Rating: 
Summary: This book is hilarious satire!
Review: I find Coulter's books to be absolutely hilarious portrayals of an insanely hypocritical right-winger -- they are to conservatives what the film "This is Spinal Tap" was to rock bands. She's an unparalleled satiric genius, capable of passing herself off as one who believes her ridiculous arguments to the fullest. For example, she's apt to claim that the religious right is basically a myth created by the biased liberal media in one chapter, and then claim that all non-Christians will burn in hell the next! It's particularly hilarious how she contantly cites Orwell to support her positions, in spite of the fact that Orwell was a socialist whose books warned of the dangers of a right wing, totalitarian state, and featured protagonists that would likely be labelled as "traitors" in one of Coulter's satires. Brilliant!
Rating: 
Summary: Infuriating Screed
Review: Although occasionally entertaining, Coulter's latest tirade is as inaccurate as her last book, as is well-documented throughout the Web. Here's a nice site that discusses many of the outright lies in her book, and I recommend checking that out.It's fitting that she spends about half the book defending McCarthyism. Absurdly, she defends it by insisting that, at the time, the threat of communism was real, as though that were widely disputed by Americans. But while it's easy to see now that the threat of communism was exaggerated at the time, nobody criticized McCarthy for attacking an imaginary opponent. The only complaint against McCarthyism that I've ever heard is that the mere accusation of communism was enough to destroy a persons life or career, without the necessity of a conviction. This point, which to me is the essence of McCarthyism, is undisputed by Coulter. Rather, she concedes it, sarcasticly lamenting the people who had to flee the country after they were falsely accused of communism, saying how nice it is to live in Europe. And, of course, Coulter is engaged in a witch-hunt of her own, falsely accusing her political enemies of treason. She seems to have just two tricks up her sleeves to defend her indefensible position. The first is the double-standard. Thus, when conservatives argue against liberal Presidents, that proves that the liberal President is a traitor on account of the veracity of those criticisms. But when Liberals argue against conservatives, that demonstrates that those liberals are traitors, on account of their opposition to the leaders of their own country. When a single historian or journalist makes a point favorable to Coulter's position, that proves Coulter's position. But when historians and journalists universally make a point unfavorable to Coulter's position, that is proof of the liberal bias of historians and journalists. Coulter's other trick is to argue against a straw man. She takes the most outlandish position ever stated by anyone who Coulter decides is liberal, and declares it the mainstream liberal position. She takes two different, inconsistent views, held by two different people who she's decided are liberal, and then claims that this proves that the liberal position is inconsistent. She takes a single example of a liberal doing something bad and says that it proves that all liberals do this bad thing. And when she can't find even one liberal to argue for a position, she just makes it up. Over and over, she tells us that the liberals' true motives for taking a position are different from their stated motives, or what liberals would say about some hypothetical situation. Oh, and here's a great quote that, perhaps, tells us a little about Coulter's true motives for innocently taking some of the positions she's taken. She says of all the foreigners who are more afraid of American aggression than they are of the terrorists, "They hate us? We hate them. Americans don't want to make Islamic fanatics love us. We want to make them die. There's nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell anger. Japanese Kamikazes pilots hated us once, too. A couple of well-aimed nuclear weapons got their attention. Now they are gentle little lambs." (page 230). In short, either Coulter is joking or she is a joke. Either way, she is impossible to take seriously.
Rating:
Summary: Are you afraid to read this book?
Review: If you were born in the late forties or later, you need to get some grit, a dictionary and go to the library to be able to check the book's bibliography then read "Treason". Be prepared to be amazed, amused, angry, confused, disgusted, educated, enraged, enthralled, flabbergasted...., frightened and perhaps terrified.
Rating:
Summary: Slanderous? Irresponsible? Simplistic? HELLO BEST-SELLER!
Review: The description of this book on Amazon.com states that with "Treason," Coulter will become "the most talked-about conservative intellectual" of the year. The very idea that the word "intellectual" can be connected with a work of such ridiculous slander (yes, neo-cons can do it too, kids, but when printed it's called "libel") is almost funny, in a kick-to-the-groin kind of way. The "facts" about "liberals" professed in this book are so outrageous, so illogical, and so completely disgusting that she actually DEFENDS Senator Joseph McCarthy. Had I never seen her spewing her bile on TV, I would have thought her a very keen liberally-slanted satirist. But alas, this is not hyperbole. At least, not intenionally. Her exercises in red-herring logic games and post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc reasoning are almost comical in their out-and-out fallacy. I'd be angry with her if I weren't so terribly sorry for all the poor, uninformed saps out there who actually BELIEVE her divisive garbage. It's people like Coulter--on both sides, mind you--who make it impossible for meaningful political discourse to happen on any level in this country. Read a real book instead.
Rating:
Summary: How Liberals will Destroy the US
Review: One star is far too many for this book. Ann believes that only Republicans can save this country and Liberal is a dirty word despite the fact Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, was a liberal.
Rating:
Summary: Fantastic book with incredible research behind it.
Review: I have read the book from A to Z and enjoyed every minute of it. I read it with the critic's eye, and checked quite a few of her references listed at the end of the book. The 1-star reviewers must be blinded with hatred for someone allowing us to learn the truth. (One should wonder, how can those minds be so closed? Or they simply refuse to read and instead, they only repeat their own propaganda's retoric not willing to learn and accept the facts?) I have read Treason as a first generation immigrant/refugee from one of the Communist countries. I have also spent 4 years in the Soviet Union before escaping. I have visited over 40 countries keeping my eyes and ears open, absorbing views, history, people. I love this country, and would never be disgraceful to our flag, would never tell negative things abroad about my new homeland and would never support America's enemies with anything, anyhow whatsoever.
This country gave me everything I ever wanted: freedom.
I value that too much to be ignorant. This is why I applaud Ann Coulter's book. With her book, she is trying to stop in America the same that I ran from 25 years ago. I know, to some of you, this sounds like a stretch.
It is not. Read this book. Then also buy "The Black Book of Communism". It may be a hard reading, but you will be able to compare facts and relate to today's anti-freedom movements in our country. One more bit of information that relates to the so-called McCarthy era: in the ex-Communist block you could never had seen streets or squares named of American presidents or heroes. There were, however, Roosevelt Square and streets named of the Rosenbergs. Apparently deserving. All in all, Ann Coulter has not been caught lying. Not a single story has been proved inaccurate, to my knowledge. She may use a harsh language, but wouldn't you for the sake of your country?
Rating: 
Summary: You guessed it--what else is new?
Review: This is the most brilliant contribution to political economy since Marx's Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Indeed, a strange thing happened on the way to government by the bourgeoisie, government of the bourgeoisie, government by the bourgeoisie--far too many, if not most by a long shot, were left without musical chairs, and were only included in order to be excluded. It is a strange system of schizophrenia, has been ever since. Heavens, at last count forty three million without health insurance are traitors, they should know better, drop dead as patriots. If the Bush admin keeping beating around the bush like this, it could end badly, a majority of traitors. Brilliant analysis. Good self-help book for liberals having an identity crisis--get it straight, finally. We can close with the words of the drunken porter in Macbeth,'Knock, knock, ...forsooth'.
Rating:
Summary: Worth the money, even if you only read first few chapters
Review: For years we have been told (I wasn't around when it was actually going on) that the McCarthy era was a second coming of the Salem Witch trials. The main difference of course, according to Coulter, is that McCARTHY WAS RIGHT! The Communist influence in high levels of our government was more serious than we thought, as proven by the Venona (or Verona - I can't remember) cables released in 1995. Coulter exposes the serious misconceptions that we have about that period and explains what caused the myths of McCarthy. McCarthy is often connected to the HUAC, but this is odd becuase HE WAS A SENATOR, not a representative. He had nothing to do with the HUAC and the Holloywood Ten, and was more concerned with communists in Washington rather than California. All McCarthy was trying to accomplish IN THE SENATE, was to address the problem of communists occupying high level positions in the government (where they had access to top secret information) mainly in the FDR and Truman administrations. McCarthy only named names after he was forced to by beligerent Democratic Senators who refused his request to dicuss the matters in a closed committee. This is only the beginning of the information that Coulter reveals (and to my knowledge, another book about the McCarthy myths is coming out soon by another author) and it is very upsetting that many conservatives have been tricked into thinking that McCarthy was this awful person who ruined peoples lives. Coulter argues he is a patriot in many ways, and although I'm not willing to accept that as of yet - she makes a great arguement. The problem with the book as a whole is that (like Buchanan's "Death of the West) it starts strong and fast but slows considerably at the end. Sure the core conservative audience will appreciate her humor, but the book should of focused soley on the McCarthy issue, or at least saved the best for last. Nevertheless, the first seven or so chapters are some of the most controversial and interesting that I have read in a recent conservative publication, and I highly reccomend this book - that is, unless you are in liberal (in which case, why are you even reading this review?).
Rating:
Summary: Where is civility?
Review: I read this book while vacationing with my in-laws. Although there may be some truths and valuable information in it, her inflammatory writing style and general lack of respect for anyone with a differing opinion rendered the book almost unintelligible. The book is three-fourths name calling and mud-slinging while the other one-fourth contains identifiable information. The only problem is that the information gets weighted down from all of the venom pouring out of her. All I kept thinking was that while she may indeed be an intelligent woman, there are some definite mental issues she needs to address. If someone could produce a condensed version of this book, culling out the unnecessary diatribes, it would prove to be interesting reading. There is no reason to write so visciously - expect to appeal to a "Jerry Springer" society. Unfortunately, the two party system in this country has disintegrated to just that - name-calling venom with no attention to issues. Looking through other reviews for this book, they are filled with a visciousness and contempt that promotes nothing but hostility. It will be nice when Americans can actually act civil to one another in the arena of politics.
Rating:
Summary: Capitalizing on Tragedy - Divisive by Design
Review: The expression "You only need to filter it one way because [effluent] can't swim upstream" was one of my grandfather's favorites, and although he was often misunderstood (most people thought he was speaking metaphorically, but as a Vice President of a waste management and treatment company for 20 years he usually meant it literally) the phrase carries quite a bit of weight, and seems apropos when addressing this little tome. I first heard of Ann Coulter during the fallout from her September 12th 2001 column when she stated that in responding to terrorists "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Not being familiar with her "body of work" at the time, I chocked up her comments to those of a wack job, but after learning more about her, I came to the conclusion that these were the inflammatory comments from a cunning self-promoter, who apparently thought the deaths of 3000 of her fellow citizens was a perfect venue for increased name recognition. The fundamental flaw of this book (and unfortunately its intended selling point) is in it's inflammatory rhetoric that virtually prohibits any sort of dialog. One need not look any further then the preponderance of either 1's or 5's in the other reviews to determine that she in not changing a whole lot of opinions. Instead of provoking thought and discourse by bringing people together, books like this simply help galvanize opinions about what's wrong with the "other side", and push people so far apart that eventually they can't hear each other even if they wanted to. Her book also oversimplifies incredibly complex issues. In an age of limitless information, coupled with 55 hour workweeks and cross-town after- school carpools, much of the general public has been conditioned to expect their news in easy to digest thirty second stories. Context is often discarded for a good sound byte, and heaven forbid that a topic be discussed without a clearly defined black and white value judgment attached. When was the last time you heard the topic of arctic drilling addressed from a rational pro/con perspective for example? "Grey Areas" apparently are reserved for philosophers and sissies who don't have the moral backbone to take a stand on an issue.
This problem has been exacerbated by the talking heads that the major news shows trot out to deliver obviously rehearsed and probably oft repeated banalities. The formula seems to be to distill and oversimplify an idea, then voice it loudly and authoritatively while giving it a distinctive ideological bent, and repeat. Then gather "ideas" together and put into book form. Oh yeah, and the more outrageous the idea the better; to paraphrase Goebbles, "the bigger the lie, and the more times you repeat it, the more acceptable it becomes". No doubt, most of Coulter's appeal rests on the fact that she is a bit of a hottie; a fact that she tacitly admitted when she stated that "I am emboldened by my looks to say things Republican men wouldn't." What do you think the average persons reaction would be if you learned that David Duke said that "Congress could pass a law tomorrow requiring that all aliens from Arabic countries leave....We should require passports to fly domestically. Passports can be forged, but they can also be checked with the home country in case of any suspicious-looking swarthy males". Shocking? Stupid? Racist? Yep, and one more quote from Ann. The attitude present in her writing reminds me of one of those nerdy freshman girls in college who would crash a kegger, get totally ripped, and then talk nonsense to anyone within earshot. Invariably she'd end up making a public spectacle of herself, and then either leave in a crying jag, or be walking around in your roommates Dockers shirt the next morning asking what was for breakfast. The content of the book, at least in my mind, meanders the tributaries alongside my grandfather's "bread and butter" shall we say, and hopefully, eventually into the gulf of oblivion. One thing I did find kind of amusing was Amazon's book description describing this book as a "stunning follow-up". Sort of carries the same weight as when New Millennium Books President Michael Viner said that Jayson Blair "is one of the best writers in the country today." I forget, what ARE the signs of the coming Apocalypse?
|
