Assholes: A Theory

The person I bought this for (22 just graduated from College) wasn't too impressed. However, his younger brother (20 in college) told me he appreciated it because many of his classmates in music school would fit in this category. My thinking that in the work world it's helpful to know how to interact with the multitude of folks that fall under this label.

An important study of moral philosophy as applied to borderline personality disorder, narcissism, and corporate culture. Useful as a field guide; a coded signifier for the eponymous ones; and as a self help book to warn oneself not to fight the subjects on their own terms. The perfect complement to Bakewell's recent biography of Montaigne. I particularly appreciate James's observation that there are better things to do with one's life than to struggle with these vexatious people all of the time. Wish I had read this book earlier in my career.

Book has a liberal bias so most examples of Assholes are conservative, the book lack humor while offering many opportunities to take the humorous route, but the book is actually good in terms of the presentation of theory. An OK read, but could have been shorter.

A very interesting dive into the workings of the most difficult people you have to deal with in everyday life. Definitely a worthwhile read and an interesting study into the drive and motivation of A-holes.

In his semi-scholarly book, Dr. Aaron James establishes the taxonomy of an A-hole: "Our theory is simply this: a person counts as an A-hole when, and only when, he systematically allows himself to enjoy special advantages in interpersonal relations out of an entrenched sense of entitlement that immunizes him against the complaints of other people."

James identifies three things about genuine A-holes we do well to keep in mind:
• They are born narcissists with an innate and unshakable sense of superiority.
• They aren’t interested in change because they’re right. Trying to change them is an exercise in futility.
• The best way to deal with them is to avoid them. And when you can’t, don’t let them bully you.

Use a different anatomical term if you like for these “elbows,” but follow Dr. James’ advice to avoid them whenever possible. Life is too short to waste in their toxic orbits. Stand your ground if there’s no place to retreat, though, i.e. when the elbow’s a family member or authority figure. It won’t change them, but it will keep them from changing you.

[Apparently the robotic censors that patrol the reviews will not allow a review to post that actually uses the title of this book. This review will therefore use A-holes to represent the book's title, and a-hole to refer to the singular form of that word.]

Aaron James took a break from the philosopher's customary search for the meaning of life to ponder a more burning question: What does it mean to be an a-hole? I have the sense that James wrote A-holes so he could share his complaints about surfers who behave like a-holes, particularly Brazilians. Whatever his motivation, and despite his earnest attempt to subject a-holes to scholarly thought, much of A-holes is enjoyable simply because the topic is so appealing. Everyone, after all, has an opinion about a-holes.

A-holes consistently cut in line, interrupt, and engage in name-calling. They do not play well with others (in James' language, they are not fully cooperative members of society). Many (perhaps most) people occasionally behave like an a-hole without becoming an a-hole. As a theory of the a-hole, James posits that an a-hole is a person who enjoys "special advantages in interpersonal relations out of an entrenched sense of entitlement that immunizes him against the complaints of other people." Although I think "a-hole" is pretty much self-defining, in the sense of "I know one when I see one," I like James' definition. I think it's a definition rather than a theory, but I'm probably just quibbling about semantics (which is pretty much the philosopher's job description, making it a battle I can't win). Whether it is a theory or a definition, after he finishes parsing it, James politely suggests that it is up to the reader to decide whether to agree with it. James is plainly no a-hole.

James tells us that a-holes are morally repugnant but not truly evil. If you're interested in standard philosophical discussions of moral behavior and moral responsibility with references to the likes of Aristotle, Kant, and Buber, you'll find them here. Those of us who needed strong coffee to make it through our philosophy classes are probably hoping for something more fun than a rehash of Martin Buber in a book titled A-holes. We're looking for the author to name names. Happily, James does so (although not without some preliminary hand-wringing about whether calling out a-holes is something only an a-hole would do). From Simon Cowell to Mel Gibson, from Donald Trump to Steve Jobs, from Ann Coulter to Bill O'Reilly, James finds a-holes in every walk of life. James even suggests that book reviewers can be a-holes (oh my!) although he does so in the context of academia.

Consistent with his definitional/taxonomic approach, James classifies a-holes by type, including the boorish a-hole (Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore), the smug a-hole (Richard Dawkins, Larry Summers), the a-hole boss (Naomi Campbell), the presidential a-hole (Hugo Chavez), the reckless a-hole (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld), the self-aggrandizing a-hole (Ralph Nader), the cable news a-hole (Neil Cavuto, Keith Olbermann), and the delusional a-hole (Kanye West, Wall Street bankers). James covers the spectrum from liberals to conservatives in his search for a-holes and applies his test with, I think, a nonpartisan outlook. Of course, some readers will be displeased that he has called a political favorite an a-hole, but again, James rather politely invites disagreement and urges readers to apply the test as they see fit.

James' approach to categorization lends itself to party games. You can make up categories James overlooked, like the sports a-hole (George Steinbrenner, Michael Vick), or you can add names to the categories he's invented. Don't worry, there are plenty more a-holes identified in the book -- the names I've cherry-picked are illustrative only -- as well as some categories I haven't mentioned, but you'll easily think of more. The book is short and the world is filled with a-holes.

Returning to the realm of philosophy, James considers whether a-holes are morally responsible for being a-holes, which leads to a discussion of whether a-holes have free will. James' conclusion is at odds with the answer you would get from a neuroscientist like Bruce Hood, but whether you blame a-holes or accept that they can't help being who they are, you're still stuck with them. James reasons that a-holes are generally male because they are shaped by the culture of gender, although I think he puts too fine a point on it when he draws subtle distinctions between a-holes and beetches (another word I altered to avoid the censor, but you know what I mean). I also think he's a bit naive when he argues that, for cultural reasons, American men are more likely to be a-holes than Japanese men, a proposition with which many Southeast Asians (not to mention the surviving residents of Nanking) would disagree.

James includes a chapter on how to manage a-holes (short version: you really can't, but you can try to make yourself feel good) and a chapter that suggests how capitalist societies (which encourage the sense of entitlement on which a-holes thrive) can deteriorate when the a-hole ethic takes root (short version: greed isn't good, Gordon Gecko notwithstanding). The concluding chapter tells us how to find a peaceful life in a world full of a-holes (short version: reconcile yourself to the things you cannot change while hoping for a better world). These chapters give James a chance to apply the thoughts of Plato and St. Augustine and the Stoics and Rousseau and even Jesus to the topic of a-holes. Heavy thinkers will probably enjoy those discussions. Lightweight thinkers, like me, will enjoy the name naming while looking forward to the party games the book inspires.

From one of the reviewer's description of this book as part "philosophical meditation", I had very different expectations of this book. Frankly, it's just way way too negative for me and offers very little in the way of constructive ways to deal with difficult people. Far too much of the book is simply a catalog of people the author doesn't like - it's self-serving and got tiring very, very quickly.

If you have room in your life for something this negative, go for it. But I really can't recommend spending money to purchase negativity you can get for free on TV!

Typos...Amateur thought process...but an interesting concept.
Wish the concept had been delivered in a more interesting way.
After reading this, I felt let down by what I had hoped would be a
more insightful book.

Aaron James, in selecting the title for this occasionally entertaining, sometimes vexing, oftentimes pedantic and frequently overly-coy book, has substituted a "rude" noun for what is, in effect, simply a monster egotist. His general sarcasm, forced irreverance and haste to distance himself from the condition he describes and dismisses may land him squarely in the category he so ardently wishes to avoid.

The subject of the James book is a character who is generally immune to social feedback, dismissive of criticism, entitled, demanding, disrespectful and generally obnoxious. In other words, he's (yes, the masculine is favored for this condition, per the author) farther along the spectrum of grating, annoying, and vexing; he transcends the category of "jerk" and achieves a spot on the apex of the Mount Olympus of Irritating Personalities. Since individuals of this sort are generally lionized in the popular media (and several specific examples are cited by the author), it's hardly surprising that there are so many such personalities in positions of power and influence. After all, why not? James references many philosophers including, of course, Nietszche in the context of his "Superman". These people are endorsed as worthy of special privileges. They are "...for the few who are courageous enough to assert themselves in ways that are in principle available to all." Seemingly, that's what James is discussing but his definition adds the additional character traits of obnoxious indifference and gross entitlement.

All too often (and again, per the author, more prevalent in certain societies and expanding his range over time), these people intrude themselves into the orbit of "the rest of us". James, once he's defined the condition, abandons the academic veneer and heads off to a "self-help" style as he attempts to provide a prescription for dealing with the offender. He follows with a self-indulgent "letter" to the offender and concludes the book with a pedantic "game theory" analysis.

To me, the single most annoying feature is his suggested solution to The Problem. Should one take the Stoic perspective? No. Simple avoidance? That clearly won't work. Rather, he offers this moral pabulum, instead: "Those who are already cooperatively disposed can hold out in cooperative faith and adopt the attitudes that encourage it - attitudes such as tolerance, mutual understanding, and long suffering...doubling down on public education, with more humanistic study and less economics...It will probably mean improving religious culture...It could even mean teaching intelligent design in schools..." While James goes on and on with footnoted references to buttress his prior arguments, there's not a wit of support for this series of fatuous banalities. In fact, these are just the sort of suggestions one might expect from an...well, you get it. This and using the term "psychopath" with gay abandon, are but two of the more annoying aspects of the book.

So, if the reader's goal is a mildly diverting and occasionally entertaining read, or if the intention is to titillate and stimulate conversation as the book is flashed in the local hipster coffee shop, this might do the trick. If instead, the reader is looking for a probing analysis of a vexing issue (e.g. Harry G. Frankfurt's "On B.S." monograph or William Hazlitt's "On the Pleasures of Hating", to both of which I believe the author aspires to be compared), consider an hour with Dr. Phil, instead. It's cheaper and you know what you're dealing with.

-edit-holes, by Aaron James, is a difficult book to walk past and not pick up. With a title like that, it's hard to resist. And I'm sure that it's the title that has made the book a New York Times bestseller. Probably bought as gifts, because, when you see a book called -edit-holes, you're bound to immediately think of someone who ought to have that book no matter what the book is ultimately about. For me, that person was myself. I mean, here was a book that promised to tell me where -edit-holes come from and what to do about them. I didn't even try to resist.

Perhaps, I should have, though. But, ultimately, it's a different experience standing in the book store with the book in your hand than it is looking up the book online and being able to see what other people are saying about it. I probably would have bought the book anyway just to see for myself, but I would have gone into it expecting more of what it was rather than what I hoped it would be.

See, James is a philosophy professor and, as such, the book is presented more as a research paper than as a book. Or, maybe, like a sermon. It very much follows the practice of (1) I am going to tell you what I'm going to talk about. (2) I am going to talk about what I am going to talk about. (3) I am going to tell you what I just talked about. It makes the book annoyingly repetitive at times.

But that's not to say the book isn't without its charms. It does, for instance, give us a workable definition of what an -edit-hole is:
In interpersonal or cooperative relations, the -edit-hole:
1. allows himself to enjoy special advantages and does so systematically;
2. does this out of an entrenched sense of entitlement; and
3. is immunized by his sense of entitlement against the complaints of other people.
I think that's a pretty good definition.

From there, he goes into examples of different types of -edit-holes. The only problem is that he's a bit choosy about the examples and fails to actually provide a general description of the sub-types, leaving it to become "an -edit-hole politician is an -edit-hole who is a politician" or "an -edit-hole driver is an -edit-hole who drives a car." Except he gets even more vague about it by saying things like "sometimes, a person is an -edit-hole only when they are driving [or at work or at home or wherever]," or "sometimes an -edit-hole politician isn't really an -edit-hole himself, he is just taking -edit-hole advice from some other -edit-hole politician [as in the case of Bush from Cheney]." He gets so involved in the philosophy behind -edit-holism that he fails to provide any practical "advice" for identifying -edit-holes definitively.

Also, one of the main purposes of the book is stated to be "-edit-hole management" or how to deal with the -edit-holes in your life. -edit-hole management boils down to a cost-benefit analysis, because dealing with an -edit-hole is never easy. You therefore have to always weigh the cost of taking a stand against an -edit-hole against the benefit you will get from it. And, then, there is no particular strategy or set of strategies, anyway. He leaves it very "every situation is different," which is true, but, then, don't state that you're going to provide keys to -edit-hole management if you're not actually going to do that.

There are some very interesting portions of the book, like the chapter about -edit-hole capitalism, but I'm not sure I can say that the book is worth reading just for those sections. I also don't think there's any good way to know which sections any given individual ought to read. Personally, the thing I found most interesting about the book was how it came to be in the first place, which had to do with dealing with -edit-hole surfers. Unfortunately, then, the -edit-hole surfer thing serves as no more than a brief illustration about the larger -edit-hole picture.

I suppose, in the end, I would say that the book is worth the read as a curiosity piece. Don't expect to get any actual, practical information out of it beyond the -edit-hole definition, which is something you probably already knew, anyway, but had failed to ever put into words. Mostly, the book serves as a political soapbox from which James can call "-edit-hole" at selected politicians and discuss how -edit-holes caused the financial crisis (and cause most of them). I don't really have a problem with that in a general sense; those guys need more people to point the "-edit-hole finger" at them. However, don't try to disguise that as a guide to identifying and dealing with -edit-holes in regular life if what you really want to do is make a political statement. But, then, James is a philosopher so, maybe, that's all the same to him.

[Also, in posting this review to the store, I find it both supremely annoying and amusing that I will have to edit out every usage of the word "-edit-hole" despite the fact that the book is named -edit-holes.]

By the time I had finished the first few chapters, I came to the conclusion that the author himself was the "a******." How any publisher would agree to print this pretentious book is beyond me. One could condense this volume into a pamphlet at best. The insensitive and provocative title probably got the author a few sales (mine included), but scientific methodology would destroy his theory in very short order. I suggest Mr. James read up on the theory of the black swan, a theory which crashed and burned when someone discovered a white one,

This is a serious attempt to address a moral conundrum but do it in a manner accessible to non-academic readers. As such, it’s in the tradition of the many books written by Alain de Bouton --How Proust Can Change Your Life (1997) is the first—and philosopher Harry Frankfurt’s book on a product that can’t be named on this page, which was a surprise bestseller in 2005. James doesn’t find it hard to define his subject: he (seldom she) is a person who ignores other people’s feelings, opinions, rights and situations, someone who simply feels entitled to his or her own priority in discussion or action. The intriguing question is why it bothers us so much: there are many worse crimes. James argues that it is our feeling that we are not being heard. It’s more complicated than this, of course, but these people make us feel we don’t matter, maybe not even exist. Their denial of our selfness enrages us.

James asks other questions. Why, for instance, are they almost always males? Is it a masculine phenomenon? Not exclusively, but for every Ann Coulter or “Tiger Mom” Amy Chua, he writes, one finds thousands of males. (Read his comments on Newt Gingrich and Kanye West.) He draws on gender theory and the places where moral philosophy and social theory intersect to posit that offenders are more socialized than born: the vastly different patterns of social interaction to which boys and girls are acculturated make it much more likely for a man than a woman to turn into a roaring jerk of this variety. Likewise he draws on the writings on moral luck to address questions of blame: how much are they to be held to account for their boorish behavior. Lastly, and I feel at too great length, he discusses the causes and effects of the rise of his subject in our capitalist society: America, with its tradition of rampant individualism and commitment to all-for-self capitalism, is at risk of losing its social glue today; Japan, collectivist still, is not. This last section is neither that original nor interesting to read: what he says has already been said elsewhere and better. The book concludes with James’s letter to an anonymous one of his subjects, which is eminently forgettable.

Over all, James’s book shows both the rewards and the dangers of popularizing philosophical discussion. He raises serious questions and addresses them lucidly and comprehensively. But in the first half of the book, he is prone to adding cutesy side comments that, however funny they may strike you at the moment, change the tone of the book. And the second half, though it too addresses serious issues, seems padded and reads dull.

This book is not really for the everyday reader. It is written in an academic, albeit a humorous academic, style complete with footnotes and enough technical language in the first few pages to scare away all but the most tenacious of average readers. That said, I did enjoy the comical paintings of everyday a-hole behavior. In particular, I enjoyed chapter two, which characterizes the various types of a-holes and provides us with real, modern day examples of these people — Rush Limbaugh, Kanye West, and Anne Coulter to name a few. Unfortunately, for me, that is where my enjoyment ended.

If you are someone who enjoys modern day philosophy, if names like Kant, Rousseau, and Hobbes actually mean something to you, and if you enjoy argument for argument’s sake, then you will likely find something to take away from this book. I, however, find the book obvious, repetitive, and unnecessary. In the end, all James does is gather up some rigorous language to surround the word [sensitive word from the title]. Did we need an entire book for that? As James says, “…for many of us as regards most a-holes, the appropriate maxim is: ‘Don’t waste your time.'”

Many reviewers gave this book a low rating because they said “it wasn’t funny enough” or “not as funny as I expected.” My feeling is just the opposite. The topic under discussion here is now so serious — and affects us all so adversely — that it’s no laughing matter anymore. But I won’t take James to task for finding humor in his subject matter. After all, a-holes like O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh and Trump consistently appear so ridiculous and foolish (unintentionally, of course, because they’re all legends in their own minds) that it’s impossible NOT to laugh at them.

But the laughter is quickly followed by feelings of nausea and horror, which more and more of us have come to experience over the past year. And it’s for this reason that I find James’s book so compelling. Because it’s not simply a whimsical, make-believe treatise about men (and Ann Coulter) who are merely obnoxious or annoying. It’s a rigorous philosophical discussion — filled with astute psychological, political, and economic insights — about a disturbing phenomenon that tells us a lot about who we are as a nation and how troubled our culture really is.

I only wish James had included more about the geopolitical implications of the a-hole crisis, because we really are in danger of becoming the biggest a-hole nation of all time — with our collective sense of entitlement and privilege (American “exceptionalism”), our blind buy-in to the myth of American superiority (at a time when we rank first among nations only in rates of juvenile diabetes and obesity), and our reckless flouting of world opinion.

In the end, though I give James great credit for writing this book, the solutions he provides for how to deal with a-holes are just too kind and humane for my tastes. My solution: “Lock them up!”

I can immediately catch the philosophical dilemma in this "burning question" as pointed out by a previous reviewer: what is an A-hole. (Apparently the store will not allow reviews with the full word included.) But reading his definition makes me wonder if he includes limiting characteristics that separate A-holes from those who have legitimate grounds for expecting special benefits. So for example, bosses who are promoted above subordinates get special privileges. Being a retired US Army soldier – SFC – I am well aware of how the rank structure works and who gets special treatment etc. It was common practice to consider certain officers A-holes despite their rank until they gained enough experience that – if they continued on in the army – their A-hole character had been modified. So the complication here comes with James’ lack of specifics, since he does not seem to recognize some people are due special privileges because they have earned it. As you can imagine, this concern also applies to international trade. The phrase Manifest Destiny fits here. Do Americans have special privileges because they merit them? An issue here is that peons generally think superiors are A-holes because they do not understand the nature of the differences between themselves and their superiors. In class I have had students say they did not need no education since they went to the school of hard knocks. Having had the privilege of avoiding the hard knocks (yes! Even in the army my career was full of privilege since I has an MA degree on enlistment, won admittance to the Presidio of Monterey for Russian, and was treated with kid gloves my entire career because I was “so valuable”. Even now, my life is loaded with privilege because of my status.) – I am convinced that the difference in treatment is worth it because it encourages that part of our society to achieve a certain level of education that only appears to be understood by those who have reached that level of education. But then you are faced with certain wealthy individuals that seem clearly A-holish in nature because of the way they achieved their wealth. Should they have been allowed to do that? And their wealth doubles up on their A-hole character the more they profit by it too. On the other hand, it seems they have indeed earned this! After all, social Darwinian theory would account for things as they are. So we in the end are left with a status quo that seems to do a loop around James’ definition and leaves us with very little practical guidance on dealing with A-holes. Quite a dilemma.

This book is dry-witted hoot, half tongue-in-cheek and half formal philosophical disquisition. So the language can take a bit to get used to (I recognized it from a philosopher friend of mine). That said, James nails those frustrating suckers to the wall--the people who always take what they want and are impervious to criticism. James has actually identified one of the central dilemmas of our time, how to cope with those who have absolutely no interest in the needs or desires of others, from manipulative family members to Wall Street bankers who feel entitled to their benefits even as they tank the economy to CEOs who blithely layoff 30,000 workers to politicians who gerryrig facts to justify invasions. They are impervious to facts and self-reflection. If you've ever tried to deal with someone like this, "A-holes: A Theory" will help you cope or at least make you laugh and nod in agreement at James' astute evaluations.

This book explores a theme that certainly no one would deny is a truism of human behavior - some people are simply A-holes. (Yeah - interesting how the store's editors abhor the word, but not enough to refuse to sell it.) Although James does an admirable job, at the outset, of defining what an a-hole is, and sorts out the many varieties, it doesn't appear that his editor actually read the manuscript.

This would have been an interesting article for a psych journal, but it certainly doesn't qualify for being a book. He repeats the same theme throughout by saying the same thing in different, and then the same, words. By Chapter 4 he resorts to circular reasoning - an a-hole is an a-hole because he is an a-hole. Incidentally, his use of the word is so obsessively repetitive that by midway through the book the eyes actually tire of seeing the word all over every page. Does the man not know the meaning of the word 'euphemism?'

Most questionable is his contention that only males can be a-holes - woman are bitches. Anyone who has worked for a woman who feels entitled and supervises with an arbitrary mind, knows that this is simply not true.

Finally - towards the end of this long and tedious tome, he tells us how to deal with a-holes. Which sounds like the advice you get from the weather channel about what to do when it gets too hot or too cold - you deal with it.

I am simply amazed at how books like this get published.

I expected this would be an amusing, tongue-in-cheek look at an annoying segment of the population. I still believe that was the author's intent, but you have to leave off the "amusing" adjective. I really had to force myself to complete 200 pages of attempted dry humor that ended up just being dry. Hardly a page goes by without boring references to support an equally boring pseudo-philosophical essay. <Begin SPOILER ALERT> A-holes are self-centered, obnoxious individuals who believe all rules are made for everybody else.<End SPOILER ALERT>

Although I acknowledge and am able to appreciate well-articulated and visually engaging word play and writing, I felt that Aaron James' style of writing left little to the imagination to the reader, as the vernacular and metaphoric examples utilized throughout the book were completely lost on me and will most likely be lost on you, as well. The theory and concept of the book are great, a theory and concept that this world, especially in times like these, needed to explore; however, I found myself throughout about 90 - 95% of this book asking myself: "WHAT THE HELL IS THIS MAN EVEN TALKING ABOUT?!" I would recommend venturing off to other literary pieces that explore topics like this, but if you are looking for one confusing account of the same or similar ideology, I would recommend this book then.

the store keeps denying my long, critical review (NOTE: You can't use the title of this book in your review because it's "obscene") but I will simply say that this book is a TREMENDOUS waste of money and is basically one man's Progressive opinion written as fact. It basically serves as a screed to excoriate the Right and explain away the transgressions of the Left. It's low grade academic writing utterly devoid of any scientific value or psychiatric information and pathology. It's sole purpose is to ingratiate its author into the Ivory Tower of Academia (by parroting the mandatory Leftists memes demanded by the faculty of most liberal arts colleges in the US) and rake in some money at the same time.

Save your money and buy something else, like a value meal at a local fast food restaurant.

The author makes a compelling argument that A_Hole Capitalism, which the US is close to becoming, encourages the mindset of these self -centered individuals. It comes as no great surprise that the US in terms of raw numbers is one of the leading exponets of A-Holes! Capitalism, by its very nature encourages the growth of such people, whereas more cooperative systems of government tend to discourage them. The author is tongue and cheek about his topic, but also quite serious and philosophical as well. He tries to provide a blue print of what typifies an A-Hole. He argues persuasively that a society can encourage their proliferation, and that once a certain tipping point is reached A-Holes can seriously degrade the quality of life of that society. We are dangerously close here in the US to reaching the point. This book is a cautionary warning. We must begin to structure our society in such ways that discourages the development of selfish, winner take all style capitalism. Otherwise we risk having true A-Hole Capitalism. An amusing, but sobering read which is dry at times but worth the effort. If you have ever dealt with these kinds of people, as many of us do on a daily basis, then this book should prove helpful. Perhaps it will awaken our society toward a growing problem which, like all the others needs time and effort to be addressed.

This is a tongue and cheek philosophical theory of what makes someone an a-hole. James comes up with irritating traits of a-holes such as "not hearing someone out" and "reflecting ignorance of crucial facts or lack of concern with what is reasonably acceptable from everyone's point of view and actively reasoning from his sense of entitlement rather than from an independent understanding of what the moral law requires". After defining an a-hole he creates categories such as the Boorish A-hole, the Royal Royal A-hole, the Presidential A-hole, the Corporate A-hole and the A-hole Boss to name a few which he considers the group that "shares a thick sense of moral entitlement". And then he talks about a newer style of a-holes where "the rationalizations are becoming ever thinner" such as The Cable News A-hole and the Delusional A-hole Banker. Of course, he has well known names to back up his categories, but I'll let you read the book for those.

Mr. James has many footnotes with several references to The New York Times, CNN and many books either written by or about the a-holes themselves. His general advice to people that come across an a-hole is resignation that "a-holes are a given fact of life" and that resistance is futile because "no amount of angry protest will get a true a-hole to listen". Perhaps the most amusing part of this book is James' "Letter to an A-hole" written in the spirit of Horace's epistles.

Despite reading (and my writing) the word a-hole so many times, I found this to be an enjoyable read. It will make me think philosophically about the kind of a-hole I am listening to and resign myself to the idea that he/she will probably never change.

Interesting subject, book is a bit long-winded, as if the author is just figuring the stuff out as he writes, or as if he is trying to reach certain number of words for this book... Also, "Italian president Silvio Berlusconi"? As far as I know Berlusconi has never been Italian president (or President of Italy), he was prime minister of Italy more than once, tho. Seems as if the professor didn't check his facts... Or is this "dumbing down" for US readers? Was Margaret Thatcher "the President of UK"?