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.

Safeway and Health Care

The CEO of Safeway has been writing op-ed pieces and testifying before Congress. But Steven Burd hasn't been talking about how to run grocery stores. He has been educating anyone who will listen about how to cut health care costs.

Health care spending has been increasing faster than just about any other area of consumer spending. So when the CEO of a major company explains how using Safeway's model we could cut the national health care bill by 40 percent, we should listen.

The model that Safeway uses capitalizes on two key insights. First is the realization that 70 percent of all health care costs are a direct result of behavior. Second, nearly three fourths of all costs are confined to four chronic conditions (cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and obesity).

A high percentage of these diseases and conditions are preventable. So their model is similar to auto insurance premiums in which driving behavior and accident risk determine the cost of premiums.

Employees are tested for the four conditions and receive premium discounts for each test they pass. If they pass all four tests their premium is reduced substantially. "Should they fail any or all tests, they can be tested again in 12 months. If they pass or have made significant progress on something like obesity, the company provides a refund equal to the premium differences established at the beginning of the plan year."

Steven Burd says that this program has built a culture of health and fitness at Safeway. For example, their obesity and smoking rates are roughly at 70 percent of the national average. And most of the employees rate the health care plan as good, very good, or excellent.

These four chronic conditions are not entirely due to behavior, but doesn't it make sense to create incentives to change behaviors that are a direct result of behavior? While we are debating health care reform, why not focus needed attention on personal responsibility with financial incentives. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.