Dr Paul Allen

English: At a meeting with representatives of US public, academic and political circles. Русский: На встрече с представителями американской общественности, научных и политических кругов. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) It has been long proven that children fare best at every level if they can grow up with both their father and mother. Since more than 40 percent of U.S. babies today are born out of wedlock (which is the greatest predictor of poverty for women and children), and we have an alarming drop in marriage rates — nearly 80% of all adults were married in 1970, only 52% today — the need is greater than ever for a positive effort to promote a vibrant marriage culture in America . The Brookings Institution says that if the U.S. had the marriage rate today that it had in 1970, there would be a 25 percent drop in poverty. The Heritage Foundation says that marriage drops the probability of a child living in poverty by 82 percent. Related articles National Marriage W...

Image by Bread for the World via Flickr Food pantries , clothing drives and mission trips have become unquestioned bastions of America ’s charitable landscape. But do these well-intended services – many of them run by Christian organizations – really help the poor? According to Robert Lupton, the answer is no. His new book,  “Toxic Charity,”  draws on his 40 years experience as an urban activist in Atlanta and argues that most charitable work is ineffective or actually harmful to those it is supposed to help. Lupton is the founder of FCS Urban Ministries, through which he has developed mixed-income subdivisions that house hundreds of families. He is the author of four other books and holds a Ph.D. in psycho Image by acfb via Flickr logy from the University of Georgia . Q: You say churches and charities can harm those they prop ose to help. How? A: Typically, the giving is one-way: those of us with the resources give to those with a lack of resources. One-way givin...

Image via Wikipedia Only two groups of people seem to be getting a kick out of the rioting in England. Firstly the rioters themselves, the nihilistic urban youth who are getting cheap thrills from looting shops, bashing bus stops, and burning down houses. And secondly middle-class radicals, trustafarians who live off daddy's cash, who get a rush of political adrenalin whenever they see blacks burning stuff because it shows that "the oppressed are fighting back!" These two sections of British society might look and sound very different from each other, with the former more likely to wear tracksuits and trainers and to speak in urban cockney slang, while the latter is usually decked out in skinny jeans and tortoise-shell glasses and speaks with an easy-to-spot "mockney" twang. But they share some important traits, helping to explain their weird meeting of minds over recent riotous behaviour. Firstly, neither side contributes a great deal to everyday society, t...