I frequently speak on the impact of media on children. But I was not prepared for
the alarming statistics of very young children and digital media. According to a recent
survey by Common Sense Media, half of children under age 8 have access to mobile
media.

Over the decades we have been able to document how people adapt to new
technologies. We still have a significant percentage of people who were born before
network TV existed. And we have a very large percentage who were born before the
Internet was available in most homes. But what about those who have been surrounded
by digital media since birth? This latest survey shows how young children consume
media in a very significant way.

As I just mentioned, half (52%) of young children now have access to one of the
newer mobile devices: either a smartphone (41%), a video iPod (21%), or an iPad or
other tablet device (8%). Also, a quarter (29%) of all parents have downloaded apps for
their children to use.

Computer use is also pervasive among young children. Over half (53%) of all 2-
to-4-year-olds have used a computer, and nine out of ten (90%) of 5-to-8-year-olds have
done so. For many of these children, computer use is a regular occurrence. The survey
found that the average age of first use was just 3½ years old.

Playing console video games is also popular among young children. Half (51%)
have played such a game. The average age of first use was just under 4 years old.

But in the midst of all this new technology, television is still king. Three-fourths
(74%) of media consumption of kids under age 8 still consists of watching the big screen
not the small computer or video screen. And by the time they turn 8–years-old, they are
likely to have a TV in their room.

Perhaps the most depressing statistic of all is that children under age 2 spend
more than twice as much time watching video as they do being read to. Parents take note.
Your kids spend too much time with digital technology.

If you are concerned about our country’s economic crisis, you will probably want
to read the new book by Senator Tom Coburn, The Debt  Bomb: A Bold Plan to Stop
Washington from Bankrupting America. While the book is sobering in its analysis of the
problem, it is also rather optimistic about how to solve it. I don’t mean it is easy, but
Senator Coburn seems to have more faith in the political system than I do that we can
prevent an economic disaster.

The book opens with a hypothetical scenario where global firms are dumping
their holdings after the federal government fails to get spending under control. The dollar
drops, the price of oil rises, and unrest is in the markets and in the streets.

Senator Coburn was on my radio program recently where we talked about the
four stages of the debt bomb. Stage one occurs when Congress tries to maintain the status
quo on spending and entitlements. In stage two, the United States faces additional credit
downgrades. Stage three of the debt bomb brings an increase in interest rates. This harms
consumers but also send interest payments on the national debt soaring. And in stage
four, inflation soars, and the value of the dollar declines.

Senator Coburn is quite willing to criticize both parties in his book. While he has
been willing to voluntarily term-limit himself, other career politicians stay for decades.
That wouldn’t be so bad if they brought real-world experience to the table. Unfortunately,
most don’t.

His book focuses on real reasons for the debt bomb. The war on terrorism cost
this country plenty in terms of lives and money, but it isn’t the reason we are approaching
a national debt of $16 trillion. Spending on entitlements will bankrupt this nation sooner
rather than later. And he even goes after wasteful defense spending.

I hope Senator Coburn’s belief that we can turn the federal government around is
realistic. We can’t kick the can down the road much longer, because we are just about to
run out of road.

Sometimes the only way you can respond to a statement is to ask, What Bible are
they reading? That happened recently on my radio program when Penna Dexter and I
were interviewing Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily. He said that he allows commentators
of various political persuasions to write and post their columns.

One of those columnists is Bill Press who recently wrote: “Nowhere in the Bible
does God condemn homosexuality.” The predictable response from us was, What Bible is
he reading? He goes on to argue that “nowhere in the Bible does God say marriage must
only be between one man and one woman. After all, Solomon had 700 wives and 300
concubines.”

Actually, the argument goes the other way. If you legalize same-sex marriage,
then sooner or later you will probably legalize polygamy. Every argument for redefining
marriage to allow same-sex unions also is an argument for other marital arrangements.

But the more important question is whether the Bible ever condemns
homosexuality. Two passages in Leviticus call it an abomination. The Apostle Paul in his
letter to the church in Rome and the church in Corinth condemns homosexuality. Those
are four verses for starters.

But of course, we can also understand the negative prohibitions by looking at
the positive principles. Genesis 2 sets forth the biblical principle of a man and woman
leaving father and mother to become one flesh. Jesus refers back to this foundational
principle in Matthew 19 (which we also can find again in Mark 10).

And the Bible also teaches that this sexual sin has consequences not only for the
individual but for the nation. Joseph Farah said: “This is about as serious as the Bible gets
in condemnation. This is not only sin that affects the individuals involved, it’s the kind of
sin that has ramifications for the entire nation.”

While it may be easy for Bible-believing Christians to shake their heads and ask,
What Bible is he reading? But in this culture of biblical illiteracy, many people are likely
to take the word of Bill Press rather than look it up in the Word of God. That’s why we
must firmly, but lovingly, teach God’s Word. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point
of view.

Proponents for same-sex marriage continue to argue that history is on their side
and that a final victory is inevitable. Even many opponents of same-sex marriage often
seem resigned to the fact that they will eventually be on the losing side. As one of my
guests lamented, “the only thing necessary for the complete legalization of same-sex
marriage is time and attrition.” While that may be true, it is worth mentioning that often
what seems inevitable never actually occurs.

Rich Lowry in a recent column went through a list of things that many people
thought were inevitable. “The failed Equal Rights Amendment looked inevitable
when it passed Congress in 1972 and immediately 30 states ratified it.” Proponents of
abortion rights assumed that once a generation grew up with abortion being legal, that
any opposition to abortion would wither away. A decade or so ago, gun control seemed
unstoppable “when Congress passed the Brady Bill and the assault-weapons ban in the
1990s.” Now, there are more Second Amendment protections than existed two decades
ago.

It is worth noting the more than 30 states have passed constitutional amendments
defining marriage between one man and one woman. North Carolina was the most recent
state to do so where 61 percent of the voters embraced the traditional definition. When
the American people are given an opportunity to vote, they still embrace a traditional
definition of marriage.

Proponents of same-sex marriage sense momentum when they see certain states
change their marriage laws due to legislative action or judicial fiat. But even if that
momentum was widespread, they should remember momentum is easier seen in physics
than in politics.

I call this the “myth of momentum.” In the physical world we observe that a body
in motion will stay in motion. But in politics, sometimes political forces can turn around
quickly and unexpectedly. Today’s momentum can be tomorrow’s backlash. Despite
what many may think same-sex marriage is not inevitable.

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 capitol 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. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Every day it seems like more of us are becoming distracted by our digital devices. Smart phones and Blackberrys seem to demand more and more of our attention. The latest studies confirm what we already intuitively know.

When people with a smart phone or a Blackberry answer an e-mail, they seem to spend a minute trying to recollect their thoughts before they had the interruption. And all of these interruptions seem to be affecting their concentration, efficiency, and creativity. Let’s look at some of the drawbacks to these digital devices.

The first is distraction overload. One study found that if an interruption takes place at a natural breakpoint, then the mental disruption is less. If it came at a less opportune time, the user experienced the “where was I?” brain lock.

Another study found that if the distraction came during a checklist, it was easy to miss an item. Sadly, one airline crash was attributed to a mistake by the pilot from an interruption-induced error.

A second problem is what is called “continuous partial attention.” Blackberry and smart phone users like to use their devices while they should be paying attention to something else. Psychologists tell us that we really aren’t multitasking, but rather engaged in rapid-fire switching of attention among tasks. It is inevitable they are going to miss key information if part of their focus is on their digital device.

But another hidden drawback associated is less creativity. Turning on a Blackberry or smart phone when you are “doing nothing” replaces what we used to do in the days before these digital devices. Back then, we called it “daydreaming.” That is when the brain often connects unrelated facts and thoughts. You have probably had some of your most creative ideas while shaving, putting on makeup, or driving. That is when your brain can be creative. Checking e-mail reduces daydreaming.

Blackberrys and smart phones aren’t bad, but wise users need to know the strengths and weaknesses of the technology. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

One word you are going to be hearing more about is the word “transhumanism.”
Now, I realize that this may be a unfamiliar term. But we can all probably remember
when we first heard about humanism, the New Age Movement, or other philosophies.
At first the terms were unfamiliar, but we began to realize that it was important to
understand what they meant.

What exactly is transhumanism? It is an intellectual and cultural movement that
seeks to transform the human condition. The leaders of this movement want to use the
developing technologies to eliminate aging and enhance human potential (physical,
psychological, and mental). Two primary ways they want to do this is through genetic
engineering and artificial intelligence. They want to genetically create “the new man,”
and they want to use technology to turn us into “cyborgs” (which is short for cybernetic
organism).

The genetic part of this equation claims that we can use gene splicing and other
genetic modification techniques so that genes can be easily transferred between species.
This might even create a global super-organism. And while Christians would certainly
endorse the use of genetics to rid humankind of genetic diseases, we would certainly be
concerned about geneticists that want to create a super human race. In fact, one scientist
bragged that using these new technologies, we can rewrite the fifth and sixth days of
creation.

The other part of the equation concerns technology. The leaders of transhumanism
believe we are on the cusp of a technological threshold in both artificial intelligence and
human-machine technology. They call the point when humans and machines merge into
one as “the Singularity.”

The leaders of transhumanism believe we should use technology to improve the
human race so that we are perfect and immortal. In many ways, this technological
imperative harkens back to the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11). Instead, we should use
technology wisely as we exercise dominion over the world (Genesis 1:28).

Who is allowed to look at your private medical records? You might assume that
the number of people who could view your records would be small: your doctor, your
insurance company, and you. As the owner of your medical information, you should
control who else is allowed to see it. But a ruling by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services appears to change that.

Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet was on my program talking about this overlooked ruling
by Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. She decreed that all private health insurance companies
turn over medical records of all patients insured by them to the federal government. And
they were to do this without patients’ consent.

In the past, doctors only released information with the patient’s specific consent.
This was often given as a condition for getting an insurer to pay. Of course, if you pay
for medical procedures yourself then your medical records are not available to an
insurance company, but that is becoming exceedingly rare in America. Most of us have
medical records at insurance companies which are now compelled to turn those private
medical records over to the government.

One question is whether this requirement violates the Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution, which states that: “No person . . . shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process” and later goes on to say that private property cannot be
taken without just compensation.

Dr. Vliet also questioned how the information will be used, fearing that your
medical data could be used to keep you from getting treatments you and your doctor
think you need. The Comparative Effectiveness Research bureaucracy and the
Independent Payment Advisory Board will no doubt use this data to allocate medical
resources or, as some have argued, even ration medical care.

And a final concern is about the security of your medical records. Hackers have
stolen millions of medical records from the Veterans Administration. It is likely your
medical records could become public.

Once again we are learning why it is best to limit the role of government
bureaucrats in our health care. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

A recent study by the Pew Research Center found that a majority of Americans
believe that gun violence is greater than ever. The problem with that view is that the
opposite is true. Violent gun crime has dropped dramatically in the past two decades.

The Pew report explains that: “National rates of gun homicide and other violent
gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling
a general decline in violent crime.” Government statistics show that the rate of nonfatal
violent gun crime victimization dropped 75 percent in the past 20 years.

The gun homicide rate dropped 49 percent in that same period.

Most Americans are unaware of this drop in gun crime. According to the Pew
survey, 56 percent of Americans believe gun crime is worse than it was 20 years ago. If
you add in those people who believe it has stayed the same, then you have 84 percent
who believe it has either gone up or stayed the same. Only 12 percent have the correct
view: that gun violence has decreased the last 20 years.

Let’s put it another way. At a time when the nation was having a debate about
guns and gun control, more than 8 out of 10 Americans had a perspective about gun
violence that was completely opposite of the true reality. I think we all know why the
public perception is incorrect. The news media focus our attention on crimes, especially
gun crimes. This has been true for some time, but was especially true since the shooting
in Newtown, Connecticut.

The Pew Research report also puts these mass shootings in context. “According to
a Bureau of Justice Statistics review, homicides that claimed at least three lives accounted
for less the 1 percent of all homicide deaths from 1980 to 2008.” In other words, they are
very rare, but of course get lots of media attention when they occur.

This latest survey once again is a reminder that public opinion can often be
wrong, and that’s why we need accurate statistics before we enact government policies.