Posted on 08/29/2006 5:13:04 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
August 29, 2006 - 07:23
A New York Times editorial and an op-ed piece by one of its house columnists have something interesting in common this morning: stamp-your-feet frustration with the way the world is and an inability to suggest what should be done about it.
In The Falling Paycheck, the Times editorial board complains that real wages aren't keeping up with the economy's continued expansion. "American employees have not shared in the wealth they’ve helped to create," laments the Old Gray Lady. Sure sounds as if the Times subscribes to the 'surplus value' theory of labor. And we all know who came up with that.
The Times then tells us what it considers not to be a solution: "high-end tax cuts." And it condemns the Bush administration for claiming that the problem is "as one of impersonal market forces for which there are no government solutions."
"Those are not the paths out of the predicament," the Times insisted. This put us on tenterhooks, awaiting the shining path out of the problem that the Times was sure to describe. Except that . . . the editorial ends right there.
To be sure, we can imagine what the Times, if prodded, might suggest: raise minimum wages! But how does that help American workers if as a result jobs are driven overseas? Why then - impose tariffs on foreign goods! But can you really impose a tariff on the labor of the man sitting in El Salvador who answered the phone when I called the US Airwasy reservation line yesterday? And even if you could impose tariffs on goods if not services, how much would it help lower-income people to raise prices on many of the products they buy?
All of which left the Times spinning in impotent fury.
Over at his corner of the opinion page, the object of columnist Thomas Frank's ire is the way Republicans and the right have sought to decrease the flow of funding to the Democrats. In the subscription-required 'Defunders of Liberty,' [haha, we get it - defunders not defenders], Frank begins by condemning how 20+ years ago, Jack Abramoff, then a college Republican leader, declared that he wanted to remove Dems permanently from power. Youthful enthusiams aside, isn't that the goal of any political party - to win every election? When the Dems ruled the Congressional roost for 40 years, did any of their leaders ever say "I think we'll just lay down in November. It's really the GOP's turn"?
According to Frank "Abramoff and his clean-cut campus radicals pushed their own defund the left' campaign with characteristic élan, declaring war on Ralph Nader’s Public Interest Research Groups, or PIRG, environmental and consumer activist outfits that were funded by student activity fees on some campuses."
Maybe so. Was that wrong? Did conservatives not have the right to complain at the way a disproportionate share of student activity fees went to fund leftist politics? Even Frank doesn't claim otherwise. So what's his point?
Frank similarly decries current paycheck protection and school voucher campaigns, which which he describes as "megaton devices to vaporize the flow of funds from labor unions to Democratic candidates." What he surely intended as criticism actually comes across as unintentional candor as to the way the Dems divert union dues and public school funding to their political purposes.
But once again, Frank is unable to say what is wrong, much less illegal, with the right's efforts in this regard. Is this not the simply the exercise of their constitutional right to petition for redress of grievances? Finally, Frank is upset about the 'K Street Project,' the way in which Republican congressional leaders encouraged lobbying firms to hire . . . Republicans. When Dems were in charge, does anyone doubt things worked the same way?
Frank reached an unintentionally comic climax with this paragraph:
"What is most ingenious about all this is not so much its destructiveness but the way it appeals to mainstream notions of fairness."
Darn those ingenious Republicans, appealing to "mainstream notions of fairness"! How unfair! Note also the elitism inherent in Frank's use of 'mainstream.' Those vulgar plebes [which the patrician Dems are trying to help despite themselves] - so dumb they believe in fairness!
On both sides of the opinion page, liberals twist in impotent rage at the way things are. Stop the world - the Times wants to get off.
Impossible to miss them since they spam here almost every day.
"Love Birds do better in pairs. Get your friend a friend."
With great respect, that is a common myth. It's true that lovebirds need companionship. But so long as their human owner pays them a lot of attention, the lovebird bonds with him and considers him his/her mate. If you get two lovebirds, they bond with each other and tend to ignore their human owners.
I give Tukki tons of love and affection. He is most definitely bonded with me, as I am with him. One sure sign of his bonding - he even tries to feed me! He does his little regurgitation routine - normal for parrots - and tries to put it in his mouth. Sounds gross but is actually very touching. That is the classic behavior of a lovebird toward its mate.
Here's a link about to an authoritative book on lovebirds:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0764118277/002-3880507-7129634?v=glance&n=283155
You'll note that the very first item in the 'description' section is: "Lovebirds are social birds, but it is a myth that they must always be kept in pairs as a tame single bird can make a wonderul companion."
Glad to hear that, glgb! And OldFriend says Rush discussed it yesterday. I regret not getting to listen to Rush very often because of work. Another reason FR is so valuable!
I know Rush is "on the cutting edge of societal evolution" but don't know how Rush could have discussed these two items yesterday, since they appeared for the first time on today's op-ed page!
The story about the wages not being real was reported on CNN the other day.
exactly, maybe the times should raise wages for all its lower level employees by imposing a tax on the pay of the executives and lead by example.
LOL! Just repeating what OF claimed in post #15. Maybe Rush was just giving the NY Times another well deserved bashing yesterday.
Spin the world faster, the sane segment of our sociaty wants the Times to fly off into space!
As the economy headed toward full employment, entry-level jobs are pulled in, and the wage mean goes down. If recession were to ensue, then these lower-rung jobs would be the first to go, and the wage mean would rise.
Would the NYT then see the plight of the poor on the rise?
Ah, I see. Come to think of it, I recall Rush mentioning something about that too yesterday. I thought you were suggesting Rush specifically mentioned the Times editorial. Sorry for the confusion.
Got a raise, but not really. Good job, not really!!
The DNC talking points make their rounds and everyone marches in lockstep.
Darn those ingenious Republicans, appealing to "mainstream notions of fairness"! How unfair!
What's unfair is that the Republicans have stolen that tactic from the Democrat playbook, and the Times editorialist is thus highly offended. ;)
Of course that's it and you're right. Those pesky talking points have a way of being regurgitated for days on end! ;-)
Perhaps if "Putz" Sulzberger spent on his employees some of the $850,000,000 he's spending on his new office things would look brighter.
The skunks at the slimes are contributing to the WORST ECOMONY IN ( you fill in the number of years here, you choices are A) 75 years B) 100 years or C) 235 years)They are doing so by laying off people. Why don't they cut CEO salaries and save the "average worker's )job! :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.