Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

Moore, Michael. 2004. Stupid White Men: …And Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation! Harper Paperbacks.

Rating:
8

Summary:
Better written than I expected; perhaps a bit too long

The basic argument of ‘Stupid White Men’ is that most of the ills of society can be attributed to oppressive, white men. Despite focusing primarily on Republicans and most especially on what Moore considers to be the ‘stolen’ election by George Bush, Moore does not overlook the Democrats and their sketchy record. Much of this ire is aimed at the surprisingly pathetic career of Bill Clinton who, according to Moore, despite talking the talk, didn’t walk the walk of social democracy.

Moore also discusses several other issues, including the continued racism in the U.S., conflict in the Middle East, and his involvement in the Florida election debacle and convoluted support for Ralph Nader.

The format of the book varies from informal prose to several letters by Moore to political leaders and bodies, including George Bush, Yassar Arafat, and Secretary General of the U.N., Kofi Annan.

The ultimate political conclusion of the book can be summed up by a quote from the book itself, “There are about 200-plus million of us who would like to see a real two-party system (or three-party, or four-party – hey, it’s a big country!), with one party fighting for the right to write off one’s backyard tennis court as a business expense and the other fighting for the right to see a doctor if one gets sick. It really is that simple” (p. 225). In essence, Moore is arguing that the rich can fight for their luxuries, but they need to at least afford the poor the same opportunity. As for the Democrats, despite pretending to be the representatives of progressive socialism in this country, they have sold out to big money, leaving the poor of this country without representation.

Review:
I think Moore makes a lot of great points. There are, however, several menial things about this book that bothered me.

First, why is Michael Moore qualified to write this book? Before you crucify me for evaluating a piece of work on the credentials of the creator, hear me out. Moore readily admits that he doesn’t have a college degree of any sort (either graduate or undergraduate). I’m okay with that, I really am. But without any credentials, I would really like to know why Moore is qualified to write this? Has he spent years and years studying politics? Has he held political office? Does he have some sort of insider perspective? I should probably admit here that I am just finishing my Master’s degree and am beginning work on a PhD, so I may be a bit biased. Nevertheless, I would be a bit more trusting of Moore’s perspective if he were to explain why he is qualified to write this book. Even if he just argues that he is qualified because he is a politically active citizen of the U.S., I would accept that, but I’m hesitant to just accept any Joe Shmoe’s opinions on politics.

The second problem I had with the book is that Moore never really explains why whites are a/the problem. Yes, his point is well taken that whites have been responsible for a lot of problems, but haven’t they also been responsible for a lot of societal advances (advances Moore doesn’t point out)? And isn’t Michael Moore white? Just as he didn’t make explicit connections between his conceptual points (ownership of guns and violent crimes) in Bowling for Columbine, Moore doesn’t make any clear connections between why whites are a problem. Given the title, you would think that Moore is, in some sense, attacking the white race. Obviously, he isn’t going that far, but he doesn’t really say why the race of these alleged ‘perpetrators’ is really a big deal. Is there still racism in the U.S.? Sure, I won’t deny that. But by claiming whites are the problem (or at least white leadership), isn’t Moore really just making matters worse? Why doesn’t he say what he really means? The bourgeoisie continue to exploit the proletariat, and because money tends to pass from generation to generation at the same socioeconomic level and originally it was whites that had had the money (while brutally enslaving blacks), it just so happens that whites continue to dominate. This really doesn’t have anything to do with race. It has everything to do with political leaders (who are predominantly white) selling out.

Don’t get me wrong. I think Moore is making some really good points. But I think he used the title to sell books, despite it not really being the issue he is addressing. Overall, I think Moore should be commended for being forthright. Many of the points he makes are good points. I would have liked to see Moore explicitly cite references, but I can understand that in popular literature that just isn’t the norm.

In short, this is a provocative book aimed at getting people to think. Though not always perfectly clear, the basic points are good ones. If you’re a political conservative, you may not like the book, but you may still want to read it just to see what the opposition is saying. If you’re the liberal opposition, instead of complaining about the format, you may want to appreciate the fact that the book is popular and perhaps being used as a tool to gain converts toward your cause.

Benjamin, Daniel, and Steven Simon. 2003. The Age of Sacred Terror: Radical Islam’s War Against America. Random House Trade Paperbacks.

Rating:
6

Summary:
The book covers a lot of territory, but seems to focus on three elements of terrorism. First, the book details some of the specific terrorist attacks prior to the September 11th attack in 2001 (e.g., the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, etc.). It doesn’t, however, deal in depth with the 9/11 attacks, which I assume is because the details were (and likely still are) unknown at the writing of the book.

The second element of terrorism covered is the approach to handling terrorism by U.S. politicians and civil servants. One individual that is discussed in some depth is terrorism ‘czar’ Richard Clarke (who has now written his own book). The book also examines the Clinton Administration’s approach to dealing with Al Qaeda and terrorism in depth.

Finally, the authors combine an analysis of why they think terrorists are targeting the U.S. with suggestions for how to defend the U.S. from terrorist attacks and what changes need to be made to make the U.S. safer.

Review:
good account of early terrorist attacks; lacking in some areas

It’s unfortunate that this book has as many problems as it does. Had a good editor demanded that the authors present a clear, understandable outline for presenting their insights on terrorism, this could have been a powerful and clear analysis of what some are labeling ‘the new age of terror.’

But, this book falls pretty short in presenting clear and lucid arguments and analyses. The biggest problem is that there is no clear layout to the book. It begins with detailed accounts of the terrorist attacks of the 1990s and ends with the authors’ suggestions for preventing future attacks. But in the middle the discussion bounces around from discussing Osama bin Laden to an analysis of the counter-terrorism agencies in the U.S. arsenal to an analysis of the Bush Administrations failings to heed the warnings of the outgoing Clinton Administration as to the threat of Al Qaeda to justifications for Al Qaeda’s desire to attack the U.S., in no apparent order. Sometimes the authors have important and insightful things to say (some are discussed below), but because their important thoughts are mixed in with seemingly unrelated thoughts, the insightful stuff more often than not falls through the cracks.

The book also makes some questionable claims. For instance, it argues that the age of religious terrorism began with the shooting of Rabbi Meir Kahane in Manhattan in 1990. Why they choose this particular incident as the beginning of religious based terrorism goes unexplained. As a student of religion, I seem to recall numerous examples of people dying for their religion and even terrorizing members of other religions because of their beliefs (Palestinians have been bombing and sniping Israelis – and vice versa – for years). The authors also present some interesting population forecasts for some of the more populous Islamic countries (Pakistan, Iran, etc.) that are particularly far-fetched. Yes, it’s true these countries are growing rapidly and have high birth rates. But what the authors don’t take into consideration is the fact that these countries do not have the resources to feed that many people. War, famines, or other disasters are likely going to limit the growth (though I won’t make any solid predictions as Paul Ehrlich has shown that is a good way to undermine one’s argument when/if it proves wrong). Their growth projections, when considered in this light, come across more as a tactic to invoke fear of the growth of Islam than as factual calculations.

Another problem with the authors’ analysis is their take on religion in the U.S. While there are some researchers (Rodney Stark for one) who argue that religion and religiosity are not declining in the U.S., a more nuanced analysis reveals that there is a type of decline going on, though it is better understood as a dichotomization. The religious are doing one of two things: 1) growing more fundamentalistic and, as a result, they both appear more religious and are more noticeable. 2) They are leaving religion. The number of non-religious people (including atheists and agnostics) is slowly increasing in the U.S. as is the number affiliated with conservative Christian religions. The religions that fall between these two – moderate and liberal Christian religions – are declining in numbers. Thus, while one could argue that there is a growing religious presence in the U.S. due to the increasingly vocal fundamentalists, it is inaccurate to claim that religions in the U.S. are growing and the overall level of religiosity is increasing. The more accurate statement is: conservative religions are growing while the level of religiosity is either remaining the same (thanks to the fundamentalist boost) or declining.

While they did make some erroneous claims, the authors also made some good points. For instance, the authors make an interesting distinction between Arafat’s terrorism in Palestine and Osama bin Laden’s terrorism against the U.S. and other Westernized countries. The authors argue that Arafat uses terrorism strategically to improve his bargaining positions whereas bin Laden uses it tactically to kill. According to the authors, Osama isn’t interested in bargaining; he just wants to kill infidels in the name of Ala. I hadn’t considered this notion and, while I think Juergensmeyer’s book (2000) is generally a clearer analysis of why terrorists do what they do, this is a point that Juergensmeyer does not make. While I don’t think this distinction always holds true, I think there is some merit to it, so… Point for Benjamin and Simon.

The authors do get the threat of fundamentalism right, a threat outlined clearly by Kenneth Wald (2003). The basic problem with fundamentalists is that they are unwilling to negotiate a truce or peace because that would mean they are both acquiescing to the opponent of their god and they would no longer be doing the will of their god. Either way, they would not be following their precepts. For instance, fundamentalist Christians are not content with not having abortions themselves; they insist that no one can have abortions. Because they are unwilling to compromise on this issue, it will not desist until fundamentalism disappears, an event that would be much heralded by most non-fundamentalists but an event that is likely fairly distant. Because fundamentalists are so unwilling to compromise, they are a serious threat to democracy. The authors do get this point right.

I’m not sure how to categorize another element of the book. Basically, the authors speak very highly of both Richard Clark and Bill Clinton and present them as doggedly concerned with preventing terrorist attacks. While I’m sure they were concerned about terrorism, one almost gets the impression that the authors have a political bias that they don’t reveal. I don’t have a problem with people taking sides, as long as they admit it (which is why Bill O’Reilly bugs me). So, I’m not sure if their praise of Clinton and Clark is a positive or negative of the book.

Overall, the book is informative on several points, but I think a clearer analysis of the motivations of terrorism is presented by Mark Juergensmeyer in his book ‘Terror in the Mind of God.’ The authors cite Juergensmeyer and even try to re-hash some of his arguments, but they don’t do it very clearly. What this book does offer is an insider glance at how the Clinton and Bush administrations dealt with terrorism. The authors’ treatment isn’t particularly favorable of the Bush administrations attempts to curb terrorism. Some will probably find this biased; I’m not sure that it is. But I’m also unwilling to point fingers – 9/11 was unfortunate and, ultimately, the blame rests on Al Qaeda and not on any particular administration or branch of the government. Because it isn’t always clear, I have to label this an interesting but sometimes confusing read. I’d suggest Jurgensmeyer’s book instead – it’s both more representative of religious terrorism in general and more clearly presented.

O’Reilly, Bill. 2001. The No-Spin Zone: Confrontations with the Powerful and Famous in America. Broadway.

Rating:
1

Summary:
far from ‘objective’

The book is advertised as discussions the author, Bill O’Reilly, had with people on his show, The O’Reilly Factor. The topics are far-ranging and the guests with whom he addresses the topics are supposed to be the experts. In fact, the discussions between the author and his guests make up less than 5% of the book. The bulk of the book is O’Reilly explaining why he is right and why his guests are wrong.

The topics addressed in the book range from pedophilia to child care to the death penalty and include guests ranging from Dr. Laura Schlesinger to Susan Sarandon to George W. Bush.

Review:
Despite the claim that this book is going to be objective and all sides to every argument, it does no such thing. In fact, it is a far cry from objectivity. As noted above, the bulk of the book is O’Reilly presenting one-sided (and often erroneous) evidence for why he is right and his opponents are wrong.

For instance, the very first chapter in the book discusses sexual deviance. O’Reilly sets up the debate he has with a lawyer from the ACLU who is defending NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) by using poor/non-existent data. Strangely, O’Reilly admits that there isn’t any good data on sexual abuse rates prior to 1990, but despite this fact, he insists on going ahead with his argument, which is basically that sexual abuse and other forms of sexual deviance have been increasing since the 1960s (the behaviors he includes in the deviance category are not specified) There are at least three problems with O’Reilly’s argument. First, as O’Reilly noted, accurate data was not collected on sexual abuse and sexual deviance prior to 1990, so he can’t make an argument for an increase. Second, sexual abuse wasn’t even really defined as sexual abuse until the women’s movement of the 1970s raised awareness about rape, spousal abuse, and sexual harassment. Finally, in light of the two previous points, in all likelihood sexual abuse existed prior to the 1960s. In fact, it was probably happening almost as often prior to the 1960s as it was after the 1960s, but it just wasn’t being reported. In short, O’Reilly doesn’t have a leg to stand on here. Just because sexual deviance has been receiving increasing attention in the media (TV shows and films) doesn’t mean sexual deviance is on the rise. What it would indicate, if anything, is a growing awareness of its existence, and a growing awareness is the first step toward curbing or treating the problem. Sexual deviance is not something new under the sun; in all likelihood it has accompanied Homo sapiens since they became a distinct species (and likely predates that distinction).

Despite the highly subjective and one-sided format of the book, O’Reilly claims he doesn’t intend to convince anyone (yeah right!) but instead just wants to present the discussions. He repeats one point about the discussions over and over: he wants you to decide who wins in his debates. Considering this is his claimed intent, let me give my impressions on some of the debates.

On the debate about NAMBLA, O’Reilly gives the impression that members of NAMBLA are guilty until proven innocent, rather than the way it is specified in U.S. law. Dismissing any and all arguments for the freedom to think as one wants, O’Reilly pre-determines that NAMBLA members are criminals – regardless of whether they’ve acted on their beliefs – and therefore wants them thrown into jail (or worse). He doesn’t believe they deserve lawyers or a trial. The lawyer representing the ACLU argued that they deserve representation because United Statesians cherish the right to THINK what you want in the U.S. If they act on their thoughts/beliefs, that’s another story, but they should be protected in their right to think what they want to think. Additionally, it presents O’Reilly as advocating a society like that depicted in the novel 1984, where even one’s thoughts are regulated. This is a clear loss for O’Reilly.

O’Reilly’s views on sex education are actually based on a logical fallacy, and he presents his argument only half-heartedly. O’Reilly claims that driver’s ed. leads to driving and therefore sex ed. leads to sex. While the analogy about educating someone about driving and sex can actually be informative, O’Reilly limits the analogy to pre-determined outcomes, making it inaccurate. If you do away with the limitations, what you get is actually a useful analogy. A more comprehensive examination of this analogy presents the following comparisons: Driver’s ed. can lead to driving and sex ed. can lead to sex. Additionally, driver’s ed. leads to education about driving just like sex ed. leads to information about sex. But what is missing from O’Reilly’s limited analogy is the fact that somebody can take a driver’s ed. course and not drive a car. They can also take the course and drive it poorly or even drive it and die. This is also true with sex ed. Sex education does not lead to sex, though it can. It can also lead people to not engage in sex, or do it poorly, or even die. In both cases, the intent of the course is to try to educate the individual about the activity (sex and driving) and by so doing, prevent them from doing it poorly and, as a result, dying. By saying that driver’s ed. leads to driving he is forcing the analogy into a corner and then trying to argue that sex ed. should be forced into the same corner. This is no basis to argue against sex education.

But in addition to using poor logic in his attempt to argue against sex education, O’Reilly takes a hypocritical stance. He says that it doesn’t work to simply allow kids/parents to opt out of sex ed. because they will learn about it from their friends that were in the class. However, if you paid close attention to an earlier segment in the chapter, you’d remember that O’Reilly learned about sex in exactly this way – from his friends. In fact, he says that he found his talk with his father about sex particularly awkward because he already knew about it. Is O’Reilly saying that what was good for the gander (him) isn’t good for the geese (his kids)? Does he really think that his kids won’t know anything about sex by the time he gets around to talking to them about it? Once again, O’Reilly’s logic is seriously flawed.

While at this point it’s apparent O’Reilly’s argument against sex education in schools is worthless, O’Reilly doesn’t give up. If he’s anything, he’s determined… to convince people he’s a fool. O’Reilly finally admits he wants kids to know the consequences of sex (poverty, STDs, etc.). I agree with him on this point. But, and get ready for this because it defies all reason, he doesn’t want kids to know how to avoid the consequences of sex. He doesn’t want kids to be taught to use condoms or engage in alternative sexual behaviors (oral or manual stimulation). All he wants kids to learn in school is that sex can lead to poverty, STDs, etc. This is nothing short of a ‘Bush Administration’ fear tactic; tell them only enough to make them afraid, very, very afraid. Don’t tell them what they really need to know in order to avoid the actual consequences: use protection and limit your sexual partners to trusted individuals; boy that was hard! Admittedly I belong to the camp of people that believe education is worthwhile. This camp argues that if you educate people, most will make good choices. Inversely, if you don’t adequately educate them, they may be afraid of the consequences but they won’t know how to avoid the consequences even though they don’t want to face them. O’Reilly’s arguments against sex education fail on every front.

O’Reilly loses several more arguments (the one on sex education was against Jocelyn Elders), but he does actually make a few decent points in some of his debates. For instance, he debates the utility of rap music with Puff Daddy. I have to admit that I’m not a fan of rap music. In fact, I have a hard time using ‘rap’ in the same sentence as ‘music,’ as I don’t think it really is music. O’Reilly tries to paint Puff Daddy as advocating violence, chauvinism, and crime. While I can understand O’Reilly’s point, I think Puff Daddy did a pretty decent job of defending himself – even though I’d just as soon see rap disappear. So, while I almost agree with O’Reilly on this one, he didn’t really undermine Puff Daddy’s argument.

But even though O’Reilly and I agree that rap is just short of worthless noise, I think it’s important to point out that O’Reilly contradicts himself on this point as well. He says he wants parents to talk to kids about things like rap and sex, but then he says he will not let his kids listen to rap or watch shows that have sex scenes. I can understand restricting children’s exposure to such things to a certain degree, but O’Reilly is adamant that none of that ‘stuff’ will be in his house. Once again, I have a different perspective. I believe the better approach would be to let your children engage with these things (e.g., listening to rap, talking about sex, etc.) in a safe environment – where their parents are not breathing down their necks. Once kids realize you are going to be objective about these things, you can then discuss them and reason out whether they should continue to listen/view them, etc. Simply shielding children from these things is not going to prepare them for when they are eventually exposed to them. Protecting your children from things you dislike is actually counter-productive; it makes them vulnerable for when they inevitably have to confront these things. Without support, children will make the wrong decisions. Once again, O’Reilly is wrong.

I have two additional points about the book before I wrap up this review. First, O’Reilly loves to attack people in absentee. He goes on and on about Jesse Jackson and how it was his news staff that broke the story about Jackson paying off his mistress. He does eventually present an excerpt from a debate between himself and a Jackson supporter, but he never debates Jackson personally. While I agree that what Jesse Jackson does to some big businesses is nothing short of extortion, it isn’t particularly honorable to attack people without providing them an opportunity to defend themselves. Not surprisingly, O’Reilly primarily attacks liberals and democrats (Bill and Hillary Clinton are second only to Jesse Jackson as the focus of O’Reilly’s smear).

That O’Reilly focuses almost exclusively on attacking liberals is my final major point. While O’Reilly does debate with a couple of conservatives in the book (Dr. Laura and George W. Bush), when it comes to politics, O’Reilly gives conservatives a free ride. He attacks Bush on his advocacy of the death penalty, claiming that it isn’t Christ-like. Come on! That’s the worst thing he can think of to say to George W. Bush, the author of the biggest budget deficit in history? That O’Reilly lets conservatives slide as much as he does should be the biggest clue that O’Reilly isn’t really objective. He won’t relent with liberals; but with conservatives, he’ll ask them some mild question about a menial issue then move on. If O’Reilly were as tough with conservatives as he is with liberals, I might consider watching his show. But until he can prove that, forget it! He’s just one more member of the Republican smear machine.

The book concludes with a bizarre little pop-psychology pep-talk. O’Reilly claims that everything is ‘wonderful’ in the ‘zone’ and that everyone can have their own ‘zone’ where life is peachy. Interestingly, O’Reilly also discourages his acolytes from talking with people that might disagree with them, claiming that they won’t get anywhere and that they are better off leaving the debating with liberals to him. Of course he doesn’t take this point to its logical conclusion: his incessant attacking of liberals is designed to do one thing – convince people to be conservatives/Republicans. But would you expect anything less from O’Reilly? What’s more, he admits he’s an absolutist, which is a great position if you’re a religious fundamentalist that can only see the world in terms of good and evil. But for thinking, engaged adults, the shades of grey in the modern world are so obvious that to overlook them actually requires intentional deception.

How anyone can believe O’Reilly is objective is beyond me. I have to admit I was impressed with his wittiness and poise on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, a visit I saw just after reading this book. I’m not sure what happened to change his demeanor from the standoffish Republican spinmeister on his show, but he was admittedly impressive. If only he could have mustered some of that wit, charm, and reason for this book, I might actually recommend it. As it stands, ‘The No Spin Zone’ should be re-labeled ‘The Spin-Only Zone.’ O’Reilly didn’t convince me of anything but the fact that he favors Republicans and can’t muster enough evidence for his arguments to fill a condom (oops! did I say the ‘c’ word?).

Ivins, Molly, and Lou Dubose. 2000. Shrub: The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush. Largeprint.

Rating:
8

Summary:
Witty, well-written, and disturbing

The authors, Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose, are journalists and authors who, apparently, have followed George W. Bush’s political career in Texas closely. The book covers everything from G.W. Bush’s childhood to his involvement with his father’s political campaign and finally his political career as governor of Texas.

The bulk of the book examines different components of Bush’s politics and the book is actually divided up by these areas after the chronological history leading up to Bush’s election as governor. For instance, it covers Bush’s record on the environment, on Hispanics in Texas, on Big Business (all of which are deplorable), and on education, the only area where Bush may have done something right.

The book was written during the 2000 campaign, so it was written before Bush was elected president.

Review:
The writing in the book is engaging and humorous and is laced with Texan phrases (e.g., ‘madder than a skillet full of rattlesnakes’) that add an air of Cowboyish authenticity.

The book is also remarkably insightful as regards Texas politics in general. For instance, they point out that being governor of Texas is only the fifth most powerful position in Texas (the lieutenant governor and person in charge of agriculture are more powerful). After finding this out, I’m amazed the political pundits haven’t made a bigger deal out of it. Not only is Bush a political novice (in terms of actually serving in political office), but the one position he did hold before becoming president wasn’t even a powerful position. Considering I’m writing this during the 2004 election in which John Edwards is being criticized for his lack of political experience this fact is even more astonishing. Based on the description of Bush’s responsibilities in this book, he’s a novice compared with Edwards, and a toddler compared to John Kerry.

The authors also make clear that G.W. Bush’s interest in politics makes very little sense considering he abhors reading and discussing policy and doesn’t like to spend his time governing. He has said that one of the things he likes least is reading books on policy. As a result, the authors argue that the bulk of G.W. Bush’s policy and political positions come from Karl Rove, who is referred to as ‘Bush’s Brain’ (an epithet that is, I believe, both accurate and well-deserved). How an individual that is completely uninterested in governing can become the President of the U.S. is nothing short of a slap in the face of logic and intelligence. It’s so astonishing one might believe Karl Rove and the Republican Party pulled off a bloodless coup of reason in the U.S., facilitated, of course, by the Republican spin machines known as ‘talk radio’. The more I learn about Bush, the more amazed I am that he is the current president of the U.S. The guy has no record, just spin.

Another quote from the book seemed to summarize Bush’s basic political philosophy, “Bush is a wholly-owned subsidiary of big business.” All of Bush’s policy, with the exception of what he has done to cater to the Christian Right (more on this below), has been beneficial to big business. Bush could care less about the working man; he’s never been one and the longer he remains in power, the more likely he’ll never have to even see one again.

The author does point out two things that Bush did well (thanks again to Karl Rove) in developing his campaign for governor and his presidential campaign in 2000: 1) He catered to the Spanish vote (even though he knows all of two phrases in Spanish; he’s not fluent like he claims). 2) He breached the divide between Country Club Republicans and the Christian Right. Both of these maneuvers have helped him increase his base, regardless of the fact that he cares nothing for them.

Interestingly, the authors of ‘Shrub’ make a prediction at the end of the book, saying that if history is a good instructor, George W. Bush is likely to do exactly what he did for Texas to the U.S. Unfortunately, the authors were right: the poor are poorer, the rich are richer, big business is making away like a bandit, and the environment has gone to pot.

Overall, I highly recommend this book. Unfortunately, those that need to read it the most are probably the least likely to get their hands on it. After reading it, it would be amazing if someone could even consider voting for Bush in 2004.

(Note: I listened to this book on CD).

Franken, Al. 1996. Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations. Island Book.

Rating:
6

Summary:
Occasionally funny; gets old quick

Franken uses close to three hundred pages to try to illustrate why Democrats and their liberal ideologies and philosophies are a better approach to politics and social problems than are Republican ones. In doing so, he spends about 1/5 of the book calling Rush Limbaugh ‘fat’. Another fifth is spent explaining why Limbaugh is a liar and, in Franken’s words, an ‘idiot’ (a sentiment I am more inclined to agree with and definitely found more interesting than the continuous ranting that Limbaugh was obese).

In the mix, Franken uses his occasionally witty humor to attack several other famous conservative Republicans and illustrate why a large number of them are hypocrites, insensitive capitalists, and not very nice people. There isn’t much in the way of fair and balanced rhetoric as Franken considers Bill Clinton to be the greatest president of the twentieth century (even greater than FDR).

Franken also spends a good deal of time talking about two additional topics that are really unrelated despite his continued attempts to integrate them into his discussions – his family and his assistant Geoff. Franken continuously blames the poor quality of the book on the fact that he’s spending all of his time with his kids (unlike all of those ‘mean’ Republican conservatives). Of course this is all really supposed to be meant in jest, but after reading the book I began to wonder…

Review:
Despite sharing a liberal perspective on society and life, I didn’t really love this book. It started out pretty good with some funny commentary and rather creative presentation. But after the 80-something time Franken went on a rant about how fat Limbaugh is, it started to bug me. What does he being fat have to do with his political ideas? If he were the secretary of health, I could understand how it is relevant, but he’s a propagandist, not a nutritionist. There are also several ‘chapters’ that are only two to three pages in length that are really just excuses for why he didn’t do more research (I call them chapters because they start a new page, but whether they are really chapters…).

Which introduces a second issue. Despite claiming that Limbaugh is a liar and misleads or outright deceives his followers a lot of the time, Franken doesn’t employ traditional scientific/academic approaches to his presentation of data – only rarely does he actually cite sources. Though I must admit I am more inclined to agree with the information Franken presents because much of it sounds as though it at least closely resembles the information with which I am familiar (I’m a sociologist), it would have been nice if Franken had at least footnoted his data. As it stands, I would suggest that anyone that reads this book read it only for humor and not as a source of accurate information.

Some additional problems include the repetitiveness of the book. Despite what Franken seems to think, his political ‘expertise’ seems limited to just a few issues, which he returns to over and over. In short, he repeats himself a lot. Also, there is absolutely no continuity from ‘chapter’ to ‘chapter’; the book does not ‘flow’.

Overall, even though I would agree that Rush Limbaugh (and now Sean Hannity and Michael Savage) tends to appeal only to the uneducated who don’t question and refuse to think for themselves (which might also explain the appeal of Rush Limbaugh and the Republican party to religious conservatives), this book isn’t the best platform for presenting the counter arguments. Sometimes it is funny and there are even occasionally glimpses of brilliant writing, but it doesn’t take long to realize that Franken’s primary comedic tool is the insult. One or two insults are occasionally funny, but a book of insults can only appeal to people who are less interested in the issues than they are in attacking the opponent. Though Michael Moore occasionally stoops to this level, also doesn’t do a very good job of citing references, and isn’t particularly qualified to be writing on this topic, I think he does a better job of focusing on the issues and making sound arguments than does Franken. As a result, I would recommend Moore’s books instead of Franken’s.