Bill Maher explains the appeal of Herschel Walker and others like Walker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo8t86Fi2JQ
(7:28 minutes)

I see what he means, but that doesn't exactly explain the SHORTAGE of candidates who aren't, essentially, violent criminals or who encourage violence in others. Who wouldn't prefer to vote for a non-criminal - if one's available? Otherwise, the voters look too much like spiteful children.

In article <1d96b4e7-deb5-484e-bc8c-9865d8bd8350n@googlegroups.com>,
Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Bill Maher explains the appeal of Herschel Walker and others like Walker.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo8t86Fi2JQ
> (7:28 minutes)

Great video, as always.

As always, Bill nails the insanity of the left. Of course, as always, no
matter how silly they get, anyone on the left is orders of magnitude,
squared and to the 10th power better than any Republican. That's really
the tragedy of it all - that the left doesn't have to do much to be orders
of magnitude, squared and to the 10th power better than any Republican.

>I see what he means, but that doesn't exactly explain the SHORTAGE of
>candidates who aren't, essentially, violent criminals or who encourage
>violence in others. Who wouldn't prefer to vote for a non-criminal - if
>one's available? Otherwise, the voters look too much like spiteful
>children.

You totally misunderstand the mindset of the Trump voter.

They LIKE this stuff. They love it. They don't like having their
candidates/elected leaders being more than a few IQ points above their own.

They love the violence. They love the criminal behavior. They love it all.

As I've often pointed out, everything (and I do mean *everything*) that we
(sensible people) see as bugs - things we think should be disqualifying -
they see as features. They love it all.

And the really funny thing is, I often see people on the left say things
like "I simply can't understand why they do it" (e.g., voting against their
own self-interest, etc). I don't know if they are simply using a
rhetorical device (claiming ignorance when they know perfectly well what
motivates these people) or if they (the left-wing commentators) really are
that clueless/living-in-a-bubble (*).

(*) Google for "Charles Murray - how thick is your bubble". Charles Murray
is the author of the (controversial) book "The Bell Curve". Note that it
takes a little thought/understanding to get what the bubble thing is about,
but then you realize how it applies to various left-wing (but not Bill Maher)
commentators.

--
People who want to share their religious views with you
almost never want you to share yours with them. -- Dave Barry

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 7:28:43 AM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote:

> They LIKE this stuff. They love it. They don't like having their
> candidates/elected leaders being more than a few IQ points above their own.
>
> They love the violence. They love the criminal behavior. They love it all..

Crabs in a bucket, I take it? (I trust everyone here knows what that means - I just wish I knew when and where the expression got started.)

It's still strange, though, because when you think of old-fashioned manners, decorum, and formality in, say, clothing at weddings and funerals, Republicans - and poor people - are more likely to come to mind than middle-class Democrats. (Not to mention the worship of law and order - but we all know how the poor often tend to mistrust the police.)

>
> And the really funny thing is, I often see people on the left say things
> like "I simply can't understand why they do it" (e.g., voting against their
> own self-interest, etc).

Renee Graham discussed that in a column I recently posted, here.

I admit to not yet reading sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild's best selling book "Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right," a finalist for the National Book Award. (It came out BEFORE the 2016 election, for those who don't know.)

But at least there's a copy in my apartment. Someday I'll get to it.

(And I got my father to read it, years ago - and while he reads plenty, it's pretty hard to get him to do ANYTHING that wasn't his idea first. So that's impressive.)

>
> (*) Google for "Charles Murray - how thick is your bubble". Charles Murray
> is the author of the (controversial) book "The Bell Curve". Note that it
> takes a little thought/understanding to get what the bubble thing is about,
> but then you realize how it applies to various left-wing (but not Bill Maher)
> commentators.
>

I think I took the quiz once - maybe ten years ago.

Personally, I think we could bridge the class gap far better if parents and teachers alike would gently but firmly emphasize to children from day one that, no matter what path you choose in life, daily reading is essential. Especially newspapers with words of more than three syllables - but challenging books WITHOUT pictures are just as important. (Trouble is, of course, too many parents would rather spend ALL their leisure time on video games and not even talk to their children, so they set terrible examples.)

In other words, it's OK not to go to college - IF you can figure out how to earn enough money to cover all normal emergencies, plus enough to support your aging parents if need be. What's not OK is to use not going to college as an excuse to be anti-intellectual. (From what I've heard, the Japanese more or less agree with that - even construction workers routinely have highly intellectual discussions.)

The main trouble is that the blue-collar jobs that pay really well are also the ones where the workers tend to be very hostile to women, which is likely the MAIN reason women feel more pressure to take the college-loan gamble than men. Otherwise, a woman would likely become "a waitress or a file clerk."

Btw, I know a library custodian (who just turned 70) who's pleasant, chatty and cultured in at least one respect - namely, semi-classic movies made before he was born, such as "Angel on My Shoulder," which he mentioned once. He never mentions books he's read, and I don't ask (we sort of work together, though not side by side), but I'd say he's one example of how the class gap can be bridged. Even though he was a Trump voter. If he weren't cultured, his friendliness alone would probably do it.

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 9:06:55 AM UTC-4, Lenona wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 7:28:43 AM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>
> > They LIKE this stuff. They love it. They don't like having their
> > candidates/elected leaders being more than a few IQ points above their own.
> >
> > They love the violence. They love the criminal behavior. They love it all.
> Crabs in a bucket, I take it? (I trust everyone here knows what that means - I just wish I knew when and where the expression got started.)

Seek and ye shall find:

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/332166/whats-the-first-known-use-of-crabs-in-a-barrel#:~:text=about%20Washington's%20phrase%3A-,Booker%20T.,made%20an%20effort%20to%20escape.

In article <215c1ce4-e626-424d-aae4-bc1ff8de8c26n@googlegroups.com>,
Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 9:06:55 AM UTC-4, Lenona wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 7:28:43 AM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>
>> > They LIKE this stuff. They love it. They don't like having their
>> > candidates/elected leaders being more than a few IQ points above their
>> > own.
>> >
>> > They love the violence. They love the criminal behavior. They love it all.
> Crabs in a bucket, I take it? (I trust everyone here knows what that
> means - I just wish I knew when and where the expression got started.)
>
>Seek and ye shall find:
>

I'm actually not familiar with that expression, but I think I get the gist
of it.

I think it's the same as "cats in a bag".

--

"If God wanted us to believe in him, he'd exist."

(Linda Smith on "10 Funniest Londoners", TimeOut, 23rd June, 2005.)

> I think it's the same as "cats in a bag".

Not according to the tiny reference I found at the Urban Dictionary.

There, it's about cats that fight.

"Crabs in a bucket" don't fight (but lobsters DO, which is why their claws have rubber bands on them at the supermarket).

The idea is that due to the herd mentality, when one crab does the sensible thing and tries to escape the bucket, the other crabs will pull it back. (I don't know if that's true with real crabs or if the smaller crabs are actually trying to get pulled OUT by the bigger outlier and end up sabotaging their own efforts).

So that's become a notorious metaphor for people who resent any individuals of their own "kind" who try to go to college or at least live a clean life and thus become richer than their neighbors.

In article <6a6cf0a8-6638-4f8d-b468-5c4549a5971cn@googlegroups.com>,
Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I think it's the same as "cats in a bag".
>
>Not according to the tiny reference I found at the Urban Dictionary.
>
>There, it's about cats that fight.
>
>"Crabs in a bucket" don't fight (but lobsters DO, which is why their
>claws have rubber bands on them at the supermarket).
>
>The idea is that due to the herd mentality, when one crab does the
>sensible thing and tries to escape the bucket, the other crabs will
>pull it back. (I don't know if that's true with real crabs or if the
>smaller crabs are actually trying to get pulled OUT by the bigger
>outlier and end up sabotaging their own efforts).
>
>So that's become a notorious metaphor for people who resent any
>individuals of their own "kind" who try to go to college or at least
>live a clean life and thus become richer than their neighbors.

Very interesting. I never knew that. Thanks muchly!

--
A pervert, a racist, and a con man walk into a bar...

Bartender says, "What will you have, Donald!"

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 9:06:55 AM UTC-4, Lenona wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 7:28:43 AM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>
>
> > (*) Google for "Charles Murray - how thick is your bubble". Charles Murray
> > is the author of the (controversial) book "The Bell Curve". Note that it
> > takes a little thought/understanding to get what the bubble thing is about,
> > but then you realize how it applies to various left-wing (but not Bill Maher)
> > commentators.
> >
> I think I took the quiz once - maybe ten years ago.

I took it again, just now.

https://www.scribd.com/document/77349055/Coming-Apart-by-Charles-Murray-Quiz

There are five categories one can fall into. I admit that my "bubble" is slightly thicker than that of the middle category.

This question, however, is kind of strange:

10. "During the last month have you voluntarily hung out with people who were smoking cigarettes?"

I mean, I've had very good friends who were smokers (one of my best friends eventually quit, in middle age), but why would I stand NEXT to anyone, friend or stranger, who was smoking in that moment, given how we all know that second-hand smoke is terrible for your health Not to mention that it just smells bad. (Including pot, IMO.)

Never mind the idea of being INDOORS with people who are smoking. If you're not a smoker, there's nothing snobbish or rude about stepping outside - or, when you're at home, ordering your guests to step outside.

And THIS is skewed in a way Murray likely never realized:

16. "How many times in the last year have you eaten at one of the following restaurant chains? Applebee’s, Waffle House, Denny’s, IHOP, Chili’s, Outback Steakhouse, Ruby Tuesday, T.G.I. Friday’s, Ponderosa Steakhouse."

Did it ever occur to him that a lot of the people who would say "zero" can't AFFORD anything more than a $10 sandwich, once a month? Jeez.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that if you didn't watch, regularly, any of the TV shows he listed (even 10 years ago), maybe it's because, after a certain AGE, you very much prefer to pour what time and energy you have left into real life and real people, so you won't feel terribly lonely after a while?

I mean, while he didn't list these shows, I'm sure "The Sopranos" and "Downton Abbey" were both very good, but I didn't want to spend hours and hours following either one. (I've even lost my patience for most new movies, which obviously take less time to watch than even one season of a show.)

In article <bfaf4f02-9e3a-4217-82a6-8445b9b112b1n@googlegroups.com>,
Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Oh, and I forgot to mention that if you didn't watch, regularly, any
>of the TV shows he listed (even 10 years ago), maybe it's because,
>after a certain AGE, you very much prefer to pour what time and energy
>you have left into real life and real people, so you won't feel
>terribly lonely after a while?
>
>I mean, while he didn't list these shows, I'm sure "The Sopranos" and
>"Downton Abbey" were both very good, but I didn't want to spend hours
>and hours following either one. (I've even lost my patience for most
>new movies, which obviously take less time to watch than even one
>season of a show.)

I get what you are saying, but I think the point is that when you take
these quizzes (and you've reached the age that you and I seem to be at),
you have to basically answer them as you would have 30 or so years ago.
I.e., these things are designed for people in their 20s and 30s, whose
lives haven't yet really "jelled".

This is particularly true for any sort of "relationship" type quiz.

--
The single most important statistic in the US today - the one that explains all the
others - is this: 63 million people thought it was a good idea to vote for this clown
(and will probably do so again). Everything else is secondary to that. Everything else
could be fixed if we can revert this one statistic. Nothing can be fixed until we do.

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 10:21:00 AM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>
> Lenona wrote:
> >I mean, while he didn't list these shows, I'm sure "The Sopranos" and
> >"Downton Abbey" were both very good, but I didn't want to spend hours
> >and hours following either one. (I've even lost my patience for most
> >new movies, which obviously take less time to watch than even one
> >season of a show.)

> I get what you are saying, but I think the point is that when you take
> these quizzes (and you've reached the age that you and I seem to be at),
> you have to basically answer them as you would have 30 or so years ago.
> I.e., these things are designed for people in their 20s and 30s, whose
> lives haven't yet really "jelled".

Yes, well, I WAS in my 30s when "The Sopranos" began, in 1999. (Granted, Murray's book came out much later.)

Again, I was already trying to move away from screen time - and none too soon, given how fast the Internet was growing!

And "Cheers" began in 1982, when I was in high school. It ended in 1993, but I doubt I ever watched more than 50 episodes - if that many. (The number was possibly no higher than two dozen.)

Yes, it was pretty funny - but I still couldn't relate to very much of it.

(Especially not the idea of actually DATING an unabashed rake. That would have been just creepy to me. Fantasizing about a real-life person from a distance would be another thing. In the same vein, even as a teen, I could never understand the idea of a summer romance - even in terms of a platonic romance, it sounded too much like starving yourself for three days and then filling up on candy.)

It's likely that my late mother's snobbery, regarding screen time, was a big influence - but in a good way.

At any rate, I certainly loved MTV in its early days - but I dropped it after the 1980s or so.

Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
> In article <6a6cf0a8-6638-4f8d-b468-5c4549a5971cn@googlegroups.com>,
> Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think it's the same as "cats in a bag".
>>
>>Not according to the tiny reference I found at the Urban Dictionary.
>>
>>There, it's about cats that fight.
>>
>>"Crabs in a bucket" don't fight (but lobsters DO, which is why their
>>claws have rubber bands on them at the supermarket).
>>
>>The idea is that due to the herd mentality, when one crab does the
>>sensible thing and tries to escape the bucket, the other crabs will
>>pull it back. (I don't know if that's true with real crabs or if the
>>smaller crabs are actually trying to get pulled OUT by the bigger
>>outlier and end up sabotaging their own efforts).
>>
>>So that's become a notorious metaphor for people who resent any
>>individuals of their own "kind" who try to go to college or at least
>>live a clean life and thus become richer than their neighbors.
>
> Very interesting. I never knew that. Thanks muchly!
>

Somewhat akin to Australia's "Tall Poppy Syndrome"?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

In article <tou0pf$9tn$1@reader2.panix.com>,
Louis Epstein <le@top.put.com> wrote:
....
>>>"Crabs in a bucket" don't fight (but lobsters DO, which is why their
>>>claws have rubber bands on them at the supermarket).

I've often wondered about that. How do they (presumably, lobster
fishermen) get the rubber bands on the lobsters (without getting injured
themselves in the process) ?

Maybe it is a trade secret - not knowable by us outsiders...

>>>The idea is that due to the herd mentality, when one crab does the
>>>sensible thing and tries to escape the bucket, the other crabs will
>>>pull it back. (I don't know if that's true with real crabs or if the
>>>smaller crabs are actually trying to get pulled OUT by the bigger
>>>outlier and end up sabotaging their own efforts).
>>>
>>>So that's become a notorious metaphor for people who resent any
>>>individuals of their own "kind" who try to go to college or at least
>>>live a clean life and thus become richer than their neighbors.
>>
>> Very interesting. I never knew that. Thanks muchly!
>>
>
>Somewhat akin to Australia's "Tall Poppy Syndrome"?

I think so. When I was Wikipedia-ing for the "Crabs in a Bucket" idea, the
"Tall Poppy Syndrome" was listed as similar and/or a synonym.

Apparently, Japan has a similar culture.

--
Just like Donald Trump today, Jesus Christ had a Messiah complex.

And, in fact, the similarities between the two figures are quite striking.
For example, both have a ragtag band of followers, whose faith cannot be shaken.

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 6:15:43 AM UTC-5, Kenny McCormack wrote:

> I've often wondered about that. How do they (presumably, lobster
> fishermen) get the rubber bands on the lobsters (without getting injured
> themselves in the process) ?

They wear gloves?

More on lobster cannibalism (it's more common in captivity):

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/12/03/166235228/caught-lobster-cannibals-captured-on-film-along-maine-coast