Why are suicides surging in America? There is no easy answer to that question, but there are some important clues. Some of the answers have been put forth by the latest CDC reports. We do have a number of deaths of despair that result from intended suicides as well as from opioid overdoes. And we also see suicides that have increased among our veterans that show the relationship between military combat and PTSD.

But there are social, intellectual, and spiritual reasons for the increased number of suicides. In her article in Intellectual Takeout, Annie Holmquist wonders what is driving this mentality of despair. She reminds us that half of the people who commit suicide do not have a “known mental health condition.” That is why looking at other issues is so important.

She takes us back to the seminal book by University of Chicago professor Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind. Even back in 1988, when the book was published, he saw a stark difference between the college students of that day and those just a few years before. They were “superficial” and continually indulged in “clichés.” They didn’t reason on a deeper level and were disenchanted with the world.

Believe me, if that was true of the college students in the 1980s, it is really true of the current generation of young people. They have grown up in a world of memes and clichés. They came of age in a world that long abandoned moral values. The recent discussion about D-Day and the Greatest Generation led many to suggest that the current generation might not be up to such challenges.

Sadly, this generation is growing up without an appeal to moral and biblical values. They don’t have anything to live for because they don’t believe anything would be worth dying for. Suicide becomes an option when life is sterile, superficial, and soulless.

Earlier this month, various news outlets reported that a 17-year-old Dutch girl was put to death through euthanasia because she had been battling the trauma of childhood sexual assault and a subsequent rape. Days later those same news outlets were focusing on the fact that they erroneously had reported that her death was due to legal euthanasia in the Netherlands. Actually her death was a decision she made with her family to starve herself to death.

The debate about the reporting overshadowed the more important question of why she chose to die. She had been sexually assaulted at age eleven and then was raped three years later. Because of that trauma she suffered from PTSD, depression, and eating disorders. All of this was tragic, from the original trauma right up to her decision to die.

Because she lived in the Netherlands, reporters naturally assumed she ended her life due to the liberal euthanasia laws in that country. I recently spoke in Europe about some of impact those laws have had in that country, and how similar laws can now be found in the US. Physician-assisted suicide is available now to one in five Americans.

At the same time, we are learning what many of us predicted would take place with the legalization of euthanasia. Oxford researchers found that in states where physician-assisted suicides were legal, there was an increase in total suicides. A more recent Dutch study came to a similar conclusion finding that legalized euthanasia for psychiatric patients actually “contributes to a rise in their numbers.”

I’m not surprised. If you legalize something you get more of it. Make drugs legal. More people will try drugs. Make physician-assisted suicide legal. More people will try suicide. We know the history of the Netherlands and of the US states that have legalized euthanasia. Legislators and policy makers need to pay attention.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been criticized for writing the truth about the connection of abortion to eugenics. His 20-page concurring opinion in a case dealing with an Indiana law allowed him to educate us about our history. The law required that fetal remains be disposed of in a respectful manner, but also prohibited abortion solely because of the race, sex, or disability of the baby.

Justice Thomas wrote, “The use of abortion to achieve eugenic goals is not merely hypothetical. The foundations for legalizing abortion in America were laid during the early 20th-century birth control movement. That movement developed alongside the American eugenics movement. And significantly, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger recognized the eugenic potential of her cause.”

He also pointed to Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project” and reminded us that because of abortion, “there are areas of New York City in which black children are more likely to be aborted than they are to be born alive, and are up to eight times more likely to be aborted than white children in the same area.”

He concludes, “Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement.”

Those criticizing Justice Thomas do so for one of two reasons. I suspect many don’t know America’s history with eugenics and the history of Planned Parenthood. They believe he is making this up. Others probably know the history and are furious that he is attempting to educate a new generation about the birth control movement and the eugenics movement.

Justice Thomas has provided a service by showing the connection between an Indiana law and our sad history with eugenics.

A phrase I often use is: “He who defines the words, often wins the debate.” I have seen this play out in debates, discussions, and interviews. I have also seen how the way you define terms can influence the reader’s perception. That is why the latest information about the style guides being used in the media are a reminder to exercise discernment.

Take the issue of climate change, or what used to be called global warming. That change alone should signal the fact that words and definitions are being manipulated so that readers would come to a particular conclusion.

The Guardian recently updated its style guide in order to show their increased concern over the environment. For example, “climate change” will now be referred to as a “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown.” The term “global warming” doesn’t seem hot enough, so it will now be called “global heating.” And a skeptic of all of this will now be called a “climate science denier.”

Abortion is another illustration. For years, I have complained that the terms are not parallel. Someone who supports abortion is not called “pro-abortion” but is given the more neutral term “pro-choice.” However, you can’t call someone “pro-life” because they must be labeled “anti-abortion.”

Jarrett Stepman reports that NPR has now told its reporters that certain words are off limits. That would be the terms, pro-life, late-term abortion, fetal heartbeat, and partial birth. Then you might wonder what you are supposed to call a partial-birth abortion. The term of choice is “intact dilation and extraction.” I doubt anyone outside the medical field ever knows what that means. Also, off limits are terms like “abortion doctor” and “abortion clinics.”

These changes seem aimed at trying to obscure what happens in abortion clinics and manipulate language that will disguise what abortion really is.

Some of the discussion in Europe over deepfakes videos has now reached America. If you have ever seen someone use Photoshop or Lightroom to put another person’s face on a body, you have a pretty good idea of what is now being done with video.

Until recently someone needed access to cutting-edge video technology to make it look like someone was saying something or doing something they never did. Jim Geraghty reminds us in a recent commentary that such professional technology could “make it look like Forrest Gump was shaking hands with John F. Kennedy.” Now, such technology is within the grasp of people outside of Hollywood.

As you probably know, a fake video of Nancy Pelosi was passed around social media. That is why the discussion of deepfakes videos has surfaced in America. Anyone wanting to harm the reputation of another person could create a video intended to embarrass that person. And the targets may not just be politicians and other celebrities. I could be you and me.

Most of these fake videos in Europe and America aren’t that convincing. Most of us have seen enough videos and movies to spot a fake. But Cameron Faulkner reports that researchers at Samsung’s AI Center have developed a method that can use a single photo to make a fairly convincing video. That is why we all need to exercise some discernment when we see a video on social media.

One other thought is worth mentioning. Once we start hearing more about deepfakes videos, we will also probably also see people caught in a real video using a deepfakes defense by proclaiming that “the video of me is false, don’t believe what you see on that video.”

Most of us grew up hearing the phrase, “seeing is believing.” In this new world of deepfakes, that isn’t necessarily true.

How many cherries should be in a frozen cherry pie? In case you are wondering, the Food and Drug Administration has regulations governing the number, the weight and the kind of cherries that can be placed into a frozen pie.

The reason I know this be due to a decision by the FDA to deregulate the cherry pie market. Raymond March (Independent Institute) goes into some detail about the numerous regulations concerning frozen cherry pies. Not only do the regulations mandate the percent of cherries by weight but also mandate the percent of the cherries that may be deemed to be blemished. And there are even regulations that define what is considered frozen, what constitutes a blemish, and even how much crust must cover the pies.

President Trump pledged to eliminate a significant number of FDA regulations. The regulations surrounding cherry pies illustrates why this is important. Corporations, like Sara Lee, are in the business of producing food products that consumers will buy. If their cherry pies have too few cherries or don’t look good, people will stop buying them. They don’t need the FDA to protect them with pages of regulations. The FDA should spend its time regulating drugs and other medical products that consumers cannot as easily evaluate.

Bakers and food producers often accept and even promote regulations that may give them a competitive edge, but not in this case. Lee Sanders of the American Bakers Association was “hopeful the cherry pie standard will finally be revoked.” You know it is time for regulations to go when even special interests want them eliminated.

He also acknowledged that deregulation would not make a big difference in the industry. That’s because consumers and the market system will keep bakers and food producers accountable. If you don’t make a good cherry pie, people won’t buy it.

More than a dozen states have joined the national effort to circumvent the Electoral College. It looked like Nevada was going to be the next state to join the nationwide effort. But the governor of the state used some common sense and decided to veto the bill.

He argued that the current effort would “diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose.” He should be applauded for seeing the problem with the National Popular Vote initiative.

The plan is for states to pledge that they will instruct their presidential electors to vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote, even if the voters in that state voted for the other candidate. The initiative doesn’t go into effect until the enough states reach 270 electoral votes. Nevada was supposed to be another state added to that list and get the initiative even closer to the requisite number of electoral votes.

The governor explained that, “where Nevada’s interests could diverge from the interests of large states, I will always stand up for Nevada.” He is no doubt aware that in the last presidential campaign, the Trump campaign and the Clinton campaign held at least 17 major events in Nevada. Under a popular vote initiative, Nevada would merely become a flyover state.

Perhaps some of the other states (like Maine and Oregon) that are considering joining the National Popular Vote initiative should pay attention to the reasoning of the Nevada governor. Their influence as small states would certainly diminish if they play a part in attempting to demolish the Electoral College. Candidates would spend more time in big cities and avoid public appearances in small states. The current system forces presidential candidates to pay attention to those states.

If I were to ask you which professions have high suicide rates, you would probably mention military veterans suffering from PTSD. In their latest report, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have found that the suicide rate for young male military veterans is higher than previously thought. But they found that it is lower in some states than the suicide rate for farmers.

The high suicide rate for famers is only just now beginning to get media attention. Some mental health experts are saying that we probably need some sort of federally funded prevention resources similar to what is provided to veterans.

Mike Rosman is a psychologist who has been studying this issue for decades and has an appreciation for the stresses on farmers since he is also an Iowa farmer. Writing in the journal Behavioral Healthcare he reminds us that, “Farming has always been a stressful occupation because many of the factors that affect agricultural production are largely beyond the control of the producers.”

This is borne out with the latest statistics from the CDC. If you focus on all the people working in agriculture (farmers, farm laborers, ranchers, fishers, and lumber harvesters), they take their lives at a rate higher than any other occupation. The suicide rate for agriculture workers in 17 states is nearly five times higher compared with that in the general population.

The reasons for this are many. Farmers are often reluctant to seek help. Often their farms are far from health care centers. Pesticide exposure can lead to depression. They are isolated. The cost of feed and equipment continues to rise while the prices they receive for food and fiber remain stagnant.

This is a health care crisis that deserves attention. Perhaps this is the first time you have heard about the suicide rate of farmers. Making citizens and politicians aware of this crisis is the first step.