I see "two Americas," Karol.

What you dub "class warfare," I see as an interesting point without the hostility you yourself embody in your title. Did he anywhere in that piece decide to poke at the rick? Nah. He just made a point about the poor in New Orleans, the poor in the country and the fact that everyone will rebuild together.

His only crime is coming off sounding like a politician.

Edwards is right on. It's about time we stop ignoring the racial, economic, and social divides in this country as if they don't exist... and start a national conversation about them and find solutions to bridge the gaps that prevent some of us from moving up the ladder despite working full time, sometimes even two jobs. John Edwards had the courage to speak up about the socio-economic divides in this country years before people saw "the other" America in the form of the Katrina victims who were stranded in NO.

I say, "You go Sen. Edwards!" It's good to know that someone understands this country, has the courage to speak up about what's wrong with it, and keeps the will to fix "what's wrong in America with what's right with it."

I don't know who Jane thinks she's fooling. Without clear divisions of race, economy and society liberals wouldn't know who to "help" or who to steal, ahem, get the money from.

Mr. C,
By your analysis then, if we substantially reduce those divisions, then liberals won't have much to do right? Well, then why don't you go ahead and offer your ideas to abridge the economical, racial, and social gaps in this country... and, by doing so, through your definition, get rid of any role of liberals in the society.

Solve the problem if you have the courage or the vision to do so. That is the best thing you can do to keep those liberals away ... so I encourage you to step forward Mr. C.

I'm not fooling anyone. You are the fool here to rely on the same old rhetorical nonsense of political backbiting... think out of your ideological box if you may, sir.

Unfortunately, Jane, you wish the world was something it never has been and never will be - fair. You can't imagine that sometimes people are poor, by choice, and sometimes people are rich, by luck. You believe rich people are filthy racist capitalist thugs and they don't deserve the mansion you spit on.

In the real world, Jane, people sometimes don't like each other, sometimes decide they don't want to move on up to a deluxe apartment in the sky, sometimes decide it would be better to stay at home an go without then to work a second job and lose it all.

What I suggest is not new, it has been around since the beginning of time, and it works.

1) Personal responsibility and accountability.
2) Have compassion for those in need and provide aid and comfort to those in misery and despair.

The first is something you, and others, must do for yourself. I can't do it for you. But the law is designed to provide accountability for you because I can't protect against your irresponsibility. Liberals consistently want to break the laws (immigration, marriage, abortion) and that should stop.

The second comes in many forms, in many ways, at the least expected times. I can't say for certain that compassion, aid and comfort isn't the same as financial assistance or material gain. Sometimes I think it is.

But, Jane, I can say for sure that predicating your political outlook on the inherit assumption that the unfairness of life can be rectified through wealth redistribution can only be classified under one heading - communism. I think history has proven communism is an utter and complete devastatingly corrupt failure of minds, people, and countries.

I understand you want life to be fair. It sucks that some people go without when there are so many resources in world going unused. Actually it's disgusting. I agree. But, that's life. Accepting it is the first step. Figuring out what to do next is the second step.

Jane, see step one.

Mr. C,
Who is talking about wealth distribution? At least I'm not, and I know Edwards is not. A majority of people living in poverty are those who who are the "working poor" i.e. they work full time and still can't make ends meet. How does that work in your world?

Let's talk about the minimum wage... 5.15? How can someone survive on that? While all the other incomes, especially the ones at the top have gone up, the minimum wage has failed to keep up with inflation! I'm not talking about giving hand outs to people...in fact, I abhor the welfare society created by LBJ.

What I want is a country where work actually pays. Go meet with single mothers who work two jobs a day and still can't manage to earn enough to prevent their kids from going to sleep hungry at night. The minimum wage is supposed to be a hallmark of the greatest American virtue: hardwork. It is supposed to say that those who work full time, will get to live with dignity with teh basics of life. You think that the poor in NO didn't work? Didn't you see the numerous normal looking families on the street in NO? Well, these are families who work hard and still live in poverty. They are being responsible, we are not. I hate this republican meme that assumes that all poor are drug addicts, lazy bums... get over that already!

Btw. I'm not an advocate of communism... that is an easy way to stall the argument... make us all look like socialist. Well, I would say that social and economic justice does not mean economic equality... it means a promise of "equal opportunity" .. a principle that America was founded on.

As for your suggestion, sir, it might work for you and me, but it doesn't work for many others who play by the rules, work hard, and still find themselves struggling day to day.

Lastly, about your point on compassion, I have this to say:

"True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Jane,
You are correct; there should be equal opportunity in America. There should not, however, be equal success. This, by its very nature, implies some will succeed and some will not. Some will have plenty, some will not have enough.

But, Jane, you aren't being logical. You can't abhor the welfare state, support economic "equal opportunity" and then argue for minimum wage laws, much less increases in minimum wage. The first argues for responsible actions that result from market decisions, the latter is a call for wealth redistribution.

You have to accept that each person’s position in life is the result of some decision made either past or present. The results of such decision are not always within their control, I dare say not even known at the time the decision was made, but a result none-the-less of a decision made.

My argument is simple: Take responsibility for those decisions, be accountable for your actions.

If your current situation is not a pleasant one, do something to change it. Make another decision. Decide to take more control of your life. Decide to stop doing something not profitable (in an economic sense, not monetary) for your goals.

I am not suggesting this is an easy route. I am not suggesting it will fix the “problem,” whatever you think it is this week. There are ample ways one can take advantage of resources made available: through financial assistance, training programs, government assistance, welfare to work programs, volunteer programs, part time work opportunities, family resources, and church resources. Something as simple as putting pen to paper can change a life – just as JK Rowling.

But let us be clear, Edwards is talking about wealth redistribution. It is, in fact, the only thing he knows, and how he became a disgustingly wealthy trial lawyer. He has made a living off of redistributing wealth from one group people to others, namely himself. If you think he ever helped any of the families he represented, well, let’s just say you can’t put a price on their suffering, but John Edwards did.

Furthermore, minimum wage laws do redistribute wealth. They remove wealth, money, and financial resources, from a priority they are currently being used on to a priority they otherwise would not be used on.

It may be that money is being spent on health insurance for workers and that insurance, which I suppose you think everybody should have, will now have to be cut to increase someone pay. You can choose - Should a business sacrifice health insurance to increase the salary of the lowest?

It may be that money is being used to pay two or three other part time workers and they will now have to be fired to support the increase in pay for one person. You can choose - Should a business sacrifice two or three employees to the advantage, the increase of salary, of others?

It may be a business was considering expansion and ready to hire more employees at the low wage, and now can not expand. You can choose - Should a business sacrifice expansion and the possible employment of many more employees to increase the salary of current employees?

We aren’t talking about Microsoft here, we are talking about local pizzeria’s and bars and crafts shops and diners and hairdressers and TV repair shops and auto repair shops. We are talking about the types of stores that keep most towns in the black. It’s easy to sit in NY, and San Francisco and DC and Philadelphia and argue it’s too expensive to live and uneducated people can’t get jobs and hard working mothers can’t make ends meet. Why aren’t you arguing that maybe those people shouldn’t be living in such an expensive city? Which is in fact exactly what is happening in San Francisco where working families can’t make ends meet, don’t like the lifestyle, and they are leaving. Why aren’t you arguing that maybe people should be looking for jobs where they can afford to live? This is exactly what is happening in Florida everyday where more than 1000 people move into the state everyday from places like NY, Atlanta, Raleigh, DC, and Philadelphia as well as rural towns across America.

There are plenty of jobs available, but, the sad truth of life is some people will never move, never relocate, and never leave regardless of their situation. New Orleans is a perfect example.

When you say they are numerous “normal looking” families being responsible which America were you referring to? Did you mean the white ones or the black ones? Did you mean the looters or the law abiding citizens? Did you mean the cops and aid workers or the snipers and rapists? Did you mean the famous musicians or the unknown elderly and abandoned children? Because, Jane, the disaster in New Orleans affected the disadvantaged and the advantaged equally.

If, you think some people in America don’t make enough money, then go find somebody and start sharing your income with them. Husbands and wives do it all the time. But quit arguing the rest of us should be doing the same. How is it you know what is best for any group of people, or that you can decide that some person is more worthy of wealth than another person? Quit asking people to sacrifice their health insurance, their salary increase, their bonus, their growth for the minimum wage of one person. Quit validating the benefits for one group and discounting the benefits of another.

Jane, listen to my argument, it is not a meme. I am arguing we treat equal opportunity for success the same way disaster treats people equally - let people decide what is best for them when the situation arises. When the flood water is up to your chest, you can choose to steal flat screen TV’s and jewelry or you can try help the elderly, the sick and the children escape. You’re not going to get rich either way, but one way builds society while another destroys it.

I am arguing the rest of us hold people accountable equally for the actions they should be taking responsibility for. And, I’m arguing we all should have compassion and charity in whatever form we can offer, to those who need it most. But not just in New Orleans, in America at large.

I've heard this crap for years, c. You and your cadre are always spouting off that any means of paying a livable wage is somehow Communist and /or wealth redistributing. Jane, don't buy in. You have it right. C is a product of stone age laissez-faire economics that have proven to be unworkable in c's pure form.

Theoretically, laissez-faire proponents believe that left to itself, an economy will thrive if unencumbered by Government interference. The (flawed) belief is that an individual free to totally determine his own self interest would create a harmonious, free, perfectly competitive economy. Because of the freedom there would be maximum production and security for all.

However, the reality is that laissez-faire, "inevitably" will consume itself. Capitalists, who SHOULD profit from their endeavors and risks, invariably will exploit their workforce. Human nature is stronger than economic theory should be the lesson. During our brief experience with this system in it's purest form in this country, we created super rich owners and dirt poor and overworked workers.

So via Government intervention, laws, rules, and regulations were created that set particular wages, break times, and safety procedures in the workplace. This was the forerunner to today's Free Enterprise System.

If someone is having to work two jobs to try and maintain a certain level of personal dignity, that means two employers are getting less than premium results for the money they are paying this employee. What it also does is remove this employee from the free enterprise system therefore hurting the company that he works for and the other companies. One can't very well help the company he works for if he can't afford to buy it's products. This was another problem of laissez-faire, too.

Finally, Government along with psychologists and other social scientists discovered that "moral"
was also a component in the "productivity" equation. If a workers wages provided for certain other creature comforts in addition to the basic needs, employers got a better return by way of a dependable, stable, and loyal workforce. This too went against the Capitalists/owners train of thought.

For these reasons and others, Jane, you are precisely right in your comments and thought process.

And c, before you zap me with the "L" word, I'll have you know I'm a successful business owner and employer of 42 wonderful and fairly treated employees and friends.