Excess deaths among children across Europe, excluding Ukraine have increased by 335% since the European Medicines Agency (EMA) granted Emergency Use Authorisation of the Covid vaccines for use in children in week […]

by Martin Armstrong, Armstrong Economics: QUESTION: I had an argument with my son that what they teach in school is never the truth, not even about history. I was trying to find that writing you did years ago that the GI Bill was enacted only because they defaulted on the soldiers twice before. If I remember […]

As you see fields being harvested, let it be a visual reminder of the spiritual harvest around you. Ask God to open your eyes to the opportunities to serve and to give you the strength and wisdom to act on them.

For most of my life, finding mentors—much less good ones—at work was always a challenge. I’d identify someone I looked up to, and we’d meet for coffee and a chat. Then things would inevitably fizzle out. After many false starts, I was frustrated and discouraged. A few years ago, I changed my approach and went from never having a mentor to having four great mentors over the last five years. Through that journey, I’ve discovered four key lessons that can help Christians establish meaningful, fruitful mentor-mentee relationships at work. 1. Mentorship relationships should be formalized. We all dream of “organic” mentorship relationships where an older man or woman takes a genuine interest in you and starts inviting you to get coffee every week, but in my experience, that’s not how it happens. Mentorship has worked best for me when I ask someone directly to be my mentor. My first work mentor was a vice president of sales 20 years my senior. I’d worked with him for a year on a few projects and knew we had a good rapport. I invited him to coffee and asked, “Will you be my mentor?” I remember the thrill of fear when I popped the question. It felt awkward to be that direct, but it paid off. The benefit of such an explicit request is that it puts you both on the same page. Think of this as the “define the relationship” (or DTR, as millennials say) conversation. Consider the most famous mentor-mentee relationship in Scripture, that of Paul and Timothy. Paul repeatedly refers to Timothy as his child in the faith (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:2). Their relationship was an unambiguous spiritual adoption of Timothy by Paul. Timothy wasn’t left wondering if he and his mentor were on the same page. That relational clarity enabled Paul to speak directly and specifically to challenges Timothy faced as he led the community of believers in Ephesus. In the same way, Christians looking for mentorship at work can create clarity and aligned expectations by formalizing relationships with their mentors. 2. Mentorship should be centered around specific growth areas. It feels consumeristic to want to “get something” from a mentorship relationship, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. When I asked my boss’s boss, Nathan, to be my mentor, he responded with a question I wasn’t ready for. “What would you like to get out of this relationship?” he asked. “What are your goals?” Spelling out the outcomes I expected made me slightly uneasy, but in asking that question, Nathan reframed how I saw relationship. It’s natural to admire would-be mentors. More often than not, they’ve achieved or experienced something we want to emulate. That’s why we want their guidance in the first place. A potential mentor might be someone who has had success in her career. Or perhaps you’re interested in his character, or how you’ve seen her respond under pressure. It’s optimal if your mentor is also a Christian; however, in my experience, it isn’t strictly necessary. As Christians, we’re called to be set apart but also to engage with the culture (Jer. 29:4–7). Believers working in the secular world must navigate the tensions of being in the world but not “of the world” (John 17:16). This includes learning what we can from those who don’t share our faith. A mentor is an adviser, and you aren’t obligated to take his advice. I don’t require my accountant or doctor to be a Christian. Instead, I limit my questions to their domains of expertise and evaluate their recommendations through the lens of Scripture. I view workplace mentorship in the same way. If a mentor advises me to do something I deem unwise or wrong, I simply thank her for her perspective and move on. The decision to act remains with me. Focusing on specific growth areas is a wise and helpful practice. Many of us have sat down with a would-be mentor and had a pleasant but ultimately unproductive conversation. Identifying areas where your mentor (Christian or otherwise) can help you grow makes for a more focused, productive relationship. 3. Mentorship relationships should be term-limited. When I ask someone to be my mentor at work, I make it a time-bound commitment. I ask would-be mentors to meet with me once every four to six weeks for a year, which amounts to between nine and twelve meetings. Focusing on specific growth areas is a wise and helpful practice. A clear term has benefits for him and for you. If the relationship isn’t as great as you hoped it’d be, you have a clear ending point. Without this, you face the uncomfortable choices of continuing to meet with your lackluster mentor forever, having a “break-up” conversation, or—the most likely scenario—both of you withdrawing and eventually ghosting each other. Time-bound mentorship avoids all this and lets you end the formal relationship with celebration and gratitude rather than awkwardness and disappointment. If you happen to have a great experience with a mentor, you can always extend it (e.g., another year term) or continue to spend time with her in a more casual friendship. 4. A mentor is a sounding board, not a savior. There’s no greater insight I’ve learned than this: your expectations for a mentor should be low. The only things you should expect from a mentor are that he (1) shows up consistently (or communicates to reschedule), (2) listens to you, and (3) answers your questions as best as he can. Don’t expect her to share her struggles with you. Don’t expect her to adopt you into her family. Don’t expect her to guess what’s going on in your life. Don’t even expect her to come prepared. Instead, you as a mentee should make it as easy as possible for her to be a great mentor for you. Here are three things that have helped me ease the burden on my mentors: 1. I come to every mentorship session with one or two topics to discuss. I talk through scenarios I’m facing, ask for advice on specific problems, or “pressure test” my long-term thinking or my harebrained theories about telecom pricing. 2. I provide context. I consider what background details my mentor needs to give me good advice. It’s easy to talk too much, so I rehearse in my head and try to be as succinct as possible. 3. I ask open-ended questions he can react to, like “How would you approach this situation?” or “What do you think about this idea?” You may also need to adjust your approach depending on your mentor’s style. One of my mentors was a storyteller, sharing invaluable details and history about our industry. One mostly responded to my questions with questions, helping me develop my own thinking. Another only responded with cryptic answers I’d have to interpret after the fact. And one mentor would fire off hot takes I’d have to modulate down by 25 percent before implementing. Each relationship was valuable in its way, but I had to approach each one differently. Make it as easy as possible for her to be a great mentor for you. Mentors may offer to do other things for you. I’ve had mentors review my résumé, conduct mock interviews, and open doors with other people in my company, but those things shouldn’t be expected. A mentor isn’t there to solve your problems. She’s there to act as a sounding board, provide input, and guide you as you navigate your own life. Guides for the Journey As Christians, we’re on a journey of becoming more like Christ as we navigate the twists and turns of work. While the corporate world can offer professional development, don’t discount the development that can take place in the local church. This form of mentorship is less formal but more vital. Conversations in the lobby, in small groups, and in Bible studies won’t help you get a promotion or nail that next presentation, but this spiritual formation develops the character you take to work with you every day. As Christians who want to do excellent work as unto the Lord (Col. 3:23–24), we have a tremendous opportunity to cultivate robust, cross-generational mentor-mentee relationships to help us gain perspective and receive guidance. All it takes is a little thoughtful preparation.

In this breakout session from TGC’s 2023 conference, Scott Swain demonstrates how understanding the Trinity equips us to grasp the biblical themes of salvation, particularly in the context of Exodus. He argues that the Trinity is central to God’s self-revelation and covenant relationship with Israel and traces God’s promises from Abraham through to the exodus. Swain also highlights the Holy Spirit’s presence and role in both the Old and New Testaments, linking the first exodus to the hope of a second, the fulfillment of salvation in Christ. Swain connects the concept of the Trinity to themes of covenant, redemption, and the mystery of marriage, illustrating how these aspects unite creation, salvation, and consummation through Christ.

Chinese Dissident Ends Tim Walz's Stupid ‘Grammar’ Excuse for Stolen Valor ... in Two Sentences

Politics RFK Jr.’s Common Good Populism The independent presidential candidate’s recent speech provided a glimpse of a better politics. Last Friday, in a speech in Phoenix, Arizona, the independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. suspended his campaign and endorsed Donald J. Trump.  As Kennedy noted, the problem with democracy in America in recent decades has been its absence, decrying the Democratic party’s departure from democratic norms. In defense of what amounts to America’s own “managed democracy” the party erected almost insurmountable barriers to the RFK Jr. candidacy, first by putting up onerous petition signature requirements, then by suing Kennedy’s campaign in court.  The irony of a party obsessed with Russia acting in such a manner should not be lost on anyone; indeed it is unarguable that Russia has indeed used the same methods as today’s Democratic Party. When, for example, Lyubov Sobol (an associate of anti-corruption crusader Alexei Navalny) sought to enter the Moscow City Council race in 2019, her candidacy was derailed by challenging her ballot petition signatures.  This same device has frequently been used to get rid of other unwanted opposition candidates. In 2018, Pavel Grudinin, a successful businessman and populist, ran for the presidency against Vladimir Putin as a candidate of the reformed Russian communist party. When Grudinin became too threatening to the establishment and started to rise in the polls, the mass media went into action with hit pieces that quickly sidelined him.  Sound familiar? To no one’s surprise, Kennedy’s critics were quick to pounce. Kurt Anderson dismissed Kennedy’s remarks in a vicious, self-serving piece in the Atlantic, while the American University presidential historian Allan Lichtman took to Chris Cuomo’s program and denounced Kennedy’s speech as “the most incoherent endorsement I have ever heard.” Any honest piece about Robert F. Kennedy and his politics must come attached with certain disclaimers: Kennedy himself is an imperfect vessel for a better politics. His campaign, launched with so much promise, foundered on allegations of self-dealing and nepotism. His very real and laudable environmental record is difficult to square with Trump’s own record and the former president’s oft-stated promises to gut environmental regulations. And perhaps most importantly, Kennedy’s position on Israel’s war on Palestine differs little from that of either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump—which is to say it is appalling. It is Kennedy’s unqualified endorsement of the most exaggerated and often simply false narrative about Palestine that gives us pause, to say the least.  He evinces a cold indifference to Israel’s actions, supported by the U.S., against the entirety of the Palestinian population. And yet, for all that, in Kennedy’s speech we caught a glimpse of what a common good populism might look like. For one thing, unlike the current Democratic and Republican nominees, he seems to understand that the gravest threats to the country come not from beyond our borders—in the form of an alleged authoritarian axis of evil—but from within them. In his telling, “war, censorship, corruption, Big Pharma, Big Tech, Big Ag, and Big Money” are among the most pressing of America’s challenges. Kennedy is also correct as to the sad trajectory the Democratic Party has taken since the days of President John F. Kennedy. As Kennedy points out, it was a party that once stood against authoritarianism, against censorship, and against colonialism, imperialism, and unjust wars. We were the party of labor and the working class. The Democrats were the party of government transparency and the champion of the environment. Our party was the bulwark against Big Money interests and corporate power. Of the bankers and corporate interests, Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “I welcome their hatred.” Today, the party of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama turns to alumni of Goldman Sachs to oversee the nation’s finances. On the subject of Ukraine, Kennedy’s account strikes us as factual. There is a mountain of evidence that the war is indeed, as Kennedy notes, “Russia’s predictable response to the reckless neocon project of extending NATO to encircle Russia” and to force Ukraine into NATO, despite it being “the brightest of redlines” for Russia, in then-ambassador William Burns own words.  Kennedy is also correct when he recalls that President Biden stated that the purpose of this war was ‘regime change’ in Moscow. As night follows day, Kennedy’s account of the war in Ukraine and its causes will be derided as “Putin talking points,” even more so now that Kennedy has allied himself with Trump—himself falsely accused of colluding with Putin’s Russia. Such accusations will echo another case of “collusion”  that took place in 1962–63 when President John F. Kennedy reached out in secret to Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev to initiate a dialogue—a dialogue that was thwarted at every turn by the leaders of the CIA and the U.S. military.  As recounted by historian James Douglass, Kennedy engaged in an extensive exchange of letters and mediated (mostly by journalist Norman Cousins) conversations with his Russian counterpart, all of them oriented to overcoming mutual suspicion and ending the Cold War before it resulted in the nuclear Armageddon that the two leaders had narrowly escaped in October 1962.  In the end, a Kennedy-Trump coalition could be a reason for hope, but these hopes are tempered by our realization that Kennedy and Trump can only ever be relatively better than the alternatives. To be sure, it does not take much to rise above the level of a Kamala Harris, but we do not mean to damn them with such faint praise, as should be already obvious from the above. To say that Kennedy and Trump have their own real limitations, whether intellectual or moral, is to say no more than what Reinhold Niebuhr has noted about anyone at all that has achieved great political power.  In the realm of power, the pure of heart are generally crucified or assassinated.  At the very least, they are pushed aside. We have no choice but to make do with those who are imperfect. The post RFK Jr.’s Common Good Populism  appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Let’s Be Honest About Taiwan The time in which we could have prepared to contest the island by force has passed. Credit: image via Shutterstock For some years, the main division among self-described foreign policy realists is over what to do about China, and, specifically, what to do about Taiwan. The group led by Elbridge Colby, lately foreign policy advisor for the former President Donald Trump, believes that Chinese hegemony in Asia, the first step towards which will be reunification with Taiwan, will cause the eclipse of American economic power; America must be willing then at least to consider armed support for the Republic of China, if other deterrents fail. A variety of critics, including our own Doug Bandow, suggest the overarching threat is overblown, or, at any rate, not worth risking war between nuclear-armed powers. So things stand in our world. There are merits to each line of argument, but the dispute looks increasingly irrelevant. Irrespective of what ought to be done, it is growing apparent that the United States simply will not be in a position to wage conventional war against China. Consider last week’s news that the Navy plans to mothball 17 Military Sealift Command (MSC) ships because of an ongoing manpower shortage. MSC is exactly what it says in the name, the organ responsible for providing military transports and logistical support by sea. You may be aware that Taiwan is an island on the thither side of the world’s largest ocean, and any American plan to wage war in its environs will involve moving rather a lot of people and stuff there by ship. As we wrote at some length in the latest print issue of The American Conservative, MSC has been suffering a mariner shortage since at least 2017, and structural factors have prevented the supply of mariners from growing quickly enough both to cover turnover and to fill the gap.  Further, a premise of MSC is that in times of war it may call upon the American merchant fleet to aid its efforts. The Chinese merchant fleet outnumbers the American merchant fleet by roughly 50 to 1. Simply put, it is unlikely that we will get men and materiel to the front in anything like sufficient numbers to counter the Chinese, who are far better prepared to supply a front that is anyway much closer to them than it is to us. Or consider the ongoing debacle of the Constellation-class frigate, the warship intended to do the yeoman’s work of any naval operations in coastal waters. The ships were commissioned and their construction begun without a finalized design, which, in the classic bizarro logic of our military–industrial complex, meant it was to be completed more quickly and with better specifications than otherwise. Instead, the real world intruded, and the development has been quagmired by basic design changes. A GAO report in May said the process is “at a standstill” and projected that the first ship will be delivered no earlier than April 2029, three years late. China-watching is a game for fools and fortune-tellers, but the word on the street is that Xi Jinping means to take Taiwan by the end of the decade—2027 gets thrown about a fair bit, with some of our professional seers saying the blow will come as early as 2025. If we accept this broad five-year range as something like the truth, it doesn’t matter whether the United States wants to go to war or not; we simply will not be able to. It isn’t merely a matter of the certain decline that attends a power entering a war for which it is fundamentally unprepared, a la the British Empire in 1938. The invasion will be over by time we put sufficient assets in the neighborhood—or even by time we have assets to put in the neighborhood. To contest the matter on the field of battle, we would have had to begin serious preparations the better part of a decade ago, and we are simply out of time. The question then is how to reduce the upside for China and the downside for the U.S. The American classics, sanctions and proxy war, will get trotted out. Sanctions do not have what you’d call a track record of success in accomplishing their stated policy goals, and, unlike Russia, China is in a position to levy actually painful countersanctions against the U.S. Proxy wars have their own risks, and the American arsenal is significantly thinner than it was in 2022. Nor does it look as if it will replenish meaningfully as we continue our escapades in Eastern Europe and the great, blood-drenched sandbox of the Middle East.  The inertia and dysfunction of the American defense establishment have proven insurmountable; it is not clear that anyone in that establishment is especially interested in trying something new. At this writing, roughly a third of American naval assets are in the Middle East, and there is not a single aircraft carrier in the Western Pacific—a nice snapshot of existing priorities and readiness. American policymakers should begin to consider policies to ameliorate the effects on the U.S. of a Taiwan invasion. Acting as if war is a viable policy is fantasy, nothing more or less. The post Let’s Be Honest About Taiwan appeared first on The American Conservative.