Jean Twenge has been researching generational differences for a quarter century. But she noticed in 2012 abrupt shifts in teen behaviors and emotional states. Up until that time there were gentle slopes of line graphs. Suddenly they became steep mountains and sheer cliffs. That year is when the proportion of Americans who owned a smartphone surpassed 50 percent.

Her latest article in The Atlantic asks the ominous question: “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?” The generation she is thinking about would be the trailing edge of the millennial generation (born between 1995 and 2012). She calls them iGen because the smartphone and social media have shaped their lives.

Psychologically they are more emotionally vulnerable than the leading edge millennials. “Rates of teen depression and suicide have skyrocketed since 2011. It’s not an exaggeration to describe iGen as being on the brink of the worst mental-health crisis in decades. Much of this deterioration can be traced to their phones.”

A national survey of seniors found that: “Teens who spend more time than average on screen activities are more likely to be unhappy, and those who spend more time than average on nonscreen activities are more likely to be happy.” Jean Twenge says, “There’s not a single exception.” She says the advice she would give to a teenager based on this survey is: “Put down the phone, turn off the laptop, and do anything that does not involve a screen.”

Of course, we don’t have to look at these dismal statistics and just lament. Her article and research should be a call to action for parents and grandparents. They are the ones buying these devices so they need to reevaluate the potential dangers to their children and grandchildren.

Dinesh D’Souza is ready to debunk what he calls “The Big Lie,” in his book by the same title. The Left have been saying that the president is a fascist and the Republican Party is akin to the Nazi Party. Street thugs and pundits throw around the Nazi card and the fascism card with abandon. He believes it is time to turn the tables and explain who the real fascists are.

If you want to see a true fascist, you need to look at Benito Mussolini. His favorite phrase was, “Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” He was a statist who wanted every aspect of society under the control of government. He even considered the word “totalitarian” a positive term.

Adolf Hitler also believed in state control, but in a different way. When he assumed leadership of the German Worker’s Party, he changed the name to the National Socialist German Worker’s Party. He explained, “We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalist system of exploitation . . . and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

None of this sounds like the Republican Party. It has usually been the party of small government, political liberty, and economic freedom. If anything, fascism and socialism are more accurate descriptions of the American Left.

When he was on my radio program, Dinesh D’Souza also talked about the interesting parallels he saw between Nazi Germany and 20th century America. Until he did his research, he thought these correlations were interesting but not connected. It turns out that the motivations behind Hitler’s brownshirts and the Ku Klux Klan are more interconnected than he expected. The modern eugenics movement in America (espoused by people like Margaret Sanger) also found a place in the policies in Nazi Germany.

The Big Lie may be his most controversial book because he makes connections like this that few others have ever seen.

When Google computer scientist James Damore tried to start a conversation about diversity and inclusion within the company, he and Google soon found themselves in a national conversation. His memo addressed “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” and explained that many ideas and viewpoints at the company could not be honestly discussed.

Google’s Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance criticized the 10-page memo because it “advanced incorrect assumptions about gender.” Then many of the employees at Google called for Damore to be fired. Within a week, the tolerance police in Silicon Valley got their wish. The company fired him. James Damore wrote a memo describing how Google was intolerant of dissenting voices. Last week, Google proved his point.

Many in the media referred to his memo as an “anti-diversity screed.” Rich Lowry says that the first thing you should know about the memo is that it “isn’t anti-diversity or a screed.” This description was given to the essay despite repeated times when Damore said things like, “I value diversity and inclusion.”

Google professes to have a commitment to diversity, inclusion, and openness. So there is great irony that pundits and commentators are now talking about Google being at the center of the culture wars. Google leaders wear leftist goggles and apparently can’t tolerate too much intellectual diversity.

Google is a private company and has the right to fire anyone they believe is not in line with the company’s mission or corporate culture. But this latest response from Google illustrates the bigger concerns about censorship on the Internet. In previous commentaries, I have talked about how Apple, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have restricted content and removed posts, apps, and videos. Google not only wears leftist goggles but so does much of Silicon Valley.

Where are the moderate Muslims? This a question I hear whenever there is a terrorist attack and there seems to be silence from the Muslim community. Christine Douglass-Williams tries to answer that question and many others in her book, The Challenge of Modernizing Islam.

When she was on my radio program, she said the original title talked about reforming Islam. They concluded that wasn’t precise enough. She points out that currently there is a turf war within Islam “between those who seek to reform Islam back to the seventh century and those who seek to reform it to modernity.”

The first part of her book includes interviews she has done with moderate Muslims like Dr. Zudhi Jasser, Dr. Tawfik Hamid, and Raheel Raza. Although I have interviewed some of them, we don’t hear about them in the mainstream media too often because many of them aren’t provided a platform. Of course, we also have to acknowledge that many of them are threatened if they speak out. The subtitle of Christine Douglass-Williams book says it all: “Reformers Speak Out and the Obstacles They Face.”

It is also worth mentioning that not all moderates are reformers. Reformers usually insist that the texts in Islam must be subject to new interpretations. To do so will be difficult. It might mean having to set aside fourteen centuries of interpretation as well as Muslim history.

Most of those interviewed also believe that a Muslim’s attitude toward Israel was a significant factor in determining their Islamist sympathies. “Although one doesn’t have to be a Muslim to dispute Israel’s right to exist,” her chapter explains how classical anti-Semitism has become part of Arab intellectual life.

Her book is a powerful reminder of how hard it would be to bring Islam into the modern world.

When President Everett Piper wrote his commentary about an incident on his campus, he had no idea that it would go viral (with 3.5 million views). He told the story about one of the students who felt victimized after a university chapel by a sermon on 1 Corinthians 13, often known as the “love chapter” in Paul’s epistle. He explained the philosophy at Oklahoma Wesleyan University and ended it by saying, “This is not a day care. This is a university.”

He was in studio with me last week promoting his new book, Not A Day Care: The Devastating Consequences of Abandoning Truth. He takes on the shocking examples of the “snowflake” insanity and the demand for “safe spaces.” He documents the dangerous intolerance on many university campuses. And he reminds us of the importance of protecting free speech.

Before he moved to Oklahoma, he served as dean of students at a college in Michigan. He taught a freshman orientation course and had students watch the movie Schindler’s List and then write a three-page paper. One student wrote a paper that summarized the plot and historical detail. But she ended the paper by admitting, “Who am I to judge the Germans?” She just could not bring herself to say that what was done in Nazi Germany was evil or wrong. In his book he cites other examples of the non-judgmentalism that has infected the millennial generation.

There is certainly a role for the church is this discussion. He recounts a time when he was on the TV program hosted by Bill O’Reilly, who voiced his exasperation with the lack of Christian leadership in the midst of these important cultural debates. Christians need to expose the self-refuting pablum of progressives. How tolerant is it to say, I can’t tolerate your intolerance, and how isn’t it hateful to say, I hate you hateful people?

The book is destined to be a bestseller. I recommend you pick it up and read about the problem and his biblical solutions.

When a Hollywood celebrity testifies before Congress, usually there is lots of fawning press coverage but very little of substance that can influence public policy. At the House Oversight Committee hearing on “Challenges to Freedom of Speech on College Campuses,” you had just the opposite. Some important things were said but it received little press coverage. Perhaps that is due to the fact that conservative pundit Ben Shapiro and comedian Adam Corolla were testifying.

Adam Corolla talked about the changes on college campuses. In the past, he traveled to various universities and had a robust exchange of ideas and views. Today, he and Dennis Prager had trouble just getting on one college campus in California.

He has a solution. Adults need to start acting like adults. “We’re talking a lot about the kids, and I think they’re just that, kids . . . They grew up dipped in Purell, playing soccer games where they never kept score . . . We need the adults to start being the adults.”

He uses a great analogy. “Studies have shown that if you take people and put them in a zero gravity environment like astronauts, they lose muscle mass, they lose bone density. We’re taking these kids, in the name of protection, we’re putting them in a zero gravity environment, and they are losing muscle mass and bone density. They need to live in a world that has gravity . . . Our plan is to put them in the bubble, keep them away from everything and somehow they will come out stronger when they emerge from the bubble. Well, that’s not happening.”

He ended his testimony with this plea: “Children are the future, but we are the present, and we are the adults and we need to act like it. And I feel that what’s going on on these campuses is — we need law and order.” He is right. Adults need to act like adults, and college administrators need to bring some law and order on the campus.

Philip Yancey begins with an admission: “I am going through a personal crisis.” He explains that he used to love reading. In fact, he understands that “books help define who I am.” But that is his past not his present.

He has discovered that the Internet and social media have trained his brain “to read a paragraph or two, and than start looking around.” When he is reading an article online pretty soon he is looking at the slide bar to see how long the article might be. He starts clicking on the links and sidebars. Soon he has lost interest in the original article.

We shouldn’t be surprised by any of this. Seven years ago, I was quoting from an article by Nicholas Carr. Since then, he has written a book that I reference every time I speak on the subject of the media or digital devices. His book, The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains, explains why we don’t read as much and why it is so hard to concentrate. The Internet and social media are retraining our brains. He says, “Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.”

Philip Yancey quotes from an article in Business Insider that studied pioneers like Elon Musk, Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Mark Zuckerberg. Most of them have a common practice known as the “five-hour rule.” They set aside at least an hour a day (or five hours a week) for deliberate learning. The people listed in the Business Insider article probably read as many books in a week or two than most Americans read in a year.

Philip Yancey acknowledges that we are “engaged in a war, and technology wields the heavy weapons.” He is trying to develop what he calls a “fortress of habit” so that he can “resurrect the rich nourishment that reading has long provided.” I recommend you do the same for your benefit and the benefit of your family.

Preseason football has arrived, and one of the big questions is, how political will football players be this year? David French in a recent commentary observed that: “When players get political, it turns out that fans can get political right back.”

The market-research company J.D. Power surveyed 9,200 fans. They found that “national anthem protests were the top reason that NFL fans watched fewer games last season.” Previous polls of fans (like the Reuters poll) came to similar conclusions.

Of course, there were other factors that affected viewership. The slow pace of the games was one reason. Off-field domestic violence incidents were another. But the most important factor for fans turning of NFL games was the anthem protests.

And let’s not forget that players like Colin Kaepernick did not than just quietly kneel during the national anthem. He wore socks depicting “pigs in police hats.” He showed up at a press conference in a Fidel Castro T-shirt. And David French reminds us “sportswriters and commentators cheered him on.”

Those reactions are probably another reason why many fans not only turn off NFL games but also turn off sports channels. The leftward turn is something I have talked about in previous commentaries. David French quotes one individual who doubts whether a Paul Ryan-friendly sportswriter could keep his job. When Paul Ryan is too radical a figure for sports journalists, you can see where all of this might be heading.

Will players and sportswriters dial back their activism? I have my doubts. They are welcome to their opinions and the fans probably don’t mind some political commentary, when appropriate. But they certainly don’t want liberal politics thrown in their face constantly.

David French believes the market may save us. The market message these days is “keep politics out of sports.” My hope it that some of these players and sportswriters will listen to that message.