That's what it is for me to read the news on any given day, for just about every story great and small confirms the depths we are plumbing.
As anticipated, Obama has unilaterally decided to use military force against Syria, violating in one fell swoop the U.S. Constitution and the U.N. Charter. The dickering over whether there is sufficient evidence that Syria used chemical weapons against its own people is a typical sleight of hand to shift inquiry away from where it belongs, since Obama's action remains unlawful aggression one way or the other. On the plus side, this renegade behavior isn't quite so easy as it used to be -- the U.K. parliament has rejected any participation, and both China and Russia are threatening to come to the collective defense of Syria as authorized by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.
Bradley Manning announced that he is truly a woman and wishes to undergo sexual re-assignment to become Chelsea Manning. While I respect his whistleblowing (no pun intended), it's unfortunate that he has chosen the easy path for this part of his life. Maybe the inhuman treatment he experienced at the hands of the federal government caused him to snap, or maybe he would have done this regardless, but strength requires making your insides match your outsides. To do the opposite represents succumbing to consumerism and materialism, i.e., having things your way rather than meeting the demands of reality.
The second annual March On Washington featured a large gathering of people who self-identify as idealists yet demand that government grow even more powerful so as to create more jobs, make everyone "equal," and generally force society into a pre-conceived mold. This is the exact opposite of idealism and a betrayal of the very notion of a free society, which we clearly no longer are.
People around the country are rallying in support of fast-food workers who demand to be paid more than the federal minimum wage of $7.25, and most of the protesters claim that $15 is "fair." First, the federal minimum wage is unconstitutional in that Congress has no enumerated power to mandate what an employer pays an employee; a state government could set a minimum wage within its borders, and per the Tenth Amendment that is precisely why the federal government may not. Second, the minimum wage even if constitutional is an immoral and dictatorial attack on the ability of people to set their own terms of association. Third, the minimum wage sets an artificial price floor for labor and, as any Econ 101 student can tell you, interferes with the marketplace and causes a shortage of jobs. Fourth, there is no discernible reason to conclude that $15 is a fair wage for this labor. A fair wage is whatever one party is willing to accept AND the other party is willing to pay; any other conclusion represents thuggery and is unfair in the extreme.
Outrage continues to swell over a schoolteacher in Billings, Montana, who received only a 30-day prison sentence for having a sexual relationship with a girl who was under the age of legal consent, such girl committing suicide a few years later. I'm not so contrarian as to argue that outrage is unwarranted here. However, the outrage needs to be directed everywhere it belongs and not solely at the judge in this case. First, everyone overlooks that the prosecutor dismissed all the charges against the offender, on the condition that the offender follow a course of rehabilitation. It was only because the offender did not follow that course -- specifically, by having a relationship with an adult woman and visiting children relatives -- that the charges were back on the table. So the issue is not whether the judge should have imposed a harsher sentence for the offense, but whether the judge should have imposed a harsher sentence for violating the terms of the deal. That was the prosecutor's deal, and the anger should be directed at the prosecutor for making it; the judge's decision was not irrational or unjust under the circumstances. Yet the judge has already genuflected for his insensitive language about the victim, which really appears to be driving the outrage here: a light sentence is one thing, but implying that a fourteen-year-old girl knew what she was doing is verboten. Which raises yet another question of why so many people on the one hand criticize statutory-rape laws as interfering in consensual sex, yet on the other hand explode with fire and brimstone when such laws are not strictly enforced. Finally, may I ask where is the outrage for the tens, dozens, scores, even hundreds of cases where female teachers take advantage of underage males yet receive only a slap on the wrist? We are all "equal" here, aren't we?
Yes, reading the news is invigorating indeed. There's never a dull moment as I flip the pages and my wheels start turning.
