The Press-Dispatch
Issue link: https://www.ifoldsflip.com/i/259021
OpiniOn Mr. ANd Mrs. FrANK heuriNg, Publishers ANdreW g. heuriNg, editor JohN b. heuriNg, AdvertisiNg MANAger 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 • FA X—354-2014 P.O. BOX 68, PETERSBURG, INDIANA 47567 E-mail—subscribe@pressdispatch.net (604-340) The Press-Dispatch C-2 Wednesday, February 12, 2014 The Press-Dispatch Points to ponder— by Rev. Ford Bond Observations by Thomas Sowell Think Big by Ben Carson Republicans to the rescue? Enduring spirit of the Tea Parties Continued on page 3 Obama and the grievance industry A woman's perspective—by Mona Charen Why the people don't trust government From one point of view, President Barack Obama's invocation of the hoary "77 cents" myth re- garding the relative earn- ings of women and men was a shallow and cheap politi- cal pander. Democrats, ea- ger to maintain their ad- vantage with women vot- ers, stoke grievance. It's the same playbook they've used to solidify their stand- ing with black voters—sug- gest whenever and wher- ever possible that Republi- cans are racists. It's crude, offensive and libelous—but effective. Yet Obama fancies himself an in- tellectual. Campaigning against Ken Cuccinelli in Virginia, the president chastised the Republican for challeng- ing climate change, saying, "It has to do with what's true. It has to do with facts. You don't argue with facts." Ma- ny in the press and in progressive cir- cles regard this president as a bit of a thought leader. So it's remarkable that he is will- ing to betray how out of touch he is with social science by peddling the decades-old and utterly outdated idea that our great challenge as a society is ensuring women equal pay for equal work. He could not be more dated if he were issuing calls to improve phono- graph needles. Conservatives like Christina Hoff Sommers, Charles Murray and Kay Hymowitz, have long been drawing attention to the declining fortunes of boys and men in American soci- ety. They have been joined recently by nonconservative scholars and re- searchers as well. A paper by two Massachusetts Insti- tute of Technology economists, "Way- ward Sons," published by the center/ left think tank Third Way, outlines the startling decline in the fortunes of moderately to poorly educated men over the past several decades. The ti- tle of the opening chap- ter is direct: "Women Gain Ground, Men Lose Ground." Starting with the cohort born in 1951, a gender gap in high school completion has opened up and contin- ues to grow. More girls than boys are graduat- ing from high school. The college picture is even starker. Where- as the high school grad- uation rate for males has stagnated (while women's has im- proved), college attendance for males has declined while women have ad- vanced. "Females born in 1975 were roughly 17 percent more likely than their male counterparts to attend col- lege and nearly 23 percent more like- ly to complete a four-year degree." Young women are also more ambi- tious and have higher hopes for their futures than young men. Much attention has focused on the decline of blue-collar jobs over the past several decades, and "Wayward Sons" duly acknowledges that the loss of low- skilled jobs to automation, globaliza- tion and de-unionization may have contributed to the notable decline in wages suffered by less educated men in the past several decades. But the puzzling fact is women with equiva- lent levels of education have not suf- fered the same income declines, nor have women's labor force participation rates declined as men's have. While men's wages have declined for all but the most educated since 1979, wom- en's wages have increased for all but the least educated. Women's income gains have far outstripped men's at every level of education, particular- ly among college graduates ages 40 to 64. "Wayward Sons" considers the pos- sibilities—are women better at the tasks a highly information-rich econo- my rewards? Is the loss of brawny jobs to blame for men's falling labor force participation and declining earnings? Each theory gets a hearing. At length, the authors come to the elephant in the room: the dramatic change in family structure since 1970. In that year, 69 percent of black men without a high school diploma were married. By 2010, only 17 percent were. The marriage rate among non- college attending whites and Hispan- ics has declined precipitously as well. The link between family composi- tion and child welfare is well-estab- lished. What "Wayward Sons" adds is data on the differentially harmful ef- fects of fatherlessness on sons versus daughters. "Growing up in a single- parent home appears to significantly decrease the probability of college at- tendance for boys, yet has no similar effect for girls." Boys from such homes "are 25 percentage points more likely to be suspended in the eighth grade than girls from these households, whereas the corresponding gender gap between boys and girls from households with two biological par- ents was only 10 percentage points." A vicious cycle is clearly under- way. Poorly educated women do not find marriageable mates among low- earning or jobless young men. Women then raise children alone and handicap their sons more than their daughters, and the cycle repeats itself. The collapse of the marriage cul- ture is arguably the "defining issue of our time." Neither men nor wom- en thrive without marriage, but men and boys seem to suffer more. Father- lessness is driving income inequality, child poverty and declining mobility. But Obama is manning the barricades on "equal pay for equal work"—a mat- ter addressed by Congress in 1963. Post-Christian World We are living in a post- Christian world. That is not to mean that the Christian faith has been banished; but it does mean it has be- come impotent in its ability to guide morally. Even the word Christian has taken on a wealth of meanings. This has caused the church to become misdi- rected in its core mission to point to Jesus Christ as Sav- ior; a refuge for sinners to find reconciliation to God. In its place has erupted a Social Gospel consisting of works, which attempts to reshape the world through govern- ment fiat. The church's focus on so- cial work is a new phenom- enon that began in the late 1800s. It was an outgrowth of the progressive and pop- ulist movements that was at- tempting to create a heaven on earth using government as a social change agent. This ideology trans- formed Jesus into a so- cial worker whose mission is to right the wrongs of an evil, capitalis- tic, and unequal society. Gone is the spiritual ap- plication of the teachings of Je- sus, replaced by ministry of social change. Instead of ". . . Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners," the mantra is Jesus came to "up- lift the downtrodden, and give voice to the oppressed." Name the issue and Jesus, we are told, would be in the forefront, marching for so- cial justice. This misapplica- tion of scripture, if it weren't a serious issue, would be funny. The champions of so- cial change always fall back upon scriptures taken out of context, or they cherry-pick a passage to support their is- sue. The looney left and igno- rant are quick to quote Mat- thew 7:1 when they are chal- lenged on a moral issue: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." End of debate you evil man! However, that is not the context of the passage; it reads "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. "For in the same way you judge oth- ers, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." The text is pointing towards righteousness, justice, and mercy. The spiritually blind have taken to using the passage from I Corinthians chapter 13 to new heights. It has for years been used in marriage cer- emonies, and the application has now been ex- tended to same- sex marriage. I frankly do not care if one loves a kangaroo; but the church and its historical vocabulary is being hijacked to give ap- proval for social change. The Apostle Paul here is writing about the charity [love] of God, and how the mature Christian should be emulating the same. The word charity is translated from the Greek word agape, which is used for divine love. What I find troubling is using Christianity to bolster an argument—pro or con. I must confess that from what I see the church has lost the battle over same-sex mar- riage and abortion. The sec- ular and profane have been able to reshape the use of the church's vocabulary and jargon and commandeer it for social change. Where the church is head- ing, unless a Third Great Awakening occurs, is to- ward more conflict and dis- integration. The faith com- munity is unable to disci- pline or generate cohesion. The famous Boston Tea Party involved disgruntled colonists who felt unfairly treated by the British Moth- erland, which was imposing an ever- increasing burden of taxation with lit- tle or no input from those being taxed. The British reasoned that they were offering protection to the colonies, and therefore the taxes were justified. Because the British Empire was al- most continuously expanding and en- gaging in warfare, a great deal of rev- enue was required. There appeared to be plentiful natural resources and the capacity to develop them in the New World, and the monarch thought these could provide an endless source of rev- enue. There was no consideration of the fact that the colonists worked hard to sustain themselves and also wanted to accumulate enough wealth to pro- vide for their later years and for their families. Interestingly, the much-maligned tea party of today faces the same con- cerns as the brave pioneers of old. They are also concerned about govern- ment overreach with programs such as Obamacare, unnecessary and unlaw- ful surveillance of citizens, blatant and unchecked abuse by the Internal Rev- enue Service, and government cover- ups and media complicity. Neither the Boston Tea Party's par- ticipants nor supporters of the mod- ern tea party objected to paying their fair share of taxes, but both witnessed an incessant escalation of government spending, which was always taken out of their hides. The concept of cutting back on gov- ernment expenditures was as foreign to the British as it is to our government today, which provides lip service but no meaningful action. Why do so many members of the po- litical class go to such great lengths to demonize the tea party? It is not a sophisticated political or- ganization. It consists of a loosely knit group of American citizens from many backgrounds who are not ready to re- linquish the power of the people to the hands of government entities whose in- terests and values do not seem to coin- cide with theirs. I think it is because certain politi- cians have forgotten that they work for us and not the other way around. These politicians are deeply offended by anyone who would dare challenge their "wisdom" and authority. Recently, a prominent senator pub- licly spoke out in favor of efforts to crush groups such as the tea party, which is considered by those like him to be comprised of troublemakers, rather than agents of free speech. This attitude has not been de- nounced by the Obama administra- tion, and it is antithetical to the princi- ples of freedom of speech and freedom of expression, which were once regard- ed as precious in America. As we approach the elections of 2014 and 2016, the tea party and all other groups who respect the Consti- tution and our Judeo-Christian heri- tage should put aside minor differenc- es and issues that could be addressed later and present a united front of com- mon sense to combat forces that wish to fundamentally change America. These forces will make every at- tempt to magnify a host of social is- sues on which legitimate differences will always exist. Our entire social sys- tem is people-centric, rather than gov- ernment-centric. Those who truly understand this will not fall easy prey to those who wish to distract and divide them on these issues. We who think logically will not be shaken by those who say, "These are not minor issues." We real- By Ed Feulner No one tests the historic optimism of the American people quite like your aver- age politician. Poll after poll finds a deep distrust of gov- ernment, with more than two-thirds saying they can't believe what they hear from Washington. You don't have to look far for examples of why they feel this way. Americans have learned to be wary of taking what politicians say at face value. You could mine almost any political speech for examples, but consid- er some of the claims from President Obama's latest State of the Union address. He brought up the wage gap between male and fe- male workers, adding that women "make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns." This implies deliberate dis- crimination. The fact is that the aver- age woman tends to make different lifestyle choices when it comes to decisions about where and how much to work, making direct com- parisons flawed, to say the least. Worse, as The Washing- ton Post's fact-checker col- umnist noted, the president is using a figure that makes the gap look the widest: an- nual wages from the Census Bureau. Because women tend to work fewer hours, weekly or hourly wages would be more accurate, and—not surpris- ingly—they show a much smaller gap. When it came to foreign policy, Mr. Obama touted the fact that U.S. troops are out of Iraq. Here, the problem is one of omission and context. Yes, he may have withdrawn U.S. troops from Iraq, but that doesn't mean (as the president hints here) that the country is safe and the mission is completed. On the contrary, violence is on the rise. Nearly 9,000 peo- ple died in 2013, a five-year high. Meanwhile, al Qaeda is re- surging in Iraq, erasing ma- ny of the gains U.S. troops had made in securing the cities of Fallujah and Rama- di. Small wonder that the Obama administration has been downplaying the "se- curity consequences of its abrupt pullout from Iraq af- ter it bungled negotiations to extend the presence of a small U.S. force to advise, train and support Iraq's fledging military," writes Heritage Foundation Middle East expert James Phillips. When it comes to fiscal responsibility, Mr. Obama simply stated, "Our def- icits—cut by more than half." Sounds impressive, but again, it's not the whole truth. He didn't mention how high the deficit was to start with: During his first term, the deficit exceeded $1 tril- lion for four years in a row and reached its highest level as a percentage of gross do- mestic product since 1946. Nor did he dwell on the fact that programs such as Obamacare are set to send future deficits soaring. As Heritage budget expert Romina Boccia noted after the speech, thanks to his Continued on page 3 Continued on page 3 Continued on page 3 Some supporters of President Obama may be worried about how he and the Democrats are going to fare politically, as the problems of ObamaCare continue to escalate, and it looks like the Republicans have a chance to win a majority in the Senate. But Democrats may not need to worry so much. Republicans may once again come to the rescue of the Democrats, by discredit- ing themselves and snatching defeat from the very jaws of victory. The latest bright idea among Republicans inside the Beltway is a new version of am- nesty that is virtually certain to lose votes among the Republican base and is unlike- ly to gain many votes among the Hispanics that the Republican leadership is courting. One of the enduring political mysteries is how the Republicans can be so successful in winning governorships and control of state leg- islatures, while failing to make much headway in Washington. Maybe there are just too many clever GOP consultants inside the Beltway. When it comes to national elections, just what principles do the Republicans stand for? It is hard to think of any, other than their hoping to win elections by converting them- selves into Democrats lite. But voters who want what the Democrats offer can vote for the real thing, rather than Johnny-come-late- ly imitations. Listening to discussions of immigration laws and proposals to reform them is like listening to something out of "Alice in Won-