John Edwards - Mess

Illegal immigrant

Illegal immigrant ‘never’ thought to leave boy
Man comforted child after mom died in Arizona desert crash, officials say

An illegal immigrant who gave up his long walk into the U.S. to help a boy whose mother was killed in a van crash in the desert said Wednesday that he never thought of leaving the child.

Undecided Republican Chooses John Edwards

hey hey hey!!

Habermas on Rorty...

Link to a talk given at Stanford by Jurgen Habermas about Richard Rorty. David Pacini has spoken on numerous occasions to me that I need to read more of both of these philosophers.

Amnesty International Report 2007 Overview Video

Why I Shouldn't Have Let You In - Original Song

this is why I love the internet! And youtube! I love it!

Iraq Surge Continues with No End in Sight

Flu Shot...

Ecnomist Alex Tabarrock just got his flu shot

People who have the flu spread the virus so getting a flu shot not only reduces the probability that I will get the flu it reduces the probability that you will get the flu. In the language of economics the flu shot creates an external benefit, a benefit to other people not captured by the person who paid the costs of getting the shot. The external benefits of a flu shot can be quite large. Under some conditions each person who is vaccinated reduces the expected number of other people who get the flu by 1.5.

Since a large fraction of the benefits of the flu shot, perhaps even a majority of the benefits, go to other people and not to the person paying the costs, the number of people who get a flu shot in the United States is well below the efficient level. I only got the shot because, as you well know, I'm altruistic. I care about you. But do send your checks, that will help.

In lieu of a check I'm thinking of having some buttons made up to encourage people to get their shot. Here are some possible slogans:

Kiss me, I'm vaccinated.
Take one for the herd!
Get a flu shot. The life you save may not be your own.
Madison Avenue here I come!

Of course, we know from the Coase Theorem that there is an alternative approach. We could charge people who do not get their flu shots. (Thus, if you haven't had a shot you must still must send me a check.) Or to reduce transaction costs we could fine people who get the flu. I kind of like that last one. (But what to do about the 36,000 a year who die from the flu - charge their estates?)

Update on Edwards polling...

I have yet to see any data contradicting the claim that Edwards does better with swing/conservative voters. And I have yet so see any claims to the contrary (which the appreciative nod to purist of the Kucinich/Green party wing--i'm talking about electable's not my ideals right now) that of the Democrats, Edwards as an entire policy agenda is the most Progressive/Liberal of the Democratic candidates who can win.

After the Democracy for America training where I began to learn how to articulate and apply both actions and energy towards getting candidates elected, I've begun to see how close some of these local elections can truly be. No matter how conservative a district is, there is positive uplifting work that can be done to advocate for Liberal policies. But the impacts of who's on top of the ticket are huge when you are looking at the precinct level. When you break it down to hard numbers, you start getting towards a meaning number--meaningful in the sense that you can knock on those doors, make those phone calls, and find those voters!

The data on Edwards polling seems to strongly point to how bad Clinton would be down the ticket.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1120

Quinnipiac University - OH: November 14, 2007

Note: Edwards and Obama were only paired against Giuliani

Vs. Rudy Giuliani

Clinton - 44%
Giuliani - 43%

Obama - 41%
Giuliani - 41%

Edwards - 46%
Giuliani - 40%

Clinton leads by 1%, Obama is tied%, Edwards lead by 6%

Clinton - 47%
Romney - 38%

Clinton - 48%
Thompson - 38%

Clinton - 42%
McCain - 46%


Past Ohio General Election Polling

http://esrc08.blogspot.com/

House Chief of Staff (R): Edwards Has the Best Chance of Winning Ohio in a General Election. During June 2007 interview, Scott Borgemenke, chief of staff for the Republican-controlled Ohio House of Representatives, predicted that Edwards was the Democratic presidential candidate most likely to carry Ohio in a general election. "I think if John Edwards wins Iowa and gets some steam and ends up being the candidate, Ohio could go with an Edwards type of Democrat, or an Edwards-looking Democrat, meaning he looks like every other Ohioan," Borgemenke said. "I think Ohio is very much in play for the Republicans if Hillary or Obama is the candidate." [ OhioPols.com, Borgemenke Interview, 6/8/07 ]


Quinnipiac University - OH: October 10, 2007

Favorable / Unfavorable

Hillary Clinton - 49/42
Barack Obama - 45/26
John Edwards - 47/26

Vs. Mitt Romney

Clinton - 51%
Romney - 34%

Obama - 47%
Romney - 31%

Edwards - 50%
Romney - 28%

Clinton leads by 16%, Obama leads by 16%, Edwards leads by 22%

Vs. Fred Thompson

Clinton - 48%
Thompson - 36%

Obama - 44%
Thompson - 33%

Edwards - 48%
Thompson - 31%

Clinton leads by 14%, Obama leads by 11%, Edwards leads by 17%

Vs. Rudy Giuliani

Clinton - 46%
Giuliani - 40%

Obama - 44%
Giuliani - 38%

Edwards - 46%
Giuliani - 36%

Clinton leads by 6%, Obama leads by 6%, Edwards leads by 10%

Vs. John McCain

Clinton - 48%
McCain - 38%

Obama - 43%
McCain - 39%

Edwards - 46%
McCain - 35%

Clinton leads by 10%, Obama leads by 4%, Edwards leads by 11%

Averages

Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of 11.50%
Obama leads the Republicans by an average of 9.25%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 15.00%


Survey USA - OH: September 20, 2007

Vs. Mitt Romney

Clinton - 52%
Romney - 42%

Obama - 45%
Romney - 46%

Edwards - 56%
Romney - 36%

Clinton leads by 10%, Obama trails by 1%, Edwards leads by 20%

Vs. Fred Thompson

Clinton - 48%
Thompson - 47%

Obama - 42%
Thompson - 50%

Edwards - 52%
Thompson - 43%

Clinton leads by 1%, Obama trails by 8%, Edwards leads by 9%

Vs. Rudy Giuliani

Clinton - 47%
Giuliani - 48%

Obama - 39%
Giuliani - 52%

Edwards - 47%
Giuliani - 48%

Clinton trails by 1%, Obama trails by 13%, Edwards trails by 1%

Averages

Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of 3.33%
Obama trails the Republicans by an average of 7.00%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 9.33%



Quinnipiac University - OH: September 6, 2007

Favorable / Unfavorable

Hillary Clinton - 51/ 43
Barack Obama - 47/ 25
John Edwards - 54/ 26

Vs. Mitt Romney

Clinton - 50%
Romney - 37%

Obama - 46%
Romney - 32%

Edwards - 50%
Romney - 30%

Clinton leads by 13%, Obama leads by 14%, Edwards leads by 20%

Vs. Fred Thompson

Clinton - 49%
Thompson - 37%

Obama - 46%
Thompson - 34%

Edwards - 50%
Thompson - 32%

Clinton leads by 12%, Obama leads by 12%, Edwards leads by 18%

Vs. Rudy Giuliani

Clinton - 47%
Giuliani - 40%

Obama - 42%
Giuliani - 41%

Edwards - 47%
Giuliani - 38%

Clinton leads by 7%, Obama leads by 1%, Edwards leads by 9%

Vs. John McCain

Clinton - 46%
McCain - 41%

Obama - 41%
McCain - 42%

Edwards - 46%
McCain - 38%

Clinton leads by 5%, Obama trails by 1%, Edwards leads by 8%

Averages

Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of 9.25%
Obama leads the Republicans by an average of 6.50%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 13.75%



Survey USA - OH: May 2nd, 2007

Vs. Fred Thompson

Clinton - 53%
Thompson - 38%

Obama - 43%
Thompson - 43%

Edwards - 57%
Thompson - 33%

Clinton leads by 15%, Obama is tied, Edwards leads by 24%


Vs. Rudy Giuliani



Clinton - 48%
Giuliani - 45%

Obama - 40%
Giuliani - 51%

Edwards - 50%
Giuliani - 42%

Clinton leads by 3%, Obama trails by 11%, Edwards leads by 8%

Do something. Iowa is going on now.

View Edwards new Ad running in Iowa and help it stay on the air by giving to his campaign today

plan to help veterans

Edwards to Outline Plan for Veterans With Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

Presidential contender John Edwards is introducing a $400 million plan Monday to help veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder, including those recently returned from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oh this is good.

Over 190,000 weapons sent to Iraq for the Iraqi security forces disappeared almost as soon as they got off the C-17s.

Colbert and open secrets

Colbert with a guy from open secrets.com it was a great segment.

Here we go...

The election will not be televised. As part of my efforts to get the job of Field Director for a certain unnammed candidates campaign I am kicking off a blog at the Democratic Parties Web Site called Take it Back and an online network called GA 3rd District Grassroots network.

Check it out

As a result. I'll be less active here. But will have lots to tell after November.

When are humans going to catch up to technology

I sometimes get the feeling my Dad and I are trying to do the same thing in different forums. He's working the energy market in the Philippines, i'm working the political scene and social justice movement in Georgia.

I just titled this post... When are people going to catch up to technology. But then I rewrote it. When are humans... human beings. The people that care, feel, hurt, and love. People... randomized automatons. They already plug into tv, vapid consumerism, and such. They are already on board with technology, but like technology they don't care...

I'm weary of leaning on carelessness as a solution. Vain narcissistic randomness and careless revelry is not going to fix anything, only be a release. My dad works in the energy Field. His business, is something I know next to nothing about. But he's in it for the right reasons. He wants markets to work FOR people, not just blind profit. Blind profit hurts human beings. He wants to use technology to make his little detailed sector of expertise work for humans.

I want to use technology to make my little sector of expertise policy wonkishness and political theory work for humans.

We're both trying hard to use technology to help. I struggle to make it work. I think he goes through the same struggles. I look to his recent post Journalist Interviews and Blogs and think if we keep at this it might just work!

We might just be the generation that helps human beings use technology. Not to eradicate cultures, bomb a city, or suck another dollar out of labor. But break free information, giving the informed and wise a way to network, communicate, and the tools to make those ventures beneficial to everyone in society.

I think my Dad may take it too far...

I may begin declining phone interviews much more frequently. I prefer to be in the open, on the record, and unfiltered - although I realize there will be need for exceptions at times. The on-line conversations are much more robust.

Technology, is a tool for humans. And human beings deal in and thrive off of personal relationships. Insider games, and elitism, are the things that are eradicated by the openness of the internet. But that doesn't replace personal relationships. Relationships with neighbors, economists, reporters. Whatever your goal is, people are that which stands in your way. The questions is how to make people humans. And you do that by talking, listening, and having a cup of coffee. Blog posts, online comments, social networks. For all of their perks, will never sit across from another person, look them in the eye and say "yeah, I give a shit too....."

Highly complex society's suck the life out of humans. They lose attachment to what counts. THe soul I guess is what poets would call it. And you don't relate to people, teach people, lead people.... if you negate that which we are trying to save. At least we that get it. And know they may be few and far between. But many times I think thats an illusion too... But forget that for a moment. How does one live? Together or alone?

I vote for together.

update with a quote from "No Paradise" by Anti-Flag that I was listening to as I wrote without realizing it speaks to what i'm talking about....

We want the truth
It isn't going to be no paradise
Forget the claims
Oh no
We need to take the world back now
We need to take control right now

Promises of a better tomorrow
Promises bought on borrowed dollars
No disaster ever looked so great
So while I say
As old men delivered that league of terror; war
We ask ourselves what are we dying for?

So all the kids are sick and tired of the news today
Sick and tired of all your lies
We want the truth
It isn't going to be no paradise
Forget the claims
Oh no
We need to take the world back now
We need to take control right now

There is some blue haired 15 teen year old singing those words today. But there is also a political activist in his late 20's and a energy consultant in the Philippines living those same words today as well.

Interesting take on the Bush tax cuts...

From Brad Delong back in July of 2004

First, can we please please please please please please PLEASE!! stop talking about Bush's "tax cuts." There are no tax cuts. There's a tax shift--current taxpayers pay less, and future taxpayers pay more. Only by pretending that nobody has to service and amortize the growing federal debt can you talk about Bush's "tax cuts." They aren't there, any more than a $5,000 increase in your VISA limit is an increase in your income.

.

October numbers to chew on....

Rasmussen - October 2007 (Most recent match-ups)
Favorable / Unfavorable

Hillary Clinton - 49/49 - 54/45 - 47/51 - 46/52 - 50/49
Barack Obama - 47/45 - 55/39 - 51/42 - 47/48 - 48/50
John Edwards - 49/44 - 46/47 - 48/44 - 46/43


Ideology

Hillary Clinton

Conservative - 8%
Moderate - 34%
Liberal - 51%

Barack Obama

Conservative - 7%
Moderate - 34%
Liberal - 49%

John Edwards

Conservative - 10%
Moderate - 34%
Liberal - 44%


Vs. Mitt Romney

Clinton - 47%
Romney - 41%

Obama - 48%
Romney - 39%

Edwards - 52%
Romney - 35%

Clinton leads by 6%, Obama leads by 9%, Edwards leads by 17%


Vs. Fred Thompson

Clinton - 47%
Thompson - 45%

Obama - 44%
Thompson - 43%

Edwards - 48%
Thompson - 39%

Clinton leads by 2%, Obama leads by 1%, Edwards leads by 9%


Vs. Rudy Giuliani

Clinton - 44%
Giuliani - 46%

Obama - 43%
Giuliani - 45%

Edwards - 44%
Giuliani - 45%

Clinton trails by 2%, Obama trails by 2%, Edwards trails by 1%


Vs. John McCain

Clinton - 44%
McCain - 43%

Obama - 44%
McCain - 45%

Edwards - 47%
McCain - 40%

Clinton leads by 1%, Obama trails by 1%, Edwards leads by 7%


Averages

Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of 1.75%
Obama leads the Republicans by an average of 1.75%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 8.00%


He's got the best health care policy... AND he polls less liberal than the two other leading Dem's. What more could you want? Why are we even discussing this?

Thursday NYT Editorial

America’s Lagging Health Care System

Americans are increasingly frustrated about the subpar performance of this country’s fragmented health care system, and with good reason. A new survey of patients in seven industrialized nations underscores just how badly sick Americans fare compared with patients in other nations. One-third of the American respondents felt their system is so dysfunctional that it needs to be rebuilt completely — the highest rate in any country surveyed. The system was given poor scores both by low-income, uninsured patients and by many higher-income patients.

The survey, the latest in a series from the Commonwealth Fund, is being published today on the Web site of Health Affairs, a respected health policy journal. Researchers interviewed some 12,000 adults in Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Given the large number of people uninsured or poorly insured in this country, it was no surprise that Americans were the most likely to go without care because of costs. Fully 37 percent of the American respondents said that they chose not to visit a doctor when sick, skipped a recommended test or treatment or failed to fill a prescription in the past year because of the cost — well above the rates in other countries.

Patients here were more likely to get appointments quickly for elective surgery than those in nearly all the other countries. But access to primary care doctors, the mainstay of medical practice, was often rocky. Only half of the American adults were able to see a doctor the same day that they became sick or the day after, a worse showing than in all the other countries except Canada. Getting care on nights and weekends was problematic.

Often the care here was substandard. Americans reported the highest rate of lab test errors and the second-highest rate of medical or medication errors.

The findings underscore the need to ensure that all Americans have quick access to a primary care doctor and the need for universal health coverage — so that all patients can afford the care they need. That’s what all of the presidential candidates should be talking about.

What can you do about it?

This

John Edwards came out with the best of both worlds. A health care plan that mandates coverage for every American. Keeps insurance company's in the game as long as they play by the rules. And doesn't mandate programs, but lets consumers choose. Using the market to decide who and how they want to be insured. In America, the land of "don't tread on me" you can't sell a government program when millions of dollars will be spent to tell consumers they are losing their free choice. John Edwards gives Americans a choice of what plan and lets the market do what a market is good at.

Plus can you really deal with more of a Clintonian presidency?


Do something.

Multiple Draft Theory...

Curious Idiot reminds me why I liked Consciousness explained....

update: which sent me over to google for a Dennett lecture on consciousness

Krugman and the shrill

Great post... on Krugman which brought me back to Brad Delong's post a while back on Krugman/Bush/and being shrill...

I guess it started, I think, with that extremely strange and not-very-analytical Svengali of the Bush Social Security reform plan, Peter Ferrara, who wrote back in 2001 about "the fierce, shrill, and unreasoned denunciations of allowing workers the freedom to choose a personal-account option for Social Security may impress the gullible... and denounced ..the highly irascible Paul Krugman...

That was, I think, the start of a very peculiar meme: a piling-on of critics of Bush--especially of Paul Krugman--whose sole criticism was that he was "shrill." The critique was neither that he was a bad economist, nor that his accusations that the Bush administration was lying about a whole bunch of stuff were incorrect (indeed, one of Paul's most vicious critics, Andrew Sullivan, gloried in the fact that Bush was lying about his tax cut. See http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/05/yes_andrew_sull.html). So if you wanted to attack Krugman, but could not attack him because his analytics were right, and could not attack him because his accusations of Bush administration dishonesty were correct, what can you do? Well, a bunch of right-wingers led, IIRC, by Mickey Kaus and Andrew Sullivan found a way.

Here's Kaus:

"Comparative Advantage" by Nicholas Confessore: "[Krugman] is obviously a very smart guy, basically liberal, with complicated views, who once recognized when his own side was wrong. And at some point he switched and became someone who only sees what's wrong with the other side, in fairly crude terms," says Mickey Kaus. "The Bush tax cut is based on lies. But it's not enough to criticize a policy to say that it's based on lies. You have to say whether it's good or bad for the country."

(Never mind, of course, that Paul always spent a lot of time, space, wordcount, energy, and breath criticizing the substance of Bush's idiot policies. Yes, they were bad for the country--and Paul said why.)

And here's Sullivan:

www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish: I have long found Paul Krugman an insufferably pompous, shrill, Bush-bashing pseudo-populist...

The accusation--the only line of critique--is that Paul "only sees what's wrong with the other side, in fairly crude terms," or--in shorthand--is "shrill."

God alone knows why they thought this line of attack would do anything other than shred their own reputations. God knows why others took up this line of attack. But take off it did, both as a narrowly-focused attempt to degrade the reputation of Paul Krugman, and as a broader attempt to marginalize all who pointed out that the policies of the Bush administration were (a) stupid, and (b) justified by lies, and it took off both among the yahoos of the right and also among the denizens of the center-left.

Why did it take off? I think the reasons were well laid out by Nick Confessore:

"Comparative Advantage" by Nicholas Confessore: On balance, Krugman's record stands up pretty well. On the topics he writes about most often and most angrily--tax cuts, Social Security, and the budget--his record is nearly perfect. "The reason he's gotten under the White House's skin so much," says Robert Shapiro, a former undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton administration, "is that he's right. None of it is rocket science."

So if dismantling the facade of lies around, say, Bush's tax cut is so easy to do--and makes you the most talked-about newspaper writer in the country--why don't any other reporters or columnists do it themselves? Because doing so would violate some of the informal, but strict, rules under which Washington journalists operate. Reporters usually don't call a spade a spade, unless the lie is small or something personal. When it comes to big policy disagreements, most reporters prefer a he-said, she-said approach--and any policy with a white paper or press release behind it is presumed to be plausible and sincere, no matter how farfetched or deceptive it may be.

Similarly, among pundits of the broad center-left, it's considered gauche to criticize the right too persistently, no matter the merits of one's argument. The only worse sin is to defend a politician too persistently; then you become not a bore, but a disgrace to the profession and its independence--even if you're correct...

This seemed to hit the nail on the head: it was (and is) considered impolite to take what the Bush administration said about the rationales for its policies seriously. Consider the Washington Post's Richard Cohen, sneering on September 16, 2004 at those who took Bush's impact on the country seriously:

I was only briefly enamored of George W. Bush... who went to war in Iraq for stated reasons that turned out to be baseless and for unstated reasons that have yet to be publicly acknowledged... neoconservative foreign policy agenda in which violence plays too prominent and casual a role.... chilled by assertions of near-royal power... choice of judges, his energy policy, his unilateralism or the manner in which he has intruded religion into politics.... I nevertheless cannot bring myself to hate Bush.... In fact, Bush haters go so far they wind up adding a dash of red to my blue...[1]

In this context, given that criticisms of George W. Bush and the malevolence, mendacity, incompetence and disconnection from reality of him and his administration are--no matter how sound their analytics or how true their factual claims--going to be dismissed by many as impolite and "shrill," why not have some fun with and embrace the term?

Somebody needed to say the things Paul Krugman said. But I hear this so much - about the shrillness, about not doing economics anymore (which isn't true - e.g. for just one recent example, who do you think started the meme "non-bank bank run" in the recent financial crisis?), about how he needs more space to explain himself in more detail, how what he will say is predictable, he'll just bash Bush no matter the policy, etc., etc.

I don't have any substantive disagreements with Brad's take on this but I'm still not sure I fully understand it.

Maybe you can help me see this better. So here's the question. If you agree with Krugman's critics, even to a small degree, or even if you don't, how could he have been more effective? In his shoes, how would you have communicated the points he needed to make in a way that would have had more impact? I'm not convinced there is such an alternative path, but I'm curious to hear other thoughts.

The Politics of Parsing

House of 1000 Muppets