« Why should sex ... | Main | Harry Reid's rush to surrender »

July 14, 2007

End Poverty! Send me money!

Camp Edwards hardly took a break from the last quarter's fundraising to again filling my email box with more amusingly written entreaties to help Silky Pony

John Edwards is launching the Road to One America Tour next week to shine a light on the 37 million Americans who live in poverty. If we don’t stand up for them, who will? George Bush and his corporate buddies won’t. The lobbyists in Washington won’t. And since the media can’t stop talking about Paris Hilton, you can bet they won’t help shine a light on it.

Will you help end poverty by giving $8? ...

Help our campaign to end poverty in America by signing our petition, giving just $8...

Seriously, stop laughing for a moment and consider.

There is no such thing as a "cure" or a way to "end" Poverty(tm)

"Poverty" is relative. As long as more than a few humans are gathered in one place, their disparate talents and skills will be evident and how they live will also be "unequal". There will always be "rich" and "poor" at either end. And what we consider as the marks of "rich" and "poor" will differ according to culture.

Joe Trippi writes of "people who struggle working two jobs." Yes, working two jobs is a struggle. But in most parts of the world, the poor don't even have one job.

The vast majority of American poor have a roof over their head, food in the fridge, electricity, clothing and running water. Their children get an education financed by their neighbors and receive breakfast and lunch on the taxpayers dime. Many will have their own cars and qualify for their state's taxpayer financed health care. Cell phones and television are also evident in the community of "American Poor". The programs to help the poor in America are legion, from both governmental and private quarters.

And the billions upon billions of dollars spent have not "cured" Poverty.

It has ameliorated much of the day-to-day living problems to a point where American Poor would be the envy of even lower class workers in many foreign countries.

Good faith arguments can center over what constitutes the best policy approaches to helping people move out of chronic poverty and at what cost. However, the Edwards' campaign of Pimping the Poor for $8 is neither realistic nor offered in good faith.

Just another demonstration of the unseriousness of the putative Democrat candidate.

Technorati: , , ,

Posted by Darleen at July 14, 2007 08:18 AM

Comments

I can state with all honesty that any donation sent my way via my blog (click on name) will not alleviate my poverty, but they will help pay for a new iMac.

:)

Posted by: Alan Kellogg at July 14, 2007 08:45 PM

The Onion, has a very funny article on John Edwards that sadly, rings true:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/john_edwards_vows_to_end_all_bad

Posted by: Judi at July 16, 2007 11:35 AM

You know, up until the time i read this on PW, I had given money to only one candidate (a friend of mine running for the Indiana House of Reps about 15 years ago) and it was $10 dollars. Thanks to this post, I realized that Edwards would accept less than that, so thanks Darleen. I have now given to two candidates.

Without your snarky entry I would have never known. You are now a fundraiser for Edwards '08. That should open a few doors!

PS I gave to help Edwards, not because it will help end poverty.

Posted by: timb at July 17, 2007 10:49 AM

You know, until I read your post, I had only bet on one political race, Bush v. Kerry, '04. And thanks to George Soros, I cleaned up on that one. Thanks to you, Timmah!, I started thinking about how I could put my money to good use and now I have wagered on two political races.

When the Edwards futures hit zero, I'll think I'll treat myself to a nice bottle of Bookers, like one of the folks in that other America.

Posted by: Pablo at July 17, 2007 07:41 PM

Oh, Pablo, as wrong as ever, and as silly. I never said Senator Edwards would win the nomination. Only that I wanted him to. If I were betting on the Dem nomination my money would be on Senator Clinton and I'd ride that money train all the way to her inauguration on January 9, 2009.

Still you bet on Kerry/Bush? A race won by 100,000 votes in Ohio? Dear Lord, that bet took cojones! You true believers never doubt, though, do you Pabs?

I'm still amazed you placed money on such a close race! Did you know Ken Blackwell was going to screw with the placement of voting machines and create a burden for Democratic voters or was your fervent belief in Bush your guiding light?**

**Not to imply Blackwell did anything illegal. Immoral? Maybe. Underhanded? Sure. Keeping people from voting is what Republicans do. I can still remember all of my college buddy lawyers (there were like 5 in Ohio) promising at a cook-out/reunion in September that they weren't gonna let Blackwell and friends unfairly challenge people's ballot, etc. They were so fired up. In the end, like all great losing military or political campaigns, they were fighting the last "war"!

And, by the way, I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the President's election either. Tricks are part and parcel of elections and in close ones, they make all the difference.

Posted by: timb at July 19, 2007 08:03 AM

Oh, Pablo, as wrong as ever, and as silly. I never said Senator Edwards would win the nomination. Only that I wanted him to.

And what was it I said, Timmah!? Did I claim you said he'd win? No, I surely didn't.

Still you bet on Kerry/Bush? A race won by 100,000 votes in Ohio? Dear Lord, that bet took cojones! You true believers never doubt, though, do you Pabs?

Of course it was in doubt! But the odds were just too good to pass up, thanks to leftoid market manipulation. Someone, likely Soros, spent a lot of money to depress the value of the Bush futures. Small investment, big return for me and whoever it was gaming the system, I took a fair chunk of his money.

Silky's collapse is a much safer bet, so the return on investment won't be nearly as impressive. But still, I'll think of you when I cash out.

Posted by: Pablo at July 19, 2007 06:28 PM

Cool. I'll be thinking of you and your kind when I see 30 years of Democratic domination commence on January 9, 2009.

I doubt Soros really cares about the political futures market. the odds were good for you, because Rove challenged the basic assumption of American politics (run to the center) and concentrated on the fundies. The analytical part of me thought he was nuts (and that's after I put away my loathing of his past tactics...you know, the computer disk about the war, bugging his own office in Texas, whispering about John McCain, and slandering Ann Richards).

Fortunately for him, the Democrats ran Kerry. Gore would have cleaned Bush's clock. Dean would have won. Anyone who wasn't a pussy would have won against Bush and that strategy.

Oh well, no need to dwell on the incompetence of the past when there's enough incompetence to dwell on now.

Good luck with you bets. I'd buy one on Obama too. The last futures I saw were too high on him. Someday I could see him winning a nomination, but he's just too green to light folks up now. You'll make a lot more on him.

PS I'd jump on a Thompson future too. I think Rudy will shatter him like glass (I'm not completely sure, because Republicans are odd things), because Fred's all shiny and plastic and Rudy is tempered steel. Evil tempered steel, but way tougher than the Law and Order dude.

Cool talk. Catch you later

Posted by: timb at July 19, 2007 08:07 PM

It's a shame you don't real linke.

Posted by: Pablo at July 20, 2007 04:09 AM

Is that English, Pablo? I googled it and came in with a post from "jihadwatch". I wanted to read the post, but like every good reader of Jihad Watch I had to spend the next thirteen hours checking under my bed for terrorists. I've never seen, outside of the writings of Baruch Goldstein, a person who loathed and was scared of Muslims that much.

So, because of all the Muslim fearing (Darleen would be proud), I never got around to reading what a real linke is.

Have a good weekend and keep parsing.

Posted by: timb at July 20, 2007 01:58 PM

That would be a typo, Timmah! For "links". You know, like the one I left above, which, if you had read it, you wouldn't have said this:
I doubt Soros really cares about the political futures market. the odds were good for you, because Rove challenged the basic assumption of American politics (run to the center) and concentrated on the fundies.
Because you'd have known that someone was inddeed playing with the futures market, in a very concerted manner, and with a whole lot of money. If that weren't the case, I wouldn't have gotten in. And if that weren't the case, the futures market would have more closely reflected the election results.

But hey, think whatever works for you. I'm sure Rove won't mind.

Posted by: Pablo at July 20, 2007 07:45 PM

I'm pretty sure Rove's busy deleting emails in violation of the law, preparing to leak other CIA agents' names if they tell on him for something, or attempting to re-write his failing legacy and not paying attention to little ol' me, little ol' you, or the speculation (is that what passes for evidence) of one David Luskin (great source, by the way, shall I quote David Brock next?)

Posted by: timb at July 23, 2007 11:50 AM

Well, as long as you're pretty sure, I'm sure Rove won't mind. Or notice.

Posted by: Pablo at July 23, 2007 09:50 PM

Get the feeling Timb's and Pablo's hospital could use expanded staffing?

Posted by: Alan Kellogg at July 24, 2007 09:56 AM

You know, it's damned tough to get a drink around here. I wonder if Chutch can tend bar.

Posted by: Pablo at July 25, 2007 08:34 AM