Major depression has “surged” in the US among younger Americans. That is according to a report based on medical and survey information conducted by Blue Cross Blue Shield. The survey looked at 41 million people covered under the insurance plan.

Why the dramatic increase? Perhaps further study will give more definitive answers, but the report had some educated guesses. The researchers suspect that online activities, such as social media and video games, might be part of the problem. Add to that the social isolation that comes from spending so much time in front of a screen, and you have some possible reasons for increased depression among the young.

The actual numbers are alarming. Diagnoses of major depression increased by a third (33%) between 2013 and 2016. That breaks down to a 63 percent increase for adolescents (ages 12 to 17) and a 47 percent increase among millennials (ages 18 to 34).

Dr. Karyn Horowitz is a psychiatrist in Rhode Island who is quoted in the study. She says, “It is possible increased rates of depression in adolescents are related to a combination of increased electronics use and sleep disruptions in already vulnerable individuals. Increased use of electronics, video games more commonly in boys and social media/texting more commonly in girls, can lead to increased conflict both within the home and with peers.”

We do know that some people are born with genetic traits that make them more vulnerable to depression in response to trauma and other negative situations. We do have to wonder how increased online activities affect those people in particular.

I think what we have in this new report is another warning of the potential dangers of allowing young people to spend too much time in front of a screen.

The immigration problem has been festering for years, and so any attempt to solve the immigration problem will not be easy. In the midst of that have been questions from Christians honestly asking how they should apply a biblical solution to this contemporary issue.

Samuel Rodriquez is the president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and James Robison is an evangelist and founder of LIFE Outreach. They have been working on the immigration problem for years and have a proposal that reconciles the rule of law with compassion and pragmatism. Their five points provide something for every sector of society to address.

“First, we must secure our borders.” That will include a wall with physical elements and technology. And we should acknowledge that other illegals did not sneak across the border but overstayed their visas.

“Second, establish a non-amnesty path toward legal status and/or citizenship for those who qualify.” This guest worker program would apply to those now employed.

“Third, employers must accept their responsibilities. They should be required, going forward, to use E-Verify to document that every employee they hire is legally entitled to work.”

“Fourth, we must assimilate immigrants and guest workers. This should include training in civics and English.” This is to prevent what has been called “reverse assimilation” where the immigrant culture displaces the native culture.

“Fifth, we should reform programs that discourage work.” Milton Friedman once said, “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.” We should help immigrants and refugees find gainful employment.

Rodriquez and Robison recognize that no solution is perfect, but this is their proposal to bring together biblical concerns and biblical compassion to a difficult issue. Congress needs to seriously consider their proposals.

A number of recent polls document that young people are more likely to support socialism rather than capitalism. This is no doubt due to the popularity of Senator Bernie Sanders, as well as the lack of understanding of what free market capitalism provides in terms of freedom and economic development. That is one of the reasons I put together a Point of View booklet on A Biblical View on Capitalism and Socialism.

In a recent column, Professor Walter Williams explains why he believes so many young people prefer socialism over capitalism. He believes it “is a result of their ignorance and indoctrination during their school years, from kindergarten through college. For the most part, neither they nor many of their teachers and professors know what free market capitalism is.”

He also believes that free market capitalism is disfavored by many Americans not because of its failure, but because of its success. “Free market capitalism in America has been so successful in eliminating the traditional problems of mankind — such as diseases, pestilence, hunger, and gross poverty — that all other human problems appear both unbearable and inexcusable.”

He also adds another factor that I have discussed in previous commentaries. The younger generation is less likely to identify socialism with the brutality of communist regimes in the 20th century and instead think of the socialism in European democracies.

In my booklet on capitalism and socialism, I take the time to define the terms since so many misunderstand what these two economic systems entail. I also talk about the current ideological battle taking place within our political systems over capitalism versus socialism. And I also answer the oft-asked question, “Doesn’t the Bible teach socialism?”

I would like to send you a copy of my booklet when you sign up to receive my daily Viewpoint commentary at pointofview.net/daily.

One of the questions many liberals are asking these days is, “What happened to Alan Dershowitz?” The emeritus Harvard Law professor has been critical of the Mueller investigation and talks about the criminalization of politics in his most recent book. But the real question should be reversed: “What happened to all the liberals who used to demand that our civil liberties be protected by government?”

Victor Davis Hanson reminds us of how liberals were riding high after the Watergate scandal. Even before that, they were leading the charge in criticizing the overreach of presidents and their bureaucracies (FBI, CIA). They rightly criticized the intelligence agencies for spying on American citizens. Those days are but a distant memory now.

Liberal politicians have “downplayed or excused Watergate-like abuses of power by the former Barack Obama administration. Liberal journalists apparently have few concerns that the FBI apparently used at least one secret informant to gather information about the 2016 Trump campaign.” And they didn’t seem too bothered that the national security team unmasked the names of US citizens.

Civil libertarians seem indifferent that “Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign paid a foreign agent, Christopher Steele, to compile dirt on Republican candidate Donald Trump” and that the details of the dossier were leaked. They also seem unconcerned that “the Department of Justice sought to deceive the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, getting it to grant warrants to allow the surveillance of US citizens.”

There is, of course, much more than this. But even this very short summary illustrates the remarkable change, not in Alan Dershowitz, but in the liberal establishment. They believe that President Trump is a danger and therefore turn a blind eye to abuses they used to criticize just a few years ago. That’s why they should really be asking, “What’s happened to us?”

Should the media refrain from providing the name of a mass shooter? I try never to mention the name of someone who has committed a horrible crime. They don’t need naming; they need shaming. Unfortunately, most in the media don’t follow that policy.

John Lott is the president of the Crime Prevention Center and has been on my radio program many times. He has pulled together some very convincing evidence that naming a mass shooter and giving him lots of media coverage is exactly what he craves.

Prosecutors in Florida released the shooter’s cell-phone videos. I have no interest in watching them. Fortunately, John Lott tells us what is on them. Apparently, there are phrases like, “From the wrath of my power they will know who I am” and “with the power of my AR you will all know who I am” and “you will all know what my name is.” He makes it clear that his goal is to kill at least 20 people.

The Sandy Hook killer spent more than two years putting together a report on public shootings. He ended up with a 7-foot-long and 4-foot-wide spreadsheet with names, body counts, and weapons. His goal was to kill more people than the Norwegian man who killed 77 people in July 2011. That is why he targeted the local elementary school. The Aurora, Colorado shooter may have been mentally ill, but he was still competent enough to plan out in detail how he wanted to maximize the number of possible victims and thus get the most attention.

If we really want to stop some of these attacks, we should stop giving so much media coverage to these shooters. At a time when some are calling for “reasonable” gun control policies, perhaps we should be talking about “reasonable” media policies. I would ask news organizations to consider exercising some restraint and to stop giving shooters the publicity they crave.

Perhaps you have read Nathaniel Hawthorne’s classic novel, The Scarlet Letter. Students who read it today usually react with mockery and ridicule. They wonder how a society could be so prudish and punitive to force Hester Prynne to wear a label of shame for her sin? How unenlightened for society to place public moral condemnation on her!

But Dan McLaughlin reminds us in a recent column that “The Scarlet Letter Is Back.” Today we don’t require people to wear a scarlet A, but we do shun them and brand them as outcasts if they violate the current standards of political correctness.

The example he uses is the plight of a Manhattan lawyer who let fly a racial tirade at Spanish-speaking workers at a restaurant. Unfortunately for him, what he said was filmed and widely disseminated. Apparently, he was kicked out of his office building, has had protesters outside his building, and has already lost at least one client.

Perhaps the lawyer deserved all of this negative attention. He apparently has a history of obnoxious behavior. I’m not interested in defending him, but I do want to point out that public shaming for bigotry seems to have become the new “scarlet letter.” He may lose his livelihood over stupid comments captured on an iPhone.

It’s worth mentioning that the column by Dan McLaughlin was written BEFORE the latest controversies surrounding Roseanne Barr and Samantha Bee. Lawyers, comedians, and politicians are subjected to public moral condemnation. Dan McLaughlin wonders “how far we should go, and how indelibly the stain should endure.”

Isn’t it ironic that the people shunning and shaming today are the same people who tell us not to be morally judgmental? Unfortunately, what they are missing are the key biblical categories of sin, repentance, and forgiveness.

As we all know, Starbucks decided to close down their 8,000 stores for a time of sensitivity training in order to help their employees discover any unconscious racial bias. Some of the employees found it revealing. Others said it made them uncomfortable.

Although the leadership of Starbucks thought that it was important to discuss racism, that didn’t keep Starbucks from supporting America’s most prominent racist group. That would be Planned Parenthood. That is the claim made by Dr. Aleva King (and others) in an open letter to Starbucks.

She questions, “As men and women who fight for the value and dignity of every human being, we ask: Where is the humanity and inclusion when your company matches employees’ donations to Planned Parenthood, whose founder Margaret Sanger was an outspoken racist with genocidal intentions?”

The letter goes on to add, “Active with the Ku Klux Klan and the eugenics movement, Margaret Sanger’s stated agenda was to eradicate the African-American population. Her dream is being realized by the slaughter of minority children today through the horror of abortion.”

In an op-ed for The Washington Examiner, King (niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) lays out some disturbing facts. “More African-Americans have died from abortion than from AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart
disease — combined. In America today, a black child is three times more likely to be killed in the womb than a white child. And since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by more than 25 percent.” Later she adds that “About 13 percent of American women are black, but they have more than 35 percent of the abortions.”

We can applaud the decision by Starbucks to take on the problem of racial bias. But we should also question their support of Planned Parenthood.

When the Apostle Paul made it to Athens, he was able to present the Gospel to the Greek philosophers in a place known as the Areopagus. The Romans referred to it as “Mars Hill.” It was a place where various perspectives and ideas could be expressed. Today we call it the marketplace of ideas.

When I was in Athens, I was struck by the fact that you could see the Parthenon from this adjacent hill where Paul spoke to these philosophers about “the unknown God.” In fact, there is a plaque affixed to the hill that actually contains Paul’s message in Greek for all to read and consider.

Centuries later John Milton gave a famous speech known as the Areopagitica in which he defended the right of freedom of speech and expression. Those principles formed the basis for the modern justifications for free speech and a marketplace where various views and ideas can be expressed. The name of his speech was derived from the place where the Apostle Paul preached as recorded in Acts 17.

Following Milton were philosophers like John Locke and John Stuart Mill who expressed the idea of a marketplace of ideas. They understood that truth could only be discovered if all views and opinions were considered. They rejected the idea of censoring viewpoints and banning topics and perspectives from an open, robust discussion.

Why the brief history lesson? I do so to remind us of the long and valuable tradition of a marketplace of ideas. That is not what you find on very many college campuses today. That is not what you find in some social media platforms. The academic elite and the media elite are quick to censor divergent views (especially Christian views). I think it is time for them to go back and learn the history of providing a marketplace of ideas.