I have recently read the book by the above title, which has some important things to say about our American culture. This book presents a study of what happens to the religious and social orientation and characteristics of people transitioning into adulthood from adolescence—it looks at people between the ages of 18-23 (hereafter called "emerging adults"). Following is my redaction of a significant message from this book:
It seems difficult, if not impossible, in this world for emerging adults to actually believe anything objectively real or true that can be rationally maintained in a way that might require people to change their minds or lives. Truth and reality are considered unreal facts in the world of emerging adults. For them, all knowledge and value are historically conditioned and culturally relative. Emerging adults have not been equipped with adequate intellectual and moral tools to evaluate the facts of culture/society, so…they just rely on how they feel about their world and do not worry about making any kind of impact on culture. And…as a result, they do not criticize anything that other people choose to believe, feel, or do. One way of life, for them, is just as good as any other way of life. Everything to them is relative, anyway. They will not risk being rude, presumptuous, intolerant, or unfeeling.
All of the above encourages the true virtues of humility and openness to difference. This is, after all, a good quality; but it hamstrings them from being able to decide what is right, good, and true. This leaves them uncertain about basic values; and, therefore, they are suffering from a troubling uncertainty about life’s big questions—they are adrift in a very complex world without guideposts. Some of them might want to move forward, but they feel paralyzed, not knowing how they might possibly know anything worthy of conviction and dedication. A lot of this fuzziness in life’s questions has been fostered by academia’s penchant for deconstructive postmodernism, which has sought to reduce all knowledge and value claims to arbitrary exertions of power and control. The glut of information on the Internet causes a lack of authorized gatekeepers to judge, evaluate and rank the merits or value of excess data.
Emerging adults struggle to establish themselves as autonomous and sovereign individuals, with unfettered freedom. The problem is, however, that they do not know what to do with their freedom; they lack conviction and direction. They lack larger visions of what is true and real and good in both the private and the public realms. One thing that hampers them from resolving their dilemma is a slavish obsession imposed on them by the culture driving them to establish private, material, comfort and personal possessions—this seems to be a key purpose in their lives.
Some, but not all, emerging adults spend their undirected lives in the amusements of alcohol and drug intoxication, and the temporary thrills of hook-up sex; but many of them have found these activities unsatisfying and dangerous. Some of them are looking for something more meaningful; but they have great difficulty finding it in their worlds. Thus ends the redaction part of this post.
Well…if any of my readers are interested in knowing more about this very interesting group of Americans, I can strongly recommend the above book. Thanks for reading!
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Sunday, April 8, 2012
“We have no king but Caesar!” John 19:15
Thus cried the Jewish leaders at the hearing by Pilate. It is interesting to note just what they were doing at that time: They were actually doing one of the things for which they were demanding crucifixion of Jesus. They had inaccurately accused him of pointing out a false God, i.e., himself; but they failed to realize that he was right all the time. Now they were actually doing the unthinkable—claiming that their true king was, of all persons, Caesar!! How could the Jewish leaders have made such a ludicrous mistake?! Hatred and jealousy can do strange things to well-meaning people. They were trying to stand up for their traditional religious system and the religion of Moses; but…they were SO VERY MISGUIDED by their near-sighted and selfish pride.
Do you and I do the same kind of thing at times? How many times do we condemn others for hanging pornographic pictures on the walls of their homes when we harbor pornography in our hearts? Don’t get me wrong—I am not saying that we should not condemn pornography; but I am saying that we need to cleanse our own values, motives, and affinities before we condemn the same things in others.
How many times do we condemn dishonesty in others when we go home and fudge on our income tax report? How often do we criticize others for greed when we lay up cars, vacation homes, excess clothing and any number of other things we do not need for our own use?
My plea is this: Let’s look to ourselves before we condemn others. But…when we find error and sin in ourselves, let us look to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith for the forgiveness and genuine cleaning of our motives. Only he can make our criticism of the evil practices we see in our world accurate and efficacious.
Do you and I do the same kind of thing at times? How many times do we condemn others for hanging pornographic pictures on the walls of their homes when we harbor pornography in our hearts? Don’t get me wrong—I am not saying that we should not condemn pornography; but I am saying that we need to cleanse our own values, motives, and affinities before we condemn the same things in others.
How many times do we condemn dishonesty in others when we go home and fudge on our income tax report? How often do we criticize others for greed when we lay up cars, vacation homes, excess clothing and any number of other things we do not need for our own use?
My plea is this: Let’s look to ourselves before we condemn others. But…when we find error and sin in ourselves, let us look to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith for the forgiveness and genuine cleaning of our motives. Only he can make our criticism of the evil practices we see in our world accurate and efficacious.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
A Contrast To My Husband’s Attitude Toward Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
By Nancy Manring
I do not like Obamacare for the following reasons:
1) I believe that insurance companies should be able to tailor their premiums to the actual cost of insuring various demographic groups. For instance, before Obamacare came into existence, single women had to pay more money for health insurance. That was because women use more medical services, and they cost more to insure. For that reason, they should have to pay more for their insurance. People with preexisting conditions are another group that is particularly difficult for insurance companies to insure. In order to insure these expensive patients, insurance companies must have some mechanism for covering them. It is unfair for the majority of insured people to cover the costs of these very expensive patients. However, this might be an area where special government funding could be a beneficial idea. The government already does this with patients who have chronic kidney failure under the Medicare program.
2) I believe that if Medicare-like insurance is provided to people at little or no cost, they will use medical services more and will, therefore, cost more money to insure. If they had more personal responsibility for their health care costs, they would use health services less.
3) The ACA provides people the option of avoiding the purchase of health insurance if they are willing to pay a nominal penalty. That way, they can buy health insurance when they get sick and drop their coverage when they are well, again. This will increase the cost of providing health care to them by a large amount.
4) If the ACA acts like socialized medicine in Great Britain and Canada, health services will be overwhelmed by increased demand. Waiting times and postponed surgery schedules will delay treatment significantly and cause long lines for care in emergency rooms and urgent care facilities.
5) The ACA does not address tort reform, a problem that is causing lots of trouble with frivolous lawsuits and expensive lawyer fees. If that problem, alone were addressed in a much simpler bill, I believe that health care costs would be impacted very favorably.
6) Most important is the fact that ACA encroaches on freedom of religion. ACA insists that Catholic employers must give their employees access to free birth control, which is against the teaching of the Catholic Church. No matter who pays for the birth control, the Church or other insurance companies ACA is eroding on church teachings. When will other churches and other religious teachings be eroded?
7) Although abortion isn’t explicitly mentioned in the healthcare bill, it is implicitly mentioned under women’ healthcare. Who would think that abortions will not be paid for under a bill authored by such an anti-reproductive, pro-abortion minded president such as we have now.
8) I do believe in the function of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, an agency that is being created by the ACA. This board is the rationing part of the ACA. I believe that this board will decrease implementation of useless, expensive, medical and surgical procedures that are driving up health care costs. Many of these procedures are undertaken at the end of life in old people when the prospect for significant length of life is gone, anyway. But this rationing can be done other ways than through a federal healthcare law.
I think this country can rid itself of this healthcare bill in 2 ways. The Supreme Court can cripple it by refusing to uphold the mandate on insurance for everyone, and/or we can elect Santorum for president. Romney says he will repeal the healthcare law, but I think that is merely a campaign promise. Santorum is running for president mainly because he wants to repeal the healthcare law. It is in his heart.
I do not like Obamacare for the following reasons:
1) I believe that insurance companies should be able to tailor their premiums to the actual cost of insuring various demographic groups. For instance, before Obamacare came into existence, single women had to pay more money for health insurance. That was because women use more medical services, and they cost more to insure. For that reason, they should have to pay more for their insurance. People with preexisting conditions are another group that is particularly difficult for insurance companies to insure. In order to insure these expensive patients, insurance companies must have some mechanism for covering them. It is unfair for the majority of insured people to cover the costs of these very expensive patients. However, this might be an area where special government funding could be a beneficial idea. The government already does this with patients who have chronic kidney failure under the Medicare program.
2) I believe that if Medicare-like insurance is provided to people at little or no cost, they will use medical services more and will, therefore, cost more money to insure. If they had more personal responsibility for their health care costs, they would use health services less.
3) The ACA provides people the option of avoiding the purchase of health insurance if they are willing to pay a nominal penalty. That way, they can buy health insurance when they get sick and drop their coverage when they are well, again. This will increase the cost of providing health care to them by a large amount.
4) If the ACA acts like socialized medicine in Great Britain and Canada, health services will be overwhelmed by increased demand. Waiting times and postponed surgery schedules will delay treatment significantly and cause long lines for care in emergency rooms and urgent care facilities.
5) The ACA does not address tort reform, a problem that is causing lots of trouble with frivolous lawsuits and expensive lawyer fees. If that problem, alone were addressed in a much simpler bill, I believe that health care costs would be impacted very favorably.
6) Most important is the fact that ACA encroaches on freedom of religion. ACA insists that Catholic employers must give their employees access to free birth control, which is against the teaching of the Catholic Church. No matter who pays for the birth control, the Church or other insurance companies ACA is eroding on church teachings. When will other churches and other religious teachings be eroded?
7) Although abortion isn’t explicitly mentioned in the healthcare bill, it is implicitly mentioned under women’ healthcare. Who would think that abortions will not be paid for under a bill authored by such an anti-reproductive, pro-abortion minded president such as we have now.
8) I do believe in the function of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, an agency that is being created by the ACA. This board is the rationing part of the ACA. I believe that this board will decrease implementation of useless, expensive, medical and surgical procedures that are driving up health care costs. Many of these procedures are undertaken at the end of life in old people when the prospect for significant length of life is gone, anyway. But this rationing can be done other ways than through a federal healthcare law.
I think this country can rid itself of this healthcare bill in 2 ways. The Supreme Court can cripple it by refusing to uphold the mandate on insurance for everyone, and/or we can elect Santorum for president. Romney says he will repeal the healthcare law, but I think that is merely a campaign promise. Santorum is running for president mainly because he wants to repeal the healthcare law. It is in his heart.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
What’s the Truth About the Cost of the Affordable Care Act?
Paul Krugman of the New York Times editorial staff has accused the Republicans of lying in their recent statements concerning the deficit being produced by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (hereafter referred to as the ACA), which is also known as “Obamacare.” He says that the ACA is actually projected to cost about $50 billion less than originally predicted by the Congressional Budget Office. What Mr. Krugman does not report is what follows in this blog post.
Republicans have noted that the ACA is producing a huge federal budget deficit. They have acknowledged, however, that the very recent reevaluation of the deficit by the Congressional Budget Office shows that there is to be a $50 billion deficit decrease over the 10-year period of 2012-2022. http://1.usa.gov/GP62s2
If one will examine the last line of table 1 in the above link, he will note that the projected budget deficit will, indeed, decrease by $48 billion over the next 10 years. However, this “decrease” is not a decrease in the total deficit, but it is a decrease in the rate of INCREASE of the projected deficit. The ACA will finally be accompanied by a total increase in the national federal debt by a little more than $1trillion according to the report by the Congressional Budget Office.
Americans were told by President Obama that this ACA would not cost us any money, because the costs incurred would be offset by savings in general medical costs and revenues received as a result of payment of penalties from those who opted not to buy the insurance.
I think that if we are to look for someone who has lied about the cost of the ACA, we should look to some place other than the conservative Republicans.
Republicans have noted that the ACA is producing a huge federal budget deficit. They have acknowledged, however, that the very recent reevaluation of the deficit by the Congressional Budget Office shows that there is to be a $50 billion deficit decrease over the 10-year period of 2012-2022. http://1.usa.gov/GP62s2
If one will examine the last line of table 1 in the above link, he will note that the projected budget deficit will, indeed, decrease by $48 billion over the next 10 years. However, this “decrease” is not a decrease in the total deficit, but it is a decrease in the rate of INCREASE of the projected deficit. The ACA will finally be accompanied by a total increase in the national federal debt by a little more than $1trillion according to the report by the Congressional Budget Office.
Americans were told by President Obama that this ACA would not cost us any money, because the costs incurred would be offset by savings in general medical costs and revenues received as a result of payment of penalties from those who opted not to buy the insurance.
I think that if we are to look for someone who has lied about the cost of the ACA, we should look to some place other than the conservative Republicans.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Overthrow of a Despotic Government—Does It Do Any Good?
Ever since the administration of Woodrow Wilson, Americans have been enamored by the idea that overthrow of a despotic government will advance democracy and make the world a safer place to live.
To examine this idea, we should look back to history. In 1917, Wilson proclaimed that "heartening things that have been happening within the last few weeks in Russia." He was referring to the Bolshevik victory over the czar. That move paved the way for a totalitarian tyranny that killed more political prisoners in a year than the czars had killed in more than 90 years.
Although Wilson proclaimed that the First World War was being fought because "The world must be made safe for democracy," in reality the overthrow of autocratic rule in Germany and Italy led to totalitarian regimes that were far worse. Those today who assume that the overthrow of authoritarian governments in Egypt, Libya, and Syria is a movement toward democracy are following in Wilson's footsteps.
President Wilson is often charged with getting the U.S. into World War I; and secondarily into World War II as a result of that first great war; but the truth must be told. Wilson tried hard to keep the U.S. out of WW I. When, finally, the war forced itself on America, Wilson mobilized the nation to fight it with all our might. The thing that caused WW II was not WW I, it was the ill-conceived treaty of Versailles at the end of that war, which Wilson vehemently opposed until he became so ill that he could no longer negotiate a more effective and sane conclusion to the great war.
Well…we are still involved in the controversy. Will overthrow of autocratic regimes in the Middle East make the world a safer place to live? I certainly think the threat of a nuclear Iran needs to be effectively addressed; but I wonder if Muslim countries are ready and able to accommodate democracy. Hmmm….?
Want to read more about this subject—look at http://bit.ly/FWCNAY .
To examine this idea, we should look back to history. In 1917, Wilson proclaimed that "heartening things that have been happening within the last few weeks in Russia." He was referring to the Bolshevik victory over the czar. That move paved the way for a totalitarian tyranny that killed more political prisoners in a year than the czars had killed in more than 90 years.
Although Wilson proclaimed that the First World War was being fought because "The world must be made safe for democracy," in reality the overthrow of autocratic rule in Germany and Italy led to totalitarian regimes that were far worse. Those today who assume that the overthrow of authoritarian governments in Egypt, Libya, and Syria is a movement toward democracy are following in Wilson's footsteps.
President Wilson is often charged with getting the U.S. into World War I; and secondarily into World War II as a result of that first great war; but the truth must be told. Wilson tried hard to keep the U.S. out of WW I. When, finally, the war forced itself on America, Wilson mobilized the nation to fight it with all our might. The thing that caused WW II was not WW I, it was the ill-conceived treaty of Versailles at the end of that war, which Wilson vehemently opposed until he became so ill that he could no longer negotiate a more effective and sane conclusion to the great war.
Well…we are still involved in the controversy. Will overthrow of autocratic regimes in the Middle East make the world a safer place to live? I certainly think the threat of a nuclear Iran needs to be effectively addressed; but I wonder if Muslim countries are ready and able to accommodate democracy. Hmmm….?
Want to read more about this subject—look at http://bit.ly/FWCNAY .
Overthrow of a Despotic Government—Does It Do Any Good?
22 March 2012
Ever since the administration of Woodrow Wilson, Americans have been enamored by the idea that overthrow of a despotic government will advance democracy and make the world a safer place to live.
To examine this idea, we should look back to history. In 1917, Wilson proclaimed that "heartening things that have been happening within the last few weeks in Russia." He was referring to the Bolshevik victory over the czar. That move paved the way for a totalitarian tyranny that killed more political prisoners in a year than the czars had killed in more than 90 years.
Although Wilson proclaimed that the First World War was being fought because "The world must be made safe for democracy," in reality the overthrow of autocratic rule in Germany and Italy led to totalitarian regimes that were far worse. Those today who assume that the overthrow of authoritarian governments in Egypt, Libya, and Syria is a movement toward democracy are following in Wilson's footsteps.
President Wilson is often charged with getting the U.S. into World War I; and secondarily into World War II as a result of that first great war; but the truth must be told. Wilson tried hard to keep the U.S. out of WW I. When, finally, the war forced itself on America, Wilson mobilized the nation to fight it with all our might. The thing that caused WW II was not WW I, it was the ill-conceived treaty of Versailles at the end of that war, which Wilson vehemently opposed until he became so ill that he could no longer negotiate a more effective and sane conclusion to the great war.
Well…we are still involved in the controversy. Will overthrow of autocratic regimes in the Middle East make the world a safer place to live? I certainly think the threat of a nuclear Iran needs to be effectively addressed; but I wonder if Muslim countries are ready and able to accommodate democracy. Hmmm….?
Want to read more about this subject—look at http://bit.ly/FWCNAY .
22 March 2012
Ever since the administration of Woodrow Wilson, Americans have been enamored by the idea that overthrow of a despotic government will advance democracy and make the world a safer place to live.
To examine this idea, we should look back to history. In 1917, Wilson proclaimed that "heartening things that have been happening within the last few weeks in Russia." He was referring to the Bolshevik victory over the czar. That move paved the way for a totalitarian tyranny that killed more political prisoners in a year than the czars had killed in more than 90 years.
Although Wilson proclaimed that the First World War was being fought because "The world must be made safe for democracy," in reality the overthrow of autocratic rule in Germany and Italy led to totalitarian regimes that were far worse. Those today who assume that the overthrow of authoritarian governments in Egypt, Libya, and Syria is a movement toward democracy are following in Wilson's footsteps.
President Wilson is often charged with getting the U.S. into World War I; and secondarily into World War II as a result of that first great war; but the truth must be told. Wilson tried hard to keep the U.S. out of WW I. When, finally, the war forced itself on America, Wilson mobilized the nation to fight it with all our might. The thing that caused WW II was not WW I, it was the ill-conceived treaty of Versailles at the end of that war, which Wilson vehemently opposed until he became so ill that he could no longer negotiate a more effective and sane conclusion to the great war.
Well…we are still involved in the controversy. Will overthrow of autocratic regimes in the Middle East make the world a safer place to live? I certainly think the threat of a nuclear Iran needs to be effectively addressed; but I wonder if Muslim countries are ready and able to accommodate democracy. Hmmm….?
Want to read more about this subject—look at http://bit.ly/FWCNAY .
Monday, March 19, 2012
Souls in Transition by Christian Smith
I have been reading a book about Americans after high school and before they assume full adult function and responsibility. I think this is a land mark book to help us understand the confusing world in which we live.
This book presents a study of what happens to the religious and social orientation and characteristics of people transitioning into adulthood from adolescence—it looks at people at the age of 18-23.
The book notes that there are four new determining factors in the development of young people during these years—factors that have not been present in America previously:
a. The dramatic growth of higher education.
b. Delay of marriage.
c. Changes in the American and global economy that undermine stable, lifelong careers and replace them with lower job security, frequent job changes, and an ongoing need to approach careers with a variety of skills, maximal flexibility and readiness to retool as needed.
d. Parental willingness to extend the educational careers of their children even into the 30’s with monetary subsidies. It is the average behavior of parents of this age group to spend $38,340 on each child over the 17 year period from 18 to 34 in order to help them accommodate to adult requirements.
The features marking this stage of emerging adulthood are intense identity exploration, instability, a focus on self, feeling in limbo or in transition or in between, and a sense of possibilities, opportunities, and unparalleled hope. These are often accompanied by feelings of transience, confusion, anxiety, self-obsession, melodrama, conflict, disappointment, and sometimes emotional devastation.
This book presents a study of what happens to the religious and social orientation and characteristics of people transitioning into adulthood from adolescence—it looks at people at the age of 18-23.
The book notes that there are four new determining factors in the development of young people during these years—factors that have not been present in America previously:
a. The dramatic growth of higher education.
b. Delay of marriage.
c. Changes in the American and global economy that undermine stable, lifelong careers and replace them with lower job security, frequent job changes, and an ongoing need to approach careers with a variety of skills, maximal flexibility and readiness to retool as needed.
d. Parental willingness to extend the educational careers of their children even into the 30’s with monetary subsidies. It is the average behavior of parents of this age group to spend $38,340 on each child over the 17 year period from 18 to 34 in order to help them accommodate to adult requirements.
The features marking this stage of emerging adulthood are intense identity exploration, instability, a focus on self, feeling in limbo or in transition or in between, and a sense of possibilities, opportunities, and unparalleled hope. These are often accompanied by feelings of transience, confusion, anxiety, self-obsession, melodrama, conflict, disappointment, and sometimes emotional devastation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
