Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Day Seven

Since we last left him, Mickey's Holiday blogging has consisted of:

1) A drive-by cheap shot at Washington Post television critic Tom Shales, in the course of slagging Jon Klein (naturally), for reasons unknown.

Two year-end TV roundups--by Tom Shales and by Inside Cable News. One of these guys is paid an incredible amount of money. And one of them phones in a list of usual suspects.

Does Tom Shales really make an "incredible amount of money"? Does anyone, anywhere, know or care what Tom Shales' salary is? Did Tom side with Andrew Sullivan during the great New Republic Douchebag War of 1996 or something?

2) The umpteenth quote from a frankly pedestrian anti-union article by Robert M. Kaus.

Now, I don't want to start any irresponsible speculation here, but this is the fourth citation of the same Harper's article, and Mickey has never, ever cited anything as much as this (other than the End of Equality, available in many fine bookstores this holiday season!). Is Robert some distant relation? Or an illicit lover? Perhaps a fellow goat enthusiast?

Mickey's non-denial denial (silence counts!) is frankly inadequate. A discerning readership demands answers!

3) The observation that workers in some industries benefit from unions more than workers in other industries. Therefore, Mickey reasons, the solution is ... fewer unions.

Richard Posner makes an essential point usually overlooked by those on the left who instinctively support unionism in the hope that it will achieve some sort of just redistribution of income.

Note that Mickey is now attacking unions for being insufficiently devoted to ... what, exactly? Leninism?

I've never understood why leftish idealists ever bought into the idea that this is distributive justice.

Stupid leftish idealists! Just as only Nixon can go to China, only Mickey can attack unions for being insufficiently leftist. Any weapon to hand, no?

It's true that unions are poor vehicles for equitable distribution of wealth. They have also failed to cure cancer, and they haven't done anything to stop Russian aggression in post-communist Europe.

Additionally, they make terrible pets.

Of course, none of these criticisms has a single thing to do with the primary purpose of labor unions, which -- as everyone knows -- is to annoy the hell out of Mickey Kaus.

4) Finally, Alert Reader T. sends the following links, pointing out that:

- Workers want unions.

- Many workers would join a union if they could.

- Unions are broadly supported by the middle class.

- Unions are broadly supported by Americans.

One of the most interesting facets of Mickey's blogging on card check is that he automatically assumes that support for the measure is electoral poison, and especially so if the American public were fully aware of the evils of the EFCA.

It's almost as though he's "engaging it the easy assumption that one's righteous views are shared by the great and good American people." If only there was a name for this kind of fallacy! (search for "Howell Raines", and thank me later).

Thank goodness he's not relying on the American people as a cavalry that never comes!

p.s. Thanks for the link, Mickey!