For example, in her January 23, 2003 column, Stewart called the CCPOA “the most bizarre prison guards’ union in the nation.” Its members, Stewart added, were “freaks of history and circumstance, lightly trained men and women” who, “though their positions require only a GED,” wield enormous power.

Questioning the intelligence of CCPOA members seems to be one of Stewart’s favorite tactics. In a more recent column (4-21-2004), Stewart notes again that guards, who “require no more than a G.E.D. and simple training, fail to control gangs or raging drug use in certain prisons and practice a code of silence.”

Certainly Stewart is justified in questioning whether a labor union should wield so much power in Sacramento and in speculating about the guards’ ability to do their jobs, but she weakens her argument by resorting to name calling and insinuating that an entire class of people are stupid. Even if we assume her generalizations to be correct, do the “highly educated” have more of a right to wield their political power and influence than do “regular folks”?

For example, in her January 23, 2003 column, Stewart called the CCPOA “the most bizarre prison guards’ union in the nation.” Its members, Stewart added, were “freaks of history and circumstance, lightly trained men and women” who, “though their positions require only a GED,” wield enormous power.

Questioning the intelligence of CCPOA members seems to be one of Stewart’s favorite tactics. In a more recent column (4-21-2004), Stewart notes again that guards, who “require no more than a G.E.D. and simple training, fail to control gangs or raging drug use in certain prisons and practice a code of silence.”

Certainly Stewart is justified in questioning whether a labor union should wield so much power in Sacramento and in speculating about the guards’ ability to do their jobs, but she weakens her argument by resorting to name calling and insinuating that an entire class of people are stupid. Even if we assume her generalizations to be correct, do the “highly educated” have more of a right to wield their political power and influence than do “regular folks”?

For example, in her January 23, 2003 column, Stewart called the CCPOA “the most bizarre prison guards’ union in the nation.” Its members, Stewart added, were “freaks of history and circumstance, lightly trained men and women” who, “though their positions require only a GED,” wield enormous power.

Questioning the intelligence of CCPOA members seems to be one of Stewart’s favorite tactics. In a more recent column (4-21-2004), Stewart notes again that guards, who “require no more than a G.E.D. and simple training, fail to control gangs or raging drug use in certain prisons and practice a code of silence.”

Certainly Stewart is justified in questioning whether a labor union should wield so much power in Sacramento and in speculating about the guards’ ability to do their jobs, but she weakens her argument by resorting to name calling and insinuating that an entire class of people are stupid. Even if we assume her generalizations to be correct, do the “highly educated” have more of a right to wield their political power and influence than do “regular folks”?

For example, in her January 23, 2003 column, Stewart called the CCPOA “the most bizarre prison guards’ union in the nation.” Its members, Stewart added, were “freaks of history and circumstance, lightly trained men and women” who, “though their positions require only a GED,” wield enormous power.

Questioning the intelligence of CCPOA members seems to be one of Stewart’s favorite tactics. In a more recent column (4-21-2004), Stewart notes again that guards, who “require no more than a G.E.D. and simple training, fail to control gangs or raging drug use in certain prisons and practice a code of silence.”

Certainly Stewart is justified in questioning whether a labor union should wield so much power in Sacramento and in speculating about the guards’ ability to do their jobs, but she weakens her argument by resorting to name calling and insinuating that an entire class of people are stupid. Even if we assume her generalizations to be correct, do the “highly educated” have more of a right to wield their political power and influence than do “regular folks”?