Slipping Standards

Judging by the way in which columnists in the Philadelphia Inquirer responded to the recent transit strike here, there has been very little effort made to teach these white-collar and "educated" workers anything in the way of American labor history. At least one of them compared striking transit workers to "trust-fund brats," which can only be described as a perplexing way to talk about underpaid wage-workers who are of course as far from spoiled and privileged as is possible.
The sticking point in the contract dispute was health benefits, which had been paid by the state for as long as the Transit Authority had existed. Some workers in the private sector expressed incredulity at the idea that an employer would pay for their employees' health insurance. The reality is not, however, that transit workers are somehow spoiled because they expect benefits from their employers, but that, along with a decline in real wages in recent years, there has been a major decline in the level of benefits given to employees. Somehow in a period of constant economic expansion there has been little return for the working class. So little, in fact, that what was once expected is now seen as some sort of absurd luxury. And how else can wage earners get and keep reasonable pay and benefits but by organizing and striking?

What?!

A friend of mine recently got a cultural-sensitivity training packet from work. The part that stuck out was a list of stereotypes: "African-Americans tend to see the whole picture instead of the parts... African-Americans tend to sympathize with others' problems... African-Americans tend to focus on meaning rather than precision of speech."
Has anyone else encountered this sort of "sensitivity training," or was my friend the victim of a spot-the-mistake prank? Cultural sensitivity is one thing, and suggesting that people of a certain race all have the same brain, which is what these stereotypes suggest, is a whole other creature. Black people don't all think in the same way any more than white people all think in the same way, and it is ridiculous to decide "I had better give the whole picture when I explain this" based on the race of the person to whom one is talking.

Amateur Politicians, Please

The annual report on spending by the British royal family came out today (http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,1512088,00.html), and the total is £36.7 million, or about $67 million in the last year. The money was spent on staff, maintenance of palaces, travel, insurance, and parties. Leaving aside my un-American hatred of monarchies, the question still must be asked: why do taxpayers need to pay so much money to keep them up? Couldn't the royals be held to a more modest salary, say, the profits from their enormous farms, if not completely eliminated? My own side of the Atlantic isn't blameless in this respect either. The Congress, a rich man's club because of the need to finance campaigns, is nevertheless paid tens of millions annually, and the Executive Mansion and other presidential perks are very, very expensive. Also, after they leave office, American politicians simply roll in it, with book deals, speaking engagements, and cushy advisory jobs.
Do we need our leaders to be richer than us, to live in extravagant luxury actually, for them to seem legitimate? If so, that is a very frightening thought. And if not, I propose cutting their pay. Let's say the average salary in your constituency, and nothing if you're already rich.

From The Mouths of Babes

The local broadsheet, the Baltimore Sun, has taken to printing columns written by high school and college students in the editorial section. I would have no problem with this if only they could write! There are three problems with these larval columnists. First, they simply haven't been writing long enough to get good at it. Then they replace this lack of experience with their school lessons, so that every column looks the same: five paragraphs with a carbon-copy introduction, body, and conclusion. Finally, and this is probably more the fault of the newspaper editors, they address topics so meaningless and juvenile that they belong on the back of a cereal box. One of the columns was on why high school seniors don't work as hard as they ought to. Honestly.
Newspapers shouldn't discriminate against young writers, as that would hurt my sapling self. But there's no need to pump in Gen-Y fluff without a brain behind it. Doing so probably even works against young writers who want to be taken seriously.

Sorry

I heard about the Downing Street Memo shortly after it became public, but my thought was, "that's for ignorant hyper-skeptics; everyone already knows that the US and UK invented the excuse for the war in Iraq." It recently occured to me, however, that there probably are people who don't know that. To those people I say that I'm sorry. Read the Memo if you haven't done (it's quite short). Or, if you must, take my word that it shows that the Prime Minister specifically, and the British and American governments in general, were planning the war far in advance and that they manufactured the WMD/ejection of weapons inspectors excuse.
We went to war not for weapons or democracy or freedom, but because a nice vigorous war would help during elections, give a hand to the arms industry, and bring in some cheap oil. That's not politics; it's crime. Impeach and remove.

Five of Many

John Brown, the American abolitionist who tried to lead a slave rebellion and was gruesomely executed in the attempt, came up in conversation today. I said at the time that he is one of my five greatest heroes, which caused me to think about who the other four would be. Here is the complete list, in no real order:

John Brown
Nat Turner
Lucas Radebe
Oliver Cromwell
Fidel Castro

Questions and comments would be appreciated, but concerns I can do without. I'm not really sure why "concerns" is part of that cliché at all. So just questions and comments, please.

United States of Europe?

It seems like a very significant world event is being widely ignored in the US, and that event is the creation (and rejection) of the new European constitution. Except for a light reading of The Guardian, I haven't found much information on this constitution or its ratification, so I'm turning to my European readers (yes, both of you) for clarification. Who supports the constitution, and who is against it? Do you think this is the first step in making Europe into one nation? And why did French and Dutch voters reject it?