So says the Washington Times about my defense of flogging. Though I’d say overall it’s neutral (to mildly negative).
The reviewer seems upset that the book is actually more about prison than flogging (but of course, that’s the point) and also that I didn’t convince her that flogging is the answer. Oh well.
Here’s the full quote:
“Flogging” is intriguing, even in – or because of – its shocking premise. As a case against prisons, Mr. Moskos’ is airtight; as for the case for flogging, it’s as limp as it is dubious.
Not so positive. A bit critical. But fair enough. It’s not a bad review and certainly could be worse. And, as they say about publicity, at least they spelled my name right!
I think they missed the point.
Really? And shes a paid journalist? Wow!
Oh well, there's no accounting for taste (that was something Mrs. Stamos, my high-school English teacher always said).
I do think it's unfair to complain that it reads like a "treatise against prison" since, of course, that's what it is. No. She didn't "get it."