This Edwards haircut thing has been bugging me for awhile. I thought it was such a silly thing that it would naturally disappear from the dialog of presidential politics. But again last night I heard it mentioned on TV. Bill Maher I believe. Off site haircuts are expensive:
Let me tell you the story of a woman from Birmingham, Michigan. Let’s call her Lauren. Lauren, who was a regular client at the salon I worked for in Troy, Michigan, broke her leg. Lauren called one day and asked if I would come to her home to cut and style her hair. It was important; she had an event that evening and couldn’t do her own hair. I said I would be glad to, but explained that it would be more expensive. Lauren’s cut and style cost her $150.00 _and_ that was in the early 90’s. Unexpectedly, she even tipped me $20.00.
Here is the math:
At the time, I was producing at about $80.00 in hair work per hour (it averaged higher when I did color or perms). Out of that, my commission was about $48.00. So, to make my basic hourly rate I needed to charge about $48.00 an hour.
Packing my tools, leaving the salon, doing the hair work, packing up my tools again, going back to the salon – took TIME. Did I mention the hassle? Bending her over to shampoo her hair in her bathroom sink (though it was a gorgeous home and bathroom - it was a hassle). Packing and dragging my tools, yes, a hassle. Plus, my time away from the salon, if I didn’t charge her more, would have cost me money.
All in all it took about 3 hours. I charged her $150.00. I could have charged her more and been well within my conscience.
How you charge a VIP:
Flash forward about 15 years and the average cost per hour for a good quality hairstylist increases. Let’s say it just increases by $20.00 per hour. That stylist needs to charge at least $60.00 an hour to compensate for time away from the salon. A plumber charges more than that just to show up and diagnose the problem without doing any work!
Add to the cost that John Edwards is a presidential candidate. I don’t know if he has a Secret Service detail BUT I am almost certain he has security. And with security you have background checks and other time and money consumers -bet on that. It’s possible, I imagine, to be patted down for weapons; possibly there were arrangements for secure transportation. Add to the security nightmare that the hairdresser is bringing sharp instruments like a straight razor and shears.
By this time the hairdresser might be a little bit tense. (Ya think?) Add to this the fact that your client is about to go on TV. Trust me, most people who are about to go on TV are PICKY (whether they are used to being on TV or not). Male or female. The mirror is their best friend and worst enemy – the client is stressed out as well. They must know they look great to do their job well.
All of this is TIME CONSUMING and a HASSLE for both the client and the hairdresser. The VIP client must have a quality hairdresser and a perfect cut or style. A bad hair day is NOT an option. The Hairdresser MUST be compensated for TIME, QUALITY and dealing with all the attendant hassle that comes with a VIP client. That is just the way it is.
A quality hairstylist – working in an undisclosed location :-) does not come cheap. At a minimum of $60.00 per hour charged, the John Edwards haircut was fairly priced. The prep work alone probably took half a day. A celebrity hairstylist would have probably charged more than $400.00 for a 30 minute haircut. And that celebrity hairdresser probably has a tool bag on standby.
Reading Dean’s interview with Thomas B. Edsall is enlightening to say the least. Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter - and other high energy anger peddlers - are explained in the context of what their role is in the GOP scheme of things. Interesting stuff. Edsall’s book is going on my reading list (the paperback is out this summer he says).
A: The Republican Party used many sophisticated data-mining and micro-targeting techniques - culling consumer lists, magazine subscriptions, polling and other information - to develop portraits of individual voters. The goal was to identify likely Republican voters and their “anger points.” Issues lending themselves to political manipulation - i.e., issues touching upon anger points — included gay marriage, welfare, spending for social services, taxes, abortion, and culturally permissive government policies, and government interventions viewed as favoring the interests of ethnic and racial minorities. The GOP found that anger is one of the best motivators for mobilizing political participation. [Emphasis Mine]
Daily Kos: State of the Nation
And with those words, George W. Bush announced the beginning of the Iraq war on March 19, 2003. And on its fourth anniversary, let’s follow this war through the words of George Bush. Follow the time line here
Am I the only one to think that the Clintons are making the stongest case for why Hillary is the politics of the past and Obama is the politics that we need to move on to?
How sad - the party of Goldwater and Reagan has descended to this:
The Daily Dish: The “Faggot” Video
All I heard and saw was loathing: loathing of Muslims, of “illegals,” of gays, of liberals, of McCain. The most painful thing for me was the sight of so many young people growing up believing that this is conservatism.
The Raw Story | Frank Rich: Stop Obama before he’s ‘too’ experienced
What Obama did not have to say is that he had the judgment about Iraq that his rivals lacked. As an Illinois state senator with no access to intelligence reports, he recognized in October 2002 that administration claims of Saddam’s “imminent and direct threat to the United States” were hype and foresaw that an American occupation of Iraq would be of “undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” Nor can he be pilloried as soft on terrorism by the Cheney-Lieberman axis of neo-McCarthyism. “I don’t oppose all wars,” he said in the same Chicago speech. “What I am opposed to is a dumb war.”
What Planet Is Cheney Living On? - Helen Thomas
His experience has obviously not improved his vision. After the first Persian Gulf War ended in March 1991, Cheney — then serving as defense secretary in the first Bush administration — was asked on ABC-TV why Operation Desert Storm had not gone all the way to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
He replied prophetically: “I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government? Would it be a Sunni government, a Shia government, a Kurdish government?
“Would it be secular, along the lines of the Baath party? Would it be fundamentalist Islamic?” he asked. “I do not think the United States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. It makes no sense at all.”
Daily Kos: State of the Nation
This question, this irritating question that some people just won’t let go, isn’t a check for 20-20 hindsight. Neither is it a request for judgment on the administration’s effectiveness in matters strategic or tactical. The question, Senator Clinton, is have you learned anything? Have you learned that to authorize war is always a last resort, not a first, or seventh, or seven times seventh. Have you learned that it’s not okay to allow fear – including fear for your career in politics – to herd you along with the crowd. Have you learned that good judgment isn’t just avoiding error. it’s acknowledging that an error has been made and working promptly to correct it.
Can’t say I am surprised, but we have a long way to go to fix the broken parts.
Poll: Public view of Congress improves - Yahoo! News
Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted this week shows that Congress’ public image has improved slowly but steadily since the November elections when Iraq, corruption and partisan fighting drove congressional approval ratings below those of President Bush.
Hmm. The Republicans will really need to adress the hijacking of the party by religious conservatives (values voters - or the new term they are using ‘integrity voters”) if they want to play in the big leagues again anytime soon.
A liberal backs abortion rights and gun regulations; a conservative wants to ban abortions and legalize all guns. By that measure, what has defined conservatism in the popular mind over the past couple of years has been its willingness to enlist government to block stem cell research, stop the teaching of evolution, and supersede the duties of Terri Schiavo’s husband.
This may be a conservatism that makes libertarians cringe, but it is the conservatism that dominates the Republican Party we have. Republicans generally and conservatives particularly have profited mightily from the rise and politicization of fundamentalism over the past few decades. The decimation of Republican moderates from the Northeast and Midwest in last week’s elections came at the hands of centrist and independent voters who’d had it with the Southernized religious conservatism of the Republicans’ base — and with its moderate Republican enablers.
It’s Iraq. People seem to think they can handle their own morality issues. Think about it.
NEWSWEEK Poll: Bush Hits New Low - Newsweek Politics - MSNBC.com
Presented with a list of factors that may have contributed to the Democrats’ success, 85 percent of Americans said the “major reason” was disapproval of the administration’s handling of the war in Iraq, 71 percent said disapproval of Bush’s overall job performance, 67 percent cited dissatisfaction with how Republicans have handled government spending and the deficit, 63 percent said disapproval of the overall performance of Republicans in Congress, 61 percent said Democrats’ ideas and proposals for changing course in Iraq. Tellingly, just 27 percent said a major reason the Democrats won was because they had better candidates.
The GOP and the Democrats are both being given an opportunity to cooperate and get something done.
Iraq. Iraq. Iraq.
A friend of a friend just lost a nephew in the war. The meaningless, senseless, irrational war in Iraq. What a waste. What a fricken shame.
We all know it. Even those who are trying to use Kerry as a whipping boy again. The man made a goofy attempt at cleverness at GW’s expense and “clevered” himself into a media pickle.
These Republicans have been “using” the troops for nefarious reasons since the war began. Bush speechifying with military people both in front and behind him - while they die by the stupidity of his decision to go into Iraq. Any disagreement with the war or their misguided policy - is against the troops. And it goes on, never ending blather about the troops. If the GOP isn’t using the troops for show-and-tell or for campaigning and retaining power - they claim we - their parents, friends, loved ones who have lost so very much, want to lose this war. Shameful.
Politics is a blood sport. Yea, I get it - we all do. Just stop using our blood for your sport. We know who you think are stupid - trust that we are not. Trust also that it is inevitable that the Republicans will lose power eventually - if not this election then it will be the next, or the next after that.
And as for our troops - we all know that those who fight and die for us are smart. What they are usually not is privileged. Privileged enough to get deferments or join the Guard.
Kerry should have not tried to joke or be clever - he shoulda just called these neo-con crazy people what they are: Assholes.
No, the troops are not stupid, but let’s state the obvious: a great many of them join the military because college isn’t an option.
The military recruiters know this. That’s why they specifically target inner-city and rural schools, and stay away from places like Phillips Andover, where you can go to Yale even if you get crappy grades– where you never have to make a choice to potentially sacrifice your life for financial reasons…
…So, let me ask this: if the military relies so heavily on those who cannot afford college, is it a simple coincidence that the Republican-controlled Congress passed the largest cuts ever in student aid this year?
The staff of Sen. George Allen, who is running for re-election, has apparently roughed up Mike Stark for asking questions that Allen apparently does not want to answer - about an arrest record that has been reported.
In a turn of events that’s shocking even by Republican standards, a Virginia man has been assaulted by the campaign staff of GOP Senatorial candidate George Felix Allen for asking questions at a campaign appearance that they found unacceptable.
Here is another video if you do not know who George Allen is.
I can understand not wanting to answer a question. It is not acceptable to rough up someone for asking a question, especially a question to a politician during a campaign.
I have had a brief email exchange with Mike Stark a time or two and have heard him many times on call-in radio shows - he seems to be a nice guy who asks questions politely and calmly. In fact he has given advice to people who call radio shows to be on point, but calm.
Not the Only One
March 16, 2007 · Filed under 2008 Election, Best Blog Comments, Elected Folks, Friday
No comment »