John Edwards Again, Walmart Again
Yes former Senator Edwards did appear at that book signing.
He defended the choice of Barnes and Noble over Walmart by citing total compensation (although he didn't use that term) because Barnes and Noble has a better health care plan (or so he says).
He also said that he is not anti Costco the same way he is anti Walmart because Costco employees have higher wages (he didn't refer to any Costco health care plan).
The followup article in the local paper in NH is:
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?
headline=John+Edwards+in+NH+promoting+
book+on+homes&articleId=16df404b
-3e60-4537-89ab-80c4d9f0b011
Monday, November 27, 2006
John Edwards Again; Walmart Again
Tonight, former Senator Edwards is to sign his book in Manchester, NH. He is to do so at a Barnes and Noble. The Barnes and Noble is very near a Walmart. One purpose of the Barnes and Noble signing is to highlight Edwards's disapproval of Walmart. It turns out that, in Manchester, NH at least, the starting salary at Walmart is $7.50 (which is the rate Edwards thinks would be OK as a minimum wage), the starting salary at Barnes and Noble is $7.00.
I don't know the non salary compensation at the two employers (this is fairly difficult to find out and subject to calculational assumptions).
Notwithstanding this, what the information shows is not that Edwards is hypocritical ((he probably assumed that the Manchester, NH Walmart would have low starting wages) but that he is ignorant for local information. Data from the Manchester union leader (newspaper).
Background available at:
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2006/11/edwardss_crusade.html
Tonight, former Senator Edwards is to sign his book in Manchester, NH. He is to do so at a Barnes and Noble. The Barnes and Noble is very near a Walmart. One purpose of the Barnes and Noble signing is to highlight Edwards's disapproval of Walmart. It turns out that, in Manchester, NH at least, the starting salary at Walmart is $7.50 (which is the rate Edwards thinks would be OK as a minimum wage), the starting salary at Barnes and Noble is $7.00.
I don't know the non salary compensation at the two employers (this is fairly difficult to find out and subject to calculational assumptions).
Notwithstanding this, what the information shows is not that Edwards is hypocritical ((he probably assumed that the Manchester, NH Walmart would have low starting wages) but that he is ignorant for local information. Data from the Manchester union leader (newspaper).
Background available at:
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2006/11/edwardss_crusade.html
Saturday, November 18, 2006
John Edwards, Walmart and the PlayStation3
Several articles have accused former Senator (of NC, a possible future candidate for President) John Edwards as a hypocrite. The story is that Edwards has been on the speakers circuit criticizing Walmart. However, this year, his son wanted a PlayStation3, and it was purchased at Walmart by a Edwards campaign aid.
A longer version of this is at:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/116797.html
or
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061116/dath035.html?.v=68
or
http://www.walmartfacts.com/articles/4611.aspx
or
http://kevinb66.newsvine.com/_news/2006/11/17/445591
-former-senator-john-edwards-turns-to-wal-mart-for-playstation3
In the detailed version it is clear that Edwards did not tell the campaign aid to get the product at Walmart nor to specifically not get the product at Walmart. The aid simply was trying to please his boss. Edwards has also told the story that his son has criticized a classmate for shopping at Walmart. The fact is that the campaign aid is not the same person as Edwards (father or son) and so the Walmart purchase doesn't seem to me to be an example of hypocrisy.
However, Edwards criticism of Walmart is based on his contention that Walmart employees are underpaid (or that their medical coverage is undersubsidized).
Interestingly, the campaign aid is a volunteer - that is, he is paid nothing or close to nothing.
Ah. The hypocrisy is not with the product, its with the compensation.
In Edwards defense, virtually all political campaigns use volunteers and the volunteers sometimes obtain business or professional contacts that have a value far greater than what a $7/hr wage would have been. On the other hand, many, maybe most volunteer campaign aids end up with squat.
In Walmart's defense, no one forces people to work at Walmart and with a national unemployment rate below 5% for the past year or so, the total compensation package at Walmart (which also includes business and professional contacts as well as resume experience) must be fairly attractive since the company keeps increasing its work forces every year.
Bottom line - OK Edwards is a hypocrite but a minor one and not because of the PlayStation3.
Several articles have accused former Senator (of NC, a possible future candidate for President) John Edwards as a hypocrite. The story is that Edwards has been on the speakers circuit criticizing Walmart. However, this year, his son wanted a PlayStation3, and it was purchased at Walmart by a Edwards campaign aid.
A longer version of this is at:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/116797.html
or
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061116/dath035.html?.v=68
or
http://www.walmartfacts.com/articles/4611.aspx
or
http://kevinb66.newsvine.com/_news/2006/11/17/445591
-former-senator-john-edwards-turns-to-wal-mart-for-playstation3
In the detailed version it is clear that Edwards did not tell the campaign aid to get the product at Walmart nor to specifically not get the product at Walmart. The aid simply was trying to please his boss. Edwards has also told the story that his son has criticized a classmate for shopping at Walmart. The fact is that the campaign aid is not the same person as Edwards (father or son) and so the Walmart purchase doesn't seem to me to be an example of hypocrisy.
However, Edwards criticism of Walmart is based on his contention that Walmart employees are underpaid (or that their medical coverage is undersubsidized).
Interestingly, the campaign aid is a volunteer - that is, he is paid nothing or close to nothing.
Ah. The hypocrisy is not with the product, its with the compensation.
In Edwards defense, virtually all political campaigns use volunteers and the volunteers sometimes obtain business or professional contacts that have a value far greater than what a $7/hr wage would have been. On the other hand, many, maybe most volunteer campaign aids end up with squat.
In Walmart's defense, no one forces people to work at Walmart and with a national unemployment rate below 5% for the past year or so, the total compensation package at Walmart (which also includes business and professional contacts as well as resume experience) must be fairly attractive since the company keeps increasing its work forces every year.
Bottom line - OK Edwards is a hypocrite but a minor one and not because of the PlayStation3.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Slate accuses U2 and Bono of hypocrisy
Slate is one of the most popular webzines. It's article on this subject is at:
http://www.slate.com/id/2152580/?nav=tap3
The crux of the argument is that Bono has been a promoter of aid to the third world and now his band (U2) is relocating a part of their business (the most profitable part, the music publishing) from Ireland to the Netherlands to reduce their corporate tax liability.
The basis of the hypocrisy charge is never stated in the article, alas. However, as near as I can tell the charge is that Bono tells nations that they should provide more foreign aid and then reduces the ability of a nation to provide that aid.
Actually, Bono does other things than advocate foreign aid. He advocates reducing trade barriers that adversely affect third world nations. He also advocates debt forgiveness (which is mostly debt that third world nations owe banks). He also advocates requiring drug manufacturers to basically sell their products to third world nations at a loss.
These ideas may be naive, even conterproductive (btw, a lot of people think foreign aid to 3rd world countries has been a net minus to those countries because, for one thing, it allows dictators to buy more police to beat up dissidents) but they don't affect the hypocrisy argument.
Assuming the narrow charge of advocating foreign aid while diminishing the ability of one country (Ireland) to provide foreign aid, the charge of hypocrisy would be at least partly true. However, the country to which he moved his business (the Netherlands) would now be better able to provide the foreign aid. There would presumably a net loss which is why the narrow charge is partly true.
Slate is one of the most popular webzines. It's article on this subject is at:
http://www.slate.com/id/2152580/?nav=tap3
The crux of the argument is that Bono has been a promoter of aid to the third world and now his band (U2) is relocating a part of their business (the most profitable part, the music publishing) from Ireland to the Netherlands to reduce their corporate tax liability.
The basis of the hypocrisy charge is never stated in the article, alas. However, as near as I can tell the charge is that Bono tells nations that they should provide more foreign aid and then reduces the ability of a nation to provide that aid.
Actually, Bono does other things than advocate foreign aid. He advocates reducing trade barriers that adversely affect third world nations. He also advocates debt forgiveness (which is mostly debt that third world nations owe banks). He also advocates requiring drug manufacturers to basically sell their products to third world nations at a loss.
These ideas may be naive, even conterproductive (btw, a lot of people think foreign aid to 3rd world countries has been a net minus to those countries because, for one thing, it allows dictators to buy more police to beat up dissidents) but they don't affect the hypocrisy argument.
Assuming the narrow charge of advocating foreign aid while diminishing the ability of one country (Ireland) to provide foreign aid, the charge of hypocrisy would be at least partly true. However, the country to which he moved his business (the Netherlands) would now be better able to provide the foreign aid. There would presumably a net loss which is why the narrow charge is partly true.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Senator Kerry and the 'botched joke'.
Two days ago, Senator Kerry was campaigning in California (in support of the Democrat candidate for Governor). He was addressing a University related audience. He made the statement,
"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."
(from a London Times article at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2432208,00.html
a youtube version of the speech is at:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YENegT-spXg
His staff released the prepared text which was,
"Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."
As anti-Bush writer for Slate acknowledges, this 'joke' isn't funny even in its prepared text.
http://www.slate.com/id/2152456/?nav=fix
Kerry was accused of insulting American troops. Kerry at first refused to apologize, then apologized to anyone who 'misinterpreted' the joke.
this was the apology
“As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.
I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.“
A number of writers have suggested that Kerry meant to insult the troops basing their claim on Kerry's 1972 statements on a questionaire sent him by an antiwar group in which he opposes an all volunteer army because it would be predominently staffed by low income, black, uneducated, etc. (it hasn't turned out that way) and his statements in 1971 (made in testimony at a Congressional hearing) criticizing troops are being killers, rapers, etc.
Kerry's 1971 statements =
They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
Kerry's 1972's statements =
Kerry later stated (in 2004) that his 1971 statements were just repetition of what he had heard and that he never saw any atrocities being committed (although in 2006 he said he was proud of the statements and that they were true; indeed some atrocities were committed however many atrocities claimed to have been witnessed by the 'winter soldier' convention attendees were claims of people who had not been in combat or even in the armed forces).
He has never said anything about his 1972 statement.
Personally, I think we have a schizoid situation. One part of Senator Kerry surely realizes that the troops in Iraq are pretty well educated (virtually all HS educated and many with undergraduate and graduate degrees). However, another part of Kerry still clings to his 1972 theory; he has never acknowledged being wrong about the all volunteer army. It is still an talking point among antiwar speakers that blacks (or hispanics, or low income whites, etc.) are cannon fodder. So, a part of Kerry meant to insult the troops. However, that was not the part of him that apologized so I don't think its a good case of hypocrisy.
The non hypocrisy points here are actually more interesting.
1. Kerry badly botched a poorly written joke that was suppose to make fun of President Bush's lack of intellect. However, the botch job followed by the refusel to apologize followed by the apology seems to suggest that, at least in this case, it is Kerry who has a lack of intellect.
2. Kerry's behavior in this case is best explained by vanity rather than hypocrisy. He could have simply released the prepared remarks as soon as he was criticized and said, "I meant to say that." However, to do so would have been to admit that he didn't write his own jokes and furthermore couldn't recognize the joke was bad and worse yet, botched the joke his staff had written for him. If, as has been alledged, Kerry is incredibly vain, such admissions would have been very painful for him causing him to try to find other ways around this problem.
3. In the apology, Kerry uses the word 'troop' in a way that makes it hard to know what he means. He also uses the word 'imply' when I think he means 'infer'. He also can't legitimately claim to 'personally apologize'; he means, I think, 'collectively apologize'.
Two days ago, Senator Kerry was campaigning in California (in support of the Democrat candidate for Governor). He was addressing a University related audience. He made the statement,
"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."
(from a London Times article at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2432208,00.html
a youtube version of the speech is at:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YENegT-spXg
His staff released the prepared text which was,
"Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."
As anti-Bush writer for Slate acknowledges, this 'joke' isn't funny even in its prepared text.
http://www.slate.com/id/2152456/?nav=fix
Kerry was accused of insulting American troops. Kerry at first refused to apologize, then apologized to anyone who 'misinterpreted' the joke.
this was the apology
“As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.
I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.“
A number of writers have suggested that Kerry meant to insult the troops basing their claim on Kerry's 1972 statements on a questionaire sent him by an antiwar group in which he opposes an all volunteer army because it would be predominently staffed by low income, black, uneducated, etc. (it hasn't turned out that way) and his statements in 1971 (made in testimony at a Congressional hearing) criticizing troops are being killers, rapers, etc.
Kerry's 1971 statements =
They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
Kerry's 1972's statements =
"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown,"
"We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'
"Equally as important, a volunteer army with our present constitutional crisis takes accountability away from the president and put the people further from control over military activities,.."Kerry later stated (in 2004) that his 1971 statements were just repetition of what he had heard and that he never saw any atrocities being committed (although in 2006 he said he was proud of the statements and that they were true; indeed some atrocities were committed however many atrocities claimed to have been witnessed by the 'winter soldier' convention attendees were claims of people who had not been in combat or even in the armed forces).
He has never said anything about his 1972 statement.
Personally, I think we have a schizoid situation. One part of Senator Kerry surely realizes that the troops in Iraq are pretty well educated (virtually all HS educated and many with undergraduate and graduate degrees). However, another part of Kerry still clings to his 1972 theory; he has never acknowledged being wrong about the all volunteer army. It is still an talking point among antiwar speakers that blacks (or hispanics, or low income whites, etc.) are cannon fodder. So, a part of Kerry meant to insult the troops. However, that was not the part of him that apologized so I don't think its a good case of hypocrisy.
The non hypocrisy points here are actually more interesting.
1. Kerry badly botched a poorly written joke that was suppose to make fun of President Bush's lack of intellect. However, the botch job followed by the refusel to apologize followed by the apology seems to suggest that, at least in this case, it is Kerry who has a lack of intellect.
2. Kerry's behavior in this case is best explained by vanity rather than hypocrisy. He could have simply released the prepared remarks as soon as he was criticized and said, "I meant to say that." However, to do so would have been to admit that he didn't write his own jokes and furthermore couldn't recognize the joke was bad and worse yet, botched the joke his staff had written for him. If, as has been alledged, Kerry is incredibly vain, such admissions would have been very painful for him causing him to try to find other ways around this problem.
3. In the apology, Kerry uses the word 'troop' in a way that makes it hard to know what he means. He also uses the word 'imply' when I think he means 'infer'. He also can't legitimately claim to 'personally apologize'; he means, I think, 'collectively apologize'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)