it's not that what they write couldn't possibly be interesting. rather, what
> they write seems to be objectionable.
>
Personally, I frown upon the production of ill-considered, poorly-reasoned crap, which is what nearly all New Atheist (pseudo-)philosophy seems to be on those occasions when it deviates from announcement of the obvious, as a general rule. I'll refrain from further commentary on Parenti's book until I've had the (mis)pleasure of actually reading it, but Elich's review gave me little reason to hope that it might elevate itself above the bloviations of Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens. And while they are explicitly (in most cases) or implicitly (in Dawkins' case) right-wingers, Parenti's leftism makes it all the more likely that I'll be forced to deal with his asininity in the future.
-- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað."