Most Helpful Customer Reviews
80 of 86 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
a book for patriot Democrats and Republicans, September 14, 2003
He writes a book exposing lies told to all of us by mostly extreme right-wing conservatives. He is not attacking the Republican party as a whole, or the Democrat, for that matter, but certain individuals and groups. He isn't trying to say that all conservatives or liberals are bad, but there are several out there that have taken their lies so far out that they have hurt the country to the very depths of its soul. All of us have a little liberal and a little conservative in us, some a little more of one than the other. It is this small right wing group he talks of, compared to the entire country, that has turned this country upside down with their lies. He is trying to clear some of them up. Ann Coulter is one that he exposes. Why anyone would want to believe her lies is beyond me. Her ideas are so unamerican and unchristian that it is mind boggling that they even published her book, but then you see the people who support it and her and then you get a little better idea of the brain-washing that the people are getting. He exposes the news media for its bias and shows the relations of various owners and their blatant use of distorting the truth. He tells about how Bush distorts the truth about taxes. How he tries to convince the average person how good a deal they are getting when the rich elite are the ones that are getting the deals. Most corporations and such do not pay the taxes that they should in the first place and then they get the big refunds. An example would be that under the Jobs Growth Tax Relief and Recconciliation act of 2003 under Section 179 expense Deduction: expense deduction was increased from 25,000 to 100,000 for 2003, 2004, 2005. That is 75,000 dollars that will not be taxed. If 100,000 take advantage of it, 7,500,000,000 dollars that will not be taxed in one year (multiply that times the actual number and it is mind boggling). How many average people can afford to spend 100,000 dollars? This is okay if your economy is in good shape which ours isn't. Then he deals with the very people who made such a big deal about Clinton's moral misdeeds and exposes those same people who committed the same or worse moral offenses and yet had the temerity to act like avenging angels. He shows us what a lot our politicians, etc. really believe in not just their public image. I wonder how they will explain their actions when, or if, they meet God when Judgement Day comes for them. He is fighting back as we all should, against those that lie to the people who elect them. Then he tackles the Bushes and it is not a pleasant scene. Money has been the driving force behind these people, with no regard for the average citizen. The influence of money and moneyed people have paved the way of their transgressions. He details their involvement with Ken Lay and the Enron Corporation, the one they tried to back off of when the scandal broke, but they were extremely involved with them for years. He tells of George W. stating that Ann Richards of Texas was supported by Ken Lay (He says this on Jan. 11, 2002) to mislead his connection to Ken Lay. Ann did get a campaign donation,$12,500 versus $146,500 to George W. Bush. These are the kind of tactics that they use. (If you want to more about George W., read "Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President-a book they tried to get banned and even threatened the author and his family) You Californians might be interested in how he helped Enron rip you off on energy prices during your crisis. He tells about that. He exposes one Bush transgression after another. I had to put the book down a few times to let my blood pressure drop as I read the book. I agree with one of the other reviewers, in that, I think the reason more people haven't spoken out about all these offenses is that I don't think the people thought that anyone would believe all the crud spread around and just let it go, but now the people are up in arms, as they should be, and they are getting their act together. It is a fight that cannot be lost if we want our country to be free again like it should be. Get the Patriot Act repealed first thing and everyone get out and vote! The book is very informative, not as entertaining as Al Franken's new book, "Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them: A Fair and Balance Look at the Right" (another book they tried to stop from being published), but it is just as important and good-an eye opener!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
68 of 74 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
This is a great book, and I don't say that lightly, March 14, 2004
I'm a very liberal person, and agreeing with what Joe Conason has to say is a good start. However, I don't give out five starts lightly, and I'll admit that the left has its fair share of sloppy political commentators who don't check their facts often. I'm glad to say that Conason here delivers a book that is as involving and well-researched as Al Franken's "Lies", and is a must read for anyone who doesn't like the way things are going in America right now. Like Franken, Conason spends a good deal of time attacking the right-wing media, but it's not the focus of the book. Rather, he concentrates on the hypocrisy of the "family values" Republicans, and the terrible things that George Bush has done to this country in the name of "restoring moral values" and "fighting the war on terrorism". I think it's about time that the left fought back against the right's charges with everything we've got. It always infuriates me when the right-wingers call Democrats un-American (I love what this country's supposed to stand for) and anti-family (I love my family dearly, and want one of my own once I graduate college) simply because we believe in equal rights for all and the continuing separation of church and state. Conason hits exactly the right note here, and I highly recommend "Big Lies". However, a disclaimer- by the time you finish this book, you will likely be very angry, as there's not as much comic relief as there was in Franken's "Lies".
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
77 of 85 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
a great book, if you actually read it!, October 12, 2003
By A Customer
This book is well worth reading and easily rises above the comments of the 'reader from San Francisco' (who seemed to think that CNN is a leftist television station because it is to the left of Bush on a few more issues than Fox is). It seems unfair to let such a lengthy attack on the book go unanswered, so here goes: 1)If the commentator truly wishes to see the extent of the falsity in Bernard Goldberg's _Bias_, then he ought to read Eric Alterman's _What Liberal Media?_. Presumably, with this excellent refutation of Goldberg's canards already on the market, Conanson deemed it unnecessary to devote much space to this issue. But I'd be surprised if any open-minded person could give any credit to Goldberg after reading both his book and Alterman's. 2)Conanson's claims about Clinton's more aggressive stance regarding Bin Laden are correct and well-documented. If the commentator doubts those claims, the burden is on him to show where Conanson's arguments break down. Clearly, the commentator has failed to do this: saying it's "just silly" only shows that he doesn't believe the claims made. But to doubt the conclusion to be sound without being able to find any flaws in the argument or its premises, or even to produce any counterargument, is just pigheadedness. 3)In his next paragraph, the commentator asks "how the heck can you claim that the media are owned by the corporations?", the implication being that this claim of Conanson's (which is, again, backed up very well) is ridiculous and false. But this is hardly a matter of opinion! The media outlets described _are_ all owned by corporations. That is a matter of public record that nobody -- not even the media outlets and the corporations who own them -- attempts to deny! 4)The fact that the corporate-owned media (like any other media) hand-pick their anchors, hosts, etc., and that the freedom of choice we have in deciding whom we will watch is limited to options among the choices the media giants have made, is clearly lost on the commentator. But it surely is even more foolish than this to refer to centrist stations like PBS and NPR as 'anti-government' when it is the members of the Bush administration who have made no secret about their wish to limit and dismantle the government, while those _against_ Bush almost invariably argue against his _removal_ of regulations, services, etc. on the part of the government. A government cannot be run without tax revenue, and those opposed to tax cuts are more frequently heard on NPR than on any of the other mainstream stations. Does the commentator not understand this? 5)Finally, the commentator assumes that the only 'liberal' values worth mentioning are "atheism, gay marriage, abortion on demand, and as of late, driver licenses to illegal immigrants", and seems to assume that at bottom Conanson chiefly wishes to promote these things. But that clearly shows his unfamiliarity with Conanson's book, and the fact that the commentator's idea of 'liberalism' is one defined entirely by the likes of Rush Limbaugh. 'Liberalism' is the view that freedom of choice is the (or at least a) great social good, and that we should do all we can (other things being equal) to maximize liberty for all. Now, I personally think there needs to be more to the equation than that; but what the commentator is missing is that most Americans _do_ want the _freedom_ to (among other things) choose which religion to follow, or whether to follow a religion at all, etc. Gay marriage is still controversial in some people's minds, as is the question of whether women should be allowed to go to university or whether black people are born criminals. But why should we pander to these ignorant and bigoted people? Doesn't the commentator agree that this country was founded on an ideal of freedom, and that this is something to be proud of and work toward? Would the commentator really prefer a government that interferes with consenting adults deciding to make lifelong commitments to each other, just because he personally isn't gay?? Admittedly, there is some moral controversy (as there should be) over the abortion question (though not really in the Conanson book); and I'm not at all sure where Conanson argues in favour of giving driver's licences to illegal immigrants(???). However, all this shows is that the commentator was not really familiar with the book he was criticizing.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
