a big argument for sane political discourse
355662
Republicans seem to be in denial that we already have a huge government. the difference is that Republicans support big govt. for the sake of the warfare state, while demos for the welfare state. what about statistic that 80% of R&D at universities is supported directly or indirectly by the Pentagon? Americans need to understand that all the investment in the military produces end products that either are destroyed (bombs, bullets) or wear out (trucks, guns). that investment if applied to civilian life would produce permanent end products such as houses, infrastructure improvements and the like. your statistics on income disparity and stagnation are very sobering. i left america to move overseas after college in 1982 and returned in 2005. hardly recognized the nation. people work much harder for much less. quality of life plummets. nature of media is like a vast dumbed down propaganda machine. impression that the country is one vast intellectual prison camp. it also seems to me that the debate on health care and the refusal to seriously consider the single payer option used in many european countries indicates that americans no longer have a sense of social contract. the mass media also is so corporately driven that it is able to shape the debate on any particular issue according to the dictates of wall st. and the financier class. our country has become in all but name a third world nation of gross social and economic inequality.

The only things I found disappointing in your book were:

  a. your discussion of globalization. your proposal that the US pressure its trading partners to improve their wage structures and environmental efforts seems hopelessly naive, especially since US wages are so regressive themselves.

  b. your failure to address the perceived corruption of the federal reserve central banking system. since the release of aaron russo's film America from Freedom to Fascism, there is a growing perception among the public that the federal reserve is an elitist system that serves the narrow interests of the financier class to the detriment of the public as a whole and that serves to concentrate greater levels of wealth into Wall St. institutions. there is a sense that the Fed is a massive disinformation program designed to dupe the public. there even is a spreading belief that the entire fractional reserve banking system is hopelessly corrupted and permits the banks to obtain obscene profits and to dilute the money supply. (consider that for every $1 paid out by banks in interest payments to savings account holders, they accrue $20 in interest revenues from loans. this is perhaps the highest profit margin (1900%) of any industry on earth!) there also is outrage that the original income tax amendment provided for taxation of corporate profits but not personal incomes and that this too has been disregarded. your book fails to address any of these rising concerns.

  c. your failure to consider the problem that history indicates that no ruling class ever willingly surrendered its powers. there is a growing sense in the nation that only armed revolt will enable the kinds of reforms your book discusses and suggests. your approach is far too passive and optimistic.
3397978
My views on the subject definitely lean more to the right, yet I believe it is extremely important that both sides of today's political "hot button" topics are heard and considered without contempt for either side.  It is honest, upfront dialogue; which is presented in this book, that is needed from both sides.  Too often our political views are so volatile that having calm and rational discussion morph into shouting matches of vitriol and hate.  I believe the authors show us rational, open discussion and understanding is possible and very much needed in today's political debate.
2410237
The book begins with the defining statement of its thesis (page 1): "The basic contentions of the argument of this book are implicit in its title, namely, that reality is socially constructed. . . ."  The essence of this: our understanding of what is "real" is something that comes from our living in a social world.  That social world is a major part of defining what "reality" is.

The book is not necessarily an easy read.  But the authors' argument is important and the reader will be rewarded by "toughing it out."  Even if one disagree with Berger and Luckmann, it is important to grapple with and address their arguments.

One of the major issues of the human condition is that we become convinced that we "know" reality" and reject other people's views of "reality"--when, in fact, as the authors argue, "reality is a construction of society."  Much conflict, then, is a battle over constructions--and not a battle over objective reality.

Human nature's role? The book winds up with a telling comment here (page 183): "Man is biologically predestined to construct and to inhabit a world with others.  This world becomes for him the dominant and definitive reality. Its limits are set by nature, but, once constructed, this world acts back upon nature. . . . In this same dialectic man produces reality and thereby produces himself."

This is an important work on how people come to understand the world around them and how that perception, in its turn, affects their behavior. Many readers will be uncomfortable with this argument, but it is an important issue to address.  And this book is one of those key venues where such an interaction between readers and ideas can take place.
143215
This book serves as a practical handbook for anyone seeking to meaningfully engage in the climate change debate. Hoffman tackles the question, Why is American public opinion at such variance with that of the scientific community? Hoffman dissects the current state of the climate change debate in America and pinpoints precisely where and why discourse breaks down. As the title suggests, Hoffman posits that the key to engaging the debate is addressing the deeper ideological, cultural, and social filters that are triggered by this issue. This book enumerates the multiple concurrent arguments and debates that surround the issue, calling attention to the fact that as a nation we are not all engaged in the same conversation. This book serves as a how-to guide full of tactical guidance for anyone seeking to have more productive discussions about climate change.
104292
This is a critically important book. At a time when the "political left," as Terry Eagleton writes, "stands in dire need of good ideas," Dr. Ronald Osborn is among the bravest of thought leaders toiling to provide them. In this book, he systematically examines three of the most important contributors to liberal ideas--Darwin, Marx, and Nietzsche--and fearlessly unpacks the implications of their ideas: in a post-"death of God" world, how does secular humanism defend such ideas as dignity, universal human rights, or, indeed, liberalism itself? Without God, whence moral law?

While liberals have maintained an "embarrassed silence" (Eagleton's phrase) on these questions, Dr. Osborn engages them in full broadsides. He demonstrates how Darwin, Marx, and Nietzsche themselves failed to justify--or simply assumed as given--some of the basic ideas on which their arguments depend, and then argues that some form of the Christian narrative remains essential to liberal values. We reject that narrative at our peril.

An argument of this kind requires delicacy, an encyclopedic knowledge of theology and history, and vigorous writing. Osborn provides all this, and more. Though executed with subtlety and poise, the writing does demand attention. One cannot breeze through this book. Read it with a pencil, twice. It is dense, but thoroughly rewarding.

The argument is breathtaking, and no mere review can do it justice. For anyone who cares about the future of liberalism or of the West--especially in 2017--this work is a call for courage.
846915
The author argues logically and with ample evidence, that his premise is true -- it's what people hear, not what you say. How many hours are wasted by professional communicators struggling to make people understand what they know, to motivate them to like what they want them to choose, without considering where the audience stands. I am going to give this to my marketing and communications staff to read and discuss. It challenges the writer/speaker to new insights.
2359083
This book contains a clearly reasoned argument, in which the author states that it is possible to be both Christian and gay. Having heard him speak  so eloquently on the issue as to whether an objective study of biblical text can indeed support this claim, I have no doubt in my mind that Matthew Vines is one of the most erudite and well-informed scholars to put forward the case. What is so important is to place biblical text within its own context and not to pluck individual verses out from the text and build a theology around it without consideration of the social background of the times in comparison with our modern world. To be in a same sex monogamous lifelong committed relationship is not the same as to commit the crime of gang rape as in the story of Sodom or to be involved in temple prostitution during the act of idolatrous worship to a pagan god which Saint Paul discusses in the first chapter of his letter to the Roman church. Translations of the biblical text can sometimes only partially bring out the original meaning of particular words, especially when they are rarely used or are new inventions by the writer. It is essential to get back to what the text actually says. Sometimes we have to compare text with text, word with word in different contexts, in order to arrive at something like what the author intended. Given the antipathy of some biblical scholars towards homosexuality, as they saw it within their own social setting, they deliberately chose to translate in a way which did not reflect the original meaning of a particular word, but which bolstered their own theological stance. I commend Matthew Vines' book which seeks to redress the balance, so that we as the readers can consider the biblical text in its purest form, as far as we can, and make up our own minds as to what it actually means. We must consider the message of the gospel in its totality, even if that makes us uncomfortable and causes us to rethink our own theological stance on this vital issue of homosexuality. There are some who will dismiss this book as being heretical. In my humble opinion, they have never actually asked the question as to why they assent to a certain dogma or doctrine. They are unwilling to take time and effort to come alongside the gay Christian, and ask themselves: "Am I prepared to love this person unconditionally?" In other words, without preconditions! And "Am I prepared to look again at what I believe, as well as what my friend believes?" Friendship is the key to meaningful dialogue. I am sure that Matthew Vines would agree with this. He is placing before a friend his view on the issue of homosexuality and Christianity for his friend's careful consideration.
2002806
This book offers a much needed logical and sensible articulation of this much-politicized arena where uneducated opinion, political objective and fictional narrative is too often peddled as fact with an almost religious fever. Alex Epstein does an excellent job of presenting the relevant facts, useful & sensible perspectives and a logic framework to help separate fact from fiction in this highly charged debate. Energy, and specifically energy from fossil fuels, is far too important for sustenance of and further progress of our level of civilization to let luddites and back-to-nature zealots dominate the discussion with ill-informed or emotionally manufactured "facts", half-truths or outright fiction. This well-crafted, easy-to-consume and compelling book sets the stage towards a more rational fact-based dialog concerning the value of and essentiality of fossil fuels. I enjoyed this book immensely, as did those in my circle of friends & family I shared it with.
3537236
Gray's basic argument that modern political movements are based on or disguised as religions is not really new. But, if you think you've heard it all, don't let that stop you from reading this book. Even if the arguments are rather familiar, I found reading Grey's exposition of these ideas an enjoyable experience.

While some reviewers seemed to think that the author crowned his achievement in the final chapter, "Post-Apocalypse", I found he over-reached himself and fell into glibness too often. I wondered if one reason the hyperbole fell a bit flat was the evanescence of the movements he cited earlier, including Communists, Nazis, and now the neocons.

I noted that the New Yorker magazine reviewer observed that Gray tried "to fit too much into his model of utopianism with too little argument". To the contrary, I thought that Gray's argument was persuasive enough, and that there was much more that he should have fitted into his model; in other words, he failed to adequately discuss all of the available modern utopias. Gray seems unaware of any genuine research into the 9/11 events, therefore shapes his arguments to fit the received mythology about Islamofascism (which he calls Islamo-Jacobinism -- fair enough) and the phony war on terror, which is actually a war *of* terror. His analysis of the neocons is therefore unfortunately stunted, as he misses out on the true implications of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and the New Pearl Harbor that was called for by PNAC. If these ideas are unfamiliar, I suggest searching both Amazon and the web using the terms "PNAC" and "New Pearl Harbor". In any event, his emphases on religio-political movements that have either been eclipsed (Nazism, Communism) or are in the process of being eclipsed (neocons and Islamofascism) will soon make the book seem unfortunately dated. The neocons are now being replaced by the Trilateralists in anticipation of an Obama presidency and the Islamofascists will eventually cease to be regarded as Enemy Number One, as happened with the Communists.

There is another perhaps less well-known but no less dangerous utopian project that Gray missed out on, and that is the Anglo-American elitist cabal that is behind the current food and fuel shortages. Utopia, according to the world's power elite, consists of a world with a greatly reduced population, a goal they have been working towards in a patient, methodical fashion for over a century. The belief system that drives them is no less dangerous and crackpot than Nazism or neoconservatism, and needs to be exposed and skewered by talented writers like John Gray. I refer readers to F. William Engdahl's latest book,&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Seeds-of-Destruction-The-Hidden-Agenda-of-Genetic-Manipulation/dp/0973714727/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation</a>&nbsp;for a gripping up-to-date analysis of this utopian dream that endangers the lives of all of us in its pursuit.

While I thought "Black Mass" was an excellent book as far as it went, I consider it a lost opportunity due to its failure to mention the most persistent and insidious utopian movement of the past one hundred years. This utopia had an early manifestation in the eugenics movement, which was very popular among elite Americans in the early to mid-20th century. Eugenics was soon adopted by the Nazis, who featured prominently in "Black Mass". This thread of discussion would have enhanced Gray's arguments against unachievable utopias, and given it even more relevance to our time. For, while Nazis, Communists and neocons may come and go, the elitist utopian dream of population reduction has outlasted all of them.
1044153
A common frustration in arguing with someone about, well, anything, is the problem of different assumptions and conflicting foundational beliefs--especially when we aren't even aware they are in conflict. I tend to want to address the underlying issues first, to distill them down to their fundamental essence. Mitch Stokes does exactly that in what is basically a layman's summary of the work of well-known Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga.

Leveraging Plantinga (and a few others) to do the heavy intellectual lifting, Mitch--very ably and eloquently--addresses the very building blocks of human inquiry: What is reason? What makes something rational? What is a belief, and how do we develop them? Do beliefs have to rational in order to be reasonable or legitimate? What does secular humanist and atheistic thought contribute to these discussions, and are those contributions ultimately rational or reasonable?

Stokes handles all of these topics and more, comprehensively and readably.  He shows that the recent spike in angry polemics from of the "New Atheists" is inversely proportional to the strength of their arguments and assumptions. It turns out (surprise!) that atheism and methodological naturalism end up being intellectually self-defeating. Even rationality itself ultimately depends on a divine designer. In addition, Stokes shows that the so-called "problem of evil" ends up being a greater problem for atheists than theists.

The book is clear and concise for such difficult topics, and I highly recommend A Shot of Faith (To The Head) to believer and skeptic alike. It will challenge assumptions and understanding on both sides, and will hopefully lead to fruitful conversation.

---------------------------------------
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission's 16 CFR, Part 255 : "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising."

(On a side note, when it comes to this issue, the FTC can go jump in a lake.)
---------------------------------------
3148329
I found Martin Long's book strongly and convincingly argued. It has a logic, clarity and consistency that are impressive. There is also much that is insightful and innovative. I particularly like his relaxed writing style which not only makes it readable but gives a feeling of familiarity and  common sense. The author has provided not only  a deep diagnosis of what ills the Republican party but sensible prescriptions that can serve the party and the country.
2848584
An excellent primer on what is, to our shame, an overly important player in American political discourse. The authors trace the deception and anti-Americanism which has been the hallmark of Chomsky's writing. One reviewer claims that he is not anti-American, but anti-totalitarian. What this reviewer fails to see is that to make such a false accusation is anti-American. America is not just the dirt we stand on, it's the people and government that inhabit it. That Chomsky uses statements such as "needing a kind of denazification", and worse, to describe those people and their government is sufficient evidence of his malice.

The introduction lists some of Chomsky's invidiousness and mendacity, setting up the rest of the essays that make up the book. The chapters on the cold war and 9/11 are particularly good, but they are all well worth reading. The section on the cold war clearly shows that having a bad political theory is no impediment if one is willing to twist the facts enough.

The lengths to which Chomsky will go to keep his distorted view of events viable is quite remarkable. That he lies is beyond doubt, as any fair reading of the book will show. Relying on circular logic, fabrication and intellectual fraud he has spun an alternate reality worthy of "The Twilight Zone". His habit of copious and meaningless footnotes is identified from the first essay and remains constant throughout the rest, as it is a trait common to all of his work. That most of these footnotes refer the reader back to Chomsky himself is an act of such blatant self-promotion that one is dumbfounded.

All in all this is a useful introduction to one of the many intellectual frauds of the left. A man who is as disingenuous and illogical as Michael Moore, but has obtained a veneer of respectability owing too academic success in the linguistics field. The person revealed by the book is once again sad proof that a PHD in one field does not translate into aptitude in another. When this lack of skill is matched with spitefulness and equivocation you encounter an author for whom contempt is the only emotion a right-minded person can feel. This book demonstrates that these ill characteristics are all present in the person of Noam Chomsky.
2307264
David Mulroy has written a defence of grammar as an element in the teaching of English in America.  Do not be put off by the American connection, most of what he has to say applies equally to UK practice.  His argument is that traditional grammar never went out of date but a new approach swamped traditional techniques with politically correct aspirations that saw teaching as social engineering and prohibited any attempt to set standards that could be declared superior to "cultural" variants.  The new approaches sprang from exponents of academic linguistics and from a political stance that could be described as liberal left wing.  Mr Mulroy outlines the classical principles on which traditional teaching is based and examines the claims made for the new linguistics and finds that English speakers are much less assured and articulate than they once were because they lack an appreciation of how the language is put together. Such knowledge is called grammar.  It does not enable us to assemble a sentence to be spoken, it does explain why that sentence was not as effective as we might have hoped.  Grammar is an instrument of criticism not an algorithm for constructing sentences.  This is a scholarly, convincing argument and draws our attention to the failure of our schools to provide a proper education in our language. My only complaint is that he has taken seriously the Labour Party's ambition to include grammatical analysis in the National Literacy Strategy announced in 1999.  This side of the Atlantic we have less confidence in political promises.
4015190
In this excellent volume Aunger presents a clear and convincing argument. The meme is placed squarely in the brain, safely recreating itself, allowing all that goes on outside of the brain to be viewed in a fresh perspective. Aunger's clear explanations of concepts like signal correction, signal redundancy, and artifacts as repositories of memes should prove invaluable to those involved with the design of communication.
3170468
An interesting book to read at an incredibly polarized time in US elections. I found it useful to understand what "rhetoric" actually is because, like so many, I have adapted the modern use of the word (sentence, grammar, thoughts).

Crowley presents well the core problem with fundamentalists' ability to engage in productive rhetoric. I came out of that tradition of "knowing" the irrefutable truth that was non-negotiable. Rhetoric demands that we begin on some point we can agree on and then elevate the exchange without anger, violence or  threats to a new level of discovery where both sides are heard and a progressive outcome might be achieved. When one side refuses to be open to new possibilities, no rhetoric can emerge.

I do see the conservative fundamentalist discourse, or actually lack of it,  devolves into stereotyping, scapegoating, demonizing and self-victimization.

HOW do you drag a person OUT of that to engage in productive conversation? I would have liked more tips on that, yet it is complex and even impossible in some circumstances. Finding a commonality and relational meeting point may be our only hope.

The "liberal" POV, with the meaning of liberal in the classic rhetoric language and position, focuses on individual rights, equality in the law, personal freedoms, tolerance, privacy and rule of law. This position is necessary in a democracy. Because fundamentalism does not allow for questioning or breaking from authority, it stymies or completely shuts out the conversations necessary for democracy.

Again, I would have loved tips, but you can't make someone engage in exchanges if they are SURE they are right and all other POV are evil, ill-informed, destructive to family, country and God.

A great companion to the book is the newly published&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-End-of-White-Christian-America/dp/1501122290/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The End of White Christian America</a>. Fundamentalism when it merged with conservative politics in the 1970s has sunk both ships. We may be in need of another Age of Enlightenment.

To dispel any thought that I may be a liberal, anti-God, anti-Christian person, I am NOT. I am an evangelical Christian who, through social justice work of inclusion for LGBT Christians in conservative faith environments, has eschewed the chains of what I was told to think. I have escaped the authoritarian non-negotiable trap and began to research and think outside the doctrine of my tribe. The result is my own book from a progressive viewpoint (&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Walking-the-Bridgeless-Canyon-Repairing-the-Breach-Between-the-Church-and-the-LGBT-Community/dp/1619200287/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Walking the Bridgeless Canyon: Repairing the Breach Between the Church and the LGBT Community</a>&nbsp;).

I read this book to help me better engage fundamentalists for inclusion and equality and the task is daunting, if not impossible for some deeply entrenched believers.

My take away is: there are solid reasons why this work is so tough and much of the opposition is unintentional, it just IS. I need to be able to do a good job of assessing where my efforts are best invested and work there. As to the others, I can remain gracious better understanding how trapped people are in their refusal to engage in productive discourse.

We are in for a very bumpy ride as a nation if we will not learn to be respectful, listen and engage in productive conversations.
2083538
Beyond Liberty Alone has a case to make. But it thankfully avoids the polemical approach that other books of its type make. Instead it begins its argument in a conversational tone, presenting both the liberal and the liberty alone stances, each in a familiar and compelling way. Only then does it reach beyond where those arguments typically stop, digging into history of the formative ideas of natural rights, liberty and free markets in order to make a deep and compelling case against liberty alone  the authors term for a political movement that holds liberty as a preeminent or overriding value.

Hobbes, Locke and Adam Smith are referenced heavily. Both religious and non-religious viewpoints are taken into account and treated with great sensitivity.

The result is a very satisfying read. Ideas are fully formed. Some conclusions are unexpected, often coming from a familiar and accepted set of premises. And this is what makes this book valuable:  it is the product of the mind of an original thinker. The last pages contain a bold revision of our Declaration of Independence. Highly recommended.
2192028
J. Philip Wogaman's latest book, From the Eye of the Storm, is, as they say in the military, a target-rich environment. That a prominent Protestant ethicist and the pastor of the First Family's own Foundry United Methodist  Church in Washington, D.C., would see fit to remark on the moral or  pastoral dimensions of the presidential crisis provokes no qualms. That a  pastor would attempt to critique issues of politics, law, and justice  prompts some misgivings. That Wogaman would argue for the imposition of his  own peculiar theology and pastoral method on these issues, quite simply,  invites ridicule.
 If we are to trust Wogaman's argument (to use the  term liberally), the only authentically Christian rebuke politicians can  render against a man who took it upon himself, in the hallowed halls of  justice, to define his own meaning of truth is a censure resolution filled  with harsh-though not too judgmental!-words about what a bad, bad thing he  has done.
 Words, as it turns out, mere words, are the only things  Clinton's apologists, Wogaman among them, can offer in his defense. Rather  than using the language of race, class, or economics to elicit the typical  emotional responses on Clinton's behalf, Wogaman's rhetoric takes on a  thin, Christian veneer. Take his use of the words "love" and "forgive" and  their variations: In his 139-page book, he mentions "love," or some  variation of the word, 140 times. References to "forgive" creep up in 75  different passages. This linguistic deluge is rather numbing in effect,  like having a blinding light shined in your face for several days straight.  Called aggressive marketing by some, this type of persuasion goes under a  more fitting name: propaganda. And propaganda of this kind has played no  small role in the polarization of the public arena. Rational debate has  been forced aside by unrelenting sloganism that has less sophistication  than a Coke vs. Pepsi taste test challenge.
 Wogaman does present one  justification for counseling the nation to reject impeachment, and that  justification takes the form of an analogy representing the two paths  America can take in response to the crisis:
The most important issue  posed by the presidential crisis had become increasingly clear to me: Will  we be a society that is grounded in compassion and a generous spirit-as  exemplified by the theme of the White House prayer breakfast and the  response by the religious leaders? Or will we allow ourselves to be  increasingly hard-hearted, as exemplified by the Starr report and the  manner of its presentation to the nation?
Wogaman leaves no doubt in  which direction he would shepherd us. In situations in which law and love  conflict, he says, love must prevail. Just so, but do love and law  conflict? In the gospel of Matthew, Christ, who also reminds us that love  is supreme, said of law:
Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the  Law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete them. I  tell you solemnly, till Heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one  little stroke, shall disappear from the Law until its purpose is achieved.  (5:17-18)
Wogaman's call for a spirit of forgiveness and  non-judgmentalism is undercut by his own blatant judgmentalism and  accusations of "malice." Of Kenneth Starr and supporters of Clinton's  removal, the best he can bring himself to say is "a generous spirit is not  altogether lacking," while "those who want to follow the path of  forgiveness" are not "altogether saintly." More amusing still was his  statement regarding his fellow participants on a political talk show:  "There was a fair amount of self-righteousness floating in the air, if I  can say this in a non-judgmental way." Indeed.
 Of course, one could  address further hypocrisies, inconsistencies, and absurdities Wogaman  thrusts upon the reader on the president's behalf, but to do so would lend  a credence to his tract that it does not deserve.