I like Ben Shapiro but this is basically a transcript of ...
933544
I like Ben Shapiro but this is basically a transcript of his youtube videos, I would've liked a little more facts and studies with references, if you look "ben shapiro vs piers morgan" on youtube is almost half the book, still is a cheap book so you get what you pay
2871076
It's OK but he rambles a lot.  There is a lot of interesting things.  Had he not had his mind so screwed up he could have made a great statesman.  Too bad his mentality was off.
554901
In what reads like a series of loosely-related magazine pieces strung together, Seabrook displays his profound grasp of the obvious. Seabrook thinks his rich daddy was hibrow because he read the New Yorker and  appereciated High Art - Sonny Boy doesn't understand that the New Yorker  was always middlebrow, and that his father's passions were an aspiring  aristo joke. Seabrook thinks he's different from Rich Dad because he likes  the Chemical Brothers. Wow! Is he just slumming, or does he really not get  the implicit irony? And do we really need to be told this again? I think  not.
771342
From the title, I knew what I was getting into. I remember the first time I watched his youtube video that went viral. I liked it! Jefferson has talent and is a good, down-to-earth, communicator. I don't completely agree or disagree with everything he said. Like him, I hate self-righteous religion and hypocrisy. I also share his passion for the lost and his love for the church. However, we don't need to ditch religion or striving to live our lives trying to please God.

We should be striving to please God with trying harder and doing more. I mean, what's the alternative? Do your worst. Do less. Let Jesus take the wheel? In this sense, the message is just repackaged, antinomianism at worst, and a confused, false-dichotomous, misunderstood, view of sanctification at best.  I think Jefferson means well, and he has a lot of helpful things to say. He has just embraced a popular view of formulaic, sanctification that avoids legalism, but unknowingly strays towards antinomianism.

Either way, I liked his book, and I like the sound of his voice. He's from Seattle, but sounds like he's from the East Coast. I think Jefferson and I would get along well if we could sit down and have a coffee or beer.
3566189
Everything by Sam Harris is worth buying just to support his message.  The book is written as an interview.  Nothing really new here if you are familiar with Dr. Harris' ideas about Islam.
4611788
Shapiro does well to remind Conservatives that all the world is a stage and rhetorical devices and imagistics matter. Short, but potent, which means it can be reread just before debating or interviews.
4440650
This is an OK essay; it's kind of an extended magazine article. Lilla lambastes the current Progressive movement and Democratic Party, excoriates identity politics, and then in broad strokes, suggests the way for Progressives to win back the hearts and minds of America.

His criticism of campus liberals and their fixation on identity and identity victimhood is right on the money. Today's narcissistic campus left is so busy claiming identities, engaging in movement politics, macro-praising any form of self-expression, and micro-parsing discourse that it has lost all understanding of what it means to be a citizen, to appreciate what it means to see yourself as part of a larger whole. His claim is that identity politics immediately cuts off reasoned debate and is the single biggest impediment to a Progressive America. I happen to agree with him though probably not to the extent he would have me.

He also notes that Liberals lack a clear political vision and suggests ways to correct that. He points out the conservatives/Republicans also have no political vision, only the desire to destroy, making now a good time to develop that vision.

At times, the book felt somewhat scattershot and disorganized. His arguments could have been presented more cohesively. And the shortness of this book leaves you wanting just a little more exposition and reasoned discussion. But its brevity means you can finish the book in a night or two. It's written for Liberals and the left end of the political spectrum. Recommended if you're of that persuasion.
259292
This is Mike's swan song.  I used to enjoy his radio program while living in Denver and then listened to it as podcasts for the past several years while living in Omaha.  The book pretty much sums his life, his views and his arguments by restating his opinion pieces from the Rocky Mountain News and some other paper.  While he has a huge ego that is difficult to get past at times, his arguments are typically well-reasoned.  If you're of the conservative ilk you will probably enjoy it.
4912630
I found that I could agree with many of the points he made but he seems to have shown a lack of objectivity by continually attacking Donald Trump  His points may be useful but he seems to have a very selective memory.  For instance Barack Obama often attached media outlets that were critical of him, used the IRS to intimidate opponents, and his supporters often claimed people that disagreed with his policies were racist.  Further he seems to ignore the fact that Trump supporters were often attacked, not the other way around.  Trump did not invent political correctness the left did and it was leftists that tried to stop conservative speakers from speaking on campuses and then destroyed property.  He also claims without any type of proof that Trump wants to restrict free speech while political correctness and the left calling everyone that disagrees with them a racist or a homophobe.  Apparently he does not believe tyranny can come from the left or a group of people.  For that reason I can say the book is okay but far from objective
1229171
Not a lot was revolutionary/things I hadn't heard before, but he had some good thoughts. The punctuation drove me crazy though. Please learn how to use a semi colon or refrain.
1384504
This was a very unfortunate listen. The idea was to have critical thinking skills supplemented by some interesting cognitive and scientific facts, but that wasn't executed all that well. The reason for this is because he is not a philosopher or at least doesn't seem to have gone through the rigor of critical thinking that philosophers and logicians will put their students through. Some very obvious errors were peppered in just about every single lecture, but since the last one is still fresh in my mind, I can give one example from it. He says that there is no conclusion that is ever certain (or something along those lines). But is THAT conclusion certain? If it is certain, then he is wrong. But if it is not certain, then it IS possible that some conclusions are certain, and he'd be wrong again. This is a self-refuting fallacy and so is necessarily false. And it would have been easily picked up with someone who has some professional training. Now, because of that, I don't know if I can really trust him when he tells me about some of the science. And if I can't do that, then what was the point of even paying for the course? Now, this is not to say I didn't learn anything. I did. His forte is science, and when it came to the science, it was well done. But what would have been beneficial was if this was a course taught by both a philosopher and scientist, not one pretending to be both. He also seems to have something of an anti-religious bent, which I think is somewhat obvious. His comments on faith as basically being the same as ignorance or being by definition not something based in reality would shock many philosophers of religion. So, because the critical thinking itself wasn't good, I'm giving it a low rating, but not one star because the science seemed solid.
3444618
I really wanted to like this book, but wasn't fully convinced the author has the maturity yet to attack this issue adequately. However, he does have the knowledge base as a recent student - on the front-lines in this ideological war. He makes plenty of valid points and I am really worried about my son having to put up with these bozo professors in a few years. Web-based learning seems more appealing after reading about this author's experiences. My only complaint is that Ben Shapiro makes a few immature comments, which showed his age. For the price, it's worth it.
3586958
My bottom line is that I like David McCullough as a historian. I understand that this lecture is likely to be mostly history light. Hear McCulloughs voice a few times and you can always hear his voice in his writing. I wished that this had been several lectures instead of one and I wish it could have had more depth. I recommend this single lecture mostly to his fans and as a very easy way to decide if you might become one. Mine is the Kindle copy so not expensive but the lecture is on line for less.

I was eager to get David McCulloughs The Course of Human Events: The 2003 Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities. I have always enjoyed his books. Also his TV documentaries. In my eagerness I misses the fact that this is a 30 page lecture. About an hour worth of reading.  The reason for the lecture was to thank an audience who had just awarded him with the opportunity to present the 2003 Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities. According to their website the lectures represent the highest honor the federal government confers for distinguished intellectual achievement in the humanities. In other words he is not likely to indulge himself in much in the way of negativity or intellectually challenging material. A time honored approach to this kind of award lecture is a mix of personal reflection and odd historical facts.

This is what the lecture contains. His thoughts on his career as a historian a few factoids that never exactly made it into one of his books. That he was first drawn to history by the story of a mouse and Benjamin Franking, Amos and Me, touched my memories. I remember this as a Disney animation as well as a Disney book. A fond recollection.

Some of his factoids left me wondering. For example he mentions speeches by Americans that were drawn from classical courses. This as proof that they had been avid readers. In the case of the famous Nathan Hale line, "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country." Tracing the line to Cato is fair enough, but why no mention of the fact that historians cannot be certain that these were his final words?

My point is not to be nit picky, but the lecture could have had more depth had it reminded listeners of the uncertainties attendant to the profession of historian.
1284447
I was looking forward to lengthy commentaries on "essentail readings in late modern philosophy."  This is a good compilation of philosophical texts from the late modern era, e.g., Part I-Empiricism: John Locke, George Berkeley, David Hume; Part 2-Critics of Empiricism: G. W. Leibniz, Samuel Clarke, Thomas Reid; Part 3-Kant's Critique of Rationalism and Empiricism; Part 4-Args. for the Existence of God: Samuel Clarke, William Paley, David Hume, Immanuel Kant; Part 5-Political Philosophy: John Locke, David Hume, Jean-Jacque Rousseau; Part 6-Moral Philosophy: Samuel Clarke, Davide Hume, Richard Price, Adam Smith, Immanuel Kant, Thomas Reid, Jeremy Bentham, Mary Wollstonecraft.  While these are, indeed, essential readings, WHERE IS THE COMMENTARY ON THESE READINGS as the subtitle suggests: "Essentail Readings WITH COMMENTARY"? (emphasis mine).  Trained as a biblical scholar, maybe I was expecting commentary that philosophers do not do (I had in mind the kind of commentary that one does on the letters of Paul or the gospels).  The only thing that I can see commentary-wise are brief introductions to each Part, but this is really nothing unlike what you might find in a college primary reading text book.  I was expecting detailed commentary AFTER EACH reading, but you do not get that here.  You only get an introduction to each Part, then the readings, and that's it.  No detailed expository commentary that discusses each reading and what each author means by what he says and why.  That is why I give this, and the others in this series, only 2 stars.  Again: WHERE IN BLAZES IS THE COMMENTARY?  It ain't here.  Or is it, and is this what philosophy profs call "commentary"?
1644743
The content is good, but I personally felt that this is more like a book where you read to get to know Randy Pausch. Of course, there are some great advices, but nothing monumental. I do agree with some other users that Randy Pausch can come across as a bit arrogant; he is undoubtedly a very brilliant and fortunate (except the cancer) man, but as a result his narratives may be difficult to relate to. It is hard to say how you can apply the way Randy Pausch achieved his childhood dreams to your own life.

And perhaps I am just disappointed because 90% of the book is a repeat of his last lecture, which is freely available online. I'm not sure whether the extra 10% -- things that were too emotional or personal (i.e. his wife and kids) to have been included in the actual lecture -- was worth the purchase.
3170387
For an insight into one of the more renowned Conservatives. (Not that I agree with much of anything about him.)
1896473
I loved his first autobiography (Losing my Virginity). This one gets way too political, with stories about Donald Trump (unnecessary), Hillary Clinton (equally unnecessary), and other aspects of the political world.
I was hoping to read more about business and personal, and less about activism.
He's also a bit blind to his own biases - maybe I expected too much introspection (of him) in 20 years since the first book.
Now he balances narcissist and ultra-rich, tempering it with how he cries and thanks that his kids have such opportunities.