It appears that Bridget Newman has replaced Emily LaDue as the Chronicle columnist with the biggest toilet (ratio) of a column. Both of these writers consistently appeal to emotions and use arguments without a hint of rationality, and Miss Newman went too far yesterday, criticizing productive and capable people for not spending enough time in the bathroom.
That's probably because they spent so much time in the classroom or workplace, diligently working so that you and I could benefit. Businessmen, doctors, lawyers, professors and other professions at the top of the "class ladder" are a few examples of the people who devote their lives to making yours easier, healthier, more fair and more educated, yet you imply they should feel guilty for that, and sacrifice themselves to those that are more needy. And were they born doctors, lawyers, etc.? No, but they did work their butts off to succeed.
It's interesting that Newman chose 1968 as her reference point of inflation outpacing minimum wage, shortly before the highly inflationary 70s. Using a more stable and realistic reference year of 1985, minimum wage has averaged growth of 2.4 percent relatively on par with inflation. How about that?
Newman and LaDue think it's our economic system that is flawed? How about the code of morality that penalizes the productive and rewards the inept? Yeah, that's fair. How about respecting the labor that makes our country run, period?
Please stop using your ignorance and unfortunate personal experiences, 'folks,' as an excuse to evade a rational argument. I am sorry for what's happened in your family, but trying to make me feel guilty for it in no way justifies imposing "a moral duty to provide for everyone's basic needs," especially when you represent an example of overcoming adversity yourself.
Andrew Ludwig
Trinity '04
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.