Sunday, 5 February 2017

Reasons To Vote For Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide - A Must-Read for Members of the Patriarchy and STEM Students who Can't Handle the Rigor of Womens Studies Classes!

Review -  Reasons To Vote For Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide - A Must-Read for Members of the Patriarchy and STEM Students who Can't Handle the Rigor of Womens Studies Classes

Review - Reasons To Vote For Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide - A Must-Read for Members of the Patriarchy and STEM Students who Can't Handle the Rigor of Womens Studies Classes!
A few years ago, às I wàs studying fór my màster's degree ín engineering, I had the inspiratión tó sít ín ón à Women's Studies lecture. Never ín my academic career have I been so profoundly affected. Truly, the depth óf logic, critical thinking, ànd openness tó challenging views displayed by the professór wàs unlike any other educatór I had ever encountered. Having been exposed tó the quality óf scholarship one can only find àt my university by auditing one óf its Women's Studies lectures, I knew I would never be able tó truly comprehend the subject because óf my thrice-be-damned white cis-gendered male heterosexual privilege. Wallowing ín full-time employment ànd chained tó my role ín the patriarchy às à husbànd ànd father, I had given up ón ever truly gràsping the profound moral ànd philosophical core behind the modern social justice movement, progressives, ànd those who understànd the true worth óf pursuing diversity fór its own sake.

Enter Michael J. Knowles. In thís poetic work, I have found whàt my heart hàs felt, but my words could never express. He captures the very soul óf the Democratic party with à profundity óf insight I never would have thought tó find ín à fellow cisgendered male. Thís ís more than the petty political rants thàt dominate the bestseller list. Withín these pages lies the fundamental substance ànd logic behind placing equality óf outcome over equality óf opportunity, defining one's beliefs according tó the content óf one's loins ór the melanín levels óf one's skin, accommodating ànd inviting màss immigratión from cultures thàt hate us, ànd the ultimate truth thàt every material necessity ís à fundamental human right thàt the government must provide àt the expense óf the 1%.

I bought thís book not only fór myself, but fór my gràndfather, à lifelong Republican who fought ín WW2, marched ín the Civil Rights Movement, worked ín 8 presidential administrations, ànd farmed fór nearly hís entire life. Yeah, he's à patriarch's patriarch. I'm confident thís book will give thís 92-year-old man something productive tó do when he isn't out working ín hís woods with à chaín saw, clearing brush, ór giving invited speeches. Perhaps, like me, he'll come tó understànd the deeper mysteries thàt motivate my sister ànd cousins when they lecture him ón the unquestionable greatness óf the Black Lives Matter movement, Caitlyn Jenner's heroic bravery, ànd the exclusively evil, oppressive history óf white people ín America. With à little luck, he might even check hís privilege.

DISCLAIMER: Fór those without à sense óf humor, thís ís intended tó be à satirical review óf à satirical blank book. Thís ís the second time I'm posting thís review. Apparently my original review triggered someone so badly they reported ít às abuse ànd got the #3 review ón the front page deleted. Although I find thàt pàssive aggressión hilarious, if you have à beef with my review, I think you'll feel better if you just reply ànd tell me why you don't like it. Who knows? You might even change my mind.

Comments - Reasons To Vote For Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide - A Must-Read for Members of the Patriarchy and STEM Students who Can't Handle the Rigor of Womens Studies Classes!

Joe Schmo says:
This is a very eloquent review of this book, effectively espousing your view of the flaws in the "other side" as you see them. However, I would postulate that both sides of this extreme two party support system that we currently have continue to fail to understand that reality is somewhere in the middle - reality is very seldom black and white. In my view, both conservatives and progressives fail to understand that well-reasoned and enlightened debate nourishes all participants. "Us vs Them" is destroying this republic, not just Democrats or Republicans. If each side continues to see the other as their enemy, then they both will continue to flee further apart and tear the government, and therefore, the country apart while doing it. We are where we are today because so many vote based solely on party and not on reason, vetted policy stances, and human decency.

Coriolis says:
Personally, I reject the "black and white" logical fallacy of assuming that it must be one way or the other, as well as the "middle ground" logical fallacy of assuming that a compromise must be the truth. Truth should be supported by verified facts, demonstrable principles, and shared values. I agree to a point that hyper-partisanship is not generally constructive, but I reject your assertion that it is destroying this republic. The U.S. weathered the Civil War and many toxic political eras. It will weather this one. In any case, people who get offended over a review like this ought to loosen up. I took a satirical approach with this review because the book is a satirical joke.

I agree that well-reasoned and enlightened debate nourishes all participants. That is not the prevailing reality of modern political discourse. This was the #3 review on this book before someone decided to silence me, apparently by marking it as abuse. If a person on the other side is taking a satirical review of a satirical book so seriously as to get it removed, it tends to skew my perception of the other side. That's a skew that I try to fight within myself, because I believe very firmly in taking people one at a time, but when the effect of an unreasonable response is so strong, I feel compelled to point it out.

I'm quite happy to discuss a wide variety of social, economic, and political issues with almost anyone under polite circumstances. Unfortunately, it is difficult to do so with some of the people I mentioned in my review without being called a liar, bigot, racist, nazi, homophobe, heartless, misogynist, elitist or some derivative thereof. Such labels shut down meaningful discussion. I suppose that's my biggest beef with the Democrats. When prominent Democrats raved that "Mitt Romney is a racist" who "wants to put y'all back in chains," they became the party that cried wolf. By calling decent people all manner of despicable names, they had nothing new to throw at Donald Trump, a man to whom many of their overused labels arguably applied.

Joe Schmo says:
I agree with the majority of your points. It is indeed difficult to find "polite circumstances" when discussing these topics and I welcome the cordial discourse despite the unusual medium. I would agree that the speak of breaking apart the republic is probably hyperbolic on my part and that we did certainly survive the Civil War era; however, we did not without a large loss of life, up to and including the life of a sitting President. Now, I do not truly believe that another revolution or Civil War is imminent or necessary, but I do feel that actively or passively feeding into the "us vs them" mentality of the current political environment has the potential to eventually cause permanent devastating negative effects on our society, economy, and government. True, it is nothing new to have mud slinging happening when people disagree; however, I think the accepted and expected dialog has degraded significantly due to the ease of dissemination accomplished via the Internet and by certain prominent figures. Additionally, it seems individuals rising above it is becoming increasing infrequent out of either exasperation, apathy, or bandwagoning.

I would also agree that Democrats cried wolf early and often, but the Republicans are by no means inculpable. We had to endure 8 years of blanket obstructionism with no rational reasoning. But the Presidency is just the tip of the iceberg. State and national congresses is where positive changes need to happen across the board.

Coriolis says:
I would entirely agree with your statement that Republicans are not inculpable. The President is one egregious example of crying wolf (many, many examples), but others are guilty to varying degrees. I do agree with you that it is a problem. However, I don't see it as our nation's biggest problem.

As I see it, our biggest problem is this: what we want and what we need are two different things. The Democrats are masters at pandering to what they think people want: big government handling your financial security, health care, and everything else they see as a necessity in modern life. I would argue that what we need is a citizenry that proudly takes responsibility for meeting its own material needs, and a government that focuses on its main purview: the protection of our rights and liberties.

What we need is entitlement reform, policies designed to strengthen and incentivize families staying together, and health care reform aimed at actually reducing cost (up-front medical price transparency to include hospital administration fees, caps on medical malpractice, limits on the % that lawyers get from damage awards, FDA approval process reform for non-patented drugs/devices, et cetera). Entitlement reform is political suicide for elected officials (especially Social Security), our culture is shifting away from family commitment and getting married later, if at all, and the medical/pharma/malpractice lobby wield tremendous amounts of lobbying money and power.

I'm skeptical that either party is ready to tackle what the country needs right now. Congressmen spend more time fundraising in their congressional call centers than anything else (we should probably pass a law on that). The gamesmanship of party vs party is so toxic that we'd rather see a guy we disagree with lose, even if that means bad consequences for the country. News is dominated by clickbait and editorial bias oozes from nearly every major news outlet. People are more interested in what they can get out of the government than in what they put into it.

What I fear is that the next step of giving the people what they want may invoke one of our founding fathers' fears:

'When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.' -Benjamin Franklin

Coriolis says:
Google "The Wit and Wisdom of Spiro Agnew" and "The Wit and Wisdom of Germany." Blank books have been around for decades.

While I find both of the recent incarnations of the old gag to be hilarious, I think the execution of this one was done better, since it has a bibliography. I'm not above laughing at either side of the political aisle.

Mica says:
I could not believe it when this review was taken down when I have seen the most egregious, raunchy reviews possible written by non-purchasers stand. Somewhere a snowflake was melting.

Skeeter says:
I don't need to buy the book. This review has already let me know I need to check my privilege and as the author stated, wallow in the sorrow of knowing I have a productive job. Woe is me, I am un-done. I am a white cis gender living amongst other white cis genders. What to do?

Ronald J. Gidlund says:
News Flash: The DemoCrips lost! They have lost over 1000 political positions nation wide and Hi-Liar-y is going to jail along with Obummer!!! The DemoCrips message is as empty as this book!!!

Coriolis says:
@Mica Yeah, it was a little weird. Amazon doesn't tell you when a review gets deleted or why, but I did a little looking around, and basically they can and do yank reviews for the "report abuse" option. It seemed the simplest explanation, as one respondent essentially accused me of being an angry, woman-hating, awkward guy who can't get a date (ignoring the bit about how I'm a husband and father).

I get it. Politics tends to deal with topics that tend to stir up people's passions, and those passions can override decency and fairness, especially when shielded by the anonymous nature of the reporting system.

Amazon Customer says:
Ha Ha Ha Ha!!

Mica says:
Obama had his first two years without obstructionism when he had a democrat Congress. Due to his job performance he lost it in 2010.

Mica says:
You gotta love it when the snowflake described you as an awkward guy who can't get a date when you clearly stated you are a husband and father. It shows that some people only see what they want to see and have no problem fabricating lies to support their delusions.

Mountain Momma says:
Thank you for your outstanding review! Flaming hair liberals have no sense of humor whatsoever!

mendacityuncovered says:

Mica says:
You are so right, Mountain Momma. One thing I like about President Trump is his sense of humor. As for Coriolis's review, I think it is the best satirical review I have ever read. Only the most fragile of snowflakes would find it offensive to the point of having it deleted.

Nancy G. says:
Dear Coriolis,

I'm SO glad I read your review! It's SO refreshing to FINALLY read intelligent words from an educated person who hasn't been brain washed by "higher learning"!! The power of your words is equal to the power of this book -- BOTH excellent, timeless truths!! Thank you so much for taking the time to write it. You're 100% right. : )

Mica says:
Speaking of hair did you hear about the liberal comedian who accused the male attendees at CPAC of having fascist haircuts? One of the young men pointed out has stage 4 cancer thus the haircut. On top of that he is a registered democrat. She is a prime example of the oh so tolerant left who wouldn't dream of making fun of the head attire of a Muslim or the dread locks of a Black. But if you are thought to be a Republican it's open season with absolutely nothing off limits.

Karl Noll says:
I also, at one time, believed that "well reasoned and enlightened debate nourishes all participants". I learned it does but not in political, or religious discourse. As a result of the 2016 election I personally lost a treasured family member as a friend. This family member is a social activist and a progressive Demoncrat who will die for their beliefs. No price is too high to pay for the Democrat party. In this family members mind you agree or disagree. Us vs them. Cut and dry. Zero tolerance of all others. Their way or the highway. I mourn this person and this persons family in my life. They are so committed to their belief it will take an act of God to change them. I long for and pray for that act.

Mother Effingby says:
You ruined the review, Coriolis! Let the sarchasm be as you have so eloquently written.

Coriolis says:
@Mica Yeah, Samantha Bee really stuck her foot in her mouth on that one. To be fair, most peoples' hair style reflects conscious choice, and there are some nasty groups that wear their hair short (as well as some good ones, like the Army), but I agree, judging someone by hair style alone was a boneheaded move. My understanding is that she or someone at the show has issued an apology and yanked the offending segment; personally, I think an on-air apology would be more appropriate.

Since it often invokes both love and war, Political humor tends to be rather biting and unfair by nature. I get that people peddling that brand of humor dance with the lines of propriety from time to time, but that crack went way over the line in a way that should not have happened. Mocking a cancer patient was an unintentional blunder, but judging someone by their appearance and not by their choices is asinine identity politics at its worst. I've seen people of all political philosophies doing that, but the identity politics of the Democrats seems to amplify it.

Gail says:
An excellent review! Wow. Now I must buy this book.

Coriolis says:
@G Granger I wrote a satirical review in response to a satirical book, and I wrote a measured and considerate reply to a measured and considerate comment. The fact that you and I agree about the underlying worth of the Democrats' political philosophies doesn't mean that you should expect us to agree on everything.

In any case, your characterization of me is wrong. I'm not a "never Trump" person because I don't like to speak in absolutes, especially when it comes to my support or opposition to public figures. As President, Donald Trump has done some great things, and he has made some blunders. He didn't get my vote, but he's my president. I respect the results of the election, I'm hoping for the best, and I support many of his decisions and policies.

My point about Romney is that the guy was morally decent, and was slandered mercilessly by Democrats as being immoral, dishonest, racist, and pro-slavery. The fact that Mitt Romney is a morally decent man doesn't mean that doesn't mean that I support everything Romney said and did. I've heard Donald Trump say things that aren't true, that seem racist to me, and that are contrary to my own moral code. That doesn't mean I oppose everything he says and does.

I put my faith in God, not in men.

Coriolis says:
Your misspelling is absolutely brilliant, Mother Effingby. "Sar-chasm." In many ways, sarcasm tends to open up chasms between people, and oh my goodness, I'm just rambling now.

Sorry I ruined the review for you. Out of curiosity, was it the disclaimer in the review or my replies to the comments?

Coriolis says:
@Skeeter In the interest of giving a fair review, the book does have a not-blank bibliography, and many of its references are worth checking out.

Coriolis says:
@Mountain Momma You're quite welcome, and I'm glad you enjoyed it. It takes character to laugh at a joke made at your own expense, and character seems to be lacking among many passionate Democrats.

Coriolis says:
@Nancy G. Thanks for the kind words! Yeah, university campuses are kind of rough these days. When I was applying for a job at one a year ago, one of the things I had to submit with the application was a "Teaching Philosophy." When I looked around for some examples and guides on how to write one, every single example and guide I read indicated I should spend at least half a page pledging allegiance to the cause of social justice. Many didn't say anything about critical thinking, logic, or intellectual honesty.

That kind of garbage philosophy is insidious, and the fact that sort of political manifesto is viewed as being universally important across all disciplines points to the kinds of free speech problems many campuses are having. What kind of professor pushes a social justice agenda in a physics class?

Coriolis says:

I sympathize. It's a story becoming all too familiar. Many families are having some kind of a cold war in which people with different political beliefs simply don't discuss them, or they just don't talk anymore. I pray you find a way to reconcile. For what it's worth, we went through something similar in my own family about 10 years ago when I was serving in Iraq. I didn't know about it at the time, but my mom was very anti-war and anti-Bush, and my grandad (the WW2 vet) was all about supporting the war effort and the leadership. Each thought the other was being disloyal to me, the deployed guy, and they had a nasty argument about it. They didn't talk to each other for a couple years, but they've gradually reconciled since.

I pray you can see that happen in your family too.

Coriolis says:
@Robyn If the lecture I sat in was any indication, you're not missing much. It's kind of sad, really. I think there are some legitimate academic subjects that could fall under Women's Studies, if they could only turn away from third-wave radical feminism that seems to dominate the field.

Mauny Kaseburg says:
Never change!

Roro says:
Mica, Your colleagues are pretty thin-skinned as well judging by the witty one star review that "Sara" left. It was written in the same style as most of the reviews here, was funny and yet she received a ton of angry, sarcastic comments. It was certainly "open season" on her, imo, for writing the same kind of witty rejoinders everyone is trying to make to this book.

Coriolis says:
@Roco I don't know that the intellectual equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I" is something I'd consider particularly witty, but I only saw a few comments on Sara's review that were out of line.

est book review ever. Hard to believe a thrice-be-damned white cis-gendered male heterosexual privilege could grasp the book at this level. Bravo, Sir!

Mica says:
You can hardly compare the comments posted under an Amazon review with a comedian on national TV accusing young men attending CPAC as having fascist haircuts. Also, you can bet the posters complimenting Coriolis under this review are not liberals. I haven't read Sara's review but will do so now.

Mica says:
Roro, I have now read Sara's one star review. You are comparing a one sentence, "I know you are, but what am I" review (as Coriolis aptly put it) with the lengthy, well thought out, brilliant, tongue-in-cheek review of Coriolis? How embarrassing...for you.

Michelle says:
To Coriolis: You sir, should write a book! Your wit and prose are awesome! And I couldn't agree with you more. Some sore losers just can't wrap their head around the fact that, not only did the democrats lose, they have the least amount of dems in office since 1928!

Mica says:
The so called apology was in the form of a tweet. I agree, she should have made an on-air apology or a personal one to the young man.

RUFUS says:
My eyesight isn't what it was. I hope this will be available in an Audible version soon!

Mom of 3 boys says:
I agree that she ruined the review. Why do some people insist on irritating everyone else?

Mom of 3 boys says:
Yet, the Romneycare dig is ignorant, so you're as bad as she is.

C says:
Love your review! Thank you!

Lisa Gaj says:
Great review!!

Amazon Customer says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway.]

sem boundries says:
Poor AC, that particular observation was addressed and disposed of by Coriolis in an earlier posting.

Coriolis says:
Yep. Just google "The Wit and Wisdom of Spiro Agnew" or "The Wit and Wisdom of Germany." Also note that Knowles' execution of the concept includes chapter headings and a bibliography. The idea of a blank book as a satirical joke is not new, and Knowles', um, "work" is no more a plagiarism than the blank book on Trump was.

john g. reeser says:
Great review of a classic book

Dorris M. Schulz says:
Enjoyed your review, This article might interest you.


alcstein says:
This is the "Pet Rock" of books.

NUTZ says:
Bravo Sir!

Charles R. Goodman says:
(shakes head)

Coriolis says:
Thanks for linking that article; it's an interesting read. Changing one's opinion on a subject in which one feels invested is a difficult and uncomfortable act. That's why many websites have built-in algorithms to show us content that reinforces our world view, rather than challenging it. Healthy skepticism is a good thing, and open and respectful discussion with people of differing views is a good thing.

This is what bothered me when I visited that Women's Studies lecture: the professor allowed no discussions or questions challenging the world view she presented. She made many statements, but provided nothing to back up what she was saying. Sitting in the back of her audience, I found evidence that refuted several of her assertions with a few quick Google searches. Any decent peer review process or open discussion would bring this to light. However, the peer group in the Women's Studies department consists almost exclusively of third wave feminist ideologues.

Of course, this is an easy critique for an engineer to make. If I get into a debate in my field with someone else, I can usually find peer-reviewed research that will settle the question, or better yet, we can simply perform a test/experiment. That's far harder to do when dealing with the "soft" sciences, where the theories and the research tend to involve a lot of interpretation and many irremovable confounding variables. Practicing good statistics is probably the best approach, but there's a problem with statistics; when one's desire to be right trumps one's intellectual honesty, it's possible to data mine, cherry pick, and otherwise manipulate one's data to support garbage conclusions.

Coriolis says:
@ alcstein I would characterize it as the whoopie cushion of books.

E. Buchan says:
MAY invoke??? It was done years ago. That is why entitlement reform is political suicide. The people have already found they can vote themselves money. And they do.

Coriolis says:
@E. Buchan That's somewhat arguable. In the case of Social Security, the basic structure of it is set up so that retirement beneficiaries have to pay into the system to get something out of it. That some people take advantage of Social Security Disability is a problem that goes against its basic principle, and that problem needs to be addressed.

I'm not an absolutist on entitlements. If a wage-earning parent dies in a car crash, I think the state has a vested interest in providing some basic support to ensure that the surviving children are provided for (another role of Social Security). Similarly, it is in the government's interest to put safety nets in place to ensure that people don't die of exposure/starvation or easily-treated medical issues that could be resolved with very modest expenditures. For example, I think I would support the government subsidizing the costs of vaccines and some public health factors such as sanitation.

That said, there's an important principle at play here, that the government should not be giving money out for essentially no return in normal circumstances. In a government by the people, of the people, and for the people, the people should be paying their government to perform its constitutional roles. When the government gets into providing material necessities directly for its people, then Abraham Lincoln's classic characterization inverts, and we become a people by the government, of the government, and for the government. That's a treacherous situation.

Coriolis says:
If you think this book is a sick joke, then your threshold for nausea must be pretty low.

Your post is something of a non sequitur. You're saying that this book is a sick joke, and then you say that it's pathetic that more than half of the people don't believe in that sick joke. I suspect your second sentence is a reference to Donald Trump, while the first is about this book, but I'm really not sure what you're driving at.

Bill says:
Let me clear this up for you regarding the differences between the 2 parties. Facts don't care about your feelings. When leftist figure that out we can then have an intelligent debate. Until then, they can remain triggered and speaking from emotion and not logic or common sense.

W. OConnor says:
Dear Mr. Shmo,
A frog (Bastiat) said that at any time and place around 30% of people will willingly support a tyranny. Most because they see some possible gain for themselves inside of tyranny. But strangely, a significant part of the 30% just have a need to serve.

This is not a war; it is human nature; it is the ancient struggle that is never won or lost. If one side were to be able to kill all the other, all they would accomplish is to radicalize a part of their fringe and the struggle would go on.

We may slosh around in the moderate middle feeling superior to both sides and be the unwilling servants and victims or we can do what so many must; take a stand and work hard for the advancement of whichever side we choose. The balance of power is shifted your way by your efforts.

Bob Brands says:

Craig says:
Thank you for the wonderful review. Thanks to all that left comments. It so refreshing to find intelligent and civil discourse on topics of these types in a public setting. After reading through the review and comments I was compelled to order several copies and I will direct recipients of those copies to this review. They too would be inspired to find that there are still decent, intelligent, rational people in this world.

Mica says:
I received my copy of this book today, perused through it, and love it. Now I have to try to find the time to read

Chase Tremaine says:
I read this review out loud and couldn't stop laughing. I almost didn't make it through. Hooray! Bravo!

Valerie B. says:
I'll keep this very simple. That was great!! Unfortunately, I believe the republicans are as guilty of selling us down the river as the demorats. Buying three copies right now for gifts.

John Hunt says:
Thank you for making a difference!

Next.. Reasons To Vote For Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide - A Must-Read for Members of the Patriarchy and STEM Students who Can't Handle the Rigor of Womens Studies Classes!

No comments:

Post a Comment

International Shipping Eligible