US History Books

Goldberg's book wanders from time to time and there are parts that are hard to follow because of this. Nevertheless, I highly recommend this book. Goldberg correctly identifies fascism as a left wing movement, a fact that most do not seem to recognize. He exposes the continuity of thought from the so-called progressives a century ago to the so-called progressives today. While identifying similarities between fascism over the last 100 years and today's liberals, he takes pains to insist that he is not saying that today's liberals are just like Nazis (in contrast to some of the other reviews you may read). This is a thought-provoking and enlightening book. Hopefully the skeptical will be motivated to learn the truth.

I was genuinely interested in reading this, but he was so caught up with his fervor, talking points, and preconceived notions of reality that I couldn't get to the wonderfully researched history.

His thesis relies on his own (rather uninteresting, though mildly creative) manipulation of semantics. At best his arguments are eye-rolling. More disgracefully, he completely discounts general historic attitudes that were pervasive across party lines.

All in all, rather than being an informative piece, he just comes across as a condescending jerk who only loves the sound of his voice. The kind of guy that clears the room at a party.

I touch on the connection between historical European liberal facism and our own political left in the United States in my newest book, Reason For Life; Further Social and Political Reflections of an American Conservative Atheist. I encourage you to read it, not for the meager revenue it generates, but because it could appeal to many of you on either side of the aisle.

Reason For Life. Further Social and Political Reflections of an American Conservative Atheist

Frank Cress

First of all, allow me to say that I have purchased and read this book -- something I believe few, if any, of the negative reviewers have done.

This is an important work, tracing the intellectual development of the idea that the all-powerful people's State should always trump the individual and be in firm control of all aspects of the population's culture, education, defense or military expansion, information, health and economy, from its modern beginnings under Wilson to the currently epoused nanny state. One could go further back to the French Revolution or further to Thomas More, of course, but given the deplorable state of history knowledge in the US, this might well be counter-productive. Monarchies need not be considered as they are not states that derive their legitimacy from the people -- but rather from God and inheritance.

The most negative aspect of this book is its title, "Liberal Fascism." A careful reader will learn what is meant by the author, but the vast majority will simply see the juxtaposition of the two words, "Liberal" and "Fascism" and read into this anything their pre-conceived ideas suggest. Actually, the author meant to describe something like "Benevolent Fascism", "Soft Fascism", "Smiley-Face Fascism", or my favorite, "Fuzzy Fascism" (e.g. Fascism that will not hurt you.) The word "Liberal" is used to put a more moderate or liberal face on Fascism, something more appropriate to nanny-state fascism. If the reader misinterprets the title, then little rational discussion can ensue.

The strengths of the book are in its rediscovery of the truly disturbing policies of the Wilson administration in 1917 and 1918 whereby opponents of his administration and policies were brutally suppressed. One should review the repressive Alien and Sedition Act and the Espionage Acts that Wilson promulgated. Nor did he shrink from meddling in other countries' affairs and supporting leaders he favored. The reader is advised to study his backing of Carranza and his Vera Cruz expedition in Mexico. At any rate, the Progressive movement in the US really did bring many ideas into the mainstream of American political thought that were later used as cornerstones of fascist ideology.

The author traces the support of communist and fascist states by American progressives until World War II -- an historical fact that should not be denied today as an inconvenient truth.

He also argues succinctly that Fascism replaces a religion based on a supreme being (God) with a religion based on a supreme State. So does communism as a matter of fact. The new God becomes the will of the people as interpreted and enforced by the State's elite for the people's benefit. Hence the development of the nanny-state political philosophy is a direct descendent of Fascism and features many of its evils. Bill O'Reilly has coined the name "Secular-Progressive" to describe thie political philosophy, although I wonder if he realized the historical accuracy of his term. The missing part is the militarism and genocide associated today with Fascism, which were outgrowths of the core ideas of Fascism and may well yet develop in the nanny state. After all, what would there be to stop such a development? It should be remembered that one of Hitler's early steps was to introduce full gun control in Germany to reduce any possibility of internal resistance to his regime.

The argument that "it can't happen here" should be revisited in light of Wilson's actions, Roosevelt's creation of concentration camps for Japanese during World War II, and the more recent Patriot Act. Unfortunately, many turn to the ACLU for solace, but it must be remembered that this organization was founded to foster the spread of communist ideology, and consistently supports the all-powerful leftist and secular state against the individual and religion.

The book bogs down somewhat in the argument that fascism is a product of the left and not of the right (politically.) The author is correct here, but he is swimming upstream against a powerful current from the mainstream American media which is firmly leftist and committed to the creation of a nanny state. In addition, he is trumped by the educational industry, both in public schools and in universities which has consistently taught socialist ideology since World War Two under the rubric of liberal teaching. As of this date, we have had a steady diet of socialist propaganda in our schools and universities for so long than no national or local figure has escaped its pernicious effects. What was thought to be "far-left" in 1960 is now centrist -- so far have we gone down the road towards a fascist state.

Nevertheless, the use of terms that everyone interprets in their own fashion by the author colors this discussion so markedly that constructive dialog between liberals and conservatives over this work is highly improbable. That is a great loss to our democracy.

So what is the solution? There probably isn't one. Politicians eloquently espousing "change" and "hope" have already very effectively learned how to evade issues in favor of vacuous but thrilling demogogy to rise to power. It must be remembered that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama studied Saul Alinsky thoroughly, making him possibly the most important individual in the background of the 2008 election. Senator Clinton even did double duty traveling to California to study under an unrepentant Stalinist. Perhaps they do not understand the road on which they are traveling -- after all, they've never been taught anything different. (That's why home schooling and even charter schools are such threats.) I suspect that the US will survive anything they do in the short term, but they are harbingers of things to come. The trend is there from the days of Wilson, and the ultimate denouement is in sight with Europe cheering us on out of envy every day. Even the mass demonstrations so loved by fascism to demonstrate the power and popularity of the State and its leaders are now being copied.

Before I receive thousands of hate comments from Obama supporters, allow me to state that the epithet "Fascist" does not fit Barack Obama in any way, shape or form. But the parallels I noted should not be overlooked in a study of the historical sweep of events and the acceptance of ideas. There is no question that the US has taken many steps on the road to the author's fascist nanny state, and opposition to this trend is fast being suppressed.

Liberal fascism?

It's understandable why liberals get angry when they see this book displayed. When I saw its cover and title, my first reaction to Jonah Goldberg's LIBERAL FASCISM was to disregard it. It looked like another partisan hatchet job on liberal/progressive politics, and a tacky one at that. That impression soon disappeared, however, once I started browsing its pages. Don't let Hitler Smiley Face on the cover or its ostensibly oxymoronic title (which was actually coined by H.G. Wells back in the 1930s) fool you: LIBERAL FASCISM undoubtedly is a polemic, and not without flaws, but it's also a good book, with a startling and provocative perspective.

To give a short version to the long story behind this controversial book, Los Angeles Times columnist and National Review contributing editor Jonah Goldberg argues that much of modern liberalism is actually the offspring of 20th century progressivism, which in turn shares intellectual roots with both Marxism and European fascism. Throughout much of Europe the communitarian impulse expressed itself in socio-political movements that were militarist, nationalist, and often racist. In the United States this same impulse took the form of progressivism which was better suited to American culture, but no less militant in its crusading spirit, and at times just as nationalist and as racist in expression, as its fascist counterpart. The ultimate goal of American progressivism was holistic society, similar to what the writer and social critic H.G. Wells approvingly dubbed "liberal fascism." (People interested to further explore Wells' fascist/totalitarian tendencies, should read his THE SHAPE Of THINGS To COME, which speculates on a future course of world history from the 20th to the 22nd century.)

Like I mentioned, the book does have its flaws, most of them due to Goldberg's static and often deliberately simplistic ideas for what constitutes "liberal" and "conservative," and his refusal to consider these terms ever as relative signifiers, or to use them outside a 21st century American context.

Such a point brings me to Goldberg's habit of grouping all communitarianism/collectivism exclusively in the left corner. It's just not true. Goldberg ignores, for example, the fact that collectivism was at the heart of traditional Russian society, long predating Marxist and other forms of modern socialism. He makes no mention of the communistic aspirations at the heart of Christian millennialist sects like the Levellers and Diggers of mid-seventeenth century England, both groups being offshoots of Oliver Cromwell's Puritan New Model Army. Such historical phenomena don't fall neatly within the clearly drawn lines of contemporary America's liberal vs. conservative dichotomy. Neither does neopaganism, the occult or ethically-based vegetarianism, anti-vivisectionism or a host of other things which fascinated nineteenth and early twentieth century European society as a whole. Occult and neopagan beliefs, in fact, were prominent within certain elements of Europe's Right, not its Left.

Closer to home, Goldberg does better work with the incipient fascism in 1930s American populism; correctly exposing, for instance, the left-wing roots of Louisiana governor Huey Long and radio commentator Fr. Charles Coughlin. On the other hand, the omission of William Dudley Pelley, George Lincoln Rockwell, or movements like the Silver Shirts and the Black Legion from a book focusing on fascist tendencies in American politics makes one suspicious. The aforementioned names and groups all were openly and proudly fascist--and all also shared origins in traditional American conservatism. By not mentioning any of these individuals or organizations it makes Goldberg look like he was cherry picking facts; ultimately this is more detrimental to the book's worth than either the title or the Smiley Hitler graphics of the cover.

Nevertheless, Goldberg still would've been better off, in the long run, choosing Orwell's "Oligarchical Collectivism" for the title.

This at least shows the fact that the origins of the USA's civilization is in the South. Spanish-speaking St. Augustine in Florida was the first European settlement, in 1565. The first-ever democratic elections in America were held in the Jamestown colony in 1607, etc. Because the North won the Civil War, they have written the history text books, which make it sound like Plymouth Rock was the cradle of the American nation. When in fact, the beginings of African-America were already one year in the past when the Pilgrims landed in New England, as African indentured servants landed on the Virginia coast in 1619. I am please to find Horwitz revealing the truth about this. I have not gotten there yet, but I am assuming he also credits the existence of the United States to the charity and patriotism of a Jew named Hayem Salomon; this man was an immigrant in New York from Poland, who bacame the wealthiest man in the Anglo-American colonies before 1775. Without his dedication and pocket book Continental Congress would not have had the resources to finance the Revolutionary War. In the middle of the 1780s, Salomon died penniless in a poor flat in New York. Congress never paid him back the vast fortune he contributed. But in recent years Congress did authorize the issue of a postage stamp bearing his likeness.

A really interesting look (and at times very funny) at the odd blank spot in American history between Columbus and Jamestown, especially odd since so much actually happened during that time; Coronado, Soto, the first European colony in the US at Fort Caroline (founded by French Huguenots and now Jacksonville, which was founded later after the colony was massacred by the Spanish). Also very thoughtful at times about a nation's memory and why we revere the jerks at Plymouth Bay Colony rather than any of their predecessors (who weren't exactly saints either).

For those who loved Confederates In The Attic, Tony Horwitz once again travels back into time, following the paths of Vikings, conquistadors and settlers. The main theme is the black hole Americans have of the time between Columbus and the Pilgrims, a not insignificant period of 128 years in which much occurred. Names like Coronado and DeSoto were just names in history books to many people, even well educated ones like Horwitz himself.

Horwitz writes about the historical misconceptions and other tidbits of this time which surround not only the explorers (Ponce de Leon was not in search of a fountain of youth, he never set foot in St. Augustine either) but also the natives (many Indian societies were scattered and loose confederations by the 16th century as opposed to their greater, more prosperous nations in centuries previous).

Some interesting moments in the book:

- Horwitz rightly condemns the lack of proper historical presentation in our time, for example St. Augustine turned into a Ponce de Leon theme park complete with pirates and the new pox of dumbed-down history, ghost tours.

- Regardless of the cruelty and single-minded gold mania of the conquistadors, Horwitz marvels at how they managed to march through inhospitable regions like the desert southwest and the swampy southeast. As for the atrocities they committed, there are many examples here. Still, Horwitz speaks to defenders of their legacy as well.

- Interesting modern day people and places abound: The Kansas Swedish Lutheran town situated at the Spanish Catholic Coronado's furthest exploration north. How the flooding of the Mississippi over the decades destroyed once-prosperous towns like Arkansas City, now a near-vacant settlement. The chaos of the modern Dominican Republic.

- The squandered legacy of the Vikings who failed to make inroads into the New World.

- The first Indian who met the Pilgrims spoke English and asked for beer. The Pilgrims weren't close to being the first people to settle on the east coast of the U.S.

Much more here, written in Horwitz's generally objective and inquisitive style. His trips to historical spots give a lot of modern day perspective. As with his other books, his visits to such places are met with either genuine interest or indifference.

Most of all, Horwitz engages the reader, regardless of political leaning. Contrast this to a book like Assassination Nation by Sarah Vowell, which could have been an excellent book but is poisoned by her bitter partisan rants. For all we know Horwitz could share a similar political viewpoint but he keeps an even-handed approach in this book.

The "truth" about America's origins is uncovered in interesting storytelling fashion. At times it reads like page turner. It might broaden a reader's viewpoint but it will make "little difference", because "...Myths didn't just trump fact; they helped create it." If you have played (or know about) rounders and tried to explain it's connection to baseball to almost any baseball fan you know the author is "right" about that. But that is not necessarily a bad thing it keeps our "foundation" stable and thus strong.

I heard Mr. Horwitz speak a few years ago. He mentioned that he was working on a book about the travels of De Soto. In the source section of this book, he mentions that he enough research on De Soto for three volumes. I suspect that he originally intended to have a book dedicated solely to De Soto and his travels, similar to Captain James Cook in Blue Latitudes. As the book developed, he and his editors thought it best to expand it to the breadth of discovery of North America. The result is somewhat a jumble. There is not the continuity you find in his other books. Chapter to chapter cover different subjects, and are disjointed. He tries to tie it together in a unified theme in the last chapter, but it does not really work.

The initial sections about Vineland and Columbus are a drag to get through. Instead of the usual observations about the current cultures and attitudes of the areas explored, these chapters mainly complain about the bugs, weather, crowds, or lack of crowds. The chapters in the Dominican Republic suffer, I think, because he does not know Spanish. He was not able utilize his greatest gift; effortlessly engaging in conversation with the local population, making them feel comfortable and unthreatened, and capturing their unguarded feelings and reflections.

The sections about Roanoke and Jamestown are the best in the book. These have the good balance between recounting the history and modern reflections that made his other books so great.

Never the less, I would recommend anyone read this, or any of Horwitz's books.

Sheila Weller creates an insightful look at three individually talented singer-songwriters and their lives as they attain increased cultural signifigance. As a 38-year old male, I found it a very interesting look back at a lot of the cultural attitudes in the 1970s. It's not that it was the Dark Ages but there were plenty of boggy undersides to the groovy chic of the time. As some of those my age can attest, I didn't grow up in a household where these three singers were considered Most Relevant by my 20-ish Mom. Sure, we had Laura Nyro, Nancy Wilson, Streisand, Melba Moore and Dionne Warwick, but Carly Simon was an FM radio staple. You almost didn't need to buy her singles, they were that ubiqitous and welcomed. Carole King was the domain of your slightly older sisters or teenaged aunts, penning their initials into 45s of Carole King's 'It's Too Late'- the universal lament crossing any age lines. Joni Mitchell, until 'Court and Spark' (in my house, anyway), was someone you found in your local library, intrigued by her album covers (there's Joni as...a Black man!? Hmm. Let's listen to this!). Perhaps the very interior mastery of their work, especially Mitchell's, made them less a communal indulgence from time to time. You didn't get to sit in a room while your sister wrote in her diary with 'Blue' on the stereo. Wasn't happening!

Ms. Weller weaves a thorough, respectful narrative of the three musicians and isn't too heavy-handed in placing them in the cultural context of their time. The book is an excellent example, especially to writers, of how powerful the written word is, especially when a lyric, song or sentence can express sentiment that becomes globally received and appreciated. The book will clearly steer you to your own memories of classic songs and where you may have been at the time. It made me remember being in Union City in California when "You're So Vain" came on the radio in the family car as we took in a stormy blue sky and thinking that Carly's song would open the heavens. It was that powerful to me at a very young age. It's flashpoint moments like that which make the book an extra-sensory look back in cultural history. Music was more of an integrated landscape then and if a song went to #1 on "the charts" then it was a part of the national zeitgeist, even if for a week. The supposed and real decadence of musicians then, as now, never really translated beyond their origins in Los Angeles or New York. For one, who else could afford it? It wasn't practical for the consumer. Still, a lot of misadventure and lost years can be supported by wealth, but for most of the country the decadence translated to towns in different ways of open-mindedness, cocktail parties with a different soundtrack (and more drinks) and a more decadent sexual assertion with music its ubiquitous background.

The current lives of these three singular women is certainly not a let-down and it's a testament to their individual endurance that they were able to stay culturally and emotionally viable. It's disappointing to see that many of their men let them down and took them through what their stardom, on the surface, would never seem to leave room for. Weller underlines throughout the book the breaking of sexual and social taboos that women advanced in this country. As a parent of a single mother, I sure remember my Mom, post-divorce, in the late 70s going into 'the city' to make a wage beyond the suburban rate; how her style changed more to her expression and how she single-handedly raised her kids. Millions of women, not just a selct few cultural icons, pushed through the real-life gains and advances that eradicated some of the danger/economic peril of being considered constrained minorities. As for the often-louche lovers of the women in this book, many are now deceased, or liquor-bloated semblances of their former shining selves or parodies, still hovering over the younger gliteratti of today. Time waits for no one, so if you find someone and the love is mutual, don't fu** it up! Carole comes across as a grounded woman who supported her core group of friends/musicians enough to embark, on her own terms, the relationships she chose, whether disastrous or not....and hadn't she earned those attempts? Carly Simon made a marriage to a heroin addict work for 9 years, which is like 30 years in real-time when you don't know that love can't replace a blood-and-bone addiction. Joni Mitchell, aggregating the finest points of disappointment and romantic fancy, is still a formidable woman and musician. I found this book extremely honest, even just the lyrics alone speak for their writers thoughts and imagination. I wish enduring happiness for all of them.

At one point in the book, the early 80s, when Joni, Carol and Joni are all close to or past their 40th birthday, Weller notes that with the change of musical icons and chart-burners, they all become aware that music, especially rock/popular music, is for the young. True, true. But don't the young always go back to the past and what isn't exactly right-this-minute? Just like I found my way at 13 years old to The Doors, The Mamas and The Papas, Jefferson Airplane and Hendrix, long after their 'hit' status, I still bought their albums and claimed my own memories to the songs, as people have done decades before and since. Mitchell, Taylor and King will always have their music rediscovered and listened to for the first time and for that they will always be relevant.

This book made me proud to have grown up exactly when I did. Its a superbly detailed story of three fabulous women whose music really was the sound track of some of the best years ever. Their bumpy and passionate love lives were something so many of us can identify with. I've been watching Carly Simon videos on her web site and elsewhere since I finished the book. I knew it had to end sometime but I really didn't want to say goodbye to these talented, fab women!

I can't begin to write how much I'm enjoying this book...it's as if the author wrote it just for me! Joni Mitchell is my favorite female artist (James Taylor being my favorite male)--and I have many albums of Carly Simon and a few of Carole King's as well. Reading this book is like reading a soundtrack of my life! At every twist and turn I find out how incestuous the music business is, and how interrelated and connected my favorite musicians are. While the bulk of the book deals with Joni, Carly and Carole, you'll learn tidbits and interesting facts about many other musicians/actors/celebs as well: James Taylor, Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Jackson Browne, Warren Beatty, Jack Nicholson...the list goes on and on.

The beginning was a bit dry (about their childhoods), but once the women start performing in the music business "katie bar the door!" There are fascinating revelations on nearly EVERY page. Reading the book has made me go back and listen to nearly each and every song by all three artists with a new appreciation and understanding. Brilliant!

Who thought you could do a biography of three different people, each so distinct in background and sensibility, and yet make it read like a fascinating novel? I would not have thought so until I opened this book. I saw people reading it on trains and on the beach so I thought, okay, I'll try. (Skeptical.) Well, it didn't take too long, like 30 pages in, for me to get hooked. The sheer number of people the author got to talk to her, and the variety of their impressions of these women, made it so revealing, I could barely stop reading. But I did stop from time to time, just to process the information. Carole King and a husband who had a baby with another woman (a singer) while they were married? Joni in Canada as an unknown folksinger smitten by Joe of Joe and Eddie? (I thought I knew everything about her.) Bianca Jagger calling James Taylor about Carly and Mick, and James proposing because of it? Somehow it didn't sound like the National Enquirer, though. It had the weight of a serious social history. I didn't want this book to end.

At first glance, Sheila Weller's choice of subjects seems incongruous: Joni Mitchell is one of the transcendent talents of our time. Carole King and Carly Simon, however prolific, cannot possibly come up to that standard. But Weller is concerned with the popular zeitgeist, not comparative musicianship, and we must take her book on its own terms.

Weller writes from a feminine, not a feminist, perspective. She would probably disagree with this assessment, but her particular brand of retrospective feminism has, by now, become so mainstream as to be unexceptionable. We have all come a long way since the 60's.

Three women singer-songwriters, three different life trajectories played out against the background of the 60's. Weller's "parallel lives" succeeds as biography, but fails to extract any greater meaning. I most appreciated her obsessively detailed research; I learned a lot of factual information from this book. Later on, though, it became bogged-down in an interminable and Oprah-like recitation of who slept with whom and how they all felt about it; I would have liked more information about the corporate and sexual politics of the era, and much more about the music itself; for me at least, and I think for many of my generation, it was really all about the music, and the People-Magazine-type shenanigans of its creators and performers are really, more or less, beside the point.

That said, I again praise Weller for her incredibly detailed knowledge and accurate feel of the life and times. It's not exactly the book I had hoped for, but it is certainly worth reading.

This books is practically amazing. My school scheduled the AP US History course first semester (one semester only) and the class was a disappointment. Massive curving on tests and incompetent students abounded. I read AMSCO for the January SAT subject test and scored a 760. Then I read it again for the May AP test and scored a 5. Simply amazing.

This book was recommended to my class by my APUSH teacher who was a former college professor. She was right in her assertion that this book is better than any other review book out there for AP US History. This book will give you a concise explanation of events and their significance, give you sample questions, and practice DBQ's and FRQ's for each individual section. Me being the procrastinator I am, I crammed with this book the day before the exam. Lo and behold, I got a 5. Now, I'm not saying this book will get you a 5, but using this book properly with all it has to offer will increase your chances infinitely. I'd recommend this book over any other out there on the market.

My AP US History class was way behind schedule - only reaching WWI in the week before the test.

Luckily, I had AMSCO to prepare me for the AP test.

This book summarizes everything you will need to know for the test, and keeps it interesting. There are many maps and charts to visually display the information talked about, and historical documents from each time period that help you to understand historical context. Every chapter has 10 multiple-choice review questions that force you to remember what you just read, sample essay questions, and vocabulary words. Some of the multiple-choice questions were almost exactly the same as questions I saw while taking the AP test. At the end of the book is a practice test that closely models the real thing.

It has sections on Writing the DBQ and FRQ essays. The sections on the DBQ were invaluable to me, because they explained how to write a good essay much better than my teacher did. It goes over structure, how to know what the question is specifically asking you, and shows you how to get a high score using analysis.

This book is also almost indestructible. I took it to many track meets where it was stepped on, thrown across the team tent, and got rained on. It is still in great condition!!

The only downside to this book is that the answers to the questions aren't in the back of it. However, just use Google, and you can find the answers in seconds.

AMSCO is best used over a period of at least two weeks - a month is best. If you are looking for a quick cram book, this one isn't for you.

This book is too long to be a useful review book.

I had this same book (previous edition) as an accompanyment to our American Pageant main text. I think the pageant had like 2220 pages which I real all of in 1 semester.

It's interesting that someone mentioned that they did the course in 2 years (4 semesters). If you follow the rule of 2 high school semesters = 1 college semester, this is correct since you get 2 college semesters credit of history for this course, and we had to do it all in 1 high school semester (so we learned it in quadruple speed, no wonder I was up till 1AM everyday!!!)

Anyway, since we took this 1st semester, and took other courses the 2nd, I forgotten ALOT of the material. The teacher had weekly review sessions for 1 hour every week at library at school at like 8 pm, but my dad wasn't going to take me after a long shift at work.

Though I vaguely remember we were allowed to keep the AMSCO until the test in May the following semester, I remember trying to review with this, but it was just too much information.

It is basically another textbook, and the information is not "summarized" in a useful way for review (as opposed to the Barron's AP European history text I have commented about previously). You basically have to reread the entire thing, which, if you are doing by yourself with no assignments to help reinforce the info (not to mention the fact you already read this), you won't retain anything, at least i didn't

I couldn't afford to pick and choose books at the time and went with what was free, but if you can find some review book that is only about 300-400 pages (i think this one was like 900), that would be the one to get.

However, if the pageant is too long for you, and you can get by in the class without the pageant, i would recommend reading this as a textbook.

I took the AP US exam in 2004, after a 2-year long AP US History class offered by my high school. I was terrified that I'd fail, but this book saved my butt! It's comprehensive, easy to understand, and the review questions and quizzes in the back are fantastic - I even saw a question from the book on the exam! This tome is intimidatingly thick, but don't let that daunt you. I studied 3 chapters per week in the 2 months leading up to the test, and there wasn't a single thing I didn't know. It could use a bit more post-1970 foreign policy information, but you can probably cover that with your teacher/textbook/class. Oh, and a whole chapter devoted to important Supreme Court cases & their significance would be great, but all that information is scattered throughout the book as well.

My AP teacher recommended _not_ writing the practice essays & DBQ, but I don't see why. Any practice writing in the style of the AP exam is critical to scoring well.

In all, if you are taking the AP US History exam (or just want a concise US history reference book!), I highly recommend this one. I still consult my AMSCO from time to time.

Very easy quick read.Great for plane trips. Jesse is a very interesting person. A fine patriot. The book describes his entire life very well. I hope there are more people thinking like he does. A third party is a must for this country. The country needs some serious reform. A person like Jesse Ventura can do it.

I heard him on Howard Stern and I wanted to read the book since that is what he was talking about. It is great. Best book that I have read all year. He talks about his life and his views on politics which I agree with everything he has to say on it. GIVE IT A READ, ITS REALLY GOOD!

If you only read one book this year make it this one! I agree with Jesse on all issues. The democrates , and republicans sold us Americans out a very long time ago. Different sides of the same coin.
The biggest threat to our country is the control of our major media. It's time to wake up America!
The unfederal no reserve bank (FACT) is driving our country into the dirt!!
Plus the lies of 9/11 are an outrage! I don't want to try and convince anyone, just look and decide for yourself.
Most will say Holy s**T! but what can i do?
PASS IT ON !
Jesse Ventura would make one hell of a good president! He would have my vote!

Great book. Insights into the way Jesse thinks and feels about issues. Jesse For President!

This man is a true rough around the edges guy who has been serving his country since his youth, like his family. He is a rough and tumble guy who will tell you like it is with no sugar coating, excess calories nor fat and this comes too much for some to handle. He has risked his life serving his country in numerous ways and in his Epilogue shows what could happen. I really admire this countryman in his long legacy of non-conventionality ... which is not unlike our founding fathers. He has the guts to spill the required patriotic blood for our tree of liberty and the very least everyone could do is read just 300 pages.

I'm concerned with the increasing divisions between left and right America - this book seems at least to be hitting on some of my concerns.

Bill Bishop has a simple thesis. Americans have segregated themselves politically and culturally. Most of us now have the money and opportunity to move around, and a huge number of us have taken this opportunity to move to places where we are more comfortable, where there are more people like us. The result, he argues is that the country increasingly consists of enclaves, which are either overwhelmingly liberal or overwhelming conservative. This pattern, he argues, is self-reinforcing. As most areas become more monolithic politically, they grow more extreme. This drives away people of the opposite point of view, which makes each area more monolithic. And as most local elections become non-competitive, the real action is in the primary, which is dominated by party activists, who tend to be extremists. The entire dynamic is to make us all live in echo chambers, in which we hear only opinions we agree with, and in which we all become less tolerant of other points of view and more extreme in our own point of view.

The book has many virtues. First, while I have some reservations, I think there is a good deal of substance to his argument. Much of the country is growing more polarized, people are less and less tolerant of opposing viewpoints and I think Bishop has explained a great deal of why this is so. Second, Bishop does not just give his opinion. He backs what he says with an extensive statistical analysis, and a very interesting discussion of relevant social science. In short, a solid, well-argued book.

Nonetheless, I have at least two sets of reservations. First, Bishop is very careful to not discuss the issues which divide the two sides. I think this is a good strategy for him, given the kind of book he is trying to write. At the same time, however, I do not think you can really understand these issues, without considering the substance of the disagreements. Bishop often makes it seem that people are just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. I think there is more to it than that.

Second, Bishop's analysis emphatically only applies to middle class, mostly white, Americans. He has absolutely nothing to say about immigrants, who, in my view, probably do not fit his pattern at all.

It may take a journalist to write an important work on politics that can be understood and enjoyed by those without a PhD in political science. This is essential reading for those who want to understand where the rubber meets the road in American politics at the grassroots level. It is a penetrating analysis that is also thoughtful, thoroughly researched and very well-written.
With that said, an editor more concerned with selling books than with the weight of objective evidence may have insisted on the subtitle, "Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart." That is because James Madison wrote in 1787, "The latent causes of factions are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society." Bill Bishop brings this up to date 221 years later by describing how the adherents of those factions have chosen to live apart by segregating themselves into separate clusters of residential neighborhoods in cities across the country. He is far less persuasive in making a case that this is somehow tearing us apart any more today than it did in the atmosphere of bitter factionalism that existed in Madison's era.

The authors' thesis is intriguing. U.S. counties are becoming increasingly homogenous in their lifestyle and politics. As a result, they are becoming polarized. The authors state this phenomenon is more pronounced for Republican counties. They are concerned that our society has become increasingly fragmented with close by communities having radically different sets of values. The authors partly explain this clustering into homogenous communities over the past three decades resulting in polarizing differences between them.

Their main supporting observation is that the % of voters in Presidential election from counties with a 20 percentage point differential (in either direction) in close elections has steadily increased over the past 30 years (from 26.8% in 1976 to 48.3% in 2004). They also rely on Alan Abramowitz work who observed the same phenomenon at the State level. In 1976, the average Presidential election margin in the States was 8.9 percentage points. In 2004, it was 14.8 percentage points. But, it is unclear if the latter just picked two points. That's because when you look at the standard deviation of the Democrat's % at the State level minus the nation's Democrat's % for each Presidential election over the same period, you get pretty much trendless results. If polarization had really increased, the standard deviation as defined over the period should have increased.

The authors also observed that since the 70s, Democratic counties share of the college educated and foreign-born citizens has risen. Meanwhile, Republicans gained shares of the Church going and white population. This demographic shift explains why Republican counties have become more polarized as they are more religious, less ethnically diverse, and less moderate in their views.

The authors thesis is appealing. The rise of the religious right is common knowledge. Democrats, referred to as the rainbow coalition, being more ethnically diverse is well accepted too.

But, sometimes the authors contradict themselves. On page 50 they disclose a graph showing how counties have become increasingly more polarized in their Presidential voting; and it is clearly the Democratic counties that have become more so. This contradicts their narrative analysis. So, which one is correct? Their analysis or their graph?

Other leading social scientists completely contradict their theories. The latter suggest that to the contrary the U.S. population is not so polarized. And, that it is only the politicians that have become more so. Those are the themes presented by Morris Fiorina in Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America (Great Questions in Politics Series). The authors actually do agree with Fiorina about the politicians as they convey a graph on pg. 247 showing the rapid decline of moderates in Congress from near 50% of the membership (either Senate or the House) in 1950 down to 10% currently. But, Fiorina and the authors reach diametrically opposite conclusion regarding the general population. How can that be? The authors show polarization mainly at the county voting level. Fiorina instead shows moderation at the State level, as he shows that the majority of the State in the 2000 election did have less than a 10% differential between Bush and Gore (I suspect the updated edition shows the same phenomenon in 2004 between Bush and Kerry). He also conveys that people's opinions between Blue and Red States are not that different even on very controversial topics such as abortion and homosexuality. To the authors credit, they addressed Fiorina's work. But, they dismissed it too quickly. They suggest Fiorina was looking for moderation by phrasing the questions ambiguously. On abortion Fiorina asked whether people were for or against abortion in different terms of pregnancies and in different situations (health of the mother at risk, rape, confirmed malformation of fetus, etc...). Meanwhile, the authors asked simply are you for or against abortion? And they got different results. But, I think Fiorina's work is more sophisticated as it uncovered the nuances of people's values much better. Additionally, Fiorina develops a political model indicating that the Presidential candidate who gets closer to the Center on both fiscal and social dimensions typically wins the election. Karl Rove proved the opposite in 2000 and 2004 by rallying the base. Meanwhile, the authors support Karl Rove strategy and suggests that given our polarized electorate you have to rally your base first and foremost. The current election between Obama and McCain may swing the pendulum again in Fiorina's favor.

Another leading pollster who is on Fiorina's side is Mark Penn. In his interesting book Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow's Big Changes he indicates that the % of independent voters is steadily rising. Per studies from University of Michigan, the % of split-ticket voters (people who vote for a different party for President vs Congress) has increased by 42% since 1952.

Also counties presidential voting may have become more polarized because the candidates have become more polarized not the voters. In 1976, Ford and Carter was a far less contentious match than either Bush - Gore in 2000 or Bush - Kerry in 2004.

In terms of the sorting and clustering of communities economic implications, the authors work is simplistic vs the far more sophisticated and insightful work of Richard Florida in Who's Your City?: How the Creative Economy Is Making Where to Live the Most Important Decision of Your Life.

Skip this book. It is one more liberal enclave self-love fest in the genre of Richard Florida. In fact, Florida is quoted quite a bit. Whenever these pop-regional science people need to put a book together, they follow the simple formula of stroking their neighbors in Boulder and Raleigh, and insulting a few cities - Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, etc.

For this thesis, it makes no sense. All of the latter cities are extremely democratic in their voting. So why aren't they attracting more left-leaning residents like Boston or DC? Because they are not state/national capitals with the power to tax the hinterland. They are not regional hubs like Chicago or NY. And they are not small enough to be carried by their universities.

Bishop makes an ignorant mistake on page 131. He lists Cleveland's college graduation rate as 14%. That's the rate for the central city with less than a quarter of the area's residents. Cleveland's college graduates live in the inner ring suburbs such as Cleveland Heights, Shaker, and Lakewood (with beautiful neighborhoods of century homes, and very democratic voting, btw). Depending on how you define the metro area, the percentage of college grads (over 25 yrs old) is 24 to 27. That's about average for the US. Pittsburgh's and Detroit's percentages are slightly higher. But how could he fill the pages of his book without recognizable cities to look down on? The Austin resident wouldn't bother looking down on El Paso or Victoria, TX, because readers don't even know where they are.

The "left-behind" cities have hundreds of thousands of residents who didn't make it through college. These people get by with whatever work is left for them in a post-industrial economy. All the liberals claim to care about the working class, but most of them take the first chance they get to move a thousand miles away. Fifty years ago, Madison, San Jose, Boulder, and Ithaca were just slightly more populated than the cornfields that were paved into suburbs. Its middle class flight on a national scale, and books like this just encourage it.

A revealing and very well-written book on America's history of meddling in world affairs, full of historical revelation and insight. Avoid the audiobook version of this; I don't know the name of the person chosen to read the book but his absurdly strident intonation turns it into a joke.

So there are these men, were there isn't a lot written about them in history (There is a airport named after one of them) and anyway they kind set the pace for American foreign policy. Later on OGA's kind of get over zealous with the "First to fight people" help and then congress cuts their balls off, presto 9/11. That's a Karma Theory. Kind of ironic were Obama was born. Mirror anyone ?

If you believe Bush's pithy statement above, then you really need to buy & read this book. I remember growing up in the 70's, when the Iranian Islamic revolution happened, and hearing all the "Death to America, the Great Satan" chanting, and like most Americans wondering what they were so mad about.

Never in the so-called "mainstream media" did I ever hear about our overthrow of Mossedegh in Iran and (re)installation of the brutul Shah. Err, that's why they hate us! Recommended reading for all US history classes...

This is a very well written book that provides us with critically important history that all Americans need to know. These are sad chapters that document the attempt to establish an American Empire and make it clear that the concept of a "war on terror" leaves out all history prior to 9/11/01. The chapter on the overthrow by the CIA of the democratically elected President of Iran in 1953 is especially important. This illegal intervention was undertaken on behalf of the oil companies who were infuriated at President Mossadegh's attempt to nationalize the Iranian oil industry. This is essential information which puts a whole new perspective on our very troubled relationship with Iran. (It also further reinforces the idea that our illegal war and occupation of Iraq was undertaken to secure the vast prize of Iraq's oil reserves.) This book makes it crystal clear that all too often our foreign policy decisions have been made in the service of big business. This is an old recipe for continuing disaster- America can do better than blindly follow in the footsteps of the French and British Empires. This, tragically, has been our course of action in Vietnam and now in Iraq- the book has two excellent chapters that deal with these disastrous interventions.

Overthrow is a very well written book by Stephen Kinzer that covers slightly more than 100 years of history dealing with US involvement in overthrowing foreign governments. This is the history they don't teach you in schools. Beginning in Hawaii and covering such exotic locales as Cuba, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Iran, Iraq, Grenada, Guatamala, Chile, Honduras, Vietnam, Puerto Rico and Panama. Each chapter covers a different country and is a lively read. It is very interesting to see the different motives and different strategies used over the last 100+ years. And of course, it puts current events in much better perspective if you know the last 100 years of history behind them.

Also interesting is "All the Shah's Men" which is a more indepth look at the early 1950s coup in Iran, which the US led. This leads to the unfortunate 1979 revolt that brought Iran under Islamic rule and under which it remains today.

I highly recommend this book to anyone. It's a nice one to just pick up and read a chapter and think "I had no idea that was why [insert country] is like that today".

Anyone interested in the civil war and the south will truely love this book. It is a unique look at reinactors and to the details they achieve for the simple passion they had for the war and soldiers that fought in battle. The author is a great story teller with wit and heart.

In the beginning of his work, Tony lays down the question that the reader expects will guide the course of the book: why does the War remain so important and prominent in the consciousness of Americans, even, and especially, amongst persons who have no family connection? In consideration of the fact that the War primarily was fought south of the Mason-Dixon (Gettysburg and a few major exceptions aside), Tony plans an impressive survey of the Southern States. His journeys take him from North Carolina, which he amusingly relates as trapped between two prideful neighbors, to the Deep South states of Mississippi and Alabama, where Martin Luther King and the racial struggles are of recent memory. He does not visit all the Confederate states (Arkansas, Louisiana, Florida and Texas are excluded) but he does manage forays into the border states of Kentucky and Maryland. A list of sites visited is impressive: Fort Sumter, Sharpsburg, Appomattox Court House, Chacellorsville, Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, Petersburg, Five Forks, Andersonville, Gettysburg, Harpers Ferry, Shiloh, Manassas, the towns of the Shenadoah Valley. These are just a few that come to mind; there are many others.

Tony's approach for each state is consistent. He first goes to those cities or battlefields that are of known historical importance. Once there, he seeks historical societies or persons to whom he is referred. Two societies that continually appear in the work are the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and their female counterpart, the United Daughters of the Confederacy. He conducts informal interviews, and uses the information provided as a spring for further unplanned encounters in the environs. Inter-weaved with his solo treks are Tony's adventures with Rob Hodge, a "hardcore" re-enactor who crusades for the complete realization of Civil War realism, and who deplores modern intrusions.

I commend Tony Horwitz for attempting to dig beneath the surface, to make analogies and historical connections. He patiently listens to whom he calls neo-Confederates as they expatiate upon their views of the War, the meaning of flying the Confederate (Battle) Flag and how the official history of the war (written by the Northern invaders) distorts the truth behind the South's motives. He also shows that not all Southerners think alike on the War and on the flag issue. Some have little care for the heritage of the War, but have inherited and appropriated symbols of the Cause for their own cause: e.g. using the Confederate (Battle) Flag as a sign of rebellion against the status quo, or as a standard of white supremacy. Some Southerners go so far as to agree: The War is over. Let's get over it. The Southern blacks with whom Tony converses are preponderately opposed to the show of Confederate pride. Interestingly, at the end of the book, Tony relates of black schoolchildren who are just as cynical of Northern motives as they are those Southern. North or South, no difference, the leaders of both were white, i.e. racist against blacks. Even Abraham Lincoln does not escape criticism; the schoolchildren regard him as a "benevolent racist." (367)

Where Tony excels in his reporting, witticisms and the lucid, engaging tone that prevails throughout the work, there are several areas that significantly detract from the quality of an otherwise excellent piece of non-fiction. As the title of my review suggests, Tony understands the War as seen through the prism of the Civil Rights Movement. The two chapters that conclude the work, "I Had a Dream" and "Strike the Tent," in their contents serve as the interpretive crux of all the preceding chapters. In early chapters, Tony is cautious with his personal views, but finally he cannot hold them in any longer and lets loose (paralleling his explosive argument with Rose Sanders, a school teacher). He begins with a manifesto that, while in childhood the Civil War fancied his mind, it was the occurrences of the 1960's, in particular the Civil Rights Movement and the struggles that accompanied them, which developed his "political consciousness" (370). This is fine, except he conflates the racial issues of the 1960's with the issues of the War in the 1860's. Subsequent to this loose conflation, all manner of wild reflections are drawn. Race, segregation and discrimination, huge factors from the racial wars of the 1960's until today, become key issues in the War Between the States. Overcoming these issues would mean a unified country, where people believe and live alike, regardless of class, race or any other distinguishing characteristic. Great idealism, but were the historical motives of the War really of that ideal or to the extent that Tony imposes on it? Because what Tony sees in the South does not fully live up to his own ideal, he concludes wholesale rejection, rather than critical acceptance of what is good and rejection of that which is bad, as the best course of action. He facilely equates the traditional Southern view of the War as "propaganda," and he entertains the notion that the South would be better if it forgot its [War] history, since its history intrinsically relates to the racial strife and inequality of the 20th century. (376) "You Wear Your X, I'll Wear Mine" (in reference to Malcolm X and the design of the Confederate Flag respectively) is Tony's oft-repeated phrase of disgust, which also functions as his experience of the South as an entity: each side, Southern White and Southern Black, having its own history, but each of whose history is fueled by racial prejudices. Both must go.

In consequence on Tony's fixation on the issue of race, he cannot see the "States' Rights" argument as anything more than a concocted veneer to legitimatize darker motives: slavery and the assertion of racial superiority. Unfortunately, Tony does not even address the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which long before the Confederacy advocated states ' rights in the face of an oppressive federal government. Neither does he address the different views of the Founding Fathers regarding the union and whether it was an unbreakable union or one which the states made and from which they could secede under certain conditions.

In the end, Tony Horwitz's presentation of the South is amusing, if wanting at times, especially in the evaluative concluding chapters. After writing so well and humorously on re-enacting, it is disheartening and a sneer, even when taken as jest, for him to conclude of re-enactment activities as "childish things." (388) He makes mention of the "Irreconcibles," a group of Confederates and their descendants that remains to this day in Brazil; but Tony laments he could not visit them. This is a true tragedy. Had Tony visited, he may have gained some illumination as to the Confederacy and the motives behind the Confederacy, and its self-professed advocates of today. The Civil Rights Movement did not impact Brazil as it did the U.S., and the perspectives there would provide a unique complement.

As will be the case with all my reviews, I'm going to record my reaction to the book, not summarize it. If you want to know what the book is all about, read a few of the longer reviews (which, at the time of this writing, numbered about 250.) Or better yet, buy it; it'll only cost you $10.17. Plus shipping, of course - and sales tax, if you live in Washington State.
I approached this book with a full head of righteous indignation. I was ready to be pissed off. I expected a hatchet job. How could anything written about the South by a self-proclaimed liberal, ex-union organizer named Tony be anything other than another perfunctory slap - if maybe a comical slap - at all those redneck, racist , reactionary, drawling good ole boys down there at the bottom of the country - who, moreover, have the temerity to vote Republican? (Full disclosure: I am white, retired, live in Washington State, and voted for Reagan. Twice.) Boy was I wrong! (About the book - not about Reagan.) Maybe I'm too old or dumb to deal with subtle innuendo, but on a quick first reading this book was fun, informative in a non-threatening way - and fair. Sure, the author talked to some people I'm happy I've never met, but heck, there are plenty of those right here in the Pacific Northwest, and I run into them all the time. This book introduced me to some interesting, even fascinating, people - Rob Hodges (on the cover) was worth the price of admission all by himself. Some advice to the potential reader: if you're looking for sober, closely reasoned political or psychological enlightenment, buy some other book - this one, while serious in places, is mainly just good, honest fun. And some advice to the author: Tony - stay out of biker bars. We want you around to write more books.

Well, ever since my seven year sojourn in Frederiksburg, Va., I've been trying to understand the jaundiced eye with which so many people in the south view that war, and the north. I guess the best thing that Horwitz gave us was Shelby Foote's explanation: the war was fought in their front yards. (except for Gettysburg...and here and there in Indiana and Ohio and D.C.) Also, I think they love the glorious romantic sense of loss of it all.
I loved reading this book. Horwitz is a smart fun guy.

A superb book. I'd have given it four and a half stars if possible. It doesn't merit five stars because of some repetitive sections. Laugh out loud funny in parts, ponderous (in a good way), well-researched, and eye-opening. This was a really fun book to read.

The man knows whereof he speaks. I'm always interested in questioning assumptions; this book is guaranteed to shake up the way you think about war. Take a chance. If you don't want to read it you can listen to Mr Hedges reading it to you, Tantor has it in mp3 format. In a way, listening to him read his own work offers something extra.

In this book Chris Hedges does an excellent job of describing what he accurately terms the "myth of war" and why that myth has been, and is, so prevalent in human culture. As one could extrapolate from the title of the book, it is a force that gives us meaning. It provides a feeling of serving a higher, worthy, purpose, it provides in its life and death struggles a kinship felt nowhere else, and can become a powerful, addictive "narcotic." At the same time, in order to justify the inhumanity of war we exaggerate those positives to the point that they do effectively become a myth while ignoring the ugly (what Hedges terms "sensory") reality of war. Hedges argues that this myth is perpetuated willingly by the state because popular belief of this myth is required in order to provide willing volunteers for the meat grinder of combat, and my personal experience gives me cause to agree with his thesis.

What I found most interesting are his words regarding what happens when the myth breaks down, both among those who have done the fighting and the society on whose behalf they fought. The collective amnesia, rewriting of history, all a willing coverup to protect the myth. Those who have seen the "sensory reality" of war are ignored and vilified by the very people whom they volunteered to serve.

This book means a lot to me because much of what he articulates has happened to me over the last several years. I believed in the myth, tried to live up to it, saw the myth come crashing down, and experience great trouble as a result. Unfortunately I believe that people like me are the only ones who will find value in this book, as the endurance of this myth throughout the entire history of human civilization gives me no cause to believe this myth will evaporate anytime soon.

If I had any advice for someone who still believes in the myth, it would be this:
Do not risk your life, based upon your limited, flawed, Hollywood understanding of battle and desire to fill the shoes of the "greatest generation" that lived before your own, in order to produce through force of arms the political aims of the powerful elite who control our government. You will not serve patriotism, nor any similar higher ideal. You will serve only the murderous desire of your superiors at your own expense.

Chris Hedges isn't an armchair commentator. He gives the perspective of an observer thrust into the center of the maelstrom of war time and time again. Out of it he brought some new and powerful insights about why the human race -- even the supposedly most "civilized" elements -- hasn't been able to extract itself from the endless cycle of war. It provides a mirror to the bleakest parts of the soul of humanity. If enough of us would listen and understand, this book could begin a process to break the cycle. It's one of the most powerful anti-war books I've read.

I finished reading War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning by Chris Hedges. It is a very interesting book. Chris Hedges is a foreign correspondent that specializes in war correspondence. In the book he makes some very true statements:

"We are tempted to reduce life to a simple search for happiness. Happiness, however, withers if there is no meaning. The other temptation is to disavow the search for happiness in order to be faithful to that which provides meaning. But to live only for meaning - indifferent to all happiness - makes us fanatic, self-righteous, and cold. It leaves us cut off from our own humanity and the humanity of others. We must hope for grace, for our lives to be sustained by moments of meaning and happiness, both equally worthy of human communion."

I recommend the book for those who wish to understand the meaning of war and how any people react to war.

This book is one of the most disturbing and unsettling books I have read since I examined "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Griffin. It was written by a Pulitzer Prize winning war correspondent who has covered wars for more than 20 years. It isn't the rantings of an ivory tower academic. He has covered wars in El Salvador, the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, Iraq and elsewhere. He has been imprisoned, beaten by military police and attacked by death squads. His perspective deserves to be taken seriously and soberly. This book is neither a diatribe against war nor an argument for pacifism. His claim is that he "wrote this book not to dissuade us from war but to understand it. It is especially important that we who wield such massive force across the globe see within ourselves the seeds of our own obliteration. We must guard against the myth of war and the drug of war that can, together, render us blind and callous as some of those we battle."

He points out how, rashly and quickly, only three days after 9/11, the Congress granted the President the right "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks." This resolution was passed unanimously by the Senate and with only one dissenting vote, from Barbara Lee, a Democrat from California, by the House of Representatives. She warned that military action could not guarantee the safety of the country and, "as we act, let us not become the evil we deplore."

He sets down the basic premise of the book with these words. "The enduring attraction of war is that it can give us what we long for in life, even with its destruction and carnage. It can give us purpose, meaning and a reason for being. Only when we are in the midst of conflict does the shallowness and vapidness of much of our lives become apparent. War is an enticing elixir. It gives us resolve, a cause. It allows us to be noble. And those who have the least meaning in their lives, the impoverished refugees in Gaza, the disenfranchised north African immigrants in France and even the legions of young who live in the splendid indolence and safety of the industrialized world, are all susceptible to war's appeal...."

Before I could recover from his assault on my ill-informed conscience, I remembered how evangelical religion has given sanction and certitude to the war in Iraq. This haunting word, reported in "Utne," of Sam Ross, a paratrooper wounded in Iraq is a vivid testimony to the truth of his thesis. "I lost my left leg, just below the knee. Lost my eyesight....I have shrapnel in pretty much every part of my body. Got my finger blown off...I had a hole blown through my right leg....It hurts a lot, that's about it. You know, not really anything major. Just little things....It was the best experience of my life."

This book is a clear call to us to understand just what continues to take place in Iraq as President Bush refuses to end it. My guess is that he finds meaning in that conflict. Hedges says that it gives us meaning! But there is another force, maybe even a new and unsuspected force. It is love regardless of the violence inflicted upon us. There is meaning in a life lived differently. I suggest that you read this book carefully.

One of the most fascinating non-fiction titles that I have ever read in my entire life and, believe me, I have read some very good ones.

Written by Alan Weisman, an award-winning journalist, who imagines what the world would be like if all of a sudden humans vanished from the face of the earth .... but not without a trace. He uses this hypothetical scenario to talk about the changes man has brought about to earth and how long would the human creations last without us (yes, the 'trace' I was talking about).
He takes this wonderful premise as a vehicle to discuss such diverse topics as human and animal evolution, air and water pollution, animal and plant extinction, natural disasters, Mayan history, NASA's Voyager and Pioneer spacecrafts, the fascinating history of Cyprus, the fate of 441 active nuclear reactors of the world, the history of the Panama Canal, the ecology of the uninhabited demilitarized zone between North and South Korea, the ramifications of the Chernobyl disaster, the future of human art, among other things.

The book discusses too many disciplines of science to name here.

Breathtaking in its scope and meticulous in research, this book is definitely a great intellectually stimulating read.

It's a hugely informative, highly readable, immensely entertaining read which is breath-taking in its concept and has been called 'one of the grandest thought experiments of our time.'

There have been many reviews of this book, and I agree with most of the complimentary comments. Instead of rehashing these comments, I'll focus on two shortcomings. One, like similar books covering this subject, the author focuses too intently on one major urban center: New York City. And while this provides a microcosm for other cities around the world, I feel that the book would have benefited greatly from focusing on vignettes from cities around the world, rather than devoting so much time to New York. Certainly, the author discusses other locations, but NYC dominates. Second, and perhaps less important, is the author's overuse of lists. Especially annoying in the audiobook version, the frequent lists in the book are an unwelcome and tedious distraction from the flow of the writing. Lists of animal species, tree types, etc., are unnecessary and disruptive. I found that these often took me out of the feeling of the work and caused me to skip ahead or simply to put the book down. This is not to knock the entire work as being unreadable, simply that this particular neance I found very annoying.

The book is exceptionally well written. The subject content is extemely important and broken up into easily readable but stunning segments.

Excellent book. Full of information on what we are doing to our environment and food for thought as to possible solutions. Definitely not a scare tactic treatise like many environmentalist-type books tend to be, but a honest look at where we've come from, and where we're going. Things look OK and manageable. The things we've made will take a long time to disappear. The things that we've thrown into the oceans will take a millennium to degraded. They eventually will, but how will the environment deal with them? Unlike many articles on the environment, this book doesn't preach about stopping development right away for the sake of the Earth. The term "sustained development" comes to mind. We need to keep going, but at a conscious pace. I remember a phrase from the movie "Jurassic Park" where Dr. Malcolm (the chaotician) tells the group around the lunch table that we are so consumed with the excitement of what we "can" do but we never stop to think if we "should." We need to keep building. We need to keep advancing. How we do it seems to be the problem. The book does conclude nicely though. There's a sense that all is not lost and that there is a consciousness among the offenders that things just cannot continue this way. There are many programs in the developed world to recycle waste and not treat the Earth as a dumping ground. An excellent read indeed.

When I say difficult to read, I don't mean that "The World Without Us" is unusually dense or technical. Weisman's various explorations of how the world would be if the problem of humans was removed are fascinating, informative, accessible, and at times downright alarming and scary (the section about plastics blew my mind - I had never thought about seemingly harmless plastics in such a way before). However, his vignettes are sometimes unrelated or irrelevant to one another and there is no overreaching logic or organization in the book other than the question, "What if humans disappeared today?" There are also many frustrating digressions that interrupt or distract during the vignettes. However, I still recommend it for its thought-provoking value for those who are willing to transcend its organizational chaos.