Coney made a sensational point two days ago following Amy's post about the woke blathering from 'Marketwatch', and I should have replied immediately:

It's telling that this piece was written not by economists or business professionals, but by professors of political science (not a real science).

The "woke" capitalism that the authors advocate is nothing more than capitalism with an eye toward the marketing opportunities available in showing oneself to be "woke" - i.e., exploiting a heretofore untapped market of minority consumers anxious for validation.

Coney correctly identifies 'consumers anxious for validation.' If any principle in human nature has become more apparent to my lazy observation since Y2K or so, it's the almost universal desperation of people —once their needs for safety, sustenance and shelter have been met— to be flattered by their surrounding culture, whether or not they've done anything to earn it.

But this lunacy appears in every demographic of age and enterprise.

I've seen it time and again in recent years on this blog with regards to Trump. His corruption, his incompetence, shallowness, and personal wretchedness have been documented across a lifetime of tawdry celebrity, and can be presented with rock-solid citation and evidence (such as Amy's post about Mark Burnett a couple weeks ago): But Trump voters won't bother to consider it. Rather, they'll say 'No, Trump's a gifted and successful business figure, with no personal failings to discuss. We're rather pleased with his handling of the pandemic that's closing in on 200,000 American dead and God knows how much suffering, including our own loved ones. In fact, you'd have to be mentally ill to critique him even passim.'

They have this in common with the wokies— So it's not just a problem with 'those crazy kids nowadays. Older people too will affirm that 'I have a right to be correct about something whether or not my idea corresponds to reality!… Especially if it might help my career or social standing.'

Five years ago Sheryl Sandberg was the rock star of American business. Young career women wanted to be Sheryl Sandberg, and businessmen would mumble something about needing to hire 'a Sheryl Sandberg for my team.' Since then her star's been dimmed by the many Facebook scandals in which she's played a central role. Marc Andreessen, even if similarly responsible as a member of Facebook's board, hasn't taken as much of a hit to his reputation… Aside from the diversity and centrality of his contributions to Silicon Valley, Andreessen's a famous and successful venture capitalist. EVERYBODY wants to be Marc Andreessen, no matter what.

In 2015 they appeared together at a conference hosted by Fortune magazine, a business news source probably regarded in journalism as three to ten times as august as Marketwatch.

Their host at the event, a face I didn't recognize (though a white-guy type we know all too well) started pulling some woke bullshit, and over the next minutes, Andreessen grew charmingly angry. Watch the clip here starting at 12mins 40sec, and let it gel… Sandberg eventually tries to calm them down.

Read some the comments. I have to hope they're trolls. If not, they're also the same people who "believe science is real".

https://twitter.com/JAMA_current/status/1304102350857154567

Crid, I think that for many Trump supporters, the attitude is: "I don't care how awful or incompetent he is, just so long as WE get to make the rules for a change. Besides, at least he has the balls not to worry about pissing off the left."

(Except, of course, he's not so ballsy when it comes to, say, standing up to the murderers of journalists. Or any dictator, since we all know how he loves them.)

Btw, check out this CBS Sunday Morning segment "Why Did COVID-19 Become Partisan?"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-did-covid-19-become-partisan/

One handmade sign in the video says (not verbatim, maybe) "COVID-19 is real - the pandemic is not."

Just because the sign carrier doesn't know any COVID patients, I suppose?

If not, they're also the same people who "believe science is real". ~ IRA Darth Aggie at September 14, 2020 6:42 AM

Science is "real" when it tells them what they want to hear. That's why so many of the social sciences, to them, are real sciences - e.g., Critical Race Theory.

========================================

Sandberg eventually tries to calm them down. ~ Crid at September 14, 2020 12:16 AM

It seems like she's trying to straddle the line between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. Although she did bring up a very good point about our public school system, namely that we should be panicked at how bad it is.

Women who need this sort of distortion are basically adult 6-year-olds, kids the grownups feel they should let "win" at checkers.
_______________________________

That reminds me of those parents who can't grasp that tactics such as using positive distractions and avoiding the word "no" like the plague are only appropriate for kids under two - or three at the most. Or for anyone too mentally challenged to go to a standard school - ever.

(I wonder - what do such spineless parents do when their kids cry buckets because they want soda and ice cream for breakfast? Let them have that?)

Btw, while it's also true that toddlers, like dogs, cannot be punished for something they don't even remember because it happened an hour ago (in the case of dogs, it's actually a few seconds), kids over three CAN remember, and so delayed punishments - such as an early bedtime - are perfectly appropriate. (This is important because so often, kids behave badly at times and places where they can't be punished right away.)

> for many Trump supporters, the
> attitude is: "I don't care how
> awful or incompetent he is, just
> so long as WE get to make
> the rules

Yes. That's precisely what I meant.

> Just because the sign carrier
> doesn't know any COVID patients,
> I suppose?

Again, precisely. I mean, they don't think they know any. But since ~30% of infectious carriers are asymptomatic, they themselves might be roaring & sneezing a path through their communities, causing suffering and death to who-knows how many.

The 'Rona isn't a test of political beliefs. It isn't about your feelings of connectedness or independence. It's isn't about finally expressing your suppressed anger at your Dad's new wife Rhonda (that Queen Bitch who "isn't your real Mom and NEVER WILL be!!").

Corona is an intelligence test.

And a lot of Americans are failing.

> we should be panicked at
> how bad it is.

Not to be argumentative, but I can know longer hear that dog whistle. Yes, a lot of schools are weak, and many are plainly bad. But after all, allllllll the money we've put into them across my not-tiny lifetime, and all the exceptions to economic (and other) principle we've made to the benefit of academe, rhetoric off that kind is no longer digestible.

We don't (just) have shitty schools, we have shitty students. And shitty parents. These are problems which, like 'Rona, exceed correction through what you and I would describe as policy.

There are other nations, and you'll never guess who I'm thinking of), who have no problem coarsely dictating the course of life for their young students, the ones who aren't doing so well in STEM classes. Kid, you're GOING to be a day laborer all your life, and that's that. Such nations are similarly dictatorial to their adult populations who don't want to wear masks. Lady, you're GOING to wear a mask, or we'll literally weld you into your apartment building.

I don't care how awful or incompetent he is, just so long as WE get to make the rules for a change.
______________________________

And as many have pointed out by now, that was, from the start, the motive for evangelicals to vote for Trump in 2016 and now. That is, the Supreme Court.

I also remember an interview with some theologian who said that the last four years turned out better than they would have even dreamed.

I have to agree with the Obamas: I like the part where a Clinton is not President.

Oh.

Check out the teleprompter in the reflection. Biden blatantly read from a script for most of the interview with James Corden.

I bet his handlers weren’t too happy with him going off script. He probably got reprimanded.

https://twitter.com/mbracemoore/status/1304606612477403136

I have to agree with the Obamas: I like the part where a Clinton is not President.

Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 14, 2020 10:11 AM

Me too Gog. And I’m starting to relax a little about the improved possibility of liking the fact that Biden Harris aren’t running the country.

That, and ammo prices coming down and reloading supplies available again.

Lenona, maybe try actually listening to Trump supporters. Then you wouldn't have to make stuff up. None of this is complicated or confusing.

"But after all, allllllll the money we've put into them across my not-tiny lifetime, and all the exceptions to economic (and other) principle we've made to the benefit of academe, rhetoric off that kind is no longer digestible." ~Crid

Because money isn't the answer. I can take stacks of $20 and set them on fire. It is a pretty stupid thing to do but it is certainly possible. Just giving someone more money doesn't solve most problems.

As for COVID, it might help if you stopped lying about it Crid. It would be great if you actually understood the risks and realities instead of obsessing over appearance and theater.

with regards to Trump. His corruption. . . But Trump voters won't bother to consider it.

Want to know why? Becuase the media rather than covering THAT gave us four years of "BOMBSHELL REVELATIONS the walls are closing in on the traitorous Putin puppet who pays hookers to piss on him" we have the photos, but wont show them to you

Adam Schiff had personally seen evidence PROVING Trump was a spy for the Russian government, proof he still refuses to show anyone

He brokers a middle east peace deal, something decades in the making, the response? Lets cancel the peace prize and how will this "UNDERMINE" the Palestinian governments standing in their own talks. I dont seem to recall talks I seem to recall bombs attached to ballons to kill children

We get years of Trump was breaking the law to allow someone to get dirt on Hillary from a foreign government (for no money)

We find out Hillary and the DNC literally paid a Brit (foreigner) to but fake dirty from the Russians (foreigner) and no one gives a shit

You know why none of Trump's supporters dont give a shit? They are tired, tired and sick of the double standards.

I have yet to see Trump do or say anything, as a candidate or office holder, not done or said by someone on the left in the last 15 years to the sound of crickets from the rank and file and voters on the left

So excuse me for not caring if Trump calls a reporter an asshole for questioning him about

kids in cages when Obama had 20x as many kids in cages and no one sad shit

border wall spending when Trump has yet to spend 20% of what Obama did

deportations when Trump hasnt deported half of what Obama did

Covid responses when democrats with the same data he had claimed he was over reacting at the time they now say he want reacting

..........

People will put up with a lot of shit to watch hypocrites drown in it

Ben, I did listen. Maybe I should have mentioned that the theologian voted for Trump? I thought that was clear. Even if I hadn't seen that interview (I think it was on PBS) almost every famous columnist I can think of has made the connection between the evangelical votes for Trump and the Supreme Court - and what's so "complicated" about that, anyway?

I didn't "make up" the part about balls either - that came straight from a supporter as well.

And again and again, I've heard people say about Trump: "I know he lies practically all the time, but I trust him."

Finally, I assume you've heard by now of Arlie Russell Hochschild's nonfiction bestseller Strangers in Their Own Land (released BEFORE the 2016 election) which famously quoted a Louisiana(?) housewife as saying "pollution is the price we pay for capitalism." It's not exactly a simple book, but is that any reason not to read it? (Much of it takes place in the Cancer Belt, as it happens. So we're talking about people who are willing to risk dying young for the sake of fewer environmental regulations.)

Btw, there was a revised edition of the book, as one might expect, with an afterword about Trump voters and their reactions after the election.

> As for COVID, it might help if

It might help if you learned how to use commas… If only for the potential wealth of a pipeline in a centralized clearinghouse.

> As for COVID, it might help if

It might help if you learned how to use commas… If only for the potential wealth of a pipeline in a centralized clearinghouse.

> As for COVID, it might help if

It might help if you learned how to use commas… If only for the potential wealth of a pipeline in a centralized clearinghouse.

The web-hosting service strikes again.

Darn the luck.

Trumps 'lies' are generally exaggerations. (it wasn't just a big crowd it was huge, the biggest ever) the left/medias lies are straight out the opposite of what happens.
Left lies: His actions will cause WW3.
Reality: not only no new US wars the biggest steps toward peace in the middle east in decades.
Left lies: His economy will crash, can't possibly work, will be massive unemployment.
Reality: It was roaring gangbusters till Covid, and during covid still isn't as bad as many other countries.
Left lies: peaceful protest
Reality: police and public attacked many hospitalized, buildings burned.
Left lies: Jessie Smollet was brutally attacked by white Trump supporters.
Reality: Obviously faked.
Left lies: Sandman is a racist, and those kids surrounded and attacked a poor elderly Native American
Reality: Nope those kids were the victims of racist attacks there, and then were the victims of a media witch hunt.

Lenona, if that is all you've heard from Trump supporters then you appear to only be watching TV and not talking to any actual Trump supporters.

Meh. Go ahead and keep being confused about the world around you.

Crid, thank you for confirming you are only concerned about appearance instead of substance yet again. Comma usage is your only come back when someone points out how you've repeatedly lied about COVID. It is the same with your projection about your desperate need for flattery and validation.

Actually, half of that was from newspapers. Did you miss the word "columnists"?

Granted, I haven't finished Hochschild's book yet - but she's no tabloid hack, believe me. (She was well known for years before then.)

And how, for the last six months, do you expect me to talk to anyone new, other than those who might turn out to be 15-year-olds hiding behind screens?

So . . . like I said you haven't talked to any actual Trump supporters.

Are you honestly surprised that you don't understand what is going on when your only source for information appears to be propaganda?

Crid, thank you for confirming you are only concerned about appearance instead of substance yet again

God I missed this

Ben, it's still FOURTH GRADE! You're surrounded by LIARS!

LYING LIARS, and the LIES THEY TELL!

Trust no one... Through a collection of improbable contingencies too complicated to describe, YOU PERSONALLY —despite no meaningful academic, medical, social, career or political achievements— are equipped to see the truth about SARS-CoV-2!

B E W A R E

O F

L I A R S

Well, you sure struggle with the truth Crid. And once again you can't provide a counter argument. Logic and reality not really being your thing.

Even if I were to talk to a dozen Trump supporters of different ages and backgrounds, they'd still just be...a dozen. Obviously, one HAS to rely on mass media interviews...as a rule. Whether in newspapers or elsewhere. (The New York Times once devoted a whole page - in 2019, maybe? - to a great many Trump voters so they could explain, as individuals, why they were glad they voted for Trump. Right now, I can't find it.)

I have never heard anyone deny that the MAIN reason that evangelicals voted for Trump was the Supreme Court. Who could deny that if it weren't for that factor, they would likely find him unbearable, given that he clearly cares nothing about religion?

So I don't know what you mean by propaganda. For the record, at least a few lefties said that Hochschild's book has too MUCH sympathy for Tea Party members and similar types, even though she likely didn't actually empathize with them. Clearly, that's not anti-conservative propaganda.

Yes, I understand that "it's the economy, stupid." But as I indicated, something's pretty wrong when people are willing to risk early deaths by cancer, not just for themselves but for their children as well, just for the economy. As the old saying goes, you can't eat money - and that even gets alluded to in Genesis. (I don't know whether she mentioned this in the book, but according to one documentary, green jobs are being KEPT out of the Appalachian region by the oil companies et al, which clearly makes it all the harder for any individuals in a community that has the "crabs in a bucket" mentality to break away from it.)

More about the book, if you like:

https://thenewpress.com/books/strangers-their-own-land

> maybe try actually listening
> to Trump supporters

No one really listens, y'know? And Trump supporters have so much to share! But they can't get a break! President Trump watches Fox and is on Twitter!

I'm lying about SARS-CoV-2, and people need to be told! Counterargument be damned, *you* can lead America to the light! Truth is your sex toy, and "clearinghouse" is your safe word! You're scrubbing the pipeline… It's Logic & Reality, all the way down!

> actually listening

Heck Crid you couldn't even tell the truth when you were rebutting.

"it's still FOURTH GRADE! You're surrounded by LIARS!" ~Crid

Nope. Just you. And what is your obsession with grade school?

Lenona, yes it was the economy and jobs. Second was border security. Oddly enough third appears to be law an order. It is just that boring and just that simple. No 'burn it down' mentality.

As for having to trade off between getting rich and getting cancer, sorry, you are full of bullshit there. There was no tradeoff.

As for evangelicals, which party did you think they traditionally vote for? Supreme Court or not did you really think they would vote for Hillary? Do you really think they swung the election?

I haven't read that book by Hochschild but just from the blurb you linked to it isn't going to inform you. The TEA party is dead. Obama killed it with the IRS. That happened years before Trump-Hillary. So they had no impact on that election. To me this looks like exactly what Crid was talking about in his first post in this thread, a shallow attempt to buy validation when reality didn't match what those consumers wanted. But as I said I haven't read the book.

As for the media, which of your sources predicted the election correctly? Which of them accurately identified who is rioting? Did they excuse an armed man's violent actions by saying 'other than the knife he was unarmed'?

I understand there is a limit on how many primary sources you can access. But unreliable mass media is still unreliable. That it is popular doesn't change the unreliability issue.

No one said anything about getting rich - why did you say that? That includes Hochschild. The attitude among the people she spoke to was that cutting back on pollution (and thus, the cancer rates in Louisiana) would just make the poverty worse - and that there was no way around that, in their opinion. Despite the fact that green jobs are a growing industry.

And last I heard, NO big media source predicted the 2016 election. Only about four individuals did, months in advance. Two were Michael Moore and Mayor Rahm Emanuel - both Democrats.

Despite the fact that green jobs are a growing industry. ~ Lenona at September 16, 2020 6:01 AM

Are they? Really?

Even Mother Jones expressed doubts about the claims of green jobs, "Using extremely generous assumptions, energy economist Roger Bezdek calculated that green jobs accounted for about 5 percent of the US workforce in 2006."

Does the receptionist or sales rep at a solar panel installation company count as a "green" job?

Since a wind turbine "consists of more than 8,000 parts, from ball bearings to fiberglass housing," are we counting working at a company manufacturing those parts as a "green" job?

Are these jobs really net adds to the economy, or simply replacement jobs for displaced workers? Keep in mind that the bulk of solar and wind energy jobs is located out west while the displaced workers in coal are primarily located in the East. These folks cannot simply pick up one day and move to Albuquerque. So, while the net number of jobs stays constant in the overall economy, the displaced West Virginia coal miner is still displaced.

China produces more than 1/3 of the world's solar cells, an environmentally-messy production process. The Chinese can do that with cheaper labor and with fewer environmental regulations, so at a lower overall cost, even when shipping is factored in. Those jobs are not coming back to the US any time soon.

I think the idea that alternative energy will produce all these wonderful high-paying jobs for displaced workers is a bit pie-in-the-sky so far. Like Biden's dismissive "learn to code," such claims belie the claimant's willful ignorance of blue collar reality.

As Conan said green jobs mostly aren't viable without government support. They are a net job loss. They also often aren't environmentally friendly.

As for EPA regulations, most of the ones passed in the Obama era didn't have a significant impact on health. They were a cost with no benefit. At least no benefit to people who aren't politically connected.

The job losses were all too real. From 2017 when Obama took office the number of Americans out of a job went up by 17.2 million. Most of those on the lower end of the economic range.

What is even worse for your argument is the life expectancy dropped in the US from 2013 to 2017. I personally wouldn't attribute that drop to EPA regulations. But either way it just hammers in how little benefit those regulations did.

"NO big media source predicted the 2016 election." ~Lenona

And yet you rely upon them to tell you what is going on. You take their explanation for events they failed to predict at face value. If only two people you trust actually predicted things right why aren't you quoting them on why things happened?

Additional questions. Why can't you do both 'green' jobs and 'dirty' jobs at the same time? Why do you present this as an either or situation? With roughly 1 out of every 3 people in the US not working there are plenty of people who could work. Also the two jobs don't tend to draw from the same employee pool. 'Green' jobs usually draw from college educated workers while 'dirty' jobs draw from high school graduates or less.

What are the details about oil companies supposedly keeping green jobs out of Appalachia? This claim doesn't pass the smell test. First, oil isn't that powerful. Two, oil isn't that big in Appalachia. Coal yes, oil and gas not really. If you can give me some details I might be able to dig up what really happened. But as you presented it the story looks completely false.

Yes, it's possible I got oil and coal mixed up; it's been a couple of years since I saw the documentary I'm thinking of, so I don't remember the title. (I got to speak to the West Virginia director of the film afterward.)

At any rate, if my loved ones were living there, I'd certainly want everyone to have the OPTION of choosing green jobs and thus, I hope, reducing the pollution and cancer rates. Who wouldn't want the cancer rates reduced?

And of course the highly professional media have made mistakes in predicting elections and such at least occasionally. That doesn't mean they get it wrong most of the time - by late October, anyway. Much in the same way that one's teachers in elementary school might be ridiculously ignorant or biased in one or two areas - but most of the time, they DO know their subjects, because they had to study them in the first place, to get their certificates.

Or when, say, some incredible athlete slips up one time out of fifty. Does that prove that person is incompetent? Of course not.

Yes, it's possible I got oil and coal mixed up - it's been a couple of years since I saw the documentary I'm thinking of. It was likely "The Last Mountain" (2011). I'll have to confirm that. At any rate, the West Virginia director was at the screening, and I got talk to him afterward. He told me the green jobs were being kept out.

Rahm Emanuel didn't talk at length about his prediction in Feb. 2016, IIRC.

If you like, here are the five reasons Michael Moore predicted Trump would win (in July 2016):

https://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

And just because the media can't always predict correctly, they typically do, at least by late October. Would we call an incredible athlete incompetent for slipping up one time out of fifty? Of course not. The same goes for any teachers we had who were incredibly ignorant or biased in maybe one or two areas at the most. Chances are, they knew their subjects very well, otherwise.

Sorry - this device keeps playing tricks on me, and I couldn't see my post before.

In the meantime, here's what it says on the flyleaf of Hochschild's National Book Award Finalist - I forgot to mention that distinction earlier. As you'll see, she spent quite a lot of time talking to people.

______________________________________

In Strangers in Their Own Land, the renowned sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild embarks on a though-provoking journey, traveling from her liberal hometown of Berkeley, California, deep into arch-conservative Louisiana bayou country – an area in environmental crisis, where many people suffer from poor health and widespread poverty, enduring rates of education and life expectancy that are among the country’s lowest. Her mission is to do what so few of us are able to do: truly listen to the other side in order to understand why they believe – and feel – the way they do.

Over the course of five years, Hochschild befriends pipefitters, plant operators, an auto mechanic, a truck driver, telephone repairmen, accountants, salesmen, building contractors, a postal worker, a school custodian, and a gospel singer – and she attends fish fries, gumbo cook-offs, Pentecostal church services, and Trump rallies; visits schools, political party groups, and oil-soaked wetlands; and engages in long conversations over cookies at kitchen tables and while looking through photo albums. She meets a Tea Party supporter whose town was swallowed by a sinkhole created by a drilling disaster, a pastor’s wife who calls Rush Limbaugh “my brave heart,” and a homemaker who sees pollution as “the price we pay for capitalism.”

Strangers in Their Own Land goes beyond the commonplace liberal idea that many on the political right have been duped into voting against their interests. In the “red” America she explores, Hochschild discovers powerful feelings – fear of cultural eclipse and economic decline, a deep resentment of the scorn of coastal liberals, and a perceived betrayal by the federal government – that override self-interest as liberals see it and help explain the emotional appeal of a candidate like Donald Trump. What emerges is a remarkable portrait of the country’s deep political divide and profound thoughts about a way forward for us all.

(end)

As I mentioned, the post-election paperback has a new afterword. Plus a reading guide.

At any rate, what I DIDN'T get mixed up about was the high cancer rates in BOTH Louisiana and West Virginia - and likely a couple of other states as well. I seem to remember from the documentary that it wasn't just due to the coal industry; it was also the electric companies - and the high use of electricity by people on the east coast, sad to say.

Since you can't provide any details on the 'got rid of the green jobs' thing I would say with about 80% confidence it was coal and not oil. There is oil and natural gas in Appalachia. But not much of it. There is a lot of coal. The smokey mountains are smokey because of natural underground coal fires. I would also say with a 90% confidence you weren't describing any sort of industry policy. It was just small town culture. Most likely the major is also the local coal mine head foreman and he didn't want any outsiders coming in and threatening his little kingdom. Green or not any new jobs and he may not be king of his little hill anymore.

You see that kind of thing all over small town America. I remember a story from a few decades ago about a small town near I-35 in Oklahoma. Two groups came to town wanting to build, a Ford plant and a state prison. The town wasn't really big enough for both so if one was favored by the local politicians then the other would look elsewhere. So those politicians picked the prison. For them it was better to bring in a bunch of violent criminal than build cars. After all the prison isn't going to grow much. It isn't going to bring in outsiders that would threaten the town council's control. It may be a bad move for the city but it was a good move for the mayor and his friends. Which sounds a lot like your story.

On the 'green jobs' stuff you need to specify what jobs you actually mean. For the most part 'green jobs' is an advertising term. One mainly used to justify funding from government sources. China has a lot of 'green' jobs manufacturing solar panels. Those 'green' jobs have significantly raised the cancer rate in those areas. Solar panels make a lot of nasty pollution when they are manufactured. Wind mills are also considered 'green jobs'. They pollute about the same as any other machinist job when manufactured. But last I recalled wind energy has the highest death rate per kWH. Mainly from falling and fires. Green in no way means safe or healthy.

On your book, no wonder you are so clueless. Rural Louisiana represents the average Trump voter? Bullshit. This is pure ego masturbation. So why does Louisiana have a higher cancer rate than other areas? Why are people in so much despair and so uneducated? Because Louisiana is a former French colony. It is corrupt as fuck. The roads are terrible because all the road money got embezzled. The schools are bad because the money all got embezzled. The cops run protection rackets and gambling parlors. I forget how many mayors of New Orleans have been busted by the FBI. Of course they have higher cancer rates and pollution problems. Who cares what the EPA rules are when no one follows them anyways. And yes the Cajuns have a deep scorn for coastal liberals. They also have a deep scorn for Indians, the British, Texans, and pretty much anyone not born within 1,000 feet of where they were born.

Throw Hochschild's book in the trash. It is less than worthless.

Rural Louisiana represents the average Trump voter? Bullshit.
___________________________________

Excuse me, no one said that. The flyleaf said "...HELP explain the emotional appeal." Besides, as I made clear, the book came out BEFORE the election, so of course neither she or her editors could say more than that at the time.

Given her credentials, I doubt she knows much less about Louisiana than you do.

At any rate, the more than 100 critical/negative reviews at Amazon (the vast majority of the reviews are positive, out of almost 800), very strangely, don't mention what you did, though many of them were long. (Nor were those readers nearly as emotional. Maybe it's a good idea to read it first, as they did?)

The only emotion I have is scorn.

"... help explain the emotional appeal of a candidate like Donald Trump."

There it is honey. There is the claim. And it is bullshit. Written before or after the election doesn't matter. The advertising today which you quoted mentions Trump. And it is false advertising.

Look, if you want a snapshot of rural Louisiana life maybe that is a good book to read. But if you are looking for political insight then you are looking in the wrong place.

So, again, why didn't the negative reviewers make similar criticisms? Maybe because they'd actually read the book and DID find worthwhile political insight?

You can't be sure until you've read it.

Did you read any of the negative reviews? I saw a couple that made the exact same point I did.

But hey, you do you. If you want to be confused there isn't anything I can do to stop you.

Incidentally you may not get the same reviews that I see. I don't know if Amazon does that sort of thing but some retailers do select reviews based on the customer.

You can't be sure until you've read it.

I've got a shit filled brownie for you
You cant be sure you wont like it til after you et it

Kindly give the date - and make sure to say whether they're actual customer reviews or responses to reviews - AND show proof that they actually read the book. Plenty don't, as you didn't. (The only reviews I DIDN'T go through were the four and five star reviews.)

At any rate, as I pointed out earlier, she was there for five years, so she could hardly have been ignorant of the points you made. So if that were really a problem with her research, chances are it wouldn't have made the National Book Award finals.