Sunday, April 23, 2017

Be scared...be very, very scared...

Have you ever wondered how American democracy goes down?  I mean really.  I suspect that if you are the "average" American you are under the delusion that it will go down because of Middle Eastern terrorists.  Or if you are slightly more than average, you might be under the impression that we will do it ourselves.  While that is definitely true, it will not be by "ourselves" in the true sense of the word.  Still, if you are even a little smarter than that, you look around at the state of the world right now with countries like Iran and South Korea with nuclear weapon capability compared to our current leadership and you're pretty sure a nuclear apocalypse is just around the corner.  Of course, that wouldn't just take down American "democracy"; it would take the entire of the planet with it.  So imagine if I tell you it simply will go down with a whimper, because we as Americans have allowed it to?  

Americans love to talk about our "democracy".  We love to think that we are "better" than everyone else in the world.  A friend recently posted on Facebook how mortified he was on his vacation to Mexico that Americans he observed acted like assholes.  I'm very familiar with this.  We do it at home also.  We like to assume that all foreigners are stupid.  It adds to this overall psyche of superiority that we developed after bailing Europe out of 2 world wars--the wars to end all wars.  But they didn't "end" war, and we have become one of the least successful warfare countries in the world.  We didn't win the Korean War.  It's in armistice.  We certainly didn't win Vietnam; ask any 'Nam vet.  Ask most Gulf vets, doesn't matter which campaign, we haven't won.  When we've had the upper hand, we pull out.  Our "arrogance" is founded on wars that ended more than 70 years ago.  The majority of the Americans that won that war are dead and been dead for more than 20 years.  We are not that America anymore.

Sure, we're not that America anymore, and some Americans would love for us to be that America again.  I understand the appeal.  My Grams was everything to me growing up, and I remember seeing America through her opinions and her eyes.  We were the apex of global power.  We were also hypocrites so far from "equal" that just the color of your skin decided what you could or couldn't accomplish in life. We used to have FCC rules that required the news to be delivered with opposing views also, so that we as Americans would have the opportunity to "think" for ourselves.  During the last year of President Reagan, these rules were removed and opened the door for the tabloid news crap we get today.  I'm a huge Reagan fan and we now know he was probably fairly ineffective that last year due to Alzheimer's.  So who did this?  No outrage when we finally discussed it more than 15 years later.  Not a whimper from the politically left.  Not an outrage from the politically right.  Gone.     

Now imagine if I tell you while you are so worried about Facebook selling your personal information, you're one of the typical Americans that is utterly clueless.  That's not even the tip of the iceberg. While barely anyone in the USA is talking about it, the "it" has been being talked about overseas far more.  Ironic, right?  Socialist forms of society of Europe are more concerned than our far more capitalistic, democratic society.  First, let me put your personal information in perspective.  You have a phone.  You download apps.  They have your information for free.  You gave it to them.  You shop.  You give them your credit card number and name.  They know your credit score and how often you apply for credit.  It's not a hard back step for them.  You play those games on Facebook that tell you who your "Hangover friends" will be.  All those companies sell your information.  You didn't actually think they make money off those ridiculous ads on their pages, did you?  Aww, you did?  That's so sweet.  Every time I see one of those stupid posts warning me about my FB settings and how they are going to sell my information I have to laugh and then I'm a tad irritated.  How stupid are some people?  We already gave them permission to sell our information by joining their damn site.  Ironically, FB takes our freedoms and personal information more seriously than we do.

Some years ago Facebook had been working on an algorithm that would help predict our personalities.  The reality is that algorithm is up and running and being improved upon everyday.  Facebook claims to only use it for less than nefarious purposes.  Helping decide which ads you should see and scientific research.  In 2013, the personality aspect of the analysis was a minor blip, because we didn't think it that important.  By we, I mean the American population as a whole. Even those of us, like yours truly, that had some amount of concern, saw the scientific value.  Personality estimates have now shown to be somewhat accurate, but that rarer personalities may be even rarer--particularly in lower populace regions of the country.  For example, I'm an ENTP.  We make up 5% of the population, but in rural areas we are close to zero.  ENTJs are only 3%; the only way people in rural areas are going to meet most of them is when the CEO flies in with his entourage to tour the only plant in town.  Extroverts are more likely to live closer to city amenities than introverts.  Some of this becomes common sense.  But that N--intuitive--versus S--sensory perception ability tends to be more in higher populated areas.  Do we move out of the areas that most are sensory to find more like ourselves?  You can see how this data from Facebook could be very interesting and have scientific value in how we could populate more rural areas with the people that could help grow the economy in those areas.  But what if....       

It's no secret that very few Americans question the news media that they watch.  God forbid you try to talk to someone who watches only Fox News or NBC News.  Now imagine these news organizations, political entities or advertising firms representing political entities having the power to appeal to you based on your personality.  It's no secret this ability would be the "Holy Grail" of political campaigns.  So imagine my shock and dismay while listening to BBC World News on SiriusXM the commentator announces that the UK advertising firm, Cambridge Analytica, have admitted to using personality driven ads, up to 350+ different ads on FB every day, geared to get Trump elected.  I was shocked.  They didn't do polls.  They didn't give a shit.  They used your personality and had different ads geared to put ads in front of you that would make you more likely to vote and vote for Trump.  One thing that they pointed out was that some personalities were easier to manipulate than others.  But guess what?  Heard of the 80-20 rule?  It's a rule that states that 80% of your problems come from 20% of the root causes.  It also has been proven over the years to apply to just about everything--including people.  So, 80% of the people fall into personalities that are more easily manipulated.  Now, add (pun intended) in the idea of using information, true or not, to guide their decisions in elections....

Oh but that's silly.  A computer can't predict me.  Well, even Facebook has acknowledged that the algorithm has reached a point where it can predict your behavior better than your spouse or family or closest friends.  There are a couple of personalities that it is not that great at predicting.  I happen to be one of them.  The "debater" ENTPs can rest comfortably.  While it knew I hated Clinton, it couldn't feed me the right ad for Trump.  It wasn't that hard to know I hated Clinton; I lost several ultra liberal FB friends during the Obama years.  Now, FB wouldn't sell the algorithm to anyone, *rolling my eyes*, during the election.  Well, one of course they wouldn't because theirs is the premier product right now and two Zuckerberg is one of those NTP/NTJ types.  He's not selling this to use for manipulation of that level.  It would interfere with his idealism.  It's okay to make money by giving you what you want in ads, but not okay to the level of using your personality to manipulate a political campaign.  So, the reality is that Cambridge Analytica's claims are not only possible--it is very probable.  

Using analysts to turn the tide of public opinion and "manipulate" the masses via news stories and other staged events is nothing new to the political scene.  This has been a huge, expensive market and the few people willing to sell their souls and that have the ability to do this make billions of dollars, yen, euros, etc. helping politicians around the world manage their public image and manipulate public opinion.  But this is a gift that only a few people have.  It's ironic though.  Zuckerberg is an INTJ and this is the most manipulative of all personality types.  In fact, most political strategists are INTJ, and as previously stated the NTP/NTJ personalities make up the 20% (well, 18% but anyway).  That's right.  Those that are most likely to manipulate and least likely to be manipulated are the 20%.  So what are the 80% then counting on?  Either the innate kindness of these personalities to "do the right thing" or it's time for them to wake up.

Wake up?  Yes, wake up.  Regardless of personality type, we all have things that are very important to us.  Some of us are more easily fed than others, but regardless, we need to realize that given the right information about us personally--what we like, what we don't like, who we hang around, what they like, what they don't.  Every time we like something on FB, we tell them who we are.  It's no longer a guessing game to figure out how to manipulate the masses that only 3% of the population is really good enough at it to make money.  No, now anyone that can afford to buy access to this software can do it via Cambridge Analytica or any other organizations that have been developing this software.  In this day and age, whether we like it or not, it's come to fruition that all of us have to start paying attention and broadening our minds and opinions to more than just what we agree with.  

What do I care?  I'm one of the NTP/NTJs right?  Only about 3 to 5% of us are actually wanting this "new world order" where the very few rule all of us.  INTJs are most likely to be successful manipulators; yet, even Zuckerberg is loathe to allow the most powerful tool of this sort for these means.  The other 15-18% are not interested in this sort of "utopia".  Mindless morons easily doing what they are told based on the ability to use their personalities to control them is not our utopia.  In our utopia, everyone thinks for themselves.  Who would I debate with if there was no one to debate various ideas and concepts and all the grey area in between?  I have grown over the years because of the other personalities and their different views.  If everyone was manipulated into just thinking this or that and nothing in between, the world would be nothing but manipulated mice not even realizing they are in the maze.  Perhaps the severe polarization we saw in the last election is indicative that we are already there.  

The fact is the cat is out of the bag.  The ability to use our personalities to manipulate the majority of the masses is real.  There's no putting it back into the bag.  What used to be so many different factors on who might do this or who might be able to be brought to think this over that...it was as much a guessing game as an art form.  Now, it's as easy as spending several million dollars.  We are for sale and most of us don't even realize it.  A true "utopia" of slaves that don't even know they are slaves being bought and sold in political advertising board rooms.  This is how American democracy dies. 

Monday, April 17, 2017

Tired of paying a couple hundred bucks a month...

If you're like me, then you've probably stuck with cable or satellite.  You call and renegotiate yourself back into a contract with satellite or you threaten to go to cable...or vice versa.  Telling the cable company that you want to go to satellite might get you a slight price break, but 6-12 months later you're right back where you started plus some.  If you're tied to a satellite company, you can't call for 12 months after that "cool" 12 month price break ends in your 2 year contract.  One of the satellite companies had me at about $160 a month about 3 years ago.  So I switched to cable.  It dropped to like $80 a month.  Then one day I realized I was back up to $150 a month.  It's like the never ending succubus of television hell.  

Admittedly, I hem hawed like you probably are. Unless you're a boob tube addict, you probably only watch a handful of shows.  If you're like me, you're discovering that there are only like 3 or 4 you want to watch regularly.  So what are you going to miss out on?  Well, cable will give you local channels, but satellite companies are wanting too much money from local channel affiliates and periodically you're being fed commercials for you to pressure the local affiliate to capitulate to their demands.  You can still get these channels for free though if you want them--all you need is an old fashioned antenna.  That's right and you can buy one online or wherever you buy your electronics.  Of course, the only reason I watch the local channels really is for the news.  Okay, not really--more like just for the weather when I wake up in the morning.  I don't even need an antenna really.  I can stream their news on my phone.  I can even watch it on my TV if I have the right equipment.  

What television channels do you watch the most?  Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS?  TNT, TBS, Cartoon Network, Disney?  Sports channels--ESPN, Fox Sports, NBC Sports?  Make a list of what TV shows you watch regularly.  I watch a lot of TNT shows.  I watch "Designated Survivor" on ABC.  I watch "Empire", "24", "Blackish", "The Man in the High Castle", "Supernatural", "Elementary"...okay so I get home and I want to vegetate or read or type this blog while listening to some drama or sitcom.  I want to watch the race on the weekend or Premier League.  Well, I can watch sports at a bar.  "Supernatural" and other CW shows are all free via the CW website/app.  All those other shows are on Hulu within 24 hours of airing.  EXCEPT CBS.  CBS has it's own app and you can pay direct online to watch CBS or wait until the next season comes out and watch the last season on Hulu.  This was all perfect, except...my sci fi addiction to "Doctor Who".  A true Whovian I must, absolutely have to watch, the current season of the Doctor as it airs.  I can wait for CBS's Sherlock Holmes for next season to come out so I can watch this season on Hulu.  Screw CBS.  But the Doctor?  Sigh.  What's a girl to do?  

A girl needs her BBC America and Sling TV doesn't even offer it.  Sling toots off being the cheapest...and they are.  But if you are into sports, you'll spend $40 a month for it and only 40-ish channels.  But channel for channel, the lowest DirectTV Now package at $35 a month is way more bang for your buck with over 60 channels.  Now DirectTV has eaten some crap, because Sling was first.  I'll admit the complaints that the streaming didn't work gave me pause.  But there was the thing that Sling requires you to have the larger package or you can only use it with one device at a time.  So, I opted for DirectTV in spite of the complaints.  

What about those issues with operating with DirectTV?  (Sorry, can't speak to Sling.)  Well, I'll admit with the first generation Amazon Fire stick, periodically it was coughing.  BUT, with the free Amazon Fire Stick that DirectTV included with me agreeing to sign up on the spot rather than a free trial, well, all those glitches are gone. 

Well, yea, but what about my DVR or OnDemand options.  DirectTV offers replay for about 3 weeks of new episodes of shows that have gone by. You're going to have to watch commercials, but here's the thing, it's like your OnDemand already.  It's a little less than watching live.  This option will not work well with the original Fire stick, but you can also stream DirectTV from a phone or tablet with a Google Chrome. 

Now, here's the major limitation with the streaming services: They only have Fox of the "major" networks.  Hulu offers all but CBS shows the day after airing and the whole season, including Fox.  Of course, if you have an antenna, you won't care anyway, except that you can't watch at your leisure.  With the antenna, you're tied to watching when the shows air. 

BUT you want your sports.  With the exception of NFL Sunday Ticket, if you are a sports addict, all the major sports offer online streaming packages.  I have NHL Center Ice.  I can watch it on my phone and I can cast it from my phone to my TV via Google Chrome.  Problem solved.

Here's the final scary problem for most of us.  Which hardware to use?  You can Google Chrome and cast from your tablet, computer or phone to your TV.  Or you can purchase the Amazon Fire Stick or console.  I own both the Google Chrome and the Amazon Fire Stick.  These both have their positives and negatives.  Amazon offers all kinds of apps for the Fire Stick and sometimes the apps aren't completely debugged.  Google Chrome is only limited by the device you are casting from.  If you are an Amazon Prime member and you order the Fire Stick from Amazon, when it is delivered and you plug it in, they will have already set it up for your account.  You just have to put in your passwords for your wi-fi and Amazon account. Google Chrome needs you to download the app to cast from your phone or tablet and you'll need that to set up the Chrome stick also.  The Fire stick is easier to set up in my opinion even if you didn't get it via your Amazon Prime membership.  The Chrome will cost you $35 at Walmart or Google shop.  The Fire stick will cost you $40.  If you're like me, you can have both for less than half of one month of what you are paying the cable or satellite company.  

The hardest thing is admitting you are wasting money.  And you are.  I took my bill from over $150 month for cable to $43 a month for Hulu and DirectTV Now.  I recommend keeping cable internet.  DSL can be expensive.  Of course, if you have AT&T as your cell service provider, there are a couple of bonuses to consider.  One, you get DirectTV Now's lowest version for $10 a month.  AND you also can get "unlimited" streaming to your phone.  (This would be a time that you would want the Chrome over the Fire stick.)  A friend told me there's some limitations to that streaming to your phone, and of course, these deals could go away and have you tied to AT&T for your cell service.  So I'm not advocating this.  Just if you already are with AT&T, you should take advantage if you are taking my advice about dumping cable or satellite.  

Now, the final question.  What about multiple TVs in the house?  Well, I kept my internet with the cable company.  We stream music, shows to two TVs simultaneously and surf the internet from 2 or more devices...with no issues.  You won't have to watch the Disney channel because the kids or grandkids are.  

The basic recommendations:  Hulu, $7.99.  DirectTV, $35.  Amazon Fire Stick (the newest generation), $40 (one time per tv). 

Add for the sports fanatics: Google Chrome and sign up for the streaming offered by your favorite sports--or go to a sports bar.

AT&T cell customer:  stream from your phone--opt for the Google Chrome.   


Saturday, April 8, 2017

Those who can, do...observations of experience and social class...

Reading is one of my favorite pastimes, although I rarely read as much as I like.  I enjoy pretty much anything but "self help" books.  To no surprise, I've been reading a book called White Trash.  The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America.  As the title implies, it focuses on the underclass more so than the upper classes.  I have read books about the rich in America, how they became rich, and how the upper class formed.  It's usually on the backs of others and rarely sugar coated.  I've read books of how the industrial age helped create the middle class, but honestly I've only read a couple books about the underclass, the lower income, the lower class.  Generally they focus on the problems with, not the creation.  This book is unique in the fact that it is focuses on how the underclass, aka. the lower class, of America formed.  It is unfortunately written with an extremely liberal political lean.  I suspect a conversation with the author would be extremely interesting--not because I've remotely agreed with most of her analysis, but because I'd like to know how she formed these opinions about the lower class that slanted the book so much.  It should be no surprise that it really makes the case if you read her opinions as facts that the underclass is a pitiful state and everyone that isn't part of it is to blame.  But my blog isn't about her book, so much as my assessment of the classes in our society--maybe somewhat compared to hers since she was kind enough to share her opinions in an "historical" analysis.

For example, a fact is that Benjamin Franklin, yes the Founding Father Ben Franklin, wrote that the lower classes were debase, immoral, and basically worthless.  Yet, this is also a man who very regularly employed "ladies of the evening" and was suspected of numerous liaisons with women of "fine breeding" who were married or otherwise disposed.  We could go into the facts of his writings versus his hypocrisy of what his life was.  She certainly does go into the Founding Father's history of an apprentice for his brother in Boston, thus chastising him for his low view of the 1700s underclass since in her mind he was of this underclass for "running away" from his apprenticeship.  We won't go into the debate over whether this made him the underclass of his day, even temporarily.  I simply have a different assessment of the facts of Ben Franklin's past and this is indicative of where her opinions split with mine.

However, that is one of the interesting fact of the times, the 1700s.  Youngsters were "apprenticed" to tradesmen.  This was a carry over from the society of Britain at the time.  There was an emerging middle class in England that focused on trades such as printers, exporters, the law, et cetera.  These apprentices were housed, clothed, educated in the particular trade and paid, often meagerly--the cost of this "education" was a form of servitude where the apprentice would have to work off the "debt" incurred for some number of years.  In most cases, this servitude could go for years and years--even decades--and any apprentice that "ran away" could be arrested and placed in debtors prison.  A modern comparison would be our military--sign a contract, be taught a job/trade and have to serve some amount of years, clothed, housed, 24/7 job with meager pay until the contract is paid in full.  Apprenticeships of this sort actually continued into the early 1900s, although debtors prisons did not.

Debtors prisons were an English rule thing.  They were really a European thing of the age.  England was coat up with them and many of this underclass of England were shipped in droves to the Colonies after serving their time in debtors prison.  The prison time did not alleviate the debt; it was still owed when the person was released.  But much like today, anyone that served prison time had a black mark that made it difficult for them to work.  Coming to the Colonies offered a way for these people to start anew.  For the creditors, it offered a hope of recovering some of the funds that they were out.  Ironically, often the funds they were "out" were rent, just the subsistence to pay for a roof over their heads were hard to come by.  Sometimes this was because they had become accustomed to the landowners being lenient in collecting rent and then a new landowner wanted all the back rent immediately.  More rarely it was a landowner who could no longer pay their own taxes and debts.  This wasn't rare because it didn't happen often.  It was rare because landowners were much less of the population.  Ironically, both often came to the Colonies in search of a new beginning.    

The myth that we evolved just from religious freedoms is at best true-ish.  The Puritans were not some extremely chastised class under the Crown of English rule.  In fact, in the 1600s the Puritans were a major party in the Parliament.  That's right.  They were part of the ruling class of England also.  With the split from the Catholic Church prompted by a King who wanted to divorce and marry his mistress, there emerged multi-factions and ranges of religious piousness.  The Puritans were those that thought any of the orate trimmings were unnecessary.  Many of them began to question the concept of royal rule because they thought of God as all supreme and began to reject the notion that the King was crowned by God's authority.

So, this is what the Colonies were founded on.  A lower class trying to escape debt or find their own pot of gold, a religious class that wanted to reject royal rule whether poor or not, and finally a group that were sent to rule.  We won't bother with that third group.  It was the group that extended the system set up in England to the Colonies and ultimately to the USA.  It is arguably why we ultimately rebelled.  A subject for a different blog perhaps.  The fact is that most of us, even those that can trace their roots all the way back to the 1600s and 1700s are running away or rebels of some sort.  

Now, the reality is that the lower classes of England were the majority of those that came to the Colonies.  Kurt Cobain wrote "all we are is all we know".  We, any one of us, are the sum of two things..  Our personality--the DNA that makes us up.  And, our surroundings, and by surroundings I am referring to family, friends, social class, financial means.  In reality maybe neither are controllable.  We are born with our personality, which molds us based on the first 5 years of our lives most recent psychological research indicates, and the family and social standing of our family.  That for most of us is the 1st five years of our lives and we have no choice in any of it.  In personality, I include intellect and emotional responses--the whole make up of who we are.  In family, social standing of the family--the economics of class are chosen for us.  Here's where I agreed with her assessment.  In order to maintain power and control, those in the upper classes of power encouraged layers of social class.  Those in power put into place layers of class.  Our ancestors were encouraged to ideal themselves into the layer they were in and look down on the layer below them.  The irony in this approach is that the lower layers actually hold each other down because each of them is looking down and holding down someone.  Regardless of color of skin, and often including color of skin, someone below them in their own minds, could be treated as less and have to accept that lower level in the societal ladder.  There was no way out without someone from a higher layer being willing to help them up...ie. that whole apprenticeship "contract".  More importantly, even when these opportunities presented themselves, whether someone in the lower classes accepted or even had the ability to accept these opportunities, all hinged on the environment they were in--whether their family supported it or not.  In many cases, someone would talk down to the person who was "smart" enough to be offered these opportunities, as if the person thinking about improving their circumstance was getting higher and mightier than they were allowed to.  It was a control based on jealousy and insecurity of the social class one was born into.

The book goes into how this jealousy and insecurity was used to victimize each other within a perceived social class layer.  The keyword here is victimize.  Yes, we do have people who have not the ability or the desire or both to leave their particular layer of class hell who will victimize others that are trying to leave their social layer.  But the victim mentality is not shared by those that leave their social layers and her insight fails to recognize that.  Perhaps 20 or 30 years ago, I would have agreed with her.  But a few years in the deep South when only 51% of the state believed that someone of less than 95% white should be able to marry someone of 95% or more white--literally a State Constitution change voted on in 1998 in SC...well, I learned about these layers really quick.  There's a lot to be said about actually living through something versus just reading about, talking about or even observing it.  Twenty years ago, to my shock and dismay, people would get up in my face and ask me "what are you?"  They were demanding that I identify my race.  It was the mass majority of time this lower class of white that Dr. Isenberg is talking about.  I gave sarcastic answers that had nothing to do with my race.  Female, veteran, mother, ex-wife, American,.. I didn't get it at the time.  Eventually, I looked at a couple, trashy, both appeared to be drug addicts, and up in my face demanding at the Winn Dixie, "what are yeewwww?"  I glared at them--almost 10 years of this shit hadn't changed my resolve to not give the answer they were looking for--and flatly said "mechanical engineer".  They looked at each other, looked at me, looked at each other, and did a 180 and sprinted away like they were trying to win the 50 yard dash in the Olympics.  I stood there dumbfounded.  I had this conversation on an average of once every couple months for the better portion of a decade.  The normal response simply continued to demand I give them the answer they were looking for--what is my racial make up.  "Who knew?" I thought to myself as I walked away.

The experiences that lead up to that moment ran through my mind.  What was different this time?  I had no idea.  I was considerably dumbfounded.  I was then relaying this episode to three colleagues--two black, one white--all Southerners for the entirety of their lives.  They burst out laughing.  What was so funny?  "You really don't know?" was the response from the lady of the group.  No, of course I didn't.  I was raised that everyone was equal.  That, it was explained, was a luxury of someone like me.  Like me?  WTH?  I came from an educated family and basically thought of myself as white.  Yes, point?  None of this was making any sense to me.  "You told them it didn't matter what race you were.  When the cops got there, you are educated and they are white trash.  The cops would side with you."  The one friend and I talked about it more later.  He told me that in the South there's still a strong social structure based on race and education, social class, and many still had nothing that made them better than anyone else other than their race.  Ouch.  What the hell?  I had lived a pretty insulated life apparently.  That was over 11 years ago, and while I see it has changed even over the last 11 years, I still see it in many of the people in the area.  It seems to be stronger in areas where there isn't as much commerce.  The more people, the more diversity of the people, this shallow and narrow insecure view of social structure of society seems to lessen.  

That doesn't actually change that there are still social layers.  At lunch with some peers, one of them was explaining to the group that he didn't think of "rednecks" like most people.  I chuckled, but you know me.  I had to ask.  He said that he thought of rednecks as white trash.  He's a pretty educated, smart guy.  And white.  I found this interesting.  He's from my generation and I can see his point.  I know people that run around with "redneck" as a badge of honor, and as he pointed out, can't pay their bills, looking for a fight, out in the bars even though they can't afford a beer and racist.  I know some "rednecks" that aren't looking for a fight, are paying their bills, and can afford a beer, but his point was well noted.   His mindset equates them with failure--not honor.  Similarly, a very educated friend of mine has a very similar description as his of what she pictures as "nigger".  She's a black Southern woman.  She equates them as black trash with the same description as he described "redneck".  Fascinating.  The shift of class in America from the lower class being morally debase to someone who is not paying their bills and racist--regardless of their own race.

Admittedly, I'm struggling to finish the book.  It's too much of her opinion as fact (or maybe even other scholars' opinions) and not enough real life experience.  From my experience, we have made a lot of excuses for things that only time and education can change.  Education is not my opinion--education is forming your own opinion based on facts.  I may have peppered this blog, like any of my blogs with my opinions, but I'm neither a scholar or teacher.  I'm conveying my knowledge and experience.  I think less of my knowledge than the experiences that I've shared because each person may perceive the experiences differently than I do.  So there is knowledge to be had even by a different interpretation of the experiences.  But based on the knowledge of a dilettante (I've never claimed to be more) and life experiences I have had, I think the world is still changing.  I believe Dr. Isenberg is still a function of her generation, the Boomers.  They were polarized from the jump and still see the world in the us against them fashion.  The plague of that mindset is well represented in what should be a scholarly book that is too slanted in one direction to truly be a scholarly work.  The social classes of this country still exist, but they are far more fluid than they were and the newer generations don't see color or class as inhibiting as the Boomers or even GenX.  The book focuses on a mindset of the social strife from the 1960s and 70s and uses that view to interpret writings and a belief system of the 1700s and beyond.  That mindset is not only not fluid enough, but is to polarized to be used for a useful, tangible analysis of what is going on in America today.  Dr. Isenberg would probably be better served meeting some of the people she's talking about, spending some lengthy time with them and even more importantly those that have been fluid in the social class structure.  The insights of actual experience after 1980 might be far more enlightening than the books and other documents she references.  Like all of us, she is the sum of her experiences and those who can, do.  Those who can't, teach.