Rating: 
Summary: This book is simply a leftist, self-indulgent rant.
Review: I found that Paulina Borsook's book is typical of thepesudo-intellectual rant that typifies the anti-globalist,anti-capitalists in this country. Her book, while interesting, is filled with much personal opinion and little supporting evidence--nor does the author seem intent on hiding this fact...Though the book does not say, I suspect that she has not been, and is fairly clueless on the much positive effects of global capitalism and free markets at large. Ms. Porsook typifies the mass of disconnected, ill-informed, Euro and US-centric leftist intelligentsia that doesn't realize some of us (especially those from a former or current communist country) have heard so much this anti-capitalist (along with anti-"American Cultrual Imperialism" and anti-"American Global Hegemony") tirades before that we instantly recognize her book for what it is--a series of foolish, pretentious talk with little intellectual analysis and even less grounding in reality. I posit that some of us have written more leftist anti-market rants than she could have in two lifetimes (for us, starting in elementary school), but we recognize such for what it is, organized propoganda filled with vacuous arguments to be parroted. Ms. Borsook, unfortunately, takes such at face value and simply sounds ludicrous.I did find it interesting that she mentions the article by Robert Nozick "Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism" ...While she briefly mentions it, and even quotes from the article, she misses one of the central tenants of the article...the market rewards those who are willing to sacrifice personal indulgence to serve the tastes and demands of the people at large. While intellectuals like Ms. Borsook are more than happy to tell the people what is "good" and what the people SHOULD read and consume...She seems to have the general attitude of the left that not only are their tastes and values the "right" and "proper" ones, but we proletariats should simply let intellectual bourgeoisies like Ms. Borsook decide for us, lest us peasants decide to vote with our dollars (albeit freely) for Britney Spears...It is obvious that Ms. Borsook is truly the selfish one--she is after, the one who thinks that she deserve financial rewards for doing what she wants, and not what the rest of us want.
Rating:
Summary: A parochial, ill-informed rant
Review: I found this book annoying and narrow minded. The author seems to have decided upon her thesis and then thrown in whatever facts support it, while ignoring those that don't. Her knowledge of high tech is second hand and limited to the area within a few freeway exits of Palo Alto. It's full of whoppers like "Most technologists would assert that CP/M or DR/DOS were better operaring systems than the market-triumphant MS-DOS...". Oh really? When the IBM PC came out, people couldn't get off their S-100 bus CP/M machines fast enough. Boy if you think DOS was clunky, try copying a file on CP/M. As a former Microsoft employee, I was reading along waiting to see how she would explain Bill Gates' charitable activities. He's given a sizeable part of his fortune to his charitable trust. Microsoft and Gates personally have always been big advocates of the United Way. I believe both his parents chaired the local chapter at one time. So what does she say about that? Nada. Not one word. Don't waste your money on this.
Rating: 
Summary: Silicon Valley? thanks, I'll pass on that one
Review: I really liked this one. An extended rant against the narrow-minded plague of technology focussed libertarians that have overrun Silicon Valley's corridors of power. Every once in a while I am reminded of why I live in Michigan, and not having to cope quite so much with this is one reason why. (There are a few in every academic environment, though, and I painfully recall the days of trying to have any kind of reasonable discussion with Ayn Rand followers who somehow all seemed to have an amazing ability to type at rapid and ferocious speeds).
Rating:
Summary: amusing
Review: If you believe the early days of Wired were innovative and spoke to and about high tech culture you might enjoy the author's rants. Unfortunately old Wired was so bad spending 1/4 of the book using her presence there as proof of her credibility fails. The book is interesting, full of generalizations, and somewhat dishonest. But, between the sloppy arguments there are some valid points that few people are talking about.
Rating:
Summary: One of the worst books on Silicon Valley
Review: In the wave of books about Silicon Valley and high tech, this one towers about the rest. It contains little in the way of reporting or analysis, and believes that ranting and "romping" (as the title itself boasts) is a fair substitute. It is tiresome and lazy, as if the author was just trying to cash in. No thanks.
Rating:
Summary: Provocative Broad-Side at the Dark Side of Cyberculture
Review: In this absorbing and thoughtful book, the author takes on the new "Bobos in the promised land" of high technology, and finds their overall grasp on reality and worldview selfish, superficial, and self-absorbed. As is becoming more and more common for those living super-affluent lifestyles in our society, well-educated and technologically educated people are now enjoy lifestyles so pampered and isolated from the basic realities of life on Planet Earth that they actually believe their own unusual and privileged experiences to be the experience of everyone else walking the globe. This extremely wrong-headed notion leads to a string of dangerously myopic ideas of what the world is like and how to view others not so fortunate...Unfortunately, they have confused craven marketing and propagandizing with truth, and this is always a dangerous enterprise to engage in....This is an interesting, provocative, and worthwhile book. I highly recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: A totally biased ignorant rant against libertarianism
Review: It is clear the author of this book has no understanding of libertarianism as a political philosophy and is simply engaging in a pseudo-intellectual Marxist rant against a philosophy which she doesn't understand.
Rating:
Summary: Very disappointing
Review: Let me admit up front- I'm a techie, and I'm a libertarian. That being said, I've always been interested in geek culture and _why_ there are more libertarians in the techie community than in the general populace. When I heard this book was coming out I really thought I'd enjoy it. I expected a book about libertarians in the technical community written by an outsider (Ms. Borsook isn't a libertarian). And I expected it to be an unbiased, thoughtful examination of this phenomenon. Boy, was I surprised. The book is one, long slam against libertarians. Ms. Borsook obviously has a bone to pick and pick it she does. She makes lots and lots and lots of unsupported statements about how libertarians are wrong about almost everything. She makes no attempt to hide her bias against the libertarian view. The book might have been better titled 'A Critical Look At Those Complete Morons Who Call Themselves Libertarians In The High Tech Community' because that's the attitude she takes. This book is the intellectual equivalent of a Bill O'Reilly or Michael Moore book- if you want to read a book slamming libertarians and don't care for well constructed arguments or even a very good book structure this is your book.
Rating:
Summary: Insinuations writ large
Review: Let me begin by disclosing that I work in a technology-heavy industry and have libertarian political sympathies. And with that confession out of the way, I can say that I found 'Cyberselfish' an amusing book at times, if for no other reason than Ms. Borsook's ability to get under my skin. She's an excellent needler. But her book, writing style aside, is pretty awful. I can almost forgive her many insinuations and half-truths since her title does promise "a critical romp"--and my Webster's denotes romp as "boisterous play" and "as easy, winning pace." But it's not enough. A breezy, play-loose-with-the-facts style is ok for suitable subject matter (I suppose ex-Wired writers don't bother with trifles like footnotes), but taking on an entire industry and political philosophy without suitable armor goes a bit far. To name a few areas where facts might have been helpful: Borsook treats libertarian political philosophy and debates about the proper role of government in a free market society with-to put it bluntly-more prejudice than rigor. Referring to works by Ayn Rand (or even Robert Heinlein) as celebrating a "cult of the individual" is tar on a pretty thick brush (though both late authors might be flattered); a close reading of either reveals a celebration of individual *creativity*, not some Darwinian, I-got-mine-screw-you ethos. In short, both saw an individualistic spirit applied to one's work and play (with which the author herself might identify!) as the engine driving a free society; how this idea fell out socially and politically is another matter. This confusion has long been a staple for the authors' enemies. But a sneer or two at cultural influence pales compared to the author's misreading of libertarian politics. Carefully reasoned arguments for limited government (basically protecting us from enemies without and within, and not bothering with, say, regulating children's television viewing) have been around for decades, often drawing on much older influences; indeed, libertarians often seem to be the only citizens asking what government is *for,* not just taking the current mess for granted. Libertarians can even be (amazingly!) self-critical-Rand devotee Peter Schwartz once wrote a scathing article entitled 'Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty,' ripping followers for being nothing more than anarchists and 'anti-everything.' But Ms. Borsook's ideas about government apparently aren't quite that inquisitive. Rather, she sees only goodness spawned by our government's largess (like the Internet!), taking to task those whiny cyber-elitists who don't realize that this reviled institution supplies all that electricity, infrastructure, and police protection that makes their businesses possible. Well, sure, but without attacking that point philosophically (and leaving aside the endless list of tasks the government has done, shall we say, less-than well), I'd remind the author that perhaps the entrepreneur's lack of gratitude works both ways. Was ARPANET set up, for example, to foster what for-profit businesses did with it later? No? Without some cause-and-effect why should those profiting from the current state of affairs show gratitude for what is-at best-a happy accident? Would the builders of government-built roads have expected gratitude from Henry Ford? ("Without us, where would he be?") There are too many other factual laughers to recount here, but a few will suffice. Bionomics, a fairly dicey and easy subject to attack, also doesn't fly apparently because "you can't put a market value on basic research, fine art, and clean water"; again, wonderful things provided-apparently, exclusively--by the bogeyman government. Try asking Microsoft about research, Sotheby's about art, and perhaps Arrowhead about water; last time I checked, market value was approaching several billion. Since I started this review with a confession, I'll finish with a retort. Apparently, according to the author, due to my libertarian sensibilities I'm a loveless, childless, stingy, anti-environmental, politically naïve whiner. I would hope that since I'm none of the above I would not only prove her "case" wrong, but provide a grounds for optimism. Sadly, I suspect not.
Rating:
Summary: Insinuations writ large
Review: Let me begin by disclosing that I work in a technology-heavy industry and have libertarian political sympathies. And with that confession out of the way, I can say that I found 'Cyberselfish' an amusing book at times, if for no other reason than Ms. Borsook's ability to get under my skin. She's an excellent needler. But her book, writing style aside, is pretty awful. I can almost forgive her many insinuations and half-truths since her title does promise "a critical romp"--and my Webster's denotes romp as "boisterous play" and "as easy, winning pace." But it's not enough. A breezy, play-loose-with-the-facts style is ok for suitable subject matter (I suppose ex-Wired writers don't bother with trifles like footnotes), but taking on an entire industry and political philosophy without suitable armor goes a bit far. To name a few areas where facts might have been helpful: Borsook treats libertarian political philosophy and debates about the proper role of government in a free market society with-to put it bluntly-more prejudice than rigor. Referring to works by Ayn Rand (or even Robert Heinlein) as celebrating a "cult of the individual" is tar on a pretty thick brush (though both late authors might be flattered); a close reading of either reveals a celebration of individual *creativity*, not some Darwinian, I-got-mine-screw-you ethos. In short, both saw an individualistic spirit applied to one's work and play (with which the author herself might identify!) as the engine driving a free society; how this idea fell out socially and politically is another matter. This confusion has long been a staple for the authors' enemies. But a sneer or two at cultural influence pales compared to the author's misreading of libertarian politics. Carefully reasoned arguments for limited government (basically protecting us from enemies without and within, and not bothering with, say, regulating children's television viewing) have been around for decades, often drawing on much older influences; indeed, libertarians often seem to be the only citizens asking what government is *for,* not just taking the current mess for granted. Libertarians can even be (amazingly!) self-critical-Rand devotee Peter Schwartz once wrote a scathing article entitled 'Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty,' ripping followers for being nothing more than anarchists and 'anti-everything.' But Ms. Borsook's ideas about government apparently aren't quite that inquisitive. Rather, she sees only goodness spawned by our government's largess (like the Internet!), taking to task those whiny cyber-elitists who don't realize that this reviled institution supplies all that electricity, infrastructure, and police protection that makes their businesses possible. Well, sure, but without attacking that point philosophically (and leaving aside the endless list of tasks the government has done, shall we say, less-than well), I'd remind the author that perhaps the entrepreneur's lack of gratitude works both ways. Was ARPANET set up, for example, to foster what for-profit businesses did with it later? No? Without some cause-and-effect why should those profiting from the current state of affairs show gratitude for what is-at best-a happy accident? Would the builders of government-built roads have expected gratitude from Henry Ford? ("Without us, where would he be?") There are too many other factual laughers to recount here, but a few will suffice. Bionomics, a fairly dicey and easy subject to attack, also doesn't fly apparently because "you can't put a market value on basic research, fine art, and clean water"; again, wonderful things provided-apparently, exclusively--by the bogeyman government. Try asking Microsoft about research, Sotheby's about art, and perhaps Arrowhead about water; last time I checked, market value was approaching several billion. Since I started this review with a confession, I'll finish with a retort. Apparently, according to the author, due to my libertarian sensibilities I'm a loveless, childless, stingy, anti-environmental, politically naïve whiner. I would hope that since I'm none of the above I would not only prove her "case" wrong, but provide a grounds for optimism. Sadly, I suspect not.
|
