Douglas Wilson Books

This book is an exemplary view of Abraham Lincoln's young adulthood in New Salem and Springfield between 1831 and 1842. The book begins with an introduction, than an explanation about the evidence that the historian of Lincoln's early life must sift through, and then it examines such important and interesting elements of Lincoln's early adulthood life as his numerous failed experiences with women, the tension between his honorable and ambitious external life and his tendency to mock religion and insult political enemies in his private life, as well as his professional successes and failures as he began his political life. This book is an excellent resource to any fan of Lincoln and any history student curious about the early life and formative years of Lincoln's political education. The book is easy to read and provides many fascinating quotations of personal letters that provide an aid to the authenticity of the author's occasionally startling claims.

Honor's Voice is terrific in two respects: both for its insights into Lincoln and for its insights into effective communication. I recommend it to anyone who uses words for a living, and for anyone who wants a fascinating, insightful look into how Lincoln crafted some of the most important speeches in our nation's history.

The reason this shouldn't be the first Lincoln book you read is that the author presupposes that the reader already has a basic command of Lincoln's life story. This book really speaks to those who are familiar with the various bits of Lincoln lore that permeate our culture: his wrestling match with Jack Armstrong, his courtship of Ann Rutledge, his off-and-on-again relationship with Mary Todd, and various accounts of his bookishness, his depression, and his early flirtations with agonisticism, among others.

Having said that, I like this book more than any of the standard Lincoln biographies I own (I have the Thomas, Donald, and Sandburg bios.) The very best thing to read, of course, is Lincoln himself (his collected speeches and writings), but of the biographies written by others, this may be my favorite.

The author dissects several of Lincoln's often-told formative experiences. In one example, he will explore the story of the wrestling match with Jack Armstrong, and ask:

-- When is the earliest surviving account of the story, and what is the source?
-- How has the story evolved over the years?
-- How true is it? What does the evidence show?
-- What is the significance of the story?

For those who don't know the Jack Armstrong story, it is basically as follows: Lincoln was getting harassed by a gang of toughs in his town, and to deal with it, he challenged their leader, Jack Armstrong, to a wrestling match. The match was widely anticipated and witnessed, and Lincoln had the better of Armstrong. Afterwards, Armstrong restrained his allies, saying that Lincoln had won fair and square, and afterwards, he was a loyal friend to Lincoln, as were his associates.

Like so many stories in the Lincoln canon, it's become a parable. It is a lesson about courage and forthrightness and insisting on fair play. In Lincoln's case, it also fills out the legend about his own physical strength, and how he became popular in his home town.

Wilson's book analyzes many such stories. The anecdotes have varying degrees of truth, though on balance, most of the standard Lincoln tales do appear to be based in fact, even if they have become embellished over the years.

You will like this book if you already enjoy the history of Lincoln, and if you like a little skeptical scientific inquiry thrown into your reading material. The reader is asked to travel along with the author as he gets to the bottom of the various issues surrounding Lincoln, and it's an enjoyable journey.

I personally feel that this book is much more pleasant than as a mere exercise in critical history. I found that the dissection of these stories brought Lincoln much more fully to life for me. You get a much more multi-faceted view of the man because you aren't really relying on one author's perspective, as tends to be the case in other Lincoln biographies.

It's an unusual work of history, and not the first Lincoln book to read, but it truly is outstanding. Highly recommended.

This book staggered me. Its careful research is combined with acute observations by author Wilson, on topics ranging from a fateful wrestling match that made Lincoln's reputation in a frontier village to Lincoln's bewilderment when courting Mary Todd. Wilson here produced one of the finest volumes ever to appear in the crowded field of Lincoln books. For anyone interested in how Lincoln's pre-presidential years shaped his conduct in the White House, Honor's Voice will be rewarding. It is one of the most significant Lincoln biographies I have ever read.

This is one of the most astonishing books I have ever read. I love history and yet this portrait of Abraham Lincoln is so much more. Had he been a Blacksmith, he would have been a hero. This was a man, a real man - no the greatest of men...who could not dissemble, lie, cheat, even when it came to marrying a woman that he knew (after they became engaged) would risk ruining his very life. He entered into a promise...and he would not go back on it. Of course, in those times, Breach of Promise (please read Anne Perry's book on this), was a serious offense against a woman's honor. But Lincoln carried this same integrity into everything he did no matter how difficult or huge - like the Civil War. I would hope that any student of American history would not miss out on this very important Masterpiece. As the cliche goes, if we do not learn from our own history, we are doomed (you know the rest....).

This workbook is designed to teach logic, and to do it from an unapologetically Christian slant. Chocked full of easy-to-understand lessons, each section ends with one (and sometimes two) exercises. This book is well designed, and should be considered by anyone interested in teaching his or her children formal logic.

My one and only complaint against this book is that the exercises do not include an answer page. But, I found the exercises easy enough that I could do my own correcting. So, I must say that I found this to be a great book and an excellent tool. I highly recommend it.

Well written material based on a Christian format. This will challenge you to think and reason your arguments. It is challenging for High School, but fun and interesting.

In a day where feelings are often thought to be more important than truth, Christians need to be prepared. This book begins that process. Taking the basics of formal logic from a Christian perspective, this Mars Hill text is easy to use and is suited for ages 13+. The explanation of concepts is done adequately, and the review exercises are helpful in mastering each lesson. There is also a book on intermediate logic to supplement the ideas learned in this introduction. This book has been written for Christians, so non-Christians may have a different opinion on its quality than I do. However, I would highly recommend this book to anyone wishing to begin learning formal logic.

I used this program with a gifted sixth grader this year. He found it interesting and challenging. That's pretty unusual! Since there are only 28 exercise sets, there was only just enough practice to begin to learn the concepts. I would like to see a lot more practice included for those of us who use it as a year's course in logic.

Although the basic priciples of logic are presented in a clear and orderly manner, this otherwise well-written text is marred by its overtly Christian agenda. A large percentage of the statements used as examples within the text are biblically derived. The secular student is not likely to have sufficient familiarity with these biblical references to judge whether a given statement is accurate or inaccurate (something the author seems to take for granted). Additionally, and most importantly, matters of faith are, by definition, beyond reason and logic and are therefore incompatible with the aims of a logic text. How is a secular student to judge the "truth value" of a statement such as, "Jesus healed the blind," or "The Bible is the word of God?"

Doug Wilson is an exceptional writer, and this book shows why. This book was written as a polemic for the use of satire in relation to others. Wilson is very humorous in this book. He is always humorous to read, but this book was exceptionally so.

Because many Evangelicals (including in the Reformed community) find it very offensive when someone uses satire to make a point, Wilson does an excellent job to show how that there actually is satire in scripture and that they did poke fun at people to proove a point. This can be a very valuable and effective tool when used in the biblical sense (as Wilson cogently shows).

For those who worry that this book advocates just ripping people to shreds and not carring about them, then that is mistaken. He even states this later on in the book that this is not the biblical attitude which we are to have. Overall, Wilson sets out to have a biblical and not an overly emotional and sensationalistic attitude as much of Evangelicalism suffers. This was a fun and easy book to read (I read it in one day).

As the subtitle suggests, this book is a Biblical defense of the use of satire. The author regularly uses this device to poke fun at various groups in his publication Credenda/Agenda (he's the editor and one of the main writers). My wife and I recently discovered this publication and disagreed over the use of often biting satire in it. We purchased this book to see his defense of its use.

This is not a straightforward, well structured, dry proof. Instead, the book is a pleasure to read and makes its case even though it meanders a bit. There is a clear discussion defining satire, chapters on the use of satire by Jesus, Paul, and others in the Bible, answers to common objections to the use of satire, instruction on the proper, biblical use of satire, and even a special section devoted to the satiric treatment of modern evangelicals (not necessarily in that order).

We found this work very helpful and are convinced by the argument in favor of the use of satire. Two concerns we had about satire were answered: 1) that satire is not loving, but gives offense and 2) Jesus did use satire but that doesn't mean we should. The answer to the first is that satire can be loving in giving Biblical offense. The answer to the second is to ask the basis on which we pick and choose how to imitate Jesus and whether that standard is Biblical.

I only give four stars (and would prefer to give 4.5) because there are several sentences in the book that we had to read several times before we understood what they meant. I think this was partly due to somewhat odd construction and partly due to our not understanding a metaphor, reference, or the use of satire right away. (Since we both hold graduate degrees I would like to think we're fairly literate, but some of the fault in understanding may certainly be our own.) This was a stumbling block to understanding the argument presented.

Some may object to certain words used in this book. I beg them to consider whether the author's exegesis is correct, not whether the book fails an extra-Biblical "dirty word count."

The book is a very quick read, even with the difficult sentences. My wife and I read it out loud in about 10 hours (not all together) which included our discussions of the book. I highly recommend this book for my fellow Christians for their personal study into the use of satire in the Bible and in our everyday lives.

First, to the previous reviews...
'A reader from Canada' appears to be making an ad hominem attack against Wilson, commenting on a book he hasn't read: 'If the quotes from the reviewer below are accurate'.
It's not surprising that 'A reader from Kirkland' would hate this book, because one of Wilson's goals appears to be to force us to look beyond our pietistic memory of what the Bible says, and actually _read_ what it says.

As for Phil 3:8, the Greek word is 'skubalon', and Wilson's rendering appears quite reasonable (the KJV rendered it 'dung'). Instead of insisting that an apostle would never write such a thing, Wilson calls us to see the strength of the contrast Paul makes between the worth of knowing Jesus and all that he used to think important.

Wilson builds a solid case that satire and strong words are biblical, quoting from Jesus, Proverbs, the OT prophets, and Paul. The title indicates that he is well aware that satire is a weapon, and he is diligent in pointing out where it is and is not appropriate.

This book is, at times, laugh-out-loud funny. Even if you wouldn't use satire yourself, it's valuable to see just how much is in the Bible, and how well it is used. As for being nice, Jesus was not 'nice' to the Pharisees. Wilson suggests there might be a lesson for us all.

This book firmly establishes Douglas Wilson's utter contempt for all that is holy-especially the Lord Jesus Christ. Two quotes should suffice to prove the point.

Paraphrasing the Lord's answer to the woman of Canaan in Matthew 15, Wilson writes, "Jesus was not above using ethnic humor to make His point either. . . . Put in terms that we might be more familiar with, Jesus was white, and the disciples were white, and this black woman comes up seeking healing, for her daughter. . . She comes up and beseeches Christ for healing. `It's not right,' He says, `to give perfectly good white folk food to "ni##ers."' . . If this understanding is right, then Jesus was using a racial insult to make a point. If it is not correct, then He was simply using a racial insult." (pp. 43, 44)

Well, it is not correct, and your mother should have washed your mouth out with soap.

Then commenting on Philippians 3:8, Wilson writes, "We simply cannot imagine the lofty sentiment of this wonderful passage (e.g., the `excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord') functioning in the same sentence with dog sh*t." (p. 62)

Well, we couldn't imagine it until you suggested it.

Naturally, Wilson's contempt for God shows itself, by extension, in his disdain for God's people. In fact "A Serrated Edge" is Wilson's justification for the mean-spirited way that he treats others. Here is the sum total of his argument: "God has divided the world between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, and since that time ridicule has been inescapable." And from this absurd declaration, Wilson argues that Scripture invites him to mock and ridicule believers and non-believers alike. He even calls it a "gift" and a "movement of the Spirit."

Wilson shows his instinctive menace as well. Consider the number of times he used the following words or variations of them: "attack," 35 times; "offend," 20 times; "ridicule," 17 times; "insult," 14 times; and of course the singular gratuitous uses of "dog sh*t," "cr@p," "a%%," and "ni##er."

But for all his potty mouth, Wilson never mentions the "Golden Rule," and he fails to ask the one important question: What would the Church look like if believers treated one another the way Wilson does?

Wilson "comes out" in this book. He would not have anyone confuse him for a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is wolf to the bone, and these pages reveal his fangs for all to behold. "Proud and haughty, scorner is his name." (Prov. 21:24.)

If you buy this book, hide it from your children. Hide it, that is, until the day when God visits Wilson with calamity. And then teach them something that Wilson never learned: God is not mocked.

Another highly entertaining and informative book by the Credenda Agenda gang. Thought provoking to say the least, but those with thin skin better look elsewhere.

Having read Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian nation", I purchased Douglas Wilsons books in the hope of a convincing rebuttal.

I was to be profoundly disappointed.

I have no desire to descend as Mr Wilson does occasionally into smug snideness but his philosophy and logic are about as deep as the average puddle. When he speaks in reference to deriving morality out of evolutionary theory he comes across as a person who has spent his entire life in a small town who presumes to wax lyrical about the back alleys architectural wonders of a city like London. Any number of books have been published on precisely this issue, Dawkins "The Selfish Gene" is but one example (see also "The Origins of Virtue" Matt Ridley, "The Altruism Equation", Lee Alan Dugatkin, "The Science of Good and Evil" Michael Shermer).

We are told that any moral sentiments the atheist feels derive from some sort of Christian detritus, in fact, "every aspect of our being was polluted in the fall. We do not just do bad things; we do them because we are bad people." (pg 104). This leaves me wondering how people who never heard of Jesus, living under a secular system e.g. Confucian China manage to be anything other than rabid beasts. Christianity in short is not responsible for our moral sentiments. If this is accepted, many of Mr Wilson's contentions evaporate.

Mr Wilson claims that atheists can have no reason to object to things like the holocaust. He neglects one of the obvious answers, enlightened self-interest.

That the Bible is the inerrant word of God he seems to accept as axiomatic based upon faith but faith is not evidence rather it is the substitution of emotion for evidence, a nice way of saying ones subjective feelings.

This book is too readily refuted to be aimed at the sceptical rather it seems it preaches to the converted.

A wonderfully-articulated rebuttal to Sam Harris's "Letter to a Christian Nation." This book asks many questions of Harris, the most prominent being, "Where do you get your standards of morality if you believe in no absolutes?" It's great that there are courageous Christians willing to take a stand against those who slander the faith. A must-buy! (Also, see my review for "Letter to a Christian Nation" for more of my objections to Harris's arguments.)

If you've read "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris, you at least owe it to yourself to read this title by Douglas Wilson. Many people have mistaken Harris's book for a strong argument against Christianity but it is not that at all for Harris can't even give justification for arguing in the way that he does and Wilson shows why.

Wilson responds to Harris's rather weak arguments in "Letter from a Christian Citizen" both with wit and clear logic. If you were swept away by the supposed fortitude of Sam Harris' book, do yourself a favor and purchase Douglas Wilson's response and see how Harris measures up. You'll find, rather easily, that Wilson demolishes the arguments of Sam Harris and leaves him with nothing to stand on.

If you're an atheist, then you need to give an adequate answer to Wilson's arguments. If you're a Christian who was shook by "Letter to a Christian Nation", then you need to read Wilson's response and see just how poor Harris's arguments really are.

A well written objective rebuttal of Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation". Clear defense of Christianity with weaknesses and inconsistencies of Atheist position highlighted. A must for understanding the differences of both sides.

Such a terrible drought in our land! Not only is there a famine of joy, but a lack of understanding of what joy is. There is more than just this.

Doug Wilson has finally provided the biblical balance for this book that contemporaries of our Lord Jesus would have said "defiled the hands." Unfortunately, many contemporary Christian expositors have agreed. This is not a book written by a backslidden schizophrenic. But it is a book of profound philosophy and a glorious exposure of the world's vanities. Every thing from inscrutable repetitiveness to ephemeral transitoriness is there - but the Church has had its exegetical eyes closed. Doug has steered a clear path between the Scylla and Charybdis of biblical interpretation. Skip the others and buy Wilson and Kaiser.

This book was an outgrowth of a conference at Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (interested in public administration). It deals with a difficult practical question. How effective was the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act - seen 20 years in hindsight? That Act was the first major reform since the passage of the original Pendleton Act of 1883, which set up the system of appointment of federal employees according to merit, not patronage.

Passed during the Carter administration, the act was primarily addressed to make government more streamlined and work better. It abolished the Civil Service Commission, replacing it with the Office of Personnel Management and Merit Systems Protection Board. Among other things, it introduced merit pay for managers, created the Senior Executive Service, and introduced commitment to equal employment opportunity and social representation.

The book consists of chapters by cooperating scholars, that reviews the history of experience since 1978, and cites polls of senior executives and political policymakers of both parties, as well as much other data. After serious early problems better ways of managing the system were instituted. These smoothed operations. Under the even-handed analysis of the authors, I do not discern that the "reforms" achieved their intended goals. My own experience in the federal government also suggests that things have gotten worse instead of better - but that is partly due to the overall influence of partisan politics that has reached a historic peak in the past thirty years.

For those seeking an informative, well referenced, and fair exploration of how federal employees - and especially senior managers - are hired, promoted, and managed, I can't think of a better place to start than editors Pfiffner and Brook's book. Both are political scientists at George Mason University.

Finally, I can't help citing one extraordinary quote from James Madison (in Hugh Heclo's chapter):

"I have observed that gentlemen suppose that the general legislature will do every mischief they possibly can, and that they will omit to do every thing good which they are authorized to do. If this were a reasonable supposition, their objections would be good. I consider it reasonable to conclude that they will as readily do their duty, as deviate from it; Nor do I go on the ground mentioned by gentlemen on the other side - that we are to place unlimited confidence in them and expect nothing but the most exalted integrity and sublime virtue.

But I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks - no form of government can render us secure......."

I wish we had more Madisons now when we badly need them.

This is a reprint of the Lincoln biography published in the 1880s by his former law partner, Billy Herndon. Lincoln biographers have spent 95 years telling why Herndon was mistaken about this or that--until recently. Now they are beginning to say the earlier historians were wrong and Herndon was probably right. I had never read Herndon, but only had seen him quoted selectively. Billy comes through as a very honest man and a bit like Lincoln. One can see why the latter asked him to be his partner, and stuck it out in partnership with him for a good 20 years. The editors say Herndon was a better back-room lawyer than Lincoln, but Lincoln a much better courtroom lawyer, and the partnership complemented itself that way. Billy was better at research, and that suggests Billy did very good research on his Lincoln biography, too. Shortly after Lincoln was shot Herndon interviewed and corresponded with scores of people from Lincoln's family and his early life. It's easy to see why the law firm was successful, because Billy was a real bulldog. But his book was not well received in the 1880s when first published, largely because many thought it too crude in those days to point out Abe's mother's illegitmacy, etc. But Herndon was going to put down whatever the facts bore out. He adored Lincoln, and believed his greatness would be enhanced more by the truth than by lies... I now have a much higher regard for Herndon than formerly... On the other hand, the editors and publisher deserve low marks for the smallness of the type face, which goes down even smaller in the footnotes, making this important book more difficult to read than it should be. Don't be put off by the first Preface, either, which should be either buried at the end of the book or deleted.

Whether you're from a Scottish background and have forgotten how to run New Year's Eve the Scottish way, or are merely looking for good ideas for an unusual party, this book is for you. It explains Scottish New Year's customs, includes recipes, and even has a few words to say on the horrors of clearing up afterwards.

Published as part of the *Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Second Series*, *Jefferson's Literary Commonplace Book* is the definitive edition of a collection of about four hundred quotations Jefferson gathered from his more literary readings during his student years. It represents, according to the editor, «one of the few surviving documents from Jefferson's formative years» and reveals a transitional, private facet of a man most of us know through his mature, public years.

«Commonplacing » seems to have been one of the practices of the readers of Jefferson's time: it consisted in copying the most eloquent or profound passages one encountered in one's readings into a notebook one would presumably read over and over again. If I remember correctly, John Locke also commonplaced, and Jefferson himself left us more specialized notebooks, such as the legal ones he produced in the mid 1760s.

Most of the quotes in the present volume are from works of «imaginative literature»- mostly poems Jefferson enjoyed in his youth, from Homer to another favorite of his, «Ossian», whom he believed to be a genuine third-century Celtic bard but who was in fact a fabrication of his eighteenth-century «translator», James McPherson. Most of the quotes are in English, but a substantial number of them are in foreign languages Jefferson was fluent in: ancient Greek, latin and French, all of them translated in the footnotes. Two criteria seem to have presided to their inclusion: their felicity of expression and very often the little gems of wisdom they contain - on the law of identity: «If white, & black, blend, soften & Unite/ A thousand Ways ; is there no black or White ?» ; on the virtue of productivity: «without employ/ the soul is on a rack ; the rack of rest» ; or on objective reasoning: «He who has judged aught, with the other side unheard, may have judged righteously, but was himself unrighteous.»

Perhaps more interesting to the historian of ideas, this literary commonplace book also contains thirty pages of extracts from Bolingbroke's essays and letters, which almost singlehandedly shaped Jefferson's religious outlook and help explain the «self-evident» standards Jefferson applied in his heretical selective rewriting of the Gospels. Bolinbgroke's crucial influence on Jefferson's philosophical outlook is stressed by the editor in the highly helpful thirty-two-page «Register of Authors» which follows the excerpts : «the major tenets of Bolingbroke's philosophical program were ultimately adopted by Jefferson as his own: a thoroughgoing materalism; a rejection of metaphysics and all speculation that ventures beyond the reach of human apprehension; an uncompromising commitment to reason as the final arbiter of knowledge and validity; a disposition to regard churchmen and theologians as the corrupters of Christianity; a distate for the doctrines of Plato and his influence on Christian teachings; and a strong skepticism regarding the historicity of biblical accounts. » (p156)

In addition to being a window on the young Jefferson's soul (or lack thereof), this volume is remarkable for the thorough and careful work of its editor (except for a grammatical error in a French quotation from Racine, in §395) and will be beautifully complemented by *Jefferson's Extracts from the Gospels*, published in the same series.

This book was really awful. I mean, if coherence and thought-out argumentation are criteria for a book to be good, then this book was really awful. Wow.

A wonderfully-articulated rebuttal to Sam Harris's "Letter to a Christian Nation." This book asks many questions of Harris, the most prominent being, "Where do you get your standards of morality if you believe in no absolutes?" It's great that there are courageous Christians willing to take a stand against those who slander the faith. A must-buy! (Also, see my review for "Letter to a Christian Nation" for more of my objections to Harris's arguments.)

It seems that Mr. Wilson dod not read Mr. Harris' book all that well. His arguments were not a well thought out rebuttal, but actually an affirmation as to what Mr. Harris describes as intolerant faith not having the capability to examine itself. Why does Mr. Wilson need to "defend the faith" when simply logical arguments as to why we should believe in a deity should suffice? Wilson clings to a position that morality is seemingly only definable through religion, and in particular Christianity, ignoring completely that Christian history is filled with things that make us cringe. this book is not answer to Mr. Harris at all, but an unintellectual perspective which should be avoided -- unless you are ardent Christian who is not in the thinking mode.

Wilson launches a predicable broadside to Harris' thorny "Letter to A Christian Nation." His central thesis - which he has showered on atheists from Hitchens to Dawkins and now Harris - is that in constructing a belief system, one must necessarily make value judgments about actions and ideas. To do so, Wilson argues, a standard such as Christian morality must be used to measure conduct, otherwise one person's personal belief is as valid as another's. Wilson totally eschews the collective innate morality argument made by Harris, and wonders by what standard can such a nebulous concept ever be measured. His answer is that Christian morality is preferable as it provides a dogmatic "bright line" between good and evil and devoid of individual idiosyncracies. Wilson's flaw is his implicit assumption that Christian morality is a unified, consistent belief system that inevitably provides uniform moral judgments on conduct. Unfortunately for Wilson, Harris anticipates and skewers this position with quotations directly from the Christian Bible, whose passages provide divine approval for such disparate things as love, compassion, self-sacrifice, freedom, slavery, genocide, fratricide, and sexual perversion. Christian morality, it seems, is in as great a state of flux as atheistic moral relativism. Perhaps more damning is Wilson's reluctance to take on Harris' main objection to religious dogmatism, namely that there exists no good evidence to suppose that its central tenets are true. Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot analogy provides the most serious challenge to Wilson's arguments since it illuminates Wilson's fallacy of requiring Harris to prove there is no god-which of course is logically impossible. Harris properly points out that the burden of proof is on the proponent of such an extraordinary claim to support it with extraordinary evidence. Though forcefully and gamely attempted, Wilson cannot possibly meet this burden and ultimately fails in answering the skepticism that Harris so painstakingly articulates.

That is the only explanation for praising work like this. To agree with the writer would require the willful suspension of disbelief, because the "arguments" are unsound on every level and the logical fallacies used throughout are numerous. The only thing this book has done is assure me that the writer does not have any real counter point to offer Harris.