Too many tenuous assumptions
341840
Bouwsma's study is commendable in its attempt to provide extensive textual support for his portrait of John Calvin.  Unfortunately, compiling a large compendium of quotations does not itself a sound argument make.  Bouwsma suffers from interpreting Calvin's language as a window into the Reformer's internal self-awareness.  To avoid an obvious fallacy of self-intention (interpreting all of an author's words to be an expression of his thoughts about himself) Bouwsma relies upon psychoanalytic assumptions about Calvin's unconsciousness expressing itself under the pressures and anxieties of sixteenth-century Europe.

Richard Muller, a scholar of Reformation and Post-Reformation historical theology has given an extensive rebuttal to Bouwsma's claims in his 2000 book,&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Unaccommodated-Calvin-Studies-in-the-Foundation-of-a-Theological-Tradition-Oxford-Studies-in-Historical-Theology/dp/0195151682/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology)</a>.

If you really want a good biography of Calvin, pick up Bruce Gordon's latest biography, entitled:&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Calvin/dp/0300120761/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Calvin</a>.

For an excellent exposition of Calvin's own ideas about his profession, see Randall Zachman's book,<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/John-Calvin-as-Teacher-Pastor-and-Theologian-The-Shape-of-His-Writings-and-Thought/dp/080103129X/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">John Calvin as Teacher, Pastor, and Theologian: The Shape of His Writings and Thought</a>
3800532
The Biblical part is handled quite nicely, with good references and good material on language, context, and translation.  The problem--and it's a very serious one--is that the analysis is based on unscientific and sometimes flatly inaccurate sexuality information.  For example, the statistics cited regarding homosexuality, its etiology, and its relationship to sex crimes, sexually transmitted infections, and general health run the gamut from reasonable to out-of-date, to out-of-context, to flatly inaccurate.  There is EXCELLENT research linking orientation to genetic and prenatal factors, where the author flatly denies such, and forensic research clearly shows that a quite significant number of male-male sex crimes are committed by married, heterosexual men.  Unfortunately, the average reader might not know those things, and this book would leave them embarassingly misinformed.  You can't call something "Real" and then go short on research for half of it.  Finally, the author offers far too many of his own opinions about what intuitively makes sense to him.  I'm glad he knows himself so well, but the implication is that others do, or ought to agree.  Few things in life offer as much diversity of opinion as sexuality, so that kind of argument seems out of place in a work like this.  I hope the author revises his book for another edition, because a better researched, less biased book like this would be a valuable work.
150833
The premise is not only obvious but flawed. Quakers didn't "fit in" in the South. They didn't fit in anywhere! That's the obvious part. Even more problematic is his assertion that the "South" is a distinct culture zone based on honor and violence. Is this "South" so different than other parts of the world during this time period? Not really. Last but not least the book makes an overly ambitious attempt to cover 130 years that leads to a scattered, inconsistent and unconvincing assessment on what turns out to be a trivial topic to begin with.
3030882
Keeling's book is riddled with falsehoods and exaggerations. He makes the absurd claim that the bombing of Hamburg killed "hundreds of thousands"(it was 40,000)and the still more absurd claim that nearly the entire population of Dresden was killed. He even says that German soldiers in occupied countries behaved correctly,which is unworthy of a rebuttal.

Keeling says that four million Germans were deported to the Soviet Union,which is thirteen times the actual number. His figure of three million Germans dying in the postwar expulsions is also inflated,at least if we go with the numbers provided by the German government and the German clergy in the 1980s.

 Then there is his charge that the Allied occupiers were starving Germans. Germans were certainly going hungry. But according to official statistics,during 1946 the British and American zones were getting over a quarter of a million tons of imported food per month.  Keeling denies there was a food shortage in Europe,something that goes against nearly all the data from the period. He quotes a number of people who said there was a famine in Germany. The problem is that the available statistics don't support these extravagant claims(Cf. John Farquharson, The Western Allies and the Politics of Food, and Alice Weintraub, Matters of Taste). Keeling cites Dorothy Thompson as saying that infant mortality in Vienna in the summer of 1945 was nearly 100 percent. The League of Nations said Vienna's infant mortality in that period was 32 percent.

While some of Keeling's charges are true, this is not a work that can be taken seriously as a source.
2717802
I agree with the author, but this is written as an argument that is oversimplified and naive. Yes, organized psychology has moved away from humanism, and yes, that's a bad development, but this book didn't tells e anything I didn't know, and the proposed solutions to fix the problem are unrealistic.
3610063
The author takes the premise that denying all citizens the right to buy, own, and use guns is justified if it could have prevented isolated massacres and other criminal activity without considering the obvious reality that without the freedom to own guns there would only be more helpless victims and those with mal intent and a desire to kill would still be able to easily get a firearm as easily as deciding to break the law.
The author therefore only tells one side of the argument, and misrepresents, or does not fully represent the arguments of pro-gun right citizens and organizations. He makes many false assumptions and comes up with ridiculously flawed conclusions, although I will say it is well written if you do not mind the fact that it is a pointless exercise in circular logic.

The author apparently thinks there is such a thing as a nirvana like State with nothing but law abiding citizens, a perfect government, a quick responding police force that always arrives in the nick of time, and no need for hunting, target shooting, or self defense against two or four legged creatures.

All the rapists in the UK know that the girl in the dark alley is unarmed and helpless.
3140595
I really wanted to like this book.  I believe in many of the philosophies and thoughts about life.  However, this book was unrealistic and forced, taking away from the principles the author is trying to espouse.
1971918
I knew before that journalists are taught some kind of very specific logic, so I wasn't surprised to see all of these manipulative conclusions without any evidence. The best way to describe his logic is to say "I'm gonna tell people this is bad, because I don't like it." Lack of education, evidence and logic, just his feelings. I couldn't stand his rant on Kazakhs and Bolivians. I doubt the author could stretch his mind beyond typical stereotypes and official propaganda. Just imagine someone writes "America is the country of obesity, breast cancer and diabetes, I don't think they can produce food for healthy people."

Yesterday I bought organic nuts from California. They were bad. Does it mean that Californians are greedy corrupted farmers? Or maybe a million different things have happened to these nuts? If I buy organic blueberries and they aren't as good as I want them to be, do I think these blueberries are not organic? No, I don't make conclusions based on my imagination. On the contrary, I think this blueberry wasn't coated with wax, that's why it got rotten. I'm not saying food from other countries is good because it doesn't taste good, no. But I still believe that the way the author feels about foreign countries shouldn't affect his so-called investigation.

So if I were to write a book about organic food I would do the following:
1. Read and understand what organic food is. Check official info, summarize the rules and describe it in normal English language.
2. Hire a chemist! And check walnuts from California and Kazakhstan.
3. Compare several brands of organic walnuts and non-organic.
4. Walnuts and beans are not enough. Try eggs, dairy, meat, tomatoes etc. Check the dirty dozen at least!
5. Investigate if I find something bad. Check if they were major scandals in the area.

This book contains none of these. Just some conclusions based on the authors imagination.
2479631
Bases most assumptions on "evolution" .  My background is legitimate science, therefore I could not agree with about 70% of the assumptions in this book.
1437366
This is a solid effort, but the author throws in too many superfluous details along the way. I don't need to know what people ordered for their meals, or listen to generic dialogue.
4837432
Superfluous to the point of being obtuse. Reading this book is an exercise in patience so extreme one may lose their sanity prior to its completion. Dunning is overbearing in his opinions saying you must consider this or that and do things his way. Perhaps if he were more succinct and clear one might be able to find his way, but I believe he is hiding a lack of understanding through exhaustive verbosity.
3384004
Hot, Flat and Crowded by Thomas L. Friedman is a difficult book.  One would assume that the book would be embraced by most who are concerned about local, regional and global environmental issues.  Thomas Friedman writes thoroughly and thoughtfully, more so than most.  The book reflects much time and effort spent.

However, within a few chapters, it becomes all too apparent that the book is flawed.  Mr. Friedman's discussions become passionate to the point of degrading his credibility.  His tone becomes more that of a zealot than an investigative journalist.  A tone of political fervor permeates his writing.

His credibility is also degraded by limited sources of information.  Much material is derived from newspaper articles, discussions with experts, some of whom the reader suspects are questionable authorities, and information derived from a variety of meetings and conferences, some of which the reader suspects could have an unintentional or intentional bias.  Little, if any, peer-reviewed, scientific information is used by Mr. Friedman to support his analyses and conclusions.

The book is also compromised by the limited possibilities presented as solutions to the energy and environmental problems discussed.  Mr. Friedman presents some very interesting scenarios to remedy global warming and the international energy crisis, but these often become grandiose and unrealistic, requiring seismic shifts in the scope of government and the sovereignty of our country, the United States.

The book is also limited by two issues that the author fails to deal with adequately.  First, Mr. Friedman simply accepts as fact that growth is a given.  Other than stating this presumption as fact, he never suggests that growth itself encompasses a host of variables that could cause many environmental problems, and should be targeted for mitigation.

Second, although suggested by the book's title, Mr. Friedman never deals with "crowded".  Population growth is potentially the root cause of most, if not all, environmental problems, particularly with regards to energy and resource use, and consequent global warming.  Yet, like many environmentalists and environmental organizations, the author spends no time addressing the serious and fundamental problem of overpopulation, either globally or nationally.

Finally, there is an interesting irony to Mr. Friedman's work.  In an effort to provide documentation to support his arguments and conclusions, it becomes painfully obvious that Mr. Friedman has a huge carbon footprint.  His self-reported frequent, extensive, worldwide travels, some to environmentally sensitive geographic areas, are a glaring contradiction to the entire premise of his book, namely decreased energy expenditure and energy conservation.

In conclusion, Hot, Flat and Crowded by Thomas Friedman is a disappointment.  Reading this book in its entirety requires studied perseverance.  Mr. Friedman should be thanked for his efforts, but the reader should be warned.
688714
This book contains some interesting tidbits. Unfortunately, it is rife with serious errors and unwarranted assertions.
For example, in chapter 6 Prof. Shefrin attempts to discredit contrarian sentiment indicators. For  all I know they may be worthy of discredit.  Unfortunately for his  argument, the data he chooses to display, Figures 6-1 and 6-3, appear to  support the value of these indicators.
He declares the practice of  investing in companies one knows to be "familiarity bias". While this is  apt for employees with all funds in the company stock, he also applies it  to Peter Lynch. According to Shefrin, Lynch beat the market 11 out of 13  years, and beat his nearest competitor by 6%(!) per year. Shefrin  grudgingly admits there may have been some skill involved, but goes on to  inform us that _investors_ "attribute too much of that success to skill  rather than luck". Uh-huh.
In his chapter on public offerings, Prof.  Shefrin declares that existing shareholders are being ripped off, because  dramatic gains at the start of trading demonstrate the IPO could have sold  at a higher price.  Apparently Prof. Shefrin is unaware that underwriters  enter into an obligation to support the aftermarket, and would be unlikely  proceed without a good chance of an aftermarket pop, nor would subscribers  purchase.
The chapter on closed end fund discounts is interesting.  Unfortunately Prof. Shefrin fails to include the net present value of  future management fees in his discussion.
Perhaps there will be a much  revised and improved second edition.
1898829
Where do I start? At the beginning, I guess. Michael Savage starts the book off with some assumptions about President Obama that have no factual evidence behind them. He then goes on to make even more unfounded assumptions based on the original ones. This book may be qualified as fiction, but certainly not non-fiction.

Other than people saying that it's true, there has been no evidence that shows that Obama is a Marxist, or Socialist, or Communist, or any other 'ist'.

Savage makes assumptions and gives references that are opinions, not evidence. He makes it very clear through out most of the book that the only way to turn our country around is through the Tea Party.

Savage is telling stories, about his childhood mostly, and trying to connect them to what is happening today in our country.

Savage, in the first chapter, states "He's convinced that the failed ideas of Marxism and Socialism will suddenly work now that he's in charge of the ship." Not only has Obama not stated this directly, he hasn't even hinted at this belief. But Savage builds on this as though it is a fact.

Savage talks about Obama is viewed as a modern day Robin Hood. He then goes on to talk about that stupid woman, that everyone laughed at, who said that Obama would take care of her mortgage and other living expenses, as though what she said was a fact. And not ravings of a delusional person, which is how the Obama supporters took what she said. Obama never said anything even close to this. That Savage brings this up as being representative of the majority of Obama supporters is not only disingenuous, it's an outright fallacy. But Savage then goes on to build on this fallacy.

Savage talks about Obama's supposed scheme to spread the wealth around. Savage is grossly misrepresenting what Obama said, and it is very easily shown that Obama's statement on this was taken extremely out of context. Yet Savage decides to build, again, on this fallacy.

Savage then goes on to claim that Soro's is behind quite a bit of what is happening, without one fact to prop up his statement. He describes moveon.org, which is composed of, and maintained by, the people who use it (how much more democratic can you get?) as Marxist. He states this as though it is a fact, when it is definitely not a fact.

Savage states, as though there were no doubts, that Obama see's the middle class as something to be brought to their knees. Again, no facts or evidence to back this extremely imaginative assumption up.

These are only a small amount of highly questionable facts and assumptions that Savage relates. And he relates them all as being true.

This man has a college degree. Which means that he should know the difference between opinions and facts. Even most students in High School know the difference. But nothing that Savage has written shows that he knows the difference at all.

This book seems to be one huge conspiracy theory without one fact to back the theory up.
3165006
It would seem that Blum is taking a Marxist view of America's past.  This worldview would fit his premise that religion was the great manipulator of American thought.  Blum is under the misconception that Reconstruction was working well.  Blum seems to ignore the resentment it caused among Southern whites.  Blum seems to forget that the vast majority of Americans both North and South viewed blacks as racially inferior.  Blum gives religion too much credit in forging America's opinions North and South.  Instead of religion being the "opiate of the masses," religion had to conform to the majority opinion.  Blum's argument is based on Marxist wishful thinking rather than on one based upon historical fact.  Unfortunately, far too many people have bought into the Civil War as a "great crusade to end slavery" mythology, when all contemporary evidence suggests otherwise.  Blum's thesis is based upon a past that never existed.

Blumn gives short shrift to the spirit of reconciliation as epitomized by Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address.  Such sentiment was prevalent in many of the immediate postwar writings, yet Blum ignores them entirely.  It was only the radical element of the Republican Party that held a contrary view, and their power was short lived.

Blum's book represents the problem with most modern gender/social/labor/racial histories.  They are based upon a Marxist worldview that always looks at the past in a distorted fashion.  There is almost always some force, religion, capitalism, or the bourgeoisie duping the masses.  Only occasionally are they correct, but even a broken clock is right at least once a day.
3825595
This is a beautifully written book, but the more I thought about it, the more it troubled me. First, it rests heavily on very gendered assumptions about the appropriate roles of men and women. Can't we ever move past the mythology that "real" men are taciturn and strong and responsible for breadwinning, while women are nurturers and caretakers? This book would collapse without that implicit assumption about traditional sexual roles being "right." I also wasn't too happy with the book's assumption that everyone in prison except the genuinely saved are bad actors. Secondly, the underlying Christianity that informs the book at all points is, to my way of thinking, highly debatable. The point of this book is something I really have doubts about -- the desirability of forgiveness. And suffering seems to be required per this author for people to be truly good, another bit of ideology I don't accept. Finally, faith seems to be the ultimate prize, and I don't agree with that either, though I don't disagree with Hulse that acceptance (versus faith or forgiveness) is a great way to find peace. For those of us who question whether Christianity has the answers, this book's lessons are much too pat. Lastly, there were key plot developments that were never well explained or explained at all, such as the reason for Scott's and Wes's dad's ultimate ends -- I mean, no one ever wanted to know why? I was unsatisfied with the explanation as to why Wes didn't go to the last ceremony involving Scott, and the lack of any explanation as to why he couldn't articulate his decision not to go to Dennis. Hulse also never explained how Wes and Dennis' relationship got resolved after the dramatic ultimatum in the scene just preceding their apparent reconciliation. Or, how Wes was going to resolve his own living situation. This was sloppy and unsatisfying plotting. All in all, though Hulse writes well, I'm not sure I'm going to be reading any more of her books.
2833368
Sorry just too many conclusory statements in the first 200 pages.  Sad, she knows betters being a professional writer and she only addresses  her view, which is not a report.  That is a opinion brief not a neutral report. Yes blue collar worker with STEM degrees both under and grad. Have had not one interview after I got cancer. 3 years now!  Oh well hope the males bashing stops but not sure.  Yes I am a widower  after 25 years of marriage  and after my late wife was murder when  our sons were 16 and 12.  Yes, I know about working three jobs and not like her who we say," is on the  three home plan not the 3 job plan I am on before i got cancer!"...  Oh well just lost 3 hours of time reading conclusory statements. FTR I know how she is in real life because both my late wife and me/I  had to serve her and her family many times before 2005 when my wife passed.  Example: "We ( females)  are the heart of the families that are the heart of America". . So you are you telling me females are the only one with a heart in America?  Don't think so!  Sorry I don't need to be insulted by some trust funder who never had to work a day in her life telling me I do not have a heart .  Tell that to my chief of the fire dept which I and our fellow firefighters have to protect her and her ex 20,000 sq foot home.