Parliament of Whores: A Lone Humorist Attempts to Explain the Entire U.S. Government

by P.J. O'Rourke, Andrew Ferguson (Foreword)

If satirists are at their best when tussling with something they hate, then this is P.J. O'Rourke's masterpiece. He clearly hates government--and has hated it since before it was cool to do so--and for all the right reasons, too: it's clumsy, inefficient, hypocritical, greedy, and arrogant. In other words, it magnifies the faults of the poor saps who staff it. Parliament of Whores is the humorist's howl of bitter laughter at the entire bloated, numskulled mess. As befits an ex-editor of National Lampoon, nothing is out of bounds for O'Rourke. Speaking of the fabled "football"--that satchel that follows the president around 24/7--the author doubts there are really launch codes in there at all--nothing but "a copy of Penthouse and a pint bottle of Hiram Walker--a Penthouse from back in the seventies, when Penthouse was really dirty, I'll bet."

Parliament of Whores is perfect for anyone who longs to cultivate an entertaining brand of cynicism, to be "a lone voice--not crying in the wilderness, thank you, but chortling in the rec room." O'Rourke is a master at making you laugh in spite of the better angels of your nature, and the only negative thing to be said about this tour de force is that his flamethrower brand of satire leaves nothing in its wake--certainly not the suggestion of an improvement. --Michael Gerber

Genres: Politics, Humor, Nonfiction, History, Comedy, Satire, Essays

268 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 30, 1991

About the author

Patrick Jake "P. J." O'Rourke is an American political satirist, journalist, writer, and author. O'Rourke is the H. L. Mencken Research Fellow at the Cato Institute and is a regular correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, The American Spectator, and The Weekly Standard, and frequent panelist on National Public Radio's game show Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!. Since 2011 O'Rourke has been a columnist at The Daily Beast. In the United Kingdom, he is known as the face of a long-running series of television advertisements for British Airways in the 1990s.

He is the author of 20 books, of which his latest, The Baby Boom: How It Got That Way (And It Wasn’t My Fault) (And I’ll Never Do It Again), was released January 2014. This was preceded on September 21, 2010, by Don't Vote! – It Just Encourages the Bastards, and on September 1, 2009, Driving Like Crazy with a reprint edition published on May 11, 2010. According to a 60 Minutes profile, he is also the most quoted living man in The Penguin Dictionary of Modern Humorous Quotations.

Reviews

[Lyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Rather than watch five minutes of any nonsensical, muck raking sensationalist news program egging on partisan politics, I would re-read this hilarious but brilliant social and political commentary.

Funny, enlightening, engaging and thought provoking.

[bp · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was probably my 1st O'Rourke book. (Maybe second, actually, after "CEO of the Sofa".) I finished the book, put my hands in my head, and despaired of my career. I could never write like this. I wasn't fit to write a review about this. Not on Amazon, not in my own diary. In fact, I should never write again, ever, to self-mute my ineptitude in the face of such captivating style. Mr. O'Rourke was witty and cutting and brilliant and hysterical. And something else: a libertarian. This, more than anything, opened my eyes to politics of a different stripe.

[William Cline · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book started off somewhat weakly, and I almost put it down without finishing. The first few chapters are a tour of the federal government, including all three branches and some of its political landscape (e.g., party conventions). To someone who reads the newspaper regularly and has a modest cynical streak (hello), there is nothing enlightening here. O'Rourke's observations mostly had me sighing and shaking my head ("Tell me something I don't know.") rather than laughing or learning.

The chapter on the federal budget was interesting. O'Rourke balances the (early 1990s) federal budget deficit with some quick arithmetic and common sense. I always enjoy reading a rational, costs-and-benefits approach to policy. His (conservative) politics are on display here, however, and the reader's own ideology will determine just how "common" he finds O'Rourke's common sense.

This is the book's weakness. In my observation, it's easy to dismiss ideas and opinions that come from those with differing politics. Likewise, it's easy to nod and smile when you hear something that seems to reinforce your own position, without really hearing what's being said. What's difficult is considering the underlying ideas rather than quickly stuffing them into either the Red or the Blue pigeonhole. The book's arguments aren't strong or specific enough to reliably push the reader into thinking more openly.

Parliament's strengths are its middle chapters, which discuss specific national problems and government efforts to solve them. The chapters on drugs and poverty are powerful and worth reading, no matter what your politics. The same goes for the closing chapter, an account of the local government in the author's own small New England town. I enjoyed these very much, and they made me glad I kept reading after the less interesting opening chapters. Those first chapters, along with the blurbs on the cover, might lead you to dismiss the book as just another "boy, isn't government dumb?" throw-away; but by the middle there's something deeper going on. You start reading thinking O'Rourke's just pointing fingers, but you gradually see how we're the source of all the absurd and disgusting things government does.

In a way, Parliament is the opposite side of the coin from Naomi Wolf's Give Me Liberty. Wolf tells us how American democracy is sick and what we can do to cure it. O'Rourke knows that in a democracy, the sickness is us.

[Bryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am too young to remember much, if anything, about the American government and its dealings in and before 1991, when Parliament of Whores was published. So I appreciated how detailed a picture O'Rourke painted of Uncle Sam, twenty years the younger. But even more than the painting itself, I appreciated his ultimately setting the canvas aflame with hilarious, biting criticism.

The main thing I love about this book, and all of O'Rourke's writing, is that it's not just some uninitiated blabbermouth opining on this-and-that. It's true journalism (and I know how much the author would detest this description, but hear me out). This guy dives headfirst into his subjects so he can pass on raw truths, not just opinions and pointed jabs. For instance, the chapter on poverty tells of the author tagging along on a Bronx crack-house raid with the Guardian Angels-- botched ending, forced getaway and all! But street cred isn't the only "cred". The cases made throughout the book are formed with cold, hard, cited facts. If so-called "journalists" today put forth half as much effort into observing and researching before opening their figurative mouths, we'd all be a lot better off. That said, the one-liners are fortunately quite numerous and provide sorely needed levity. Underneath, this is a well-researched piece about the inner workings of the three branches. In other words, you laugh and you cry; I'm not sure which more!

1991-and-previous events I'd heard, but knew little of, are detailed. It was a treat to digest these topics through O'Rourke's 100% effective bullshit filter-- oil price woes, the Afghan front at the end of the Cold War, the obscene agricultural subsidies, the Savings & Loan bailout-- hey wait a minute, that all sounds familiar! Here in 2011 we have our own oil price woes, war in Afghanistan, obscenely subsidized... most things (incl. agriculture), and a hot-off-the-presses financial-sector bailout. Reading this book was like reading the news. It just goes to show how much history really does repeat itself, especially enabled by such an inattentive, unvigilant, and gosh-darned forgetful electorate as America's.

So the things specific to the time period in this book are still worth reading, even if only for perspective on current events. But there is plenty of discussion of problems that haven't been solved by our Washington warriors, keeping these sections relevant. A failed drug policy, a failed poverty policy, yadda yadda yadda. In fact, if it's been designated a policy, it's probably failed. Which reminds me, there's Social Security discussion, too.

Yes, this affirms it. Parliament of Whores is like reading the news. But way easier; the problems seemed moderately addressable back then! O'Rourke even devotes a chapter, albeit tongue-in-cheek, to single-handedly balancing the budget. Although it's meant as a joke, I think the bigger joke (on Americans, anyway) is that his spending cuts are tenable. However, many of the programs on his cutting-room floor have only, oh, exponentially grown since then. This social spending growth in the past two decades is a bit hard to fathom-- that is until O'Rourke makes it believable with his chapters on special interests.

With an all-encompassing snapshot of Washington politics, and a guaranteed eight or nine laughs per page, Parliament of Whores is P.J. O'Rourke at his sharpest. (although a good question would be, when is he not?)

[Ensiform · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book, much of which is a patched-up collection of articles on domestic and foreign policy written for Rolling Stone, offers some guffaws, a lot of amusing cleverness and some very flippantly conservative "ideas" on "fixing" the government. Even though it's humor, the book's message is at times thought-provoking – the sheer amount of waste and foolishness that goes on is pretty awful. It's not a real political philosophy, of course; O'Rourke contradicts himself on his own ideas of what American policy should be, but hey, it's humor. If I had read this seven years before, when it first came out, it might have seemed more important.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the best non-fiction, humorous book I've ever read. I recommend to everybody. You CANNOT discuss farm policy without first reading the chapter on "Agriculture. Or how to tell your ass from this particular hole in the ground." Or the chapter when Ted Kennedy is shouting at the 88 convention, "Where was George?" and P.J. responds: "Dry, sober and home with his wife. At least he wasn't out drowning campaign volunteers."

I want to be P.J. O'Rourke when I grow up. Kinda conservative. Kinda drunk. And the best writer in the nation.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.0 stars. While written in the early 90's during the beginning of the first Bush administration (George, Sr.), this book is still surprisingly relevant today and is very, very funny. P.J. O'Rourke description of the three years he spent observing the U.S. Government in action is hysterical (and if you think too hard about it very scary). He blasts everything from the budget process, military spending, special interest groups and social security. My two favorite section was his scathing attacks on both farm subsidies and the presidential election process. Definitiely worth a read.

[Nima · Rating 3 out of 5]

I probably don’t get P.J. O’Rourke’s humor.

Parliament of Whores is a unique perspective on the United States government starting with the election process and ending with the city’s democratic process. One of the most intriguing slogans I take with me is that “God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat.” O’Rourke attempts to describe the workings of the government, but half the time he is spouting random stream of consciousness that does little to progress the narrative of the larger picture he sets out to tell. For example, in the chapter about foreign policy he spends a few paragraphs describing the Afghan sport of Buzkashi only to lead to the larger point that some U.S. officials were invited to watch the game on their visit to discuss foreign relations. By the time he got to that point though, I no longer wanted to know much more about it. And the chapter about the savings and loans industry is utterly confusing because maybe I really do need to read a book on the economics of the government, but it’s also because O’Rourke fails to keep me interested when that chapter started out being one of the most interesting in the entire book. He describes the industry like a fancy schmancy economics professor would. I started skimming it but now I’m determined to read a book on the matter to make up for my ignorance!

I understand that this book is supposed to be a satire, but I can’t tell if it’s trying to be a comical commentary on the U.S. government or a snarky opinion piece from a political journalist. Maybe it’s both and I completely missed the point. I understand that some of the blame is upon me as well. I can’t connect with O’Rourke’s comedy, but it may be that the historical references he uses cloud the bigger picture that he tries to portray. The history from 30 years ago compounded with the dirty politics of the day leaves a dry taste in my mouth because it ends up feeling like an outdated political lesson. I did however enjoy the final chapter entitled “Parliament of Whores.” This is one of the strongest chapters of the book because O’Rourke takes a make-believe town called Blatherboro and describes the small town politics. He makes important points about the drawbacks of a democracy and how “If enough people get together and act in concert, they can take something and not pay for it.” Power is a dangerous thing and it makes us do “cheap and greedy” things sometimes. The problem with that is that “in a democracy the whores are us.” Sometimes we have to ask ourselves: “Government is [...] an organism. When does an intestine quit being an intestine and start becoming an asshole?"

And I leave you with a quote for thought in one of the “Special Interest” chapters: "Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all unifying agents. Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil." (Eric Hoffer)

[Brok3n · Rating 2 out of 5]

A book to be thrown with great force

I read this book twelve years ago, so it gets only a brief review of distant impressions. I remember my reaction to the book better than I remember the book itself.

It was described to me as the only book of conservative political humor that was actually funny. Well, I'm here to tell you that it IS, slightly, in places, funny. But mostly not.

It is perhaps unfair to evaluate Parliament of Whores as political philosophy, which would be a convenient excuse for O'Rourke, since the political philosophy is puerile. He hates government and is turned on by the idea of big weapons. The verb is chosen intentionally, O'Rourke's lust for big guns has a distinctly sexual feel. If that makes your last meal want to come back out the way it went in, may I respectfully suggest that PoW may not be the book for you.

In case anyone is unfamiliar with the quote:

This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.
--Sid Ziff

Blog review.

[Melissa McShane · Rating 5 out of 5]

Re-read 6/30/25: Changing my rating to five stars because O'Rourke's insights about politics turned out to have incredible relevance to today's American political landscape. Also, the chapter about the Department of Transportation having to study "sudden acceleration" was hilarious.

2/8/16: It's funny to read a 25-year-old book on American politics in its British edition. Was there a huge demand for this, in England? At this point (the 25-year-old point) the book reads like political history, interesting for its window back on the 1988 US Presidential election, from the perspective of someone who makes his living skewering people. Most interesting to me is the final chapter, in which O'Rourke recounts a town meeting from his hometown (which is barely big enough to deserve to be called "town") and his realization that even he is willing to abuse government to meet his own needs. Parliament of whores, maybe, but the parliament is us.

[Vincent · Rating 1 out of 5]

I am fairly sure I remember reading this 15 years ago and thinking it was not very interesting - a not very subtle attempt to recreate the style of Hunter S. Thompson but in the voice of a conservative.
O'Rourke begins by thanking all the usual suspects of the conservative movement in DC - like wacky Dana Rhorabacher and Chris Cox, who left Congress to run the SEC into the ground.
His book is divided into sections that look at the legislative, executive and judicial branch. Each time, he is dripping with sarcasm and disdain.
I will admit that his description of Congress isn't far off - especially vivid compared to the piece George Packer just wrote about the Senate for the New Yorker.
O'Rourke visits the 88 convention and uses it to mock Ted Kennedy, and he does make a good point about how candidates who have tough things to say, such as Bruce Babbitt and Pete Dupont, are quickly brushed aside in favor of generalities.
The best part of his book is the section where he describes how the press truly believes that they are a 4th arm of the government and mostly acts in a way that suggests they are more than "glorified stenographers."
While a free press is essential, much of the dysfunction in the Capital is thanks largely to the 24-hour cable cycle and a press corps that avoids substance in favor of conflict and personalities.
O'Rourke does that more than most, but his book is pretty forgettable.

[Eric_W · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the most devastating critique of government since H.L. Mencken, although O'Rourke is short on constructive solutions to most of the problems he exposes.
     O'Rourke spent considerable time following around an unnamed congressman. O'Rourke, quite correctly, argues we get a bargain for our money. The average congressman has a budget of around $550,000 for staff, salaries, and expenses. That works out to only about $1.00 per taxpayer in his district. That's pretty cheap considering all the gripes and whining he/she has to listen to for a living. The congressman has a staff of 9 employees. There aren't many businesses serving 600,000 that could survive with that small a staff, and the congressman makes far less than a "shortstop hitting .197."
A few more O'Rourkisms: "The Graham-Hollings bill [deficit reduction act was like trying to stop smoking by hiding cigarettes from yourself and then leaving a note in your pocket telling you where they are." His description of journalism: "Trying to find hair in a bowl of dough." He leaves us with the reflection that government may be a parliament of whores, but "in a democracy the whores are us.

[David Sarkies · Rating 3 out of 5]

Congress for Dummies
29 January 2012

I remember seeing this book in my local library, and thinking that the title was quite apt, borrowed it and read it. At this time in my life I was pretty cynical about government but in that generally uneducated type of way where we look at the politicians, think 'they really don't care about us' and label them all as jerks. I also remember that at time as I was living in a swing seat and there was an election coming up and I kept on receiving letters from both parties telling me that my vote did count, and that my vote could determine whether we retained, or got rid of, the current government. Woah, could little old me decide whether Paul Keating stayed on as Prime Minister, or get tossed out in the trash heap (he stayed on)?

The question is does our vote really count? The Economists say no, and suggest that voting is a complete waste of time as we get nothing out of it. I believe that the economists are full of rubbish simply because if we all stopped voting (which we can't do in Australia since it is compulsory) then we would be stuck with whatever government was in power, and if it turned out to be some brutal dictator (say, like Hitler, or Mugabe) then we would really be in trouble. What the economists don't understand (but Isaac Asimov did) is that it is a part of the mass psychology. That is, while individually my vote may not count, as a collective it does. That is where we, as individuals, go out to discuss our views with others.

Many say that the three taboo subjects in Western Society are sex, religion, and politics. The theory behind that is that all three subjects lead to arguments (with the exception of sex, as I shall explain). To me, sex is really the only taboo subject because the other person involved probably would not be all that thrilled if you went out and told all your mates (though I know it does happen, with regards to both sexes). However discussions regarding religion and politics I believe are important because it helps us understand each other world views. It just happens that most people are pretty stubborn and it is impossible to have a discussion with them because if you disagree they will berate you and if you agree they will treat it as a victory.

Now, I am a socialist. I believe that government is necessary (and indeed a necessary evil) but it's major flaw is not so much the tools that sit in parliament but those of us who do not hold them too account. Unfortunately government is changed through mass movements and not necessarily through individual actions (though such things can happen). I have seen incredibly popular leaders suddenly fall out of the public's interest within minutes. However, I believe that it is the government's role to support and protect the citizens of the country, but I also believe that it is the citizens role to support the country.

The final note on politicians, one that I really can't stand, and that is their double-speak. This is something that Orwell warned us about in 1984. With the advent of mass media politicians (on behalf of their political parties) are able to get their message out much faster to a much wider range of people. However it will always be a standard speech based upon a set of principles. While a government that stands firm (such as Howard's government) can be seen as strong, it can also be seen that those who don't agree are sidelined or even ridiculed. While both sides tend to be the same (and generally are only out to pamper themselves) I tend to find that the conservatives are much more inflexible, and in that way, unless you agree with then, then you are misguided at best, or an enemy of the state at worst. The important thing about a democracy is the ability to speak freely and feel free (within reason) to hold our own opinions without fear of persecution.

[Jessica · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'd say this one's a solid 3.6. It was published nearly two decades ago so the info is dated (and so, apparently, am I. Woe is me) but a lot of PJ's observations are still pretty spot-on. The author is a funny guy. At times he gets a little absorbed in his own cleverness, but the comic vanity wasn't ridiculously frequent and there were at least a few genuine laugh out loud moments for me. And that's not an easy thing to accomplish since I am by nature more of a silent chortler. I especially enjoyed the chapters on interest groups. There was some great stuff. This book is not a treatise on how to fix government. It's more of an ironic emphasizing of what we already know or thought we knew about how government functions. I'm a fan of pointing out the stupid wherever it happens to fester, so I appreciated the author's snark, although some readers might be offended by his language, so be forewarned. In addition, while I didn't see an awful lot to get huffy about, I did detect a thread of misogyny in his writing. I don't mean to imply that I think the author hates women in general, but feminists are given some harsh treatment in the book. I know he's a humorist and he makes fun of everybody, but I (perhaps naively) sensed a kind of affection or at least a good-natured something in most of the mockery. However, with the feminist jeers I just read venom. It wasn't super prevalent (he only brings them up a few times) but it stood out to me. Maybe I had mistakenly donned my fem critic hat and exposed my over-sensitivity. Take the critique for what it's worth. It's still a funny book and still worth a read if only to see how eerily accurate PJ's forecasts were from the first Bush administration to today. It's even more eerie to ponder where we're headed.

[MisterFweem · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have to read PJ O'Rourke's Parliament of Whores every year just to keep myself grounded when I ponder politics. Too many potlickers out there wanting to get elected to office, or already in office, or railing against gubmint handouts and getting mad when they get laid off from their government jobs and too many people willing to say, hey, you've got money, let the government have it and boy howdy it'll fix things right up because the government can do everything right.

I'm not a libertarian as O'Rourke is; I do not identify with any political party that's in the boutique at the moment.

So, smarty, how do we fix it? It's beyond repairable if you ask me. Only advice I've ever heard that makes sense comes from another humorist, Dave Barry, who says we're better off just regarding government as a form of entertainment, like any reality show you might care to watch, except that they're playing with our money.

[Linda W · Rating 2 out of 5]

I couldn't finish it. To a reader in 2017, this book isn't just terribly dated in terms of the events discussed and predictions made - its casual homophobia and caustic treatment of "special interests" also feel like vestiges of a bygone (and good riddance!) era. I do think PJ O'Rourke can be funny and trenchant and skillful with his unpredictable turns of phrase, and I do respect the man for being so unapologetic in his willingness to provoke. I hadn't been born yet when the book was first published, so it was worth the read to understand what the conversation sounded like in the 90s.

I made it to pg. 158 before throwing in the towel.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

This humorus look at government is still accurate today. O'Rourke uses statistics and wit to highlight some of the disfunction in government.

Readers will be tempted to stop after getting the point of the book. However, the visit to his small home town for their annual city council meeting is worth pushing through to the end.

It seems that a person could pick and choose which chapters to read,

While the author is conservative, he goes after both parties with equal vigor.

It is a fun read.

[David Ward · Rating 3 out of 5]

Parliament of Whores: A Lone Humorist Attempts to Explain the Entire United States Government by P.J. O'Rourke (Grove Press 2003) (818). This is billed as “a guide to understanding the inner workings of Washington's political system.” Hoo-boy, it sounds like a laugh-a-minute, doesn't it? My rating: 6/10, finished 2005.

[Kaethe · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think this is the book that enabled me to let go of my abiding affection for O'Rourke. Yeah, it's been a long time since his Lampoon days, and he now comes across to me as something of a Grumpy Old Man. If your schtick is "no one but me thinks rationally about these things" it's going to get tired. And, ore importantly, it stops being humor.

[William Webb · Rating 4 out of 5]

A one-man tour through the U.S. government, which almost qualifies this book as belonging to the horror genre. O'Rourke is equally hilarious, overblown, turgid and self-satisfying. Read in small chunks it's quite good; read all at once you will feel the urgent need to take a shower and swallow four Advil. Recommended. B

[Merrilee Boniface · Rating 4 out of 5]

P J skewers American government with wit and intelligence. I don't always side with his politics, but his conclusions are smart, thoughtfully examined and - most importantly - told with enough humor to actually hold your interest.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book to read on U.S. Government.

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

P.J.'s best. The idiocy of Washington dissected in a funnym funny way.

[Keets · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hilarious.

[Joe Faust · Rating 5 out of 5]

O'Rourke's classic about the "workings" of government is just as funny and relevant as when it was written 20+ years ago. Only the names and dollar amounts have changed.

[Antonio Nunez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very funny, though not as much as the earlier ones.

[Suman · Rating 4 out of 5]

In Parliament of Whores, O'Rourke delivers a savage, no-holds-barred indictment of the political system, which I both thoroughly enjoyed and found to be insightful.

O'Rourke covers everything from political conventions to the welfare system in this relatively short text, with pretty much every other sentence containing some form of scathing humor. He does, in short bursts of begrudging defense of the government, present rationale for why certain aspects of government suck (e.g., when he lays out the gargantuan remit of a congressman, and the relatively lean resources available to them). Many of the issues O'Rourke complained about at the time of writing (early 1990's) still resonate today, over thirty years later—and I am sure will still resonate in another thirty years from now!

The unfortunate downside of O'Rourke's unrelenting writing style is that it does grow tiresome, and I found it best to read in smaller doses. Furthermore, I found that the book tries to be a bit too "cute" at times, using references that are too obtuse (or perhaps just culturally niche for the time in which the book was written—i.e., it just hasn't aged well).

Perhaps an updated version (or one with a glossary) would earn five stars, but the sharp wit and copious amounts of cynicism still resonated greatly with me.

[Noah Goats · Rating 4 out of 5]

P.J. O'Rourke died a couple weeks ago and this led me to dust off the old and yellowing copy of Parliament of Whores that I stole from my dad sometime in the 90s and give it a second read. I'm happy to report that it is still funny. In it, O'Rourke skewers the U.S. government for all the insane things that it gets into as well as the pompousness with which our elected representatives do those things. He often writes from a conservative/libertarian perspective, but only the most hardened and humorless partisans will be too put off by his politics to find him amusing. It was fun to take a trip back down memory lane through events like the invasion of Panama, and although there are references in here that younger readers might not get, Parliament of Whores kind of feels like a classic in it's genre and it is still worth reading.

[Nolan Park · Rating 3 out of 5]

Without hesitation, I would recommend reading everything through the Three Branches of Government section to anyone for humor and interesting ideas about the US system of government. This part was deserving of 4 stars. The policy and special interest chapters were less engaging and brought my rating down to 3 stars. Overall, I am glad I read this book and for my introduction to his clear, sharp, and witty writing.

[Carter Aakhus · Rating 3 out of 5]

The writing was very sharp and reminiscent of Hunter S. Thompson but it’s hard to have much of an appetite for libertarianism or bitching about government spending and both sides-ism when we’re dealing with an invasion of our state, so I got tired of reading this.