I found this book to be a poor attempt at satire. Being a gun owener myself, I found this book to represent gun owners as fanatics. RIGHTS ARE RIGHTS ARE RIGHTS. Thats great and I agree with that, but put it in a mammer where people who read this dont think that all gun owners are unintelligent. The author is a radio talk show host and the book is patterned after that in your face morning talk show style. A lot of yelling and calling people supid, but not alot of substance. Also, the book is outdated.

Takes a serious subject and lets you laugh at it.. Best put down of gun control I have ever read.

Politically Correct guns is an excellent introduction to the gun control movement. Those who have not chosen sides, as well as those who have, will benefit from this book because it presents material in a humorous, easy-to-understand manner. The position of many different organizations - such as the media - as well as the positions of many individuals is covered. Furthermore, the rationales for those opinions is examined (and made fun of.) The author weighs in on more than just the gun control debate itself; failures of government agencies, policy faults, and the political corrrectness of Hollywood are also lampooned. A generous helping of cartoons - some taken from newspaper editorial pages, others from noted political cartoonists - help drive the point home. This is truly an easy reading, hilarious book. My main complaint is that it is not long enough!

This, folks, is the reference book for my A Level Students.

A Level is the main exam route taking in the UK for entry into Universities.

The continual rapid development of computer technology means it is a nightmare trying to keep up with terminology and acronymns. This glossary has the defintions the examiners will accept. Very useful when different text books all have their own definitons.

The 4star rating rather than 5 is a reflection of the date of issue of this glossary. There must be another one on its way soon, we sure need it.

It's all a conspiracy. These places that pay as little as legally possible to their employees and wouldn't dare cut corners anywhere else. The sacrad cow, that we can't disparage the food industry is both silly and dangerous.If it weren't for earlier works like "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclaire, we'd still be eating rot-infested meat.

Andrea Arnold takes an all-too-worn-out pot shot at everyone's favorite target: the media. It's so bad! It's so dangerous! Though, when was the last time you caught e-coli from your local daily paper, or had to get a stomach pump after perusing an issue of Newsweek? Fast food chains cut corners every possible place they can to maintain high profit margins. That's why we have a minimum wage. If they'll cut corners there, we have to assume that without laws and without watchdog groups, they will cut corners elsewhere. And it has been proven time and again that they have, they do, and they will.

Want a better look at the issue? Read "Mad Cowboy: Plain Truth from the Cattle Rancher Who Won't Eat Meat" by Howard F. Lyman. It's more, shall we say, filling.

This cheap piece of tripe is a corporate mouthpiece. You have to watch Burger King ads on TV as it is. You shouldn't be expected to pay for them in book form.

By the way, I am not a vegitarian cunningly pushing a no-meat agenda. I enjoy the stuff in all it's forms and from various creature flesh. I just don't want it to kill me. Foot and mouth disease, mad cow - these are the problems we have brought on ourselves through poor standards.

Personally, I don't eat the poison you find at that clown chain or the others. But you go right ahead. Over population is another problem that effects the food industry.

Just what we need is another apologist for corporate agriculture and the chemicals industry.

Excuses are not solutions. I looked to this book to teach me something new and revealing about pesticide use or, at least, discuss realistic solutions to the issue of man-made toxicity in our environment. Instead, Arnold trots out the same old arguments: environmentalists are alarmists, profits must rule America, poor little farmers are being victimized by fanatics.

This is nonsense. The greatest users of pesticides are not small farms, but corporate agribusiness. The grassroots movement toward responsible use of our environment is not conducted by a minor group of fanatics who just want to raise money for their own organizations (what kind of spaghetti logic is that?). Organic farmers now grow approximately 20% of the produce in this country. Concern over pesticides worldwide is very strong, in the US as well as Europe and Japan. Organic farmers have proven that a) pesticides don't work properly and b) pesticides may actually harm profits. Fetzer Winery found that, since beginning the switch to organic farming, the quality of their grapes has improved.

Pesticides are poisons. Everybody knows this. An estimated 1,000 people will die in the US this year of cancer related to pesticides. Is seeking a solution to this tragedy a "scam"? is it nothing more than "disparagement"?

I was so terribly disappointed in the weak logic and obviously-manipulated "data" in this book. Arnold fails to show me a safe, sensible relationship between agriculture and consumers. She simply tries to instill the fear she cites, herself, in irresponsibly pointing the finger at the debunkers of pesticide technology instead of addressing the very real issues of environmental toxicity. In obsessing over excuses for the continued use of pesticides, she misses the obvious point: fear of pesticides is not fear of food. Pesticides are not food.

What happens when the media decides to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater and there is no fire? The answer is found in this book. And it's an answer that will leave you questioning media reports for years to come.

Andrea Arnold documents and explores the Alar controversy from its beginning on 60 Minutes to its conclusion, the devastation of countless farmers and the alarming of the American public. What she discovers is a shocking disregard for journalistic integrity, not by suspect media sources, but by the names and faces America has come to trust.

Perhaps worse than the betrayal by our national news sources is what that successful betrayal reveals: Americans are quite ignorant regarding the science and laws pertaining to the environment. And our ignorance leaves us vulnerable to any claim by those presuming to act in our interest, no matter how extreme or unsupportable their claims may be. Perhaps because of our ignorance, we have also become too trusting of news and media outlets, and of public interest groups. We presume they are unbiased when in fact they are people who are vulnerable to the same failings, biases, and even greed, that the rest of us are subject to.

Along the way Andrea Arnold presents basic information that every American should know regarding the science of toxicology and the pesticide laws of the EPA. Chapters 2 and 3 should be studied, not just read. The information is of tremendous value and leads to a calmer, more rational view of our food supply.

Some may take issue with Arnold's conclusions regarding environmentalists. She could have perhaps drawn a better distinction between the extremists she's discussing and reasonable people who value both nature and society, a class into which most Americans would fit. Still, if anyone needs to beware that there are extremists out there, it's the balanced environmentalists who are more likely to fall prey to the extremists.

Others will no doubt criticize this book as being 'anti-environment' or a 'defense of polluters'. I've found such claims to be empty of thought. These people do not challenge the factual claims of the book, probably because they cannot. But if the factual claims are true, then Arnold's conclusions generally follow. Attempts to poison the well or throw up a smokescreen using lofty phrases and spiteful rhetoric do not detract from Ms. Arnold's work.

This is an excellent and highly recommended book.

The authors certainly make a big deal about presenting the "little known" FACTS about environmental groups that will supposedly support their premise that these groups are out to "trash the economy." First of all, this requires the premise that there is no financial value to the environment, no financial value to clean air and water. No where in this book do the authors present facts of actual & SUSTAINING damages to the economy resulting from these groups, except for the notorious case of the alar scare and the dolpin tactics used to control huge, out-of-control nets. They lump legitimate tactics with the fringe radical groups, painting all environmentalists with the same brush. They are very righteous about foot-noting their sources, most of who are malcontents, or who have their own hidden adgenda for which another book could be written. The authors continue to malign the groups for being "rich", large , and interconnected - SO WHAT! They operate just like big businesses, as they should. One example of many unsupported contentions is that the Nature Conservancy's buying of three islands off the coast of Virginia robbed the economy of thousands of jobs!! The authors failed to present facts to support that statement! They fail to include the dollars generated by eco-tourism, one of the fastest growing segments of our economy. I guess these guys would like to see bridges to the galapogas islands. What a one-sided rip!

It seems the authors of this book are writing by opinion and backing their opinions up with facts they find to make them sound right. I don't argue the fact that some Environmental groups can become overzealous in their cause and forget what their goal is BUT... what about the people like the average farmer who has been practicing conservation efforts from the begining. They till the earth, plant a crop, fertilize the crop with animal bi-products, reap the harvest, feed themselves and the animals, over and over, etc... Most people today have no idea what it takes to grow food for themselves, their families and/or their animals. All most people know is that they go to the store and their is food. Centuries ago, people grew their food and raised their animals and fed themselves. With the newest technology, we all WANT WANT WANT. What do you think all of this WANT does??? It causes the supply and demand curves of general economics to be put into motion. People need these high paying jobs just to live because we have caused the cost of living to rise so far that we cannot survive on the means of a famer, or simple laborer. We've caused this economic destruction ourselves by simple WANT and not NEED. So who do we blame??? Ask the authors and you'll hear what was written in the book, Environmentalists. Heaven forbid we blame ourselves.

Ask a child today where beef comes from. You'll probably hear "the grocery store". It is this false sense of nature and naturalism that "most" environmentalists are striving to help people recognize. People will not open there eyes to see the fact that each of us has an impact on the earth and people who sit back and say go ahead; drive your old clunky cars; drill oil; pollute the air, we won't be around to see the destruction it causes. They choose to live for themselves. The gift from God that we were all born with was free will. What we choose to do with it is determined by the individual. People gather into many groups to consolidate their efforts to use their free will. In almost every type of group, we see the end result of arguments over who is right and who is wrong.

In "Trashing the Planet", Arnold and Gottlieb pull the curtain back on the current environmental movement. They show that the policies and beliefs of most of the mainstream environmental groups would shock most of the "average" environmentalists. Being Green feels good, but cannot be intellectully supported by the new-luddites of today. Arnold and Gottlieb deliver a well reasoned, logical, expose of the movement.