TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you are given books product reviews in English language. The goal is to classify the review as "POS" if the overall sentiment of the review is positive or as "NEG" if the overall sentiment of the review is negative.
PROBLEM: Are these reviewers as blind as Bobby Jobe? . I mean, come on. A blind golfer? I thought it was an intruiging premise, too, until I tried to hit balls with my eyes closed. I'm a 2-handicapper, and I was completely hapless. So forgive me if my suspension of disbelief came crashing down.     That said, Cullen writes a pleasant, if completely farfetched tale, with likeable characters. However, I thought the best parts of the book had nothing to do with golf. The subplot involving the mentally ill father was actually more interesting, believable and touching, and the best part of the book was a short bit about Allegheny men and their pickup trucks.

SOLUTION: NEG

PROBLEM: Violates the False Claims Act . Wow. I was shocked. Legitimate statements of liberal Christianity include ones like, 'Transubstantiation is mistaken', 'The Vatican does not have a direct pipeline to God', 'Homosexuality is not a sin', 'Condoms and birth control are morally defensible', NOT 'Jesus never performed miracles', 'The trinity does not exist', 'Jesus is not the Son of God.' It is disingenuous for Spong to assert he is a Christian when he disavows ALL the major tenets of the religion - virgin birth, miracles, incarnation, atonement, resurrection, ascension, the trinity, and the deity of Jesus. He believes less in a religion per se and more in a code of ethical conduct like, say, Confucianism, and the "patronizing nonsense" (a la C.S. Lewis) that Jesus was simply a great moral teacher. He even says on page 229, "...a religionless Christianity must be born." Religionless Christianty?! That's a contradiction in terms. Mr. Spong sounds like an ethicist, not a religionist. He also owes Saint Paul an apology for rumor-mongering when the man has long been absent and not around to defend himself.    I do admit though, I liked a lot his discourse on the plight of women and mens' subconscious fear of them. I also liked his observations on homosexuality. What he had to say about Judas was also interesting (but misleading as it is based solely on his own suppositions, not evidence). The section on anti-semitism was informative but that whole subject has always struck me as odd to begin with, i.e., that a Christian could hate or resent a Jew. Very odd.    I'm sure we've all noticed that bible-interpetation discussions are on the same road as capital punishment, birth control, gun control, and abortion: I'm Right and You're Wrong Avenue. Especially with bible interpretation, words and phraseology are open to diverse translations, and theologians themselves disagree.    Oh, and here's my two cents on the Council of Nicea. Of course the Christian theologians had to discuss Christian doctrine and record it for posterity. Of course Christianity had to be, dare I say, 'corporatized' in a way. How can the Word spread without an efficient distribution channel? The remarkable thing is that it did not happen much sooner. You see now, though, how it is very easy for anyone with an advanced intellect (such as Spong) to take the very (true) words I have just said in this paragraph and make it sound convincingly like, "You see!..he admits it..corporatized!..distribution channels!..surely there was wheeling and dealing...these people were not serious...blah blah blah."    I offer one piece of advice. However, I admit I base this advice on my belief that: 1) An all-loving God exists, 2) the gospels are historically accurate, 3) Jesus is the incarnated Son of God and 4) the bible is divinely inspired. Whenever a bible passage irks you, enrages you, or just generally creates any type of irritation in you, remember that YOU are the one thinking about it. And you're not God.

SOLUTION: NEG

PROBLEM: A valid and persuasive discussion . Professor Eagleton takes no prisoners in this thorough albeit short critique on the theories of postmodernism. Focus is placed on postmodernism's general theories in relation to philosophy and political theory as opposed to postmodernism's contribution in the arts and architecture. This, in fact, could well be the subject of an entirely new book, however, aesthetics, in this case, is not Eagleton's main concern.     It probably should be stressed that a general knowledge of philosophy, postmodern theory and political science would be advantageous before cracking this text, however, someone with only a slight awareness of these subjects could push through the book (dictionary in hand) without too much difficulty.     By definition, post modernism is hard to define, as it claims no foundational tenets: it is more a method or perspective against established ideas in philosophy. As Eagleton writes, "It is animated by the critical spirit, and rarely brings to bear upon its own propositions." (P.26)      From a socio-political standpoint, postmodern theories are part of a culture of "unmaking". It can be characterized as a rejection of all "metanarratives" or "grandnarratives"; a protest of modernisms inclusion into the established order of the `canon', a snubbing of intellectual elites, a blurring between high and low art, where Bart Simpson sits comfortably with Shakespeare. I would characterize it as a cynical "anti" position on just about any idea that claims validity or application in society. The key principles of all postmodern theories include: "...decreation, disintergration, deconstruction, decentrement, displacement, difference, discontinuity, disappearance, demoralization and delegitimation." (Post Modern Theory, Best, Kellner, 1991)     In one respect, Eagleton applauds postmodernism's huge body of work over a short time, and its stubborn demystification of natural institutions and conventions, though, criticises its blatant lack of self-criticism and ability to offer any alternatives after its deconstruction of all other theories. There is a certain feeling of excitement and freedom after reading such postmodern luminaries as Derrida, Lyotard or Kristiva, but after wading through their dense and at times "cult-like" prose, one is left with the feeling of utter nihilism, realising that these theories are empty rhetoric, that over three thousand years of human progress was all a lie, a "grand-narrative" to keep us chained.     For the most part Eagleton criticises postmodern theory against the theories of Marxism and socialism, and does a remarkable job revealing postmodernism's na?ve, almost adolescent view of the present world situation.    He concludes that postmodern end-of-history thinking gives us no future other than the present. That there are many possible futures, including fascism: how would postmodern theory shape to such a future? In my opinion, not too well.    This book is a valid discussion and a persuasive argument on the many pitfalls of postmodern theory.

SOLUTION:
POS