<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: The Burden of Having to Write a Paper on This Book for Class
Review: The Burden of Bad Ideas is an exploration of the shortcomings of urban public policy, examining issues such as welfare, teachers' education, foster care, homelessness, and multicultural curriculum in our nation's school system. The author investigates the ideology of the "nation's elite orthodoxy" and its impact on modern American society.
Heather Mac Donald holds a John M. Olin fellowship at the Manhattan Institute. She works as a contributing editor for the City Journal, covering issues such as education, homelessness, racial profiling, and the New York court system. Mac Donald earned a J.D. from Stanford University Law School and is a non-practicing lawyer.
The author's methodology stems largely from her personal experiences in the field of journalism. Mac Donald visited teachers' education classes, homeless shelters, and sat in on public hearings. The author conducted extensive interviewing with people on both the policy-maker side and the recipient side of issues, claiming, "If you want to know how well social policies are working, I learned, ask the poor - when their advocates aren't around." While the interviewing certainly creates an entertaining read, a lack of concrete sources or citations to support her "facts" has a negative impact upon the integrity of the author's work.
Mac Donald's book is arranged into twelve chapters. Each chapter covers a different political issue. In "An F for Hip-Hop 101," she examines a course offered at a Brooklyn public high school, studying what she terms "ghetto culture," including graffiti, deejaying, emceeing, and breakdancing. "Why Johnny's Teacher Can't Teach" is a scathing criticism of education courses on the college level, lambasting the teachers' education system as supporting "Anything But Knowledge." In her chapter entitled "Law School Humbug," the author discusses how the presence of racial and feminist theory harms serious scholarship in the college classroom. The book develops into a fairly predictable pattern, with Mac Donald's vitriol against the "elites" and liberals ever-present, the chapters merely providing different flavors of her disgust and frustration.
The author, in her introduction, begins with admirable questions: Why aren't our children learning basic skills in public schools? Why aren't programs designed to help the poor really helping them? What will happen to our society if we continue to reject the notion of personal responsibility? Why is our media untruthful and how does this shape public opinion? The answer to all of these questions is more or less a blanket response: Liberal, elitist ideology has caused the United States moral and intellectual bankruptcy. Mac Donald calls for a return to the traditional Western models of thought and education that she feels laid the foundation for the greatness of the United States.
The problem inherent to this book is a touchy one. Mac Donald approaches many of the issues as an outsider, and it shows. In "Law School Humbug," she criticizes women of color for writing about the politicization of their hair. She claims this is part of a "new genre of legal scholarship - first-person narrative." While the author's point that this sort of narrative deviates from the traditional conventions may hold merit, she obfuscates her own point with a dismissive comment, "Not since the Age of Aquarius has hair possessed such political significance." Mac Donald's flippancy only reinforces the impetus for these sorts of narrative, that those belonging to the majority have discounted, devalued, and ignored the minority experience.
The Burden of Bad Ideas without a doubt exposes many of the flaws in the upper-class liberal ideology. Mac Donald captures the patronization of the liberals to the have-nots, and notes the many occasions where liberal guilt creates ridiculous loopholes in the public assistance system that may be exploited. She paints a vivid picture of the tendency within liberal academia to exoticize other cultures, placing them upon pedestals so narrow they hold no room for honest critique. In the end, the author's efforts fall short. Mac Donald's writing becomes merely one side in a shouting match that takes place between two sides of people who have very little in common with the folk whose fates they argue, with one side wanting to indulgently pat the heads of the underprivileged and coo over their artistic and cultural achievements, while the other side sneers at the relevance.
Mac Donald's book provides raises many interesting questions and can be used to provoke thoughtful discussion in a classroom setting, or as a springboard for more in-depth research. Unfortunately, the author's resort to name-calling and the lack of support and citation for her research undermines her credibility. The Burden of Bad Ideas ultimately succeeds in startling its audience, rather than accomplishing any serious enlightenment.
Rating:
Summary: Amusing, but ultimately really bad
Review: As a university student not offended by leftist politics, I found this book to be a hilarious read. MacDonald scours the land for the most absurd, the most "out there" intellectuals, and, to encourage outrage in the reader, she takes their ideas completely out of context. What makes this book hilarious to read is the fact that she assumes her readers are like-minded conservatives, so she doesn't bother to make her case. Then she'll give the above-mentioned examples of "ludicrous" ideas. Sometimes these ideas are as ludicrous as promised, but at other times, I found myself agreeing with the ideas I'm supposed to be [mad] about. Just one quick example: "The final cornerstone of progressive theory," writes MacDonald, "was the disdain for report cards and objective tests of knowledge. These inhibit learning, [supposedly wacko leftist] Kilpatrick argued; and he carried the day, to the eternal joy of students everywhere." Anyone who has been through twenty years of schooling knows that passing a test does not guarantee that the knowledge stays with you. I've forgotten plenty of material I learned for tests that I aced. And furthermore, a student who fails a test doesn't learn the material, either. A test is okay, but why not let the student take the test as many times as they need to in order to learn the material? What's really important, the grade at the end of the year or whether the student learned the material? Often, they have nothing to do with each other. Grades really are pointless. But MacDonald assumes I'll be outraged. That's why it's kind of funny to read. Another example is her outrage at cuckoo leftist intellectuals who characterize criminal behavior as somewhat political in nature. Is that really such an absurd proposition? If you're dirt poor, have no future, and are extremely angry, you might end up committing a crime. To say that the reasons aren't political in nature is... ignorant. What's really amusing about the book, to me, is that someone actually paid attention to these radical, elitist intellectuals. I thought it was generally understood that they were elitists and no one in the "real world" took them seriously. They try so hard to be outrageous, and finally, someone actually bothered to get [mad] at their outrageousness. Way to go, MacDonald Like Bill O'Reilly suing Al Franken, thus launching his book to the bestseller lists, MacDonald proves the old adage that "there's no such thing as bad publicity." I'm planning on checking out some of the intellectuals she quotes in her book. But ultimately, I can only give the book one star, because her argumentation has no substance at all. In the chapter entitled "Why Johnny's Teacher Can't Teach," she says "we had better take a hard look at what education schools actually teach." Her idea of a "hard look" is giving the reader a play-by-play of what took place in ONE classroom of ONE department of ONE college on ONE particular day. Professor Anne Nelson of the City College of New York is MacDonald's punching bag. After MacDonald decribes this ONE day to the reader, she asks "How did such navel gazing come to be central to teacher education?" Uh, Ms. MacDonald, I think you still have yet to make that case... A really bad book that I found quite amusing.
Rating: 
Summary: What a journalist should be!
Review: Far too many journalists and editors are not doing their jobs. Working in pack mode, they provide overkill - and often slanted or incomplete - coverage of "issues" on the "front end" and then fail to do any follow-up stories, six months, a year, six years later. Because of this, too many citizens don't know the real-world consequences (good AND bad) of legislative actions and regulations, or get the opportunity to re-examine the merits and validity of a "conventional wisdom" forged years or decades ago. Ms. Mac Donald, thankfully, is one of the few media representatives and social analysts who fulfills this vital role of journalists. Her essays persuasively document how too many policy decisions are based on flawed "politically correct" premises and, after implemented, too often contribute or cause the exact opposite result that their advocates intedended. In other words, she actually looks backwards to explain where, how and why we went wrong (actually applying history!). If more journalists, politicians and, yes voters, employed this time-proven analysis technique, we might not make so many mistakes in the future - mistakes, that invariably, are the result of "good intentions." Readers who enjoyed this book, or this type of independent, smart, brave journalism, will also savor Robert Samuelson's new book, "UnTruth," another book that challenges often unchallenged conventional thinking. Journalism - and our country - needs many more Heather Mac Donald's, Robert Samuelson's and (another one of my journalism heroes) John Stossells if the public is ever going to get the "full" story or, to borrow a phrase, "the rest of the story." Invaluable book. Buy it and tell a friend about it. P.S. Also, visit the "City Journal" website, where most of Ms. Mac Donald's articles were originally published. No journal does a better job of challenging, analyzing and critiquing what's wrong with American society or providing alternative viewpoints on topics the mainstream media views (and presents) almost exclusively from its politically correct ideological perspective.
Rating: 
Summary: More Distractions
Review: Heather MacDonald is a great journalist who writes mostly for the City Journal of New York. Living in New York, she gets to examine malaise and social decay up close and personal. She always presents herself as the sensible conservative covering the folly of liberal policies. The Burden of Bad Ideas shows that liberal philosophies of society's elites are adversely affecting the less capable of society. One does not who to hold accountable first, the elites with their bad ideas or the poor who follow them. MacDonald especially makes the point that comtemporary policies often don't work because they do not take into account any moral considerations. This lack of moral judgement leads to bad policy and encourages bad behavior. I got the impression while reading that MacDonald is witnessing an insidious bolshevik takeover of America with its tools of anti-white racism to destroy that race and anti-white male sexism to destroy its men. These bolsheviks try to equalize everything whether it's ideas, people, incomes, lifestyles, morality, culture, sexes, intellects, or races despite evidence that we still live and always will live in hierarchical world. The technique is to denigrate the superior and uplift or not judge the inferior. Although she does not say this in so many words; these are my own impressions. Many of her articles cover the public assistance system in which the policy is not to make judgements between the deserving and undeserving poor, as was done sensibly in the past. Not making judgements bankrolls immoral behavior such as illegitimate births, drug use, child abuse, professional homelessness, and promiscuity with its consequent STDs; this makes the problem worse since the behavior is encouraged if it is paid for. Organizations such as the Ford Foundation have wasted millions of dollars on making the public assistance problem worse by bankrolling irresponsible behavior. MacDonald examines how education fads are destroying and warping students' minds with frivolous courses such as Hip Hop 101 in which students are encouraged to paint the neighborhood illegally with graffiti. I think the purpose of some educrats is to dumb down education so far that everyone passes and everyone is therefore equal. If hard courses were introduced, then some would do better than others, and of course, that must mean someone is oppressing the Other. The Smithsonian Museum has gone PC trying to denigrate white Western culture and uplift every other culture besides that one. In Law School, we now have very touchy professors who now wear their race and gender identities on their sleeve and spend a lot of time "proving" how oppressed they are while insulting and psychologically attacking whites and men. One last article covers law and order in New York City during the Diallo case in which a victim was accidently shot by the police. Al Sharpton and the rest of his charade including Hollywood celebrities tried to bring the tea kettle to boil with fake "designer protests". Meanwhile the folks back home in the neighborhoods generally like the police and believe in law and order because it keeps the drug lords off the streets. But New York Times kept the drum beat going for "justice" and therefore got some innocent readers in a resentful mood over the police because they naturally expect a paper to tell it like it is and not to advocate for trumped-up injustices. MacDonald does a great job showing us the problem and a okay job suggesting solutions; the solutions part is usually given minimal space and it is more generalized than detailed, but it is morally correct in a good way. It is amazing how bizarre some of the reports were; I can only hope she is picking the worst cases and not just taking a representative samples.
Rating: 
Summary: A call for personal responsibility
Review: Heather MacDonald's conservative leanings shine through every sentence in this collection of essays, and while I don't agree with her politics it is certainly hard to argue with her call for personal responsibility and sensible racial sensitivity in public policy. The Burden of Bad Ideas is an excellent expose on the often-insane results of liberal programs derived from the cultural acceptance movements of the 60s, 70s, and present. The theme of the book is obvious and straight forward -- social policy decisions (and decision makers) no longer consider the personal responsibility or basic morality of their "clients". The end-game of a rampant drive towards diversity, cultural sensitivity, and avoidance of judgment is a socialist state rife with ineffective and expensive social programs that no longer measure success on the resolution of the problem, but rather by how "diverse" or "community-oriented" those programs are. This is a must-read for conservatives and liberals alike. While the individual conclusions and often blatant omissions of fact are certainly arguable, the underlying message is one of simple common sense -- something truly lacking from today's political landscape.
Rating:
Summary: Amusing, but ultimately really bad
Review: In "The Burden of Bad Ideas," Heather Mac Donald blows the lid off of what she terms "an inflexible ideology that prevents [writers, journalists and commentators] from seeing clearly the reality in front of their eyes, if it doesn't square with theory." This ideology has informed many social policies intended to help the poor, but in fact have done more harm than good. Part of the reason that such ideas are so popular, particularly among the liberal elite, is because it makes those who espouse them "feel good" (i.e. compassionate, caring, concerned about the less fortunate and downtrodden). These "bad ideas" consist of the following: 1. Poor people cannot be held responsible for their own behavior, because they are victims of an unjust and racist American society;
2. Government can assume the role of parents;
3. America's iradicable racism and sexism requires double-standards for minorities;
4. Reason is a tool of male oppression; and
5. Education is not about knowledge but ethnic empowerment. Mac Donald shows in case after case where these ideas have not only flopped when put into action, but more importantly how they have simply made things worse. In particular, the author shows how the media (so as not to "stigmatize the poor") do all they can to cover up the bad choices and irresponsible behavior of welfare recipients that got them on the dole in the first place, treating their current problems as the product of "malign social forces and callous Republican policies." This results in a serious disconnect between the actual causes of poverty and the so-called "solutions" espoused by the liberal elite. Not holding people responsible for their bad behavior, the author points out, is to encourage more of it. Period. This books delivers more than it promises. For those who want to be enlightened, buy it today.
Rating:
Summary: Starts as an interesting view - becomes a whine-festival
Review: She starts out slowly to explain the transformation from an individual based responsibility society to one that resolve individual responsibility and blames all woes on the vary society that creates the problem. A hand full of perverts and commies have taken control of our institutions and perverted the institution's purpose. Sounding like she stumbled upon some great secret and is giving the alarm, this book then quickly turns in to some bitch session that moves from one institution to another. It become very repetitive and offers no solution. She should have stopped when she was ahead.
I haven't heard terms like the deserving and undeserving poor since the re-runs of "My Fair Lady" when Alfred P. Doolittle said "I intend to go on being undeserving".
Maybe it is just that a lot of her descriptions of society are of some place far off or unique and have never made it here. However her descriptions of schools do not match the ones I went to or the local ones that kids are going to today. She must have gone to a different Smithsonian than I did and none of the examples of daily life matches any reality that I have come across.
If the book had a solution section it would be "The Capitalist Manifesto" (a revolutionary plan for a Capitalistic distribution of wealth to preserve our free society) by Louis O. Kelso and Mortimer J. Adler.
This book is the "Turner Diaries" without the story line. I rate it up there with the best of conspiracy theories. If you make it through this book with out wondering what her problem is then be sure to read "None Dare call it Conspiracy" at least there is an attempt to put some meat behind it.
However the book does describe a good nightmare if you can find it.
Rating:
Summary: The Madness and Delusion of Intellectual Elites
Review: Thank God for Heather Mac Donald. This is a reporter's reporter. Most reporters fancy that they don't follow the herd, but they do anyway because it never occurs to them their assumptions and premises fit it in with the group-think of the Intellectual Elites: the herd of independent minds.
Mac Donald, on the other hand, goes out into the street and does not use what she sees to force fit into a liberal worldview. A reporter who is a healthy skeptic and does not erase her inner doubts when they offend the gatekeepers of sensitivity: what a novel concept!
Each chapter in this book will make your blood boil. You want to keep turning the page, but you get mentally exhausted from realizing how out of touch with reality the liberal intellectual elites are. And how relatively easy they seem to brainwash urban crowds.
But then, Mac Donald shrewdly observes, social programs that the elites put into place start to fall apart. The ultimate victims are the very people the elites claim to help. It is the upside-down world aspect of what Mac Donald has found on the ground in America that will leave your head spinning.
Rating:
Summary: Good but There Are Many Better
Review: The sub-title of this book is "How Modern Intellectuals Misshape Our Society" and to Mrs. MacDonald's credit, she answers precisely that. These are essays she wrote over a given period of time - each pertaining to a different incident. From an inquiry into exageratory tactics of the New York Times' "100 Neediest Cases" to exposes of the PC environment everywhere from the Smithsonian to teachers colleges, Mrs. MacDonalds book goes a long way in exposing shocking cases of political correctness and anti-intellectual postmodernism (what does this word actaully mean?). Still, while she goes far in giving us new stories to chuckle at (not to downplay how fun THAT is!), she doesn't go very far in tying the stories together or positing any common themes hence common solutions. Of course, to most readers, these will seem obvious. Common themes? Lefty attempts to dumb-down culture in favor of artificial equality. Solutions? Cut the foolishness! In a sense, I agree but I can't help thinking that that is a bit reductionistic. It would've been nice to hear Mrs. MacDonalds suggestions. As simply a collection of essays, the author owes it to us to tie them together with commentary through an afterword, postscript or introduction (well, she does have an introduction, but all it tells us is that we are reading an introduction to a bunch of essays. Big help!) Still, I can easily grade the book with four stars. The writing is witty, easy to read, terse and always thorough. From time to time, it resorts to a bitter tone and cheap shots but not as often as most books of this ilk. Two great books to read after this one though, is Thomas Sowell's "Vision of the Annointed" and "Quest for Cosmic Justice" as both of these share Mrs. MacDonalds enthusiasm for anecdotes but unlike her book, tie them all together.
Rating:
Summary: Ambitious, but it delivers
Review: This collection of essays from the mid-90's takes on a huge range of "bad ideas". She carefully dissects the misinformation, fuzzy thinking and misguided charity which dominates public life in our era. The essay format omits the conclusions and suggestions for future action which I would have appreciated. But she carefully traces each bad idea back to its source, often the dominant academic mindset. She follows the idea from its initial good intention to the ultimate entrenchment in the political, judicial, social service, charity, or law enforcement arenas. The ultimate result is often contrary to the original intent. This is an excellent and important work by someone from whom I hope to hear more.
<< 1 >>
|
