Banned at Amazon: Bookseller Rigs Reviewer Rankings

A Different Drummer ^ | 21 July 2003 | Nicholas Stix

[mrustow]

(Suppressed amazon.com review)

Who'll Stop the Rain?

Making Ends Meet:
How Single Mothers Survive Welfare and Low-Wage Work
by Kathryn Edin, Laura Lein
Russell Sage Foundation, March 1997
$22.00, ISBN: 087154234X

3 1/2 stars out of 5

During the early 1980s, social scientists noticed that welfare mothers were spending three to six times their official incomes. In his exquisitely written foreword, Harvard sociologist Christopher Jencks argues persuasively that in a "conspiracy of silence," conservatives didn't want to admit that mothers could not survive on welfare checks alone, while "liberals" didn't want to admit that clients had unreported resources. Jencks and his colleagues asked where the additional money was coming from. Making Ends Meet provides some answers.

Aided by over thirty research associates, sociologist Kathryn Edin and anthropologist Laura Lein interviewed 379 single welfare AND poor working mothers in Chicago, Boston, San Antonio, Charleston and rural Minnesota. The authors compared the groups, with the purpose of undermining welfare reform.

Virtually all of the mothers studied derived income from their children's fathers, from boyfriends, relatives, off-the-books jobs (e.g., babysitting), selling stolen goods, prostitution or dealing drugs. Despite unreported income, uneducated, unskilled women working at "dead-end" jobs were barely treading water.

The authors report that single, working mothers have more cash, yet suffer greater hardships than their non-working counterparts. Working mothers must pay for additional transportation, and for services such as medical and child care that welfare mothers get free. Edin and Lein thus conclude that poor women are usually worse off working than being on welfare.

The authors tend to exaggerate the difficulty of finding affordable child care. Although a respondent told of getting babysitting services from a welfare mother for a bag or two of groceries per month, the authors speak of "market-rate" (read: exorbitant, state-licensed) child care. As NYU political scientist Lawrence Mead noted in The New Politics of Poverty (1992), as Jencks corroborates, and as I know from direct experience, poor working mothers are able to negotiate affordable, unlicensed child care without "service-providers" from inflationary, government programs. The supposed lack of child care is a rehearsed response that welfare mothers know to give to credulous, "Suzy the social worker" (a term a foster-care caseworker colleague taught me) types and socialist/radical multicultural academic researchers: "I really want to work, but ..."

Edin and Lein alternate between the role of "Suzies" and that of dogged interviewers. They re-interview respondents who initially gave unrealistic budgets, or ambiguous or misleading answers on whether they were receiving child support, or engaging in casual prostitution. The pervasiveness of casual prostitution matched my own observations in New York's slums; that of informal child support surprised me. However, when it comes to the mothers' rationalizations for not working, it's "Suzy time" again. The conflicted authors emphasize mothers' concern with avoiding criminal activity, despite chronicling their involvement in prostitution, and in contracting with shoplifters to steal clothing for their children.

Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, and the Democrats' ensuing Northern Strategy's revolutionary anti-morality put dunce caps on millennia-old moral teachings prohibiting premarital sex. Armies of sexual "educators" and "helping" professionals and their university and media apologists told girls they had a right to "non-marital births," and demanded that hardworking, married folks support those children. Implicitly re-defining a family as an unwed mother and child(ren), the authors are shocked, shocked, that this results in a poor, unskilled girl raising her fatherless child(ren) in poverty.

(As liberal Democratic historian Fred Siegel (The Future Once Happened Here) has chronicled, the Marxist National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) sought to bankrupt New York City, and precipitate a revolution. From 1966-73, liberal Republican Mayor John V. Lindsay's social services commissioner, Mitchell "Come and Get It" Ginsberg, more than doubled the welfare rolls, from 538,000 to 1.165 million. At the same time, the NWRO pursued a politics of racial polarization, a politics it later attributed to Republicans. Instead of a revolution, the NWRO precipitated the moral collapse of urban black society.)

In seeing life in "some of the country's most dangerous neighborhoods" as driving concerned mothers onto the dole, rather than leave their children unsupervised while they work, the authors confuse cause and effect. It is the spread of illegitimacy and welfare, and their accompanying vices, that has made such areas so dangerous.

In Why Nothing Works (1987), "liberal" anthropologist Marvin Harris "explained" that welfare clients raised their sons to be violent, the better to protect the mothers (from other women's sons). Hence, to the degree that poor young blacks and Hispanics embrace crime, they do so not in response to (white) racism, or lack of opportunity, but to their rearing.

Millions of American couples avoid poverty through pooling modest paychecks, one spouse working extra hours, sharing responsibilities, relying on relatives for child care and limiting their wants. The authors have unwittingly made a compelling case for demolishing the welfare state and its "alternative" family models. The solution is marriage.

When I was a foster-care caseworker, one of my clients almost always missed agency visits to see her seven children. "I didn't want to leave the house, 'cause it was rainin,'" gradually became "It looked like it MIGHT rain." Edin and Lein deny the morality of work and responsible living, yet portray welfare clients as always a government program away from employability. But government will never be able to stop the rain, just as it will never be able to guarantee uneducated, unskilled women "good jobs."

I doubt that Making Ends Meet will cause an uncommitted reader to suddenly empathize with welfare clients. In a New York Times puff piece, Edin inadvertently clarified the book's (for me) peculiar sensibility. Reporter Jason DeParle related that while Edin, who is white, found black children beautiful, "white children at times began to look 'homely'" to her. Rather than caring about ALL poor kids, Kathryn Edin apparently feels a blind loyalty to poor black women and their children, and a corresponding obligation to be repelled by children of her own race. How sad.

Originally published in the February, 1998 Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.

Cyber-Censorship at Amazon

If you go to my Amazon About You Area, you'll see two instances of this review. But if you hit the links to the book, Making Ends Meet, you will not see either copy of the review. An Amazon employee has hidden my review, so that other customers will not be able to read or vote on it. (Note that as one's rank is determined in part based on the ratio of reviews to votes, having reviews that no one votes on, will cause one's ranking to fall. Then again, since Amazon staffers have either hidden or refrained from posting my last five reviews, at this rate the issue of the ratio of reviews to votes will soon be moot.) Upon seeing this scam once, I resubmitted the review, and Amazon (presumably a different employee) posted both reviews first on the book's page. But then an Amazon staffer (the first one?) hid both reviews yet again.

The trick to finding the reviews, is that you have to hit the "customer reviews" link high on the left side of the book's information page. Right here. For any other item, reviews are posted on the immediate page, with a big, bold link to all other customer reviews immediately below them.

If you check the reviews of Cinema Without Walls posted at my current Amazon page, you'll not find them posted on the book's page at all. Thus do Amazon's people create the illusion of having posted the review. When I figured out what they had done to the first review, I resubmitted it. It was immeiately posted to my "About You" area, suggesting it had been automatically re-routed. Amazon's people have so far refused to even feign posting the review I sent them on July 7, of William McGowan's book, Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism. I sent the McGowan review again, seven days later, and then a third time, under a different title, on July 19.

I originally sent this review, of Making Ends Meet, to Amazon on September 27, 2000, and it was posted some time in early October of that year. At the time, I would have to send in reviews as many as six times, including sending them to the office of CEO Jeff Bezos (jeff@amazon.com), before they would be posted. An Amazon politburo employee clearly didn't like what I was saying. In spite of the sandbagging, I had risen to #4469 in the rankings, based on customer votes. When I wrote letters of complaint to Amazon, its flunkies insisted that all reviews were posted in the order in which they came. I actually went to the trouble of determining that Amazon's favorite reviewers, such as Harriet Klausner (#1), would send dozens of reviews in at the same time, all of which would often be posted the next day. Obviously, this would cause the house favorites to get many more votes than someone who had to spend up to two months sending and re-sending the same, bloody review.

If I'm not mistaken, this whole situation is a case of consumer fraud, since consumers are being led by a seller to engage in activity based on the seller's false claims. Having been a magazine publisher for a few years, and a freelance writer for twenty, I also strongly suspect that the claim at Amazon's web site, that "Submissions become the property of Amazon.com," would not hold up in a court of law, especially given that Amazon has re-published, without special arrangements, many previously published customer reviews whose copyrights belong to the original publishers. Copyright is something that one has to formally sign away, using a legal contract. And I'd love to hear Amazon's lawyers explain how their clients fully intend to suppress, without paying for them, reviews they have induced people to send them, while Amazon claims ownership of the suppressed, censored or illegally altered reviews. Discovery would be a hoot!

I know, I know: There's not a snowball's chance in hell of any of this coming to pass. But what's wrong with indulging in a little harmless speculation, as long as the wife doesn't know what I'm doing with my time? (I tell her I'm viewing pornography; I don't want her to think ill of me.)

(Note that some Amazon employees liked my reviews. One of my earliest Amazon reviews, of Ruth and Neil Cowan's Our Parents' Lives, won a reviewing prize and a $50 gift certificate.)

Back in 2000, my letters grew more sarcastic, and Amazon's response more aggressive. In October, 2000, an employee moved most of my reviews, including the one above, to a "private section," where only Amazon employees and I could read them. In November, the "private" reviews were all purged, their votes subtracted, and my ranking sent into Amazon oblivion. Had Amazon staffers, and at least one supervisor not put their thumbs on the scale, I am sure that by now, I'd have cracked the circle of "TOP 1000" reviewers.

A handful of my reviews from 2000 are inexplicably still available at my old "About You" Area. Note, however, that an Amazon staffer illegally deleted my note at the end of my review of Ted Pappas' book, Plagiarism and the Culture Wars, acknowledging that it had originally been published in The American Enterprise, which owns the copyright.

Meanwhile, racist, black reviewers are able to operate with impunity at Amazon, even when they fill their "reviews" with lies, as a New Jersey reviewer (sometimes he identifies himself as being from Somerville) has done in a series of posts in which he lies about the O.J. Simpson case, in order to make Simpson appear innocent of the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

Why do I bother sending reviews to a clearly corrupt organization? The short answer is, I'm clearly nuts.

The longer answer is, Amazon asked me to. "Me" means that the firm solicited reviews from everyone, with the come-on that it could help make obscure writers famous. And what writer was more obscure than yours truly? Hence, any ideas I had about sending reviews TO Amazon, came FROM Amazon, and not my own fevered imagination.

The Amazon attraction should be obvious. Freelance writer who toils for low-circulation (25,000-100,000 reader) publications while working on book, gets to promote himself to hundreds of thousands of potential customers who read his book, movie, and music reviews, and eventually remember his name.

After Amazon started purging my posted reviews, I stopped sending in new reviews, except for an experiment I performed, writing a brief, lame review of the Mike Myers movie, So I Married an Axe Murderer. (Not that the movie was lame; on the contrary.) Amazon's people promptly posted my review. So, I was permitted to write short, puff pieces, but forbidden from writing any serious pieces that might actually have some value.

This past spring, I broke my rule against doing business with Amazon, in using it to buy a book for a friend.

Since I'd forgotten my Amazon password, I had to get a new one. That gave me the notion of sending in reviews again. Maybe the new password would change my cookie, and Amazon's computer wouldn't recognize it. The first few reviews were posted without problem, but then Amazon's staffers were back up to their old tricks again. I guess I'll be getting purged again, any day now.

A "reasonable" person would say, 'Forget about it; move on.' Aside from the fact that "reasonable" people don't touch the topics I routinely tackle, when you've been censored as many times as I have, by socialists and Republicans alike, "moving on" is not an option. You'd end up without anyone ever reading your work. And so, if I'm going to be a "nut," anyway, I might as well get some publicity for myself, and embarrass Amazon and Jeff Bezos, in the bargain. If Bezos is going to let his employees censor reviewers who don't toe the pc line politically -- which is clearly done with his blessing, since I alerted him to it, three years ago -- then let him say so officially, and end his little charade.

[mrustow]

Is this the soft totalitarianism of the "new economy"?

[mrustow]

BTTT

[Rodney King]

In spite of the sandbagging, I had risen to #4469 in the rankings, based on customer votes.

While the whole political bias angle sucks, I have to say that the author has a serious problem if his self identity is tied up in his Amazon reviewer ranking.

[TheAngryClam]

Their website, their rules.

[mrustow]

FYI

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

Can you provide a readers digest version? What happened?

[mrustow]

In spite of the sandbagging, I had risen to #4469 in the rankings, based on customer votes.

While the whole political bias angle sucks, I have to say that the author has a serious problem if his self identity is tied up in his Amazon reviewer ranking.

Why do you think he will discuss it at FR, but won't tell his own wife about it? Or didn't you read that far?

[mrustow]

Their website, their rules.

You obviously haven't read their rules. Maybe you ought to clam up, until you've taken the trouble to do that.

[TheAngryClam]

Doesn't matter what the stated rules are. They own the site, and can publish or not publish whatever they want.

Correspondingly, you can frequent them or not as you so choose.

[BonnieJ]

Amazon refused to print my review of Michael Moore's book, saying I wasn't showing him proper respect. I edited out a couple of mildly insulting words and they still wouldn't print it. There are many very blatantly offensive reviews about conservative writers, some by people who obviously haven't read the books. Their staff does edit and choose what they print, do doubt about that!

[Rodney King]

I read that far. I read the whole thing. The guy still has an unhealthy obsession with his Amazon reviewer ranking.

[BonnieJ]

Of course I mean "no doubt"!

[Timesink]

As NYU political scientist Lawrence Mead noted in The New Politics of Poverty (1992)...

Mead was my first poly sci professor as a freshman at NYU, and the guy that really opened my eyes to how economically bankrupt (and, by extension, politically and morally bankrupt) American liberal policies are. If it wasn't for him, it may have taken me another five years to truly break with the RAT Party.

Of course, living in Manhattan during the Dinkins Administration, followed by the Giuliani Administration, sure helped.

[mrustow]

Can you provide a readers digest version? What happened?

Guy checks out amazon, which says, "Post your reviews, and we'll make you famous." He's a struggling, obscure writer, so he bites. He sends them his reviews, which they like at first (he wins a $50 prize), and he's rapidly climbing in the standings, but then they stop posting them. He sends the same reviews in a million times, along with letters of complaint, before they get posted. amazon people lie to him in their responses, saying they publish all reviews in the order in which they come. Then they start deleting his reviews and his votes. He starts sending in reviews again, and they appear to post them, but actually hide them, where no readers will see them. He gets so pissed off, that he decides to publicly embarass them, by blowing the whistle on them.

That'll be $2.95, please.

[mrustow]

Can you provide a readers digest version? What happened?

Guy checks out amazon, which says, "Post your reviews, and we'll make you famous." He's a struggling, obscure writer, so he bites. He sends them his reviews, which they like at first (he wins a $50 prize), and he's rapidly climbing in the standings, but then they stop posting them. He sends the same reviews in a million times, along with letters of complaint, before they get posted. amazon people lie to him in their responses, saying they publish all reviews in the order in which they come. Then they start deleting his reviews and his votes. He starts sending in reviews again, and they appear to post them, but actually hide them, where no readers will see them. He gets so pissed off, that he decides to publicly embarass them, by blowing the whistle on them.

That'll be $2.95, please.

[mrustow]

The guy still has an unhealthy obsession with his Amazon reviewer ranking.

No doubt.

[mrustow]

FYI

[mrustow]

FYI

[visualops]

Your review seems more like an essay on the topic, into which you've woven comments on the book. I didn't find it particularly useful as a review. I'm not trying to be harsh, just objective. I'll also say that sites like amazon tend to run in circles and you get mixed results depending on what you click on- I was looking at jewelry once and every few pages would repeat page 1, it was very annoying. Anyway, there may well be some folks over there who don't like you, and I'll bet your nagging hasn't helped their opinion of you, especially if your letters became "more sarcastic". Don't you know you catch more flies with honey? :)

[mrustow]

FYI

[mrustow]

Who, me? I'm just the poster.

[mrustow]

FYI

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I may rethink where I get my books!

[disclaimer]

If you're a Catholic, you'll ought to take offense to this this Amazon review of A Twist of Faith, an anti-feminist tome by Berit Kjos. I've read this well researched, sourced, and footnoted book and recommend it for those women, or a husband of a woman, involved in new age spirituality.

Editorial Reviews
Ingram
Berit Kjos is convinced that millions of women are traveling down cultural freeways to self-made spirituality. Why, she asks, have feminist myths and goddesses replaced biblical faith for many Christians who have embarked on journeys of self-discovery.

Then comes the Amazon feedback:

Customer Reviews
Avg. Customer Review:

The only customer review: Offensive to all non-Christians!
"This book is disgustingly offensive to anyone who is not Christian..."

Well duh, why do you think Jesus was murdered? Sometimes the truth hurts. Do you think maybe a couple of feminists wrote the Editorial Review and the Customer Review - just maybe? Had enough of the feminist machine?

[ubermacht003]

When Wallmart Buys Amazon. Com
His Problems Will Be Few !!

[Timesink]

Okay, I went in and poked around Amazon as if I wanted to enter a review of the same book. The very first thing it says is that there's a 1,000-word maximum, and that the "recommended length" is 75-300 words. This tells you right off the bat that huge reviews are far less likely to get posted. Stix's review clocks in at 959 words. Strike one.

Next, the review guidelines say:

"Your comments should focus on the product. You must also include a valid e-mail address, but you can opt not to display your e-mail address if you do not want others to have access to it. The best reviews include not only whether you liked or disliked a product, but also why. Feel free to mention other products that you consider similar and how this product rates in comparison to them. Comments that are not specific to the product or that violate our guidelines in any way, may be removed from the Amazon.com Web site at any time, at our discretion."

Now, it's an debatable point, but the argument can easily be made that Stix's post goes beyond a mere review of the book and instead veers off into a political argument, including unprovable personal anecdotes, that attempts to disprove the book's entire thesis. That's generally more than most potential book purchasers are looking for; they want to know if the book is well-written and if the author(s) make a compelling argument, not have the argument itself torn apart ... especially when the reviewer turns his review into his own personal polemic ("The solution is marriage," etc.). Basically, Stix wrote an argumentative article that would be great for the book review section of a political publication like National Review, but totally inappropriate for a web site that's just trying to sell books. Strike two.

Next, from Amazon's Participation Guidelines: "We reserve the right to restrict or remove any and all uses or Content that we determine in our sole discretion is harmful to our systems, network, reputation, or goodwill, to other Amazon.com customers, or to any third party, [including] the upload, download, or transmission of any Content that infringes the intellectual property rights or other proprietary rights of others, including, without limitation, copyright, trademark, patent, or trade secrets." His review clearly states at the bottom, "Originally published in the February, 1998 Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture." This means Amazon's drones had every reason to believe it was a copyrighted article, and that the copyright belongs to Chronicles magazine, not Stix. And the simple fact is that neither Amazon nor any other company is going to waste their time seeking copyright clearances for stuff like this. If there's even a 1% question as to who owns the rights to the words, it's going in the trash. Strike three.

And judging from this article, Mr. Stix has had a number of run-ins with Amazon's review staff over time, so yeah, he's probably on their sh*t list regardless. It's just like TheAngryClam says: Their system, their rules, no matter how unfair. Strike four, and Stix is way more than out.

There's no doubt that these reader reviews have to go through a selection process, and that the reviewers of reviews are mostly young liberals in Amazon's Seattle HQ that screw over conservatives more often than liberals. But Stix was practically begging to have this review yanked.

[visualops]

lol I'm sorry!
well, whoever that guy is lol

[Timesink]

Well duh, why do you think Jesus was murdered? Sometimes the truth hurts. Do you think maybe a couple of feminists wrote the Editorial Review and the Customer Review - just maybe?

The editorial review isn't even a review, it's just a two-sentence summary of what the book is about. And saying the author "is convinced" is not a negative statement. As for the single customer review, have you attempted to write and submit your own? The book's ranking is 452,667; it's obvious most people have never heard of it.

[mrustow]

Amazon has re-published, without special arrangements, many previously published customer reviews whose copyrights belong to the original publishers.

Besides, I understood Stix to be saying that amazon would have to enter into a formal contract, before it could own ANY customer review. He also said that amazon cut the previous publication line off a review of his that's still posted there.

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

Oh, ok. Thanks for boiling this down. Sounds like the guy went postal. Who ever heard of a reviewer getting famous writing on amazon? Crazy.

[Tax Government]

Amazon needs to take the issue of fairness seriously enough to make it a central part of its message to customers.

Fox News says, "We report, you decide." That kind of slogan, and the reality to back it up, helped separate Fox from the rest of the pack. Amazon can do something similar.

There are good commercial side effects to taking the high road. Amazon's management should see non-bias as an opportunity to provide additional value to customers, which it is.

[Timesink]

Amazon has re-published, without special arrangements, many previously published customer reviews whose copyrights belong to the original publishers.

Yes, he says this, but he offers zero evidence to back it up. Besides, how do we know he's not talking about reviews where the writers simply didn't TELL Amazon they'd already published the same reviews somewhere else? Stix was stupid enough to openly admit it in his submission.

Besides, I understood Stix to be saying that amazon would have to enter into a formal contract, before it could own ANY customer review.

By submitting a review at all, he is entering into a formal contract, whether he believes it or not:

" If you do post content or submit material, and unless we indicate otherwise, you grant Amazon.com and its affiliates a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display such content throughout the world in any media. You grant Amazon.com and its affiliates and sublicensees the right to use the name that you submit in connection with such content, if they choose. You represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content that you post; that the content is accurate; that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity; and that you will indemnify Amazon.com or its affiliates for all claims resulting from content you supply. Amazon.com has the right but not the obligation to monitor and edit or remove any activity or content. Amazon.com takes no responsibility and assumes no liability for any content posted by you or any third party."

He can blather about how it wouldn't hold up in court, but the reality is that it would, and does every day.

He also said that amazon cut the previous publication line off a review of his that's still posted there.

Again, unprovable. He may be telling the truth, he may not. And the last part of the paragraph posted above covers that too: If Stix posted stuff to which he doesn't own the copyright, it's his problem if the copyright owners find out and raise hell, not Amazon's. And whether he included a disclaimer and had it deleted by an Amazon drone or not is irrelevant.

[mrustow]

When Wallmart Buys Amazon. Com His Problems Will Be Few !!

We can only hope!

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

I completely agree with you.

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

"When Wallmart Buys Amazon. Com His Problems Will Be Few !!"

Wal-mart panders to homosexuals. I don't think this is going to change.

[TheSpottedOwl]

I remember when we FReeped Amazon and sent in comments about Hillary's book :) All comments were duly deleted.

[mrustow]

Amazon has re-published, without special arrangements, many previously published customer reviews whose copyrights belong to the original publishers.

Yes, he says this, but he offers zero evidence to back it up. Besides, how do we know he's not talking about reviews where the writers simply didn't TELL Amazon they'd already published the same reviews somewhere else? Stix was stupid enough to openly admit it in his submission.

I once saw an amazon customer review that had the tagline, that it had previously been published in the WSJ. I've also seen previously published reviews there from other publications. Not the WSJ, and not a lot, but I've seen 'em, all the same.

He also said that amazon cut the previous publication line off a review of his that's still posted there.

Again, unprovable. He may be telling the truth, he may not.

Actually, that is provable, if he downloaded the amazon review page. You might want to contact him, to ask him if he did that.

As for the copyright issue, the writer took issue with amazon's claim that any submission automatically became amazon's "property." That is not the same as amazon having reprint rights. Based on his other statements, I doubt he would mind it, if amazon reprinted his reviews and disseminated them, via various media, thoughtout the world. He also complained that amazon was claiming to "own" reviews that it had no intention of publishing.

[mrustow]

See #37.

[mrustow]

Oh, ok. Thanks for boiling this down.

Sure thing.

Sounds like the guy went postal. Who ever heard of a reviewer getting famous writing on amazon? Crazy.

Web fever.

[mrustow]

I may rethink where I get my books!

I buy most of mine from half.com. I get most of them in pristine condition, for anywhere from 50-90% off.

[disclaimer]

The editorial review isn't even a review, it's just a two-sentence summary of what the book is about. And saying the author "is convinced" is not a negative statement. As for the single customer review, have you attempted to write and submit your own? The book's ranking is 452,667; it's obvious most people have never heard of it.

Saying that the author "is convinced" makes this book appear to be an opinion piece of the author and not the researched and sourced book that it is. The Amazon published editorial statement is, in my opinion, purposely misleading. I've seen the technique used to malign Anne Coulter's book Slander and others like Christina Hoff-Sommers' Who Stole Feminism where the author researched and provided sourced information.

A Twist of Faith is an old book addressing what is nowadays a narrow demographic. I expect to see a ranking in the neighborhood of 452,667 or lower. The question in my mind is why is there an Editorial Review at all with such a low ranking - I've seen many books without any review of any sort. I have come to expect such reviews when the subject matter is not PC - that's my own observation. Regarding if I have attempted to write or submit my own, I have not written a review for any books of any type nor do I wish to start.

I am surprised that you cannot see the bias in the editorial review. Thanks for your comments.

[mrustow]

Amazon refused to print my review of Michael Moore's book, saying I wasn't showing him proper respect. I edited out a couple of mildly insulting words and they still wouldn't print it. There are many very blatantly offensive reviews about conservative writers, some by people who obviously haven't read the books. Their staff does edit and choose what they print, do doubt about that!

Not showing Michael Moore proper respect! I'm glad you told your story. I wonder how many conservative posters have had similar experiences. A fellow who is not a professional journalist took it upon himself to research and expose all of Moore's lies in his "documentary" set in Columbine. Moore is a total fraud! And he's got friends at amazon!

[visualops]

I dunno about that-

Our Customers' Advice
See what customers recommend in addition to, or instead of, the product on this page.

13 people recommended The Clinton Wars in addition to Living History

29 people recommended Hillary's Scheme: Inside the Next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House instead of Living History

I had to post this review because it's very funny:

30 of 57 people found the following review helpful:

(2 of 5 stars) She lived history, but her writing's dead as a doornail, June 9, 2003
Reviewer: David H Dennis (see more about me) from Woodland Hills, CA USA
According to a friend of mine who reads scripts for a living, you can tell whether a script will be decent or not by simply reading the first few pages. "I don't know of any film that's been able to salvage a bad first act," she said.

It is in this spirit that I checked out Hillary's book this afternoon. I think it's safe to say that you'd have to idolize Hillary to get through it without falling asleep.

From the first sentence on, it reads like a whitewashed memoir, perhaps of the head of some bland corporation. Hillary has had a pretty interesting life, as these things go, but she is so determined not to burn any bridges that she's sucked all possible life out of the narrative.

This has already been exposed by others as a memoir that was, well, economical with the truth. That might be forgivable if it was an entertaining read. But it feels like it was written by someone who'd ghost-written biographies of particularly dull corporate executives, using the drab style corporations love, and then sent to the Board of Directors for vetting by ten different people.

What's left has been squeezed hard and tight of any form of brilliance or eloquence.

I'm sorry, Hillary; I really wanted to give your book a fair shot. But in the end, I would recommend it only to masochists and insomniacs.

[mrustow]

As NYU political scientist Lawrence Mead noted in The New Politics of Poverty (1992)...

Mead was my first poly sci professor as a freshman at NYU, and the guy that really opened my eyes to how economically bankrupt (and, by extension, politically and morally bankrupt) American liberal policies are. If it wasn't for him, it may have taken me another five years to truly break with the RAT Party.

Of course, living in Manhattan during the Dinkins Administration, followed by the Giuliani Administration, sure helped.

Mead is known for having the cojones to talk about welfare clients' aversion to work, but doesn't he propose governmental intervention, albeit of a different kind than traditional welfare?

[mrustow]

FYI

[mrustow]

FYI

[mrustow]

FYI

[mrustow]

FYI

[mrustow]

FYI