Need help with a book review

[Belliger]

I would like to post the following as a review of a book I gave up on finishing recently. I would like your help making sure I have my facts and ideas straight so I don't look like a idiot.

"I found Saving Capitalism an interesting book to start with, and had some ideas that I had not considered before. But I ran into a statement that stopped me short. That it is because of the power of the NRA people have a "right to buy even rapid fire machine guns", followed by a tongue in cheek comment that we should be glad the NRA stopped at machine guns instead of insisting on the right to own surface to air missiles and nuclear bombs as well. This statement shows a complete ignorance for the actual law. The 1968 gun control act gave the ATF the authority to regulate firearm sales, and banned the sale of destructive devices like bombs and missiles. The 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act banned the sale of new manufacture automatic weapons like machine guns. Previously owned machine guns were still legal to possess, but to transfer the firearm to another person the ATF would need to authorize the transfer. This is still the case today with the FBI verifying that the individual can own a firearm and the BATF authorizing the transfer in a process that can take 9 months to a year to complete. Stating that the NRA has the ability to force the BATF to authorize the transfer is ludicrous. It suggests that even BATF appointees of Presidents Obama and Clinton were somehow controlled by the NRA and forced to authorize the transfers, which they could stop authorizing at any time.

This ignorance of the law while making a seemingly factual statement about it shows me that I can have little faith in the accuracy of statements in the rest of the book. As such I could not complete more than ¼ of it."

Read More

 

[Certaindeaf]

You have to learn to not get stuck on details. Review the whole book in its entirety/veracity, not one tiny little posit/quip contained within it.

 

[Belliger]

As I did not finish the book that is not possible.

 

[Certaindeaf]

As I did not finish the book that is not possible.

I caught that part. Good luck in your scholastic pursuits.

 

[P7M13]

@Certaindeaf offers wisdom: I got stuck on something even more trivial idealogically, decades ago, and decided not to get my PhD. Don't sweat the small stuff. Innacurate statements speak volumes about the author, your unwillingness to continue is your declaration of who you are.

 

[jackrv]

Considering the author, it's not surprising. I think this is what he truly believes.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I understand about not getting stuck on every detail and phrase or even fact.

But with that said if one "fact" is blatantly wrong it makes me suspect that what the rest of the author is saying is wrong as well.
Which makes for a long read if I check every statement the writer makes ... Or just give up on the book as the OP did.

In my experience when reading non fiction I try to research the author if possible.
Just to get a feel of his writing , to see how often his works have been citied or to see if the writer is " slanted " one way or the other on a given topic etc ...
Andy

 

[Belliger]

I caught that part. Good luck in your scholastic pursuits.

Thank you for your words of encouragement, I find them very beneficial.

But with that said if one "fact" is blatantly wrong it makes me suspect the what the rest of the author is saying is wrong as well.
Andy

This is where I am at. If the author is writing from such a biased position that they give opinion as fact, or cherry pick facts to bolster their own opinions why spend your time learning from that material? You are not being given information and asked to form your own opinion. You are force fed "information" crafted to make you agree with the author.

I do admit that I have a low tolerance for biased writing. There is a book called Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics. In a otherwise fantastic book the author makes a point to mention that John Lott does shady things with getting research time at universities and when he does it is for research that many economists disagree with the findings of (specifically the More Guns Less Crime research). And then the author went on to recount a story in which he made Lott out to be a idiot at a behavioral economics conference. This irritated me to the point that I do not recommend the book to anyone without the caveat that the author likes to throw their own biases in.

I just don't like wasting my time on books or documentaries that are written for the purpose that you agree with the authors world view.

It sounds like I should not bother sharing my irritation with others in a review. Maybe I will just email just the author and call it done.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Welcome to reality. Government/public schools for quite a while now are unapologetic indoctrination centers, designed to break and mold little mindless mush-piles into lockstep voters.. of the left.
You can still get an honest 4/4 GPA in a valuable field (usually in a hard science), but you'll have to be tough and smart to wade through a lot of the crap that's required in some (all) of the required softer curriculum.

 

[Belliger]

I don't have kids, but it is for the reasons you stated that I vote on every school official I can. School system won't change until the leadership does.

 

[tac]

Quote -
"I found that "Saving Capitalism" was an interesting book to start with, and had some ideas that I had not considered before. But I ran into a statement that stopped me short. That it is because of the power of the NRA people have a "right to buy even rapid fire machine guns", followed by a tongue-in-cheek comment that we should be glad that the NRA stopped at machine guns instead of insisting on the right to own surface-to-air missiles and nuclear bombs as well. This statement shows [delete a] complete ignorance [delete for, insert of] of the actual law. The 1968 Gun Control Act gave the ATF the authority to regulate firearm sales, and banned the sale of destructive devices like bombs and missiles. The 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act banned the sale of new-manufacture automatic weapons like machine guns. Previously owned machine guns were still legal to possess, but to transfer the firearm to another person the ATF would need to authorize the transfer. This is still the case today with the FBI verifying that the individual can own a firearm and the BATF authorizing the transfer in a process that can take [delete number 9 and insert nine in text] nine months to a year to complete. Stating that the NRA has the ability to force the BATF to authorize the transfer is ludicrous. It suggests that even BATF appointees of Presidents Obama and Clinton were somehow controlled by the NRA and forced to authorize the transfers, which they could stop authorizing at any time.

This ignorance of the law while making a seemingly factual statement about it shows me that I can have little faith in the accuracy of statements in the rest of the book. As such I could not complete more than [delete ¼ and insert one fourth in text] one-fourth of it."

I know that this is not what you asked for, exactly, but I had to learn English so that I could go to school in England, and my teachers were pretty hard on me.

The rest of it is just fine by me.

tac

 

[HuckleberryFun]

Quote -
"I found that "Saving Capitalism" was an interesting book to start with, and had some ideas that I had not considered before. But I ran into a statement that stopped me short. That it is because of the power of the NRA people have a "right to buy even rapid fire machine guns", followed by a tongue-in-cheek comment that we should be glad that the NRA stopped at machine guns instead of insisting on the right to own surface-to-air missiles and nuclear bombs as well. This statement shows [delete a] complete ignorance [delete for, insert of] of the actual law. The 1968 Gun Control Act gave the ATF the authority to regulate firearm sales, and banned the sale of destructive devices like bombs and missiles. The 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act banned the sale of new-manufacture automatic weapons like machine guns. Previously owned machine guns were still legal to possess, but to transfer the firearm to another person the ATF would need to authorize the transfer. This is still the case today with the FBI verifying that the individual can own a firearm and the BATF authorizing the transfer in a process that can take [delete number 9 and insert nine in text] nine months to a year to complete. Stating that the NRA has the ability to force the BATF to authorize the transfer is ludicrous. It suggests that even BATF appointees of Presidents Obama and Clinton were somehow controlled by the NRA and forced to authorize the transfers, which they could stop authorizing at any time.

This ignorance of the law while making a seemingly factual statement about it shows me that I can have little faith in the accuracy of statements in the rest of the book. As such I could not complete more than [delete ¼ and insert one fourth in text] one-fourth of it."

I know that this is not what you asked for, exactly, but I had to learn English so that I could go to school in England, and my teachers were pretty hard on me.

The rest of it is just fine by me.

tac

I see that someone owns an editor's blue pencil, and knows how to wield it.

 

[tac]

Mé leithscéal a ghabháil as cúis aon chion.

Ymddiheuraf am achosi unrhyw drosedd.

Je présente mes excuses pour avoir causé une infraction.

.אני מתנצל על גרימת כל עבירה

tac

 

[HuckleberryFun]

Gaelic, Welsh, French, and Hebrew? You, sir, are a man of many parts.
I'm impressed. Also, as a recovering English major (and former grammar nazi), I sense a kindred soul.
Nous defions!

 

[tac]

Gaelic, Welsh, French, and Hebrew? You, sir, are a man of many parts.
I'm impressed. Also, as a recovering English major (and former grammar nazi), I sense a kindred soul.
Nous defions!

Irish, Sir. Gaelic is Scottish and a teeny bit different....enough to matter. The two have been apart for over 1500 years now.

As for being a man of many parts, that's true, but sadly, few of them are working as designed [sigh].

I was once very fluent in Russian and Turkish, too, but my heart wasn't in it for the long haul.




Them was the days, eh?

tac

 

[Hawaiian]

It suggests that even BATF appointees of Presidents Obama and Clinton were somehow controlled by the NRA and forced to authorize the transfers, which they could stop authorizing at any time.

I would double check this statement. If the applicant passes the background check and has a squeaky clean record I don't believe they can deny the application 'just because'.

 

[Belliger]

Thank you tac. I was never forced to give an effort at learning English, it has not served me well in later life.

I would double check this statement. If the applicant passes the background check and has a squeaky clean record I don't believe they can deny the application 'just because'.

The BATF could "re-interpret" the law and stop all transfers of fully automatic guns. Much the same as they decided that gunsmiths are now gun manufacturers.

 

[PaulB47]

The author, Robert Reich, is apparently just another apologist for meddling government:

Of Two Minds - Wait a Minute--Who's Fascist?

LRC Blog LewRockwell.com

If you want to understand economics, don't bother with Keynsians and stick with the Austrian School, e.g.:

Mises Institute

 

[tac]

I used to use some of my spare time reviewing books of a military factual nature, and THE definitive worst book that I ever had the misfortune to review was 'Tiger Ace' by Gary L. Simpson.

Published back in 1994 by Schiffer Publishing Ltd, it was 346 pages of the direst tripe I have ever read in my entire life, and that takes some saying.

The only part of the book that I could not fault were the index pages - the rest was the most appalling mix of schmaltz and whoopee comic text.

It cost $35.00 back in the day, and has some great photographs, but not $35-worth.

If any of you can get hold of a copy [not mine, I've used it to hold up one corner of my loading bench since just after reading it through] I suggest that you don't bother.

There is not a single page of text with less than eight corrections in syntax and content - one page has forty-nine such corrections.

Sorry, Gary, but you owe me nine evenings of my life back.

tac

 

[Certaindeaf]

I think the question is/was(?) how to get through "school" in the United States of America?
But I think it's moot and or contrived as he had already given up yet asked for advice.
anyhoot