Social Sciences Books

I read part of this book for a Globalization class I was taking, plus a few chapters from a different book "Globalization and Its Discontents" by Joseph Stiglitz. I initially liked what I read from Friedman. It seemed positive and interesting in comparison to Stiglitz (which focused on IMF economic policies and was VERY angry). However, upon reading the whole Stiglitz book and then going back to Friedman, I found Friedman to be poorly educated in economics and a waste of my time. It is indeed a cheerleader book for Globalization and has so many holes in it you can drive a car through.

Friedman is a market fundamentalist with an agenda, which becomes very clear after reading a REAL book on economics. He embraces this "golden straightjacket" (or restrictions that globalization puts on an economy) as inevitable and advocates a rapid transition to free-market systems with abandonment of old systems. He also favors excessive deregulation of the economy and wants government to completely relinquish control. The success of this strategy isn't backed by any evidence. It's only Friedman's theory. For instance, he goes into great detail about the hardships that this golden straitjacket puts on government, the population and all the entrenched interests... but never proves with evidence that the countries that put it on are better off than countries that don't. The fact is, countries DON'T have to follow this golden straitjacket model. Southeast Asia in particular... with all the "crony" capitalism that Friedman complains lingered on for decades, was successful before the 1997 market crisis specifically because of this crony capitalism. They didn't follow the IMF, Wall Street, and the electronic herd who were all clamoring for them to immediately open up their markets and push down barriers and completely eliminate government interference in the economy. They kept those barriers up, built up their own businesses and industries, and when those industries were ready to compete in the global market, they slowly reduced trade barriers and integrated themselves into the global economy. This is the correct way to approach globalization, not the stupid way Friedman and the IMF and Wall Street lobbyists advocate (ensuring US companies dominate ALL competition in the developing world).

I'll give another example of why Friedman is wrong. Look at Russia. Russia's transition from communism to capitalism was guided by the IMF and the US Treasury Department. It was one of the most radical transformations of an economy in the history of mankind and under Friedman's theory, it should have been an enormous success because "the quicker you adopt the golden straitjacket, the better". WRONG. They transitioned to free markets so quick that it was devoid of competition. There was no regulatory structure to compete fairly. Banks didn't operate well. Businesses were sold to well-connected, corrupt bureaucrats for next to nothing (who proceeded to strip the businesses of their assets and put most of the profits in foreign bank accounts). Corrupt government leaders shared in these profits at the expense of the state's wealth. The leaders further raided funds by taking out massive loans from international banks, the IMF and the US government at high interest rates and diverted much of the money into their bank accounts. Inflation ran wild for awhile and many people lost their life savings and retirement as a result. Exchange rates were kept artificially high which prevented exports. Crime and mafia control spread everywhere. People in abject poverty become commonplace (from ~2% of the population living under $2 a day under communism....... to after the market failure ~25% of the population under $2 a day and ~40% of the population under $4 a day. GDP per Capita went DOWN so people were poorer with capitalism than they were under communism). It was altogether complete chaos and an economic disaster.

Compare this with China, who also moved from Communism to Capitalism but they started in the 70's and they did it much slower and much more carefully. Through protectionist barriers, they built up their own industries, significantly reduced poverty, became a major world economy and provided many of the amenities that first world economies have. While they aren't completely free-market yet, they are doing it very well and completely ignoring Thomas Friedman's "Golden Straitjacket".

With that said, there are some good things about Thomas Friedman's book. First off, he explains a very popular... but failed... ideology very well. There is significant support for it in IMF, Wall Street and the Treasury Department and its important to understand. Secondly, he explains Capital Markets (or what he calls "short horned cattle") far better than my other book does. Capital Markets, or investment in currency, is a hard concept to understand and Friedman makes a very good effort at explaining it.

Had some good ideas but pretty heavy reading. Not for the short attention span person.

This book provides a very good understanding of globilisation by integrating various issues and concepts with critical, illustrative and at times poignant examples. This helps appreciate what globilisation means currently and the historical summary helps explain how we got to where we are today. Consequently we are better able to forecast trends and determine meaningful business and social strategies that will enhance our lifestyles. It is an easy, informative and enjoyable read.

This is the first book I've read on the hot topic of globalization and I think it's fair to say I was disappointed, especially considering how popular this book is. What is most odd about this book is that it does not feel like it was written by a journalist at all: it rarely relies on facts or scenarios that actually happened. Much of the book contains dialogues (mostly among world leaders) that Friedman invented for literary effect. He also goes overboard on inventing his own terminology for the subject. But what is most annoying while reading the book is that while you would expect a book on globalization to be nuanced and subtle, Friedman comes off as arrogant and heavy-handed in his treatment of the subject. It occurred to me many times while reading the book that being a globetrotting journalist did not qualify Friedman to be the quasi-theorist that he thinks he is. Revealing, this book has aged very poorly, very quickly. Most of the companies he praises (Enron and Compaq for instance) have either gone completely defunct or been bought out by other companies. As if to further underscore his shallow understanding of the subject, his Golden Arches Theory was disproven soon after the publication of his book. Friedman is not without his insights but I imagine there must be much better books out there on the subject.

If you have a short attention span, then this book is not for you. I thought being a newspaper person would have made Friedman concise and to the point, but Friedman spends so much time talking about things that are not directly related to the point that I gave up on this book. I may have cheated myself (I thought the same of Ayn Rand but did make it through Atlas Shrugged which is one of my favorites.) but I don't have the time for his wanderings.

I picked this up, only to put it down after a few pages. The author's rather melodramatic approach made the story seem more like a cheap, badly-written novel than a nonfiction account. I just didn't see any sense that the author had 'connected' with the subject, and so I couldn't connect with it, either.

The book is about illegal immigration. I read it before my college-aged daughter for insight on what she needed to accomplish. It is an OK story, definitely makes you think twice about trying to get into the US illegally!

This book was hard to put down as well as hard to read. It evoked the full range of emotions. The inhumanity of some mixes with the incredible generosity of others. It is a story of the best and the worst that humans can be. It puts a human face on the problem of immigration. You will never look at undocumented workers the same way again.
Sonia Nazario does a tremendous job of describing the immigration problem from many different perspectives. Although she focuses on Enrique's journey to the United States from Honduras, she also gives us a view of all of the people who are touched by immigration. She wisely gives us no answers. In fact, we are left knowing that there are no easy answers.

I happened on this book at church on Sunday morning, part of the United Methodist Women's Mission reading. I guess I was meant to pick it up and read it. I have not had much compassion for the plights of immigrants. Coming to the United States illegally. Flooding our society with push 1 for English every where you call. Teaching our children in grade school to speak Spanish if only a small amount. Getting services from welfare systems and even social security benefits........are those meant for United States citizens. Now I have a different view. The living conditions of these individuals is deplorable at best. The prices we have to pay to buy our children and grandchildren Tommy Hilfiger clothes when people in Honduras are sewing these clothes in sweat shops working 10-12 hour days and making $30 a week. And what they endure to even get here with the Mexican authorities treatment on the way.........There has to be a way to allow them the opportunity to apply for Visas and work permits for 6 months out of the year to come and work and make enough to raise their families.....................MY EYES ARE OPEN. An excellent read!!!!!

First things first: I need to address that I am reviewing the BOOK, based on my experience of reading it, and nothing else. I am not rating Ms. Nazario, or Enrique, and I am not making a statement about illegal immigration.

Nor am I reviewing this book to provoke outrage or negativity. Think of this review as an invitation: if it speaks to you, the information is probably useful, and will inform your decision to purchase or not purchase this book. If it doesn't speak to you, don't read my review; no one is forcing you to. In either case, you have made the right choice.

I'm reviewing the book. And I really didn't like the book. There's a few reasons for this:


1) THE WRITING STYLE IS BORING

No doubt Ms Nazario is a talented journalist, but I do not think that her style of writing is engaging. Unlike the writings of Eric Schlosser or Malcolm Gladwell--two journalists who I felt became successful at the art of writing longer nonfiction--Nazario's prose feels choppy and disjoint, unable to find its own rhythm or build momentum. Due to this lack of momentum, I found that I had to put the book down every few pages.

Perhaps this style was unintentional--it would work well in a short newspaper article, where there is a very small space to write, and one can get away with a repetitive sentence structure and narrative "attack"--but Nazario's much longer (and larger) story suffers from the monotony of her style.

The style reminds me of the camerawork on shows like CSI, where quick, jerky movements of the camera imply a constant sense of urgency, even though two characters are simply discussing the details of an autopsy (which, frankly, they do every day). Climactic situations deserve this urgency; the narration of a character's history does not. Nazario's style indiscriminately applies this sense of urgency in the same way that Fox News indiscriminately seeks to frame any situation in terms of a crisis. In America this style of reporting/camerawork is popular, but to me it is simply tiring.

Some reviews of the book call it "Gripping." Those reviews are accurate. However, I don't need my attention to be constantly gripped. Which brings me to


2) THE LACK OF MENTAL/EMOTIONAL DEPTH AND NUANCE

Nazario, politically, does not present a one sided story. However, the book is one-sided in the way it frames Enrique's life in terms of lack, absence, and failure. Undoubtedly, Enrique lacks a lot, most importantly his mother. A better writer would be able to get away with this, but Nazario's prose gets stuck in the formulaic traps of standardized journalistic writing.

This, coupled with the constant sense of urgency in her writing prevented me from seeing Enrique's situation as anything other than... well, urgent... and bad. Her train of thought rarely stops for imagery, metaphor, reflection, or interior monologue. When it does stop, it does not stop for long. The result is that rather than rather than "feeling" and "knowing" Enrique in all his pain, I merely caught a glimpse of him--literally and figuratively, as if I were looking through the window of a fast-moving train.

There is almost no humor whatsoever, something that the aforementioned Schlosser does manage to squeeze in while tackling equally dark subjects. One might say that humor does not fit the storyline, but I disagree: everyone's life is a mixed bag. Life is not uniform, but variegated, a vast ecosystemic swirl of light and dark.



3) THE STORY MOVES PREDICTABLY

While I've never been to Honduras, I have travelled elsewhere within the Third World. I've also read a lot. Thus, I have a large amount of firsthand and secondhand experience about the difficulties people face in impoverished areas.

Had I not had these experiences, I might like Enrique's Journey. But to me, it offers nothing new. I felt like I "got the point" of the book within the first two pages: "Enrique's life sucks, and he has very few choices, and that's a shame."

Based on my experiences, I'm not arguing that these things aren't true--I'm reviewing the book, not people--but it leaves me wondering: why read the rest of the book if it's not going to teach me anything I don't already know?

I already know how bad the external conditions are in these areas. I wasn't surprised to read about people looking for moldy bread in a landfill; that's reality for these people. It's also nothing new, nothing I can learn from.

For anyone who can't find Honduras on a map, lacks media-literacy, or awareness of the ways in which multinational corporations take advantage of political corruption in the Third World, or of who works in the kitchen of their favorite restaurant... for that person, I can see this book being an "eye-opener." Ditto for American high schoolers, who lack the knowledge of these conditions.

Enrique is unique. He's a person. No one will ever be Enrique. Had Nazario's writing taken me into the mind of Enrique, or at least subtly pointed as to his state of consciousness--a no-no in journalism, but a must in nonfiction--I would have learned a heck of a lot.

I enjoyed the fresh, new perspective, from an African American about the true condition of the black community. Too bad it is not shared by the popular leaders from these community - rather opting to play the ever played-out "blame "the man" game."

Bill Cosby's latest novel makes everyone uncomfortable about the realities of what slavery and institutional racism have done to America.
Cosby's take is that there comes a time when black people have to take some responsibility for making their lives and communities better. It is no wonder that he has been ostracized by the media minorities who make their livelihoods on blaming others for black America's problems. The book gets a little preachy and simplistic about solutions toward the end of the book. The beginning is better. It is worth a read.

This was an outstanding book. I am doing a paper on Bill Cosby for a Leadership program at work on leaders. This book had points of view that I had not though of. Very entertaining as well as educational.

This book was not what I expected. Cosby reaches to a sector of black people who have been made infantile in their reasoning. This book is not for the exercised mind.

I just bought this book off of the bargain table at a local book store. I am only a little ways into it but so far I am impressed. My concern, though, is that those most likely to benefit from this book will never read it or even find out about it.

Based on what little I have read, I would recommend this book to those who have become tired of the race hucksters (Sharpton & Co.) and would like to read some good ideas about what needs to be done to improve the lot of minorities in the inner cities.

One minor criticism: I haven't quite read a third of the book and Cosby has mentioned "institutional racism" twice. Rubbish! Institutional racism does not exist. Cosby should leave such nonsense to the Left.

This book is a compilation of statistical information; it is a good, but slower read due to this. The information, however, is quite an eye-opener. We should take the ideology of this book to heart. This book would be a great reference for college students, education majors, and for parents.

The premise for the book is fascinating but the methodology was one long tie in of statistics, quotes and sources. I felt like I was reading someone's masters thesis which some may desire, but I was hoping for an insightful AND readable book.

The dumbing-down of America continues at an astounding pace and an Emory University English professor believes that he knows why it is happening. Mark Bauerlein has written a book that will likely irritate as many people as there will be people who will praise it for its insights, starting with the very title of the book: "The Dumbest Generation - How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future." Labeling any generation "the dumbest generation" is guaranteed to draw the wrath of most of those falling into that age group. Unfortunately for them, Bauerlein builds a strong case that the title of his book is entirely accurate.

But make no mistake. Bauerlein is not calling this generation stupid; he is saying that their ignorance is largely the result of the technology they have grown up with, technology that keeps them tied to their peers practically 24 hours a day, thus ensuring that they can completely insulate themselves from the rest of the world and whatever responsibilities and challenges they might be asked to face. Their worlds are so local and so superficial that they can completely cut off circumstances beyond their immediate circle of friends. If the subject does not involve "friends, work, clothes, cars, pop music, sitcoms (and) Facebook," they are not much interested.

According to Bauerlein, and the numerous studies he cites throughout "The Dumbest Generation," the main culprit in this sad story is the computer, the very tool that was supposed to give this generation an advantage over all that preceded it. But instead of using computers and the internet to their advantage, members of "the dumbest generation" have turned them into little more than combination telephone/television contraptions through which they can seamlessly socialize with their friends and peers.

A related problem is that these young people have grown up in a "disposable society," one in which it is cheaper, easier, and much more fun to replace broken consumer items with new ones than it is to repair the old ones. It has become the norm for Americans to throw out old consumer electronics items and the like because, frankly, it is cheaper to buy new ones than to get the old ones repaired. Unfortunately, in the "cut and paste" society in which these young people live, knowledge has become just as disposable as any consumer electronic product. Students have convinced themselves that there is no point to retaining knowledge on any subject because that information can be found on the internet within seconds when, and if, they need it. So they "cut and paste" the information they need, often from dubious internet sources, and make almost no effort to retain any of it. Why bother, they think, when I know where to find it if I ever need it again?

Bauerlein builds a strong case that the failure of this generation to assimilate the history and culture of the society in which it lives is a dangerous thing, a breakdown that threatens the democratic system under which this country has thrived for more than two centuries. These young people, as a whole, do not read books; they do not study history, foreign affairs, civics, the arts or much else. If it happened before 1990, they are not interested. Bauerlein wonders where the next generation of "strong military leaders and wise political leaders, dedicated journalists and demanding teachers, judges and muckrakers, scholars and critics and artists" will come from and he hopes that his book will finally open the eyes of teachers, parents and reporters in time to save this generation - and our country's future.

Of course there are exceptional members of "the dumbest generation," young people who are as determined to learn and prosper as any who preceded. But they seem to be as much the exception as they are exceptional, and that is scary.

As Bauerlein puts it, "The youth of America occupy a point in history like every other generation did and will, and their time will end. But the effects of their habits will outlast them, and if things do not change they will be remembered as the fortunate ones who were unworthy of the privileges they inherited. They may even be recalled as the generation that lost that great American heritage, forever."

Agree with it or not, this book will make you think. It might irritate you or it might upset you, largely depending on which generation you are a member of, I suspect. Read it with an open mind and decide for yourself.

I'm a member of Generation X, and most of the items Dr. Bauerlein blames for the ignorance of Generation Y were not in widespread use when I was a teen. We didn't have the Internet, cell phones, iPods, or sophisticated video game systems, and my town did not even get wired for cable until my freshman year of high school. Yet we did not spend our leisure time in the type of intellectual pursuits that Dr. Bauerlein imagines have been displaced by these modern items. Instead of literature, philosophy, high culture, political activism, or discussing current events we wasted our time on mindless drivel. We hung out at the mall or roller skating rink, gossiped on landlines, watched network soap operas, listened to pop music on the radio or our Walkman, flipped through "Tiger Beat" and other teen magazines, played video games on our Nintendos or Segas, and so on. And I really don't think my parents' generation was all that much different as teens, although the technology was obviously more primitive.

So if teens have been wasting their leisure time on mindless pursuits for decades, why then is Gen Y so ignorant compared to previous generations? Dr. Bauerlein pretty much lets the schools off the hook in "The Dumbest Generation" but I believe that the "dumbing down" of the curriculum is the root cause. Today's teens were raised in the era of the "self esteem" fad, "whole language", "constructivist math" (aka fuzzy math), and all sorts of politically correct multiculturalism nonsense. Little wonder then that so many of them struggle with academic basics.

"The Dumbest Generation" is an interesting book, but the author's arguments in support of his main premise did not strike me as particularly convincing.

As said above, I am part of the generation that Bauerlein calls "the dumbest." I was born in 1984 and had the good luck to be raised by parents who always encouraged intellectual curiosity. I also went to some pretty decent public primary and secondary schools. But many people haven't shared my good fortune.

Some of the reviews here exemplify the kind of mentality that Bauerlein discusses in his book: kids who are apparently convinced that any knowledge that they already have, regardless of how superficial or paltry it might be, is perfectly sufficient; people who are not only ignorant, but are aware of their own ignorance and consider it no obstacle to voicing whatever uninformed opinion bubbles up in their heads, like the guy who said he hadn't read the book and had no intention of doing so.

That they have this attitude is not entirely their fault, since many of them attended schools where climbing out of the ignorance that all of us are born into was considered optional, lack of effort was no bar to moving up through the grades, and academic rigor was thought of as a cruel imposition on their innocent lives of play or perhaps (horrors) "elitist." Their peer environment was little help, as it punished those with a taste for academic work by calling them "nerds" or simply ignoring them.

The "peer environment" theme is probably the strongest point in the book -- that kids are spending more time with each other, reinforcing the idea that the only thing that matters is the immediate, the present, and fun times spent among one's own age group; adults and their works are boring and irrelevant except insofar as they provide cash and new ways of connecting with friends. Of course, this is the same "extended childhood + prolonged adolescence" cluster of ideas that psychologists and sociologists have been toying with for decades, but I think it is worth considering.

Does Bauerlein *conclusively* establish the idea that this generation is "the dumbest?" I don't think so. He presents some statistics, yes, but the data I have read outside of the book looks equivocal to me. What he does establish, I think, is the existence of a steep decline in the reading of books for pleasure, and a decline in the *desire* (if not ability) to think about complex arguments and current events. These trends merit concern. As for the big question -- "What is to be done?" -- given Bauerlein's belief that the "dumbness" is primarily a result of extracurricular lifestyle, not of education practices, it seems logical that he would be pessimistic, and predictably the book ends with foreboding.

Dr. Males, the writer of the best negative review here, says that the book comes across as self-congratulatory, and parts of it certainly do. Members of the brainy class have always been complaining that the coming generations fail to measure up to their standards of intellectual excellence, and that conditions are looking ever-darker for the causes of academia, informed government, civil society...so I naturally look at these kinds of jeremiads with some skepticism, conscious that the complaints are old ones even if the specific circumstances vary. In the early nineteenth century, Thoreau complained that nobody read serious literature or classics anymore. Maybe we just have to accept that the audience for complex literary works has always been and *will always be* small, and that few people in *any era* will take on philosophical meditation or serious political involvement as a habit.

Depending on your view of the merits of different media types, you may think that substituting web-browsing for book-reading is a bad trend, a neutral one, or even a good one. I see it mostly as a bad one, and I say this as a guy who for years spent hours and hours of each day on discussion boards, social networking sites, and YouTube, only to once again make book-reading my main pastime when I concluded that most of my time online had done me more harm than good.

That was just my own experience, of course, and maybe others see things differently. Anyway, life's too short to throw away most of it sitting in front of a screen. I think I'll go read a book. :-)

A good read for anyone who's interested in anthropology or evolution. One of Diamond's main points in this book is that humans are not so different from our biological cousins, the apes. In fact, he says, we are more genetically close to chimpanzees than some species of orangutans are to other species of orangutan. Not to spoil the story, but this is a good read!

Of Jared Diamond's books, this one and Guns, Germs and Steel, I prefer this one. Unlike Guns this one is not as redundant and has more focused chapters. I compare it to going to listen to a good college lecturer where you might listen to well focused lectures that get you thinking, but may not have an ambitious global theme (like Guns) to tie it all together.

Most of the chapters I found enlightening and all though I am fairly well versed on physical anthropology there were many new insights that I picked up. The first chapter talks about breakthroughs in dna clocking that establishes the title.

The second chapter titled, The Great Leap Forward I found interesting and perhaps perplexing. Most anthropologists including Diamond seem to think that Homo Sapien goes back about 200,000 years. Most anthropologists mark 40,000 years ago, The Great Leap Forward as a critical time in Homo Sapien development. It seems clear that this is when we developed language which is supported by the physical changes in the skull. However, few seem to recognize this as the time when there was an actual species shift from Home Erectus to Home Sapien. This is also in spite of the fact that other possible rivals such as Neaderthal disappeared.

The best chapters in the book are three through six which detail aspects of human sexuality. I think these are must reading for anyone that is interested in an objective point of view of our sexual behaviours. There are enlightening sections that not only discuss behaviours that we have adapted such as monogamy but also why they would be advantageous to survival. There are other interesting discussions about menopause and why humans have large genitals comparative to other primates.

There is also a very good chapter called the Golden Age that Never Was. This questions the romantic notion that pre-westernized societies lived in harmony with nature and practiced better conservation habits then we did today. Diamond does a great job of debating this notion by detailing the disappearance of megafauna when coming into contact with humans. This is a controversial argument. I have spent an entire class with a professor who refuted this idea claiming that it is not likely that humans would hunt a species to extinction. Generally, I am biased to my education but in this case I was swayed to Diamond's point of view. He gave very convincing arguments. Especially, good was the discussion of the disappearance of Mammoth's in North America.

The only improvement I would ask for is the removal of the chapter 11, Why Do We Smoke, Drink and Use Dangerous Drugs. I really felt that he missed the mark on this one.

Wow! Got the paperback version. Need a magnifying glass to read it. Waiting for it to come on the Kindle.

One thing I admire about Jared Diamond is his ability (like Carl Sagan) to take complex issues and scientific concepts then molding them into comprehensive bites that the average reader can swallow. The Third Chimpanzee a book that Diamond had published in 1992 has come back into print because of the success of Collapse and Germs, Guns & Steel which is terrific since it tackles a very different series of subjects from the ability of animals to communicate with each other, natural selection and why homosapiens managed to come out on the top of the heap, how/why we find certain people attractive and select our mates to whether or not aliens are listening for our radio signals (and why we might be in big trouble because we gave them our address IF they were listening).

All of this falls under the general theme of the book which focuses on the nature and future of humanity. Diamond has a breezy, enjoyable style that most readers will find inviting and that makes the more complex scientific ideas that much easier to swallow (whether it be how scientist calculate how often we go through evolutionary change or which theory about why men have bigger...you know what than our nearest relatives).

Diamond's book is over 15 years old so things have changed a bit since he first wrote it although interestingly the very things that he suggested could happen do appear to be coming true in many cases so he's added a post script discussing some of these new ideas, etc. that weren't available when the book was written.

As with Diamond's other books he is very upfront about his thoughtful opinions on the subject he focuses on. Whether or not you enjoy the book will probably depend on whether or not you like to have your preconceptions challenged, you agree with him or both.

Hey, my review is going to be broken down in to four sections, the introduction, the information that you can retain from this book, the interest level of this book, and the age group I recommend this to. This book (The Third Chimpanzee) talks about how us humans are what we are today and what came in the process of it. This is an interesting topic to speak about because it is a surprise to know what we came from and how our great ancestors chose the "right" mates for them, which eventually created us in the end.
I will be talking about a few of the subjects Jared Diamond covers in his book, the evolution of human sexuality is a very important subject, you will learn about how your ancestors chose their mates and what made them do it. You will learn about male jealousy over a female and the evolution of extra-marital sex. The chapter on how we pick our mates and sex partners will make you want to read even more, Diamond talks about the scientific studies about this subject and how we subconsciously become turned on by different characteristics in a male or female without even realizing it, as example the temperature of their hands or as funny as it sounds the way they give you a hug may allow you to make a subconscious decision for mating. The information you retain from this book is amazing, if you are looking to find as much information as possible about human evolution, this book is for you. Now, how interesting this book is to me, I do not know, even though this books hold a lifetime worth of information, there is also a lot of ranting and raving, so many people might become very bored with this type of writing. This book is just a very hard read, to get into it you MUST give it your full attention or else you wont really learn anything about. I found part three to be one of the most interesting subjects because it spoke about the origins of art and how some societies elaborated on it and how some did not. The reason this book is a crucial read is because Jared Diamond does not just question the reader he also provides them with answers that have been long awaited. I recommend this book to a 16+ age group, not necessarily because younger children could not understand the book, but it is long and tiresome and certain points, so they may lose interest. This book is excellent for any information seekers, that are looking for theories and scientific studies to back a book or essay they are writing about, yet I would not really recommend this to someone who just wants to read for fun. Jared Diamond also covers an interesting topic which might spark an interest in high school readers which talks about why people smoke, drink and use dangerous drugs. This book is full of fun and interesting information so you kids who are in high school or you students who are in college, I recommend you read this for it will benefit you in the future.

I recommend That's How the Light Gets In: Memoir of a Psychiatrist by Susan Rako, M.D. The title comes from a song by Leonard Cohen: "There is a crack, a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in." Rako's book is remarkably candid, insightful, and wonderfully well-written. It's a fine read. The writing just flows.

This is an outstanding book. I read it through twice - something I almost never do. Wallin clearly expounds theory, summarising attachment theory and related fields, and moving on to clinical applications. It is very readable, and I warmly recommend it to anyone who wants to improve their practice of attachment-informed psychotherapy, or learn about attachment theory and related developing fields such as mentalisation. Wallin's discussion of mindfulness is especially interesting and thought provoking.

This is an outstanding collection by the main thinkers in AT and a must reference for anyone working in the field. It is not always easy reading but a more overall coverage of the subect from start to present will be hard to find.

David Wallin presents a skillful integration of the road maps of attachment theory, intersubjectivity, neuroscience and mindfulness to help readers develop a Wise Understanding of the journey from a wounded "me" to a healthy "I" to experiencing an awareness beyond the personal self that we could call the realm of the Wise Self.

I'm a doctoral student in clinical psych and I loved this book. While it somewhat deepened my depth of knowledge concerning attachment in psychotherapy, moreso it does an excellent job of showing how it directly relates to what you actually do in a session. It's coverage of and relavence to the current analytic climate (e.g. relational psychoanalysis/intersubjectivity theory) is excellent and supplemented by a thorough discussion of the current empirical evidence coming to our field via related fields (e.g. neuropsych research, cognitive science, etc.). I would recommend this book to any student as part of their graduate training in clinical psych or as an accompanying text to a graduate level psychodynamic or developmental course.

I will be brief about this. Neil Postman's book AMUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH is simply outstanding. As a detailed intellectual analysis, it shows just one reason for the non-book reading, Fox news-watching, anti-intellectual climate that currently pervades the United States in 2008.

The causes are many, but have a common thread--television--a medium which has insinuated itself into the mindlessness of popular culture--so much so that any ignorant, but photo-friendly fool or front-man (one old, or younger) along with his right-wing, neo-con, neo-liberal cohorts and advisors can TWICE ascend to the highest levels of political power in the U.S.

Can anyone read this book and not partially understand the devolution of critical reasoning that has produced such a total debacle of political and governmental competence--all of which were based on carefully crafted lies and smooth media presentations??? From lies about Saddam Hussein's WMD's or his link to Al-Quieda, to the illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, even to the outrageous stupidity of Kansas creationists. (If ANY of these people are the products of "intelligent design", God help us all!)

The culpability is readily seen in glib campaign promises about political "change"--which is ALWAYS trotted out at EVERY election cycle by EVERY slick politican in their sixty-second ads or 60 Minute interviews (which only proves just how stupidly gullible and mindless American voters have become.)

But Postman was right about Huxley--and wrong about Orwell. While the corporate masters feed the multitudes the utter mindlessness of reality television shows, info-tainment, and religious programming as predicted by Huxley, the thinkers and readers and the intellectuals in this society have been and are presently being subjected to an Orwellian nightmare of total information networking and surveillance. The thought-police are alive, busy, and growing like cancer on the body politic--monitoring computers, chat-rooms, e-mails, credit card purchases, library check-outs, medical, dental, and insurance records, even casino visits; using RFID's, GPS tracking, and even satellite and digital tv's for surveillance--all as authorized by the USA Patriot Acts. Books may not YET be banned (or burned ala Farenheit 451), but those who read them will be watched and monitored.

Both U.S. history and the FBI's COINTELPRO shows that many of these people will be set-up, run-down, arrested, and imprisoned--while the masses happily monitor their trials and phone-in their votes via some reality television show--perhaps called American Idolator, or better yet, American Heretics. ("Cops" and "Big Brother." are already taken.)

One million U.S. citizens are currently on the Department of Homeland Security's watch list. ONE MILLION!!! Can you feel the heat??? If not, don't worry...be happy. It's all coming soon to more people like you. Be sure to look for it. It's gonna be Hot, and one hell of a witch-hunt!!!

This is exactly what I wanted and in perfect condidtion as well, which is an added bonus. Thanks!

Essentially a redux of Marshall McLuhan's The Media is the Message, it's an argument that the dominant communications media powerfully affect reasoning (Postman's preferred term is epistemology, which is probably more accurate and to the point), and that we were a lot better off as individuals and as a body politic when that effect came primarily from print rather than TV and other visual media. He makes a pretty strong case. Although he's not happy about things, he's not a ranting old crank like some Yale literary critics. He maintains a sense of humor, he's a good writer, and he's down to earth, straightforward and concise (while McLuhan can be otherwise). Well worth the read.

"In watching American television, one is reminded of George Bernard Shaw's remark on his first seeing the glittering neon signs of Broadway and 42nd Street at night. It must be beautiful, he said, if you cannot read." John Ackermann

Neil Postman in his book,'Amusing Ourselves To Death', looks at the impact of television culture on the way we live our lives, understand our present and future and how we gather our information. We need to understand the effects of living in a television society. As he says "We are in danger of creating a trivial culture that will spawn a race of people who adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think." Once we are a television society, we have lost control. We can attempt to control television's influence when we understand the dangers. Neil Postman suggests that Americans ask 'what we are laughing about and why we have stopped thinking.' We have all heard the phrase, The Dumbing of America.

Roger Waters, of 'Pink Floyd' read Postman's book, and he was so taken with the message that one of the best CD's of this era was written. The song 'Amused To Death" tells us the story.

The little ones sit by their TV screens
No thoughts to think
No tears to cry
All sucked dry
Down to the very last breath
Bartender what is wrong with me
Why I am so out of breath
The captain said excuse me ma'am
This species has amused itself to death
Amused itself to death
Amused itself to death"

Ackerman tells us that "Television has altered the meaning of "being informed' by giving us disinformation. Disinformation means misleading information;misplaced, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information. Information that creates the illusion of knowing something but which in fact leads us away from knowing. The television industry did not deliberately set out to misinform us, but when news is packaged as entertainment, that is the result."

Over the past fifty years since the advent of television, we have allowed conversation and communication to become trivial, and to lead into entertainment. TV is a medium of entertainment. TV is a series of programmed images and pictures. Unlike a book we do not have to concentrate to obtain the meaning of a picture. This is the mechanism by which TV can make any subject meaningless and trivial. It is possible to "amuse one's self to death", considering that the first thing to go will be our vision of reality and to comment intelligently. And this is why Roger Waters CD "Amused to Death" had the power to unleash our subconscious. We are living the album. We are all slowly amusing ourselves to death. We are entertaining ourselves into a stupor. The best things on television is junk, and no one is threatened by it. We do not measure a culture by its output of junk, but by what we claim as significant.

I would think that several minutes of murder and violence would be enough for many sleepless nights. We watch the news because we know that the 'news' is not to be taken seriously, that it is all in fun, so to speak. Everything about a news show tells us this; the good looking newscasters, their pleasant banter, the music that opens and closes the show, the film footage, the humorous commercials. These suggest that what we have just seen is no cause for crying. A news show, is a format for entertainment, not for education or reflection. No one goes to a movie to find out about government policy or the latest scientific advances. No one buys a record to find out the baseball scores or the weather or the latest murder. But everyone goes to television for all these things, which is why television plays so powerfully throughout our land. Television is our culture's principal mode of knowing about itself. Neil Postman says, "For the message of television as metaphor is not only that all the world is a stage, but that the stage is located in Las Vegas, Nevada."

We know that no matter how grave news may appear, we soon shall see commercials that will devalue the importance of the news. This is a key element of news and that allows us to believe that television news is not designed as a serious form of public communication. Our teenagers in particular are taught to believe that television is entertainment, so that the nightly newscast should not be taken as a serious responsibility.

This past political season is a prime example of the myriad of issues that have not been examined, but the entertainment value of the candidates has been examined ad nauseam. One reason why the political contest starts as soon as the President is sworn into office. What have we become, why are we laughing, the Dumbing of America is here.


Highly, Highly Recommended. prisrob 06-14-08

Just today I logged on to one of the biggest news channels' website (CNN) and on the front page under "Popular News" was the following headline: "Is that Miley Cyrus flashing her bra on the Web?" I had just finished my second reading of this book and it seemed like a stark reminder of what Neil Postman was talking about over 20 years ago, how television has drastically changed our culture and redefined everything in our society from news to politics, education and even religion. I don't know of any book written during my lifetime that is more socially relevant and whose message is more important to be read and understood by the general public.

In Chapter 6, "The Age of Show Business", Postman writes, "To say television is entertaining is merely banal. Such a fact is hardly threatening to a culture, not even worth writing a book about. It may even be a reason for rejoicing. Life, as we like to say, is not a highway strewn with flowers. The sight of a few blossoms here and there may make our journey more endurable." He goes on to point out that the problem is not that there are entertaining shows on television, but that in order to accommodate itself to the demands of television, *everything* must be presented as entertainment. In order to generate ratings, advertisers and ultimately revenue, no subject is too serious to be presented in any way other than the one that attracts the most viewers. When the local news reports about a murder, it has no relevant meaning to our lives and it's not told so much to inform us of the tragedy of a murder but because it is the most exciting and what people want to see. News producers have a motto for this, "If it bleeds it leads."

Probably the most alarming example Postman cites is how television has changed politics and political discourse. This is where the transformation from a word-based media to an image-based media is felt the most strongly. Politicians have realized that the content of what they say is now largely irrelevant compared to how they appear, how they present themselves. Postman uses the example that when Ted Kennedy made a run for the presidency, Richard Nixon offered him the following advice: "Lose twenty pounds." Nixon had been in politics most of his adult life and knew the name of the game well, that one's ideas, beliefs, actions and words are now almost completely irrelevant in a world where nearly everyone has started getting their information from television only. Before Mike Huckabee entered this political race, he lost over a hundred pounds. If you look at photographs of presidents throughout our history, you notice that most of them certainly never got anywhere in life because of their looks and some of them are downright ugly men. Political races are now completely decided in the arena of television and their coverage of it has become absurd and embarassing. This is the change that Postman has tried to point out, that a literate culture that depends on the printed word for information and communication creates a vastly different culture from one that depends on images, ten second soundbites and information that has no context or relevance to anyone's life, like what Miley Cyrus or Paris Hilton is up to.

It has been over twenty years since Neil Postman wrote this but his ideas are even more relevant today. This book should be read and understood by everyone but it mostly falls on deaf ears. I think it was Mark Twain who said that the man who doesn't read has no advantage over the man who can't read. Television is now an integral part of life not only in America but in Europe, China and pretty much any other developed nation. This would not be a problem but, as Postman points out, one of the nasty side effects of television is that it has degraded literacy rates, so that every year we hear that people are reading less and less. People and specifically children spend an alarming amount of their free time watching television and to get them to read you practically have to force it upon them. Once in a while a book like Harry Potter will become a hit but for many children and even adults that was the only book they purchased or even attempted to read in an entire year. We hear that children in this country are performing worse every year in school but the finger is never pointed at the obvious culprit because we hear about this on TV.

This book is so interesting. I am reading it aloud to my middle school grandchildren. We are all enjoying it. What a page turner!

Miranda and her mother and brother are staying up late to witness an asteroid that is supposed to be hitting the moon. They have taken their lawn chairs and a plate of cookies out and are making a family party of it. But when the asteroid strikes the moon, the moon is pushed out of its orbit towards the earth. They go inside to watch CNN report that tsunamis are destroying all coastal cities. Miranda's brother Jonny offhandedly asks, "Is the world going to end?"

There won't be any more chocolate chip cookies in their lives for a very long time. Pfeffer creates a compelling network of characters, people we really identify and care about, and then makes us watch them try to survive a Pennsylvania winter on the food and water they purchased in one desperate rushed trip to a grocery store right after the crash.

After you read this book - in one sitting, trust me - you will never look at a can of green beans again in the same way again. This is one of those rare books that reminds us just what we have, how much we can lose, and how we can still be grateful for what we have left. Tired of shopping and daily chores? Bored with the selection on TV? Read this book. It's not often a book can make you look at your life in a whole new light.

I originally read this novel because it had been nominated for a science fiction Nebula award. I had never heard of the author before, as I don't usually read teen novels. This is the story of a teenage girl living through an apocalypse. As a long time devote to end-of-the-world stories for over thirty-five years, this is the good stuff. When I first started reading after I had gotten it from the library, I could not put it down. This has not happened to me in several years. I then read it a second time. I subsequently bought the book. Like I said, this is the good stuff. It is on the same level as Alas Babylon and A Canticle for Lebowitz. Enjoy.

It is a book that makes you aware of your surrounds. When I was reading "Life As We Knew It".. and heard bad news relating to the weather, economic, looting or just feel a breeze and think something is blowing in, I felt apprehensive.
I need to find another book written for young minds by Susan Pfeffer. I want to know if she is always cynical about a political party who elected a president who just happens to be from Texas. More important, is she cynical about God.

This book was amazing! I normally take a month to read a book since I have a young child, but I was completely obsessed with this book and finished it in two days. I couldn't stop thinking about the book when I wasn't reading it. I'm going to start reading the dead & the gone tonight and I'm so excited. By the way I found the author's blog and it is very interesting. http://susanbethpfeffer.blogspot.com It sounds like there is a third book on the way that takes place in Texas about a girl named Sarah. I can't wait!

All I can add to the many thoughtful reviews here is this:
I've read very few works of fiction that have provoked a profound paradigm shift. This is one of the ones that did.
I couldn't look up from the pages and the story will stay with me for life.
I feel I owe a debt of gratitude to the author for her glorious writing and for helping me to see out of the eyes of someone from another culture. Not an easy book at times, if you're someone who can be caught up by a good writer's story. But not to be missed.

A serious and special read -- highly recommended for the spirit seeker or the simply interetsed in a tale of soul searching.

Stepping Off the Edge: Learning & Living Spiritual Practice
A classic in Native American literature, Ceremony tells the story of Tayo, a young Native man who returns from W.W.II with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Silko's masterful writing interweaves the personal, social and societal causes for Tayo's illness with traditional Native legends and cures. Beautiful, inspiring and very harsh. Like Tayo's life. A stellar book. I have a list of study questions our Book Review used in examining this book. E mail me if you want them.

It is beautifully written. The main character becomes someone you want to know and love. It fills your heart with sadness and hope.

Tayo is a half-white Laguna Indian suffering from the after-effects of his experiences in WWII. When he returns home, he is unable to find his place among his old friends or his family. Over time and with the help of a medicine man Tayo discovers his connection to the land and to ancient rituals. I liked the interspersed myths/poems (which are mixed into the narrative), but the landscape descriptions became tedious over time for me.

In a world saturated in lies, half-truths, and propaganda, a primer on logic is essential reading. This book cuts through the nonsense we are exposed to on a daily basis and gives the reader tools for seeing the world more clearly and thoughtfully.

This book provides great examples of how information is constantly misconstrued in daily life. If you are religious, as I am, you will have to fight through the continuous references back to the authors arguements against religion and how illogical religion and believers are. The book is a great reference for media and politics (especially with the it being election season in the USA).

Admittedly, I was hoping for something along the lines of "Freakonomics" or "Blink," and this just didn't quite do it for me. Honestly, I just couldn't get into it.

After reading this book and then noticing some of the negative reviews, I was perplexed as to why. So I clicked on the lower reviews and noticed a common theme; they're all upset about Whyte's attempt to diminish Christianity and religion as a whole. So for readers who are very sensitive about religion, I would not recommend this book. But if you can see past the religious aspect and into some of the more meaningful arguments Whyte presents, this book is superb. And as to whether or not Whyte succeeds in discrediting religion, I'll let you be the one to determine that. I just hope you aren't convinced by some of these hocus-pocus reviews because most of the information in this book is critical to the average person.

Jamie Whyte has given us a very good review of the commonest forms of invalid arguments, well worth reading, despite some flaws:

On page 4, he writes: "It [entitlement] has a political or legal interpretation, by which we are all entitled to any opinion we might have, however groundless. But it also has an epistemic interpretation, that is, one related to, or concerned with, truth or knowledge."

(1) On page 5, he writes "So, the two senses of entitlement could not be further from each other."

The first of three meanings of entitlement given in The American Heritage Dictionary is: "The act or process of entitling." For example, Mr. White entitled his book "Crimes Against Logic." I submit that this sense of 'entitlement' is further from either ot the two senses mentioned by Mr. Whyte than those two are from each other. Mr. Whyte grossly overstated his case; he need only have pointed out that the two senses he mentioned are not the same, from which his conclusion quite correctly follows, that equivocating between those two senses constitutes muddled (and often deceptive) logic.

Of all the many times I have read "nothing could be further from the truth." I don' recall any time I couldn't think of something further from the truth. For an enlightening discussion, see Isaac Asimov's The Relativity Of Wrong.

At the bottom of page 5, (NOT A FLAW) he mentions that "When confronted with counterarguments, [many of us] do not pause and wonder if they might be wrong after all. They take offense." For more background on this unfortunate fact, see Farhad Manjoo's excellent True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society, and see my review thereof.

(2) On page 104, after discussing the faulty reasoning behind Karl Marx's claim that capitalism exploits the workers, Whyte writes: "But I deny it is exploitation." Because Marx grossly overstates his case it does not follow that Whyte may legitimately overstate his. Not all capitalist enterprises exploit their workers; I think (and hope) that most don't, BUT SOME DO! For egregious examples thereof, see Professor Kevin Bales' Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy and Ending Slavery: How We Free Today's Slaves.

Another non-flaw: On page 112, Whyte writes: " The main benefit of snorting cocaine, perhaps the only benefit, is the pleasure it gives the snorter. Prohibitionists never consider this benefit." I would add, of course not; they probably don't consider it a benefit. Puritanism has been defined as "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, might be having a good time."

(3) And finally, on pp. 115-6, is the worst flaw in the book: Whyte is himself guilty of equivocation. He writes: "For example, describing an income-tax cut as a 'giveaway' assumes that a citizen's gross income is not her own but is, rather, the property of the government. Describing the grvernment's spending plans as generous embodies the same assumption. The virtue of generosity does not consist in giving away others' money: it requires you to give away your own." He is equivocating between 'generous' in the sense of a generous (ample, bigger than average) portion (e.g. of food) and 'generous' in the sense of a generous (unselfish, sharing) person. Also, it is not true that describing an unwarranted tax rebate to the wealthy as a 'giveaway' or a transfer payment to a poor family as 'generous' assumes what he claims it does. It actually assumes that the PORTION of a person's gross income that is paid in taxes thereby BECOMES government property, which it does; NOT that her entire gross income IS government property, which it isn't.

People unfortunately tend to take government services for granted, and resent having to pay for them, but they would be very upset if the government stopped providing schools, police protection, national defense, roads, bridges, tunnels, garbage collection, and all the many other services they get for their tax money.

Despite two minor flaws (1 & 2) and one rather major one (3), this book has much to recommend it. It is well worth the price.

watziznaym@gmail.com