I am sick of the University's stance on AFSCME workers' salary and health benefits complaints: "UPlan is better than state plan." What they're basically saying is "the substandard pay and benefits you'll receive here are better than those you'd receive elsewhere, therefore you shouldn't complain."

Here's the deal: it doesn't matter. If you can't make ends meet with the fruits of one job, you're not making enough. The above argument is the "Jimmy's mom hits harder than I do" brand of anti-union propaganda. You're not gonna be happy with your beating just because Jimmy gets it worse than you. This entire line of thought shows a supreme disregard for the real concerns that workers in this union -- many of whom are the sole breadwinner in their family -- have over putting food on the table.

You all know me, and my fanatical insistence on debating things in a way that refutes the other side directly, without creating a straw-man out of their arguments or side-stepping arguments altogether. The U's stance takes a giant step around both respectable debate strategy and taking responsibility for the probable effects of its proposed policies.

And really, how can we expect people to learn logic when public discourse shows such an outstanding lack of it?