The Press-Dispatch
Issue link: http://www.ifoldsflip.com/i/98389
Opinion C-2 Wednesday, December 12, 2012 The Press-Dispatch Observations by Thomas Sowell Fiscal cliff notes Amid all the political and media hoopla about the "fiscal cliff" crisis, there are a few facts that are worth noting. First of all, despite all the melodrama about raising taxes on "the rich," even if that is done it will scarcely make a dent in the government's financial problems. Raising the tax rates on everybody in the top two percent will not get enough additional tax revenue to run the government for ten days. And what will the government do to pay for the other 355 days in the year? All the political angst and moral melodrama about getting "the rich" to pay "their fair share" is part of a big charade. This is not about economics, it is about politics. Taxing "the rich" will produce a drop in the bucket when compared to the staggering and un- Paying the price of preparation By Ed Feulner At the memorial to the USS Arizona, you can watch droplets of oil from the sunken ship drift to the surface. Some say the ship is weeping for the 1,177 service members killed at Pearl Harbor 71 years ago this month. It's a chilling reminder of the heavy price our country paid when it was caught unprepared. Today's geopolitical risks are far different, of course. Since 1945 the U.S. has effectively led the world, and from that position of strength we've redirected geopolitics. For most countries, trade is now seen as a better way to advance a nation's interests than fighting. Most of the planet has enjoyed booming growth and soaring living standards, as the American-style exchange of goods and services helped make the free world rich. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union tried to live outside this system, and ended up collapsing. Margaret Thatcher explained that we won the Cold War "without firing a shot." That happened because our unmatched military helped spread our ideals of free trade and opportunity around the globe, and the Russians couldn't afford to keep up. More recently, China decided it was better to be a competitor than an enemy. Occasional trade "wars" might erupt over particular goods, but our overarching military strength kept other countries from wanting to challenge us head-to-head. But our commitment to military dominance may be starting to wane. Our Army, for example, is getting smaller. We dropped to 551,000 active-duty soldiers this year, and deeper cuts are coming next year. At least another 80,000 will be departing, even though as many as 20,000 of them are eager to continue serving. If the fiscal cliff talks that are now underway in Washington fail, we could see even deeper cuts in force readiness. Under "sequestration," the military would be required to make 12 to 14 percent across-theboard cuts. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno warns that could cost another 100,000 soldiers their jobs and leave the U.S. with its smallest military force since 1941—the year the Arizona was attacked. The Navy is also being slashed. With the USS Enterprise decommissioned, there are only 10 carriers in our fleet. That's one fewer than Congress has demand our fleet contain, and it's further reduced by the fact that at any time, one of our carriers is always undergoing a "refueling and complex overhaul," which effectively leaves the Navy with nine available carriers. Under the waves, we're also running short of ballistic missile submarines. "These boats provide key deterrence and present the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad," notes The Heritage Foundation's Brian Slattery. "The replacement for the aging Ohio-class ballistic subs is under development, yet under President Obama's budget—even before facContinued on page 3 The no-spin zone—by Bill O'Reilly Bonding fifty years later If you really want to understand the vast changes that have occurred in America over the past 50 years, all you have to do is watch James Bond. Back in 1962, the first Bond movie, "Dr. No," was released, catapulting Sean Connery to international stardom. Even President Kennedy expressed admiration for Ian Fleming's fictional British secret agent. Connery's Bond was ultra-suave but amazingly politically incorrect. The guy smoked constantly, drank, gambled and womanized without remorse. He was a rogue and couldn't care less what anyone thought. He was also brutal, liberally exercising his license to kill in the cause of justice, of course. Now we live in a new age, and we have a different James Bond: Daniel Craig. His Bond is a much more sensitive soul than was Connery's. In the 23rd Bond film, "Skyfall," Craig rarely smiles, goes about his business with grim determination and looks like he's in the gym quite often. While Connery's Bond spent his spare time chasing ladies and drinking martinis, Craig's is apparently training for the triathlon. However, the biggest difference between Connery and Craig is that the former seemed to be having fun racing around the world doing the bidding of the British government. Craig does not seem to be having a lot of laughs. In fact, Craig is a major brooder, and so is his boss, played by Judi Dench. Watching these two have a conversation is like watching Dr. Phil yell at some guy who just abandoned his family. Nevertheless, "Skyfall" is a huge moneymaker, especially overseas. The formula is this: Blow things up every 10 minutes. It's kinda like the old Elvis movies where The King broke into song every eight minutes no matter what was happening in the storyline. They needed to fill up an album, so Elvis sang on cue. Perhaps the biggest difference between "Dr. No" and "Skyfall" is the subordinate casting. Ursula Andress was the femme fatale in "Dr. No." She spent the entire film in a bikini except for about three minutes when she wore a robe. Ursula, a Swiss actress, did not say very much. But she liked James; that much was clear. The ladies in "Skyfall" also like James. I think. But they were shuttled in and out of the film so quickly, it was hard to tell. Dealing with the opposite sex cuts into Craig's brooding time, and we can't have that. Also, the villains say something about our changing world. Joseph Wiseman played "Dr. No." Yes, he was a mean guy, but he wasn't very menacing. The worst thing he did was give a henchman a tarantula to put in Bond's bed. That could never happen today because PETA would picket. In "Skyfall," Javier Bardem is the bad guy, and the script implies that he may be gay. But it's not really clear. What is certain is that Javier is a computer wiz bent on killing Dench. While Dr. No wanted to dominate space, Bardem simply wants a little revenge for a past slight, a hallmark of many bloggers. My sentiment lies with Connery. Craig is better than Pierce Brosnan, but he doesn't have Connery's charisma. The old guy wins. Points to ponder—by Ford Bond What Sort of Women Reads The Huffington Post? I recently ran across an article that made reference to a recent column by Ms. Emma Gray in The Huffington Post women's section titled, "15 Types of Sex You Have in Your 20s." The Huffington Post is aimed towards those with a liberal and cosmopolitan outlook on life. Allow me (in brief) to run through her suggestions: • Bad • Convenient • One-Night • I Might Date You • Location • Drunk • Friend • One • Make-up • Vindictive • Home for the Holidays. • One More Time • Barter • Oh! Of course, each heading has a description, but none is needed for anyone that has an IQ above room temperature. This list is a literal interpretation of Stephen Stills 1970s hit "Love the One You're With." Sadly, Ms. Gray leaves out all connection to procreation, marriage, monogamy, and commitment. I assume A woman's perspective—by Mona Charen Single belles, single all the way Discussing the role of single people in the election of 2012 on my weekly podcast with Jay Nordlinger "Need to Know" (available on Ricochet.com or Nationalreview.com), your humble columnist chose the insensitive way to address it. Chatting with Jonathan V. Last of The Weekly Standard about his piece "A Nation of Singles," I popped off that "Single mothers want the state to be their husbands and father to their children." Jonathan put it better: "Well, let's say that single mothers are more vulnerable to economic shocks and are more concerned about the safety net." Much more diplomatic. Single voters were a key demographic in 2012 (if the percentage of married voters had been what it was in 1980, Romney would have won) and there is little reason to imagine that their importance will wane in the future. Singles increased their share of the vote from 2008 by 6 points. Until about 1970, the percentage of the adult population in America that was married never dipped below about 93 percent. Since then, marriage has been steadily declining. Today, about half the population is single. The unmarried represented about 40 percent of the electorate, and they broke heavily for Obama—by 16 percentage points among single men and 36 percentage points among single women—giving him two-thirds of his margin of victory. (By contrast, Romney prevailed among married voters by 56-42.) The marriage gap is also an education gap in America. Those with little or no college, and particularly those without a high school diploma, are precedented deficits of the Obama administration. No previous administration in the entire history of the nation ever finished the year with a trillion dollar deficit. The Obama administration has done so every single year. Yet political and media discussions of the financial crisis have been focussed overwhelmingly on how to get more tax revenue to pay for past and future spending. The very catchwords and phrases used by the Obama administration betray how phony this all is. For example, "We are just asking the rich to pay a little more." This is an insult to our intelligence. The Continued on page 3 shunning marriage in favor of cohabitation. The college-educated, by contrast, are still marrying at close to the rates they did in the 1950s (though later in life, which contributes to lower fertility). Stable families among the elites perpetuate their status, providing their children with the financial and emotional stability necessary to lead fulfilling lives. Highly unstable families among the less educated lock in inequality, as well, prompting Charles Murray to call upon the elites to "preach what they practice." It isn't a matter of urgent national importance when non-parents choose to live together without benefit of clergy (love the old fashioned expression). When children come into the picture, it is. There is simply no controversy about the data: Two-parent married families are best for children —and best for society. According to the Census Bureau, one of three American children grows up in a home without his biological father. These children are almost four times more likely to be poor (44 percent) as are children from intact families (12 percent). Fatherlessness (and while there are some single fathers raising children, they are a small minority) is associated with increased incidence of every measurable pathology. It is evident from birth, and even before. Children of single mothers have higher rates of infant mortality, receive less health care, perform more poorly on post-natal tests, are slower to gain weight and have more complications. Babies with a father's name on their birth certificates are four times more likely to live past age 1 than those without. In school, the pattern holds. Children from single parent families tend (and these are aggregates, not universals) to get lower grades, have more behavior problems, experience higher rates of depression and other mental illnesses and drop out at higher rates. Children of single parents are more likely to be unemployed, get into trouble with the law and be incarcerated. (Source: National Fatherhood Initiative.) Cohabitating couples are far more likely to separate than are married couples, which means children often live with non-relative adults. A child living with his mother and her boyfriend is at maximum risk. The American Academy of Pediatrics reported that children in such households are 50 times more likely than children of intact families to be the victims of physical or sexual abuse. There are simply reams of social science data showing that marriage is the best institution for adult and child happiness/flourishing. But it seems that in America today, only activists for same sex marriage are enthusiasts. The state can prevent single mothers and their children from falling into destitution, but with fewer and fewer Americans marrying and providing stable homes and reliable earners, the pool of resources available to support more fragile families shrinks. The Democratic party cheers these trends for now—but in short order even they will find they've sawed off the limb to which they are clinging. her purpose in writing is to encourage young women to submit to the most uninhibited and baser drives within themselves so as to find the bottom. I suppose she feels few will find her advice objectionable, but polite society does, as well as the New Testament Church. Ms. Gray is encouraging women to sin with and against their own bodies, which is reprehensible. Fornication (sex outside of marriage) is a sin, which may be a new concept to her. Paul told the church at Corinth: "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man commits is without the body; but he that commits fornication sins against his own body." Maybe it is my age and having some sense of spirituality that makes me unable to take this column seriously. I cannot within me believe that anyone who has even a kernel of morality can read this piece without laughing or crying. Here is what one responded opined at the end of the comment section: "Am I from another planet? I got married in 1976 to my husband and was a virgin. I am still married, so I can't say I ever missed all this exper- imentation and risks of dying from "xyz." I have read and heard throughout my life just how all these types of sex happen and really, what better and more meaningful can a relationship be than with a person you can give your love to daily and share a life with him where you struggle, sacrifice, raise a family, and worrying them. This to me is real life." Realistically, women in their twenties are finishing school, establishing themselves in a profession, and probably thinking in the not-to-distant future of actively seeking a husband. So if an adventurous woman takes Ms. Gray's advice, how is this going to play when she is finds herself in a serious relationship and is asked by her suitor, "Where have you been all my life?" I am sure the answer will go something like this: "Well, that reminds me of my twenties when I was sowing my wild oats and ran across the article, '15 Types of Sex You Have In Your 20s.' Well, it was tough, but I was able check off 12 of the 15." Do you think the young man will have feelings of envy? Continuetd on page 3 The P Dispatch ress- MR. AND MRS. FRANK HEURING, PUBLISHERS ANDREW G. HEURING, EDITOR JOHN B. HEURING, ADVERTISING MANAGER Wednesday, December 12, 2012 Entered at the Post Office in Petersburg, Indiana for transmission through the mails as Periodical Mail, Postage paid at Petersburg, Indiana. Published weekly. Change of Address—Subscribers changing addresses will please give old address as well as new one along with phone number. We cannot guarantee prompt change unless this is done. Postmaster: send changes to Post Office Box 68, Petersburg, Indiana 47567-0068. Phone 354-8500 • FAX—354-2014 P.O. BOX 68, PETERSBURG, INDIANA 47567 E-mail—news@pressdispatch.net (604-340) SUBSCRIPTION RATES 3 mos. 6 mos. 1 year 2 years Pike and Surrounding Cos. . .....$ 10.00 $15.00 $25.00 $45.00 Elsewhere in Indiana . ............... 14.00 19.00 27.00 49.00 Outside Indiana . ........................... 18.00 28.00 43.00 75.00