Raving Reviews
By Christina Laganopoulos
I didn't intend for this to be an article about conservatives and liberals. I set out to examine the absurd political fights that erupt on websites that allow people to post reviews of various things. This is really just an article about crazy people and the ridiculous comments they write. But as it turned out, the best of the ridiculous comments were written by conservatives.
Right leaning crazy people on the sites I read had more of a flair for it than the left leaning crazy people. I just didn't find as many liberals haunting the review sites, repetitively posting venom about conservatives and their books. This is typically a tactic of the far right, both in reviews and politics. Not an intelligent John McCain style conservative, more like a Karl Rove.
I noticed a while back how easy it was to get a platform for your opinion, and it didn't involve starting a blog or writing an article. It was as simple as adding a review on something to an established site. I began reading out of curiosity, to see what people thought of a certain movie, or book, or recipe. It turned into a hobby, and so very entertaining!
I often scroll through the reviews on Amazon choosing a book that is likely to polarize groups of people. Sometimes I do it as a sociological study, to see what different views people can have on one topic, and marvel at how anything can turn into a political battle. Other times, my aim is less lofty and I could just use a laugh. Reviews are subjective. What reads like a moron to me, could be pearls of wisdom to someone else. UNLESS THEY'VE TYPED THE WHOLE THING OUT IN UPPERCASE. That's just wrong, no matter what side of the political fence you're on.
I've devoted a lot of time to reading these arguments on a variety of sites, and I've determined that I can welcome any political opinion as long as it is presented reasonably, logically, and it appears they've taken the time to look at both sides of the issue. But too often it's a matter of insult, and not discussion. People who can't discuss things like grown ups tell everyone else to "get a life". They launch into a personal assault that forces the attacked person to defend himself, and the issue is conveniently lost in the kafuffle. Someone with a point to make should be able to do so without resorting to name-calling, a talent that loses its allure somewhere around the end of the third grade. Which is why, for instance, I can listen to and appreciate most of what a conservative like John McCain has to say, but have to run from the room if Ann Coulter appears on my TV screen. (I would say the same thing about Joe Clark versus Steven Harper, but the reviews in this article deal with American politics.)
These are very political times, and most of the arguments seem to happen between conservatives and liberals, on everything from Al Franken books to meatloaf.
While looking up some fish recipes, I stumbled across a war on endangered fish. The recipe called for sea bass. I don't know much about sea bass, but someone posted disgust that people would be cooking with the endangered fish. A few voices popped in to say it was the Chilean sea bass that is in trouble and there are other types of bass to purchase, but many preferred to use this as a launching point for a political argument, firing off terms like "tree hugger". Because you know, once branded a tree hugger, you can't possibly have a point. Meatloaf became politicized too, much to the dismay of people who only wanted to know if they could use Worcestershire sauce, when someone used the board to spam an anti-Bush/war message. Meatloaf loving patriots joined together to hurl insults at the peacenik spammer, who was long gone by then. And what were they doing on a meatloaf recipe review board anyhow? Shouldn't they be off hugging a tree, eating tofu? Those crazy vegan commie peaceniks, I tell ya.
Recipe website battles are hidden treasures, and you can never know when one will happen. For a sure thing, I scan the book reviews. There are always some goodies to be found there.
Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America by Barbara Ehrenreich, is a non-fiction account of what the author discovered when she left her comfortable life to work for minimum wage in order to find out if someone can actually get by in the world on such a salary. There were an enormous amount of bad reviews on the site from people who took it as an attack on all things American. One woman was personally offended and sarcastically thanked the author for calling her poor. She said she works very hard at two jobs just to get by and she isn't lazy. I thought that was the author's point; that people who work hard at two jobs shouldn't just be getting by. Since when did being poor equate with laziness? Most of these comments seemed to say more about the reviewers' perceptions than the author's. It was interesting how a simple topic like this could become a war between liberals and conservatives. Isn't poverty a non-partisan issue? You wouldn't think so to read the reviews. The reviews took on a life of their own, and the point of the book seemed to get lost among them.
[Posts have sometimes been edited for length, but never spelling. That's all theirs.]
Good lord, had this wealthy chick ever walked two paces outside of her cash-insulated happy land before she penned this naive insult? Going slumming is one thing, but to go slumming in a resort town is surreal and shows the utter ignorance, insensitivity and total cultural isolation of the author. Can't make it on seven bucks an hour in Key West? No kidding, it's one the most expensive tourist resorts in the country- maybe the world. I bet you'd have a tough time getting by on minimum wage in Aspen, Monte Carlo and the French Riviera too.
Yes, what gumption to try living on minimum wage in Key West. No one has to do that. I would think it would be the litmus test in a project like this to see if you could survive on such in the country's most expensive areas.
I work in a restaurant. ...I want to suggest to all you Better-Than-Thou Yuppies out there reading this book in your self-sanctified sense of noblesse-oblige that the "serving classes" are people too - and that you might actually get better service if you treated them as such! In particular, might I suggest to you that if there are more than 4 of you in your dinner soiree that if you are indeed as affluent as your pretentions, that one of you pick up the entire ticket? Or if you insist on the bourgeoise pettiness of separate tickets, could you at least be so kind as to sit next to the person or persons with whom you deign appropriate to be on the same guest check? Thank you and Have a Nice Day!
Well, at least she didn't say liberal Better-Than-Thou Yuppies.
She barely put an effort into going undercover. After a few weeks of "slumming", which she viewed from an almost "glamorous" perspective ("Ooh! That looks INTERESTING!"), she would move on, claiming that the work was too hard. Most notably, when at Wal-Mart, she quit after a few days because bending over made her stiff at the end of the day.
I'm fortunate enough not to have relied on jobs like these for an income, but I HAVE recently worked at a variety of entry-level positions: retail, sales (lingerie and medical), office work, telemarketing, and now, waitressing. These jobs ARE hard. You don't quit because you get sore! You keep at it -- because there's NOTHING BETTER
An upperly bound liberal decides to see how the other half lives. She does this by living in three different cities for three months. Of course, she does this without sticking around, feeling this gives her a great and wonderful insight into the plight of the working poor
Ok, I get how it might be annoying to read about someone whining that the job you happen to do for a living makes them stiff. More annoying that they have the option to quit, when others have to suffer silently for lack of better options. However I don't see why, because the author doesn't actually have to spend her life doing those jobs, she has no point to make. Was she really expected to spend a few years undercover to get a real feeling for it before anything she had to say could be even considered?
stick with the "salmon and field greens" at your upscale restaurant... this subject needs to be handled with someone with a grain of objectivity and genuine interest
You can afford salmon? Well then, you can't possibly write this book. Poor Barbara. Perhaps she thought she could circumvent some of these attacks by actually doing the work for several months herself. Investigative journalism and all that. Fool!
Also interesting is how food seems to play into class. Fast food isn't cheap, so I am always amazed that this is often considered the domain of the working class. I had salmon for dinner last night. It cost me $5 to buy the fish filet, and pennies for the spinach I ate with it, about the price of a value meal at McDonald's.
Ehrenreich would have been a great Marxist, no doubt. Her post-publishing career has proven as much. If she's as saddened by the way the people she spoke of were treated as she'd have us believe, I wonder if she ever went back to try to help them out? I wonder what kind of customer she is while being waited on in a restaurant? Is she understanding when a sales clerk seems incompetant? Somehow I don't think so
Well if they think so, it must be true! That salmon eating Marxist bitch.
For me, the first big warning of just how far removed from reality Ms Ehrenreich is, comes on page 12 when she says "I figure that I can afford $500 on rent, or maybe with severe economies $600 and still have $400 or $500 left for food and gas" ... What planet is she living on ? I fed a family of 5 and bought gas for 2 cars with $500 for years. I am still infuriated by this woman's persistent assumption that her own pathetic inability to budget or cope with constrained resources is shared by the millions of Americans (and billions worldwide) who live fulfilling lives with less.
I thought her point was that it's more of a struggle to get by on $500. Someone who earns $500 and can support a family and lead a fulfilling life deserves credit for pulling it all off. They have my respect. That doesn't mean the author is wrong to suggest that they should be earning a bit more for the work they do, or that it might be a bit of a struggle to get by.
Ms. Ehrenreich makes the very point she is trying to deny in this book. "Low wage" jobs actually serve an important purpose in society: they allow low-skilled people to earn a living. Without the fast food chains and discount store employers, these folks would be even worse off! At least with these "back-breaking" jobs, they have a chance to enter the job market, a chance to rent a trailer with running water, and a chance to improve their skills.
Perhaps, but this doesn't mean minimum wage need never be raised, or that people never need help finding a safe place to leave their babies while they go earn the money for their trailer with running water.
I currently live the life of the working poor and found very little in common with this woman. Of course, I'm getting education and plan to pull myself up
This is a common theme among reviewers. Resentment about the label poor - the belief that those who are working to get out of it are somehow better than the ones who obviously are "choosing" to stay in poverty. There is truth to people having the power to overcome their situations, but there is even more truth to this - in order for some to be rich, some have to be poor. In order for things to be cheap, some need to earn next to nothing. So if you are someone who plans to pull yourself out, be thankful for those who "choose" to stay poor, I guess.
Just like "Stupid White Men," this book presents another opportunity for socialists and those that are anti-capitalists to whine about the unfair treatment of the poor by all those evil moneymaking corporations and businesses. Instead of writing a balanced book highlighting the difficulties of living in poverty, as supporters of this book want you to think it is, the author instead chooses to play the blame game. A more fitting title might be, "Socialism Now!" or "Blame the Productive."
"Nickel and Dimed" could have been a good book. Supposedly a tale about how hard it is for the working poor to survive in America, "Nickel and Dimed" is instead a leftist screed that blames business owners, rich people, and even evangelical Christians for poverty in America.
ooh. Leftist screed. They've broken out the Thesaurus. Pity most don't feel the same way about the dictionary.
First of all, what is the point of highlighting the difficulties of being poor, if you don't offer solutions? I am so tired of this attitude. I work hard for my money! Like someone who works a low wage job works less hard. The only difference is money earned. Not who is more deserving. No one is saying those better off should feel guilty about their success or give all their money away. But why shouldn't they be more concerned about those not doing as well?
This book is pure liberal propaganda. I was forced to buy this socialist pamplet by my like minded public university. Unless you are being forced to purchase this book by the University of North Carolina or some other educational institution avoid this book like the plague unless you are a dyed in the world socialist looking for justification to violate individual rights in the name of equality. However if you are a Republican, a Liberterian, or anyone who prefers personal freedom above the supposed good of society this book will leave you either stewing with rage or beating your head on your desk at every page
No, that is what reading the reviews did.
To sum up, it appears the reviewers of the book complained that the author wasn't really poor, that she cheated by occasionally falling back on her personal wealth instead of roughing it out when someone poor would have had to, and of course she's a liberal, therefore everything she has to say is socialist hogwash. All of this put across by calling her names, saying she hates what America stands for, looks down on the poor, and is a stuck up rich bitch.
So the thesis is you are only allowed to discuss poverty if you are actually poor. Ergo, you can only write well-reasoned intelligent reviews if you are well-reasoned and intelligent. Well slap my ass and call me Sally. It works!
Al Franken's book Lies, and the Lying Liars that tell them - a Fair and Balanced Look at the Right was polarizing enough to inspire over 2000 reviews. As for how sound his facts are, more sound than anything of Ann Coulter's I've read, even if her fans insist on calling her work "meticulously researched". Amusingly, the hundreds of negative reviews are mostly just attacks on Franken and liberals in general.
Also good for laughs is their use of the word liberal as an insult. You can practically see the spit fly off some of these reviews! I always sense a pause before it, like they have to choke down bile before they can continue.
To be fair and balanced, I read some reviews of Ann Coulter's book Treason . Ann is touted as a genius who speaks the truth and doesn't hate monger or name call at all. And naturally, neither do her sensible fans:
The real threat that this country faces is not from Bin Laden, but from left wing liberals. People such as Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, etc., are the true terrorist. Liberals are the true poison of this country, they have even waged a war against our children. Ann Coulter brings out the truth, but don't take my word for it, the truth is in this book. I would also recomend any books from Michael Savage
She shines the light of truth on liberals and they run for cover like cockroaches
Sexy Ann clearly states her case that all liberals are traitors. I can't wait for the day when Democrats are hunted in the streets with dogs and silly nonsense like elections are a topic for history books
Out of the 40 one star rating reviews of Treason that I read, almost all of them were wasted breath by people trying to reasonably explain why the book's "facts" were distorted. Only a couple had any sort of name calling in response, and they just couldn't do it as well. If you don't believe me, go ahead and do a search of the one star ratings of Treason's reviews. Then do a 5 star rating search and tell me where the insane name-calling and hateful uppercase writing predominates.
Here are some of the better ones on Al. Beware the countless phonies who swear they were liberals until they read Al's book and halleluiah they have seen the light!
Comedian Al Franken wrote a book called "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them". It was about the Fox News Channel, which is a fair, balanced news organization that roots for America. The Left says they are conservative. They are not. They just look that way compared to the liberal CNN, CBS, and most of the other network and cable stations (except for MSNBC). Fair and truthful analysts have concluded that Fox is the most believable and trusted news organization. Fair and truthful analysts concluded that Franken's book was, like Michael Moore's books and documentaries, filled with lies and half-truths. Franken was fed information by the Democrat-leaning Kennedy School of Government... Liberals are more likely to be old '60s rockers who prefer to listen to Santana and The Grateful Dead on FM. ...Throughout the Cold War, does anybody really doubt that, all else being equal, the Communists "voted" for Democrats over Republicans? Is their any doubt that terrorists prefer Democrats to Republicans?
Fair and truthful analysts. I am going to put that on my business card.
Christina Laganopoulos - Fair and Truthful Analyst, The Lamp.
As far as that last part goes... I'd say certain terrorists don't like anything western, be it conservative or liberal. But I'd wager that the Republicans have been making it a little easier for them to fan the flame of hate and intolerance among their followers.
Let the truth be told that Franken and his left winged communist supporters really frighten me just as they should any clear thinking American. It is reprehensible that a book would be published on the lies committed by politicians on the right when it has been the left, namely Hitlary and Bill Clinton, that made it mainstream. But what do you expect ? it is a completely socialist, Anti-Bush, Anti-War, left wing broadcasting media that give the Democrats a pass on integrity and honesty. All of that does not matter as long as you subscribe to their left wing pink communist beliefs. It has been said on so many occasions, Liberalism is a mental decease. One that must be fought from all angles so that our stars and bars do not get replace by an axe and sickle
Well, if Reagan hadn't thrown everyone with mental disease out onto the street, it would be a lot easier to round up all those "left winged" pink communist liberals. Oh, and next time you post, please let us know the secret channel that anti-Bush, anti-war, left-wing media is broadcasting from.
Speaking of lies and the lying liars who tell them--Al Franken and all you haters need to get a real life and purpose other than hating George Bush. What you really are angry about is how useless and pathetic your lives seem to be to you. This is the greatest country on earth. Please go live in France or anyplace else. We'll soon see you floating back on one of those life rafts along with the millions of aliens off the coast of Florida
We'll make a raft out of baguettes! Brie for everyone! Vive les liberals rose libres!
They just don't get it on the left. Not everyone agrees with them! But they can't seem to Deal with it! They react like spoiled kids. Attacking anyone that disagrees. They think they are smarter than most, you can just hear the smug elitist attitude ringing loud and clear even in the other reviews...please Al Franken and his supporters are the people that no one wants to sit next to in school the annoying know it all(losers)that whine and blame others. Totaly twisted up with hate they sound paranoid and irrational. This Book is Sad not funny. As for the people he makes fun of and Fox news...keep an Open mind...why not give it a try? Get both sides and MAKE YOUR own decision don't get your information about something as important as politics and our society by someone as twisted as Al Franken
Heh. I always get a giggle out of someone telling me to watch Fox news and "decide for myself". Especially when they start it off by saying liberals attack everyone who doesn't agree with them. Oh! my splitting sides! (/smug elitist attitude)
By the way, Al Franken does not support the troops, even though he feels he has to reiterate in every public forum. He likes to play patriot, but we all know the truth. Who's the real liar?
The reason he has to reiterate his troop support at every forum is because is constantly being attacked on it. It is a typical conservative response to liberal statements. Don't agree on something politically? You don't support the troops! Want to say something about it? You don't love America! The right has been allowed to appropriate the flag, the troops and apple pie for themselves, and the left lets them get away with it. Eh, but what's it to me in the end? I am Canadian
Bush's foreign policy is neither vicious OR extremist, seeing as how rationale abides by the fact that action where the terrorists are avoids hundreds of 9/11's, tenfold! Since Syria, Iran and countless other Arab countries are sending their "freedom fighters" to "liberate" Iraq from the "Great Satan", that alone establishes terrorism ties to Iraq. Before any dummy lib resorts to attacking me, I'm not making a connection between Hussein and 9/11, only terminally braindead libs believe that Bush has ever made that connection. Further, "Connecticut reviewer"'s also slanderous relating to civil liberties. If not for the Patriot Act, 9/11's would be achievable at the will of terrorists-but....I guess that he'd rather like the government NOT to invade his privacy A LITTLE, if that means he can continue to send e-mails to other workers defaming his boss while on the job!!!!!!! Again, the war on terrorism FORCES rulebreaking when it comes to fiscal discipline; as 9/11, corporate scandal, fake jobs in internet companies, recession AND the stock market BUBBLE bursting all contributed to the current debt, which all happened under Clinton's stewardship. BTW, I AM A LIBERAL, and sick AND tired of my party's idiocies!!!!!
Liberal. Right. BTW, that last line appears in several bad reviews on this book. I think if you are going to write reviews as different people, you should not plagiarize from your previous fake posts.
Liberals are generally ugly people and their acts of procreation reflect the goings-on at Midwestern puppy mills. In fact, I would hire Al Franken's family and Chelsea Clinton for the Big Apple Circus just to save on makeup costs. It's why NOW and the American Kennel Club are interchangeable. It's why the "L" in LPGA doesn't stand for "Ladies", if you know what I mean. ... The book is basically Al Franken sniping like a little schoolgirl at various conservative (i.e., smart) pundits. It's a good lesson in kindergarten humor (so-and-so is a nutcase, so-and-so is splotchy, etc.).
Isn't that funny? A whole review based on calling liberals ugly and then he throws in the lecture on kindergarten humour! I heard Al say he wanted to change the photo of Bill in the book because he looked splotchy in it, but then Bill attacked him on something, so Al not only kept the picture, he added "splotchy" to the title. Here is more by some strong debaters. You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny!
Franken knows ugly. After all, he has to look at his wife and kids every day, not to mention that morning mirror routine. I recommend that people don't look at the cover of the book, unless you want to experience the male Medusa
Al Franken is the biggest liar of them all. He does NOT support the troops. He tells anyone who will listen about his USO tours so he can pretend that he really supports the troops, but it's a cover. By the way, I hear that Franni Franken resembles Triumph the Comic Insult Dog
This vitriol will not win elections. Thank goodness this guy speaks for the same vocal MINORITY who dress like hippies and attend sit-ins at UC Berkeley
His research is spotty, his humor is a miss, and he is an ugly dude.
Then there are reviews like this one:
I didn't read it and I won't unless someone wants to buy it for me. If you're buying this book you probably don't like the current administration. If you don't like the president you probably aren't used to a moral, God-fearing human being in the White House, a man who believes in what he says.
-An American soldier who's tired of reading misguided tripe by Franken, Molly Ivins & the like
Well, I guess anyone who disagrees with what this American soldier has to say doesn't support the troops. That is the underlying message here, isn't it?
I doubt this is really a soldier. This is someone trying to make a point and shut down the discussion by waving a soldier in front of them, knowing people will be inclined to respect that regardless of their political leanings.
Let me give you an example, while I am at it, of how troops are used by people to get what they want and why it pisses me off that no one seems to get angry about it. I was in Idaho last month, in a small vacation town. Exiting a restaurant I noticed a sign in the window. On one side, the side facing out, was an American flag and the line "we support our troops!" But on the flip side, the side you could see when waiting for your table in the lobby, was advertising! An ad for the furniture store that printed these signs and distributed them. At the bottom of the ad promoting the shops was a command: "Put this sign in your window to show that you support the troops." And Pavlov's dogs responded! It is unacceptable to disagree with government policy because somehow that is not supporting the troops, but it is perfectly ok to use them and the situation they're in to self promote. I find it disgusting, but it seems most people don't even question it.
Oh and if you really support your troops, why not take a few minutes to make up your own sign with your own message, and put that in your window? We saw a lot of home made signs as we drove through small towns, with yellow ribbons and names of soldiers, and they were very moving. Unlike this sign, which means nothing. But I guess it takes less thought and effort to accept the first pre-made sign that comes your way and tape it up on your window. Woof.
However, back to the review, throwing out lines like "I used to be liberal" or "I am a soldier" do not actually lend you further credence in a battle of opinions, even if they are true, because these are...drum roll...opinions! And like belly buttons, everyone's got one and you can't take it away by name-calling and guilt. Rather than present their arguments with reasoning or facts, they make these unverifiable statements meant to confer authority to whatever they've said, as well as to shut down any opposition. It is the classic approach of a poor debater.
As you've seen, there are more laughs to be had in these posts than irritation. I will always remember the review that got me started on all of this. It was for a book I can't be sure about anymore, maybe a Michael Moore book. But his words had me hooked on review reviewing forever. He mocked the radical leftist America-hating commie pigs for believing this crap, and said maybe the Dixie Chicks will run for President and you can all rush out and vote for them. Given it was posted at the time of Arnold Shwarzenegger's California Republican gubernatorial victory, I think this review should get a special prize for the pot calling the kettle black.