Scan barcode
alexiscrocker's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
informative
reflective
tense
medium-paced
5.0
To begin: I am horrified. All Americans need to read this book and decide for themselves where they fit in. I’m not a history buff (I’m working on it…) and was distraught at the number of things I didn’t know. Or thought I knew, but was mistaken. Idiot America reveals where we went wrong as a country and why we are the way we are today (aka: fucked).
I was uninformed through a lot of these events (I was young and naive), so I had to do a lot of side-research as I was reading. My only complaint is possibly tied to my own ignorance: there were so many references intertwined in the prose that I often got confused.
Here’s an example of what I mean - prior to this sentence Pierce was talking about George W. Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina:
“…the primary responsibility for dealing with the calamity lay with a man who’d been dismissed as an incompetent from his previous job as the director of a luxury show-horse organization. And the president went on television and said that nobody could have anticipated the collapse of the city’s levees (251).”
The calamity lay with Michael D. Brown, to whom Pierce is referring, but I had to google who was fired from a show-horse organization in the government during Bush’s presidency to understand the sentence. At the end of the day it’s my lack of knowledge that hindered my reading, but I could have used a little more guidance from the writer at times.
I was uninformed through a lot of these events (I was young and naive), so I had to do a lot of side-research as I was reading. My only complaint is possibly tied to my own ignorance: there were so many references intertwined in the prose that I often got confused.
Here’s an example of what I mean - prior to this sentence Pierce was talking about George W. Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina:
“…the primary responsibility for dealing with the calamity lay with a man who’d been dismissed as an incompetent from his previous job as the director of a luxury show-horse organization. And the president went on television and said that nobody could have anticipated the collapse of the city’s levees (251).”
The calamity lay with Michael D. Brown, to whom Pierce is referring, but I had to google who was fired from a show-horse organization in the government during Bush’s presidency to understand the sentence. At the end of the day it’s my lack of knowledge that hindered my reading, but I could have used a little more guidance from the writer at times.
toniclark's review against another edition
5.0
This book is the sad, true story of the decline of critical thinking — to say nothing of intellectual life — in America: the war on expertise, science, reason, and fact, the glorification of sound bites, punch lines, faith, and alternate facts. And the way that this dangerous strain of stupidity has infiltrated our both our cultural preoccupations and our political system. It’s also laugh-out-loud funny, or would be if it weren’t also so frightening. The book was published in June, 2009. What would Pierce have written if he’d published this after November, 2016. . . . ?
I listened to the audio and the narration by Bronson Pinchot is excellent. It’s how I would have imagines the author’s own presentation.
I listened to the audio and the narration by Bronson Pinchot is excellent. It’s how I would have imagines the author’s own presentation.
employerofgoblins's review against another edition
Conceptually a book I would like but I don’t like the authors rude tone. He reminds me of my high school self where I was clearly the smartest person in the room and everyone else is intellectually inferior.
That said. The book is right on the money. I don’t like reading it, but I can’t fault the actual content.
That said. The book is right on the money. I don’t like reading it, but I can’t fault the actual content.
librarylapin's review against another edition
3.0
This book has an interesting perspective about how the U.S. no longer respects actual information but only relishes the argument. An argument that is not real in many cases. At times it is a bit condescending and judgmental but it also has interesting stories and background on stories I already half knew.
eososray's review against another edition
2.0
I'm not a big fan of belittling anyone for what they believe, I might think they're crazy, I might not agree at all, I might find them annoying or fatuous or easily conned, but (for the most part) to each their own. Wanna believe in aliens, wanna like basketball, wanna build a bunker? Go ahead, that's fine.
I suppose this means I should also be okay with someone expressing their views on what is wrong with America, even if that means making fun, and not in a nice way, of those who don't believe the way the author does.
But, I found it a little rude. Especially to the Christian Right. Not everyone needs to believe in evolution, which isn't scientifically proven any more than creation, despite the authors views.
There is no doubt that some of his theories are good, and that some of this points are valid and yeah, it would be nice if everyone could think critically and separate the fact from the fiction, especially on the internet. But that isn't going to happen and lambasting these people as 'idiot' isn't going to get anyone to listen other than those who share the authors same views.
Then again, I suppose this was intended to be humorous and not really intended to change public opinion. It's a funny magazine article that expanded to a book and didn't get funnier with added length.
It's definitely not a solution and considering I was reading this as part of project to gain insight into the United States, it wasn't a good choice.
I suppose this means I should also be okay with someone expressing their views on what is wrong with America, even if that means making fun, and not in a nice way, of those who don't believe the way the author does.
But, I found it a little rude. Especially to the Christian Right. Not everyone needs to believe in evolution, which isn't scientifically proven any more than creation, despite the authors views.
There is no doubt that some of his theories are good, and that some of this points are valid and yeah, it would be nice if everyone could think critically and separate the fact from the fiction, especially on the internet. But that isn't going to happen and lambasting these people as 'idiot' isn't going to get anyone to listen other than those who share the authors same views.
Then again, I suppose this was intended to be humorous and not really intended to change public opinion. It's a funny magazine article that expanded to a book and didn't get funnier with added length.
It's definitely not a solution and considering I was reading this as part of project to gain insight into the United States, it wasn't a good choice.
lakecake's review against another edition
3.0
Published initially in 2009, it’s a disheartening read only because things actually only got worse. One wonders how Pierce would lampoon the Trump administration after seeing how he felt about W, John McCain and Sarah Palin. The problem, of course, is that we can’t comfortably make fun of this as the abomination we so desperately wish it was because Idiot America is still firmly in control.
reasonpassion's review against another edition
5.0
Intensely hilarious, brutally analytical, Pierce doesn't shy away from acknowledging the political leanings of his message and nor does he ever consider his reader the kind of "idiot" he's talking about. The title is evocative, but the message is much more than a simplistic polemic, it's a call to arms for placing the crank back in his useful social sphere. This is what becomes most surprising and important, not that bad ideas and the people who espouse them are horrible people, quite the opposite, Pierce loves every last crazy one of them. No, what he's attempting to point out is not that the crank needs to be set aside, rather they should be seen as the goads to exploration. Every crazy idea may not contain much truth, but what it does contain is a fervent desire to know more than what the intellectual status quo declares is legitimate. It is when the crazy becomes mainstream, when the crank is replaced with the charlatan, that we as a society lose out.
gavalady's review against another edition
4.0
This is a book that appeals to a certain segment of the American public, while others will find it very offensive. I am among the former. I have argued many of the points he takes in his book with my friends, family, colleagues, and anyone who will listen (even if they do roll their eyes). We no longer believe the experts, but whoever can yell the loudest. I would have given it 5 stars except it was a bit disjointed. He did say this was based on a series of articles, and it comes off that way (I felt that before I knew it wasn't written at one whole piece). I feel that those who really need to know and understand this will not accept it.