly doubled their income in the last ten years. It also shows that the top one percent saw their incomes decline by 26 percent.

Why are there differing sets of governmental statistics? It turns out that the IRS tracks people over time. After all, people don’t stay in the same income brackets throughout their lives. Millions of people move from one bracket to another, especially during this current economic downturn.

The IRS tracks people each year and thus reflects real changes to real people while the Census Bureau merely creates the illusion of tracking people. The best way to follow people is to actually follow people. That’s what the IRS statistics do, and so they are more accurate.

Consider this simple fact: If people in the bottom fifth doubled their income over the last ten years, then by definition, they probably aren’t in the bottom fifth bracket any more. So you may wonder who is now in the bottom fifth. Some of them had to declare bankruptcy, but many of them are illegal immigrants. As I discuss in my new book, Making the Most of Your Money in Tough Times, economic statistics can sometimes be misleading unless you know the assumptions behind them.

In this case, the cliché that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer isn’t true. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Wireless Health Hazards

Wireless devices are everywhere. But are they affecting our health? The National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy recently mailed a report on the health hazards of wireless technologies to Governors, Members of Congress, and President Obama and his administration. They also mailed this report to health and environmental journalists.

They encourage legislators and journalists to learn more about the health consequences of electromagnetic radiation exposure from cell phones, neighborhood antennas, wireless networks, wireless routers, and other wireless technologies. The writers are concerned about the health impact on adults, children, and animals.

Experts assure us that there are no long-term consequences from exposure to electromagnetic radiation. I’m not so sure. I see the impact it has on my wife. If we use the microwave, she has to leave the room. Turn on an iPhone (even under the table) and she starts getting a headache. Drive under some power lines and she has an unpleasant feeling. I don’t feel it, but she does. Is it possible that she (and others) are miner’s canaries who are warning us something is wrong?

A petition to Congress signed by Americans in 47 states and citizens in 25 countries calls for Congress to mandate the Federal Communications Commission to revisit its exposure guidelines for radiofrequency radiation in light of research that indicates that current standards are not protective.

If there are problems with wireless devices, we need to know now before additional wireless infrastructures (such as Wi-Max) are built. At the very least, we should consider whether we should establish cell phone free zones and wireless-free zones. Electromagnetic field radiation may not affect you, but it affects my wife and many others who are more sensitive to this radiation.

And what about those already sick? Some scientist believe that certain illnesses are created or exacerbated by living in this electronic soup of radiation. I think it is time for Congress and the FCC to reexamine the impact of radiation on our bodies. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Your Longevity

Yesterday I talked about longevity and life expectancy as it relates to the health care debate. Today, I would like to make it personal. What is your longevity?

Recently Newsweek magazine had a chart to help you estimate how long you might live. Life expectancy for the average American man is 75 years. For a woman it is 80 years. Many factors are beyond our control. Those would be family medical history, nationality, geography, etc. But what about the factors you can control?

Here are some factors that can extend your life expectancy. If you have a blood relative who has lived to be 95 or older, add 10 years to your baseline life expectancy. If you regularly play puzzles like Scrabble add 5 years. If you are a married man, add 5 years. Sorry ladies, if you are a married woman, it doesn’t add any years to your life expectancy.

A few others things that add a few years to your life expectancy are: eating 5 servings of fruits or vegetables daily, flossing daily, and eating nuts. And if you regularly go to church you can even add 1.7 years to your longevity.

What about those things that reduce your life expectancy? Subtract 15 years if you use IV drugs. Also subtract 15 years if you smoke. Unprotected sex with multiple partners will cut 7 years off your life.

You can subtract 5 years for every one of these activities: eating red meat more than twice a week, feeling stressed out, and slowing putting on weight. You can also lose years by drinking too much coffee and by getting less than six to eight hours of sleep a night.

While it is a helpful exercise, these calculations also bring us back to the current health care debate. American longevity is influenced by more than medical issues, and even some of the medical problems people have are not due to lifestyle. But doesn’t it make sense to do what we can to take responsibility for our lives? Our behavior can stretch or shrink our life span and can also have a positive or negative impact on U.S. health care costs. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Health Care and Longevity

One of the arguments for changing the U.S. health care system is the claim that Americans have a shorter life expectancy. One e-mail I received said: “America ranks very low in longevity compared to other Western countries, infant death ranks high as well. We are not the best, but we could be.”

What about this claim about American longevity? Life expectancy is merely an estimation of how many years the average person lives.” If we use this definition, then American longevity is lower than many other countries. But there may be other factors involved besides health care. For example, one writer points that you can “live in a nation with the best health care system in the world, but if it’s in the throes of civil war,” your life expectancy will be short.

But we aren’t in the midst of a civil war. True, but go to a part of the city where gang warfare rages, and you might feel like you are in the midst of one. Violent crimes will lower life expectancy.

As one radio guest pointed out, crude statistics are just that: crude. Yes, the U.S. has a high infant mortality rate compared to other industrial countries. Part of the gap is due to how live births are defined. In some countries, an infant who dies soon after birth is not considered a live birth. Social scientist Nicholas Eberstadt “finds that U.S. infants, stratified by birth weight, have a high[er] likelihood of survival.”

One commentary in Forbes magazine on American health care finds other factors that affect longevity. Life expectancy differences between the U.S. and other countries can be due “to such lifestyle choices as diet, exercise and smoking.” Longevity in states like Minnesota or Utah essentially match those in countries like Norway or Britain. When you compare all of Europe (both rich and poor) with the U.S., suddenly these major differences in life expectancy vanish.

We need to get the right statistics on the table as we debate health care. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Stolen Elections

Earlier this month, the Minnesota Supreme Court declared Democrat Al Franken the winner of last year’s Senate race again Republican incumbent Norm Coleman. All sorts of questions come to mind, but I will limit myself to just two.

The first question is: Why did it take so long to decide a winner? Put another way, Can’t we devise a system that ensures an accurate count and prevents voter fraud? It shouldn’t take nine months to figure out who wins an election, even if it’s a narrow election. We have in place electronic systems that allow any of use to go to any ATM machine in the world and withdraw money with complete accuracy. I refuse to believe we cannot devise a system with similar accuracy that prevents fraud.

That leads to the second question: How did Mr. Franken (who trailed Mr. Coleman on election night by 725 votes) end up being declared the winner? If you don’t think any tricks were involved read The Wall Street Journal editorial that said; “Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election.” Those are pretty strong words from their editorial board. Of course, it makes sense since John Fund writes for The Wall Street Journal and has previously published a book with the title Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy.

The editorial says that the “Franken legal team swarmed the recount, aggressively demanding that votes that had been disqualified be added to his count, while others be denied for Mr. Coleman.” They were able to bring an additional 1,350 absentee votes from Franken-leaning countries and ended up finding enough votes to put Franken ahead.

The editorial reminds us that this is “the second time Republicans have bean beaten in this kind of legal street fight.” In 2004, Republican Dino Rossi was ahead of Democrat Christine Gregorie. Her legal team was able to rifle through a list of provisional votes and were able to find enough votes for her by the third recount.

Joseph Stalin once said: “It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes.” I don’t know if fraud and manipulation was involved in these elections, though I suspect it. The answer is to devise an accurate, fraud-proof system of elections so that people counting the vote can’t manipulate the system. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

The Graying World Population

The world’s population is graying, and that will have major implications for many countries around the world, including the United States. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the world 65-and-older population will triple by mid-century to 1 in 6 people. While this will be a challenge for the United States to support the elderly, it will be devastating for many other developed countries as well as developing countries.

The reason for the graying of the world’s population is two-fold: declining birthrates and medical advances that have extended life spans. The fastest growing age group is seniors, who presently comprise about 8 percent of the world’s population.

The percentage of seniors in the United States is about 13 percent, but the number will double by the middle of this century. This is due in large part to the baby boom generation (born between 1946 and 1964) entering retirement age. In previous commentaries, I have talked about the strain baby boomers will put on current workers and entitlement programs.

But the challenge in other countries will be much greater. Japan has been known as the land of the rising sun, but there is growing evidence that the sun is actually setting on Japan. A few years ago (2005), Japan entered into a phase of decline in which there were more deaths than births within the country. It is a country that allows few immigrants, has few minorities, and has no desire for any. For the rest of this century, we will see Japan continue to age and fall into decline. It appears that nothing will be able to pull it up from its demographic death spiral.

China is also facing a crisis, brought on by its one-child policy. Their current ratio of 16 elderly people per 100 workers will double by 2025, and than double again by mid-century. Given the current economic conditions and government policies, it is likely that millions of older Chinese will fall into poverty in coming years.

As we face the challenges of an aging population, we should be grateful that our challenges are less than those faced in other countries. Once again, demography is destiny. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Giving

Do Pastors need to educate their congregation about biblical principles concerning giving? That’s one of my recommendations in my new book, Making the Most of Your Money in Tough Times. There is growing evidence that the Christian church needs to recapture a biblical perspective on finances, and especially giving.

A number of years ago, Barna Research did a study of giving by Christians and found that less than ten percent of born-again Christians give ten percent to their church. Now I know that we are no longer under Old Testament law where the tithe is mandatory. But it is clear that the early Christians often used the tithe as a baseline for their voluntary giving. Today, we aren’t even close to that baseline.

You do have to wonder about our priorities when less than ten percent even give a tithe. Consider that a majority of Christians spend more for presents at Christmas than they give to the church and Christian organizations throughout the year.

I might add Barna Research found that age and annual income were significant indicators of giving. For example the older you are, the more likely you were to tithe. Also, the poorer you were the more likely you were to tithe. A person who makes $20,000 a year is twice as likely to tithe as a person who makes $40,000-50,000 year. And a person who makes $20,000 a year is eight times more likely to tithe than a person who makes $75,000 a year.

Do those statistics bother you? They bother me and are worth reconsidering. You have to wonder about priorities. We seem to be more willing to lay up treasures on earth instead of investing in God’s work and laying up treasures in heaven.

I hope you will take a moment and consider what you might do to support your church and worthwhile ministries. That might even include the radio station that carries this commentary. Let’s reevaluate our financial priorities and try to get our spending and giving ratios back in line. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Astronomical Numbers

Over this last year, we have been throwing around some very large numbers. How much is a trillion dollars? Ernest Istook (former member of Congress and fellow at the Heritage Foundation) used some helpful illustrations so we can get our heads around these large numbers.

One illustration looks at how long it would take to count to one trillion. Two years ago, Jeremy Harper made the news when he counted to one million in front of a webcam. He took sleep breaks, so it took him 89 days. But a million is really a very small number. One trillion is actually one million million. If someone wanted to count to a trillion (counting one number per second and taking no breaks), it would take 32,000 years.

Think of this number in another way. This country has not been around a trillion seconds. Western civilization has not been around a trillion seconds. All of recorded history is less than a trillion seconds.

Another illustration would be to cover a trillion miles. Even traveling at the speed of light, it would take two months. However, if you took a trillion one-dollar bills and laid them end-to-end, they would reach from the Earth to the sun.

While we are using astronomical illustrations, let’s consider our own galaxy. Our solar system is just an incredibly small part of the Milky Way galaxy. But as large it is, there are probably only 100 billion stars in our galaxy. We would need ten galaxies like the Milky Way to equal a trillion stars.

Let’s get back to Earth and consider $1 trillion. If you stacked $100 bills on top of each other, it would take a stack 789 miles high to equal $1 trillion. By the way, the interest on $1 trillion dollars at six percent interest is $166 million per day.

One trillion dollars is an astronomical number. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

2+2=5

If the legislation for cap-and-trade is such a good idea, why did it barely pass the House of Representatives by a slim margin that required a full-court-press from the White House and various lobby groups? The answer may that cap-and-trade is the legislative equivalent of 2+2=5.

Newt Gingrich used this illustration recently to explain why cap-and-trade is such a tough sell. To put it simply the arguments don't add up and are contrary to common sense. You don't have to know anything about the scientific claims being made about climate change to see that this legislation is based upon many a false premise.

Gingrich reminded us that during the Polish Solidarity freedom movement, the rallying cry was 2+2=4. It meant that even though the government would try to tell the people that 2+2=5, the people knew that to be free they had to tell the truth.

The proponents of the cap-and-trade bill tell us that this legislation will not only save the planet from climate change, but it will produce all sorts of green jobs. In other words, cap-and-trade will be a win-win for everyone. That's an example of 2+2=5.

Just look at some of the analysis of job loss. The Heritage Foundation predicts annual average job losses in the near term of over one million. After 2035, 2.5 million jobs are lost each year.

Cap-and-trade proponents also suggest that once the U.S. imposes these energy costs on itself, developing countries like China and India are sure to follow. But most of us know that won't happen. The rulers of these countries aren't going to be convinced by our example. Instead, they will welcome the jobs that move from the U.S. to their countries. Once again, 2+2=5.

You can look at all the questionable science and the claims and counterclaims. But all you have to know is that 2+2 does not equal 5. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

Inflation

As June was winding down, a lead article in USA Today was talking about something that I have been talking about for months: inflation. Why are economists talking about soaring prices when the consumer price index has fallen in the last year? The answer is simple: debt. The federal government owes the world more than $11 trillion. That is $37,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. And in this next fiscal year, we will add nearly $2 trillion more to the national debt.

Some believe this will fuel runaway inflation. Marc Faber, editor of the Gloom & Doom Report, predicts that U.S. inflation will someday match Zimbabwe’s inflationary spiral. Others like David Wyss, chief economist for Standard & Poor’s believe you won’t get inflation until the economy gets back and that could be five years from now.

In my new book, Making the Most of Your Money in Tough Times, I talk about these massive debts and unfunded entitlements that prudent individuals and families need to consider. The federal government is trillions of dollars in debt and needs to borrow $15 billion each day just to fund the deficit. There will be a price to pay for all of this borrowing, and an even greater price to pay if we begin to print money.

A burst of inflation would lead to higher interest rates. The Federal Reserve usually raises short-term interest rates to cool off the economy and tamp down inflation. These higher interest rates would also affect bonds, as bond traders would demand high bond yields.

Another impact of inflation would be the devalued dollar. While this might make U.S. exports more attractive, it also makes imported goods more expensive. It is even possible that a significantly devalued dollar would lose it privileged place as a world currency.

Sure the Federal Reserve has some tools to contain inflation. But the Fed doesn’t have control of federal spending, and that could bring on inflation. So be prepared. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Origin of the Declaration

Tomorrow is the 4th of July, and I thought I would take a moment to talk about the origin of the ideas in the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson said that many of the ideas in the Declaration came from John Locke. Jefferson also gave credit to the writer Algernon Sidney, who in turn cites most prominently Aristotle, Plato, Roman republican writers, and the Old Testament.

Legal scholar Gary Amos argues that Locke's Two Treatises on Government is simply Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex in a popularized form. Amos says in his book Defending the Declaration: "that the 'law of nature' is God's general revelation of law in creation, which God also supernaturally writes on the hearts of men."

This foundation helps explain the tempered nature of the American Revolution. The Declaration of Independence was a bold document, but not a radical one. The colonists did not break with England for "light and transient causes." They were mindful that Romans 13 says they should be "in subjection to the governing authorities" which "are established by God." Yet when they suffered from a "long train of abuses and usurpations," they argued that "it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government."

Jefferson also drew from George Mason's Declaration of Rights (published on June 6, 1776). The first paragraph states that "all men are born equally free and independent and have certain inherent natural Rights; among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of Acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining Happiness and Safety."

The Declaration of Independence is 233 years old. It was a monumental work at the time, and even today its words ring with truth and inspire new generations. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

Wikipedia

How accurate is Wikipedia? This is not an idle question for journalists to ask or even for students who write papers to ask. Just how accurate are the nearly four million articles on Wikipedia?

John Seigenthaler was the founding editorial director of USA Today and served as an assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Imagine the pain he felt when he read: "he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby." This false and malicious "biography" appeared under his name for 132 days on Wikipedia. And his son, who is a journalist with NBC News, told him that the same malicious text also appeared on Reference.com and Answers.com.

To add insult to injury, Seigenthaler found that there was no way to know who wrote this awful statement. And he found that federal law protects online corporations from libel lawsuits.

University student Shane Fitzgerald discovered that once an erroneous post is placed on Wikipedia, it can travel around the world. He posted a phony quote a few hours after a French composer died. It flew straight to dozens of blogs and newspaper websites in Britain, Australia, and India. It is worth mentioning that the administrators at Wikipedia caught the quote's lack of attribution and removed it.

It turns out that these gross errors are the exception rather than the rule. The journal Nature set out to check the accuracy of Wikipedia. They concluded that it covers scientific topics about as accurately as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Doing a side-by-side comparison of articles, the researchers concluded that the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three.

The lesson to be learned is to check your sources with other sources. Just because it is in print or online doesn't always mean it is true. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

Givers and Non-Givers

America is split into two nations: givers and non-givers. Approximately three-quarters of Americans give their time and money to various charities, churches, and causes. The other quarter of the population does not. That is what Arthur Brooks found and wrote about in his book, Who Really Cares.

His book runs counter to the conventional wisdom of our day. We are told that liberals are charitable (because they advocate government redistribution and welfare programs) and conservatives are not (because they oppose some of these policies). The problem with the argument is that is assumes that government programs are charity. They are not. Charity is defined as a voluntary gift from someone.

So the first thing we should do is properly define charity. Once we do that, we can look at who are the givers and who are the non-givers. Brooks found that households headed by a conservative gave 30 percent more money to charity than households headed by a liberal. He also found that this difference in giving was not due to income differences. Actually, liberal families earn an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families.

The differences in giving also went beyond money and time. Consider the difference in blood donations. Conservative Americans were more likely to donate blood each year, and they also did so more often than liberals. He found that if liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply in the United States would jump by about 45 percent.

You also see differences when you look at the 2004 presidential election. Brooks found that traditional red states were more charitable than the blue states. For example, of the 25 states that donated a portion of their household income above the national average, 24 of those states gave a majority of their popular votes to George W. Bush. Of the 25 states below the national giving average, 17 went for John Kerry. Brooks also found that people in red states volunteer more than people in blue states.

It looks like the people most likely to give money, time, or even blood are those with conservative values. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

Education and Recession

Poor student performance is taking an economic toll in America. So says Laura Vanderkam in her recent USA Today column entitled "The Permanent Recession." Her thesis is simple: American schools are not producing students with high academic achievement, and researchers have estimated that these schools are costing us more than a $1 trillion each year.

Her first point has been well documented. Most Americans think the U.S. schools are lousy. One poll found that only 22 percent of Americans give the nation's public schools an "A" or "B" grade. But here's the catch: they think the problem lies with other schools. A full 72 percent give their eldest child's school a good grade.

But the real comparison should not be between America's schools but with U.S. schools and the rest of the world. We live in a global economy, and American students will be competing with students around the world. And currently the top students in America score way below the top students in other countries.

One management consulting company found that if U.S. children did as well as students from these other nations (such as Finland or South Korea), our economy would be much larger. This means that our schools are costing us $1.3 trillion to $2.3 trillion every year. In essence, our educational failure has given us a permanent recession.

Laura Vandekam believes we should not only attempt to address lagging achievement in our poorer students, but we should also push our brightest students to achieve their full potential. She points out that the idea behind No Child Left Behind was good but unfortunately the states often created tests that were so easy as to be meaningless.

She suggests we use tests that can be compared internationally and publicize the results. America's students are not being challenged at anything near the level they can handle. Not only is it affecting our place in the world, it is also costing us. There is an economic cost to failure and mediocrity. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.