CG Trashes Objectivist Defense of American Ideals
My Review was in an early post.
Here is CG Regressive Review posted on Amazon
After reading the first two chapters, I thought this book should be adapted to be a part of children's and young adults' social studies classes. It's facts that are taught in social studies, but the first two chapter state them in such a blunt way, with such a focus on personal liberty. We really need to talk bluntly about freedom.
Unfortunately after Chapter 2, the book devolves into a rant. It takes on the tone of a ranting low-brow political talk show host. Much of what it says is true, but the talk show tone is tiresome. Reading it in book format is even more annoying than hearing political ranting on the radio. There's not much discussion in the book about why the points are true, except for shooting down a few straw men. Occasionally it goes a little deeper. It's mostly about the author's amazement that not everyone agrees with him. On most points I agree with him, but I know it's not as simple as everyone who disagrees with being us either a fool or evil. Even if it were that simple, it doesn't make for interesting reading.
Despite the emphasis on reason and rationality, most chapters mention something about the author's denial of climate change. It does not explain why. It almost seems like he never even considered science. Of course science is always open to new evidence, and we all hope we find new evidence showing climate change won't be as costly as we thought. As of the time of the writing, though, this is a radical claim that you can't just mention casually without explanation. Toward the end of the book where the points are summarized, it almost says flat out we shouldn't rely on science to make policy decisions.
There are definite good points to this book, but it's kind of like being with one of those people are reasonably smart but given to ranting. You can have a reasonable conversation with them, but before long he goes off the rails: "[some politician] is intent on destroying modern civilization!!" They hear politicians and commentators say they're in an epic battle of good vs. evil, and the they buy it.
Here is CG Regressive Review posted on Amazon
After reading the first two chapters, I thought this book should be adapted to be a part of children's and young adults' social studies classes. It's facts that are taught in social studies, but the first two chapter state them in such a blunt way, with such a focus on personal liberty. We really need to talk bluntly about freedom.
Unfortunately after Chapter 2, the book devolves into a rant. It takes on the tone of a ranting low-brow political talk show host. Much of what it says is true, but the talk show tone is tiresome. Reading it in book format is even more annoying than hearing political ranting on the radio. There's not much discussion in the book about why the points are true, except for shooting down a few straw men. Occasionally it goes a little deeper. It's mostly about the author's amazement that not everyone agrees with him. On most points I agree with him, but I know it's not as simple as everyone who disagrees with being us either a fool or evil. Even if it were that simple, it doesn't make for interesting reading.
Despite the emphasis on reason and rationality, most chapters mention something about the author's denial of climate change. It does not explain why. It almost seems like he never even considered science. Of course science is always open to new evidence, and we all hope we find new evidence showing climate change won't be as costly as we thought. As of the time of the writing, though, this is a radical claim that you can't just mention casually without explanation. Toward the end of the book where the points are summarized, it almost says flat out we shouldn't rely on science to make policy decisions.
There are definite good points to this book, but it's kind of like being with one of those people are reasonably smart but given to ranting. You can have a reasonable conversation with them, but before long he goes off the rails: "[some politician] is intent on destroying modern civilization!!" They hear politicians and commentators say they're in an epic battle of good vs. evil, and the they buy it.
"most chapters mention something about the author's denial of climate change."
The book is about liberty and US Ideals, it is not a book discussing science. Pointing out that policies enacted by our government, the UN and other governments which are anti-freedom IS the point. Really, this is about CGs disgust with "climate change deniers," an evil phrase conjured up by those who want to control how we live our lives and extract more money out of us through taxation and false industries such as carbon credits. The design of the phrase suggests the science is clear and people refuse to accept it. Studies, are inconclusive, there is a high correlation between studies and research pushing climate change and money(always follow the money). Moreover, the studies have been found to use incorrect data, ignore data, or lie about data! The only thing denied here is a false agenda pushed by environmentalists, and policies intended to destroy freedoms based on false or not proven hypotheses.
"low brow rant." The book shows clearly that the US was founded on Reason. He does take on socialism. How is that ranting? For someone who felt the need to put himself in the "freedom" camp at the start of the review, his desire for climate change policies and social justice policies say otherwise.
http://www.amazon.com/Defense-American-I...
It won't be, cause it's a hoax, not science.
Hang on a sec, I'll go make you some more Flavor-Aide.
When is it ok to go ahead and get angry, lionel? When can comments and posts respond to those who say they voted twice for Obama, supported him in fund raisers and then claim to be for liberty and freedom? When do we get angry, lionel?
For the record, I don't agree with CG's view of climate change or his baffling views on Obama. I do know he's basically living in Berkeley of the North and he manages a surprising amount of independent thought given his surroundings. He did rate Shadows Live Under Seashells 5 stars on Amazon, so I don't think DH is right in his suspicions that he's some undercover socialist out to trash books from an opposite perspective.
DH has an issue with CG - no big deal. But he's got to stir the pot and make sure everyone gets angry with CG, right? That's the goal of this litle post, isn't it? To point the finger and go "Ah hah! Look at the traitor in our midst"? I do think my advice is good - I really think a cool off time would be beneficial here because these actions are coming out of anger and things are probably going to be said and done that will be regretted.
Someone who voted twice for Obama and says that Obama is for Liberty and that the economy is great, is a socialist pretending to be interested in Liberty. CG is a socialist talking head, it is like having Bob Beckel, Juan Williams, or Jay Carney in the Gulch.
He did no such thing. "Contact" isn't a verb.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/c...
Next thing you'll tell me, .9999 repeating isn't equal to one. Oh...wait....
db and many here reason from a different foundation than I (and several others here as well). Yet, we seem to come to the same location - hence why we are here in the first place. Most of those with my perspective are perfectly fine allowing you to maintain your basis and only ask that we not be derided for maintaining ours, but that seems impossible for many. Just my perspective.