Politics Government Books

Peter Singer, inspite of his poor usage of commas, tries to make the point that economics could out do and render politics small and mostly insignificant stave for adjustments of the Golden Straight Jacket.

I think that a point on how economics and trade policies also works as a psuedo-war or carrot and stick type of negotiation fodder. Sanctions have long been used as a form of political tactic of agression or revenge but Singer fails to point this out. Rather he tries to portray everyone on the planet as being a bunch of scared sheep who are unable to control anything in this ocean of chaos that he calls Capatalism with no heart.

Also, he explains the genisis of ethics as having congieled from mammal feelings and behaviors. He then goes on to explain how those mammal traits are disctint from our closest non-human relatives. How can he compare mammals to our closest non-human relatives? It is pure nonsense! Monkeys, pigs, dogs, horses and cattle are all mammals and are our closest non-human relatives! This guy is a MORON!

Improving on that statement I will attack his stance on his "new ethic" that has spawned from our new technology and globalization. I shudder at the very idea that one, or a few, nations should impose their new found ethics onto contradictory morals, laws and ethics of smaller and less developed nations. For heavens sakes!

I think that Singer is a poor poor man who is misguided and confused. I feel sympathy for him and for his readers.
One atmosphere? What is he talking about here? Are CFC's for real?

Well I guess there is no argument, scientifically, against Chlorofluorocarbons existing or being real. Peter Singer is talking about everyone shares the Atmosphere. What I disagree with him on is his comparison he used to point the blame of pollution at America. On page 20 he said that one of Britain's nuclear plants leaked waste into the north sea and ruined shellfish and lobsters (and probably regular fish TOO) for Ireland and Norway too. Norway got nuclear waste on its shores and when it took Britain to court for it, the "author" (like he could WRITE) tries to make the point that Kiribati could likewise sure America because its pollution caused global warming which then caused the ice caps to melt which then caused the sea levels to rise which THEN caused the sea to submerge Kiribati's mud homes and farms. Wow, I think that is a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy and makes for one terrible comparison. Britain's nuclear pollution was preventable, an accident (?) and was directly traceable to Britain whereas America is NOT the world's sole producer of pollution and there for is NOT solely responsible like Britain was.
God, I literally cannot read one page in this book without being outraged. I read this book with a pen and I do not need a bookmark for all I need to do is start reading where my comments in the margin stop.

This book is the perfect example of how deluded left wing-intellectuals have become. With friends like this (and Chomsky, and Moore, and Gore) the left doesn't need any enemies.

I recommend Why Globalization Works (Yale Nota Bene) instead. A solid overview from someone who actually understands how the world works.

This book has more of a political focus than an ethics focus. A serious shortcoming is the lack of appreciation for the Eastern perspective. There is no mention in the index of Buddha, Confucius, or Taoism. How can you consider globalization from a parochial perspective? I recommend this book by Canright: Achieve Lasting Happiness: Timeless Secrets to Transform Your Life. "Achieve Lasting Happiness" proposes Confucian philosophy as a basis for universal ethics. Globalization will crush humanity unless there is a system of universal ethics as a counter balance to greed on a world-wide scope.

While considered cutting edge at the time of publishing Singer's book "One World" simply doesn't go the distance a book should go in the dynamic world of today. Singer, basically, stops where essential liberal interests do which is a really bad thing for an ethicist to do. He doesn't get into a really nitty-gritty stuff such as seeing the consequences of leisurely, short-term benefits oriented political action as ultimately damaging for the system. By not going the distance Singer is cutting the branch on which he is sitting. Do not read.

I've read the pro's and con's of other reviews and would like to have a brief word with those considering this book as a future purchase.

Looking at the good reviews, one I could easily give becuase I find them very agreeable, one finds the essence of the book, a global utilitarian ethical viewpoint. After browsing the negative reviews I find useful criticism gone too far. There is good substance to their points, but more often they seem to be thinking aloud rather than providing a useful review.

My suggestion: If you have heard about this book or stumbled here by accident, buy this book. While there are always points of contention in the 'nitty-gritty' the essence of his thoughts are worth more than one read, and more than simple consideration. The world is a rapidly changing place and the four chapters presented in his book offer four distinct ways to view the globalization of mankind from an utilitarian ethical perspective. I admit my idealists leanings nevertheless if one doesn't agree with Singer's arguements, then there is no better place to start making counter-arguements. The book is easy to read in common vernacular and Singer gives a good overview of the backround to each chapter focus. You will be a better citizen of whichever state after reading this one.

I found this book excellent. It gives an overview of the current middle-east situation. It details the various 'dreams' and 'shadows' that each country face. It frequently refers to anecdotes which makes it easy to read. Highly recommended.

I had read Robin Wright's "The Last Great Revolution" about Iran and was excited to buy this book. However, I felt it was a bit too much of a chef's tour. Some of the anecdotes were interesting, even inspiring, but overall I felt the book was a bit too shallow. Wright recalls a few interviews here and there, but we don't get the depth of what we get in her prior book. It's one thing to use interviews and anecdotes in pursuit of a well-argued thesis, but another just to do so to give us a flavor of the Middle East. This makes much of the book a forgettable blur rather than a true learning experience.

Having said that, I thought her chapter on Iran in this book was by far the best. And if you do want a "chef's tour" or sampling of the Middle East, this book does do that well. I hope Wright expands her prior book on Iran and updates it, since she covers Iran very well.

I found this to be a hopeful book. Robin Wright has spent years in the area and has contacts with the power structure. That plus her interviews with "ordinary" people gave her book validity. The middle east world has been expanded with access to the web and television. The seeds for change are there if we just get out of their way and give them time to develop.

If you really want to know what the Arab people dream off, then this book is for you. This book finally made me understand the Middle East.

The author discusses Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Morocco, Iran, but omits countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. We all have heard of Dubai, yet so little is known about it politically. Do the people support their ruler? I would really have loved to read what the author has to say about Dubai (whom many are calling the Hong Kong of the middle East).

The US gives a lot of money to Egypt annually, yet a dictator rules Egypt. President Mubarak rules Egypt as if he were a king. According to the author, he is now preparing his son to succeed him. Journalists are routinely imprisoned, and any opposition leader is immediately imprisoned. Why does the US continue giving money to such a government? Isn't the US supposed to support democratic countries?

I really liked the chapter on Syria. Syria's ruler was vicious, killing and imprisoning many of his people. Yet after his death, his son vowed to change things. Having been educated in Britain (and his wife in the US), he vows to bring democracy to Syria. He holds free debates, and allows newspapers to publish freely. Yet this was a short-lived dream for the people of Syria. A few months after promising democracy and freedom of speech, the young ruler imprisons all who opposed him, together with all unfriendly and critical journalists. Power truly corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is hard, if not impossible, for rulers to give up their power. The struggle of the Arab people is with this very human nature.

The chapter on Palestine was very fascinating. I always thought the Palestinian people were united against their common foe. Apparently this is not so. There is a lot of internal power struggle between the Palestinian people. Some say the former president of Palestine, Arafat, died a very rich person. His wife, having moved to Europe, was sued to return the money to the Palestinian people. The dream of the Palestinian people, like that of all the Arab people, is to have just leaders. But power corrupts, and you know the rest!

The best chapter of all is the one on Iran. Iran has been on the news lately because of its nuclear program. Today I read that Iran launched its first telecommunications satellite. Iran, a Muslim but non-Arab country, is the most advanced technologically of all the countries in the Middle East, barring Israel. There are 22 Arab countries. None of the Arab countries, except Lebanon, is a democracy. Iran is a democracy, with its president elected by the people. Did you ever wonder why the world is against Iran, a democratic country, yet with dictatorial countries like all the Arab countries?

I truly encourage this book for all those who want to better understand the history of Iran from the days of the Shah to the great revolution. Iran is being cast as the evil country for having a nuclear program. Don't many other countries have nuclear programs, like the US, France, Britain, Israel, China, India, and Pakistan, to name just a few? Is it wrong for Iran to try to defend itself when enemies surround it? The US is in Afghanistan, Iraq, Qatar, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, all neighboring countries to Iran. Israel is not far away, and it too has nuclear weapons. If the US were Iran today, wouldn't it too try to acquire nuclear weapons?

Why does the US support countries that are undemocratic? Does America embrace democracy for its own and hates it for others?

I have read a great deal about what is happening in the Middle East--but by far this book is the best summary regarding what is going on--

I think everybody in our government should be required to read it---

Well written and wonderfully informative--

This is a great book on all the modern Presidents from FDR to George Walker Bush. It is organized by chapters on each President, and addresses subthemes such as the President's cognitive style, emotional intelligence, etc. It contains a lot of great anecdotal evidence, and offers great insight on the evolution of the Presidential Office, and how different factors (both intrinsic and extrinsic to the President) affect success and failure.

Some parts of the book felt inflated - like the author really didn't have much to say about the topic, but felt he had to write something anyway. Also, I don't agree with his assessments with some Presidents, namely JFK, but all in all I would recommend this book for its very straightforward diction, and informative content.

Greenstein's The Presidential Difference is short and sweet. It condenses the story of our Presidents from FDR to George W. Bush into an easy to read manner. Each chapter is dedicated to a President and gives six points upon which they are evaluated, which makes comparisons with other Presidents in the book easy. Even with only 223 pages nothing seems to be left out. The book is engaging from beginning to end and before you know it you have gone through twelve presidencies. To end it all Greenstein wraps 13 chapters up in a magnificent conclusion titled "Lessons from the Modern Presidency". There isn't any more one can ask for. I highly recommend this book as a good read, that is fun, short, and a great way to brush up on knowledge of our Presidents.

Greenstein does a great job in setting aside his bias and reporting on the facts from the people who knew. He reports on the "Modern Presidency" - all of the presidents who were elected from FDR to Clinton. He evaluates them based on a number of qualities including vision, cognitive ability and a few other qualities. Greenstein first gives a basic history of life before being elected president and then evaluates the qualities. At the end of the book, he sums up the qualities he has just evaluated and proceeds to explain that no president will ever be able to perfect all of these qualities because every man is flawed. Overall, this is a great read for everyone who wants to brush up on their knowledge of these presidents. It doesn't go into too much detail but what it does present is both useful and sufficient.

Fred Greenstein explores the leadership style of the presidents from FDR to Bill Clinton in his piece "The Presidential Difference." In the new edition, Greenstein includes an updated afterword on George W. Bush. The book is a great introduction to the modern day presidents and is recommended to the amateur historian to the most serious public policy students.

The organization of the book is wonderful. Greenstein spends a chapter on each president. The format is the same for each chapter. Each opens with interesting quotes from the respective president, and then goes into a brief biography. Greenstein then spends time describing the major events of the president's tenure, and closes the chapter with the significance of the president's leadership. In doing this last bit, Greenstein analyzes five areas of each chief: public communication, organizational capacity, political skill, cognitive style, and emotional intelligence.

There are other aspects of the book that are praiseworthy. Greenstein scatters wonderful pictures throughout; my favorite is of LBJ in the face of Senator Theodore Green. The appendix is also a wonderful tool, as it in effect shows the resume of each president. It outlines important life events and information, election results, the political composition of Congress, appointments, staff, and key events.

This book is recommended to all as a great introduction the the U.S. presidency.

This book by political scientist Fred Greenstein is the first I've read focusing, not on presidential achievement but on effective leadership. Using a series of criteria including vision, cognitive ability, management style and most importantly emotional intelligence, Greenstein looks briefly yet closely at each president from FDR through Clinton with a special afterword on George W. Bush. (pre 9/11) Greenstein chronicles the successes and failings of each president he profiles. Roosevelt receives the highest regards for his ability to translate his popularity into bold leadership. His secretive and manipulative management style is condemmed. Truman is praised for his management style but criticized for his inability at times to lead the nation along the lines of his vision. There is truth to this criticism but Greenstein doesn't look at external facotrs that effected Truman's ability to govern such as the Republican demagoguery of the Democrats as "soft on communism". Eisenhower is highly praised, and properly so, for his strong management style and his strong, quiet leadership. Kennedy gets deserved criticism for his early failings but not enough credit for his later growth. One thing Kennedy is properly criticized for, in my view, is his overreliance on intellectuals, something that would plague Clinton as well. After Kennedy we have a series of failed presidents, with Ford excepted. The common denominator between Johnson, Nixon and Carter are their weak emotional intelligence quotas. All are thin skinned, unable to work well with others, naturally suspicious of those outside their circle. Clinton too is regarded as weak emotionally. Greenstein's thesis is that persons of low emotional intelligence should not become president as it is a recipe for failure. Interestingly, in his brief comments on President Bush, written before Sept. 11, 2001, he predicts, based on his observations of Bush's steady emotional inner core, that he will be a strong and succesful leader. You don't have to agree with Greenstein's entire analysis to appreciate the achievement of this book. It is refreshing to read a book about the presidency that moves beyond Arthur Schlesinger's tired and outdated theory of active and passive presidents. A good read and I highly recommend it.

I picked up this book primarily from the intriguing cover. The words inside the cover were shocking. This short little book (161 pages of text and 141 pages of notes) is a straightforward account of one of the greatest shames of the century. The extensive research involved gives it the weight of authority. The style of writing was plain reporting and somewhat dry and uninteresting in places. However, I doubt that this book was written to entertain. This work is a must for students of Central American politics and foreign relations. I came away with the growing distrust and dismay of government, including the USA. Patriotism in every land seems to be a diversionary tactic used to orient the populace away from the amoral and often immoral workings of government run by people motivated by greed and fear. I have an equally increasing admiration for the press and good reporting. Free speech and a free press is the conscience, gadfly, and salvation of trusting and sometimes misguided persons.

Mark Danner's short book, The Massacre at El Mozote, is an extremely powerful depiction of not only what can go wrong with US foreign policy, but of the lengths politicians will go through to convince us that what they are doing is, in fact, right. The thoroughness and integrity of Danner's investigation cannot be disputed; on top of that, he is very adept at leaving readers to draw their own conclusions. The book may be the Hiroshima of our times.

While I agree with earlier reviewers, especially the point that what appears to be propaganda should not be immediately dismissed as such, I think the real lesson of the book is that the US, as a leader in world affairs, needs to choose its "friends" very carefully. Danner's book made me realize that while the US likes to shape Latin American policy, in point of fact the powerful "Good Neighbor" to the north is often manipulated by the very regimes it seeks to control. And as citizens of this great country, we have a hard time imagining such a thing.

The butchers of the El Salvador government, trained and financed by the US, knew that they could commit whatever atrocities they wished so long as they opposed the socialist rebels. Consequently, in December 1981, they murdered 767 people at El Mozote and in surrounding villages with impunity because they understood that the political stakes were much higher in Washington once the Reagan administration had committed itself to supporting the status quo. In its frantic attempts to dispute or to ignore the details of the massacre, the Reagan administration-which liked to portray itself as hard-line-really appears as the spineless weakling in this whole affair. Truly, the "tail wagged the dog."

This is an important lesson to bear in mind as the US conducts a new war on terrorism (the Communists having been vanquished years ago). Is our country going to find itself supporting human rights abusers once again because our leaders are afraid of political fallout, by appearing to be weak on combating terrorism or inept at finding WMDs? Human rights--and especially the right to life itself--should be the criteria our government considers when it decides to throw its support behind a foreign government.

I read this book for a college course I am taking that focuses on the struggle between colonizing nations and those nations that are colonized. Looking through this perspective, Danner writes a meaningful account of the massacre at El Mozote, El Salvador that captures enough emotion but still maintains some distance to avoid a blatant bias (towards the guerillas, namely).

This read is not for the weak stomached, as Danner does go into detail as to how many of the townspeople of El Mozote and the surrounding areas were killed. In order to emphasize the brutality that the government allowed, he does recount the slaughter of babies and young children. However, he does later make up for these descriptions through the dealings with the military and its leaders, the relationships of the US and El Salvador, and globally speaking, a fight (perhaps) between the US and the USSR.

This book is well written and easy to follow. Danner does a good job of getting everything said succinctly and it gives an interesting perspective in the minds of many of those involved with the happenings of El Salvador at the time, mainly major leaders from both the guerilla side and the military side. His interviews with these significant people help Danner depict a scene that goes beyond the scope of this one massacre that happens in the small town of El Mozote. He broadens the scope to include the implications this event would later have on the future.

This is probably one of the best books I've read in a while. I had to read it for a history class at Furman University, but it's one I definitley would have read on my own as well. It tells a heart-wrenching story, but gives the facts as they are. Not necessarily an easy story to hear, but one that I feel everyone should know about. It's fairly easy to read and isn't too history-like (a lot of facts, no emotion, confusing to follow). I recommend this book for anyone willing to learn about Latin America, and especially the part that the US plays in allowing things like this to happen.

I read The Massacre at El Mozote immediately after finishing Mark Bowden's Killing Pablo (I was clearly in the mood, at the time, for books revolving around U.S. military/political affairs in Latin America). I absolutely loved Bowden's book but only liked Danner's. I found the prose in El Mozote to be rather dense and fleshy, especially in the first 30 or so pages of the book. Danner's overuse of comma-offset clauses tends to muddle his sentences. But once he cut to the chase, it was much easier to follow along and really get into the action. Overall, it was an eye-opening read, well researched and presented. I really do think that reading Killing Pablo immediately prior to picking up El Mozote colored my opinion tremendously, since I literally was enthralled by Bowden's fast-paced, detailed, page-turning prose and thus somewhat put off by Danner's paragraphs-long sentences.

I usually like to start my day by checking the news, and I usually start by taking a quick look at both [...] and [...] that's my attempt at trying to get both sides of the story, but I've gotten to the point that I don't want to read the morning news anymore, because they include so much tragic news of children being horribly abused, or women being killed or raped, and children being killed, that I don't start my day informed--I start my day depressed.
I want to read about politics, world news, and finance, what's happening in the Middle East, sports, entertainment news, weather, our government, science, health, and technology.

For an Australian, this book gave a huge insight into the workings of high levels of U.S. government and the selfishness of the people ultimately responsible in the various organisations, eg FBI, Department of Defense, in making decisions that could have saved many lives, instead of thinking only of their own reputations or fear that another department might impinge on their territory. Dick Clarke has shown that political views cannot be upheld on beliefs from 10 years ago. Nowadays, history is only as far back as yesterday and we need to be informed and alert. We lost too many Aussies in Bali because of historical blinkers.
Thank you Dick Clarke for all you wrote.

As targets of the political mass suggestion discussed in my reviews of: Propaganda, U.S. Television News and Cold War Propaganda, 1947-1960 (Cambridge Studies in the History of Mass Communication), and Dictators, Democracy, and American Public Culture: Envisioning the Totalitarian Enemy, 1920s-1950s, we must be careful with books like this from an "insider". The pattern is the same on all these books "written" by insiders who have "left" the administration: There is one and ONLY one controversial assertion given in the book (the hook to generate sales and publicity), with the remainder of the book running parallel with the party line.

I have no doubt, given corroborating evidence from other authors, that Clarke is correct that Bush and his cabinent were planning an Iraq invasion well before 9/11. The "Downing Street Memo" is the smoking gun on this.

The much bigger purpose of this book, in my opinion, is simply to disseminate the party line, yet again, that Osama bin Laden is the boogeyman, that his world-threatening military is al-qaeda, and that they can deliver mass destruction anytime, anywhere (you know, the Cold War program). It's the repeat, repeat, repeat that we get from George Tenet, Michael Scherer (sp) and all others who are wittingly or unwittingly part of the propaganda campaign.

The only question on Clarke is: is he witting or unwitting? The answer, however, is moot. As long as he is spewing party-line propaganda, his books are worthless to a suspicious public.

Rather interesting book by an counter-terrorist insider to several administrations. Clearly, he doesn't like Bush and his court very much, so it seems a wee bit partial. However, there is also some real insight about what it means to be tasked with keeping a democracy safe in the face of terror.

You get the impression that he would have liked a more nuanced, more cooperative and diplomatic approach to neutralizing international terrorists. In fact, he compares Bush senior's handling of the diplomatic runup to Gulf War I with GW's go-it-alone policy in 2003.

Nevertheless, no peacenik he. He strongly regrets having released the noose around the Republican Guards armor in 1991, in what people usually refer to as the Highway of Death. To him: escaping armor => Saddam stays in power and threatens neighborhood => US stays in Saudi => propaganda for Bin Laden's jihad. Mind you, as ugly as the Highway of Death was, Iraqi soldiers, maybe those troops, were soon afterwards involved in savagely repressing the Shias.

One annoyance is his heavy use of "I, I, I" and tendency to put himself forward at every turn. Though he also says several times that he, and his team, failed at preventing 9/11 and that they failed at protecting their country. No one else from this administration accepts blame or admits mistakes, so that's refreshing.

Concerning the pre-9/11 hunt for Al Quaeda, he often criticizes the CIA and the Pentagon, but just skewers the FBI and its director. Broadly speaking, he seems to sing the same tune as Ghost Wars, except that he thinks the CIA had unequivocal backing to kill Bin Laden and wasn't justified in hiding behind legal fig leaves.

After more than 1,000 reviews, what can I possibly add? I noticed one little thing, a very small point, in the book that kind of twisted my jaw.

Clarke is very clearly partisan in tone in the book. I think he comes across as being in the leftist/liberal mold politically. OK, that's fine, sometimes the libs get it right and sometimes the conservatives do. (Myself, I have no love or loyalty to either political party and prefer to endorse viewpoints that represent ordinary, self-supporting, responsible, hard-working people, as I think the majority of us are. Frankly, anymore, I think people who obey the law, work to support themselves and their families, pay their bills, try to teach their kids right from wrong, etc. are the most underrepresented and disenfranchised bunch in the country. Neither party represents us, in my view.)

With that out of the way, the little point I caught in this book refers to Clarke being advised by the U.S. Secret Service that he needed to carry a handgun for self-protection. He describes being "issued" a semi-automatic pistol for this purpose. He mentions something to the effect that he is a big supporter of gun-control, but in this case he felt he should carry this weapon.

Well, I'm glad he was issued this pistol and carried it. The underlying tone in his comment is that the rest of us really shouldn't have handguns, because guns are bad, kill people, etc. But of course, HE needed one for self-protection; so what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. If he was true to his liberal view of the right/need of a handgun for self-protection as it applies to citizens, he should have been abhorred at the thought of a civilian carrying a weapon for protection and vigorously declined this advice--after all, he was not a law enforcement officer! (For what it's worth, I have been a federal law enforcement officer required to carry a firearm etc. so I have some sense of this.)

I admit I have figuratively expressed his views, he did not use verbatim the words I have used above. If you read this passage though, it was relatively early in the book, I suppose somewhere in the first 1/4 of it, I think you will see what I mean.

Does Clarke represent truthfully what really happened or does he have his own axe to grind? ONLY GOD KNOWS.

I am writing this some 4 years after the book came out though I read it right after it was published. Subsequent events have left more data for people to digest about the truthfulness of the Bush administration. Still, I recommend people read the book to receive one view of events and judge for themselves.

I see also now that Clarke has come out with a new book in the last couple of weeks. That should be an interesting read as well.

Thanks for listening.

People can say what they want about Scott McClellan, but there is no comparison as to the character differences between these individuals. Whereas Scott had no courage to do what he is now doing, Dick Clarke, here, had all the gull to infight with some of these individuals and let his discontent be known right off. Of course his book did come out a little over a year later, but that is still much more than most "tell-all's".

Now, there can be no doubt that some of this was done out of saving his own arse, it still has to be said that he DID do what he was supposed to. He informed, time and again, and was treated as if he weren't there. Richard's job was to analyze, then inform. He did that. The president ignored what was given to him. It was then astonishing to learn that the new "goal-post" for where the buck stops, was, suddenly, not with the president, but with others.

A sad-but-true tail, indeed.

This is a necessary book. Thanks, Dick.

Could extremist secularism be doing as much damage as extremist religions? "America's Secular Challenge: The Rise of a New National Religion" is an examination of secularism and its impact on America. Herbert London, president of the Hudson institute, lays out his argument against something that the country so often ignores in the idea of tolerance and political correctness. "America's Secular Challenge" is a top pick for anyone who thinks political correctness may be going too far.

This is a book you are going to think about for a long, long time. You are going to recommend it to all your friends. It highlights the essential tool we must utilize to defeat radical Islam and their terrorist methods-a return to our traditional values. London's brilliance is that he creates his air tight case in 97 very accessible pages. This one or two night read will arouse in you many years of thought.

Most people in the United States appear to have no idea what secular humanism is, even though they are surrounded by it every day. It is the only religion for many people, but they often cannot even recognize it as a belief system. This book is short and easy to read, but it conveys very important information. It ought to be assigned to high school classes to give the students a better understanding of modern culture.

This book deals with a central question. Why do leading states after major wars institutionalize and even strategically restrain their powers? Ikenberry's response is that 'states in this situation have sought hold onto power and make it last, and that this has led these states, paradoxically, to find ways to set limits on their power and make it acceptable to other states".(p. xi) To analyze this central puzzle, the author looks at the settlements of 1815, 1919, and 1945 as well as the end of the cold war. These times are important turning points in the history of world politics as major powers search for a new international order.

Moreover, this book has important implications for contemporary American foreign policy makers. "The United States has entered the new century as the world's lone superpower. Whether that extraordinary power can be put to good use in creating a lasting and legitimate international order will in no small measure determined by how American officials use and operate within international institutions. It might appear that there are few constraints or penalties for the United States to exercise its power unilaterally and at its own discretion. But the theory and historical experiences in these chapters suggest otherwise. The most enduringly powerful states are those that work with and through institutions". (p.20)

Overall, After Victory is a very good contribution to diplomatic history, international relations theory as well as to American foreign policy.

Throughout church histroy men have struggled to protect truth. This book is an excellent study of one man's battle to stay true to his fatih. It serves as a reminder to us of how truth is often lost one small step at a time.

This is an amazing book that precisely outlines the basis of attacks that liberalism makes on Christianity, including the most subtle. Insightful and no holds barred!

J. Gresham Machen's main burden in his book, Christianity and Liberalism, is to make a clear distinction between true Christianity and what had, by that time, been termed as liberalism. It was primarily within the context of the unparalleled advances in industry, technology, and science of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century that liberalism began to take form. Contrary to what some may believe today, liberalism did not begin as a bold-faced attempt to undermine Biblical Christianity; rather, it grew out of a growing need to address serious questions confronting Christianity at a time of such cultural upheaval and change: "What is the relation between Christianity and modern culture; may Christianity be maintained in a scientific age (6)?"

Unfortunately, however, liberalism, in its attempt to `rescue' the truths of Christianity in an age where the historical and scientific accounts in Scripture where being heavily questioned and disregarded, actually began to abandon those tenets of the faith that appeared to be in contradiction with modern science. Thus, liberal teachers sought to "rescue certain of the general principles of religion, of which these particularities are thought to be mere temporary symbols, and these general principles he regards as constituting the `essence of Christianity'"(6). For example, if a bodily resurrection seemed incongruous with a modern understanding of science, then liberalism attempted to demonstrate that such teaching in Scripture, though perhaps not historically true, was symbolic of Christ's permanent influence or a "mere spiritual existence of Jesus beyond the grave" (108). As a result, Christianity could maintain its credence within the modern age, while at the same time preserving its religious form.

Consequently, liberalism inserted new content into Christian language and in their endeavor to make Christianity more believable, actually turned away from the historic Christian faith. As such, liberalism, in Machen's mind, cannot be considered merely another denomination of Christianity, or even a weakened system of Christianity, but rather a whole other religion, altogether separate from Christianity.

The need for a lucid demarcation between Biblical Christianity and liberalism is especially important because, as we have already observed, and as Machen substantiates throughout the rest of the book, liberalism makes use of traditional Christian language, yet the content of that language is vastly different than that of historic Christianity. Throughout the main body of the text, Machen deals with seven areas where liberalism has departed from historic Christianity: doctrine and its attendant importance in the life of God's people, God, man, the Bible, Christ, salvation, and the Church. In each section, he examines the subject matter by first accurately presenting the liberal position, and then by contrasting this teaching over against the historic Biblical position.

This is a well-reasoned and powerful treatment of the differences between Christianity and Liberalism. And despite its age, this is a much needed book today. Some questions that we might ask are: is this kind of linguistic slight-of-hand occurring today? Where and in what form? Are there movements today that are, out of good intention, endeavoring to contextualize the gospel, yet are abandoning the faith that they are seeking to proclaim. How can we expose this? And when we do find fault, are we laboring to present the opposing views honestly and accurately so that Christ will not be discredited by our devious proliferation of the truth? I believe this book will help us correctly answer these inquires.

Very readable and rather amazing that it wasn't written in the past 5 - 10 years. Obviously liberalism and Christianity have been at loggerheads for decades. I think the insight that I appreciate the most is the emphasis on honestly defining ones theological framework and terms. If you are redefining Christian theology, don't call yourself "Christian"; rather demonstrate enough integrity to call yourself something else. Just because you disagree with the major tenants of Christian doctrine doesn't mean you're any brighter or more insightful, necessarily, but it does mean you should call yourself something other than Christian.

The message of this famous classic of the Christian faith is more desperately needed in the 21st century than it was in the early 20th century. Since Machen wrote, the philosophical and theological trends that generated the issues he was addressing have become more firmly entrenched in the consciousness not only of the culture at large, but of evangelical Christianity in particular. The major thesis of this books is not that theological liberalism is bad, although Machen leaves little doubt of his opinion of it. Rather, the major thesis is that theologically liberal Christianity is not Christianity at all, and that toward every one of the most fundamental teachings of historic Christianity, theological liberalism takes an antithetical stance. These fundamental teachings are expounded in seven brief chapters, covering an introduction, doctrine in general, God & man, the Bible, the person of Jesus Christ, salvation, and the church.

The position of the liberal church toward doctrine is that Christianity should be an undogmatic religion, unconcerned with theological subtleties. Christianity should be a life, not a system of doctrine. Certainly at this point, liberalism could not possibly be more firmly allied with contemporary mainstream evangelicalism. Anti-doctrinalism goes hand in hand with the two most pervasive philosophical currents of our age, postmodernism with its radical relativism, and existentialism, with its radical subjectivism and distrust of objective systems in general. Machen shows that the religion of both the apostle Paul and Jesus Christ himself was as dogmatic as possible. For example, even in the Sermon on the Mount, a favorite passage among theological liberals, "Jesus represents Himself as seated on the judgment seat of all the earth . . . Could anything be further removed than such a Jesus from the humble teacher of righteousness appealed to by modern liberalism?"

Concerning God and Man, Machen emphasizes the liberal tendency to break down the separateness between God and Man and to take an optimistic view of human goodness. One of the most penetrating insights in the book is that "modern liberalism, even when it is not consistently pantheistic, is at any rate pantheizing." This is in opposition to the orthodox teaching of the absoluteness of the Creator-creature distinction, and also of the absolute moral gulf between God and Man as a result of sin, hopelessly unbridgeable apart from the work of Jesus Christ.

Related to the aversion of liberalism to doctrine, or an objective summary of truth, is a corresponding mistrust of the Bible, and the rejection of the Bible's authority as God's Word. Liberalism claims to replace the authority of the Bible with the authority of Jesus Himself, but having rejected the teachings of Jesus in the Bible and through the apostles, this authority amounts to nothing more than the authority of personally selected isolated instances of Jesus' words, interpreted to conform to the liberal religion.

In the person of Jesus Christ, liberalism sees an example for faith, but not an object of faith. This is because the driving principle of liberalism, anti-supernaturalism, cannot admit the historical teaching of who Jesus Christ really was. For liberalism "Jesus differs from the rest of men only in degree, and not in kind: He can be divine only if all men are divine."

Concerning salvation, liberalism sees the source of salvation in man; Christianity sees it in God. Machen also shows that what distinguished early Christianity from the pagan religions of the time was specifically its exclusiveness. Paganism, like modern liberalism, had no problem with many roads to God and many gods, but it has a very deep problem with the exclusivity of Christianity. Finally, the very concept of salvation in Christianity is concerned with heaven, or the future world and life, while modern liberalism is concerned only with this world. This is in my estimation the area in which the majority of Reformed Christians have in fact followed liberalism, specifically with the contemporary preoccupation with cultural transformation as the means to institute God's kingdom on this earth. This is precisely the idea that unambiguously characterizes unbelieving thought, from the rebellious nation of Israel, through the Pharisees, and into the Enlightenment and modern liberalism. Until the European Enlightenment, the true church had consistently affirmed that the world is not our home.

The final chapter on the church is where we have the best glimpse of Machen himself. What Machen could not understand was that if liberalism was so clearly another religion, why it insisted on calling itself Christianity. As far as he was concerned, this was just plain dishonesty. It is in this chapter that he says that he has no problem with liberalism establishing itself as a separate religion competing with Christianity. But calling itself Christianity when it was clearly not, spreading its non-Christian teachings to Christians, and with liberal ministers taking ordination vows to historic confessions of faith which could not possibly be sincere, this was the liberalism against which Machen fought for his whole life, a battle which in the mainline Presbyterian church he ultimately lost. This book clearly and powerfully sets forth what was at stake in the battle, which was and remains nothing other than Christianity itself. The book is well worth reading for all Christians who are committed to their faith. It is not a difficult book to read, and the fundamental issues have changed very little in one hundred years.

"Understanding Contemporary Africa" has not been very useful in the context of Comparative African Politics at Cal Poly Pomona. While the text has interesting summaries about African politics and can help as an introductory resource, there seems to be far superior books. It is fairly easy to read and there is quite a bit of cursory information compiled for introductory insight, which makes it ideal for introduction or review of African politics. But do not expect thorough explanations of applicable theories that try to explain the roots of African modernity.

"Understanding Contemporary Africa" is a lot like a tour guide for college students with just enough information to get you into trouble.

For PLS 442 at Cal Poly Pomona, Comparitive Politics of Sub-Saharan Africa, it is used little and discussed even less. It is possible to go without this book for Obazuaye's class.

Understanding Contemporary Africa is a general textbook that is perfect for introductory courses in African studies. Authors of the various chapters are university-level scholars and teachers of history, political science, sociology, religion, and African studies. The subjects covered are African history, politics, national economies, international relations, population growth and urbanization, the environment, familial structures, women's effect in society, religion, and literature. There is an entire chapter devoted to South Africa.

This book contains many helpful references. Full page maps are near the beginning of the book, showing major physical features, the ITCZ and vegetation zones, natural resources compared to railroads and navigable rivers, early states and empires, colonies in 1914, and current countries and their capitals. I needed to refer to them often enough that I put a paperclip on the pages. Table 5.1 is a current export chart. Each chapter ends in a lengthy bibliography for further study. At the end of the book, acronyms are defined and there is a thorough glossary to which I referred many times. Basic Political Data is the third appendix. Each country is traced from independence to the present day in terms of its leaders.

Although the book suffers from sweeping generalizations, many times these are acknowledged by the authors. There are too few examples of these generalizations for my own taste. I personally prefer more "real people" stories to demonstrate points being made. This does not detract from the excellence of this intended introductory textbook for college-level African studies courses.

The last chapter of the book leaves the reader on the upbeat. There is hope for Africa in the current generation of young, educated middle and upper class men and women. They are seeing a bright future for Africa with hope in place of despair. Autocrats are being replaced with democratic leaders. Small businesses are on the rise; this is always a healthy sign in an economy. Health services and public education have increased since independence. The book closes with the observation that it will take a world partnership with Africa to make things work to neutralize the long term effects of exploitation of the African continent.

I loved this book. It's extremely well-written, sensitive, and demonstrates a wealth of knowledge about African cultures, politics, religions, economies, gender relations, and, in one of the best chapters in the book, literature. You don't often see such a skillful sketch of the impressive African novels and poems that have been written in the past few generations.

This is the perfect book to assign to students who have no exposure to anything African (which, unfortunately, is most undergraduates). Although it's an introduction to the topic, those who know a great deal about it will find that almost all of it resonates with the other literature they have read, whether historical, political, or otherwise. It's a very compassionate and progressive look at Africa. All modern challenges to the continent are presented so that students get a multi-dimensional look at Africa's struggles. Environmental and agricultural problems are presented in tandem with economic and political ones, so that students will have a real context in which to put all future readings about Africa. But unlike so many African books, the text provides sections such as the one on literature, to show that Africa has many achievements, instead of focusing only on negativity, as unfortunately many books on the topic do. At the same time, it does not gloss over the tragedies on the continent and their causes, and difficult topics such as the AIDS crisis are treated in a sensitive manner.

It is a great book and I can't imagine there's one better out there. However, were I to make suggestions to the editors they would be the following:

1. The historical section could be slightly larger. The historical context is dealt with in one chapter, and yet a more extensive discussion of certain historical events would help students better understand some of the continent's present difficulties.

2. The literature section could be extended to include popular culture, music, every day entertainments, festivals, etc. Students would enjoy some additional stories showing the richness of so many African cultures. Although the literature section does this, it could do so more thoroughly.

3. The economic section would benefit from more success stories. Although it has an excellent discussion of the crushing debt burden and the role of international financial institutions in African economies, which students must know about, it would help to see some dicussions not just of how local business and initiative is stifled, but descriptions of these businesses.

I've read some fascinating things about African entrepreneurship and ingenuity in industry against all kinds of odds. Although many of these efforts were stifled by the state, I think students would benefit from knowing about dynamic efforts such as these.



3