Politics Government Books

Mr Swift is enormously accurate, a pundit of exalted talent. Wish he were here to justly give a critique of our political nightmare.

Satire is sadly lacking in today's society. Satire holds human vices and folly up for ridicule. Swift is not advocating the economy of eating babies, but maybe the fact that they are currently eating the body parts of aborted fetuses in China seems to steal something from Swift's modestly porposed satire-or maybe it is too outrageous seeming to be true.

Nevertheless, this is a brilliant work by a brilliant writer. It should be required reading. It is a pristine example of satire. Should we stop choking deaths by improvising starvation-- seek a new president by electing children? Satire is a genius' way of entertaining social change-literally. Although, sometimes though, even what once seemed impossibly satiric does not remain-which is proof of human folly.

This read is pretty congested with 18th century European political and religious references, however it is a beautifully witty and priceless satire on the inconsistencies of human compassion.

Perhaps Swift was trying to evoke shock and heart wrenching disgust in readers in the hopes that the reader would see that England's economic exploitation of Dublin at the time was essentially just as damaging to society as something like government ordained cannibalism. Why is it that a reader would be so horrifically devastated by the idea of turning children into food in order to survive, yet remain callous and unconcerned with the fact that all people, adults and children alike, were in reality victims of a government which not only economically exploited the population to the point of utter poverty, but did not care even slightly that human beings were being turned into rotting corpses as a result?

I think this book was quite interesting but very weird
HI everyone in kingston jamaica

Swfit was perhaps the first major writer to introduce cannibalism into Western political thought, and incorporate it successfully into practical economics. I'm disturbed that Swfit's visionary solution to Thomas Malthus' omen about the dangers of overpopulation hasn't yet been seriously considered by world policymakers. That's just like politicians though, they do anything to get elected - hence another reason why extending the franchise to the lower rungs of the social hierarchy was a terrible mistake and should be revoked.

As my first read on the topic, I found this book extremely captivating, enjoyable to read, and leaving me with wanting more knowledge on the Supreme Court and Constitutional Law, particularly the opinions on some of the more noted cases of the last century. The author seemed to be rather fair and balanced but certainly the focus was more on the conservative nominations and justices. I would have liked to learn more about Ginsburg and Souter's personal and professional lives. The final notes make mention that this work is based on over one hundred interviews including nine supreme court justices, many of their law clerks, and high ranking officials from the White House to federal appeals court judges. Crawford also noted that the book relied heavily on the papers of Justices Marshall and Blackmun. Along with this extensive research and the authors academic and professional background, I believe that this book is a credible source of information. While the focus is on the struggles and conficts surrounding the nominations of the Supreme Court Justices over the past 25 years, the book particularly keys in to the nominations, hearing, and backgrounds of the more conservative justices and most recently, the important nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito that may prove pivotal in changing the direction of the Supreme Court to a more limited role of interpreting law rather than creating it. The political and ideological battles that surround the nominations is quite interesting as the expectations and the stakes involved have become politically and ideologically crucial. Further, the fear and skepticism that a supreme court justice will change his/her opinions once sworn in has become a relevant factor worth vetting the candidates for in a more extreme and embattled fashion than ever. All this makes for extremely good reading.

Although Ms. Greenburg is repetitious in many instances, she presents the reader an easy, informative and historically correct read. Will be excellent Supreme Court research treatist for many years to come.

I'm a second-year JD/MBA student at one of the nation's best law and business schools, and I picked up on the conservative bias in the book by about 50 pages in.

I have three reasons so far for saying the book is biased in favor of the right. The book sets out to portray the court's shift rightward, first of all, and focuses on conservative justices, sources of information, and issues.

Second, liberals are usually not mentioned for long, and Greenburg takes care to point out personality flaws in the liberals more than the conservatives. Blackmun, for example, is described as "touchy" at one point for no reason, without it being relevant to the topic, and without Greenburg providing a supporting quotation or evidence. She also spends a lot of time on how big of a disappointment justices like Kennedy, Souter, Blackmun, etc. turned out to be, and even talks about Rehnquist failing to turn the Court sufficiently rightward. Greenburg is supposedly an impartial journalist, but her bias is revealed because of the book's heavy reliance on conservative sources of information.

Thirdly, the book casts Kennedy and O'Connor as "moderates," when both were/have been/are solid conservative votes, except for some high-profile cases on social issues. If you don't believe me, just look up vote counts and see how often Kennedy and O'Connor vote and voted with Rehnquist and company. The only people who would try to label O'Connor and Kennedy moderates would be staunch conservatives, in order to shift the perceived spectrum of American politics rightwards.

This is a book by what I figured must have been a conservative, and my research corroborates it. I'm not saying the book is bad or anything; it still provides a lot of insight into conservative thinking. For example, it gives insightful looks into the workings of the Justice Department in aiding nomination processes.

This book is excellent. I wish all books that touch upon political matters were written so objectively. Sadly, one can often determine an authors political affiliations (and, perhaps, agenda) when reading a book but that is not the case with Ms Greenburg's book on the Supreme Court. She presents a fair story that is very readable. The 'inside' information gleened from interviews and the writings of the Justices makes the book especially interesting. It really adds a warm and human element to the history. I'd strongly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in the history and workings of the Court.

The stories of how the Justices were selected, who else was considered, who made the decisions and how are fascinating. In particular the story of John Roberts is something anyone can relate to if you've had a 'dream job' that you've been close to getting.
The author clearly has much better connections with Republicans than Democrats, as evidenced by the thin coverage of Clinton's appointments. She repays her Republican assistants by employing terminology used only by the most extreme anti-abortion zealots, and by praising Justices like Scalia and Thomas as defenders of the Constitution, then vilifying Justices like Ginsburg or Souter for their adherence to the Constitution's first and fourth ammendments.
Still a great read, and I wish I could read another version of it with a leftward bias to balance this one out.

If you are tired of spending your dollars on gasoline produced from oil from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela,and other OPEC countries, many of whom hate the U.S.,this book is a must read. Dr.Zubrin's argument is simple: to become independent of foreign oil, stop using gasoline made from oil and turn to alcohol based fuels; ethanol and methanol. Methanol is the fuel used by the Indy 500 drivers. It's cheap to make and can be made from coal, natural gas and almost any biomass (including the leftovers from the manufacture of ethanol.)One needs a flex fuel engine to use it, but that only costs $150-200 per car. Congress could subsidize this for $150 million per year, and mandate a flex fuel engine for every car sold here. In three years that would put 50 million cars on the roads, creating a market for entrepreneurs to provide the pumps to deliver methanol to the marketplace. It would also help farmers in poor countries as well as take the pressure off of food crops presently used for ethanol and presently driving up many food prices. It is the Saudi's, the farm lobby and the oil company's stranglehold on Congress which is preventing methanol from coming to market. "Energy Victory" sets forth the problems and provides details of the solution to weaning ourselves from foreign oil.

Wow this book is well written and an eye opener. It should be read by all americans. Big oil is using the government to cheat the people.

I felt the book was well documented and the point that the US is being held hostage by the foreign oil producers. The money made by the Islamic Oil producers is being used to destroy the United States through its economy. We have oil and alternate sources of energy and we should be using them.

I was recently sent a preview copy of an upcoming publication, "Energy Victory," written by Robert Zubrin. The book attempts to layout a plan for America to break free of its oil addiction ­ a path that, he claims, current US Policy will never achieve. Although the book's main focus is on energy solutions, Zubrin does spend a significant amount on time on the genealogy of terror, America's tumultuous relationship with OPEC and debunking myths.

Having not paid much attention to the history of terrorism (although I would argue that Americans, should spend more time learning about this), I found this section interesting. It brings to light a little more urgency for Americans to find solutions to replace oil that is purchased from the volatile Middle East - an area that is obviously not friendly to Americans.

So what are the solutions, sensei? Renewable fuels such as ethanol and methanol. Before you start arguing that ethanol is not a solution because it has less energy, this is not true. Ethanol has a positive net energy. Updated in 2004, the most definitive analysis (by USDA) concludes that for every 100 BTUs used to grow corn and process it into ethanol, 167 BTUs of ethanol is produced. In other words, ethanol generates 67 percent more energy than it takes to produce. Zubrin explains that the misinformation has been fueled by ethanol detractor David Pimentel, in conjunction with Tad Patzek, whose research is so out of date and scientifically unsound that his own university, Cornell University, discredits the research.

As ethanol is gaining traction, with the support of the Big Three, especially GM in bringing Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) to market, and more than 50 percent of American's fuel being blended with some percentage of ethanol, and more than 1300 E85 stations across the U.S., Zubrin says that many people are not happy with the developments. "Not everyone is happy with this development, of course, and the reasons are plain to see. The 4.9 billion gallons of US ethanol produced in 2006 took ten billion dollars away from the oil cartel. Thus it is hardly surprising to find the ethanol program regularly denounced by journalistic hired guns and other business analysts associated with oil industry funded think tanks, as well as by ideological libertarians whose sensibilities it offends." Ha, take that!

Zubrin continues in his book to layout long­term plan for reducing America's energy dependence on foreign oil using an "alcohol economy," and spends some time ruminating about how the world can help defeat global warming while simultaneously reducing fossil fuel use. Interestingly enough, he supports raising all countries' Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which may come at the short-term expense of increasing greenhouse gas emissions, but over time, as fossil fuels are phased out, greenhouse gas emissions would decrease.

This is not a lighthearted reading for those who want the top line view of an issue. This is a very technical book (scientific terms, chemical equations, etc.) that delves fairly deep into each topic he covers but there are moments of humor that keep the book moving. Ultimately, I liken Energy Victory to the famous 1776 book, Common Sense, by Thomas Paine. Paine authored the first book on freedom from British rule, and Zubrin has authored the book on freedom from foreign oil.

For more reviews like this go to [...]

A serious book calls for a serious review and I will try to provide that. Zubrin covers a lot of ground so I will take this by chapter. First, the author has a PhD in nuclear engineering so he knows the science. The first two chapters provide the rationale for his campaign to replace petroleum with methanol, and to a lesser degree ethanol. The book was written a year ago and the effects of food crop diversion to ethanol have now emphasized the negatives of ethanol. Methanol is made from non-food, non-sugar, sources and is a better compound for fuel. The first five chapters provide his argument that Saudi Arabia is an enemy funding terrorism and the Wahhabi heresy of Islam. He makes good points but is a bit more excited than I would be. Another review makes the point that China will still be buying oil from the Saudis no matter what we do. Still, the price will fall as methanol, nuclear fission and fusion technology provide alternatives.

Chapter 6 tells the story of flex-fuel technology and the remarkable life story of Roberta Nichols, a woman engineer who succeeded in adapting alcohol to motor fuel and doing it cheaply. She was a great pioneer and died too young to see her accomplishments recognized. Chapter 7 tells the story of several politically supported alternatives and explains why they are not practical. One section of this chapter tells the story of a professor whose poorly done research survives as a major argument against ethanol as a practical alternative to petroleum. There is a good deal of technology in this chapter but it is well explained.

Chapter 8 discusses the potential for under-developed countries to benefit from a change to alcohol-based energy production. Methanol can be made from agricultural waste products and offers these societies a future that cannot occur if poor countries are beholden to the OPEC oil cartel. There is some economics and politics in this chapter but I agree with it all. Chapter 9 discusses the Brazilian experience, in which Brazil has freed itself from dependence on OPEC oil. An issue of Time magazine from this spring has a feature story that misrepresents the Brazilian experience so it would be good for those interested to read this as an antidote to the lies of what Zubrin calls the "Malthusians," those who do not want us to solve the problem. They prefer a smaller population, no matter how that goal is achieved. Al Gore is the most prominent member of this group.

Chapter 10 is almost the best part of the book as he describes the true role of CO2 and global warming. He shows the present levels of CO2 are actually rather low when compared to previous epochs, such as the Holocene Maximum, a warm period when humans emerged from Africa and spread across the globe. He does warn that CO2 will become a problem as other societies move to an economic model similar to ours. As they prosper, their CO2 production will rise and that does constitute a risk for the planet. That risk will be reduced and eliminated by the suggestions made in the book.

Chapter 11 goes on to discus other forms of energy, especially the promise of nuclear fusion which, once harnessed, will ensure the future of the human race for millions of years. This is his field and he knows it thoroughly.

Chapter 12 is a well-done discussion of the role of the petroleum engine in the history of the 20th century, from the "Miracle of the Marne" in 1914, when a French division was rushed into battle in a thousand Parisian taxicabs, to the origins of World War II. Chapter 13 finishes up with a summary of the history of Islam and the plans of the Wahhabis to conquer the world and establish a new caliphate to replace the Ottoman Empire.

This is a serious book with a lot of information, some of it rather technical for someone who never studied chemistry. His opinions on political issues are strong and, at times, a bit intemperate. The fusion program has been mishandled. The ethanol lobby has distorted the market, for example maintaining tariffs on Brazilian ethanol that would otherwise lower the price for American drivers.

He is absolutely right on the big issues. We need to get off our addiction to middle eastern oil. He does not get into the production of oil in our own territory and I want to know more about that. I have ordered another book to do so. Bacterial engineering to produce oil and other carbon compounds, as Craig Venter and others plan to do, is not covered. This is a big field and there is a lot of misinformation. This book is a big help and should be read by anyone seeking information on alternatives. I'm not sure methanol is the only answer but it is a big piece of it and this is the place to learn about it.

Melvyn Leffler's "The Specter of Communism" is a superb, short, and nuanced history of the origins of the Cold War. It should be assigned reading in any college course on 20th century American foreign policy.

In Leffler's telling, Stalin felt vulnerable after World War II and wanted to preserve good relations with the U.S. The Soviet dictator insisted, however, on moving his borders westward, installing a puppet regime in Poland, and playing a leading role in the occupation of Germany and Japan. These goals didn't necessarily clash with core U.S. interests and might not have resulted in a Cold War if Europe and East Asia hadn't been on the verge of collapse after 1945. Since World War I, Washington had been haunted by the fear that the resources of Europe and Asia might fall under the control of one hostile power -- either Germany or Russia -- that could then threaten the security and political economy of the U.S. Washington policymakers didn't think that Stalin planned to start a new war, but they panicked when communist parties surged in France, Italy and elsewhere. Assuming that communist governments would link their economies to the USSR's, Washington responded by moving to rebuild the German economy and integrating Germany into a U.S.-led European bloc. Stalin, fearing a revival of German power, clamped down on Eastern Europe and blockaded Berlin. The Cold War was soon going at full steam.

One of the high points of Leffler's book is the discussion of the domestic politics of anti-communism. American conservatives didn't give a hoot about Europe or foreign policy, but they did want to exploit anti-Red feeling to discredit New Dealers and crack down on labor unions and civil rights groups. However, having stirred up a lot of paranoia, conservatives were outflanked when the Truman Administration tapped these same sentiments to win support for expensive plans to rearm the U.S. and rebuild Europe! Thus the Great Bipartisan Compromise of the 1950s and '60s was born: an anti-Soviet foreign policy was married to crude Red Baiting at home.

Leffler writes clearly, understands the policy environment of Washington, and doesn't accept the prevailing (and idiotic) myth that U.S. foreign policy is generally well-informed or motivated by moral considerations. On the contrary, the U.S. policymakers of the late 1940s were more-or-less amoral and sometimes poorly informed about foreign countries. (American foreign policy can be Machiavellian and inept at the same time.) "The Specter of Communism" is history at its best.

I was assigned to read this short book for a course on United States foreign policy in the 20th century. Unlike a great many texts on the subject, I found it absolutely enjoyable to read. Things to watch in particular are how Leffler handles the shift of how the United States officially and popularly felt about Communism and the Soviet Union before and after World War II, the formulation of the doctrine of containment, and most especially the interplay between the leadership not only in the United States, but the Soviet Union and Europe as well. This final point, the exploration of the nature of particular leaders and national psyches, is the greatest strength of Leffler's account. FDR, Truman, and Stalin especially come alive in the narrative. Through the course of the narrative, the reader is given a very interesting and now unconventional thesis that to some extent, the Cold War was indeed inevitable in the post-war world as a result of the positions of the United States, the Soviet Union, and the ruin of Europe. Especially pivotal to the coalescence of the Cold War was the United States' declaration of the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe. Leffler says: "The American intent was not to threaten the Soviets or divide Europe, but this was the price the Truman administration was willing to pay in order to revitalize Western Europe and harness the resources of western Germany" (pg 67).

Overall, this is an intelligent and accessible account of the origins of the Cold War that anybody interested in the World Wars, the Soviet Union, Communism, and/or contemporary foreign policy would do well to read.

This book is basically an apology for Russian communism. One that proclaims the message: "communism isn't all that bad". "Stalin was a prudent, cautious and reasonable man and the Americans were the knee-jerk irrational reactionists" The book also seems to convey the message that "America made it seem worse than it was and hyped it up".

I mean, why should any country have reservations about the spread of communism? Communism, a form of government that is the privileged few, the Nomenclatura, who rule with absolute power over the lower party members and the general population, the proletariat. Let's not forget, commumism produced leaders such as Lenin, Stalin and Pol Pot. Sure, it's intentions may be good.....but human nature won't let it work. Power is its end.....not its mean, though that's what the original bolshevik revolutionaries proclaimed.

Basically, it's a 'blame america first' type of book. I for one am not going to be swayed just because of this author's talented writing skills, his commumist-friendly opinions and artful ways of persuasion using history. Nope. I blame communism and Stalin ( who murdered millions of his own......MILLIONs )

The 'amoral' U.S.A........never murdered millions of its citizens on the whim of their President. It never negated the existence of people on a list. A list who was cavalierly reviewed by the president, Stalin, and checkmarked with a pen as he decided whose life to end and existence from the records of history to erase. Many others were sent to Gulags never to be heard from again. It was the communist bastion of the USSR and ITS President, Stalin who did this.

Considering these above mentioned historically documented facts regarding the terrors inflicted upon the population by the ruling Red party, not only in the old USSR but other communist regimes (cambodia, Cuba, Vietnam and China for that matter), is it possible that the United States' "fears" or "overreactions" to the spread of communism after WWII were, perhaps, a bit justified? If these communist countries, in the decades following, WWII had turned out to be benevolent, non-tyranical, beneficial to their general populations or 'good' in any sense of the word, then the USA's reactions and maneauverings after the war would have been, as the author puts it, 'an overreaction'. But, because history proved that communism was indeed a monstrous terror upon the peoples of those particular countries, does it not justify our government's sentiments toward communism's spread post WWII? Indeed it does. Thank God for the actions that our government took to jealously protect our way of life.....which, incidentally, is the best way of life on the earth ( why does everyone seek to get into America if it's not the best?)

I side with America and I side AGAINST communism. This goes for any period of history.....from the 1940s until present. Like the WHO songs says......" Won't be fooled again"

This book is good for what it tried to accomplish. Its a introductory survey of the origins of an American mindset against communism. Leffler points out that communism wasn't a concern of the USA population or politicians until after WWII- when the communist began to rival democratic capitalism. Leffler uses historical documents to support the assertion that the sum of world-wide communism never really came close to rivialing the US in terms of economic or military power. However, the fear that maybe communism could gain equal status one day in the future led the US to undertake decisive actions toward securing Hegemony.

Leffler writes a balanced account of the events leading up to and into the the Cold War. He discusses the impact of geopolictics with regard to the First and Second World Wars and how communism impacted American public policy. He points out that it was not so much fear of the physical power of the Soviet Union but fear of the ideologies of communism within our borders that led the anit-communist anti-Soviet movements in our nation. He follows the growth of Russia into a world power and explains how it eventually became a military threat and a nuclear power. The book is engrossing and well structured. Leffler presents the information in a clear way without unnecessary deviations. It is an excellent look at Cold War origins.

The Democratic National Convention started today in Denver, Colorado, and it is no doubt that the nominee of the party for President will be Senator Barack Obama. With that nomination, and even before, come the questions of who is this man, what does he believe in, and where does he stand? As our nation has struggled through the recent hardships of 9-1-1, the Iraq war, and turmoils in our local communities, we are increasingly looking beyond the superficial appearances of our politicians to their core beliefs and values. We are, as a nation, more and more interested in what drives out leaders and makes them tick.

The Faith of Barack Obama by Stephen Mansfield seeks to help the reader find some of those answers. The book does not make a judgement call on who Americans should elect as their next president. Instead the author, by explaining Obama's upbringing and influences, strives to show what it is that forms Obama's beliefs and how that drives his thought process. The book also pulls no punches. On complicated issues such as abortion and the various laws legislating around the issue, Mansfield clearly points out where Obama has logical struggles and at times has mis-stepped his ideals. But again, the strength of this work is that it offers up the facts on those issues and lets the reader form their own opinion.

In addition to detailing the influences that have gone into the Barack Obama's faith, Mansfield also gives attention to three of the other main characters in this election - Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and George W. Bush. Not does this help to give a foot in the door on exploring those dynamic individuals, but it also helps to compare and contrast the cast of players. It is made clear that there are more than years of difference in this election, there are also differences of education, social influence, and how their faith was obtained. Revelation versus inheritance versus personal exploration are depicted as paths that help to form the destination.

This book is timely not only in terms of the election and the conventions, but also in terms of where we are currently in US politics. We are seeing, across the board, Republican or Democrat, a renewed interest in values and what goes into a person to form those values. Those values, that faith, is important to the American people and to the world. How our President puts his personal values into action in the world is important to determining how we interact with the world and where this country will be in years to come. Well written, timely, and well researched, this should be considered a must read for anyone on either side of the election interested in learning more about the candidates.

The Faith of Barack Obama is going to let down many readers. Those who are looking for a pro-Obama reading will not find what they anticipated. The people who are expecting to read the certainty about Obama's religious affiliations won't get what they want.

Readers who want the truth will not be disappointed.

Stephen Mansfield writes with no agenda other than presenting what he learned about Barack Obama's journey in faith. Although Mansfield has been open about not voting for Obama, that stand never shows in the book.
After a brief re-telling of Obama's childhood, including his stint in a Muslim school, Mansfield describes how Barack Obama made a spiritual journey from no faith to the Christian faith.

Important also is Mansfield explanation of new face of religion in the United States. By comparing John McCain, Hillary Rodman Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama's faith, Mansfield illustrates how faith changes through the generations. It's not your mama's religion.

The reading of this book hasn't changed my mind about whether I'll vote for Barack Obama or not. It has given me a new look at Christianity in America and its affect on American politics - liberal and conservative.

I applaud Thomas Nelson for taking the bold step of publishing this book, even in the face of unwarranted backlash.

I read this book with an eye looking for signs of bias. I didn't want someone to tell me what I should think about Obama's faith. I wanted to better understand where he's coming from. And I think this book did that for me. It gave me a fuller picture of his background and the church he's attended. We've all heard of some of the outrageous things Dr. Wright has said, but this book helped me understand where he's coming from. That doesn't necessarily mean I like it or agree, but I at least have a context.

It also highlighted the post modern nature to Obama's faith. This is a concept that is smacking me everywhere I turn, and I am searching to understand. It's like anything else, I need to understand it, so I can figure out where it diverges from what I believe and where there's common ground for a starting point.

The most helpful chapter for me was the four faces of faith. In that chapter the author contrasts Obama with John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and George W. Bush. It was hugely helpful for grasping where McCain is coming from, especially in the context of his answers in the forum.

I was so pleased to see a Christian publisher releasing a book about the faith of a democrat. What a farce. The book claims to be a "fair-minded but inspiring account of Obama's faith". It is neither fair-minded nor inspiring. For starters, Mansfield did not interview Barack Obama. Wouldn't you think a fair-minded account would include an actual interview with the book's subject. The book is laced with racial comments and overly focuses on Rev. Jeremiah Wright (of course it does not appear he was interviewed either).
In a section intitled Four Faces of Faith, Mansfield lifts up McCain and George W Bush in absurd and frankly false ways. The book literally brought me to tears, for it is a complete farce, designed to sway midline voters to the right. Shame on Thomas Nelson. If you are interested in learning more about Barack Obama, go to his website or read one of his own books.

After an overt audience preference for John McCain at Saddleback's faith forum last week, I found myself skeptical that another Christian mainstay (Thomas Nelson) could treat a democrat fairly. However, like moderator Rick Warren, author Stephen Mansfield does a respectable job proving for insight into the spiritual life of the current democratic presidential nominee in The Faith of Barack Obama.

The Faith of Barack Obama appears to be written for a more conservative, evangelical audience. At points, it feels as though Mansfield uses the views of the religious right as the measuring stick for the `correct' faith. When speaking of faith, the perspective with which he compares Obama stems solely from the more conservative Christian viewpoint (as opposed to Muslim, Hindu, etc.) Given the audience, there is no fault in this, but it would be helpful to note this point to better understand the book's perspective.

In spite of the audience, Mansfield works hard to highlight Obama's message of unity to the traditionally divided factions of politics and faith. Chapter two opens with an example of then-presidential candidate Sam Brownback and Obama at Saddleback's World AIDS Day summit. At the summit, Brownback commented that he felt more `comfortable' than he'd felt when they'd shared the stage at the NAACP conference. Given evangelicals' tendency to lean Republican, Brownback turned to Obama and commented, "Welcome to my house!" In his infamous eloquence, Obama responded, "There is one thing I have to say, Sam. This is my house, too. This is God's house."

Mansfield goes on to explore how Obama has worked to bring traditionally divided houses together, to break down long-standing barriers, and to forge common ground on hostile issues. Perhaps the most hostile of these issues is abortion, to which Mansfield dedicates an entire chapter on Obama's voting record on abortion. While this chapter is the most negative tone, it is certainly an issue to be considered for those who espouse the value of human life. However, the examination of this one issue felt overemphasized as I would have liked to see a more in depth examination of his stance on other issues of life such as the death penalty, world poverty, and health care. (Mansfield does touch on some of these topics, just not as in depth as he does with abortion.)

Mansfield also includes a fascinating chapter entitled, "The Four Faces of Faith" which examines how George Bush, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barrack Obama represent four distinct sectors of America. In it, he examines how each public figure has publically lived their faith and how they reflect a various sectors of the American public. I won't elaborate more here or it would spoil his point.

"It is the healers who are best remembered," he concludes, "those who teach us to live beyond the limitations of our lesser selves." Comparing Obama to such historic figures as Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., Gerald Ford, Desmond Tutu, Manfield closes with deep respect for the message that Obama proclaims - that as a nation, we are broken and we need healing. He asserts that Obama's presence is "more significant for who he is than for what he does politically" because he brings to light long neglected issues in our past: racism, the poor, the "restoration of religion to the political Left", the recognition of the black church in America. While certain sections feel slightly biased, the majority of Mansfield's book is objective and fair. Ultimately, it is a challenge to those on both sides of the church fence to be willing to dialog across difficult lines.

This well-compiled textbook gathers basic theoretical introductions to all aspects of the relationship between the American media and the political system. Included are basic mass communication concepts such as agenda setting and gatekeeping, which are then projected into larger media trends and governmental/media interactions in all relevant directions. The book provides descriptions of how government affects media (ownership regulations, First Amendment rules, libel laws), how media affects government (building of public opinion, muckraking, watchdog responsibilities), and how the connections between government and media affect the public (opinion patterns, voting behavior, political knowledge levels). One recurring problem here is that the book is often noncommittal in describing contentious political issues, which is a result of trying to present arguments from all sides. This tends to reduce the perceived importance of some crucial issues in the reader's mind, especially problems with media ownership patterns in recent years, and issues arising from modern deregulation. Meanwhile, the book's sectional arrangement, as is true for many textbooks, leads to a fair amount of repetition and re-explanations of basic concepts (a real problem in the adjoining chapters for the different branches of government, for example). In any case this book is a very useful introduction to a wide range of theoretical areas, and impressively prepares the reader for more in-depth research endeavors. [~doomsdayer520~]

Graber's dissertation clearly illustrates how the mass media effects individual beliefs, attitudes, and activities. Consider how much of the working day is spent discussing top news stories, political issues, and social situations. The average American spends seven hours of exposure per day to some form of mass media news or entertainment [television, newspapers, magazines, radio, etc.] (p.2). Taking this into consideration, the average individual will usually talk about that which they are most familiar, or that in which they are most interested. Based on these statistics, it is inevitable that news stories will be the topic of discussion, thus influence, in American's daily life.

Using children as an analogy, the fighting, bickering, fingerpointing, and blaming stops when someone is in trouble. Then trouble comes around, Americans band together, becoming unpenetrable to the adversary. Graber points this out in the chapters on Foreign Affairs Coverage and Crisis Coverage. Everyone has experienced a time of 'crisis', either locally, nationally, or globally. Once a crisis occurs, newspapers, magazines, talk shows, radio, etc. band together. This one aspect keeps America free, and democratic.

I agree with Graber that the mass media effects individual beliefs, attitudes, and activities. She has proven her point effectively.