P.P.S.: Kevin Drum demands that opponents of extending unionization "propose an alternative" means of boosting stagnant wages. That assumes unionization is an effective method, which I would dispute. (During the 1980s, for example, powerful unions did succeed in protecting their members. They didn't succeed in protecting the general mass of workers from the resulting stagflation and loss of competititiveness.) But since Drum asks, here's an alternative:
1) Continued economic growth: Drum claims the idea that "tight labor markets" increase median wages is "pie in the sky." Except in the late '90s, when they worked bigtime, and last year, when the post-2001 expansion had finally gone on long enough for them to start working again. I recommend David Leonhardt's January 3 NYT analysis.
2) Control immigration so unskilled immigrants don't undermine the bargaining power of workers in the tight labor market; and
3) Universal health care--which would in effect be a big wage increase, and a bigger increase in peace of mind and ability to switch jobs.
In short, Clintonism--plus 'don't forget border control'. ... 2:15 P.M. link
Do It Once, Do It Late ... : Playing its traditional role, the LAT comes in with a long thorough, diligent report on the Geffen-Clinton relationship that serves to kill off any further interest in the subject. ... What passes for a juicy bit: A Clinton aide calls Geffen a "whiner." That's it. ...[Also Geffen was "intrigued by [Clinton's] mix of Arkansas informality, wonkish fluency and political shrewdness."--ed . Well, that's that then. Nothing more to see here. ...] .. 1:34 P.M.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
[Nagourney] The three Republican presidential contenders denouncing you….Do you want to do any response?
[Coulter] C'mon it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.
Did any of these guys say anything after I made the same remark about Al Gore last summer?Why not? What were they trying to say about Al Gore with their silence?
Nagourney's blog about the controversy,--which contains a brief reference to Coulter's e-mail-- is here. ...
Update: Nagourney's print piece is up. He quotes more of Coulter's email than he does on his blog (which is odd since it's usually the other way around). He also makes it clear he solicited Coulter's response....
More: Andrew Sullivan wonders what I was "trying to say" in the above item. I thought I was letting readers know about an accurate document (an email exchange) that related to a controversy of the day. What does Sullivan do if he gets a hot doc? (A 'blog hot' doc, anyway.)... The scoop value of this particular doc, I concede, was radically diminished when Nagourney published his print account and quoted more of Coulter's defense. It will be diminished further when Coulter herself goes on TV and defends herself in a few minutes. It always ends badly when I attempt journalism. ...
I think Nagourney was fair to Coulter, more than fair, maybe, in his print piece. He could easily have slanted it more against her if he'd wanted to. More evidence for the thesis that there is actually a secret, perhaps subconscious affinity between gay reporters and Coulter. ...