History Books

Samantha Power has produced a history of genocide through the 20th century. She presents an impressive accounts of genocide against Armenians in Turkey, Jews in Holocaust, Tutsi in Rwanda, Kurds in Iraq, and Bosnian Muslims in the Balkan war; the stories are extremely well-written, and the images are vivid. Apart from stories about the conflicts themselves, she gives credit to the individuals who contributed to political understanding of genocide and recognition of the term in international law. She puts heavy emphasis on the role of the United States in dealing with genocide, mostly taking the critical stance.

The book is remarkably unbiased, as a great piece of journalist prose. Samantha Power spent several years in Bosnia as a reporter for the Western magazines, and her writing style evolved to reflect vivid images while passing information and truth to her reader. She is not judging the culprits of genocide, including a chapter about the war tribunals instead. That leaves the reader with an option of making one's own choices in thinking about genocide.

The book is a great source of information on genocide, foreign policy of the United States, and the role of individuals in dealing with the "problems from hell." Simply brilliant reading and definitely worth your time!

While I have some issues with this work, it is, overall, a good piece of journalism and a major call to arms against the legacy of inertia when genocide is involved. Power delineates the history of the Genocide Convention and its applications. She also does great case studies of genocides in Bosnia, Rwanda, and Cambodia showing the failures of US policy at the times of genocides.

She is also unwilling to excuse inertia at the time of genocide for such excuses as national security and protection of American interest. The repulsion of protecting the Khmer Rouge for the sake of hurting Viet Nam is well acknowledged. The inaction in Rwanda because of the problems found in Somalia is equally well documented.

My issues with this book stem neither from the facts nor from the general sentiment. They really arise in her oversimplification over several international issues. She uses the phrase "Turkey" as if such a nation existed at the time of the Armenian Genocide. She is constantly changing the words for ethnic groups that people use. And, she oversimplifies the American response specifically to the Cambodian Genocide. While I understand that it is warranted to a degree to keep the reader on the issue of specific genocides, in reality it seems that she may be trying to hide something for those who know the international situations at the times.

All and all it is a good book. Her critique of the Clinton Administration, and its refusal to lead world opinion, is something that could be taken from the works of Zbigniew Brzezinski. Her call to arms against genocide is one that must be made so that we can say "Never again," again. Yet, her continuous over simplification of global situations seems to avoid the need for counterargument in the work. I would read it, but it is not a must read.

I found this book incredibly insightful. The book is a thoughtful narration on why genocide is difficult to confront. From the United States perspective, the author explains why time after time, among different administrations, liberal or conservative, leaders and common folk choose to ignore genocide. What does anyone personally have to gain from stopping genocide? Very little and requires tremendous sacrifice. The subject matter is not easy to read but the author skillfully tells personal stories to make this a compelling and dramatic read. I highly recommend this book.

The phrase, "A Problem From Hell" is a gripping metaphor of our troubled times. And this is a meticulously research and well-written (although a bit dense for my taste) book adequately covering the tip of the iceberg of that subject.

However, and meaning no disrespect to this brilliant author, it must be said that we have seen these sensitivities and sensibilities come and go before in the form of eagle scout exuberance, and mostly liberal-leaning "do-gooder" NGOs, and neophyte overly excitable roving reporters. And while we could throw up a whole of wall of clichés that would better make my larger point, it must be said that "trading in" self-righteous indignation" very much after the fact is a "detail" but hardly a policy prescription, and certainly not a useful way to solve complex international problems.

Yes, it is true that rather than enter World War I, which would surely have been the result had the U.S. intervened on behalf of the Armenians against the Turks in 1915-1916 does leave a lasting bitter taste in the mouth. Or, the same can be said for the rationalizations against bombing the railroads leading to the Nazi concentration camps, or not allowing more Jews fleeing those horrors to enter the U.S., or moving too slowly and too late in Yugoslavia, or not at all to stop the genocide in Cambodia and Rwanda - and even today, of making sweet sounding noises but doing nothing in Darfur.

And although, as the last standing superpower we may have had (and may still have) a "special responsibility" to use our power to intervene in many of these instances, we are not the only members of the international community that must live with the moral guilt of our own international cowardliness and "chosen ability" not to act to save hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.

Despite this, since every U.S. President who has had to face an ongoing questions of genocide, has also found convenient ways to either ignore or rationalize them away, we must ask the question at the subtext of this research: Are these then all just matters of cold-blooded raw calculations of rational decision making? Or simply just cases of weighing national means and costs against rational ends and returns to the national interests? Rather than questions of pure morality? Or is there something deeper going on here?

Far be it for me to rain on the author's award winning parade.

However it must be said, if only in passing, that it is curious indeed how a book on genocide can take the U.S to task and at the same time simply leap frog right over the most sordid aspects of the U.S. own genocidal history and find a neat landing in an island clearing that is as morally pristine as it is naive:

Neither the genocide against Native Americans nor against African Americans during slavery merited even so much as a footnote in the book, apparently neither was relevant enough to be mentioned, even once. Like a cat, somehow the author manages to land on both feet in a clearing on the other side of this historical messiness with her humanity, morality, innocence and self-righteous indignation, all still unperturbed and perfectly intact. How can this be done?

If genocide at home has no more moral meaning or consequence than that, then maybe doing nothing is the prefect answer to all genocide, whether home or abroad, and whether in the past, present or the future. If we use past U.S. sensitivity to genocide as a guide, one would be led to ask: Where is the problem? Maybe the author is doing exactly what one raised in the U.S. should do: pretend that that there is no connection between the past and the future, and just keep leaping over to the next moral clearing. After all we did not fail to sign the International Treaty Against Genocide without a good reason?

This moral prestidigitation of course has its own precedents and raises its own separate questions: Can a nation that fails to confront honestly the genocide in its own closeted past really be expected to intervene when it occurs in the international arena? Yes, it is sad that in every instance that we had the chance to, except Yugoslavia, we failed to muster the moral strength and courage to intervene. But it is infinitely sadder not to realize that this cowardliness stems in part, directly from our own domestic home-grown genocidal experiences. As a final note, perhaps it is a little known fact that it was the U.S. Eugenics program that served as the model for Hitler's "Final Solution. What is the cliché about charity begins at home?

Four Stars

According to this author the 20th century was "the age of genocide". Incredibly, in this massive narrative of over 600 pages she feels no need to address the phrase from the title. Having announced that the purpose of her book, in part, is to survey "the major genocides of the twentieth century" (p. xv) she celebrates "those who have refused to remain silent in the age of genocide" (p. xviii). This may be the only time the phrase occurs in this voluminous book. Hence, the idea that the twentieth century was the age of genocide is simply taken for granted. Power is not alone in so characterizing the past century; it is quite a trendy claim, in fact. Thus, according to R.J. Rummel's calculations the genocides of the twentieth century have killed more than four times as many people as all the wars and revolutions of the same time period combined. This way of counting causes of death is more than likely dubious, it fits with the fashionable nonsense du jour that we live in an age of genocide.

This attitude of simply screaming "genocide" whenever one feels like it leads to the social phenomenon I call "genocidalism of commission" (see Aleksandar Jokic, "Genocidalism" The Journal of Ethics Vol. 8, No. 2, 2004, pp.251-250) defined thusly: the energetic attributions of "genocide" in less than clear cases without considering available and convincing opposing evidence and argumentation. Power's book is an example of genocidalist literature par excellence:

The main theoretical "contribution" of the book is deeply flawed. Power chastises the U.S. and its policymakers for failing to respond to specific genocides in the twentieth century. Implausibly, the U.S. is presented as an ideal observer (as if angelic intelligence from heaven) that has no possible (let alone real) contributory causal role in mass-killings around the globe. For her the only question is why the U.S. regularly does nothing or too little, despite its unquestioned might, to ensure that genocide does not repeatedly occur. Her puzzle is this: Why the U.S. does not eradicate genocide once and for all? Ignoring the fact of genocides completed against a series of Native American nations in the century that just preceded the alleged "age of genocide" Power unconvincingly simply pretends that the U.S. is not capable of deploying the favorite trick of all empires, divide et impera, and engage in mass killings (or have it done by a proxy).

Consequently, "genocidalism of commission," or genocidal use of "genocide," amounts to giving alleged "genocides" an inappropriate kind of attention: camouflaged as genuine concern for the evil contained in genocide the real interest is of another sort, e.g., the outcomes may have clear propagandistic connotation. This is morally inappropriate even when well grounded in the politically correct phraseology of the day, and applied to the geopolitically targeted groups selected for "treatment" by the super-power. It may be that the genocidalism of commission has as its ultimate aim or at least its consequences inevitably lead to the silence and cover up of real genocides. And the ultimate outcome of this practice is the trivialization of the Holocaust.

OK, Fine. I later find this product cheaper IN Denmark.

Everything else went fine and smoothly...

Gaddis offers a concise, readable, and well-documented history of the Cold War. What he does not offer us is a "new" history, as the title promises. This book helped fill in some blanks about the most dangerous period of our history, but I didn't set the book down thinking I had a strongly different view on the event then I could have got from other sources.

I liked how the book allowed you to get in the heads of the various U.S. presidents, and see how they thought about the war--sometimes counterintuitively. However, it seemed like there were things left out. Cambodia is mentioned only in passing on the last page, even though communism hit that country harder than any other, arguably.

The book does seem titled to the idea that the U.S. was the morally superior of the two sides, though Gaddis does not shy away from the darker moments of U.S. geopolitics in the Cold War.

Oddly enough, I walked away hoping that there would be more, not less, retrospective analysis. Just how close was the Soviet Union to collapsing before Reagan took office? Just what might have happened if the United States had not "faught" the Cold War and let the Soviet Union expand and collapse on its own? Normally, scholars tend to get too far out on hypotheticals, but here I find myself wishing he would have spent a little more time on them.

I was impressed with the shipping time.
The book was in great condition.
All positive feedback at this point.

Very tighly written book that still manages to produce some fascinating annecdotes (Kruschev and Mao in the pool together) to enliven the narrative. Both myself (a history buff) and my wife (decidedly not a history buff) found it a comprehensive and yet very readiable survey of the Cold War. Its both informative and entertaining. I strongly recommend it.

John Lewis Gaddis's The Cold War: A New History (2005) is an example of counter post-revisionism. The subtitle to Gaddis's work is misleading; stating his work is a new history carries an implication that there are new sources that change the interpretation of the Cold War. Gaddis restates traditionalist arguments in the wake of post-revisionism. Gaddis clearly reveals his bias in the preface, "The world, I am quite sure, is a better place for that conflict having been fought in the way that it was and won by the side that won it." Central to Gaddis's argument is the perception Stalin wanted to dominate Europe. The domination of Europe would appease Stalin's need for self-security, which Gaddis argues was more important to Stalin than Marxism-Leninism. He argues Stalin's megalomania and determination to secure his own position placed the United States on the defensive, and created "Machiavellians" of U.S. political leaders, which undermined the democratic traditions and morality leading to operations such as the Bay of Pigs and Watergate. Gaddis justifies the actions of the U.S. by juxtaposing them with the overtly aggressive nature of the Soviet Union. The Cold War is a successor to traditionalists, and a counter to revisionists and post-revisionists who are apt to view the Cold War without the lens of early U.S. foreign policy, and more inclined to support their work with new archival material in Russian and English. Gaddis regurgitates Cold War biases that have been disproved by new sources in the former Soviet Union. Tony Judt best sums up Gaddis's treatment of the Cold War: "Gaddis's version is perfectly adapted for contemporary America: an anxious country curiously detached from its own past as well as from the rest of the world and hungry for 'a fireside fairytale with a happy ending'" (Reappraisals, 381).

"Marita Sturken is Associate Professor at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California."

"Lisa Cartwright is Associate Professor of English and of Visual and Cultural Studies, and Director of the Susan B. Anthony Institute for Gender and Women's Studies at the University of Rochester."

"a REMARKABLY WELL-WRITTEN, lucidly organized, and pedagogically astute book"
--- Donald Preziosi,
Department of Art History,
University of California, Los Angeles

"an EXEMPLARY TEXTBOOK... it offers an impressively comprehensive survey of debates in the field, illustrated by accessible interpretations of up-to-date and familiar examples from contemporary visual culture"
--- Jackie Stacey,
Department of Sociology,
Lancaster University

"a WIDE-RANGING, supple, historical, and analytical approach to visual culture, full of lively examples... a pleasure to read"
--- Toby Miller,
Department of Cinema Studies,
New York University

"a COMPREHENSIVE and compelling introduction to the wide range of critical thought"
--- Nicholas Mirzoeff,
Department of Art,
SUNY Stony Brook
[from the book of the back cover]

This was a painfully written book for an actually quite interesting topic. Bought this book for a class and enjoyed the class, just not the reading assignments as the book went on and on seemingly talking about nothing. When it would finally get to a point, it was unclear on if this was the point the author was intending or just another side remark.

The authors of this book very clearly articulate the considerable factors of the visual culture in mass media and visual art. Not only the pictures cited in the texts are also quite helpful to better understand the details of description, but also more importantly this book provides knowledgeable contents and information enabling readers to be aware of the significant roles of visual culture and how it is embedded in our lives, influencing the whole culture, society, industry and other many impacts of social forces.

This is an excellent book for anyone interested in media studies. The language is simple and articulate. The authors provide plenty of visual evidence in each chapter. If you enjoy reading about popular culture, even advertising strategies- this is the book for you.

I actually returned this book after leafing through it. It was a little disappointing and did not have much information other than common sense kind of info. Where was the meat?

This book gives you a fair assessment of the ground situation. In addition, it made me feel extremely proud of the selfless way our honorable warriors are conducting themselves.

Why our military's ability as public administration warriors made the surge a success, and why the surge could not have been a success except for the preparation of the field by our military commanders on the ground.

Despite what the MSM would have you believe, the seeds of the "Anbar Awakening" had to be planted before adding US troops made sense. Our soldiers planted those seeds, and the claim that that the awakening must be considered an event separate from our military presence is tripe. Barack Obama, for example, can't admit he was wrong on the signature judgment of his candidacy, so the success of the surge can't be what it appears.

Yon is no war apologist, and he explains why you should get behind finishing what we started in Iraq. For those reluctant because they think this book will be neo-con propaganda, Yon has been a serious critic of our Iraq policies.

He is a self-financed embedded reporter. He is the Ernie Pyle of the Battle of Iraq. HIGHLY recommended.

Yon is on his way to Afghanistan now. He deserves your support:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1819:af-pak-reporting&catid=34:dispatches&Itemid=55#yvComment

Michael Yon ends his book, The Moment of Truth in Iraq, with a question: "The war isn't over yet. Victory remains in question. The choice is ours, the time is now - for a moment of truth in Iraq. What are we going to do?" Preceding this interrogatory, Yon relates the recent developments in Northern Iraq generally and Mosul in particular. The question he poses - whether we will withdraw forces from Iraq or remain there in significant numbers to see the mission through - is one that looms like a shadow through the entire book.

Yon argues relentlessly that successes are occurring in Iraq on both the battlefield as well as in the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and that precipitously withdrawing U.S. forces would have devastating consequences. The situation in Mosul serves as a sterling example of successful counterinsurgency and the heroic efforts of U.S. soldiers and Iraqis alike. However, mainly a result of the gradually diminishing presence of American soldiers there since the war's outset, Mosul, like much of the country, is experiencing a fragile, tenuous peace interrupted by the seemingly random car or suicide bomb. Yon's basic message is that as goes Mosul, could well go the rest of the country if we were to pull out prematurely...

The Moment of Truth in Iraq essentially covers major campaigns in the war from the point of view of a combat journalist embedded with some of the fiercest, most capable U.S. infantry and cavalry units to venture outside a Forward Operating Base (FOB). Throughout his book, Yon offers his insights and opinions, leaving the reader with little doubt as to how he feels about the need to stay the course. He argues compellingly that the surge of U.S. forces led by GEN David Petraeus, along with the Sunni Awakening, not only in Al Anbar, but in other parts of Iraq - e.g., Diyala - has paid enormous dividends for U.S. and Coalition interests.

Nothing particularly new or earth-shattering so far...

Where Yon's book breaks new ground is in his praise for Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police units who he contends are "owning" more of the fight than most Americans are led to believe. Yon acknowledges that some senior leaders remain inept and that there are members of the Iraqi National Police, in particular, who are corrupt and abusive. Nevertheless, he offers a positive "ground truth" assessment regarding the prospects for our success in Iraq which is refreshing given we are inundated with negative mainstream media accounts. Without question, however, the Coalition still has a long way to go in stabilizing and rebuilding the country, training Iraqi security forces, and neutralizing the wide array of threats that includes Al Qaeda and Iran-sponsored Shi'ite militants.

Most enjoyable about The Moment of Truth in Iraq is Yon's on-the-ground reporting. His vivid accounts of valiant U.S. soldiers battling Sunni insurgents and Al Qaeda in Ba'qubah and tenacious British soldiers battling Shi'ite militiamen in Basra are superb. He offers us an insider's view of what, through 7 years of continuous, sustained ground combat, has become one of the most highly trained, battle-tested military forces in the history of modern warfare. Pound for pound the American G.I. is the most fearsome warrior on the planet, and he, along with his Iraqi Army and Police counterparts, is giving Al Qaeda all they can handle.

While easy-to-read and at times exciting, The Moment of Truth in Iraq lacks the balance characteristic of good reporting. Yon fails to offer any competing point of view. This ensures the book reads like a long political tract. Like many readers, I pick up a military book in order to learn how a particular battle or campaign was fought. The Moment of Truth in Iraq generally met my expectations in that regard, but I would have appreciated a bit more action and perhaps less commentary.

Although I agree with Yon's central argument - that we have come too far and paid too heavy a price to quit Iraq now - I found his persistent commentary about the need to remain in Iraq to be monotonous.

Most important about Yon's work is that he gives the American soldier a voice... He reports the story from his position next to that soldier in the HMMMV or Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle - not from interviews taking place after the fact in the safer confines of a FOB.

Yon is a soldier's journalist on a par with a Bill Mauldin or an Ernie Pyle - men from an earlier, bygone era (WWII) whose intrepid reporting from the front captured the hearts of soldiers throughout the battlefields of Western Europe and the Mediterranean. Yon's dispatches resonate with the same sights and sounds of battle, and he offers his and his soldiers' frank opinions about what's going right and what's going wrong. No sugarcoating or whitewashing here...

Today's American fighting men and women deserve more advocates such as Michael Yon who fairly and honestly communicate what is actually happening on the fields of battle... who turn the spotlight on those who actually deserve it - not the generals or colonels, but the privates and corporals... those fine Americans who have turned the tide in the Iraq War and who in Yon's words represent the country's "New Greatest Generation."

Well Done!

Want to read war reporting that is not influenced by politically influenced editors or media? Buy this book! I am a slow reader and I finished it in less than a week! It was impossible to start a chapter and not finish it, only then to be stuck with the difficulty of resisting reading the next chapter. This is book compliments "Shadow Warriors" in a few ways while also telling its own story at the same time.

Having worked with Michael firsthand over in Iraq as he was on the ground and reporting from one of the real hotspots in Southern Baghdad, I can tell you that he gets it right in this book. It is an honest portrayal of the war as I knew it in 2007 as a member of one of the surge brigades.

If you want what is the closest account of the ground truth over there, this book delivers. Yon spent more than 2 months total in our OE (operational environment) with various units at different times from March 07- January 08, so he brings honesty, accuracy and a fresh perspective to the table here.

This excellent play explores the conflict between Thomas More and Henry VIII over the break with Rome and the establsihment of the Church of England. The well known story is told primarily through the perspective of More's resolve to stand on his principles despite pressure from a variety of sources. The play uses the political intrigue and the sycophantic characters surrounding a monarch with absolute power to show More as a tower of strength as he refuses to bow to power and compromise his beliefs.
The Movie version with Paul Scofield in the lead is equally remarkable and follows the play without much embellishment.

I first saw the movie, and was riveted by the dialogue. The clarity of thought, the elevation of principals above self is awe-inspiring. I rushed out to buy the book (the script of the play), and read the wonderful dialogue over and over. Many of the lines simply cry out with logic and integrity, and some have found a place on the wall of my office.

Whether one characterizes Thomas Moore as a saint, a statesman of unbending principals, or both, his strength of character, intellect, humanity and general goodness shine through with brilliant clarity.

i am not a big fan of reading plays (they are meant to be performed after all), but this one is an exception. i found myself relishing line after line, enjoying the fact that i could pause and reflect on all of the tightly packed poignancy scattered throughout this work. sir thomas more is the hero's hero...of the messiah or socratic martyr sort (though he himself says he is not the "stuff" martyrs are made of), the man of true principle. he is one of the characters our generation unfortunately will only ever know through works of fiction. a person who does not (and cannot) separate their actions from their moral convictions, as the two are inextricably bound together, as are oxygen and lifeblood.

i am reminded of a quote by confucius: "at 70 i could follow my hearts desires without transgressing moral principles"...thomas more is THIS brand of sage. and we all have a lot to learn from him, even long after you discard the religious drivel.

it also doesnt hurt that he punks every single member of H the VIII's royal court (hehe).

I had a few hours in between flights this Thanksgiving and brought this along. It's considerably deeper than your typical airport reads, though since it's a play you can finish it quickly.

Bolt does an outstanding job in the Preface talking about his motivation, his direction for the character and persona of Sir Thomas More. What's most interesting I think is how he handles the character development. I won't ruin it for you, but I think it needs to be said that this is not the story of a man changing because of events but almost the inverse.

Language is very easy to read and understand, though some passages will certainly benefit from rereading just to consider what the message is, what Bolt is trying to get across. I loved the book and would love to see an adaptation of it.

This is an amazing play about an incredibly holy man, which employs its words in a profound manner. Thomas More, the beheaded lord chancellor of England under Henry VIII is the patron saint of attorneys, civil servants, politicians, and statesmen:
* "When statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties...they lead their country by a short route to chaos."
* (In response to objection over his use of the word, "heretic":) "It's not a likeable word. It's not a likeable thing!"
* (Pointing to himself:) "this is not the stuff of which martyrs are made." WRONG!
* "The nobility of England, my lord, would have snored through the Sermon on the Mount."
* (To his betrayer, Richard Rich, attorney general of Wales:) "Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world...But for Wales!"
* "I Die His Majesty's Good Servant, but God's First"

something wrong while it's handling... and it didn't deliver to me in time, so I just refund instead of keep waiting.

It's very helpful for the class that I'm taking this semester and it's a good book to have because it's very informative and easy to use.

History of Modern Art is a well sructure resource textbook for students who are seeking information about Contemporary and/or Modern Art History. Great grasps of information on every page is a journey through space time and the people who made this possible in the 20th century . You will never find a better textbook on the market.

This was excellent. Very comprehensive, to say the least, and very well organized. This is my only book from art class that I actually sustained my interest! Definitely worth it.

I used this book in college for my two course survey of Modern Art. I absolutely loved the book and when I found out there was a hardback edition I had to have it. Let me tell you, getting it for 66 bucks is a STEAL! I saw this book brand new in a brick and mortar store and it was 110 DOLLARS! If you are at all interested in 20th Century Art I highly recommend this book as a general overview. This was one of the FEW books I read in college and actually enjoyed it.

First off let me state that im a conspiracy fan myself. i am a major believer in the 9/11 truth movement and am not a so called "DE-BUNKER" in any way and while cooper talks about things i do think are real like the JFK assassination conspiracy, the coming police state and the NWO i just cant recommend this book. Most of his supposed sources are from other conspiracy books but what really made me just put the book down is when he said his source for a supposed secret oath into the Vatican's secret order couldn't be revealed or the person who took it either. sources are the most important thing in journalism, if you don't have your who, what, were, when and why down you have no credibility and your writing turns instantly into opinion, and thats precisely what this book is, opinion. Aside from that half and i mean almost half the book is just photo copied with text so small its hard to read along with News articles and supposed government documents most of which are nothing more than memos.....sorry not interested in reading a US military memo. he throws in some blurry pictures that are UFO's (again there are better books on the subject) and throws in the Ariel shot of Area 51 which most people have seen a 1,00 times. Cooper goes on to make allegations of secret government aircraft and all that other stuff that separates mainstream conspiracy people from the tin foil hat crowd. Look If your looking to get into conspiracies turn somewhere else and save your money, i wish i had.

I'm not finished reading this book, but it's a real page turner. There is another version, but this is the real deal. The cover up's. I can't really review this book without first finishing it. BEHOLD A PALE HORSE BY WILLIAM COOPER is a book worth buying. You will not be dissappointed.

Interested in conspiracy theories? This book has them all. It's not an easy read, but once you get used to the writers style it becomes easy to go through. There are copies of documents in this book that are questionable, even though they look legitimate. I find it hard to believe that a document is left on an old copier that was purchased at surplus. I also find it hard to believe the account of one man. It is your choice whether to believe what William Cooper has to say. I would say that perhaps there is some truth in what he says, because for one, I think I believe William Cooper, before I would believe the government. This book has it all, UFOs, Black Ops, Cover-ups, and government threats. It's almost overwhelming the amount of information provided in this book, but I doubt there is another book out there, that could be so detailed about specific accounts of events. It's a shame that William Cooper's life ended the way it did. Shot by a Sheriff's Deputy. Coincidence? If you have a passion for ideas that are labeled conspiracy theories, then this book is full of them.

This book sort of ties together many strange conspiracy theories under the general umbrella of the 'New World Order'.

The outrageous claims include:

1. The government created the AIDS virus to kill homosexuals and minorities and the Vatican was instrumental in distributing the virus world wide hidden in vaccines.

2. The Galileo space probe contained 50 pounds of plutonium and when the spacecraft was crashed into Jupiter in 1999 the plan was for the plutonium to cause the entire planet to explode and become a second sun. This new 'Lucifer' star would be interpreted as a sign that the New World Order was beginnning. As far as I know that didn't happen. This is where authors like this get into trouble when they make specific predictions with dates.

3. The United States has been under a state of martial law since Abraham Lincoln was president.

4. The Jews have been conspiring to take over the world since the 1800s.

5. It was really the limousine driver who fired the fatal head shot during the Kennedy assassination and the Zapruder film clearly proves this. When the author found out about this 'top secret' information he went AWOL from the army.

6. Aliens are using religion, satanism, and the occult to control the world.

The members of the Illuminati include:

1. the Pope and other Vatican officials

2. extraterrestrial beings

3. various government agents and agencies

4. members of secret societies such as the Freemasons

5. other wealthy and powerful individuals

He criticizes well known and respected UFO invesigators such as Stanton Friedman and Budd Hopkins. He says they are CIA agents and they tried to trick him by telling him the secret code words that only the CIA knows.

He also criticizes the leader of the satanic Church Of Set who was serving in the military at the time the book was written. For all we know that guy is Set himself. People don't create a satanic church for no reason.

He says a mysterious black limousine forced his car off the road on two different occasions and during the second accident he lost his leg. After one of these car crashes they 'left him for dead'.

But agencies like the CIA don't leave people for dead. If they want to kill someone they will.

To me this is the handbook for all of those fearful, suspicious, angry, disillusioned, and bitter people who need a reason to overthrow the government. I wouldn't be surprised if people like Timothy McVey read this book before they blew up that building in Oaklahoma City.

That's not to say there aren't real conspiracies and great mysteries out there. There are.

I skipped / didn't finish reading some sections of this book:

1. I only read the beginning of an alternative version of the U.S. Constitution.

2. I only read the beginning of a very insidious document that supposedly shows how the Jews have been conspiring against the entire world for hundreds of years. This is like a Jewish version of 'Mein Kampf'.

3. Some articles and documents appear to have been directly photocopied into the book and in their original form the text is basically unreadable.

Jeff Marzano

The Men Who Killed Kennedy

Men Who Killed Kennedy

Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction?

The Truth About The Philadelphia Experiment

Occult Ether Physics: Tesla's Hidden Space Propulsion System and the Conspiracy to Conceal It (2nd Revised Edition)

The author of this book, William Cooper, is so outraged at the subversion of the US governmment that he gets a little rough, approaching the boundaries of extremism.

The more valuable treasure to be mined from this study is the information on the secret societies. I doubt not a word of it and he is right on the money with his assertion that the CFR runs the US government.

If you can read this book and focus only on the chapters dealing with the secret societies, the population control techniques, the continuity of government plans in the Reagan administration, George H.W. Bush, and the mindless masses, you will have recieved your money's worth.

Stay away from the UFO chapters. They are obviously misinformation that Cooper inadvertantly picked up in his source documents, meant to discredit anyone who lifts the secret docs. (The reason why we discount the UFO stories is simply because, unlike the above topics, there just isn't enough corroborating evidence friendly to common sense.)

All of us should be outraged at this subversion of our democracy. Your best recourse is to get informed. Read other books about the secret/invisible government, CFR, and related elitist-type books. You may even find that 9/11 had nothing to do with...Arabs...

The bare translation...with little to no commentary. It's cheap, though.

This is an excellent book with good reading and meditations to just sit back relax and enjoy.

Rene Descartes can go to a circle in hades for his mathmatics but his discourse on religion was flawed he had to first prove to himself he existed before he could prove God existed, there is the rub. He is justly regarded as the Father of Modern Philosophy because of the questions and problems he created. He helped to distinquish philosophy from science, which is a saving grace. This is a great addition to any library, since it serves to illustrate the evolution of philosophy in our civilization. I would also recommend Deism In American Thought by Woodbridge Riley and of course the Age of Reason by Thomas Paine.

Descartes seems like the sort of guy who likes the sound of his own voice, not unlike a philosophy professor! He has only a handful of points, a few of them interesting but the majority pure academic fluff, and he spends over 100 pages just reiterating his ideas and logic behind them. It seemed like a modern editor would read the manuscript, and whittle it down to a maximum of 25 pages. I am not surprised that various classes on philosophy only use excerpts of Descartes' work.

I would HIGHLY recommend instead buying an analysis of Descartes' works so that you can alternate back and forth between his original writings and commentary on these writings, as well as responses by other philosophers like Pascal.

This is a review of the Donald A. Cress translation of Discouse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes.

Philosophers disagree about everything: except about the fact that modern philosophy begins with Descartes. No contemporary philosophers agree with Descartes' positive views. However, Descartes left Western philosophy with a series of puzzles that it continues to wrestle with: how is it possible to know anything? (Descartes' "dream argument" and "evil genius" argument are powerful sources of philosophical skepticism.) What is the relationship between mind and body? (Descartes argues that there is a fundamental metaphysical difference between the two, so they cannot be identical.) Is there some certain, indubitable foundation for knowledge? (Descartes thought that we need one to escape doubt, and that he could provide it.)

Some historical context helps to explain certain features of his writing. In 1521, Martin Luther was excommunicated, beginning the Protestant Reformation and dividing Christianity. Luther encouraged Christians to read the Bible translated into their own languages (e.g., the King James Bible) and use their own individual judgment to interpret it. In 1543, on his deathbed, Copernicus published his book arguing that the sun was the center of the solar system, not the earth (as had been taught by Aristotle). In 1633, Galileo was forced by the Inquisition to renounce his defense of the Copernican hypothesis.

Given the sharp intellectual controversies of his era, it is not surprising that Descartes says he has "realized how numerous were the false opinions that in my youth I had taken to be true, and thus how doubtful were all those that I had subsequently built upon them" (59). Descartes concludes that the only way to escape his doubts is to reconstruct his beliefs using his own reason, rather than relying on traditional views. In this respect, he is somewhat like Luther. However, mindful of what happened to Galileo, Descartes begins the Meditations with a letter to the Faculty of Sacred Theology in Paris, defending the orthodoxy of his views and pleading for their support. In addition, Descartes wrote the Discourse in French (his own vernacular), but wrote the Meditations in Latin (the language of the Church), "lest weaker minds be in a position to think that they too ought to set out on this path" that he has followed (51).

If you are going to read only one work by Descartes, I recommend the Meditations. (However, you might want to quickly read Part 4 of the Discourse first, since it gives an overview of the whole Meditations.) In the Meditations, Descartes decides that, paradoxically, the only way to overcome his doubts is to doubt everything that can be doubted, until he finds something absolutely certain, upon which he can build up knowledge. (Descartes is therefore an epistemological foundationalist.) Descartes notes that his senses sometimes deceive him. Furthermore, for all he knows, he is merely dreaming right now that he has a body and is sitting in a room writing. It is hard to maintain such doubts, so Descartes resolves to pretend that an "evil genius, supremely powerful and clever," is attempting to deceive him at every step of the way. Descartes ends his First Meditation in this pit of uncertainty.

In the Second Meditation, Descartes realizes that, even if he is mistaken about everything, he still has to think to be deceived, and if he thinks, then he exists. (In Part Four of the Discourse, he phrases this concisely as "I think, therefore I am.") Descartes then realizes that, while he can conceive of himself as a thinking thing without a body, he cannot conceive of himself as a body that never thinks. So while he may, in fact, have a body, his body and his mind are metaphysically distinct. (Basically, since he can conceive of body and mind as separate, therefore they are, in principle, separate.) Thus, Descartes is a metaphysical dualist.

In the Third Meditation, Descartes argues that God exists. He gives a version of the ontological argument for the existence of God (defended before Descartes by St. Anselm, criticized after Descartes by Kant, and still later resurrected by Alvin Plantinga). Contemporary readers, even ones who believe in God, are unlikely to find Descartes' argument here compelling, but it is an important part of his philosophy. Descartes argues that, since we know that God exists, and since we know that God is all good, we can be sure that our senses and our reason are not fundamentally deceptive. (Why would an all-good God make us prone to systematic mistakes?)

But the Third Meditation suggests a puzzle: since God created us, and God is all-good, why do we humans EVER make mistakes? Descartes' answer in the Fourth Meditation is that belief requires both the intellect, which simply perceives ideas, and the will, which chooses whether to believe those ideas. So long as we only choose to believe ideas that we "clearly and distinctly" (87) perceive, we will only believe what is true. Error occurs when we precipitately choose to believe unclear or confused ideas. (Part Two of the Discourse describes the methodology Descartes recommends in a bit more detail.) This may seem like a trivial claim, but Descartes is actually arguing for something controversial (and probably false): we can and should withhold belief from anything of which we are not absolutely certain, and so long as we use our minds correctly, we can be guaranteed to never believe anything false.

The Fifth Meditation gives an alternative formulation of the ontological argument for the existence of God, and suggests that some ideas (such as those of mathematical objects) are innate, so that, "when I first discover them, it seems I am not so much learning something new as recalling something I knew beforehand" (88).

Finally, in the Sixth Meditation, Descartes turns to material objects and sensory knowledge. His general conclusion is that "I must not rashly admit everything that I seem to derive from the senses; but neither, for that matter, should I call everything into doubt" (97). In general, Descartes is concerned in this meditation with how we can have a God-given faculty for discovering the truth, yet so often be in error over sensory matters (e.g., the Sun appearing to be the size of a fist).

I do not read French or Latin myself, so I cannot comment on the accuracy of the translation. However, I will say that it is very readable. Furthermore, the selected bibliography is helpful. I do miss three things that were left out of this translation, though. First, Descartes meant for the Meditations to be read along with a series of "Objections" written by his correspondents and "Replies" he wrote in response. Second, perhaps the most insightful critic of Descartes was Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia, who raised in correspondence what is still generally considered one of the strongest objections to Descartes' dualism: how can soul and body interact if they are as radically distinct as Descartes suggests? Finally, Descartes' Fourth Meditation emphasizes the distinction between having a property "formally" and "eminently." In Cress's original translation of the Meditations, he has a footnote explaining this distinction. That footnote was left out of this enlarged edition. If these three things were included in this translation, I think I would give it five stars instead of four.

This definitive edition has been edited and provided with a Foreword and Introduction by Bruce Caldwell who retained the prefaces and forewords of earlier editions. The text has been enhanced by explanatory notes and new appendices that are listed at the end of this review.

Even after six decades, The Road To Serfdom remains essential for understanding economics, politics and history. Hayek's main point, that whatever the problem, human nature demands that government provide the solution and that this is the road to hell, remains more valid than ever. He demonstrated the similarities between Soviet communism and fascism in Germany and Italy.

The consensus in post-war Europe was for the welfare state which seemed humane and sensible for a long time. Now it is clear that this has led to declining birth-rates amongst native Europeans, mass immigration from North Africa and the Middle East, and a tendency to exchange their ancient cultural values for multiculturalism and moral relativism which is just another form of nihilism as the French philosopher Chantal Delsol observes.

In this timeless classic, Hayek examines issues like planning and power, the fallacy of the utopian idea, state planning versus the rule of law, economic control, totalitarianism, security and economic freedom. He brilliantly explains how we are faced with two irreconcilable forms of social organization. Choice and risk either reside with the individual or s/he is relieved of both. Societies that opt for security instead of economic freedom will in the long run have neither.

Complete economic security is inseparable from restrictions on liberty - it becomes the security of the barracks. When the striving for security becomes stronger than the love of freedom, a society gets into deep, deep trouble. The way to prosperity for all is to remove the obstacles of bureaucracy in order to release the creative energy of individuals.

The government's job is not to plan for progress but to create the conditions favorable to progress. This has been proved by the impressive economic expansion under Reagan and Thatcher and by the amazing growth of the Asian Tiger economies, and most recently India since it started implementing sensible economic policies. Everywhere entrepreneurial energy is unshackled, massive improvements follow.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the contrast between phenomenal growth in formerly communist countries like Estonia or Poland or even the economic health of the UK as measured against the stagnant economies of Germany and France during the first years of the millennium. Old Europe would have benefited by a Thatcher and the French would have welcomed Polish plumbers instead of being resentful.

Hayek warns against utopian yearnings that are exploited by politicians, the stealthy way in which welfarism diminishes individual freedom, the totalitarian impulse and different types of propaganda. As pointed out by Chantal Delsol in Icarus Fallen, lack of personal responsibility leads to perpetual adolescence where citizens conflate desires with rights. Defining this process as the "sacralization" of rights, she shows that freedoms are then transformed into entitlements.

What a pity people don't learn; what a blessing we have in The Road to Serfdom as a reminder and a warning. The new Appendix of Related Documents include: Nazi-Socialism (1933), Reader's Report by Frank Knight (1943), Reader's Report by Jacob Marschak (1943), Foreword to the 1944 American Edition by John Chamberlain, Letter from John Scoon to C. Hartley Grattan (1945) and Introduction to the 1994 Edition by Milton Friedman. The book concludes with an index.

Friedrich Hayek, the Nobel prize winning economist, wrote this brilliant classic as a critique of government intervention and manipulation in markets. I am neither an economist nor a political scientist, but I was led to this book after watching with horror the recent outrages that are consciously being inflicted on us by our elected officials, most recently the bailout and socialization of the two giant mortgage lenders, Freddie and Fannie. I couldn't remember that I ever received any share of the loot when those companies were making huge profits and their CEOs were earning tens of millions per year, but now I find that our elected officials have written a blank check in my name, the taxpayer, to bail out these companies' losses and stupidity, and then handed the check to a group of unelected officials (and, surprise, surprise, those two companies spend hundreds of millions on congressional lobbying). Privatize the gains, socialize the losses: sounds like a win-win situation for somebody.

This kind of disastrous socialism is exactly what Hayek critiques in devastating form in this book, specifically government control of the economy. Apparently, they say, this book has been very influential, but a layman could certainly never tell by looking around. Hayek was writing from the perspective of a central European who had recently witnessed first-hand the unfolding development of National Socialism (Nazism) in Germany, and he is warning that the exact same attitudes and policies that had been followed in Germany were uncritically being followed by the Allies, merely at a few years distance.

He begins by recollecting the ideals of old, classic liberalism, "the forgotten road". Of course, in Hayek's context, "liberal" means the true, historic liberalism of limited government, free markets, and private property, not "liberal" in the bastardized sense somehow hijacked by Leftists to mean unlimited government, socialized markets and massive forced wealth redistribution. He looks at the rise of collectivist thinking versus individual (it's all for the greater good); the problems of central planning in a democracy (someone in power makes the economic decisions for everybody else); the downfall of the Rule of Law (government is no longer bound by fixed rules announced beforehand but instead possesses arbitrary power limited only by its own discretion); the inextricable link between centralized economic planning and totalitarian regimes (if we're going to follow a plan, someone's got to force everyone to follow it); the problem of deciding how the society's production will be distributed; a chapter showing that "nothing is more fatal than the present fashion among intellectual leaders of extolling security at the expense of freedom" (Republicans apparently didn't get the memo); how in a socialized economy the worst individuals inevitably rise to the top (Really? Can it be? Obama and McCain?); the necessity of manipulating truth in a socialized society; and the fact that Nazism was a direct outgrowth of socialism and socialist ideology.

The relevance of the points enumerated above does not require comment. We are running madly down the road to serfdom, which is the road of socialism. Unfortunately for those of us who are being dragged along against our will, history is not neutral, and we will suffer the consequences of other peoples' decisions, just as the Jews in Germany did and the Russians in the Soviet Union did. Socialism has always led to poverty and oppression, and freedom, on the rare occasions it has been tried, has produced unparalleled prosperity. Hayek shows in detail why. We've decided to give socialism another try. God help us.

I read this book while in high school, many people thought that I was radical and was being taken in by ideas that sounded great but never worked in principle. Essentially I was surrounded by people who approved of government expansion, as long as it was in their interest, this included fellow students and teachers, who in lectures about US history and government espoused the greatness of the government and those presidents who contributed the most to its expansion. This book readily refutes many of the claims that government expansion is not bad so long as the people helming the expansion are benevolent.

It has become to be interesting to watch the news after reading this book, you will instantly see claims to more regulation of the lives of others and appointing people from academia to run these operations. If ever someone questions this arrangement, such as with the Fed, people will either claim that they do not know enough about the area being regulated or that the examples they point to of regulation gone wrong was an anomaly, enlightened and well-written legislation will solve the problems that may arise from regulation. But through reading this book you realize that the very nature and incentive structure of the bureaucratic system leads even the most well-meaning individuals to stray and even those that do not face the inevitable negative consequences that develop when the government tries to defy economic laws and limit the freedom of its constituents.

This book should be required reading for those in high school (maybe even middle school, but many would not have the historical or vocabulary necessary to understand much of the book) and above. It was relevant in its time, yet it is even more relevant now, because then the fight was obvious, the enemies clear, and the motives and goals of all involved clearly defined. Now the enemies are those who wish us well, those who believe they are doing good when they are actually doing the most harm. The enemies of freedom today, more than ever, use gradual erosion, much like boiling frog, of liberty until waking up one day, we realize much of our freedom is gone. Hayek discusses concepts like these and more, it is a testament to his understanding of the workings of government and the incentives that go along with in addition to understanding basic economic principles that make this work so timeless.

This edition is indeed the definitive, it corrects some of the citation errors in the original and provides many footnotes that help with some of the references Hayek makes to lesser known historical figures, works and events. The index is well done and helps greatly in finding those concepts you want to look over. The Preface to the Original Editions, Foreword to the 1956 and the Preface to the 1976 editions are welcome, they provide added insight, such as what the author wished to change and why he left certain elements the same across the editions. The introduction is something else, a great summary of what Hayek went through to publish this book and what lead him down the path to publishing the book while also putting the book into a historical context and explaining its continued relevance. It is a wonderful look at the history behind the book itself and Hayek as well. Lastly, the Appendix provides several reads that are insightful, the introduction to the 1994 edition by Milton Friedman is welcome. Bruce Caldwell has done a brilliant job with this edition, I find it hard to see anyone making a better edition, this is indeed the definitive.

People, scenarios, governments - these all change with time, but the basic laws underlying economics and the workings of government do not. Just because people want to end poverty, hunger, unequal distribution of wealth and other malaises of modern life, does not mean using force and the government will cure them. As Hayek noted, "Is there a greater tragedy imaginable than that, in our endeavour consciously to shape our future in accordance with high ideals, we should in fact unwittingly produce the very opposite of what we have been striving."

Without question one of the finest books every written in the realm of economics and politics. This is required reading for all whom love liberty and freedom.

This new edition includes a foreword by Bruce Caldwell explaining the book's origins and publishing history and assessing common misinterpretations of Hayek's thought. Caldwell has also standardized and corrected Hayek's references and added useful explanatory notes.

Hayek's central thesis of "The road to serfdom" is that all forms of collectivism lead logically and inevitably to tyranny, and he used the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany as examples of countries which had gone down "the road to serfdom" and reached tyranny.

The book has many worthy observations. For example, all people are different by their mental development (which is also influenced by family environment and education, not counting the physical differences of the brain and endocrine system) and thus the classes of the society are needed at least to give more developed people to fully put into action their potential. Liquidation of social classes will also liquidate the abilities of more developed individuals. The same is on the international level. Consider international planning. Whichever honest and democratically open panning system will be adopted, it will be opposed by less developed and poorer nations, because they will see it as ignorance or oppression of their interests. This is obvious - the needs and goals of poor or underdeveloped countries cannot match the goals of rich or developed countries; as the interests of more educated people cannot match the interests of less educated ones.

Many people came to a conclusion that the wealth, in some extent, depends on a level of education. The problem is that not all the people in equal extend incline to the education, to their self-improvement. This is because of the differences of their needs, habits, abilities, capabilities, and so on. Leo Tolstoy in his novel "Resurrection" arose a question of how to improve the level of education: from inside of each individual or from outside? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Should first the level of education in the society be risen which yields a revolution (dialectic transition of quantity into quality) or the revolution should make the environment to foster the education. Hayek doesn't explicitly raise this issue, but brings parallel between delegation of decision making in managing an enterprise and managing the state. Hayek thought that if a company boss makes all decision making solely by himself and doesn't give the work (of decision making) back to the people (see Ronald Heifetz's publications), it is similar to the states with totalitarian government. Such a dictatorship, enterprise-wide or country-wide, can be used in particular circumstances, but should not be used in all cases as the absolutely correct way of management, according to Hayek.

WONDERFUL BOOK, COULDN'T PUT IT DOWN. CAN'T WAIT TO READ THE NEXT BOOK BY GREGORY.

You will love this book if you love English history and novels written in that period. We are going to London in one month, and I am anxious to see some of the places talked about in the book. I highly recommend - the story keeps you interested throughout the whole book!!

Gregory is simply one of my favorite novelists! Her tale of secret Jewish life, as well as the life of English court during the time of Queen Mary, was very interesting. Her descripton of Mary, her half sister, Elizabeth, Lord Robert Dudley, among others, was very plausible. I felt as thought I was there in the 16th century England! (My heart skipped a beat when the heroine of the book, Hannah Green, was arrested for heresy. Hannah's fear of being burned alive, just like her mother did, came through the pages.) Was this book historically accurate? Who cares? This book is a novel and not a documentary! Maybe Gregory put too much sympathy on Bloody Mary (as Queen Mary became known historically), but this is Gregory's take on what made Mary act the way she did. Making history come alive can't be all that easy. Gregory does it with ease. I absolutely enjoyed reading this book!

I enjoyed the book. Philippa Gregory created a believeable character in Hannah, the Queen's fool, as she went from a girl disguised as a boy to a lovely young woman, This was historical fiction at its best. My favorite is still "the Other Boleyn Girl", but this was a close second.

In The Queen's Fool, Philippa Gregory continues the story of Henry VIII's legacy in this book centered around the difficult reign of his eldest daughter Mary. While reading the previous 3 books is not a necessity, it will help the reader to understand the motivations and complicated relationships of the lead characters.