http://www.amazon.com/review/R2TQOV2Z0F32X2/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

Please read this review and it's systematic dismantling of Glenn Beck's poor understanding of anything to do with Thomas Paine and American history.  This is just a fantastic scathing take down.

LOL...  nice.

Beck's a howling dry-drunk with unresolved mommy issues. 

What the Right via institutions, such as Regnery Press and the Olin Foundation, is trying to do is re-write American history, which they can do since the schools do such a sh*t job teaching it. 

Arthur Laffer is an idiot.  No serious economics took the Laffer curve seriously, and yet, Reaganomics has dominated our economy for 30 years, and continues to dominate as heathcare reform goes down in flames for the second time in that same period. 

Beck is no less crazy than Ann Coulter, and yet these guys are on TV every night, often telling Paul Krugman to shut up.

Here's the cycle:

We don't know.
Glenn Beck tells us a lie.
We believe it.
Paul Krugman tells us the truth.
We call Krugman a liar
Glenn Beck calls us commonsensical.

We don't know.
Glenn Beck tells us a lie...

:D

I mostly ignore reviews of books like this on Amazon.  Because they are not among the merits of the book, but purely based on the views of the individual on the author.

I read some reviews a while back on Anne Coulter, and in scores of reviews, people commented that "she looks like a skank".  Excuse me, is this a review of her book, or her fashoin critique?

I have the ability to largely look at a person, and seperate them from their views.  I may or may not agree with Don Carlos and Maxwell Smart in here, but I would never attack them personally, or say "they are full of coprolite" simply becausee we disagree.  I may say it about an item we disagree about specifically, but nothing so general.  ;)

And by the way, the link seems to be dead *shrugs*.

Beck and Coulter are infotainment celebrities.  They are not faceless authors of scholarly tomes; therefore, I think it is fair game to critique their personalities, comportment, and physical characteristics.

I do agree with you that most Amazon reviews are not Atlantic Monthly quality!
:)

Beck and Coulter are infotainment celebrities.  They are not faceless authors of scholarly tomes; therefore, I think it is fair game to critique their personalities, comportment, and physical characteristics.

I do agree with you that most Amazon reviews are not Atlantic Monthly quality!
:)


That is fair, but the idea of a book review is to review the book, not the person that wrote it.  To do otherwise, it would be like somebody shooting down "ObamaCare" because of who wrote it, not because of what is written.

Rake a book (or anything else) on it's merits, not the author.

I mostly ignore reviews of books like this on Amazon.  Because they are not among the merits of the book, but purely based on the views of the individual on the author.

I read some reviews a while back on Anne Coulter, and in scores of reviews, people commented that "she looks like a skank".  Excuse me, is this a review of her book, or her fashoin critique?

I have the ability to largely look at a person, and seperate them from their views.  I may or may not agree with Don Carlos and Maxwell Smart in here, but I would never attack them personally, or say "they are full of coprolite" simply becausee we disagree.  I may say it about an item we disagree about specifically, but nothing so general.   ;)

And by the way, the link seems to be dead *shrugs*.


Well this wasn't one of those times, figures Amazon would yank it.  I'll see if there's a cache of it somewhere.

here it is.

647 of 678 people found the following review helpful: Don't Buy this Book - It's a Sham, August 10, 2009 By M. Mazenko

Well, I just finished Glenn Beck's "Common Sense," which, according to Beck, was "Inspired by Thomas Paine." Beck has clearly never truly read Thomas Paine and knows very little about him, his history, or his beliefs. For many readers, pages one to seven seem to make a lot of sense. There are some general and specific criticisms about government spending and corruption in Congress I agree with. Who wouldn't? But Beck's attempt to connect his neo-conservative positions with Founding Father Thomas Paine is shockingly ignorant of both Paine and American history.

Beck uses this book - and Paine's name - to criticize "Progressivism," blaming it for much of what ails the country. Sadly, this is a complete distortion of Paine's legacy. While the extent of most Americans' knowledge of Paine is "he wrote Common Sense, I teach his work in class every year. I use "The Crisis" and selections from "The Rights of Man" and "Age of Reason." If you want to understand Paine and his vision for America, you should read them. Beck doesn't understand Paine, but he does want to use the credibility of "The Founding Fathers" to promote an anti-government message.

Far from opposing "progressivism," Thomas Paine is one of the original "Progressives," though at the time he was called a radical for his liberal views. He is commonly associated with the origins of American liberalism. "Common Sense" was one small piece of his work - it was a pamphlet simply designed to encourage revolution against Britain. Paine later clearly outlined his vision of what he thought American government should look like. This is where Beck falls off the apple cart.

Beck uses this book to openly criticize progressive taxation, public education, social security, and "the progressive agenda." But readers should know something - Thomas Paine was one of the earliest advocates of progressive taxation, even drawing up tables and rates.

He was also the first proponent of the estate tax. And in Agrarian Justice he proposed a democratic ideal to combat poverty and income inequality by taxing the wealthy to give jobs and "grants" to young people. He also proposed using this system to provide government-sponsored pensions for the elderly. Historians cite Paine's Agrarian Justice as the earliest call for a national old-age pension - ie. Social Security. He wanted to tax the rich and give money to the poor.

He joined Thomas Jefferson in strongly advocating universal tax-supported public education, believing it was necessary to promote an educated electorate and was a necessary way to combat poverty. Paine also sought a federally guaranteed minimum wage, and long before Woodrow Wilson, Paine urged the establishment of, and US participation in, global organizations to help solve international problems and avoid wars.

Yet, this is all lost on Glenn Beck.

Beck criticizes Progressives for leading the United States away from its original purpose. He even goes as far as chastising Teddy Roosevelt. That's pretty bold for a guy whose only contribution to the United States has been as an entertainer. Has Glenn Beck completely forgotten "The Gilded Age"? While Beck, for whatever reason, is disturbed by progressive ideals, he fails to concede the un-democratic conditions that led to the desire of Americans for the rise of progressive reforms.

In fact, if you look at American history from 1776 to 1900 and from 1900 to present, you will see that Beck is right in that progressives shaped America into the country that it is. It's one with a thriving middle class, reasonably safe food and water, no child labor, forty hour workweeks, etc. If Beck wants to dismiss Progressives and return to life under President McKinley or Harding with robber barons running the economy and the atrocious work conditions chronicled by Upton Sinclair in The Jungle, he's crazy. Beck has never known what it would be like to live in an America not guided by the leadership of progressives. Instead, he lives comfortably in a nation defined by liberal and progressive policies, and then audaciously challenges the very notion of the peaceful prosperity they provide.

Beck ironically praises "our political leaders" that could inspire us to "defeat Nazism and fascism," and then goes on to criticize that leader - FDR - as helping destroy the country. Beck doesn't even concede that the United States would never have been able to wage WWII or build the Atomic Bomb or put a man on the moon or wage and win the Cold War if it weren't for the large-scale ability of the federal government to raise revenue, mainly through progressive taxation. He reviews the original foundation of the United States government in the Articles of Confederation, acknowledging that it failed because it was too weak, and then heaps his praise on the Constitution. However, he doesn't concede that the significant difference in power given to the federal government in the Constitution was the power to levy taxes. Even conservative Edmund Burke knew that "the revenue of the state is the state." Thus, weak revenue gathering equals weak government. And a weak federal government would never have been able to respond to two World Wars, the Cold War, and two Iraq wars.

Beck goes on to criticize Hillary Clinton and the public education system for "suggesting the community has a vested interest in what each child is taught." Who doesn't believe that? He offers no alternative proposals for how education should be carried out. Though I hardly believe he is proposing the end of public education. That would be so un-Jeffersonian, another Founding Father.

On page 99, Beck shifts from a scathing criticism of public education to promote God and religion in public life. This is completely disingenuous in a book "inspired by Thomas Paine." Paine was a deist who vigorously opposed Christianity or any organized religion. He often called himself an atheist. Paine was very anti-Christianity. He vehemently opposed the government supporting religion in any way. In fact, in his later life, he was practically exiled from the country because of his criticism of religion in America.

A few other criticisms:

On page 61, Beck paraphrases Barry Goldwater's quote, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have," and doesn't even give the original mind credit.

On page 17, Beck paraphrases the well-known "You can't save the poor by destroying the rich" quote from Reverend William J. H. Boetcke and again doesn't give credit. Historians and English teachers call this plagiarism.

Finally, Beck writes a mere 111 pages, and then re-prints all of Paine's "Common Sense" which is in the public domain - and he charges $12.00 for the book. What a sham. I'm glad I checked it out of the library, but I hate that my library spent taxpayer funds on it. They should have waited until it was in the bargain bin for $.99

That's why Beck is disingenuous. He is a hack, and while I occasionally enjoyed some of his earlier work - I've read all three of his books - I am sadly disappointed in this mis-use of one of America's Founding Fathers. Beck says Americans do not know their history, but he is one of them, and with this book he is counting on their ignorance. Ultimately, he is

From what I know of American history, Thomas Paine would have been appalled by Beck associating their two ideologies, and he would have bitch-slapped Beck. And Beck would have deserved it.

And so, Mush, where is the personal attack in this review?  The focus is on the content of G.B.'s book and its misrepresentation of Thomas Paine and American history.

Yeah, I remember college professors making such personal attacks on me in the margins of my papers (when I'd goofed off 'till midterms and blew off half the syllabus!)

:D

And so, Mush, where is the personal attack in this review?  The focus is on the content of G.B.'s book and its misrepresentation of Thomas Paine and American history.


I guess he reviewed the review without having read it.

And so, Mush, where is the personal attack in this review?  The focus is on the content of G.B.'s book and its misrepresentation of Thomas Paine and American history.


he's right that a lot of reviews on Amazon for political topic books like this do have personal attacks.  I'm just puzzled as to why he thinks I would direct people to one.

I originally found this over on reddit.com which is a news aggregation site run by Wired magazine.  There were several comments from people who had gotten it as a "present" from their conservative friends who didn't read it, but thought their "liberal" friend should. I have a feeling a lot of these books by "neocon superstars" go unread and end up getting either gifted or stuck on a bookcase.

As for personal attacks at Glenn "what's plagiary" Beck, I wonder how he's enjoying his "vacation" while Fox News tries to downplay his racist comments that are causing advertisers to drop him like a bad habit.

Glenn Beck writing a book called "Common Sense" is like Jeffrey Dahmer writing a book called "Bon Appetit"!

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/pfiade.gif

Beck's a howling dry-drunk with unresolved mommy issues. 

What the Right via institutions, such as Regnery Press and the Olin Foundation, is trying to do is re-write American history, which they can do since the schools do such a sh*t job teaching it. 

Arthur Laffer is an idiot.  No serious economics took the Laffer curve seriously, and yet, Reaganomics has dominated our economy for 30 years, and continues to dominate as heathcare reform goes down in flames for the second time in that same period. 

Beck is no less crazy than Ann Coulter, and yet these guys are on TV every night, often telling Paul Krugman to shut up.

Here's the cycle:

We don't know.
Glenn Beck tells us a lie.
We believe it.
Paul Krugman tells us the truth.
We call Krugman a liar
Glenn Beck calls us commonsensical.

We don't know.
Glenn Beck tells us a lie...

:D
Uh Krugan's a liberal though. Your a liberal too Max and I try to understand your opinion wether I disagree or not. Beck does tell the truth but does he have to be so depressing. Beck was different when he was at CNN/Headline News. Does Beck ever have anything good to say?

As for Coulter I don;t mind her.

Uh Krugan's a liberal though. Your a liberal too Max and I try to understand your opinion wether I disagree or not. Beck does tell the truth but does he have to be so depressing. Beck was different when he was at CNN/Headline News. Does Beck ever have anything good to say?

As for Coulter I don;t mind her.


Paul Krugman is an economics professor at Princeton University.  They don't give that post to just anybody, y'know. 

Maybe Beck DOES believe what he is saying IS the truth, therefore, by intent, he tells the truth.  If this is the case, the man is psychotic. 

::)

it's scathing enough amazon apparently pulled it. i hope someone mirrored it. i love hate.

And so, Mush, where is the personal attack in this review?  The focus is on the content of G.B.'s book and its misrepresentation of Thomas Paine and American history.


I never said there were any.  I simply said that all to often when the book is of  political nature that there are.  The remarks in the review of an Al Franken book and a Rush Limbaugh are most often dedicated to tearing down the author, not any kind of review of the book itself.


he's right that a lot of reviews on Amazon for political topic books like this do have personal attacks.  I'm just puzzled as to why he thinks I would direct people to one.


I admit I did not read it, since it was down.  And I also am familiar with Amazon censorship, since I had a review deleted a few years ago.

Back around 2000, I posted a review of the novel The Turner Diaries.  I described the book fairly, including the fact that it was the blueprint for Oaklahoma City.  I described the various attacks in the beginning by "Mud People", the evil Jews, and how the virtue of white women was constantly threatened.  And in the end I even encouraged other to read it, to try and get a glimpse into the sick and twisted diseased minds of the white supremists.

And of did I get email from hell!  I got death threats, I was called all kinds of names (which I will not repeat here).  And after about 3 months, my review simply vanished.

And that always dissapointed me, because I was proud of how I reviewed it.  The book really is childishly written.  I think I have seen better structure from 10 year olds then the person that wrote that book.

duh. how much did i not read the whole thread? i suck.

I have always knew, that Beck was tool, this confirms it.

::)

I never said there were any.  I simply said that all to often when the book is of  political nature that there are.  The remarks in the review of an Al Franken book and a Rush Limbaugh are most often dedicated to tearing down the author, not any kind of review of the book itself.

I admit I did not read it, since it was down.  And I also am familiar with Amazon censorship, since I had a review deleted a few years ago.

Back around 2000, I posted a review of the novel The Turner Diaries.  I described the book fairly, including the fact that it was the blueprint for Oaklahoma City.  I described the various attacks in the beginning by "Mud People", the evil Jews, and how the virtue of white women was constantly threatened.  And in the end I even encouraged other to read it, to try and get a glimpse into the sick and twisted diseased minds of the white supremists.

And of did I get email from hell!  I got death threats, I was called all kinds of names (which I will not repeat here).  And after about 3 months, my review simply vanished.

And that always dissapointed me, because I was proud of how I reviewed it.  The book really is childishly written.  I think I have seen better structure from 10 year olds then the person that wrote that book.


People get touchy about the Turner Diaries because it was Timmy McVeigh's favorite book.  After the OKC bombing, my friend Michael said he thought TD should be banned.  I said no way on that.  The First Amendment isn't about protect speech we love, it's about protecting speech we hate.  Anyway, TD didn't make McVeigh do the bombing, that was his own free will.  Bad people will do bad things with bad ideas.  Banning a book isn't going to stop that. 

TD was also kept in print by one of the white supremacist organizations, but I can't remember which one.  Anyway, Amazon is a private company.  They could refuse to sell TD in the first place.