Rating: 
Summary: A dream scribbled on the empty void
Review: It is not without some trepidation that I take up the task of putting down in words my thoughts and feelings about this horrible, even evil, yet sublime little book. For the words I leave for you are mere black marks on white, the combinations of which become signs pointing towards artifice. Could it be any other way? Could it be that the white spaces between the black marks hold more truth than the marks themselves? The marks scurry and dance on the void, and become meaningless, and dishonest, simply by asserting their truth. And so it is with "Shut Up and Sing". The book itself, or rather, our idea of it, becomes a truth/lie endlessly turning in on itself, a whirligig within a whirligig, a mobius strip of falsehood, and by implication, truth, endlessly consuming itself. Indeed, Laura Ingraham fails here, because she, by the act of writing, is asserting success. Ingraham the author is a projection of Ingraham the woman, which is yet one more projection, of the idea of woman and of a human, which is a dream, a projection, a cipher, a mask on the face of nothingness. Laura is a dream which devours the dreamer, which is yet another dream. And it is this circular cycle of dreams devouring dreams, of fiction, of infinite masks upon masks upon masks, that yields a phantom argument, mere black marks on the white hum of the universe. Soon they will pass into vapor. So why bother? Because, as Homer so aptly put it (in Portugese): "Os sonhos são certamente difíceis, confundindo, e não tudo neles é trazido para passar para a humanidade. Para sonhos fleeting tenha duas portas: se é formado do chifre e um do marfim. Aqueles que passam com esse do marfim sawn são deceptive, trazendo os tidings que vêm ao nought, mas os aqueles que emitem de esse do chifre lustrado trazem resultados verdadeiros quando um mortal os vê." Hannity does better with such themes.
Rating: 
Summary: Not as good as Coulter
Review: If you want your facism served up without any holds barred, I suggest you veer right towards Ann Coulter. If you want the theory, try Goebbels. If you want thin, syrupy SNAP TOO ATTENTION so-called patriotism, try Hannity. If you want irritable middle-class I-hate-anybody-who-doesn't-look-like-me irritability, try O'Reilly. Ingraham is just a pale imitation of these better leftist bashers. ....Oh...and if you want some cogent analysis of anything at all, are you ever in the wrong place.
Rating: 
Summary: Badly Written, Badly Cliche, and Badly Researched
Review: Now I'm a reasonable person, but this book is the most atrocious example of professed "political commentary" that I have ever read. This woman, Laura Ingraham, is labled by some as a political commentator, but she is far from it. This book, instead of being a fair and objective look at international and domestic issues, is a gaudy appeal to the emotion of the everyday Americans (to convince them to vote Republican, of course). It doesn't logically present the case for conservatism or Republicanism or logically dissect and attack liberal thinking and liberal ideals. Rather, Ingraham shreds all attempts at serious political commentary in the opening pages of the book, creating a generalized class of people who she lables as the Elites. These elites control important institutions: the media, schools and universities, the UN, etc, etc. They do not represent the people. They think everyone else is stupid. Ingraham goes on for 11 chapters talking about how this class of elites is anti-American, communist, etc, etc. Of course, "The Democratic party is the natural home for political elites in the United States." She goes on to make a weak concession to appear politically unaligned, saying "but the GOP has its share of elites." Ingraham goes on to make shameful and childish attacks and generalizations. She constantly hammers the image of "elites" (Democratics/Liberals) having socialist or communist sympathies, she tries to equate political figures like Kerry as being fans of the French and members of the "Euro-elite", she attacks the manhood of Kofi Annan by implying that he has "skirts," she assumes that drama club kids are "the kids who don't exactly fit into the mainstream of high school" and thus this contriubtes to loudmouth actors, etc, etc, etc, ect. This book is 339 pages of childish rhetoric, blanket generalizations and spotty-attacks on "Elites" (Liberals). Her generalizations and assumptions are extremely spotty. She makes the grand assumption (based on only 2002 elections, might I add) that the United States is turning towards conservatism. Anyone who believes that they can predict a trend based on one election is quite wrong. Perhaps Ingraham has forgotten that a majority of the United States population voted for Al Gore a mere two years earlier than her much-exalted 2002 election, and in fact, since national security is a top issue, it would make sense that the American people would vote in more Republicans candidates in a time of security crisis. But no, Ingraham says, "There's a term for a political movement that can't win even when the economy is on its side --its called a loser." Another problem with this diatribe of a book is that the endnotes are EXTREMELY spotty. Ingraham quotes people, articles, movies, television programs and other assorted sources constantly. But my quick estimate, she only attributes about 10 to 15% of them. Her endnotes are a spare 4 pages long for a 339 page book littered with quotes. I don't believe she's inventing quotes (though, I wouldn't put it past her), but I can almost guarentee many of these are either taken out of context or were pulled from unoffical/unattributable sources. The work of a professional political commentator, indeed. The saving grace of this book (and the reason it gets 2 stars (besides the fact that I couldn't give it 1.5, that is)) is perhaps the fact that she makes some (SOME) valid points: the silence of anti-war activists during Clinton's various military exploits, the badly-needed reforms of the UN's Councils, the occasional abuses of right-leaning college students in classrooms and various other small points here and there. Basically, her book is a rant: a long complaint about the Democra...Elites. It offers few solutions to any of the issues she discuess and it offers little objective analysis. This book reminds me of Michael Moore's Stupid White Men. Interestingly, Ingraham spends several enlightening pages attacking Moore and his various works as well as his weight. I'm not a particular fan of Stupid White Men, either. Both books are neverending, uninformed, emotional rants on the faults of liberal/conservative ideology, and about how the country would be improved ten-fold if the Democratics/Greens/Republicans/Facists were in power. Go America. That's Stupid White Men/Shut Up and Sing in a nutshell. As a 17-year old high school student, I could write better political commentary than this. Shame on anyone who every puts the words "Laura Ingraham" and "Professional Political Commentator" together again.
Rating: 
Summary: Shut Up and Sing
Review: Laura Ingraham speaks her mind and in my book she is right on, on what she has to say. Oh some may say she is a little over the top on a few things but we all can't be perfect. Pass by a few things that may be over the top in your book but most of what she has to say is great. A must read- Larry Hobson- Author - "The Day Of The Rose"
Rating:
Summary: very sad indeed
Review: This book is a perfect example of how the extreme right winged religious bigots want to destroy anyone who does not agree with them. Hitler had lots of religious backing and he based his hatred of the Jews on the writings of the great reformer Martin Luther. I wonder if Laura would help burn movies and books written by liberals? Based on this book liberals could be sent to the gas chambers any day. If I was a delusional bigoted christian I would love this book.
John
Rating:
Summary: I Like Laura on the Radio - Entertaining
Review: A lot of people are writing books. This is not a bad book, in fact it has some good points and is interesting for a quick read. It is not a literary masterpiece. Having said that she is probably 75% right in her ideas but the rest is over the top so to speak. So for that reason I think 3 stars is about right. I would not recommend the book for serious political discussion nor as entertainment, as it falls between the cracks. It is sort of a hybrid book. She does not quite make that radio-to-book transition. Cannot recommend. Sorry. Jack In Toronto
Rating: 
Summary: The truth, fluently presented.
Review: Laura Ingra ham's book, Shut up and Sing, is one of the best books of the year. If you listen to her talk show, you already know her incredible wit, intelligent humor, and her right-on commentary. Her voice is clear in this book, though it might require knowing her style to appreciate the way she writes. She is honest, relentless, straightforward, and so funny. She ingeniously points out the hypocrisy and double standards that are prevalent with the left. A lot of material is covered, but the pace is rapid and interesting, so it never gets boring. I especially like the chapter "God, You're Fired." She touches on a serious problem today with the treatment of religion in the courts, in the universities, and in the media. Laura is a new Catholic; she eloquently speaks for all believers of every faith as she points out the attacks on our beliefs in this country from an arrogant minority. A good bonus is the footnotes and thorough index in the back. I highly recommend this brilliant book.
Rating:
Summary: Don't Believe Everything you hear
Review: Contrary to "Publisher's Weekly"'s diatribe against this book,
it is not an "unsupported right wing screed". Their review of
this book presents further proof of a leftist liberal media
who would rather support and defend leftist liberals than to
present an unbiased review of a well written, well reasoned
book. Regardless of what Publisher's Weekly thinks, Dixie Chicks were wrong, as well as many Hollywood elitists, in what
they said. There was a time in America when they would have been
tried for treason. This book points out that their responsibility to the public lies in their talents, not in their
political pet peeves. There are times to speak and times to keep
silent. Dixie Chicks and the Hollywood liberals need to learn the difference. That is the book in a nut shell.
Rating:
Summary: Dangeris!
Review: Aw, I dunno wat you've got against all the luvly acters! I also finished skool in the aidth grade. I'm very greatful that their's acters out their hoo ken tell me wat to think, since ive never been to yooniver city and dunno how too think fer myself.
I luv piece! I hate wore! Wie are their bad peeeple in the werld hoo like too sea peeeple get killed? Wie are their bad peeeple in the werld hoo don lik other peeeple hoo are difrent than them? Wie are their bad peeeple hoo thinck that muny is beter th'n beeeing nice? Wie are their stoopid peeeple hoo thinck that their's a ol' man in thu skie with a beerd an' we gotta prey to him?
God bles the acters hoove got the curage t' sae it like it is an' speek the Trooth an' tel us wats rong with the stoopid bad peeeple in the werld. This buk is dangeris beekuz it is meen to al the luvly gud acters hoo are nice gud peeeple.
Rating:
Summary: Good Work Laura
Review: I think after reading the many negative reviews it is apparent how polarized our thinking has become in the country. I agree with most of what Laura points out and am equally offended by the arrogance that the democratic party and its mouthpieces, ie the liberal elites (Hollywood or wherever) display daily. It is not always about the opinion but the total lack of respect and inability to have a dialogue that angers me. I am disgusted with the liberal demcorats and how they have chosen to behave in recent years. Should these wealthy artists etc. have the right to express opinions? Well certainly... But lets get real folks, the hate spewing, character assassinating, backroom dirty pool that has become the democratic machine not only escalates the division in america but also guarantees that we will eventually be moving toward another civil war in america. Conservative vs Liberal, ie capitolist vs communist. Oh by the way, it seems that so many democrats whether elites or not believe that the answer is in giving much more power to government and more tax dollars to this huge machine. I would simply ask to see one example of a socialistic society that has accomplished our standard of living for all working people. Of course my gut feeling is that the elites Laura points to are really counting on the fact that they will have a different circumstance offered to them than that which most working americans will be stuck with. Michael Moore and Barbra Streisand dont count on it! When that "disgusting inconvenience" called our Constitution finally gets thrown out for your ridiculous "utopian notions"(UN) it will be your rights as well as mine flushed down the toilet. Is Laura the pot calling the kettle black? Perhaps... But I am happy for a loudmouth conservative to lend balance to the never ending parade of elite liberals tryin to steal away my rights. Ultimately it will be decided at the polling place and we conservatives do vote. And by the way, I thank God for GW Bush. He is saving this country in spite of the democrats.
|
