Slander

Rating:
Summary: Preaching to the choir
Review: More garbage from another garbage pundit. Al Franken, Michael Savage, Jim Hightower, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, Hillary Clinton, Bill O'Reilly.... all wannabe politicians pandering to those who follow their agenda. Books like "Treason" do NOTHING to stir reasoned, intelligent debate. Rather, they set agendas based on historical facts (that are sometimes bent or changed to support their views), and those who read them already agree with the author. So what's the point?

Over the past year I've watched as conservative and liberal morons scream and spit at each other, wagging their fingers about the latest "facts and figures" from their favorite political authors. Usually, neither of them have read each others' book in question, so the argument consists mostly of gibberish with no valuable conclusion of any sort.

I say these sorts of books have no redeeming social value, and I mean that because only people that already agree with the authors read them. Occasionally, a wary person who opposes the author's beliefs will pick it up and thumb through it, but not for the purpose of learning or opening creative debate. All they really want to do is find some tidbit or poorly constructed sentence to ridicule. Basically, the books just preach to the choir and then encourage the choir to fight with each other.

All this political trash that sits on the bestsellers shelves at Borders and Barnes & Noble is not important information. They are each merely disgusting pieces of agit-prop fueled by individual agendas of the authors, not by ideals of compassion and cultural interest of our whole society. Despite how well these books sold over 2003, I noticed that they were all conspicuously absent from individual "best of" lists at the end of the year. I can't say I'm surprised. You'll never see a single one of these books with a cracked spine on the shelves of your favorite used bookstore.

Trash, pure and simple. Avoid these books at all cost and think for yourself.

Rating:
Summary: Please.
Review: If you believe, as Ann Coulter evidently does, that life is fundamentally simple - that every issue can be pared down to a choice between "us or them," "patriots or traitors," "Christians or the damned" - then you too can write a book like this, a horrible little tract that celebrates the virtues of divisiveness, raw anger, and unfounded belief.

I've recently been reading Ayn Rand's ouvre, and I am dismayed by the clear parallels between Coulter and this novelist/philosopher from the '60s and '70s. Both authors have (or had) a strong following in their time, with multiple books on the bestseller lists. Yet reading either author produces a sensation much like having a hammer smashed repeatedly against my forehead. The writing is not merely harsh or insistent, it is programmatic, it is propogandistic. "THIS IS THE WAY THE WORLD IS," both women scream. 'YOU WILL BELIEVE WHAT I AM TELLING YOU AND, IF YOU DO NOT, YOU ARE WORSE THAN THE PIECE OF EXCREMENT I STEPPED IN THIS MORNING ON MY WAY TO WORK." Objectivity is out of the question. Fact-driven discourse is out of the question. With writers like these we are forced to walk reluctantly in the world of Faith, and True Believers, and The Gospel According to So-and-So, Acid-Tongued Celebrity Pundit.

Rubbish. Might as well ask me to take literally every word of the old King James, or believe everything I hear on network news broadcasts. Or, for that matter, trust what comes spinning out of the Bush White House these days.

Is American democracy based on free speech and free thought, or isn't it? Do I have a right to make up my mind based on hard evidence and reason, or don't I? Perhaps I am simply doomed to subscribe to one or another of the COMPLETE WORLD VIEWS championed by self-appointed experts like Coulter or Rand. I fear it is only a matter of time before I am completely brainwashed by either the Left, the Right, the Above, or the Below. Is there no place in this world for rational, hate-free discussion?

To sum up: If you're the kind of person who likes to split everyone into two clearly defined camps so that you can belittle, harass, disenfranchise, or perhaps even prosecute or imprison those who think differently than you, then this book is for you. Coulter's heroic recasting of Senator Joseph McCarthy and the widely discredited '50's mindset known as "McCarthyism" should clue you in to the true nature of "Treason." If you liked Senator Joe, you're gonna love Ann.

For my part, the best thing I can say about "Treason" is: Ms. Coulter looks stunning in a little black dress.

Rating:
Summary: Public Health Warning for Liberal Pundits
Review: The hearbreak and embarrassment of Obsessive Bush Disorder:

Obsessive Bush Disorder (OBD): Strange psychological malady that causes conservative pundits to become obsessed with the Bush administration. It is believed to be related to obsessive compulsive disorder, except the sufferers delusions are limited to conspiracies conerning George and Laura Bush. The affliction extends to a type of paranoia in extreme cases, such as those involved in the Iran/Contra investigation. Obsessive Bush Disorder sufferers are known to attribute all Democrat administration short coming or failure to the Bush adminstration, regardless of how obviously delusional it may seem to the non-afflicted. Often sufferers of this horrible mental illness can not speak more that ten minutes without referencing George and Laura Bush. The paranoia extends as far as to accusing Bush's of murder, such as the case of Uday Hussein and others. Apart from paranoia, this affliction also impairs the ability to reason, attributing any and all gains in employment, the economy, foreign policy, to preceding Democrat administrations, while attributing successes of the present administration to the Clintons. Religious left sufferers often confuse Bush with the devil, and blame Bush for a perceived decline in societal morality. Examples of advanced stages of this affliction include Al Franken, A reader from Havertown, PA, John Kerry, and Jesse Jackson.

While there is no cure for Obsessive CBush Disorder, those close to someone afflicted with this illness are asked to do their best not to laugh out loud at them, though this may at times be quite difficult. Remember, this is still an illness, regardless how unintentionally hysterical their Bush rants often are.

Rating:
Summary: Extreme ignorance
Review: Coulter is a very interesting person. She has written a book based on her opinions and passes them off as truth. This book is very painful to read because the reader is trying to understand politics from a woman who did not see the message or truth in Bowling for Columbine. She, instead refers to Michael Moore not as a filmmaker or author but as " college dropout Michael Moore ....ect... This is how she refers to him and to many other people in her novel. She has no respect for others and can't even think abstractly, which is sad considering her education and current employment. She needs to stop this kind of hatred and realize that ignorance will turn off any curious reader with a brain.

Rating:
Summary: Extreme Conservative
Review: Ann Coulter is one of the most extreme conservatives I've ever read. The title makes it clear: what the book focuses on is how liberals have pretty much destroyed the greatest country in the world. She's almost saying that Liberals' only purpose is to complain a lot and screw up politics. Just read the first few pages; she writes a pretty accurate thesis to the book. She seems to just blow everything out of proportion--way out of proportion. It seems to be just an outburst of frustration she has felt toward Liberals for a long time. This book is an angry attack on what she calls "the liberal cult." She's almost giving a bad name to conservatives, though she poses them as perfect beings.

If this is your first book by a conservative, you might want to consider reading something a little milder first.

Rating:
Summary: Ann Coulter is my new hero!
Review: I've watched Ann Coulter for years on the various talk shows she frequents, and was encouraged to read this book by a friend. I've not historically read a lot of books like this, though I try to stay in touch with current events as much as possible. Having just finished the book, I can happily report that Ann's book is not only one of the most enjoyable reads I've had in a long time (her sarcastic wit had me laughing out loud more than once), but I learned a great deal more about how the liberal media is currently seeking to control all flow of information, and to discredit anyone who disagrees with them.

Ms. Coulter is a lawyer by training, and she presents a case that would easily stand up in a court of law. As a single example, her arguments about how Phyllis Schlafly was ignored for her single-handed defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment while Glorida Steinem was glorified because she managed to sleep with a guy so he'd bail her magazine out is just one of the scenarios in which Ms. Coulter shines the light of truth on the hypocrisy in the media today.

This book builds some very compelling arguments, and provides tremendous supporting documentation to her claims. And it's painfully obvious after reading this book that the efforts to discredit conservatives in America are no accident (in fact, it's exactly the opposite - a deliberate attack that seeks to destroy opposition to liberal thought). This book is just the sort of ammunition that conservatives need to be able to craft reasonable arguments when liberals start their name-calling and try to degrade everything said by conservatives. And if you don't think that liberals use name calling, PLEASE read this book. It's liberally (no pun intended) sprinkled with references from national magazine and newspapers that prove this to be the case.

The fact, as Ms. Coulter points out, since the liberal media has been so accustomed to having no opposition to their belief system, they are less equipped to present reasonable arguments. Conservatives, on the other hand, have been forced to do just that in order to survive. They can't resort to simple name-calling like the liberal media seems to love to do.

There is no question...liberalism is at war with conservatism in America. This is because conservatism is threatening the elitist positions that liberals have been able to hold onto for the past several decades. They don't like it, and they're out to destroy anyone who they view as a threat. Read this book. If you're honest, you'll agree that this is the case. If you're one of the liberal elite that Ms. Coulter describes, then maybe you won't. After all, it takes honesty and courage to confront the truth. Ms. Coulter does that admirably in this book.

I highly recommend that all of us who are interested in the survival of our country do the same.

Rating:
Summary: Her Best Book.
Review: Slander lacks all the gratuitous venom of Treason. It is a stronger work as it attacks the liberal pundits and media that the author is extremely familiar with. It's also a very funny read. My favorite line in Slander is when she juxtaposes the male attitude towards work (it's a job) with the female one (it's a career). No more truer works have ever been spoken. You'll finish it in a day and be better off for it.

Rating:
Summary: Outstanding
Review: Liberals will rate this book 1 star because they don't want you to read the truth contained inside. Enjoy this masterful book.

Rating:
Summary: LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS IS AN ESTABLISHED FACT
Review: The fact that the media is liberally biased against the right is simply that with which is established fact, and this fact is known by those who are honest, able to read, and have access to information. To deny it is tantamount to saying, for instance, "California is not a State in the Union," or "America did not win the Revolutionary War."

STEVEN TRAVERS
Author of "Barry Bonds: Baseball's Superman"
[e-mail]

Rating:
Summary: If She Only Had a Brain...
Review: It is incredible that - over, and over, and over, the likes of Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Ingraham on radio, books and TV make a very nice living through their blatant use of the "straw man". It's their bread and butter and accounts - easily, for 75% of the content they create, regardless of media. If you've never heard of this term, here's a nice definition I've found (emphasis, mine)...

"Straw man. Another way to stack the deck against the opposition is to draw a false picture of the opposing argument. Then it is easy to say, "This should be rejected because this (exaggerated and distorted) picture of it is wrong." The name of the fallacy comes from the idea that if you set up a straw man, he is easier to knock down than a real man. And that is exactly the way this fallacy works: set 'em up and knock 'em down. ->It is argument
by caricature. It avoids dealing with the real issues by changing the opposition's views." <-(Geisler N.L. & Brooks R.M, "Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking," 1990, p101)

The next time you see a sentence that reads along the lines of, "Liberals think that...", written by one of these conservative infotainers, rest assured they are building their liberal straw man, soon to be easily pummeled

Use of a Straw man in an argument is dismissable on its face, as are these conservative screeds in their entirety.