Viewpoints with Kerby Anderson

Kerby Anderson
Kids aren’t growing up. But you already knew that. We now have more evidence for why this is a significant problem. In the past, I have quoted from the book, The Coddling of the American Mind by co-author Jonathan Haidt, who I interviewed on our radio program. He argues that young people are fragile and have been protected by a culture that promotes safety at all costs.
In a new book, Abigail Shrier takes a different look at the problem by focusing on how psychology has become an all-consuming ideology. She argues in Bad Therapy: Why the Kids Aren’t Growing Up that much of what has been said and written about psychological and emotional “trauma” is wrong. She also argues that kids would be better off if they had no therapy at all.
You might remember her previous book, Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters. In my interview with her and in her book, she documents the push to medically transition girls who may merely have gender-dysphoria. Her new book picks up with that concern by examining our therapy-obsessed culture. Both Jonathan Haidt and Abigail Shrier reveal that the younger generations are sadder and more emotionally distraught than previous generations.
She argues that our anti-adversity worldview is to blame. Therapy has become an ideology. By talking about trauma and “treating” it, we have robbed an entire generation of character qualities like grit, perseverance, and resilience.
Instead, the writer of Hebrews (12:1) reminds us to “run with endurance the race that is set before us.” James (1:12) says we are blessed if we “remain steadfast under trial.”

Penna Dexter
Population policy received heavy scrutiny recently at the annual meeting of the United Nations Commission on Population and Development.
Julia-Elena Cazan reported on the meeting which was held at UN headquarters in New York.  She wrote: “Governments voiced concerns that low fertility rates are threatening their societies with anemic economic growth, labor shortages, fiscal insolvency, and other social problems. But the UN population establishment insists it’s not a problem. Ms. Cazan says population bureaucrats, when confronted with these concerns, “tried to cast low fertility in a positive light.”
The UN has been able to convince some countries that population decline is a good thing and something to be pursued. But most are not buying it and are instead in a panic over steep declines in their populations.
Stefano Gennarini, Vice President for Legal Studies at the Center for Family and Human Rights, points out that “reality is catching up with the population control movement.” More and more countries,” he writes, “are awaking to the imminent threat of low fertility and aging in all societies.”  Many “countries are reaping the horrific consequences of sixty years of anti-natalist programs and propaganda.”
 According to Mr. Gennarini, “Currently, sexual and reproductive health is the number one item on the global health agenda. No other issue receives more funding.” But as countries suffer the harsh consequences of dwindling populations, and foresee worse down the road, they are questioning and scrutinizing the UN’s promotion of population control including reproductive health, i.e. abortion.
Western governments, including the U.S., constantly insist that “sexual and reproductive rights”  become international human rights. They attempt to exclude “language in UN agreements that protects the sovereign right of countries to decide questions of abortion and the provision of transgender affirming care, on their own.”
International pressure on governments is only one of many factors causing the decline in fertility rates and population worldwide. But these declines in population signal thatwe should abolish the UN’s population control apparatus.

Kerby Anderson
A few decades ago, Americans were increasingly concerned about privacy. Back then, we did several radio programs on the topic but now many of our privacy concerns have faded.
Mark Zuckerberg put this in perspective. He said when he got to his dorm room at Harvard, the question many students asked was, “why would I want to put any information on the Internet at all? Why would I want to have a website?” He then went on to acknowledge that people (especially his generation) became more comfortable with sharing information online.
In his book, Why Privacy Matters, Neil Richards writes about some of the myths that surround privacy concerns. One myth is that privacy is about hiding dark secrets. We hear the argument that “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” But that doesn’t mean we should have everyone see everything. We wear clothes out of modesty. We don’t want videos of what we do in a bathroom or bedroom.
Another myth is that privacy isn’t about creepiness. He provides lots of examples of privacy invasions we would not tolerate. Yet we have the famous comment by Google’s Eric Schmidt that I have mentioned in previous commentaries. He explained that: “Google’s policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it.”
Another myth is that privacy isn’t primarily about control. We are assured that we can make informed choices about the amount of information a technology company can use. But do you really read all the words in a privacy notice? One famous study from more than a decade ago estimated that if we were to quickly read the privacy policies of every website we encounter, it would take 75 full working days to read them all.
Privacy concerns still exist, and we need to focus on them in the future.

Kerby Anderson
You have probably heard the phrase, “History Does Not Repeat Itself, But It Rhymes.” That observation is true, especially in economics.
Investor Ray Dalio learned that lesson at a young age. In 1971, he was clerking on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. When President Nixon announced that paper currency could no longer be turned in for gold, he expected pandemonium on the floor as stocks took a dive. Instead, the stock market jumped 4 percent as the dollar plummeted. He was surprised because he hadn’t experienced a currency devaluation, but he would have known if he had studied history.
This isn’t the first time the US has had to deal with significant inflation. In fact, the current chairman of the Federal Reserve (Jerome Powell) vows that he won’t make the mistake of Arthur Burns, who was Fed chairman in the 1970s.
I recently read an article from a Yale economics professor who was at the Federal Reserve back in those days. He said Arthur Burns wanted to remove energy-related products from the Consumer Price Index (CPI) because of the Yom Kippur War and the subsequent oil embargo. Blaming oil prices on a war. Does that sound familiar?
Then came surging food prices. Arthur Burns argued that this was traceable to unusual weather (specifically an El Niño event) that affected such things as fertilizers and feedstock prices. He, therefore, wanted to remove food prices from the CPI. Again, doesn’t this sound familiar?
By the time he was done, only about 35 percent of the CPI was left. If you have been listening to my commentaries for any length of time, you know that we no longer measure CPI the way we did decades ago.
This isn’t the first time America has had to deal with significant inflation, and we can learn lessons from economic history about what we should do.

Kerby Anderson
Why do we write down our laws? I recently read an article providing a practical reason for writing down the laws of a nation, but I would also like to add one historical reason for why we write down our laws.
This country is supposed to be a nation of laws and not men. We haven’t always lived up to the vision, but that is what we are to aspire to achieve. When you write down a law, you give it a fixed meaning. A government with laws with precise meanings is a government of law not of arbitrary power. You know what rights the government acknowledges, and you know what prohibitions will be punished.
In my booklet A Biblical Point of View on Constitutional Interpretation, I talk about two different views. Originalism attempts to understand the mindset of the framers who constructed it. That is why some have referred to this view as “strict constructionism.” The other view is modernism, also often called “the living Constitution.” It attempts to find meaning for the Constitution today and rejects attempts to view it through the eyes of white men who lived in the 18th century. Ultimately, rights and legal definitions become putty in the hands of judges and justices.
Historically, we write down laws because of the Puritans. They wrote out their covenants because they understood that they were to answer to God for their actions. These covenants bound each person to another person and the whole community as an agreement under God. They also understood that the rights they enjoyed came from God. Ultimately, these Puritan Covenants became a model for the US Constitution.
Americans want to live under a government of law, not a government where justices find principles in the unwritten “penumbras” of a living Constitution. Laws are written down to fix their meaning and protect against judges and justices who want to change the law arbitrarily.

Kerby Anderson
Victor Davis Hanson recently wrote about the “Leftist Mind,” and that got my attention since I have recently written a booklet on the “The Liberal Mind.” My goal was to describe the foundational assumptions of a liberal mindset. Hanson instead reminded us of how leftists supported the Electoral College and every decision from the Supreme Court until recently.
A decade ago, Democrats loved the Electoral College. The “blue wall” states made the election and reelection of Barack Obama possible. Then the wall crumbled in 2016 to Trump, and now they condemn the Electoral College as a “relic of our anti-democratic founders.”
Leftists loved the Supreme Court decisions on abortion, school prayer, same-sex marriage, pornography, and Miranda rights. The “Left cheered the Court as it made the law and ignored legislatures and presidents.” They welcomed Justices appointed by Republican presidents who drifted leftward and provided the needed votes on “affirmative action to Roe v. Wade, to Obamacare.”
What was the response? “Was there any serious right-wing talk of packing the court with six additional justices to slow down its overreaching left-wing majority – or of a mob massing at the home of a left-wing justice? Certainly not.”
But now that there is a narrow majority of originalist justices on the Court, “the once-beloved Court is being slandered by leftist insurrectionists as illegitimate. Every sort of once-unthinkable attack on the courts is now permissible.”
If you are looking for any consistency, you will not find it. Each of these examples illustrates the “end justifies the means” perspective of the Leftist Mind. And that’s why it is difficult to take many of these current arguments seriously.

Kerby Anderson
More than a decade ago, I did an interview with Mark Bauerlein about his book, The Dumbest Generation. Last week we focused our attention on his new book, The Dumbest Generation Grows Up. The ignorance and faulty logic of young people in college has now made its way into the young adult culture.
He reminds us that social commentators predicted that the millennial generation would make a significant impact on society because they were coming of age in the Digital Age. Back then, professor Bauerlein was warning that smartphones and computers were having a negative impact on his students and young adults.
He explains the millennials “grew up in a world of their own” and “it didn’t provide them with the tools to handle the ordinary pains of life once they had to leave that world. Most of them had no religion to give shape and direction to their mortal careers, no doctrine to explain suffering when it came.” On one side you had the “nones” who rejected religion. On the other side you had Christians who adopted the Christian Smith description of “moralistic therapeutic deism.”
We also talked about the cancel culture. They may have protested Charles Murray and Heather MacDonald, but they may never have a read a word written by them. They just knew they were supposed to protest these people when they showed up on campus.
A majority (51%) in one survey said they were justified in shouting down a speaker if the speaker utters “offensive and hurtful statements.” And the university faculty and administrators also failed them because many of them could not even explain why certain college courses were necessary.
The dumbest generation has grown up, but it doesn’t appear that too many of them have grown up emotionally or intellectually.

Penna Dexter
With marriage rates down 60 percent since the 1970’s, some well-known authors are putting out books touting marriage. University of Virginia sociology professor, Brad Wilcox makes the case for marriage in his new book, Get Married: Why Americans Must Defy the Elites, Forge Strong Families and Save Civilization.
In interviews, he points out that “a lot of young adults today are under the impression that what really matters in life is your education, building your own brand, and especially investing your life in a career.” He says, “there’s a sort of false orientation to a more individualistic and workist or careerist approach to life.” He calls this the “Midas mindset” and it’s a major factor in the tendency of young adults to marry later or not to marry at all.
Novelist and philosopher Cheryl Mendelson has a new book that The Wall Street Journal’s Tara Isabell Burton describes as “fascinating and morally serious.” Vows: The Modern Genius of an Ancient Rite chronicles the evolution of wedding vows describing how love became increasingly central to the vows and to marriage itself.
A key date is 1549, when a consultation of bishops met and produced the first Book of Common Prayer which became a permanent feature of the Church of England’s worship and a key source for its doctrine. It is generally assumed that this book is largely the work of Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, during Henry the VIII’s break with Rome. Archbishop Cranmer built upon robust medieval vows, adding the promises “to love and to cherishe.” Cheryl Mendelson says the vision of marriage that emerged brought to English society “a quiet reservoir of freedom and equality, encouraging individualism and free choice.”
But this brand of individualism and free choice is different from Brad Wilcox’s “Midas mindset” in which “self-written vows are as common as traditional ones.”
The Journal’s reviewer, Ms. Burton concludes, “there is something to those old school words” and “the ideals behind them.”

Kerby Anderson
Although Päivi Räsänen is the person on trial, realistically it is the Bible that is on trial. She is a long-serving member of the Finnish parliament, a medical doctor, pastor’s wife, and a grandmother. She continues to face persecution for her religious beliefs.
Five years ago, her church decided to sponsor a “pride parade.” She responded by posting some Bible verses and asked how that decision aligned with Scripture. Instead of a civil debate and a reasonable response, she was slapped with criminal prosecution.
In the process of discovery, the government officials found a church pamphlet she wrote on marriage and sexuality. The government charged her and the other author of the pamphlet (a Lutheran bishop) with “agitation against a minority group” based on a war-crimes statute in Finnish law.
The two were put on trial two years ago with most of the focus on biblical passages and the way in which the defendants interpreted them. The good news is that they were eventually acquitted of all counts. The bad news is the government filed an appeal to Finland’s Supreme Court.
Her case reminded me of the Swedish pastor Åke Green who preached a sermon based on Romans 1 arguing that “sexual perversions” are harmful to society. His case was prosecuted and convicted in the local courts. Eventually his case went all the way to the Swedish Supreme Court. The justices ruled that he violated Swedish law but that his freedom of religion was protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.
I believe this “Bible trial” in Finland will determine whether free speech and religious liberty will be allowed in this country and in other European countries.

Kerby Anderson
If he was alive today, John Deere might not even recognize the company that bears his name. As a blacksmith, he realized that farmers needed a better plow for the dense black soil of the Midwest. He took a broken steel saw at a mill and fashioned it into a plow. Soon he was mass producing them.
Today John Deere manufactures lots of agricultural technology. I would recommend you visit the John Deere Pavilion and get a tour. But if you want to understand the future of agriculture, you might also pay attention to the fact that company is building robots.
That is just one of the insights in the new book, The Coming Wave. We are going to be seeing robots and artificial intelligence devices everywhere, although we might not realize that we are seeing them. Autonomous tractors and combines may not look like the robots we see in science fiction movies, but they will be doing more and more of the agriculture of the future.
Robots will be planting, tending, and harvesting crops with a high level of precision. Drones will be watching livestock. Computers and robots will be measuring soil quality, moisture, and weather conditions.
Some agricultural robots will be hard to see because they will be the size of bees. There has been some concern (perhaps overblown) about the reduction in bee populations. That is why Walmart filed a patent for robot bees to cross-pollinate crops autonomously. A RoboBee created at one research institute measures about half the size of a paper clip and weighs less than one-tenth of a gram. It flies using “artificial muscles” compromised of materials that contract when a voltage is applied.
Robot technology is changing agriculture. In fact, robots may soon be helping to feed the world.

Kerby Anderson
Yesterday I mentioned the book by Frank Thomas, What’s the Matter with Kansas? Rich Lowry suggests that there might be a future book with the title, What’s Matter with People of Color? The point he is making is that Democrats have always assumed people of color will vote for their party. That doesn’t look like it will happen in this election.
The results of two polls illustrate the dramatic change. A New York Times poll a few months ago had Trump beating Biden among Hispanic voters 46–40. Recently, a Wall Street Journal poll found that 30 percent of African American men say they are “definitely or probably” going to vote for Trump. Although other polls aren’t as dramatic, something seems to be happening among potential minority voters.
Rich Lowry suggests the problem has been that Democrats lump all sorts of people with diverse backgrounds and demographic characteristics into the category “people of color.” Many of these ethnic groups are not supportive of the woke politics that have been promoted over the last few years.
Hispanics, for example, are much more like the rest of America. One poll shows that 69 percent of Americans say the country is on the wrong track. An even higher percentage (72%) of Hispanics say the same thing. About a third (30%) of the country says inflation and the economy is the top issue. Once again, an even higher percentage (42%) of Hispanics say it is.
What might this mean in this election? Hillary Clinton won Hispanic voters by nearly 40 points. Joe Biden won them by 23 points but will probably see a lower percentage in this election. Those potential votes might go to Donald Trump. I predict that this demographic shift in potential vote preferences will have a significant impact on many of the races in the 2024 elections.

Kerby Anderson
Elizabeth Currid-Halkett writes about “The Myth of Rural Rage,” arguing that red states and small towns are not full of hate. Her comments have a great deal of credibility since she is a university professor, and a lifelong liberal, who apparently has always voted for Democrats. She reads The New York Times and listens to NPR, but agrees with Uri Berliner, the liberal at NPR who expressed his concern about systemic liberal bias in its news reporting.
She tells the story of Craig (a retired person living in Iowa) to personalize the fact that the liberal media and liberal politicians have a false and biased view of rural America. She got to know him and many others when writing her book, The Overlooked Americans.
She refers to the General Social Survey that shows, even on politically charged issues, urban and rural Americans largely feel the same way. “Statistically, about half of both rural and urban Americans are religious, even if rural Americans are more likely to openly discuss their belief in God.”
She reminds us there have been shrill warnings that rural Americans are angry, vengeful, and ignorant. In his book (What’s the Matter with Kansas?) that I will mention again tomorrow, Frank Thomas portrayed rural America’s loyalty to the Republican Party as a form of “derangement.” The election of Donald Trump in 2016 led to countless essays in the liberal media about rural revenge.
She concludes by arguing that “our public intellectuals and leading media outlets have a duty to reset the conversation about rural America and take the time to find out the truth about the people who live there.” I appreciate her honesty and her sentiment, but I don’t see it happening soon.

Kerby Anderson
Michael Barone is a political analyst and best known as the principal author of The Almanac of American Politics. He has been writing about the disconnect between the left-leaning media and the typical American voter. He cites one writer for The Atlantic who argues that the Biden years have seen “the strongest economy the United States has ever experienced.” Her suggestion is that voters are not knowledgeable or sophisticated enough to understand how the economy is doing great.
His response is to point you to a pair of charts that were recently published in the Wall Street Journal. The two writers say the best way to compare two presidencies is to look at net worth. The first chart shows that net worth under Trump was a little better than under Biden.
The second chart then takes inflation into account. The red line (Trump) increases but has some dips along the way because of factors like the pandemic and lockdowns. The blue line (Biden) has a brief increase in net worth and then turns negative for the rest of his time in office.
Rebecca Downs also addresses the disconnect between the media and voters by citing an article in Axios. The article cites a Harris poll showing that more than half of Americans (56%) believe the US is in a recession and then confidently says they are all wrong.
It is true that according to the traditional definition, the country is not currently in a recession. But there is a reason why the latest polls show that most Americans (70%) say the cost of living is their biggest economic concern and why most (68%) also say inflation is an important issue.
Pundits and politicians can point to low unemployment and increasing wage growth. But the American people don’t feel these few positive economic indicators in their pocketbooks.

Penna Dexter
A landmark study released last month reveals that, when a child presents with “sudden onset gender dysphoria,” rushing to provide so-called “gender affirming care,” is not medical progress or a natural “next step.”
The standard warning has been that if the child exhibiting gender incongruence does not receive gender affirming care, he or she is a likely suicide risk. But the United Kingdom’s National Health Service recently released a nearly 400-page report that counters this narrative. Researcher and pediatrician Hillary Cass chaired this independent review, the most comprehensive evaluation of the evidence to date. Her data confirms that children who suddenly exhibit gender dysphoria are often suffering from other mental health challenges and would benefit from holistic evaluation and treatment.
The report noted the lack of quality in published studies which form the basis upon which clinical decisions are made. Researchers observed that gender affirming care is based upon “shaky foundations,” and evidence for the use of puberty blockers, cross sex hormones and medical transition surgeries as treatment for gender dysphoria is “remarkably weak.”
On puberty blockers, the report concludes: “The rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear.”
On cross sex hormones: “The use of masculinizing/feminizing hormones in those under the age of 18 also presents many unknowns, despite their longstanding use in the adult transgender population.”
Currently, these — followed by surgery — are the go-to strategies even when gender dysphoria is accompanied by other mental health problems and conditions like autism spectrum disorder and neurodiversity issues.
Gender activists and practitioners recommend treatments as if the science were settled. It’s not. There are long term negative medical and psychological consequences to these treatments.
One of those consequences is that in pursuing this path the young person has not sufficiently dealt with the underlying mental issues.
The report concludes: “For most young people, a medical pathway will not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress.”
‘Perhaps the Cass Report will usher in some needed caution.

Kerby Anderson
The Bible talks about hope, and it talks about the importance of gratitude. I find it interesting that even liberal, secular commentators are also talking about hope and gratitude. Nicholas Kristof is a New York Times columnist and winner of two Pulitzer Prizes. He is the author of a new memoir, Chasing Hope: A Reporter’s Life.
He laments that “more than three-quarters of Americans say the United States is headed in the wrong direction.” He is troubled that Americans think we have never been in such a mess. He points to the time before the Civil War or even talks about the turbulence of the 1960s, that included riots, assassinations, and Vietnam War protests. His argument is “we can get through this.”
Essentially, he is saying that we never had it so good. He observes that “if you had to pick a time to be alive in the past few hundred thousand years of human history, it would probably be now.” He tells the story of President Calvin Coolidge’s 16-year-old son, who developed a blister on a toe that became infected. “Without antibiotics the boy was dead within a week. Today the most impoverished child in the United States on Medicaid has access to better health care than the president’s son did a century ago.”
As Christians we have even more reason to have hope. Romans 15:13 says, “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.” And we should have gratitude. I Thessalonians 5 says we should “always be rejoicing” and we should “give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.”
We have many reasons for hope, especially because we have hope in the Lord.

Kerby Anderson
Maine recently voted to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This has been an attempt get enough states to pledge that they will send electors to Washington to vote for the president based upon the popular vote. Essentially, it would require electors to ignore how their state voted and merely cast their vote for the winner of the popular vote. It has been an attempt to change the way we elect the president without a Constitutional amendment.
I first wrote about the National Popular Vote initiative back in 2008, when there were two states who joined the compact. By the end of the year, four states had joined. I haven’t written about it since 2019 because there hasn’t been any significant movement until last year when Minnesota joined and now Maine has joined.
So far, there are 17 states and Washington, DC that have joined the compact. It only will go into effect when enough states holding 270 Electoral College votes approve the plan. The current total is 209 Electoral votes.
As I have discussed in previous commentaries, the attempt to dismantle the Electoral College is a bad idea. Just look at the map that has been created to illustrate the impact big states and big cities would have on the outcome. The framers from small states feared they would always be outvoted by the large states.
Because of third parties, many of our presidential elections in the last few decades have not had any candidate with a popular vote majority. The Electoral College gives them a majority. It is also worth remembering that Abraham Lincoln won less than 40 percent of the popular vote and relied on the Electoral College for his authority.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact won’t have an impact on this election, but it might have a significant impact in future elections.

Kerby Anderson
Over the last few months, I have been doing some interviews on books that document (in one way or another) a lack of moral behavior among evangelicals. If you read articles in Christianity Today, Ministry Watch, or World magazine, you see other examples.
As the authors document what is happening in the evangelical world, I always like to bring us back to why. The “why” question is probably more important than the “what” question. Why aren’t Christians acting like Christians? Of course, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Christians are supposed to be different than the world, but there is abundant evidence that they are very much like the world around them.
Each year, George Barna posts The American Worldview Inventory.  His most recent report shows that very few Americans (including evangelicals) have a biblical worldview. About four percent have a biblical worldview with four percent more with a variety of different worldviews. The dominant worldview (encompassing 92 percent) is the worldview of syncretism.
The classic definition of syncretism is that it is an amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought. In the Christian context, it is an acceptance and even affirmation of a diverse set of beliefs that aren’t biblical. That is best illustrated by the fact that a majority (58%) of American adults don’t believe in absolute truth and instead believe that moral truth is up to the individual to decide.
You would hope pastors might be able to correct some of this theological confusion. But George Barna found that less than a majority (41%) of senior pastors have a biblical worldview. And the problem is worse with youth pastors. Only 12 percent of them have a biblical worldview.
We shouldn’t be surprised at what is happening in the evangelical world when we understand the why behind it.

Kerby Anderson
Two dozen states have legalized marijuana and another 14 permit it for medical purposes. But ironically this comes at a time when we are learning more each year about the health effects of cannabis. Why talk about it now? Various media outlets report that the Biden administration is working to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous Schedule III drug.
Dr. Bertha Madras calls it a political decision not a scientific one. She has spent 60 years studying drugs and has served as a psychobiology professor at Harvard Medical School. In 2015 the World Health Organization asked her to do a detailed review of cannabis and its medical uses. Her 41-page report concluded that there were few medical benefits and many medical harms.
Allysia Finley provides a shorter summary of the health effects. For example, the “addiction potential of marijuana is as high or higher than some other drug,” especially for young people. About 30 percent of those who use cannabis have some degree of a use disorder. By comparison, only 13.5% of drinkers are estimated to be dependent on alcohol. Another concern is the fact that “marijuana does more lasting damage to the brain than alcohol, especially at the high potencies being consumed today.”
Many years ago, I had an author on my radio program who documented that cannabis could cause schizophrenia, but I received significant pushback from some in the audience. But we now have even better evidence of this link from the latest scientific studies.
On the other hand, there is some scant evidence that marijuana helps with very specific pain but not for most others. Overall, there are few benefits and many health concerns.
(To see the full text of Ms. Finley’s interview with Dr. Madras, please choose to read more.)

Kerby Anderson
Today is Memorial Day. For many Americans, it is merely a day off. For others, it marks the start of summer. But hopefully for many of you, it is a day to honor those who fought for our freedom and especially for those who paid the ultimate sacrifice.
Sure we can enjoy our picnics and go for a walk or go for a swim. But we should take some time to put up a flag, make a banner, and perhaps participate in a parade honoring our military.
Certainly those in the military feel more loved than the vets who returned from the Vietnam War. But it wouldn’t hurt to thank those who have served our country and to make them feel appreciated. We will never be able to repay them enough for their service.
What else can we do? If you visit a few websites, you will find all sorts of suggestions. Here are a few to consider. Participate in a “National Moment of Remembrance” at 3 PM today. Pause, listen to taps, and reflect. I was in London’s Heathrow airport on Veterans’ Day. When time came to stop and reflect, the airport was absolutely quiet for a minute or so. I was impressed. We can learn something from the British and their reverence for their war dead.
You might encourage your friends, neighbors, and family to visit cemeteries and perhaps even place flags on the graves. I have been to military cemeteries in Hawaii and the Philippines and have seen what is done there. We need to do the same back home.
Those of you who live near the nation’s capital might visit one of the memorials for the Vietnam Veterans, the World War II Veterans, or the Korean War Veterans.
I will let you consider what you might do to make this day special. The point is to make this day special. Too often we come to think about it as nothing more than a Monday holiday or the kick-off for summer. It should mean so much more for us.

Penna Dexter
Headlines about the fact that the fertility rate is falling worldwide have government leaders worried. As workforces shrink, economic growth slows, and companies and government entities fail to sufficiently fund pensions, demographers are scrambling to offer explanations – and solutions.
The fertility rate has to do with the number of babies a woman has over her lifetime. It is believed that, for the first time, fertility has dropped below global replacement.
There are many reasons: Longer lifespans with more children surviving into adulthood, women’s higher education levels, women’s greater participation in the workforce, economic uncertainty beginning with the 2008 financial crisis.
The Wall Street Journal points to another factor:  a “’second demographic transition,’ a society-wide reorientation toward individualism that puts less emphasis on marriage and parenthood, and makes fewer or no children more acceptable.”
Melissa Kearney, an economist at the University of Maryland, told The Wall Street Journal that raising children is no more expensive now than in the past. She says parents simply have different “perspectives” and “perceived constraints.” Professor Kearney, the author of a recent book, The Two-Parent Privilege, points out that highly educated parents spend more time with their children than in the past and therefore may want fewer of them. She says, “The intensity of parenting is a constraint.”
Another scholar with the same last name — spelled differently — is the American Enterprise Institute’s Timothy Carney. His book is Family Unfriendly: How Our Culture Made Raising Kids Much Harder Than It Needs to Be. He and his wife have five children.
Tim Carney’s recent Washington Post op-ed recommends families have at least four children. He writes: “There’s nothing high-quality about the intensive parenting that is typical in today’s middle and upper-middle classes.” He recommends letting kids “off the leash,” ditching the daily after-school “race,” in favor of “independent play” because it’s fun, less exhausting, and helps children learn to cope with stressors (like when little brother smashes your record-breaking Lego tower).