INFRASTRUCTURE

When Congress passed the $787 billion stimulus bill in 2009, it was sold as an instrument for job creation, an historic investment in the nation’s infrastructure. Supposedly, Americans would be put to work quickly and the economy would get a boost for years to come. It didn’t work out that way, partially because the projects that were supposed to be “shovel ready” weren’t. But the idea that taxpayers must constantly fork over billions to government to fund roads, bridges, high speed rail, and internet infrastructure is rarely challenged in any significant way.

In fact, a lot of people who strongly oppose big government back off that position when it come to public funding of infrastructure.

The president argues for government “investment” in infrastructure, saying it’s crucial to the nation’s economic recovery. In his now-infamous July 2012 campaign speech in Roanoake, Virginia, President Obama said, “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” He was referring to the fact that people move goods on public roads, and information over the internet, and take advantage of all sorts of infrastructure built by others.    The fact that companies depend upon these things becomes part of the argument that government must grow because businesses need government to be successful.

But, in a recent Wall Street Journal op ed, two historians help us put this into perspective.

Larry Schweikart, Jr. is a history professor at the University of Dayton and Burton Folsom, Jr. is at Hillsdale College. They point out that auto makers like Henry Ford “put a car in almost every garage” well before the 1956 passage of the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act. They write that, “…the highways came as a byproduct of the entrepreneurial genius of Ford and others.” In fact, auto and auto parts makers built private roads before the federal and state governments began building them.

Drs. Schweikart and Folsom point out that before the 1860’s practically all railroads were privately financed and built. And, they write, “Public airports did not appear in large numbers until military airfields were converted after World War II.” Robert Fulton built the steamboat in 1907. But, state-built canals lost money and were sold to private enterprises.

The professors’ point is that building infrastructure was not the engine of growth but a result of growth that had already taken place in the private sector. The government role in building infrastructure was important only after the market grew so large as to demand it.

Government has a role in funding infrastructure. But taxpayers are asked to do this too easily, sometimes for projects that are either obsolete, wasteful or unproven. The White House claims an outsized role in growth     and is therefore not an honest broker with the business community. The private sector has more incentive to make wise decisions about what infrastructure is needed. Often, they’ll build it themselves.

American Creed

What is the American Creed? That is a question David Gelernter asked in a recent op-ed. It is also a major theme in his new book, America-Lite. He was on my radio program recently talking about his book and his piece in the Wall Street Journal.

He is a fascinating individual. He received two degrees in classical Hebrew literature, but is now a professor of computer science at Yale University. Some have called him a “rock star” in the world of computing. You might also remember that he was one of the people who was critically injured when he opened a mail bomb send by the the “Unabomber.”

He believes that we need to return to the principles that made this country great. Unfortunately, he says “many of us don’t know what they are, or think they can’t work.” He blames the public schools and the academy for this failure to pass on the basic ideals that have served America and the Western world so well these many centuries.

He laments that: “Almost no one believes that our public schools are doing a passable job of teaching American and Western civilization.” Textbooks and class lectures in our education system today often start with the assumption that America and Western ideals are bad for civilization. So he concludes that: “Many American children have never heard a good word for the United States, the West, Judaism, or Christianity their whole lives.” Obviously, this must change.

He also laments that our “American culture is in the hands of intellectuals” which he says are usually people “born with high IQ and low common sense.” He gives lots of examples of this. You can probably think many other examples of people that are very bright but lacking in basic common sense.

America’s creed is quite simple: “Freedom, equality, democracy, and America as the promised land.” The early founders believed in America as a city on a hill, as did many presidents right up to President Reagan. Gelernter observes that the current president “rejects this creed. He doesn’t buy the city-on-a-hill stuff.”

It is time to use our American creed to evaluate those who are teaching our kids and those who are leading our nation.

Teens and Televisions

For years, parents and educators have been concerned about the impact of television on children. A study from the University of Minnesota documents another concern about teenagers who have a television in their bedroom. The researchers have found that teenagers who have a bedroom television are less likely to exercise. They are also less likely to eat fruits or vegetables and enjoy family meals. And, they also found that these teenagers also consumed larger quantities of sweetened beverages and fast food.

There were also a few gender differences. Girls with a TV in their bedrooms spent less time in vigorous activity each week than girls without TVs in their rooms. They also ate fewer vegetables and had fewer family meals. Boys with TVs in their rooms not only had lower fruit intake and fewer family meals, they also had a lower grade point average compared with their counterparts with no TVs in the bedroom.

The chief researcher suggests that parents help their teens decrease unhealthy behaviors by removing a television from their child’s bedroom. Or if they don’t have a TV in their bedroom, they should make sure they don’t put one in there. She notes: “Our findings suggest the importance of not having a television in a child’s bedroom. When families upgrade their living room television, they may want to resist the temptation to put the older television set in their children’s bedroom.”

“The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that parents remove television sets from their children’s bedrooms.” But in spite of this recommendation, the researchers found that almost two-thirds of teens had a bedroom television.

Of course the problem is larger than just television. I have said for many years that young people spend too much time in front of a screen. That would include a TV screen, a video screen, a movie screen, and a computer screen.

I think it is noteworthy that even secular researchers are coming to the same conclusion that many Christians have had for years. Putting a television in your teen’s bedroom is not a good idea.

TV and Political Values

Decades ago, social scientists documented that what we see on television affects our worldview. One study done at the Annenberg School of Communications found that heavy TV viewers tended to overestimate their likelihood of being involved in a violent crime compared to light TV viewers. The reason was simple: they saw lots of violence on television and unconsciously assumed that is how the world was.

They now are finding that heavy TV viewing affects political attitudes. That is the conclusion of a study done by the Culture and Media Institute. They have published a National Cultural Values Survey which provides a major overview of the cultural and moral values of Americans. It won’t surprise you to find out that most Americans believe that the media are harming the nation’s moral values.

One part that I found most interesting is the finding that the media are undermining America’s sense of personal responsibility. They found the more a person watches television the less likely he or she is to accept responsibility.

For example, they found that 64 percent of heavy TV viewers believe government should provide retirement benefits to Americans while only 43 percent of light viewers thought this. By the way, a heavy TV viewer is someone who watches four hours or more of television every day. They also found that 63 percent of heavy TV viewers prefer government health care to private health care. This is compared to only 43 percent of light viewers.

Television viewing also had an impact on volunteering time and giving money. They found that 56 percent of heavy TV viewers did not volunteer time to worthy causes last year, compared to 22 percent of light TV viewers. They also found that 24 percent of heavy TV viewers made no charitable contributions last year, compared to 11 percent of light TV viewers.

Obviously these are only correlations and do not prove causation. But you do have to wonder. On the surface, it appears that watching lots of TV affects both attitudes and behavior.

You Lost Me: Part Two

In his new book,You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving the Church and Rethinking Faith, David Kinnaman explains why so many Christian millennials are heading for the church exits.

Some leave because they feel that the church and Christians are over protective. They say that so much of the teaching is fear-based to get you to do something. But they don’t give Christians logical reasons why you should or should not do a certain behavior. They agree with statements like: “Christians demonize everything outside of the church.”

Others feel the church is shallow. In fact, they believe that Christians often try to keep faith separate from work and life. They believe that Church is boring. They don’t believe the church prepares them for real life.

One significant reason for the Christian exodus from church is the perception that Christianity is anti-science. Mike said that his church taught that you “couldn’t believe both in science and God, so that was it.” He said he didn’t believe in God anymore. Many said they felt that churches were out of step with the scientific world we live in.

Young Christians also thought the church was repressive. They agreed with the statement: “The church’s teaching on sexuality and birth control are out of date.” Others said they wanted more freedom in life and could not find it in church.

They also said that felt the church was exclusive. Churches were not accepting of people with non-biblical lifestyles and seemed afraid of the beliefs of people of other faiths. They also agreed with the statement: “Church ignores the problems of the real world.”

And the church did not allow people to ask questions and express doubts. A significant number agreed with the statement: “I don’t feel that I can ask my most pressing life questions in church.” Many expressed intellectual doubts about their faith.

David Kinnaman’s book reminds us that there are many reasons why young people leave the church. Pastors and Christian leaders can benefit from understanding why this exodus is taking place.

You Lost Me: Part One

In his new book, You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving the Church and Rethinking Faith, David Kinnaman plots the faith journeys of the current generation. He talks about three types of Christians who have headed for the exits.

The first are nomads. These are people who wander or drift away from active involvement with a church or faith community. Nomads usually think of themselves as Christians. They may even be born-again, but they do not attend church on the regular basis. A key phrase for nomads is: “I think going to church or being with Christian friends is optional.”

A second group are prodigals. They aren’t exactly like the prodigal son Jesus describes who comes to his senses and returns. These prodigals are people who have given up on the faith of their childhood. They have become ex-Christians. A phrase you might hear them say is: “Christian beliefs don’t make sense to me.”

Exiles are the third group. They are people who feel stuck between the comfortable, predictable world of church and the “real world” they feel called to influence. They cannot reconcile the conflict between the two. They are likely to say: “I want to find a way to follow Jesus that connects with the world.”

David Kinnaman found that there is no one answer why young Christians leave the church. There are a variety of reasons. In the book, he talks about six different categories of reasons. They are: overprotective, shallow, antiscience, repressive, exclusive, and doubtless. We will talk about them in tomorrow’s commentary.

His research and the book illustrate that often the church has not been able to equip young adults to live “in the world but not of the world.” This generation is living in the midst of some profound cultural changes. The old ways of equiping Christians might not be sufficient to withstand the cultural assault on Christian values by the popular culure and the media. If the church is to be effective in the 21st century, we need to understand what is convincing so many young Christians to leave the church.

END OF BOOKS?

The store Anthropologie has interesting displays. Recently I noticed one in which an arch was made of books glued together. There’s no way to read those books or even see the titles, because the bindings face the wall. It’s certainly proper to use books in decorating. But, when in doing so, they are rendered unreadable it says something about what’s happening to books—and bookstores, and publishing—in today’s culture.

It’s not that we don’t read. Studies show nearsightedness is skyrocketing from reading smartphones. In a very crowded airport waiting area my husband and I  recently observed one paper book, several tablets and lots of smart phones being read.

E-books topped print sales in 2011 and that trend continued into 2012. No surprise there. Buying and reading books on devices is pleasant, simple and cheaper. Readers can enjoy great annotation tools, interactive content and enhanced opportunities for shared reading experiences

Seth Godin blogs and writes bestselling books on marketing and post industrial revolution trends. He says the once-perfect ecosystem of paper-bound books is dying quickly. He admits he’s nostalgic contemplating “…500 years of building not one but several industries around the creation, publication, distribution, and storage of books.” His post on the subject is titled, “An End of Books,” not the end. He writes, “as always, we’ll reinvent. We still need ideas and ideas need containers.”

There’s something comforting about the kind of container that has a real cover, and pages.

We still want to possess certain books. But, increasingly, we’re purchasing our paper books online where the selection and speed and ease of purchase leaves the freestanding bookstore in the dust.  I recently drove to 3 Christian bookstores looking for Rodney Stark’s THE TRIUMPH OF CHRISTIANITY, to give as a last-minute birthday gift. I expected the stores would carry it, since it was WORLD Magazine’s book of the year. I ultimately had to buy it on Amazon.

My latest bookstore visit was to a tiny shop full of old and rare books tucked into a California beach community. Will the bookstore become just another antique store?

Seth Godin says “it won’t take all books to become ‘e’” to cause the death of the bookstore as we know it, “just enough to tip the scale.” He points out that “many of these establishments are going to go from making a little bit of money every day to losing a little bit.” That’s hard to sustain for long.

This is sad, but inevitable.

Web entrepreneur, designer and novelist Jack Cheng publishes his own books in paper arguing that, “a nice hardcover is like having a place setting, having dinnerware selected to suit the food.” He says,  “Maybe what we’ll lose to digital publishing are the cheaply produced mass market printings on poor quality paper. And what we’ll gain is a new appreciation for well-designed, higher-quality hardbacks,…”

Maybe. Hopefully, there will be bookstores to buy them in.

A Child’s Digital Day

Young people spend an enormous amount of their day with electronic media. We all know that. One survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation now has been able to document how much.

When you add together time spent with television, smart phones, iPods, video games, and computers it essentially becomes a full-time job of more than 53 hours. Needless to say, this is a dramatic increase from over a decade ago. And nearly twice as many now say that they do at least two of these at the same time.

The findings of the survey of over 2,000 young people ages 8 to 18 found that their digital day lasted more than seven hours a day. The primary media inputs were television and music. But substantial amounts of time were also spent on the computer and playing video games.

Although time spent with electronic media is increasing, the researchers did find one area that was decreasing: ink. Daily book readership remained somewhat steady, but reading a magazine dropped 20 percent and reading a newspaper dropped nearly 20 percent.

Vicky Rideout, director of Kaiser’s Program for the Study of Media and Health, says that electronic media are now “a part of the air that kids breathe.” They learn about the world through images, music, and websites.

The survey had a few surprises. For example, the greatest consumers of electronic media were African-American and Hispanic kids who spend nearly one-third more time each day with electronics that white kids. And heavy media users aren’t necessarily couch potatoes. They actually find ways to cram more physical exercise into their lives than light users. While that may be true, I still believe that almost all young people spend too much time with electronic media.

For the last two decades I have been talking about the media storm that surrounds our children and grandchildren. This latest survey of our kids’ digital day shows that they are in the midst of a greater storm than we ever imagined. This should concern parents and educators.

New Wall of Separation

More than 60 years ago, the Supreme Court changed the legal landscape by erecting a “wall of separation” between church and state. Justice Hugo Black borrowed the phrase from a letter by President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. The wall the court erected is the reason we have so many bad decisions from the court on religious liberty cases.

A few weeks ago another federal court erected another “wall of separation.” This one is also hostile to religious liberty. Craig Parshall is the Senior Vice President and General Counsel for the National Religious Broadcasters. He was on my program to talk about this new “wall of separation” between faith and free enterprise.

A federal appeals court in Philadelphia apparently forgot the rich tradition of religious liberty that was born in that city. The judges ruled that a family-owned, for-profit company does not have any rights to religious freedom. The case involved the Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., which makes cabinets and is run by five members of the Hahn family. They are all Mennonites and oppose abortion. Like the owners of Hobby Lobby, they oppose the new federal Health and Human Services mandate that requires coverage for abortion-inducing drugs. The court ruled that neither a for-profit company nor its owners have any religious standing to object under either the First Amendment or under a religious liberty statute passed by Congress.

Craig Parshall explained that if such a ruling stands, it effectively forces Christians to choose between making a profit or having religious freedom. He also noted that this ruling is just the opposite of the ruling of another circuit court appeal that would allow Hobby Lobby to pursue its religious rights exemption.

All of this sets the stage for the Supreme Court to rule on whether the hundreds of for-profit companies have the same religious rights as non-profit companies. This is one “wall of separation” that needs to be torn down.

Inflation and Chuck E. Cheese

In his new book, Godonomics, Chad Hovind finds engaging ways to illustrate economic facts. In his book and on my radio program he answered question like: What would God say to Adam Smith? What would God say to John Maynard Keynes?

In a chapter on the money supply he compared inflation to the experience parents and kids have at Chuck E. Cheese. You and your kids arrive at the arcade restaurant and purchase twenty dollar’s worth of tokens. The kids spend their tokens and win certain games. At the end of the adventure, the kids count their tickets and take them to the toy counter to purchase a prize.

Along the way they are thrilled that they have 1,700 points in children’s currency. Their eyes gleam with hopes of trading for some real treasures. The toy counter is stocked with iPods, stuffed animals, and all sorts of prizes they are ready to take home.

But their excitement fades quickly when they realize that it takes 500 points just to purchase a Blow Pop. It takes 1,000 points to earn a Chinese handcuff. The prizes they want require hundreds of thousands of points.

Chad Hovind believes that the way the government prints money is similar to this experience at Chuck E. Cheese. The issuers have tinkered with the value of the tickets (at the arcade) or the value of the dollar (at the government). The dollar was lost as much as 98 percent of its value over the past hundred years. In most cases the goods and services aren’t really more expensive. It is the dollars in our pockets that have lost so much value.

You can go to a federal government website to see how much your money has been devalued. Use a search engine to find “government inflation calculator.” A car that cost $10,000 in 1980 today would cost nearly $27,000.

This is what happens when we let government tinker with the value of our money. It’s like standing at the toy counter of Chuck E. Cheese.