From our economics professor friend Steven Horwitz:

Jonah,

Couple of thoughts:

Unions like minimum wage laws because they make it harder for non-union labor to underprice them and bid work away from them. Raise the minimum wage and you reduce the wage differential between union and non-union workers, making union workers relatively more attractive (or less unattractive anwyay). It's hardly altruism; it's classic special interest.

The history of minimum wage laws is fascinating as well. In the US in the 30s and 40s, they were used as a weapon of xenophobia to prevent immigrant labor from underselling white American workers. The union proponents of minimum wage laws were shockingly explicit (to our ears anyway) about their reasons for doing so during the congressional debates when the first laws were passed. Today, of course, the minimum wage does the most damage to young people of color. You can track increases in the real value of the minimum wage very closely with increases in the black-to-white unemployment ratio, especially among the young.

One thing I always like to ask my leftist minimum wage supporting friends: why was establishing a "rate-for-the-work" law (the equivalent of minimum wage laws) one of the first priorities of the white apartheid government when they rose to power in the early 20th century in South Africa? If minimum wage laws really do help the poor, who are disproportionately of color, why would racist whites move so quickly to enact them in South Africa? The answer is that the left needs to check its premises.

From a reader:

Jonah, Don't you love when wacko's jump on Kerry's bandwagon? You think Doug really cares about the lessons Kerry learned from Vietnam, or does he just want to wave Kerry's non-thrown away medals in your face? Where was Doug in 1996 or 1992...not voting for war heroes, I guarantee that. I mean, does this guy really even like Kerry? Does anyone? I think "electable" is short-hand for "no one likes him, knows what he stands for, agrees with him or cares about him, but he has 'gotcha' points on Bush". Looks like Kerry will get the Dean-wacko vote after all. Edwards for Idaho and Utah! John B Columbus OH

From a reader, in response to my column:

Jonah, Like most right-wing wackos, you're skilled in lies of omission. The false conflation of bin Laden and Huessin, and Bush's pseudo "evidence" concerning WMD's were the foundation for Bush's war with Iraq that you find so laudable. It's clear from his record of personal integrity and intelligence, that Kerry would have only fought the appropriate war against terror( bin Laden) and not an additional one for the most callous and despicable of political reasons(Iraq). Let's see, what was Bush commenting on in 1970--"How many bottles of Lone Star are there in a case" and from that we can, of course, conclude that our current President is nothing but a dry drunk? There's nothing quite as amusing as when you and Will--the warrior wimp brothers--expound so cleverly about U.S. defense policies, analogous to Limbaugh's sage comments about NFL quarterbacks. Since you and Bush never served your country in combat I can understand that you can't begin to appreciate the lessons Kerry learned from VietNam. Your characterization of them is, to put it more politely than you deserve, assine. Speaking of excreable; you and Frum owe Senator Kerry an apology for attempling to "give legs" to a false bimbo story. Of course you've always been immune to even an approximation of truth when it got in the way of your ideology--as truth has a nasty habit of doing. Well, happy sliming. Doug

Nick Confessore over at Tapped takes exception to our recent discussion of unions and interest groups around here. He summarizes the conversation so far thus:

The folks over at The Corner, chiefly Jonah Goldberg and one of his correspondents, are arguing -- in response to an offhand comment in Peter Beinart's latest column -- that liberal interest groups, and particularly the labor movement, don't do much good for anyone except their own constituents, and thus are no more selfish than corporate special interests. I'm not going to engage the whole thing, but I think Goldberg and his correspondent go quite awry when discussing labor

He then goes on to detail all of the wonderful things labor does and has done for the non-union world. Now, before I get into all that, let me say I don't think all leftwing or liberal interest groups are selfish or don't do much good for others. Or at least I don't believe that, as an article of faith, that this is necessarily the case. Some unions were even very good in the Cold War (one of the accomplishments Nick oddly leaves out).

But, as for Confessore's direct point on how much good the labor movement has done -- fighting for health care, the minimum wage, even civil rights (a very mixed record if you ask me) -- I say: point taken. I tend not to assume bad motives in everyone I disagree with, so I'm sure many folks in the labor movement want to do good for everyone, not just their members.

However, the notion that the labor movement favors hikes in the minimum wage solely or even largely out of altruism -- which seems to be Confessore's point -- strikes me as pretty tendentious. I've always worked on the assumption that one of the main reasons that the labor movement favors such things is that, to quote JFK and Ronald Reagan, a rising tide lifts all boats. If the lowest paid people become better paid, this puts inflationary pressure -- political and/or economic -- on all wages. I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if many labor contracts actually included formulas which peg union jobs at certain multiples of the minimum wage.

And lastly, as Nick concedes, some of this argument is difficult because while labor may or may not have had the good of others when it pushed certain policies, most conservatives would argue that the policies themselves weren't good for people. But, as he says, that's a whole different argument.

An email from a cloning opponent:

Just saw your Corner post about the survey of genetics researchers on stem
cells and cloning. The numbers, as Wesley Smith says in that article, are
based on a survey published by a journal called Genetic Engineering News.
The survey itself is a classic example of the confusion mixed with
intentional distortion that we deal with on this subject. The survey asked
about "cell cloning" when it meant creating embryos through cloning, and it
said "cells" in the early stages from which stem cells are derived "are not
embryos." A totally inaccurate and incoherent description of what's
involved. It even created an artificial category "between the extremes of
support for therapy and opposition to whole human cloning" which it called
"human cloning research without implantation of the cloned embryo in a human
uterus" (which of course IS what they're calling "therapy") and said only
34% of the scientists supported this, though 92% supported "therapeutic
cloning of human stem cells." Just a mess.

Presumably, descriptions like these were in the actual questionnaire given
to these scientists, and they answered based on these definitions. That
doesn't help us see what they actually think, and whether they actually do
know that cloning creates embryos for research, and that all embryonic stem
cell research involves destroying embryos. So it's very hard to make heads
or tails of these numbers, and they basically don't mean anything.

WOODRUFF: Two other very quick things, Senator. One is, it's been reported that, well you're aware of this, Vietnam veterans upset with the fact that when you came back from the war, you went to Capitol Hill, and you testified in so many words against the kinds of things that U.S. soldiers were doing over there...

KERRY: Yes, I did.

WOODRUFF: To the Vietnamese.

KERRY: Yes, I did.

WOODRUFF: They are saying, in effect, you were accusing American troops of war crimes.

KERRY: No, I was accusing American leaders of abandoning the troops. And if you read what I said, it is very clearly an indictment of leadership. I said to the Senate, where is the leadership of our country? And it's the leaders who are responsible, not the soldiers. I never said that. I've always fought for the soldiers. In fact, not only did we oppose the war, but we proudly stood up and fought for the additions to the GI Bill so that vets would be able to use it. We fought for the V.A. Hospitals. I wrote the Agent Orange legislation with Tom Daschle. I helped with the post-Vietnam stress syndrome outreach centers.

I'm proud of the record of fighting for soldiers and for veterans. And the fact is if we want to redebate the war on Vietnam in 2004, I'm ready for that. It was a mistake, and I'm proud of having stood up and shared with America my perceptions of what was happening.

The groups insist that New York City is failing to obey Clinton Executive Order 13166, which requires translations in any language anyone speaks. Quoting from their report, "Denied at the Door:

All notices and materials going to parents must be provided in the native language of parents with limited English proficiency. The Department of Education should create a centralized translation unit providing translations in the major languages, with referrals for outside translation for those languages spoken by smaller segments of limited English proficient families. Each school must post signs informing parents of their rights to language assistance.

New York City taxpayers would not only get stuck with this whopping translation bill. They also paid to enable these leftist outfits to exist long enough to complain in the first place.

[Heading] The Big 'Keep Out' Sign

[First paragraph] In response to the Feb. 17 Letter to the Editor "Why Our Immigration Laws Must Be Enforced," signed by Rep. Tom Tancredo, Michael Reagan and seven other conservatives:

[Second paragraph] The authors strenuously complain about the lack of enforcement of our immigration laws. They accept "legal" immigrants and condemn "illegal" immigrants. But they don't say that the real reason for so many illegal immigrants today is that since the 1920s there has not been a legal way for most low-skilled immigrants to come here. Rep. Tancredo and his colleagues are fortunate that people like themselves weren't in power in the 19th century, otherwise their ancestors would have never been allowed to pass through Ellis Island.

[Signature] Susie L. Hoeller

Director, American Center for International Policy Studies

Van Alstyne, Texas

"This campaign, because of 9-11, is going to be about which guy is the more manly, which is the more macho guy. And the idea that John Kerry went and fought in the war and was shot at and saved someone's life gives him that. He's Mister Macho. He's the guy. And the President is going to have to be dealing with this problem. I keep thinking this is going to be a real bellwether. You're gonna be able to tell whether Bush is gonna win or lose by whether that picture of him on the aircraft carrier and the jumpsuit turns into an object of ridicule for him, or if we still continue to think it's attractive. If it becomes ridicule, he's finished, you know?"

BC-APNewsAlert WASHINGTON - President Bush will use a recess appointment to put Alabama Attorney General William Pryor on federal appeals court, sources say.

As some of you have suspected from Wednesday's syndicated column, the reaction to the San Francisco fiasco by the gay rights left has made me more sympathetic to a constitutional amendment, though not necessarily to the one(s) kicking around right now. Jonathan Rauch proposes one I could certainly live with in Nick Schulz's piece. Blogger Justin Katz makes the case a great many readers have made to me, which is that given current trends the case for federalism is in fact the case for a constitutional amendment. As I said, I'm becoming increasingly sympathetic to that idea. But I point out Katz's comments for another reason. He glibly asserts that my motives on this and, presumably, other issues is to appear "cool" in the eyes of others, particularly Andrew Sullivan.

I hear this every now and then, particularly from self-proclaimed conservative purists and I think this is nonsense and I generally take offense to it. (It is also flatly not true about Nick Schulz who I've known for years and is one of my closest friends). I'm not above attacking peoples' motives -- if there is evidence about what their motives are, otherwise, it smacks of Stalinist politics. But this criticism of me is generally asserted without fact or foundation. It assumes I argue in bad faith and with a really silly motive to boot. I mean if I were trying to seem "cool" by altering my views I'd certainly come out against the drug war, which is certainly the "cool" position on campuses and elsewhere. And if I really wanted to ingratiate myself with Andrew I would not only be in favor of gay marriage but -- even better -- I'd stop being chatty with the Derb and start denouncing him as a walking, talking crime against humanity.

Anyway, I told Katz this and he's responded with a gracious note so I've got no more grievance with him. But I have no doubt that this idea will stay around for a long time.

Jonah, *visiting* France / French Canada is wildly different from *working* with them. Spent some vacation time in Paris back in '02, and the food & service we had was excellent - they were dying for American tourist dollars (and I'm not one to "hide" my American-ness. At 6'7", how am I gonna hide *anything*?). On the other had, my company has an office in Montreal, and those b*stards make our lives difficult on a daily basis. It'd be nice if they'd just be *uncooperative*, but instead they are actively seeking our destruction. With co-workers like these, who needs enemies? It's like they're our own little UN security council veto, trying to block us from making a living (or defeating our corporate enemies) every day. Bah! Wimps? Traitorous feckless crapweasels is more like it. Regards, Big John San Diego, CA [feel free to use my name - a hug to Jess & a pet to Cosmo for me!]

I'm trying very hard not to share every interesting tidbit from my book in the Corner. But I agree entirely that Corporations are entirely selfish and non-ideological (anideological is too hard to say). One anecdote from my book (actually William Manchester's book) on this point.

When it was still unclear whether or not the Nazis would attain power in Germany, Gustav Krupp issued orders to his Berlin chauffeur: if Krupp left a building with his gloves in his right hand, the driver was to give him the traditional Prussian greeting (clicked heels and a tap of the bill of your hat). If Krupp had his gloves in his left hand, the chauffeur was expected to give him the full "Heil Hitler" salute, which Gustav would return with equal gusto. Such was the level of non-ideological opportunism of the most famously Nazi corporation.

(Special bonus if you noted that the left hand was reserved for the Nazis).

I think Steyn's piece is great. But, personally, I always kind of liked the French Canucks. Like many immigrant groups they got out of their home countries at the right time and therefore weren't affected when their native cultures went off a cliff. I love Quebec City where the French food I had was hardly nouvelle (French for "clever is more important than tasty"). Mark Steyn obviously knows a lot more about Canada than I do, but I'm not entirely ignorant on the subject. Isn't it possible that while Steyn is right about the "Francization" of the political culture of Canada, isn't it also possible that some of Quebec's French culture has been "Canadified"? -- i.e. the French Canadians have adopted the humorless, thin-skinned, bitter and defensive UN-o-phillic schtick of their Anglo bretheren? In my Canada cover story I noted that I found the country to be turning into a giant college campus where political correctness reigned supreme and the only "intelligent" position was stupid anti-Americanism. Well, maybe that attitude has infected Canada's French speaking dorm?

Regardless, as for as Triumph the Comic Dog goes, I'm on his side. Canada is up there for him to poop on.

SOOOOOOOOO different than a National Review cruise.

Here's an email sent out from Salon:

"ear Salon Premium Member:

If you're like me, you already feel that this year's U.S. presidential race isn't a routine election but a watershed event, one that will make a critical difference for the nation and the world.

If you feel that way now, think how you're likely to feel just two months before the polls! That's when Salon will set sail with our inaugural cruise to the Caribbean -- gathering Salon editors, readers and special guest speakers for a thoughtful, independent-minded, Salon-style political forum. As Salon Premium members, you get first dibs in reserving the best cabins for the cruise.

You'll want to join us September 4th through the 10th for a good old fashioned salon with some of the strongest voices in progressive politics:

* Ann Richards, the former Texas governor and veteran Bush-watcher, whose unforgettable description of the first President Bush -- "born with a silver foot in his mouth" -- still rings true in describing his son

* Joe Conason, the Salon columnist and author, hot on the heels of his best-seller, "Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth"

* Joe Wilson, the former U.S. ambassador who blew the whistle on President Bush's claims of an Iraq-Niger uranium connection -- and was rewarded for his honesty by having his wife's CIA cover illegally blown, in a controversy that is still dogging the Bush Administration

* Sidney Blumenthal, the Salon columnist and former White House official, whose recent book, "The Clinton Wars," took a bold stand against the conservative smear machine

* Joan Walsh, Salon's vice president for news, who has led our award-winning political coverage since the dark days of the campaign to depose Bill Clinton

I'll be there as well to add my take and keep the discussions lively. I hope you'll join us.

Click on the following link
http://www.saloncruise.com/ to find out more about
the cruise and book your trip. But hurry -- we can
only hold these cabins for one week for Salon Premium
members, before making them available to all our
readers.

See you on board,
David Talbot
Editor, Salon

From a reader:

Jonah,

I would take it even a step farther. The argument that unions serve a broader interest than companies is absurd. Look at the NEA - they serve the interests of teachers, very often at the expense of students. Or union attempts to raise minimum wage - they are going to put some companies out of business - all to protect their members from competition - but this does not help a broad range of people, only union members. I never understand how people can believe companies are evil because they pursue their own self-interest can believe than unions are wholly benevolent and altruistic. Why is it so difficult to understand and accept that unions are out for themselves as much as any company is?

End of Rant. Release the hounds.

John: I completely agree. In fact I've had a similar argument with Beinart more than once. He seems thoroughly convinced that corporations are "right-wing" and I'm thoroughly convinced that's poppycock.

But on your specific point, I'd go even further. Not only do Big Businesses create wealth -- something I doubt Beinart would dispute -- but, thanks largely to the policies of lots of Democrats Beinart supports, corporations provide health care for millions and millions of Americans. And many consumer groups, I've always thought, are little more than propaganda arms of trial lawyers and the like. Without a doubt, a president that pleases, say, GM is doing far more to help average Americans than a president who pleases, say, the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

And when you think about it, except in the area of fighting pollution (an increasingly minor problem) conservation groups don't really try to help average Americans except in indirect or vaguely transcendental ways (saving green spaces for future generations and the like). The Teamsters, after all, support drilling in ANWR.

Not too exciting though.

Rick Kaplan is the perfect choice to take it over and turn MSNBC into something in which everyone associated with the network can (finally) take pride. He helped build Nightline into the best news show on network television--(and the second best, and the third best) by hiring a crack staff and letting them do their jobs. [Like putting the phony "October Surprise" slur on Reagan....] He paid attention both to news values and to production values. And CNN made a great deal more sense under his watch than it has in the recent past, though it's fair to say, not as much as it might have. At Harvard and at ABC during the war, Kaplan has had time to rethink what works and what doesn't and apply it to a place that has too much of the latter and precious little of the former. With MSNBC he's got a near clean slate and plenty of resources to work with. Not everything he tries will work, but I'm guessing the days of Faux-Fox are over.