A lone voice of dissent
920002
I hate to be curmudgeonly, but I didn't find this book heart-warming at all. What I got from it was a sense of competitiveness from the parent. Every statement the child made, the parent had to one-up him. For a good  example of a book about unconditional parental love, instead read - Mama,  Do You Love Me?
4495409
Fairness would seem to demand that a book be evaluated according to its authors' intentions, and to do so for this book one must look no further than their brief preface (pp. ix-x). The authors profess that the book "is about key ideas that have built the modern world" and that the "principle effort  has been to illustrate and clarify this theme by looking at particular thinkers and their system of thought." Importantly, they admit that the book is almost entirely based on secondary sources and that they "cannot claim that we have found new facts or even that we have as yet undiscovered insights about the individuals we have examined." It is, in short, an introductory text. That is well and good, but the low bar that they establish is not fairly described in the book's marketing blurb. Many readers with a basic understanding of the last three centuries (and the principle thinkers thereof) will find little new here and be disappointed.

There is no disagreement with the historical figures they have selected for their study. Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, and the "Odd Couple" of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, would be on most thoughtful peoples' short list of most impactful persons of the modern age (suggesting other names for study would be to quibble). Of course, most persons interested in such eminent thinkers will have already read a good deal about them, and this book will cover little new ground.

A central theme of this book is that it suggests a world of little subtlety, where big ideas (perhaps once couched in some degree of nuance) are unleashed and seem to rattle about, playing out in extreme forms. Capitalism and free-markets, when unfettered, can be inhumane  check. Communism, well-intentioned, has proven "nightmarish" (p. 147) for mankind  check. Evolution has undermined the basis of scriptural creation stories  check. Democracies are in a constant tension as to individual freedom and centralized power  check.

As for "counter-Enlightenment" forces such as nationalism, fascism, and religious fundamentalism (both Christian and Islamic), these are sketched out and critiqued. Of course, any devotees of these "counter-Enlightenment" philosophies are quite unlikely to read this book and accept its bromide: study the humanities so as to reconsider mindsets and to "critically read and understand foundational texts, to analyze belief systems, and to discover the complex arguments that have produced different movements, wars, institutions, national identities, and the like" (p. 435-36) in order to confront the challenges of the future.

The premise that big ideas are an historical force and, in a significant way, influence our lives is credible. The idea that most people govern their lives by imbibing "foundational texts" and then rationally choose a path of conduct is naive, if not nonsensical. History is complex because lives are lived in response to circumstances and, largely, emotion and instinct. There are reasons that both capitalism and communism have produced ill-consequences  human nature resists "Reason" and seeks self-interest, individuals desire status and/or power, and emotional appeals to group bonds are seductive even when illusory. That is, it is not the ideas as much as the imperfect human agents who act upon them that determine outcomes (a reality the authors make several oblique references to, e.g., pp. 191 and 265).

What seems to be missing in this book is the vast grey area most of us reside in, i.e., thankful for the many benefits that the rational and scientific aspects of the Enlightenment have brought, yet reserving for ourselves an acknowledgement and desire for the spiritual or transcendent. Maintaining some sense of balance between the two may define what it is to be "human."

In a world with so many outstanding books to choose from, there is little to recommend this book beyond its stated intentions of being an introductory text on select thinkers with a cursory look at their impact. If that is what you desire, this book will likely satisfy you.
4227504
Jack is very honest and outspoken in his book. He expresses indignation at social injustices and corruption, often using what is or used to be called salty language.
The problem with the book is that despite the widespread criticism, it really does not analyze the basis for injustice, corruption, and public naivte.  It just curses and complains.

There is also autobiographical material on Jack and his family. Apparently both he and his parents had a problem with alcohol. He was able to become sober. I do think he wants admiration and sympathy. I am a clinical psychologist and was certified as a drug counselor but let it lapse. I think it is fine if someone gets sober, but he is not a hero to me.

The book does review a lot of what's wrong with America, but I can'tstronly recommend it since it provides no insight. Jack had a perfect platform to publicize his book, having a special feature on CNN. Otherwise, I doubt it would have sold so well.
1127114
It seems that this book was written to rally the troops of like-minded folks. Although I disagreed with Mr. Carter on most issues going in, I was willing to listen to him. I received the book as a gift. The person who gave me the book--an enthusiastic supporter of the views it contains--asked that I read the book with an open mind. This I attempted to do. I was looking for reasoned argument but found, instead, fuzzy thinking mixed with considerable ranting.

In the author's view, abortion and capital punishment are morally equivalent. After all, they both involve killing

someone who was created in the image of God--right? Well, yes, but in the case of abortion the killing is an individual act of rebellion against that very God, while in the case of capital punishment the killing is an act of justice carried out by legitimate authority against one who has committed a heinous crime. With this distinction in mind, I would argue that abortion is wrong and that capital punishment must be debated on other grounds. The author does argue that lack of a deterrent effect precludes the use of capital punishment. This argument presupposes that the purpose of capital punishment is to deter heinous crimes, whereas I would suggest that the actual purpose is to punish those who commit heinous crimes and to prevent them from committing others. The relevant questions are whether the punishment fits the crime and whether the person convicted of the crime did, in fact, commit the crime. A reasoned argument can be made against capital punishment, but you will not find any such argument in this book.

In the author's view, a Christian fundamentalist is a religious zealot who oppresses women and wishes to impose his religious beliefs on all of society (think Taliban). This is a gross abuse of language. In truth, a Christian fundamentalist is one who recognizes the Old and New Testaments of the Bible as God's Word to fallen humanity and who rejects arguments that seek to subject the Bible to a higher authority--the wisdom of men--for the purpose of deciding which parts of the Bible are true (breathed out by God) and which parts are questionable (added by fallible men). As one who believes that the Bible is what it claims to be, I object to the author's misuse of "fundamentalist" to suit his polemical purposes. Some of the attitudes and activities described by the author and attributed to fundamentalists are indeed disturbing. By linking these things to Christian fundamentalists, the author has unwittingly fueled the  hostility toward biblical Christianity that increasingly characterizes contemporary American culture.

(If you don't believe our culture is hostile to biblical Christianity, I ask you to note your emotional response to the phrases "born-again Christian" and "Bible belt". If your response is one of hostility, why is that?)

In brief, the author conveys strong views on many issues of importance. If you share his worldview, you might enjoy the book.
4492025
The author is preaching to a choir of like-minded readers. For a conservative who already is convinced that federal government should be minimized and everything will be better if power is shifted to the states this will be an interesting read. Explaining a path through the legal intricacies to make it happen. What is missing, is a justification of why such amendments are a worthy goal to pursue.

I read this book after a friend recommended it to me after we had a discussion of how political polarization is destroying the U.S. and he suggested these amendments as a potential solution. Needless to say, I was expecting much more from this book. After reading it, I am having the impression that the author and his target readers are part of a dogmatic clan believing that by shifting the balance of power to the states, every important problem the U.S. faces will go away. I don't doubt there will are advantages when making choices and running government programs at the state level. After all, from a common sense perspective, some decisions should be taken at the neighborhood level, others at the international level, and then most at intermedium levels, such as at the county, city, state, or national level. The problem is that without a rational criterion as to why some decisions should be taken at each specific level, arguing for shifting power from the national to the state level does not make any sense to me.
3515524
This book is about A small but morally and militarily important minority of soldiers and civilianssaid no.  Perhaps the most important of all in the military were civilians who wanted to spare the infrastructure.  There was almost no disobedience from the army group down to the divisional level, and almost all officers obeyed their instructions to implement a scorched earth policy.  Hansen believes that what is important is the motivation behind those such as Choltitz in Paris and Wolz in Hamburg who refused to carry out their orders.  Although there was great variation, one major factor was the hopelessness of their position in that they felt abandoned by the retreating armies. This in turn rested upon the individual personalities of the men in question.  If Ramcke, who held Brest to the end and destroyed it had been in Paris instead of Choltitz, Paris would have been burning. Hansen sees the German as split between fanatics (the majority) and realists (a growing minority).  By March 1945, as communications deteriorated and the chain of command crumbled, the cost for the realists of disobeying orders fell, while the cost for obeying orders rose as this would result in the destruction of their homeland.  I knew one of them, not a German but a Hungarian officer who did just that and only when his obituary was published in the New York Times did I learn that he was recognized as a Righteous Gentile.

As an aside, the moral issue of tyrannicide has another facet beyond killing; that of resisting the tyrant.  Canon law recognized tyranny by oppression (tyrannus in regimine); a ruler who wields power unjustly, oppressively, and arbitrarily falls into the above category.  If the tyrant by oppression attacks the citizen, jeopardizes the welfare of the community with the intent leading it to destruction or killing the citizens, or commits other evils, then a private citizen can morally commit an act of justifiable tyrannicide; or in this case  resistance. Moreover, if because of the tyrant's rule, a nation cannot defend itself, is on the course of destruction, and has no lawful means to depose or to condemn the tyrant, then a citizen may commit an act of resistance or justifiable tyrannicide.

Were they Rats leaving a sinking ship? Perhaps some were; but Hansen feels that by March or April these resisters crippled the attempts at a last ditch defense by putting out white flags and urging the men to desert or not to report to the Volksturm; the resisting civilians were expecting not a conquest but a liberation.  The only major National Socialist leader to resist Hitlers directives was Speer, and Hansen believes this was because of his desire not so much to preserve his leben, but his lebenslauf; his lifes work, and as early as the autumn of 1944 he was preparing for the reconstruction of Germany.

How much did the resistance really matter?  Hansen argues that its greatest success was failure of the commanders of Marseilles and Toulon to carry out the orders to destroy the ports; yet I believe neither was crucial to the Allies supply lines, and they were already clogged with ships of the destroyed French Navy.  On the other hand, Hansen makes a very strong case for the long-term importance of Choltitzs refusal to destroy Paris.  Hansen argues that the post -war reconciliation of France and Germany, and wit that the foundation of a new Europe would have been impossible if Paris had been destroyed.  It would have been a deed that The French would never have forgiven.

The book has outstanding notes and documentation, but my examination copy lacked the index and illustrations, if any.
1118068
The author is an attorney, and as he admits, this book is written like a legal brief. A lawyer's job is to present one-sided arguments, and that is what Wittenberg has done here. The result is a book that raises some valid points, but which overstates its case. It essentially is a compendium of every attack ever made on Sheridan, from his personality to his generalship.
While many of Sheridan's flaws and errors have been recognized both by his contemporaries and by historians, it is of some value to lay them out in a single book as a corrective to his largely untarnished image among casual Civil War buffs.
This could have been accomplished, however, without exaggerating Sheridan's shortcomings. Wittenberg, for example, tends to credit Sheridan's every detractor, no matter how biased they themselves might have been. At one point, he even quotes Southern newspaper reports from late in the war, which clearly smack of propaganda meant to reassure their readers that the CSA was in no danger of falling, to support his argument that one of Sheridan's cavalry raids was a failure. Likewise, he quotes Confederate leaders' postwar comments to the effect to the effect that they were unimpressed by Sheridan, without questioning whether their judgments were honestly made, or whether they were colored by resentment over the ultimate outcome of their encounters with Little Phil and his men.
Every success is chalked up to Sheridan's subordinates or colleagues, while every failure is laid at his feet, until one is left wondering how such an incompetent general could have inspired the unwavering confidence of both his commanding officer, Grant, and of his troops. A chapter near the end that recognizes Sheridan's achievements during the final campaign against Lee is so inconsistent with the rest of the book that it seems jarring to find it in the same volume.
As stated, though, Sheridan was far from perfect, and this book is not without some value for reminding us of his flaws. I can recommend it, however, only for readers with a solid background in Sheridan's Civil War career, who will be able to assess Wittenberg's arguments with a properly critical eye.
3494466
A dissenting voice. Kahneman, I'm sure, would be quick to tell you that this does not mean I am wrong. I am only 150 painful pages into this book. I am determined to finish it (I have about another 300 pages to go), but I am not sure that I will, so I write this now to explain why. I know nothing about statistics or economics beyond what any reasonable, semi-educated (I pretend to no more) would have gathered by casual observation wandering through work, a few books, and life.  That may be my problem here. I had hoped to learn something. I have not. Not yet anyway. Despite the torture of wading through these long, overdrawn, and not always very convincing examples of how we think and observe, there is very little in the book so far that has surprised me or taught me anything.  Should it have? Is this stuff really so amazing and revealing?  My answer is no, it isn't.  Why must I put up with unending references to Amos, his former, much loved, and now deceased colleague, and things like "a young psychologist" (when dropping the word "young " would change nothing), "my Princeton colleague" (when "Princeton" adds nothing, except perhaps to those who might otherwise worry that he was from, say, Nebraska), and "[t]he aristocratic Belgian psychologist" (I have no idea what I was to think after learning that he was "aristocratic" or why that made some sort of difference)? This is annoying writing.  Then there are the unending and to me unnecessary and not very informative subsets of little pieces of larger ideas, like "coherence seeking System 1" and "lazy System 2."  The whole System 1 and System 2 construct is not doing very much for me so far. Yes, our minds do these thing, one often unconsciously and the other only with thought, and we all know this. Don't we? I will plod on and later edit this negative assessment should the book surrender a reason for doing so.

Postcript: It was just too much nonsense to finish -- so I did not. My negative views of what I read before  trash-canning it remain the same.
1622248
Ms. Bynum has spent a career trying to rewrite history and turn marginal actors into central players of the American Civil War.  It is true, of course, that some Southerners opposed the Confederacy just as many people in the North were in violent opposition to the Lincoln regime.  There were many reasons for this but they mostly fall into a few categories:  resentful "poor whites", Northern or foreign immigrants to the South, residents of "micro-economic units" in the South that were closely tied to the growing Northern economy rather than to the larger South.  It is unnecessary to add that the great majority of blacks, free and slaves, opposed the Confederacy, though virtually none took any action against it until safely in Union territory.  Obviously, most of these people can hardly be termed "Southerners" at all. West Virginians, for example, are not usually considered Southerners - they opted out of their heritage.  The larger truth is that the great majority of the white Southern population supported the Confederate war effort, with greater or lesser degrees of enthusiasm.  Virtually no white Southerners, including those who joined pseudo-Union Army units (such as were formed in Florida and Tennessee), had any real loyalty to the Lincoln government.  Those who professed "loyalty" were motivated mainly by class resentment against the planter class or personal animosities, to say nothing of a steady paycheck.  Confederate deserters to the Union "cause" were always seen as being of dubious reliability by astute Union officers and those officers were right to distrust them.  They were in no way "loyal" Unionists and frequently switched back to the Confederate side.  The true story of Southern "loyalists", however, is to be found after the war.  Reconstruction turned most Southern Unionists into ardent Confederates.  Many of them realized too late that in supporting the Union they had put a noose around their own throats and those of their descendants.  The Civil war was, indeed, a war of Northern aggression, not a war to free the slaves.  The Union armies were not trying to unite the country.  They were crushing a rival political and economic power and treated those they claimed as their "fellow countrymen" like foreign enemies.  I am particularly irked by Ms. Bynum's claim that she is a "Southerner".  She most certainly is not and has no understanding at all of the Southern soul, to say nothing of our history.  She is a Yankee Californian, free to express her opinion but utterly unable to understand the South or Southerners.
3643531
I understood from the outset that the writer is Orthodox and would give a strong viewpoint of Judaism.  I did not expect, and am quite disappointed, at the outright attacks and destructive comments about other religions, lifestyles and people.  I do not disagree that there is anti-semitism, or that assimilation is a problem for the Jewish people.  I don't even disagree with his right to proclaim Judaism as "the only truth" -- everybody has a right to their truth (the author would not agree with me in actually putting "their" and "truth" together.  But like a spoiled child on a rant to prove he's right and everyone else is wrong, he does a disservice to Jews everywhere. The writing is conceited and pompous. Whatever good, "truthful" writing he scribed is smacked down by the nasty way he penalizes anyone who doesn't think like him.  The writer is entitled to his beliefs on anyone of the many items he feels offended by: homosexuality, European antisemitism, the Arab/Israel problem, the Reform Jewish movement, Catholicism; you name it, he hates it.  It could have been a great book if he didn't turn every plus about orthodoxy into a condemnation of anything that is other.  Get another book, any other book, because what I see here is someone looking to start a fight or someone who lost the fight and wants to get back into the ring.  If I were looking to increase my observance, this book would make me run the other way.
431417
I'll refrain from any tasteless jokes about your comment "I'd like to burn him as well" under the present circumstances (especially under the given circumstances) but propriety still forces me to mention to you that having a personal opinion about something does not give you permission to utter any statement you wish to in order to get your point across.  In other words, your dislike of something may be justified or unjustified, accurate or inaccurate, insightful or uninsightful, but whatever the case or cause or purpose of your utterance in these or any circumstances please keep your tone and manner civil.  Is that clear, young man?  Thank you.  End of transmission.
1785316
This book is not well written. It's scattered, lacks an understandable continuity, and is scattered. However, what it lacks in finesse it makes up for with honesty and candor.

Tommy Robinson, as I have recently learned, is a controversial figure in the United Kingdom. He became an activist after witnessing the growth - and political acceptance - of a radical Muslim population in his hometown of Luton.

According to Tommy, a very flawed but also very passionate man, there are two sets of laws regarding acceptable speech and activity - one for Muslims, and one for everyone else.

Tommy is continually "nicked" (thrown in jail, for us Americans) for his outspoken protests against extremist Muslims, who are themselves protesting British soldiers, British police, and the United Kingdom in general. While these Muslims burn poppies (I guess this is a huge no-no in British culture), the police do not react and the media do not comment. But when loud Tommy gets out and protests against what they are doing, the media paint him as an extremist, and he is thrown in jail for, essentially, disturbing the peace.

Much of this book is about Tommy's experience with the English justice system. He effectively claims that because of his politically unpopular views he becomes and "enemy of the state." The police use every chance they get to arrest, harass, and make his life miserable.

Here are some thoughts -

The book is hard to follow. It's obvious Tommy is a passionate guy, but the story jumps around in the timeline, and it's hard to keep track what events occurred when. I assume that many people who read this book are familiar with Tommy and the English Defense League before reading the book, thus making the scatterbrained story easier to understand. I am not one of those people.

Tommy is like the Hulk. He is angry, and he seems to create a lot of collateral damage because of his inability to control his emotions and direct his anger to an effective (measured) cause. Still, when he gets angry, he has no qualms about doing what he feels is right and standing up for his culture and country.

I feel like I'm missing part of the story. When I hear about someone who gets (pardon me) the shit end of the stick _that_ much, I can't help but think that there's more to the story. Tommy is more than forthcoming about his imperfections, and if he has been truthful in his telling of the story, the state of the British justice system against those with politically unpopular beliefs is worrisome. It's so outrageous, some of this stuff, it's hard to believe. If it is actually true...

Finally, I really appreciate his story, and I hope it helps continue to grow the conversation that is much needed in the West. This book gives a view from the front lines, so to speak, of the culture war that is slowly growing in Europe. On the one hand you have Europeans who are either very Liberal and want open borders, or who are simply afraid of being politically incorrect. On the other hand you have Europeans who see a flood of immigrants who have no interest in assimilation, and who in fact are trying to change their host county to fit their worldview.

When that worldview is dominated by Sharia law, your country is going to have problems. And when those who speak up about it, those who _act_ up about it, are painted as extremists and racists then, well, you end up with a book like this.

It's a tough read, but I do recommend it. I read this book concurrently with "The Strange Death of Europe" by Douglas Murray. The two books each take a different tack to the same issue, and pair nicely together. Different tone, different language, but same issue.
4972401
Mr. Philips's polemic, Darwin's Worms, is directed to the choir, who undoubtedly agree. This reader, however, finds little if anything in it that is agreeable.

The author's astounding -- and unsupported, in my view -- statements begin in the second paragraph of the book's Prologue.  The second sentence of that paragraph reads, "We NEED to believe that someone can intervene in our suffering and make a noticeable difference."  (Emphasis supplied.)  It seems clear to me that all humans -- or Men, as Mr. Phillips seems to prefer -- WANT to believe that someone can relieve  their misery and suffering.  But the author does not support his choice of words, expecting us to accept, on faith I suppose, its universal application to "us," whoever we are.

And he goes on: in the fourth sentence of the same paragraph we read, "After all, in a secular world who can we BLAME but ourselves or nature?"  It turns out that this statement is key to understanding this little book, which is really devoted to painting Darwin and Freud as personifications and promoters of  the evils of secular science.  Thus they are the blamable culprits who have caused us to lose our faith and much, much more.

Of course Mr. Philips has every right to state his beliefs about the great harm to humanity being done by secular science.  And he may or may not be correct, in all or in part.  In any event, I believe that this book must be read as his personal credo and not as a reasoned argument.
119720
I have no disagreement with the fine review by Clark. The information contained in the book were all precise and brief. One is left with the impression that Judge Stevens was a fair, courageous, and independent minded judge, but aren't all judges expected to display these qualities? The key theme of Judge Stevens' judicial career was that he had been a prolific dissenter, but why was that? The question yielded little in answer. Judge Stevens was a Republican appointed by Jerry Ford, a Republican president, but he often sided with the liberal judges. Judge Stevens, according to the book, described himself as a conservative but because the other conservatives on the Bench proved overly conservative that he came though looking like a liberal. While I agree with the Clark review, I gave this book a two star rating because I thought that as a biography, the account was a little pasteurized. It may not be the fault of the authors if the subject's life was not as colourful as the readers were expecting. It was obvious enough that Judge Stevens was not a publicity hound, or an overly opinionated person - I'm looking forward to reading Joan Biscupic's "The American Original - The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia". The material from Barnhart & Schlickman's book suggested that John Paul Stevens was a quiet and enigmatic man and those qualities also became apparent in his long tenure as a judge of the US Supreme Court. We are left with a picture of a dignified, intellectual, and independent-minded judge, but the reader would also be disappointed that a judge who had sat as long as Stevens did inspired a bland account of his life and career (the chapter on his military life was about as exciting as his life on the Bench). That may be no one's fault - this was a biography. The unsatisfied might wish to read about John Paul Stevens' exploits as a lawyer when he busted the corruption scandal in the Federal Court, a account was written by Kenneth Manaster in "Illinois Justice - Scandal of 1969 and the Rise of John Paul Stevens".
4753540
The author is a professor in Fresno State's Dept. of Foreign Languages and Literature and writer for the National Review.com. The book is a compilation of his writings regarding the 9/11 crisis for which I assume he was already paid, but for which he has evidently decided to seek further remuneration as the country is recognizing the anniversary of the tragedy (sorry Prof., I didn't buy the book). Most, if not all, of this book is easily available free on-line. As a person who was caught up in some of the tragedy of that day, I can't say that I feel good about anyone who seems to be seeking a profit on this crisis. I didn't see a notice on the book that profits were for charity, such as to the victims.
The author is entitled to his opinions, but his arguments tend to be shallow and lazily written. His manner of presentation leads me to wonder if he is not a professor of reductionism instead of classics. Contrary to his presentation, for example, the U.S. did not enter the First World War due to the sinking of the Lusitania, which occurred nearly two years (and at least two other ocean liner sinkings) before Mr. Wilson asked for a declaration of war. The Lusitania is a better example of the American people remaining level headed. Furthermore, the U.S. was not alone in leaving "both Germany and Japan in smoldering ruin" as he oddly concludes in one of his early chapters. This is an important point since the author thesis is that the U.S. can dismiss international relations and assistance. But, his examples are all based on events that contradict his thesis and there are other examples in his writings.
The author sees as wimpish the contention of some to seek European and Arab support for military action on Europe and the Middle East soil. In fact, that is exactly what the U.S. did before entering Afghanistan. This, to me, is most troubling about the book. The author may want to argue for U.S. unilateralism, but why not truthfully note that his position is without recent and relevant historical precedence. He could admit that his position is unique, but some how worthwhile. Perhaps the author believes that the Spanish-American War (a case of U.S. unilateral action) was an act of American altruism and proper foreign policy. In fact, unilateralism in foreign action has been rejected by Wilson, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Nixon to name a few presidents of diverse ideologies.
Throughout the chapters that I read, the author worried not about facts, but only for his opinions to be accepted as the facts. He takes the old rhetorical approach of loudly repeating his opinions as facts, giving no credence to alternative views, and personalizes his criticism of those with whom he disagrees. This is hardly the approach of a university professor.
I don't know Prof. Hanson's background, but he writes like a person who has not served in the military. He seems to have no problem placing others, including inevitably civilians, in the line of fire. I only apologize if I am in error about the author's military experience, but his manner of arguing rings similar to those I have known who speak of the military with little experience. I recommend saving your money, read the author on line if you must, but first swallow a grain of salt.
4308924
Dialectic is a form of dialogue in thought that exists as a transient life form, appearing and disappearing at various times in the cultural and philosophical ethos, usually coinciding with the threat of decline of a civilisation, or in its complacent self-assurance. Between the two, it has little function, and wanes as an intellectual force. Perhaps our times will arguably be defined as a mixture of both of these by the long view of history looking back, so it is appropriate that this little book should appear now and be written in the form of correspondence.
A young contrarian has little in common with the `angry young man' perspective, although it must surely have its roots in the spirit of rebellion, which is associated wrongly with the stamp of youth. This is no text for the angry young man or woman. That, at best, is a starting point, revealing that the spirit of dissent is most probably hard-wired into us, and that it must be accommodated. By its existence, it guarantees the emergence of the critical spirit and the enquiring mind, and at the same time protects against the ossification of thought that can threaten these two. This hardening of thought turns into dogma and represents a calcification of spirit that reflects itself in a non-participative politik. Consequently, it cannot take a position and speak from on high, or pronounce truths, by which means it would become the very thing it judges or criticises. To write the main thrust of this book in the form of letters means that we readers are keyhole observers, peeping toms and no better than that, and this is a more advantageous position since one never feels preached to.
However, dialectical thought is not for the faint-hearted in that it never reaches a point of satisfaction. It is, after all, derived from a permanent state of dissatisfaction. But ironically, this book demonstrates what can happen when this dissent picks on soft targets and takes a position. It is, for instance, a simple task to be opposed to religious dogma and point at the wars of history fought in the defence of it, and it is just as easy to extol the virtues of science. Neither of these represent the dialectical position, since it would be the responsibility of the contrarian to take the opposite view of this and reverse this trend. Science, after all, has no serious critics, while religion is more or less permanently on the defensive. In effect, one feels that the task of the dialectician is being subverted to vent a personal view, which is not the purpose of dialectic. In this form it becomes all bombast and bluster and becomes rigidified, reflecting its transmutation and becoming the thing it should be opposed to.
However, any book that attempts to reactivate this important function at a time when the individual voice is becoming more and more scarce is worth looking at, for all its faults. There is much else in these few pages to commend it.
1144463
I had not heard of William Hogeland prior to reading this book so I had no preconceived notions regarding his political leanings. However, it wasn't long before I began to get the distinct impression that this work had a particular axe to grind. While I am reluctant to ascribe to any author an intentional bias, it is my impression that a critical look at Mr. Hogeland's version of the events surrounding the Whiskey Rebellion does indeed reveal evidence of a left-leaning political slant. Mr. Hogeland appears to believe that the rebellion was a populist reaction to an intentional economic conspiracy designed by a collaboration of wealthy eastern creditors/financiers led by Robert Morris and high Federalists, epitomized by Alexander Hamilton. The argument that the government could have been justified in its forceful response to a threat to its sovereignty is summarily dismissed.

My chief criticism of this book, at base, is that it is too simplistic in its portrayal of Hamilton as a conniving megalomaniac obsessed with grasping at personal power and of President Washington as a sometimes naive marionette unwittingly dancing to Hamilton's tune as if Hamilton were some malicious plotter attempting to get Washington to do his bidding through subliminal suggestion.  While one gets a sense of Hamilton's virtuosity, Hogeland fails to convey the complexity of the multifaceted Alexander Hamilton. Indeed, I find it difficult to believe that the very same Hamilton, who displayed such admirable courage, valor and loyalty on the battlefields of Monmouth and Trenton and who wanted so desperately for his adopted country to succeed could possibly have been so destitute of altruism as Mr. Hogeland would have us believe.

While Mr. Hogeland has every right to his political opinions, the lack of objectivity in the book made me question the veracity (and therefore the validity) of its claims. For me, the lack of objectivity and balance compromises this work thereby transforming it into a socio-political diatribe rather than an objective history.