I love the way Drudge and Company try to make it appear as this is some unscripted youtube.

Youcan look at the boom mike in front and see this was recorded for mass consumption.

The Edwards campaign is finally starting to understand how to use YouTube

I want to see more unconventional and quirky youtubes

the media is a joke - just ask Judy "Dick Cheney is my source" Miller how flawed the MSM is

Ben Smith:

*UPDATE: The person who posted the video to MyDD, Tracy Joan Russo, is actually an Edwards staffer who does blogger outreach. So the campaign must think this is a winning message. Also: A reader points out that there's a boom microphone in the shot; again, this is a message being delivered, not an inadvertently-captured departure.

Is this guy Ben Smith new to politics?

Tracy Joan is "actually" an Edwards staffer? Um, yeah, as you can see by the email address. Pretty much in plain sight.

The "message" is "being delivered"? Um, yeah, it's called RUNNING FOR FREAKIN PRESIDENT. Why does he think it was posted on the blog? (By a campaign staffer, no less.)

*UPDATE: Has Ben Smith covered politics before? Was he, like, a sports guy they brought in or something?

Or maybe weather?

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

 Good point.

The "message" is "being delivered"? Um, yeah, it's called RUNNING FOR FREAKIN PRESIDENT

Yea, no kidding. I mean, it's a bit embarrassing to even have to explain that to some people.

It was a campaign stop they got on video and released on YouTube. Duh.

He managed to work in this speech in between boughts of supervising the concrete pouring ceremony for his new private tennis courts on his 100 acre estate in the "2nd America" world he inhabits.

Not to mention the campaign had already posted the video on the front page of its site!

Brook,

How has this affected you?

I agree. I have always found something rather self-aggrandizing about Edwards. He definitely does not come off as having any gravitas-- remember how ineffective he was in that debate with Cheney in '04-- and, between that and not being able to carry any southern states (which is part of the whole point of his candidacy,) I hope he is not the one who gets the nomination. He'll get bulldozed.

As I stated in an earlier comment, I am not an Edwards supporter . . . but I agree that it is preposterous to claim that a candidate is incapable of caring about the poor and the middle class simply because he comes from wealth. FDR is the greatest example thereof; he was wealthy as could be, yet his whole mission was to empower the economically disadvantaged, and thus, to get the American economy up and running again. Let's face it-- in order to run for president, in this day and age, a candidate has to have money. So, anyone you see up there is going to be from the privileged class. That doesn't matter. What matters is, does the candidate care enough about those outside of his or her tax bracket? Will he/she come up with economic solutions that improve the condition of this country? Does he/she care about humanity at large, or only the top corporate donors? It's clear that the GOP is the party of selfishness, whereas, the Democratic party stands on a platform of humanitarianism. I say, candidates should be lauded if they formulate plans to help the poor, even while they themselves are wealthy. This line of reasoning against Edwards makes no sense.

I'm jet lagged and probably didn't make myself clear.  I meant feed on the $400.00 haircut meme.  Edwards did what Edwards should have done, MHO.  We need to call out the MSM every time they trivialize what any democratic candidate says, or divert attention from issues raised to trivialities, a la Maureen Dowd and Al Gore's brown suits. 

In 2004, MSM types took a moment out of a pep rally in a college gym and used it to "demonstrate" that Howard Dean didn't have presidential character or gravitas, and certain democratic candidates used that to sink him.  I don't want to see the same thing happen to Edwards...that's what I was trying to say.

aMike

I have to add that every time I type Dowd my spell check wants to change it to Dowdy.  I'm thinking of letting it have its way.  :-)

Pretty simple corvid. Edwards is taking a Michael Moore-like approach in telling people the system is rigged against them, and they can't succeed. Okay, so how did a millworkers son become a millionaire -- ditto for a marginally talented film-maker?

Second, i have a problem with the way he accumulated his wealth -- linking cerebal palsy to malpractice by the OBGYN. Edwards won dozens of these lawsuits, which were based on shaky science then and have been debunked since. The end result is Edwards lawsuits raised the costs of having a child in North Carolina. Who did that hurt the most -- the poor! Edwards gets rich -- the poor get screwed and so do innocent doctors who we desperately need in our communities. Obama, on the other hand, has a strong track record of working with the community's poor for years, before he went into politics. Edwards only seems interested in helping the poor in exchange for political power.

So, when some real life more-or-less Horatio Alger tells us how much the odds are stacked against Horatio Alger, those who (1) were born on third base or (2) hope against all odds that they, too, will be Horatios hate him.  How ironic.

There's nothing cynical about Hoppy's comment. He's dead on. Edwards is no revolutionary. But he has a sense of the magnitude of our problems and the scale of change required to address them. So, he would as president actually change some pretty basic structures. The really rich and powerful move instinctively to silence him.

The system is rigged against the poor and lower middle class and Edwards, at least, is campaigning to change it. I think all of the candidates (and they all have money) should be putting these issues front and center. I haven't heard Edwards telling people they can't succeed, can you point to a source? I think he uses his backgtround as an example that you can succeed. As for the marginally talented film-maker, I guess the numerous Academy Awards, Palm d'Ors and Golden Globes attest to nothing, right?

Now, this is a threat to the pleasant status quo for the very wealthy in this country, so whatever it takes to bring him down, prevent him from even becoming the Democratic candidate for president, will be done. It would be much better for those people if someone who only talks the talk be in position to become president.

Bingo! You can see that on news shows where Edwards is always being pooh-poohed while Hillary and others get a pass.

The wealthy and big business do not appear to like Edwards at all. And to me anyone who big business doesn't like is ok by me.

But hey I'm just a working class stiff who has watched big business regress wages and benefits for the last 25 years. Who watched fat cat GOPers and DLCer's push off-shoring and de-industrializing of America "Free" Trade treaties in the name of the holy god profit(the only real god of todays mammon worshipping conservatives) and making the middle-class an endangered species.

And anyone who even tries to address these issues is someone I'll vote for and so far Edwards is the only one who is.

FWIW if Hillary gets the nomination I'll stay home. There is no way I'll vote for the head of the DLC and who has a union buster on her campaign staff.

Yeah those anti-American Trial Lawyers...

BTW Abe Lincoln was a trial lawyer too.

And it's Tax Attorneys who help the Rich avoid paying taxes. Trial Lawyers are the ones who keep them out of jail.

-Dave Adams-

Speaking of news shows, Friday I noticed several shows commenting on edwards being in first in Iowa as a big surprise and big deal. They don't even notice he has been in first most of the season!

Ahhh, maybe Edwards didn't run for Senate in '04 because he was running for Pres.

A candidates personal appeal is a factor in any race. In my mind, Edwards is unappealing because he uses the trial lawyer approach to campaigning. He's trying to win a jury verdict -- not realizing a political campaign is radically different. Lawyers are not a popular demographic with mainstream America.

Awww, come on, that's an insult to former sports people like Olberman everywhere!

That helps explain how a failed oil-man, AWOL pilot, and middle finger raising cheerleader can rise to the pinnacle of humankind.

In this case it's really hard to make this seem like anything other than a well crafted message.

there's a 5 foot boom mike in the scene for the recording which is not typical for speaches AND the edwards campaign put the youtube up and promoted it.

I like the message just include trying to deny Americans the things they want e.g. healthcare and lobbyist reform

Thank you for keeping the substance, presentation, and analysis up to your usual standards, Mr. Dataski. Those of us who are familiar with your style always know the kind of quality we can expect from your writing.

Your ability to maintain this level of discourse in post after post is nothing short of stunning. I'm sure every reader exposed to your wit and wisdom comes away with the same sort of admiration for your work that I have.

I'd like to second that observation.

I'm not sure who is standing behind edwards.

Those with the intelligence to understand the issues rather than just following the herd.

Best, Terry

Every candidate in this race is being criticized, yet Edwards is the only one whining about being "silenced".

Oh bull s$i#!

The media has shut the man out, he is the front-runner in Iowa and the press ignores the man while making stupid and trite noises about Hilary and Obama. He is not whining just telling the truth about how our political system is stacked by a monopolized press, corporate campaign financing and against working for the common good supporting only the candidates taking the most corporate bucks who do their masters bidding.

A Wicker Man has more flavor. (If you haven't seen the movie, get the director's cut of the 1973 version).

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Actually it did have a sort of anti-gravity curl during the last debate. I had not noticed this until the highly successful campaign to make me look at hair. That Mitt got some hair, Giuliani is still tryin, McCain really has a hideous do, Fred Thompson would need to look like Chewbacca to cover that ugly mug of his, but we're talkin hair....Ron Paul has normal hair for a comb over better than Giuliani

Biden has plugs, Lopez-Richardson has thick hair to cover his bloated high blood pressure face, Obama, Kuch, and Gravel have predictably well groomed hair and Dodd, looks like Lopez-Richardson with White Hair, more anger, and even higher blood pressure. This leaves Edwards and Hillary with the finest hair in the democratic field and nobody in the Republican field.

so where do they stand on stem cell research?

A CALL TO ARMS; THE TRIAL LAWYERS ARE COMING, THE TRIAL LAWYERS ARE COMING....no wait!, THE LIBERALS ARE COMING, THE LIBERALS ARE COMING, oops, no, its THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE COMING, THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE COMING!

Many people, especially Republicans dislike trial lawyers....until they need one. I might say, as a group, the Republican party
has recently been the entity most responsible for the low unemployment rates among trial lawyers. Criminal defense attorneys are trial lawyers, are they not?

In the 2004 election the Republicans picked trial lawyer Mel Martinez to run for the Senate seat in Florida, a seat promised to Katherine Harris.

I don't buy the demonization of trial lawyers.....now, Corporate Lawyers are a horse of another fire department.

Agreed. In addition to everything else, there is the whole dynastic quality of her campaign. She is in her position solely because of whom she married.

Her one foray into public policy before being elected senator from New York was a fiasco. Had it not been for her incompetence, we'd have national healthcare. That would have killed anyone else's career.

Brook,

you didn't answer my question.

Howard,

The Wicker is slicker,
but the Strawman is MY man! :-)

how much do you have, terry? The poor in America have moved beyond basic needs. These are pretty well covered by government and private programs. Their needs now have more to do with education, motivation, encouragement, and shelter from horribly bad influences at very young ages.

. Why would he claim that no one poor can succeed when his own story disproves that?

co-dependency. people who are down on their luck want to get lucky and edwards takes advantage of that desperation. I've had my ups and downs and the only cure for bad luck is patience, reassessment and try, try again-- IMO.

it isn't that edwards is bad since I think the real issue seems to be that philanthropy efforts aren't necessarily good hearted any more.

for example, 20% of what the US spends on AIDS-- reportedly, buys AIDS drugs.

the MSM is doing edwards a favor by being cynical since, if edwards is the real deal, he could reinstill the assumption that man is inheriently benevolent.

To boldly go...

Fred Thompson would need to look like Chewbacca to cover that ugly mug of his,

--
Howard

*I think you have to be some sort of extremist to understand what "so-called" means, if anything. I think.

Just substitute the term "inaction", courtesy our friends in the GOP.

There is a certain symmetry in the chance of someone at the bottom making it to the top (near-zero), and the chance of someone at the top ever falling to the bottom (near-zero), given today's tax and services policies. Also symmetric is the amount of effort needed for the bottom to climb up or the top to fall.

I agree with your point about an unreasonable fury at a small percentage of cheaters (the actual proportion is a basic test of successful social organization). The same segment is pretty quiet about the not-so-small percentage of rich that take shameless advantage of tax provisions and subsidies, as well as more vile practices like vulture funds. 

witness vanishing unions and the loss of pensions

If pensions and unions are useful, they'll survive but I don't think that these issues are as black and white as you suggest. For example, the city of Duluth, MN was promising its workers health care for life! They've stopped this now because nobody knows how it will be paid for or who will perform the services...

Why not, instead, make it difficult to achieve great things rather than just small things?

because man can't even do the small things well like tell the truth, refrain from jealousy, etc...

Why not make at least a marginally credible effort at building a society where hard work always pays off, at least in a modest way, and everyone gets a fair shot.

what's stopping people from doing this? I think that Confucious would observe that if individuals can't be fair then how can they be fair collectively? You seem to assume that the government can change people yet many others, like myself, would rather embrace freedom.

To boldly go...

My company works with a lot of blue-collar companies, and I can tell you they are begging for workers.

If they need workers that bad, they might stop "begging" and try paying more. That's how the free market is supposed to work, isn't it?

Being fair collectively is possible with the right rule structure. That's what game theory is about.

Pensions are useful to the beneficiary and not so much to the guarantor. Which measure are you using? Rules matter here. If one company tries to maintain a pension with sound finance, and another fakes it, with weak financial foundation, the first company is at a short-term disadvantage. So a rule to require sound practices generates fairness.

When Warren Buffet says it is wrong for him to pay at a lower tax rate than his secretary, a glib response would be "Well, why not pay more?" Because others aren't, obviously. Buffet is asking for rules to change, not volunteering to be a sucker.

It should not be made difficult to achieve great things, but that category doesn't automatically include making a lot of money. I don't consider that result a "great thing" I don't mind Gates being rich--I've been using his software for years. I do mind someone who is rich by inheritance or through skimming financial activity claiming moral worth by association.

Everyone faces obstacles? What obstacles did George Bush face that his daddy couldn't take out of his way -- other than his lousy character, of course?

Outsourcing is a good example of an obstacle. The thing is, if the economic environment is evolving faster than people can change skills or move to where the jobs are, people suffer. Including children, who don't exactly have any choice in the matter.

I'm glad you haven't given up, but there are people who come into this world with less talent and fewer resources than you. Most of them don't make much of a living.

I suppose mcs can defend himself, but I think you mistook this: "the invariant for the perfect demographic cross-section is that everyone has obstacles" for mcs claiming everyone faces obstacles. I take it to mean that in order to find the perfect cross-section every considered subject should face obstacles, thus GWB is excluded.

Purple,

no, no, no, you have it all wrong.

Basic economics says; We must pay our corporate executives obscene compensation packages to attract the best talent.*

*this does not apply to those working on the assembly line.

Yes, if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, you can say you won't vote for her for reasons 'X, Y, or Z', but you must remember that the final election for president will be a race between a Democrat, a Republican, and several lesser known 'others'. If you choose not to vote at all, or to vote for another, you may be creating a Florida 2000 situation where a spoiler could crop up to throw the election to the Republican such as Ralph Nader did, and no matter how bad the Democrat is, in your mind, I guarantee you that the Republican will be far worse, just look at the roster of characters available in that stable. If you have to, swallow hard and pull that lever (euphemistically speaking) and elect the Democrat, then do the same in Congress and strengthen the current majority, so they can begin to fix this mess Bush and his Republican enablers have created these past 6 1/2 years.

If Hillary is a problem to you, then use the time between now and the primary season, to find and support an alternative you can live with.

This is a huge issue Brook--underfunded pensions combined with anemic 401(k) savings, high debt levels, and a shaky Social Security system is a recipe for disaster about 20 years from now. This should be a major concern--at least as great as the health care concern.

If one company tries to maintain a pension with sound finance, and another fakes it, with weak financial foundation, the first company is at a short-term disadvantage. So a rule to require sound practices generates fairness.

I agree with you. It's all game theory. To me, "sound finance" is a euphemism for a way to rob peter to pay paul or, specifically, the way in which the current generation will get the next generation to care for them in their old age.

as the boomer's retire, we'll see how this "social contract" holds up or not.

since I value labor and innovation over money, I don't believe that Gates' or Buffet's money would do much for quality of life, but that conversation is too complex for discuession here.

To boldly go...

How many people believe that Bush could have gotten into Yale on his own?

Sure, life is unfair but for people who have a free ride to college to complain about whining when when the lower classes state that the system is stacked against them which is manifestly true, is just plain tacky.

hopefully, the 21 year old kid understands what you're talking about and looks for more generous opportunities.

I don't believe that Edwards' will be able to fix poverty because a coworker, for example, refinanced his house to buy a nice car and expects the next buyer to not only pay for his house but also his new car and then some!

the $45,000 truck driver, on the other hand, might actually become more fruggle and thus be better off in the long run!

To boldly go...

By the way, Ron Paul, are you nuts?

no, I don't think so. I just read a book by Confucious and it laid out my belief that "a just society is made up of just individuals."

To me, DK and RP are opposite sides of the same coin. DK talks about the "moral" society and RP talks about the "moral" individual.

Certainly, Edwards has to do what's necessary but I see myself treading political water until 2012 if Edwards becomes pesident, but, then again, I might just be surprised by him-- who knows?

BTW: I stopped going to RP meetups because I couldn't tolerate the irrational folks who refused to acknowledge that freedom (RP) and duty (DK) go together.

To boldly go...

Nice Job Don Key

I'm going to suggest one change is wording, take it or leave it, I won't feel insulted either way. You say

Fair enough. Some overcome their particular obstacles and some do not.

I'd like to change the second "some" to "many" if not "most".  I think even "most" is statistically defensible.  Horatio Alger and all his many successors of the "luck and pluck" school of boosterism have generalized from the single example "Dick, the Ragged Boy" for example, and the result simultaneously allows the successful to pat themselves on the back for their virtues and condemn the less successful for their vices.  I give Edwards all the credit in the world for not doing this.

For those who want to check statistics themselves, and see just how many Horatios there are, the United States Bureau of the Census provides a great set of historic statistics and the  Geostat Center at the University of Virginia Library has made them reasonably easy to use..  For those who yawn over history, then play around with the American Factfinder. 

For those who want analysis, I can recommend

• David K. Shipler The Working Poor
• Jared Bernstein's work, or any of the work at the Economic Policy Institute, especially
• State of Working America, some of which is available free on line, some of which you have to buy.

For those who find facts a bother, I can do no better than quote John Stuart Mill, a libertarian, (which should make some people happy):

So long as opinion is strongly rooted in the feelings, it gains rather than loses instability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it. For if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument might shake the solidity of the conviction; but when it rests solely on feeling, worse it fares in argumentative contest, the more persuaded adherents are that their feeling must have some deeper ground, which the arguments do not reach; and while the feeling remains, it is always throwing up fresh intrenchments of argument to repair any breach made in the old. And there are so many causes tending to make the feelings connected with this subject the most intense and most deeply-rooted of those which gather round and protect old institutions and custom, that we need not wonder to find them as yet less undermined and loosened than any of the rest by the progress the great modern spiritual and social transition; nor suppose that the barbarisms to which men cling longest must be less barbarisms than those which they earlier shake off.

And, from Chapter Two of the same work:

History, which is now so much better understood than formerly, teaches another lesson: if only by showing the extraordinary susceptibility of human nature to external influences, and the extreme variableness of those of its manifestations which are supposed to be most universal and uniform. But in history, as in traveling, men usually see only what they already had in their own minds; and few learn much from history, who do not bring much with them to its study.

Again, nice job.

aMike

The older I get, the more I don't care about this. If you've seen my postings in the past, you know that I'm not a big fan of universities.

My grandmother, who never went to college, is smarter than most people I know.

And, the more independent study I do, the more I feel connected and empowered to my work and thoughts especially since, about a year ago, I was at a major public university and it was all about "mass manufactured thought." As you can imagine, I was relieved when my program there was over!

Folks like Ms. Warren will argue that "because of the work I do, I deserve more money than a laborer" and, thus, they quickly dispel the notation that they care about fairness since they want advantage.

To boldly go...

She is in her position solely because of whom she married.

i can't help but read that as crypto-sexist BS.

i'm sure all the people of new york who elected her to be their senator would agree with you that that was the only reason they voted for her.

and john kennedy, bobby kennedy, and ted kennedy all got to their positions because of who they were related to. i suppose you would advocate not voting for teddy and would have counseled against voting for john and bobby as well...

and who's to say that bill would have got where he did if he hadn't married who he married?

i have no intention of voting for hillary in the dem primary but my vote will be based entirely on policy positions and voting records. and whichever candidate gets the dem nom will get my vote in the general election because every single dem candidate currently running will make a better president (and has better policy positions and voting records) than anyone who could possibly get the republican nomination. period.

A fellow surprised me saying GWB should be in Yale, until I asked his name.

"Yonny Yonson".

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Thanks and thanks for the links. In my half-asleep ramblings, I was thinking about the infinite range of obstacles that differently situated people might face. Great quote from J. S. Mill (Who knew? A feminist in 1869). On the one hand, I don't thnk anyone will argue something strenuously if it isn't deeply felt. On the other, it's so easy to drown in layers of orthodoxy built up on beliefs.

It's remarkable that people who have the most stacked against them can be persuaded to support and espouse a philosophy, like movement conservatism, that is so obviously against their own interests. It is almost always done through emotional appeals (fear being the preferred tool).

The Shipler book looks good and I notice he has a chapter called "Harvest of Shame." That was the title of a E. R. Murrow documentary that I saw as a little kid. I doubt I understood much of it, but when I saw it again many years later, I realized it had a great impact, likely because of its emotional appeal.We learn so much emotionally, at first, that I think it's difficult not to be moved to one position or another with all of that baggage. Maybe we learn to appreciate reason and fairness emotionally, and then, try not to argue from it.

Perhaps the likely Sectary of State Richard Holbrooke matters to you, a Kissinger like/lite preemptive strike character. He has already bragged that Hilary is far more likely to use the military option than Bill Clinton ever was.

Holbrooke was also taped to be Kerry's Sectary of State and he is for the same sort of Middle East foreign policy we are enjoying now. He is classed as a Neo-Liberal but those paying attention know that Neo-Cons and Neo-Liberals are the opposite sides of the same bogus coin.

We can't stand another job exporting globalist, Middle East war mongering, corporate owned, anti labor administration, even if it calls itself Democrat. Every day in every way Nader is proved more correct about this country being run by a duopoly posing as two distinct political parties.

Its time for 80% of the hard working taxpaying Americans to get a party and government that is interested in their concerns not that of the stinking rich who are selling this country’s sovereignty and industrial base/working people down the river of quick profits and over the eventual falls on that river.

The "6-figure guys" you refer to are away from home more than a few days a week, and, I might add, the 6 figures you mention are not net of course, the surprise is wait till you see what they deduct from their paycheck. Watch how quick 6 figures can become 40/50K. By the way, the turnover in the trucking industry, outside the Teamster represented LTL outfits like Yellow Freight, UPS, ABF, etc. is staggering.

i handle benefits for 5 trucking companies, Gary. I talk to drivers on a weekly basis. What would you like to know about them?

What an a historical analysis.

If I wanted a republican for president in 2000, I would vote for Nader in Florida.
I accomplished my aim.

The Rethugs are so sure of this pattern that they have been funding the Greens across the country.

In Michigan the Michigan Senate remains under Republican control because Greens ran in a key district.

Too pure to vote for an imperfect Democrat, but not ashamed to have a hand in electing Rethugs.

I was thinking of non-govt, I guess. However, to the extent that any revenue collected can be called theft we could call the sale price of goods theft. Both reflect costs of operation. Both can reflect poor management.

Pension management is notoriously contentious. We had some argument over whether our managers should have chased the stock market in the 90's, or stayed safe. They chased, got burned, had to pony up a special chunk out of the endowment.

There's a problem if there is a discrepancy between expected conditions in the private sector and those in civil service. We have that now, with few private jobs yielding a defined-benefit pension.

Hwy, give Broder a break: Bush does have a lot of room for a upside break. With a little luck he'll soon have a lot more room for an upside break. :D

Sooner or later even the folks who watch FAUX will realize that it has disconnected from reality.

I agree. I do not claim (not having the numbers directly at hand) that all the goldbrickers combined get less than the amount that the Halliburtons of society receive. But I think the claim that goldbrickers are a horrible pox on the economy is a largely emotional argument.

One thing I notice about the poor, working or not, as contrasted with the Halliburton set:

Government largesse spent on the poor tends to serve short-term interests, since these people live much closer to the bottom limit of financial survival. This short-term money cycles back into the local economy within days after it is received.

Government largesse spent on those who are really well-off (meaning here that they have a much greater array of choices) tends to go where it benefits them in the medium to long term. Often this includes investment in "control" (lobbying), international investments, et cetera. Such money recycles into the local economy very slowly, if at all.

This is the reason the phrase "trickle down", does not bring to mind images of economic benefit, as much as a rather lower-brow vision...

In my opinion, supply-side economists avoid the question of rate of money flow through local economies. They seem to me to always study only the large economy, and fail to investigate the effects of their theories completely. What's missing is the effect of supply-side policies on communities of people who live in the real world of pay for work.

I am one who believes in earning one's pay large or small, and would have no problem with requiring work from those who receive help from society. There is no lack of work to be done.

I reject the idea of free money (inheritance) for whose who chose their parents wisely, as have the Paris Hiltons or G. W. Bushes of the world.

I also wonder just how "earned" is the pay of the folks who pay others to manage their investments. Why is the "work" of making investment choices taxed at a rate substantially below the rate of mid-level workers who work every day? (This is a paraphrase of Warren Buffet's contrast of his tax rate versus that of his secretary.)

they do grant a certificate which customarily leads to more money.

right. part of what interests me these days are statistical indicators versus statistical causation.

i.e. do universities like Yale develop intelligence or do universities simply ensure success by selecting people who are intelligent? are universities places of learning? or places where people simply meet and form creative partnerships?

I saw this one on Digg: Nine Reasons why Bad Grades Don’t Mean Squat.

I'd love to study if universities were nothing more than placebos. The NyTimes recently reported that students were more likely to choose more expensive colleges since they associated cost with quality; So students don't necessarily evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the universities that they look at.

Many self-educated individuals have a smugness which I think comes from asking and answering their own questions.

If you read John Dewey, he suggests that his early learning was "highly schematic and formal" until he started persuing the questions that his heart cared about. Having grown up on a farm and traveled through Europe and the Caribbean, as a child, my university experience was "more of the same" rather than "new worlds."

After I started reading Dewey, I started to appreciate knowledge for knowledge's sake.

To boldly go...

Schneider National posts their pay rates online and assuming they're fairly representative, most drivers aren't earning close to $100K. Schneider's stated maximum pay in the Northeast (the highest-paying area) is $80K, and the averages they show for experienced drivers are much less (in the $40 to $60 range--inexperienced drivers earn about $5,000 to $10,000 less). Their maximum 401(k) contribution is $2,500, so the retirement benefits aren't great. They don't show healthcare costs, but Brook can probably enlighten us on that, since he's apparently a healthcare insurance broker.

Now all this doesn't make truck drivers poor. And I think Brook's original point was that the doom and gloom view of the American economy isn't exactly accurate and certainly not a view  (at least as it pertains to their own financial situation) that would be accepted by the truck drivers making the $50K and $60K salaries we're talking about. I tend to agree with Brook on this basic point (two of my neighbors happen to be truck drivers so I have a sense of what some of them think)--but only to a degree. I think the real problem with the American economy (at least for the average working person) is that salaries that we can live reasonably well on don't protect us from financial disaster if we run into just a bit of bad luck. The problem with the financial state of the American middle class isn't really its living standard (which is relatively high), but its insecurity. I think Brook is right that talking about middle class "poverty" (implying low living standards and economic failure) might ring false and alienate a lot of the middle class. But talking about financial insecurity is a political winner in my opinion because, for most Americans, it's a very real concern.

We're all saying the same thing here. The pull times of truck drivers is a diversion. Pay varies widely depending on if your're an owner/operator or company and seniority. A refrigerated day-haul driver with 6 stops a day will hit close to 80K and be home every night, but he's got to work 6 days to do it. There are a lot of days i consider tossing in the white collar and getting my commercial license, and i know more than a few masters degrees out there driving trucks. You'd be surprised.

Purple, don't we all live with these same insecurities? We've all got a mortgage and other payments to make and any catastrophe can wipe us out.

Edwards isn't speaking to me, and I can only assume others feel the same. It's a problem with his campaign, but i'm already looking at other candidates. This forum gives us all a chance to try and persuade others to vote for our guy, but I don't disparage anyone's vote for Edwards.

Don't keep it a secret, Brook. Who are you pulling for?

If I wanted a republican for president in 2000, I would vote for Nader in Florida.

Got a clue for you.

If you want to elect a Republican, it counts more to vote for the Republican no matter who is counting the votes.

Your assumption that all voters want to choose between atrocious and horrendous is ludicrous.

How would you have voted when there was the wonderful contest between the Lizzard and the Wizard for governor of Louisiana - Edwin Edwards vs. David Duke?

In odd moments the thought occurred that David Duke might have been the wiser choice considering Duke would start out incapacitated to govern while Edwards had shown himself capable of enormous mischief.

In reality I could only vote "no" with such an unappetizing selection if I had had to make such an awful choice.

Let me try again to implant something in your brain that you seemed unable to catch the first time.

Selecting the better of two evils only gets you evil.

Best, Terry

No, I don't want Thompson, Julie-annie, McCain, Romney, or any other Republican for president. I can avoid that by voting for a Democrat, or at least I will have given it my best shot. I am mature enough to know that when I hold my breath to try to get my way the only one who suffers is me.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Nothing "crypto-sexist" about it. I'd vote for Barbara Boxer for president in a heartbeat. As it is, I have to settle for voting for her for senator every six years.

Having a wife succeed her husband as head of state (with an eight-year interregnum by the other dynasty) is so Third World. Voters in New York? What choice did they have once the Democratic Party made her Moynihan's anointed successor? But try to tell me the party leadership would have fallen in behind someone who screwed up the biggest domestic issue in a generation if she had been married to anyone else.

And, while we're at it, twenty-eight years of Clinton-Bush-Clinton? Plus eight years of Bush in the number two spot? And you not only see nothing wrong with that but you "can't help but read that as crypto-sexist BS"?!!!

I call bullshit.

I'd rather have Democratas spend four more years in the wilderness than have the DLC wing rise from the dead and run it for a generation.

And let's not forget, Bill Clinton was terrible for the Democratic party. Under his so-called leadership, democrats lost both houses of congress and any number of governorships and state legislatures.

Guess I'm at a middleground point.

At this moment, Edwards has my primary vote. It's his to lose. I'm in a late primary state but I'll give him my primary vote even if our candidate has already been annointed.

But I'm not ready to necssarily say that the Democratic nominee will get my vote. I won't vote Republican, for sure. But if it's Hillary or Obama... well, they'll have to earn my vote. Being the nominee won't be enough.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

When have I ever said I support Clinton? I don't. I don't want another Clinton as president, neither Hillary nor Roger. I am currently weighing Edwards and Obama, while wondering if Richardson might not be better than either of those. Our primary election is February 5th, and at that time I will vote for the one I finally decide I want.

From that point on, I will be a supporter of the Democratic candidate, no matter which one it is. My other option, if I don't just want to opt out of the process, is a Republican, and none of them are worthy of serving as a dog catcher.

Please, do vote for whomever you wish. If you don't want a Republican administration for at least another 4 years, I respectfully suggest you vote for a Democrat next November.

Hoppy in Sacramento

I can only hope that you find a way to collect a lot of that stop pay. If you do, take it to the bank quick.

I'd rather have Democrats spend four more years in the wilderness than have the DLC wing rise from the dead and run it for a generation.

considering that the dems spending 'four more years in the wilderness' in reality means four more years of a pro-iraq war/occupation republican president, i find this position untenable. these are real lives. american soldiers and innocent iraqi civilians. i will not have their blood on my hands. while i don't trust clinton to get us out as quickly as possible, you can be certain that she will do more than any of the republicans who would be more than happy to let the dems spend four more years in the wilderness.

well "group think" is often more dangerous; in fact, I found this little juicy nugget today about Harvard raised Sheeples:

[>"Harvard MBA grads are falling over themselves to get jobs at the world’s leading private equity funds and global hedge funds. Harvard grads are a great indicator of corrections as they all flooded into dotcoms in 1999 and Investment Banks in 1987."

Without my interactive reply...

I would have worried about something else... ;-)

there is a price: they are rarely exposed .. to ... things ... they don't know.

As far as I can tell, the open source movement defies this logic! Microsoft and other companies routinely hired folks who managed to display their novel talents through open source. Other developers, of course, go through the normal channels of being recruited based on a GPA and a diploma.

To boldly go...

considering that the dems spending 'four more years in the wilderness' in reality means four more years of a pro-iraq war/occupation republican president, i find this position untenable.

Agreed.

That is the best reason for voting against Hillary.

Thank you. You are very wise.

Best, Terry

As far as the "me" portion of the statement... I believe he was talking about how the MSM and their corp interests *are* trying to shut him up. And anyone who's been paying a lot of attention to the big MSM knows it. Most of them either ignore him or do a hack piece (some of which have been really crappy journalism too.)

They are trying to shut HIM up, not us. Last I checked, I was still blogging away and can post in many places. I don't warrant the bully pulpit a presidential candidate has. Edwards does, so they need to shut HIM up.

The logic is that with that, WE go away. Don't get me wrong - they'd like to shut all of us up, but they can't because of the blogosphere. And he's an effective spokesman for us, so shutting him up means they hope that if they can, WE will just go away.

Same with insurgencies - take away the leader and the movement falls apart or becomes, at the very least, disorganized.

They can't shut us up, but if they take away our advocate, maybe they can do damage. That's their thinking.

Just my 2 cents...

--poligirl

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." --Margaret Mead

Owner operators can gross $100K a year, but they need to buy and maintain a truck, which (as you note) ain't cheap. When you net out the cost of owning and operating the truck, their income is something less than $100K. Still, your basic point that trucking pays a reasonable wage--and that jobs are available--is valid. I'd only contend that if trucking companies aren't getting workers, it's not because people won't work--it's because the wages paid by trucking aren't high enough to (1) compensate for the negatives of the job and (2) to attract good workers away from alternative jobs.

I was strangely cheered by the news of those choppers colliding. Was that karma in action?

delete

I agree but JE does need to start using the 'us' and 'we' a lot more which assumes and creates the feeling that we're speaking the language and value the same issues. He's still trying to convince everyone that he does care and with all the posts about him being a rich boy, he still has some convincing to do. He is now but he wasn't and remembers his roots.

Someone has compared this to Clinton's 'til the last dog dies' speech which had that effect and worked well for him.

At times when I listen to Edwards' Two Americas rheteoric, it sounds as though he is talking about the rich (where would he draw that line?) versus the middle class and the poor. Other times he seems to be talking about the poor versus everyone else.

It makes a huge difference which one he's talking about! I believe it has to be, consistently, the former for his candidacy to have a chance of success.

He is talking about the vast gulf separating workers from non-workers. He is talking about a declining middle management.

If you are well off, Edwards is appealing to your sense of common decency, to your spirit of community, dare I say it - to your patriotism.

Appears he hit a snag with those who only want what is best for them and the hell with the rest.

The DLC venom has infected the Democratic Party in very evil ways. Clinton's middle class encompasses everybody from the gas station attendant to the CEO as nonsensical as that is. It has split America like no Republican ever has managed to do. The DLC made the Democratic Party little more than an auxiliary of the Republican Party. Voters naturally choose the authentic Republican over the imitation most of the time.

Our meritocracy is a fable. It is more an inheritocracy. No doubt some are lucky enough, plucky enough or even corrupt enough to overcome obstacles but there are far more Dan Quayles and George Bushes than John Edwards.

Hope that answered your question.

And yes indeed, John Edwards will probably lose.

Best, Terry

Did Edwards support Clinton on this?

The very first line of Edwards argument was: "Clinton is right."

Funny thing. It had to be pointed out to me. I had heard what I wanted to hear. It is not always so easy to overcome bias.

I have noticed an increasing use of the "Invisible Man" as a foil to support Hillary when she was dead wrong by those who have no use for either Obama or Edwards.

Edwards didn't do himself proud on this occasion.

Best, Terry

THAT was shrill?

Spoken like a true shill.

:-p

I'll give ya shrill.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

The group Good Jobs First does an outstanding job of documenting what you are writing about:

http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/

I know the director, Greg LeRoy. He is one of those too rare people who went to Washington DC to do good, and actually does good, as opposed to doing very, very well.

the "investment debate" is as at least as old as our religions; I tend to think "investments" (usury) divide our society since the motivation behind them is "advantage."

I have nothing against higher wages and "paying the real price" because I'd rather see people confronting the truth sooner rather than later.

Hope you don't think I'm stealing from your mother.

No. But I think that Edwards can't unify the two americas unless people somehow change their thinking on on how wealth works. i.e., at the grassroots level, I see individuals, not the government, demanding that there be a winner and loser.

To boldly go...

On July 30, 2007 - 11:44am Brook Dataski said:

if you personally know any children suffering from malnutrtion -- let me know, and i can get them some help.

from USDA, 2006:

The defining characteristic of very low food security is that, at times during the year, the food intake of household members is reduced and their normal eating patterns are disrupted because the household lacks money and other resources for food. Very low food security can be characterized in terms of the conditions that households in this category typically report in the annual food security survey. In the 2005 survey, households classified as having very low food security reported the following specific conditions:

98 percent reported having worried that their food would run out before they got money to buy more.

96 percent reported that the food they bought just did not last and they did not have money to get more.

94 percent reported that they could not afford to eat balanced meals.

96 percent reported that an adult had cut the size of meals or skipped meals because there was not enough money for food.

84 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more months.

94 percent of respondents reported that they had eaten less than they felt they should because there was not enough money for food.

60 percent of respondents reported that they had been hungry but did not eat because they could not afford enough food.

44 percent of respondents reported having lost weight because they did not have enough money for food.

31 percent reported that an adult did not eat for a whole day because there was not enough money for food.

22 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more months.

All households without children that were classified as having very low food security reported at least six of these conditions, and 64 percent reported seven or more. Conditions in households with children were similar, but the reported food-insecure conditions of both adults and children were taken into account.

Brook, report to local soup kitchen for duty.

MCS . . . I gotta understand this better. Your grandmother pays $7K in city and county taxes? Are those income taxes or property taxes? If they're income taxes, then she's gotta be earning a relatively decent salary, which would make me wonder about the fairness of her complaints. If they're property taxes, though, that's a much different matter, since a lot of older people run into problems with taxes on their homes. The property value of their homes is high, but they don't have much income, which may force them to sell their homes. I don't like property taxes for this (and other) reasons.

Ultimately, though, the high taxes folks like your grandmother pay are due only partially to benefits for the poor. She's paying for a police force, a fire department, city streets, schools, etc. Plus the city taxes are high because federal subsidies to the states and cities aren't high enough. And federal subsidies aren't high enough for three reasons--(1) low taxes on the wealthy (particularly those who earn their wealth via capital gains); (2) high federal expenditures on things like defense (Iraq is $12billion a month!); and (3) middle class benefits like social security and medicare, which your grandmother probably benefits from. Republicans like to blame everything on the cost of supporting the "undeserving" poor--and thereby get middle class people to line up behind their calls for lower taxes. But the real goal of the Republicans is to sucker the middle class into voting for tax cuts for the wealthy. They want the middle class to think their money is going to the poor, illegal immigrants, etc., so they support Republican tax cuts. But the beneficiaries of the tax cuts are largely the wealthy. And the reductions in benefits caused by the lower taxes tend to hurt the middle class at least as much as the poor. Just wait till we can't afford Social Security and Medicare anymore and your grandmother will have a rude awakening about the wisdom of Republican tax cuts! $7,000 will seem like a bargain compared to buying her own health insurance at age 65.

Are those income taxes or property taxes?

property taxes.

since a lot of older people run into problems with taxes on their homes.

right.

She's paying for a police force, a fire department, city streets, schools, etc.

right, and the "edwards divide" shows up since her taxes not only pay for services but also towards retirement benefits at the expense of her quality of life.

$7,000 will seem like a bargain compared to buying her own health insurance

she still pays for blue cross, blue shield supplemental insurance to insure that doctors want her business.

Just wait till we can't afford Social Security and Medicare anymore...

I think a lot of people are in for a rude awakening! I've read that the state of New York is looking for ways to remove their constitutional mandate to pay pensions and other benefits!

If you look at federal deficit "projections," they're essentially exponential because of health care costs, etc... Many folks on this list think that individuals should be allowed to declare bankruptcy... what happens if city and states start doing that because they can't afford their entitlement programs?

I'm sitting on the edge of my seat, it will be a good show!

To boldly go...

About gold-brickers:

I think that our commitment to the work ethic is a little overdone. Public support encourages risk-taking. If someone on public support happens to be, just for example, an avant-garde musician, is this person to be condemned as a gold-bricker? I think such a person is enriching our culture, whether we like it or not. Why? -- because they help to create a culture where risk-taking is acceptable.

The real waste is 90 percent of our military budget. I just pulled the figure of 90 percent out of a hat, but compared to our military budget, any amount of goldbricking is surely trivial.

It is informative about Drudgico to read the comments on the story. They are uniformly right-wing. So that is the audience Drudgico is serving. It tells you a lot about the publication.

Good point. I'm not real familiar with chaos theory but aren't some complexities hard to reduce to dialectics? Some subjects are probably difficult to deconstruct and limited by language restrictions. Of course, Mill was addressing some pretty basic questions of inequality.I think a lot of complex thinking occurs subconsciously and it may seem to be gut feelings we are relying on when it's really more thought out intuitions. 

I think you're right that moral issues, which seem like subjectively decided objective rules, are the most difficult to reason out. Maybe they are more a matter of self evident precepts. I mean that maybe we recognize from early on some basic notions of fairness and justice and then build on those over our lives.

Hoppy, you and I are simply never going to agree about this. I think you're crazy to vote for a conservative with a "D" in front of her name, and you think I'm crazy to vote for a liberal who can't win. I know we can't settle this. So let me ask you this:

It looks like Hillary will get the nomination. When she does, and loses to Mr. Thompson, you will have voted for her and I will have voted for a liberal. Who wasted his vote -- the one who tried to pull the Democrats to the left, or the one who rewarded them for nominating another conservative and lost to a bible-thumper anyway?

If Hillary wins, I will congratulate you and realize that we we will never have another progressive in the White House in my lifetime; just Republican conservatives and Democrat conservatives.

Pardon me, but to claim that because Edwards had professional success proves him wrong is just self-evident bullshit.

Software engineering is somewhat atypical in that it is possible for an interested individual to get significant experience on their own, without formal education or even adult supervision. This is sharply different from, say, civil engineers or surgeons.

While it is common for precocious 13-years old to write computer programs, I don't think it's common at all (correct me if I'm wrong though, you seem to be bursting with anecdotal evidence) for kids their age to build railway bridges or perform appendectomies. In such fields, formal education is absolutely essential because learning through trial and error is not much of an option.

BTW do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates are the typical college dropouts, or might they be rather an exception to the rule?

You are still missing the point I have been trying to make: self taught learners are often very good at what they have learned and society benefits when ways are devised to let them show what they can do. But almost precisely because they are good at what they do they often fail to realize the extent of the realms of knowledge to which they have not been exposed. We have all seen the programmer who thinks that Ron Paul is logical.

A kind of of tunnel vision develops : I have answered all the questions I have asked and therefore I can answer all questions out there. A prime advantage of a formal education is being peppered with questions you would not have thought to ask and being asked questions for which you do not have the answers.

You are not entitled to your own reality. Reality may suck: the Nader vote in Florida DID give us Bush over Gore and it did matter big time.

Now just who do you think would have been elected if the Democratic Party had nominated Nader?

The responsible position is to vote for the best politician you think can be elected in both the primary and the election when the situation is close.

Why is paying people pensions for their work theft when paying them money for their work isn't? Both raise costs to the consumer. ;-D

Herb and Jamal get out more often than Brook Dataski does, I guess.

So do the people at Feinstein Center for Hunger Free America

So do the people conducting the Hunger in America Study.

So do the people at America's Second Harvest.

and quite a few others who don't believe if I don't hurt, nobody's hurting.

aMike

mostly because I think folks like edwards and ms. warren are posers... that's my opinion and I can hold it. I tend to be tougher on those who take on issues of poverty because I've been let down way too many times by people who talk compassionately but then I find out that they do it because they make money off it, etc...

To boldly go...

they are good at what they do they often fail to realize the extent of the realms of knowledge to which they have not been exposed.

and researchers at universities work in teams because different people excel at different things. I don't think anybody would criticize Issac Newton for not discovering Modern Physics at the same time? Einstein is famous for having done important work as a clerk.

as was discussed here on TPM a while back, the orthodoxy of universities drives out a lot of creativity and diversity. of course, universities adapt by looking at the real world and updating their curriculums to be more relevant. but I don't see the validity of your point that universities are the center of the intellectual universe where people have a better view of reality.

just as airplanes removed geographical constraints, the internet-- most definitely, has had the same impact. researchers no longer have to hang out in the same buildings to work together.

To boldly go...

Ms. Clinton knew the outcome of that vote before she voted on it. It was politics, not conviction. That's one of my problems with her. She would vote to abrogate the Constitution (in fact, she has!) if she thought it would further her career.

There is no contradiction of reality at all in expat's post.

so in your world the candidate campaigning against withdrawing the troops will withdraw the troops sooner than the candidate campaigning for withdrawing troops.

skepticism is one thing, DELUSION is another. get real.

Fortunately for this blog, most commenters do not feel compelled to resort to eighth-grade histrionics to make a point, or to fail to make one as the case may be.

However, I must agree that there is some delusion, some rejection of manifest evidence, floating around. Some seem to have a belief that no conservative politician ever campaigned on a given position only to behave in a diametrically opposite way after the election. This is an unrealistic belief, as beliefs usually are.

For example, Warren Harding presaged his (at the time) most corrupt administration in American history, with a promise of a "return to normalcy."

For example, Mr. Nixon featured in his 1968 run for the Oval Office a "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam.

For example, Mr. Bush's campaign in 2000 was based on some fairy dust that he drew from a bag labeled "compassionate conservatism," and he promised to end nation-building and reduce the size of the Federal government.Oh, and to restore dignity and maturity to the Presidency.

Now some believe that the conservative Hillary Clinton will immediately withdraw our brave men and women from Iraq because she said she would, some day, maybe.

Delusion, indeed. Get real, indeed.

Once the Democratic candidate is chosen, we can only chose between a Democratic or Republican candidate, or opt out of the election by voting for a Green, or other splinter party candidate.
Ah, now I see your argument, Hoppy. I am "opting out" by voting for the candidate of my choice. What an interesting idea. Abstaining by participating.

I like it. Next, I am going to fast by eating. Then I will fall silent by shouting. After that, I will leave by entering, and die by living!

For more on this topic, see esp. the following:

"Congress Should End the Economic War Among the States", by Melvin R. Burstein and Arthur J. Rolnick, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, at:

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/pubs/ar/ar1994.cfm

and, more generally, the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis' collection of stuff on this issue, at:

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/studies/econwar/

It looks as though several of the items date to the 1990s, but the basic issue dynamics internal to the US have not changed, although the intensity of what amounts to one-upsmanship by other countries of the race-to-the-bottom dynamic seems if anything to have intensified since then.

For more current documentation see the Good Jobs First website, whose website address I included in another reply to your comment in this thread. And see Good Jobs First founder Greg LeRoy's 2005 book The Great American Jobs Scam: Corporate Tax Dodging and the Myth of Job Creation.

Also see Alan Tonelson's 2002 book, The Race to the Bottom: Why a Worldwide Worker Surplus and Uncontrolled Free Trade Are Sinking American Living Standards.