Dana lays out a thoughtful and well-written argument for how ...
344084
Dana lays out a thoughtful and well-written argument for how American politics has become the mess that it is. This book is very personal but also humorous, and insightful. Worth a read, no matter what side of the political spectrum you align with.
1434450
A quick and persuasive read. For such a short book, the response to the God Delusion that McGrath communicates is astonishingly clear and to-the-point. Throughout his book, McGrath justifies his boldness in critiquing Dawkins's approach by providing follow-up counter points and examples that I found quite convincing and logically sound.

Some may misinterpret McGrath's tone as reflecting a personal attack towards Dawkins, but if one reads carefully, McGrath is being critical of Dawkins's approach, which if anyone has read the God Delusion, deserves an equally bold response.

While I have found some apologetic books a bit lukewarm (CS Lewis not included of course), I would say that I was surprised by how soundly McGrath rips to shreds much of Dawkins's core themes. In addition to being fresh and relevant, McGrath's responses are communicated with fine-tune precision, with not a single word to spare. Given its intellectually stimulating yet easy-to-follow approach, this bite-sized book is definitely worth picking up.
1587469
The argument is well thought out and vital if you are a fan of democracy.  My only reservation is that much of the writing seems to have been done under time constraints and that it would have benefitted from better editing.  I admit that I opted for a signed copy and that hearing her clear and concise presentation and response to questions colored my opinion of her work.  That said, I recommend the Kindle edition, as I found that though the book is well-annotated, I needed to make notes, Google references and clarify definitions, all of which would have been easier if I hadn't committed to not marking up my paper copy -- it's headed for our village library -- too important to sit on my shelf.
1097874
As I understand the author's argument, there have been two dominant trends in America's relationship with religion. One is based on the idea that America is a Christian nation, and religion and politics work together for the common good. The other is the idea that the United States is based on separation of religion and politics. These two trends have been in conflict from the beginning (from before the beginning even), and the struggle between their adherents has shaped important developments in American history. The author frames that history as a debate between those who promote the "moral establishment" as necessary for fulfillment of American ideals, and those whose full participation in American political life is threatened by the establishment. It's an interesting argument, well documented and thoroughly explained, and intuitive in our own time--which, of course, is the whole point, or ought to be. The argument is compelling, and the author's own background as an ex-evangelical gives him a unique perspective, one that informs the thinking throughout the book. If you like stimulating thought, and having your assumptions challenged, then reinforced, and then challenged again, you will profit from this book.

One minor criticism: I found the writing at times a bit dull. Sentences are routinely long, with multiple modifiers, and explanatory clauses tacked on to the introductory phrases instead of separated into shorter sentences. There are flashes of really good writing, but many people, especially college students, will be looking to the end of the chapter to see how many pages they have left. They may even be tempted to skip a few. That would be too bad. Good books deserve good readers, and while I wish the writing were a bit more engaging, this is a good book. I look forward to more from this author.
4395805
Reza Aslan's Beyond Fundamentalism provides readers with a well-organized and rational discussion on radical and violent fundamentalism throughout the world with an importance emphasis on Jihadism in the United States. He not only presents an explanation of the origin of Jihadism, but he also contributes a solution to the discussion, something that readers can use to develop their own opinions on the United States government's actions regarding the War on Terror. This solution involves continuing the push for democracy in regions of the world where Jihadism is evident while avoiding the continuation of wars using violence. I thoroughly enjoyed not only the content of the book, but also the way that it was written and I honestly think that he developed a fair and just discussion of all sides of the multifaceted debate. I would suggest this book to anyone that wishes to gain a stronger understanding of Jihadism regardless of whether or not they themselves have a strong background it in.
2319212
Dan Harris makes a compelling case for incorporating mindfulness and meditation into one's life.  Even for those who might be sceptical, agnostic and/or wary of new age thinking, he guides the reader through the haphazard process he followed, building on the arguments for practicing mindfulness along the way.
3691274
I had the chance to read a review copy of this book, and it is excellent. D'Souza engages the arguments of Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and other atheists with arguments for the existence of God in general, and the Christian God in particular by arguing on their turf--through an examination of scientific evidence. It is fascinating, detailed, and convincing. It is an important book written at a critical time.
1594007
Atul Gawande's talent for bringing complex issues before the general public lies in his excellent writing ability, apparent in his earlier work, "Complications." He explores the issues of current medicine in penetrating essays that can be grouped into three categories: Diligence, Doing Right, and Ingenuity. Doctors in the United States today are facing a litigious public that demands perfection from mere mortals. Gawande presents a balanced picture from the view of patients and their families as well as from doctors' perspectives. The economy of his writing permits the reader to zero in on the issues quickly. I must say, right from the outset of this collection, that the essay on hand washing has made me leery about any doctor's touch. Today's headlines about incurable bacterial infections now reaching into our school systems bear out the relevance of Gawande's concerns.

I see no sense in rehashing all the essays here. As a reader, you should know that these essays are highly relevant to all of us and underscore what we don't know about our healthcare. When we enter a facility for treatment, for instance, do we know where that facility stands in relation to positive outcomes for the condition we need treated? If not, why not? I did especially like the essay about medicine in India, as I frequently visit there on business. I think Gawande's thoughts about achieving better results through diligent adherence to what we already know works is good advice for many areas in life, not just medicine.

This collection is well worth anyone's time. It's thoughtful, well written, and relevant to all of us.
635012
The book is clearly the result of a thoughtful, thought-provoking analysis by a writer well versed in the topic.  Highly recommended
2626537
I don't normally read political books from republicans, but I happened to run across Chris' blog recently and enjoyed his writing, so I figured I'd give the book a try. I wasn't disappointed; the book is well-reasoned and Chris offers several insights I hadn't previously considered.

The first point that really grabbed me was the idea that teachers are the reason democrats are more interested in actually governing. Both major parties have a number of special interest groups that can be counted on for support, but the democrat's supporters include teachers and other government workers - groups that have a vested interest in a government that functions well. The republicans don't have equivalent groups, and many of their supporters would actually prefer that government not work well; thus, republicans have much less incentive to do a good job governing.

Much of the book is Chris' ideas for policy. As an old-style conservative, he advocates for a small, yet strong government that takes on fewer tasks but does those tasks well. While I certainly don't agree with him on everything, I found many of his points convincing. The book ends with an argument that politicians have become less accountable due to reduced participation in public (not necessarily political) groups, and a call for more community participation outside of voting - be it the PTA, a neighborhood meetup, or something explicitly political - with the goal of reducing extremism by making politicians again geek approval from community-minded interests.

Overall, a good read that I certainly recommend.

Note: this review was originally written for Vulcan Ears Book Reviews (vulcanears.com). I obtained this book through Kindle Unlimited.
2093318
Even if you don't agree with the premise, the author articulates the issue very well and presents the key questions to ask concerning the climate change debate.
1229336
This book explores the past and current states of democracy, and examines the current threats to free-market capitalism and democracy.
The future of the planet, and what it will be like for humans to live on it, obviously is of concern to any aware person, and that's really what Mr. Robert Lee is talking about here.  The political and social environment goes a long way toward determining the capacity for individuals to find happiness.

One of the strongest aspects of this book is the historical insight.  In this sense and many others, I think reading "Saving Democracy from Suicide" would be really beneficial for teenagers and other young readers. It's edifying to see a broad topic defined so clearly, and to learn new elements of history that I wasn't familiar with.  In many ways his discussion of the early attempts at democracy was similar to recent findings about the "discovery" of the Americas--lots more cultures may have visited the continent and democracy than was commonly believed.  While the author obviously is coming from a defined perspective and trying to make points that support his argument, I found that he was fair in presenting other historic case studies that did not necessarily support his premise.

The descriptions of the threats to democracy from inhospitable and sometimes even hostile religions and nations are chilling.  Robert Lee has a lot of interesting proposals to reverse the slide of Western civilization, particularly Western democracies.  I think people who read this book will end up having more thoughtful discussions of the current state of the world.  The book is clearly written, and fascinating.
4562661
The well thought out arguments and logical way of looking at things should bring comfort to those who are religious and irreligious alike. I am half way through the book and am thoroughly enjoying every bit of it. It is very well written and it is on a short list of books that have changed the way I look at an issue. The basic premise is that religion and science can (and should) co-exist, but that they each occupy separate spheres of thought. Ayala draws a clear line between the roles of science and religion in a way that allows one to believe in both and avoids confusion between what they can and cannot explain. As a non-scientist, I thought this was written at just the right level.

As an aside, I was dumbfounded at some of the negative reviews, but if you bother to check (I did), some of these guys write negative reviews about lots and lots of science related books - not just this one. Don't be turned off, this is a great book dealing with a controversial subject. You will enjoy reading it.
4196062
Demagogue was informative and thought inducing. Mike Signer has an engaging writing style interspersed with personal experiences / insights that makes Demagogue an easy, interesting read.  His passion for democracy and the love of his country come through in his writing, but his optimism does not overshadow history. He acknowledges the contradictions of Jefferson owning slaves and the injustices of Andrew Jackson against the Native Americans.

My first impression of the book was "where was this book when I was sleeping through Western Civilization as an undergrad?"  Demagogue quickly contextualizes the typical readings of a Western Civilization survey course with 21st century geopolitics, providing an historical context and theoretical framework of why democracy will survive in the U.S.  Mike Signer shapes the major thesis of Demagogue through using the major philosophers and the demagogues that shaped their thinking.  Starting with the ancient Greeks then moving quickly to the Constitutional framers the book presents the philosophy that provided the bedrock for the Constitution and the progression of democracy; reviewing Plato and Aristotle, Jefferson and the Constitutional framers and deTocquoville, as they relate to demagogues like Huey Long, Hitler and Moqtada al-Sadr.  Mike illustrates his theory in a colorful, readable manner.  I thoroughly enjoyed the book.
<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Demagogue-The-Fight-to-Save-Democracy-from-Its-Worst-Enemies/dp/0230606245/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Demagogue: The Fight to Save Democracy from Its Worst Enemies</a>
2290707
Andrew J. Perrin's historical and contemporary tour of "American Democracy" is smart, literate, and surprisingly gentle in spirit. At the core of the book is the argument that democracy is not a set of institutions, rules, and standards, but a culture -- a set of values, ideas, commitments,  and practices. It's not that institutions don't matter; of course they do. But, as dictators around the world have repeatedly shown us -- and as countries with no inclination to accommodate minority views and populations have also shown us  -- democratic machinery is no guarantee that the people have a voice or that it is heard. Perrin argues that, while it's never been anywhere close to perfect, America's democratic culture is strong. The main threats to democracy are not incivility -- which he argues is sometimes necessary and always better than silence -- or political polarization -- which he sees as overstated -- but rather the Balkanizing and privatizing nature of contemporary media. On one hand, it is much easier to speak only with and hear from only people that one agrees with than it had been in the past. This leads not only to skewed views of the world, but also dehumanization of the opposition. On the other hand, cell phones, blogs, instagram, etc., train us to think about ourselves and our immediate circle, taking us out of the common, collective life of the polity.

There's plenty of food for thought here, and it should be digestible by anyone with an interest and a high school diploma. Perrin thinks in terms of multiple, overlapping publics. Publics are formed from people who, through some series of events, come to share political interests. Because people have a variety of different political interests -- e.g., as students, as renters, as immigrants, as racial/ethnic minorities, etc. -- they may belong to multiple publics. When it comes to democracy, Perrin argues, it is not only the case that the interests of different publics will clash, but that they must clash openly and fully express their disagreements. Democracy is inherently agonistic, he says -- we only have democracy when everyone can use their voice openly and honestly. Being polite is optional, and even being factually correct is also optional (a point that many religious fact-checkers will find appalling), but being honest and open is not optional.

Perrin devotes most of a chapter to the history of opinion polling, focusing on how alien it once seemed, and how it is now a core part of the political process. He explains how, far from simply measuring already-existing well-formed opinions, polling actually leads people to creatively construct opinions they didn't know they had. And he also rebukes many of the critics who see this a damning fact, and explains why it's not necessarily a bad thing.

The biggest weakness of the book is that, while acknowledging corporate and individual wealth and power, Perrin essentially brackets them out of the conversation. He acknowledges that money is an issue, and he argues against reforms that he believes will increase the influence of money in the political process. He acknowledges that media messages influence people, and he acknowledges that the media are owned by large corporations, but he as much as says that if corporations and the wealthy can convince people to hold specific opinions and vote a particular way, then, well, that's democracy. This may not say much to a non-sociologist, but Marx and Weber get one mention each, on adjacent pages, and Durkheim fares little better. Where's the domination, Dr. Perrin?

Even if he paints too pretty a picture, Perrin's story about American democracy is an interesting one, and his ideas about agonism and civility, about the collective nature of individual political opinions, and about democratic institutions vs. democratic culture are all going to be with me every time I think about the nature of democracy. It may be slow reading for some (it was for me), but the writing is good, and the content is widely accessible. Recommended.
3021421
I enjoyed this one a lot. The authors' argument for the existence of God can basically be condensed to two parts:

1. Logic dictates that we live in a theistic universe--we are created and watched over by an all-powerful being who lives outside of space and time.

2. The Bible serves as convincing evidence that this being is the God of Christianity.

I hardly agreed with all of the building blocks in the argument, yet I found this to be maybe the best apologetics book I've read. The presentation is very organized and steps logically from point to point. It's clear the authors have had a great deal of experience in debate, and this book has become somewhat of a flagship for amateur apologists. While the title lends itself to easy derision by opponents, it's a lot better argued than I anticipated.

There is a drawback to building argument upon argument, of course: If perchance you have a weak foundation, the whole shebang comes tumbling down. For example, the authors' proof for reliable eyewitness testimony depends strongly upon traditional conservative authorship of the Bible; this depends strongly upon early dating of the synoptic gospels; early dating of these gospels depends strongly upon dating the book of acts to the 7th decade (since Luke precedes Acts, and Mark precedes Luke); and early dating of Acts depends upon the assumption that, had it been written later, the author surely would have discussed the death of Paul and the destruction of the Temple. Thus, a great deal rides on an argument from silence.

The arguments are engaging and thought-provoking, though not without flaws, and will in many instances require research and hard analysis to see the flaws. Thus, it was a lot of fun to read and took me quite a while. Some arguments are subjective in nature, and some are (hooray!) objective fact. In particular, I devoured two long lists in the book: one of 84 verifiable historical references in the book of Acts, and one of 59 attestations to the historical authenticity of John.

The result is a five-star review for interesting writing and for making me think, even when I disagree. Consider this the official end of the book review--what follows are a few examples where critical thinking prevents my full agreement with the authors. :)

* The book argues for the existence of a God-given Moral Law, written on the hearts of all people. I've never grasped how this argument could support Christianity. Consider the extreme disagreement between Christians today over whether or not gays should be allowed to share in a loving relationship. Or the disagreement not long ago over whether slavery was moral. If such a moral law exists, Christianity may be the religion having the hardest time figuring out what it is.

* The book argues that the New Testament was written before 70 A.D. because it makes no point of telling the story of the destruction of Jerusalem. This is not quite true; the Gospels do mention how the Christians fled Jerusalem in the war, though they do so from a pre-war perspective. But why do no other Bible books mention so earth-shattering an event? Probably because it WAS so earth-shattering! Remember, these authors were not writing to preserve history; they were writing to share the message of a new beginning with their comrades. What Christian in the first century, having lived through the war, needs a reminder that the old world had passed away, and a new world begun?

* The book repeatedly insists that there is no evidence whatsoever for macroevolution. But it doesn't matter how often you repeat this mantra, it is a lie. There exists plenty of evidence for macroevolution, and though there are a limited number of fossil records, the number we have is quite consistent with current theories of how species evolved. I've written about this many times, so I won't repeat myself here, except to say I can't figure out why so many Christian apologists are hung up on evolution.
4459701
Mr. Scully's "DOMINION" was recommended to me by a vegetarian acquaintance. It was with some hesitation I purchased the book, but I was quickly impressed by Mr. Scully's down-to-earth logic, his factual arguments, and the non-emotional perspective upon which his positions are based.
By the end of chapter 1, I'd been moved to a place of 'moral discomfort' by Mr. Scully's clear and cogent logic.  He does not write from a traditional "Animal Rights" perspective, but takes the position that humans have (by whatever cause) been placed in a position of power in this world. As the "apex creature", we have a moral responsibility to make decisions based on more than simple expediancy. He stresses the responsibility of humankind, not the 'rights' of the animals.
I found his position and his arguments compelling, a reaction I suspect most open minded readers will share.