I commented on some silly things Margaret Wente said one time before. This column is equally silly and makes me wonder about the quality of Globe editors:
The argument is this: unions are bad because they want to protect people's pensions. Yep, you read that right. They are reactionaries, in fact. Imagine that, you work your whole life, pay into a pension plan, reach the time to retire and the government, in this case, says "nope, sorry, we know we made a promise and you kept your end of the deal but we've decided not to pay you your pension."
How would you react? Would you say, as Wente believes you should say "gee, that's too bad but I guess I'll live in poverty for the public good after working my whole life to avoid it." I guarantee you that if the shoe were on Wente's foot, she'd want her pension. Indeed, here is a test of how serious she is about this issue. She should put up or shut up. If she is not willing to give up the money she worked for, she should not declare that someone else should.
Oh, and in terms of the editors of the Globe, c'mon guys, at least insist that your writers do some research before spouting off. Since no research seems to be required to write an editorial for the Globe, I'll do it. I will. In fact, I'll write Wente's columns for half of what you pay her.
1 comment:
Reading Wente is generally bad for one's blood pressure. I think she just deliberately tries to take provocative positions, regardless of the evidence. Alas, she's got a sinecure at the Globe. And compared to Margaret Somerville, she almost seems sane.
Post a Comment