Politics Government Books

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.

They sent me a different edition than what I order so I was a little mad about that but i was still able to use it for class.

As an undergraduate student of history and a Mexican born dual citizen I find this book to be a great work of historical analysis and research. I own the 2003 edition, thus I have owned it for several years. When I came to study abroad in Mexico, this was one of the books I brought with me. The authors hold an objective tone in their easy-to-read scholarly writing. It is very comprehensive and it includes various sub-themes per chapter such as: Women and Society, Culture and Society, Intellectuals and Society, etc.

It also includes various helpful charts and tables to explain data and recent information. As any concise history, it is very brief on some important events but nonetheless it includes the most important facts of the events. For example, the Tlatelolco Massacre of 1968 is explained in a couple pages, but the elements of the basics are there.

I have used this book to do my essays and research both in California and in Mexico. I strongly recommend this book to any student of history, politics, or economy and to the lay and curious reader as well.

Had to buy this book for a Modern Mexican History class, so I only read the chapters dealing with Mexican history from the end of the colonial period through the end of the book. What I read was interesting, brief and to the point as a text book should be. However, I would not enjoy just sitting down and reading it for fun.

This is a general narrative summary of Mexican history. It is not very deep on anything, has few direct quotes from primary materials, but it's organized fairly well. For the beginner - or college student who is not very intellectually ambitious or curious - it's OK. For anyone else, I'd advise buying the really excellent Mexico Reader, Duke Univ Press, edited by Gil Joseph et al. The Mexico Reader is a terrific compendium of original sources covering all the same periods and can be used as a complement or in place of this book.

Growning up in a "Mexican" household with parents that did not teach me Spanish or much about Mexico's history, culture and roots has left me with a thirst to find out more about Mexico. I am so happy that I stumbled upon this book. This is a book that is easy to read. This was actually the book that I started with in my pursuit to find out more about Mexico's culture and history. This is also where I would advise anyone else to start.

From this book you will learn about Mexico's early Indian civilizations through the Aztecs and the Spanish Conquest all the way to the colonial era through the revolution and independence of Mexico, and post-1940 era. If you want to learn more about Mexico's history you will also find recommended readings at the end of each chaper of this book. I highly recommend this book.

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle. Politics is one of Aristotle's most prescient works that had a profound impact on our Founding fathers.

Nicomachean Ethics (EN) is part of political knowledge. Politics regulates when virtue does not. Laws are created for people who are not virtuous. Polis= "city or state." Humans live in society, so virtue ethics is not just for individual living, community is a shared project for the good. Aristotle starts with his method, a phenomenological attitude. He starts with pairs, male and female, builds up to ruler and subject, master and slave as a natural relationship, the 1st social community thus is the household. Household is an economic relationship and has monarchy of patriarch. Villages are a collection of households with a king. Then you have a Polis, a fulfilled complete community formed from several villages. Self-sufficiency is the mark of a Polis. An organized social relationship is Polis and a reason is being able to take care of needs of life and promote living well. Only in a Polis can you have art, philosophy, etc. All these are actualized in a Polis. Politics is natural to human life. We are meant to be social. According to Aristotle, "If you don't want to live in a state you are either a God or a beast."

Logos= "rationality or language" is what helps us to be political animals. Rational language expands capacity in human life. Since Aristotle thinks the Polis has a telos or an end then the Polis as potential comes even before the household. This is similar to the acorn having the telos to become a mighty oak tree. Politics completes the human condition for Aristotle. Need a Polis to develop other human capacities.

Aristotle's hierarchy. Slaves are a living tool for Aristotle. Aristotle argues that some people are meant to be slaves right from birth. "Born to be ruled." Slavish person does not have enough rationality to rule themselves. Aristotle says not every form of actual enslavement is justified according to him. He justifies the human use of animals as a natural act.

Aristotle now wants to find what kind of government is best. In a Polis citizens have things in common. Aristotle criticizes Plato's Republic, he finds it to be overly controlling. Socrates says the soul has 3 aspects and so does the Polis. The Soul has:

1. Reason
2. Passion
3. Appetite
The Polis has:
1. Philosopher King.
2. Guardians, (military).
3. Commoners.

Both are a hierarchal ordering. Socrates and Plato talk about the state holding all property in common. This includes the state raising children after birth instead of the parents, thus there will be no family clans trying to better themselves over their neighbors. Aristotle criticizes this idea. Aristotle says a Polis is a plurality of people thus people are not all the same and a Polis must accommodate differences in people, which actually makes a Polis better. Aristotle criticizes Socrates and Plato's idea of a Polis needing to have "unity" of people. This is a contrast to the Polis of Sparta. Aristotle says the best way to integrate citizens to the Polis is to allow them taking turns in ruling it. Aristotle believes that holding property or rearing of children in common as in the Republic is wrong no one really loves children like their own and communal property never gets really taken care of. Love is diminished the less nuclear family we are.
Aristotle says you need a mix of private and public property. Thus, the best kind of Polis is a combination of a governing element. Aristotle affirms a constitutional democracy or Polity. A citizen participates in government by definition for Aristotle.

Comparison of virtue and the good citizen. Excellence of virtuous man not the same as a good citizen. There will be few virtuous men, but good citizens just have to follow the law. Aristotle says good political virtue and good moral virtue don't have to go together. "Living finely then most of all is the goal of the city."

Aristotle classifies 3 types of government which occur naturally in nature and 3 types of deteriorations of those governments, they are:

1. "Monarchy," rule by one man a king, this is a top down rule. The deterioration is a "Tyranny," who is a ruler who rules for his own benefit.
2. "Aristocracy," rule by the best few men in the Polis, also this is a top down rule. The deterioration is an "oligarchy,' which he defines as rule of the rich who want to perpetuate themselves.
3. "Polity," All citizens participate in government with a constitution set above them to guide them instead of a king or aristocracy. The deterioration is a "democracy or what today we call mob rule or tyranny of the majority. He calls it rule of the poor.

Aristotle does a good job of looking at states and how they can be corrupted. Aristotle's concept of political justice and what is the best concept. What does justice mean? Not necessarily equality for all. Not all people are equal. He implies sometimes it is unjust to treat people equally. Justice is not necessarily equality for all; sometimes it would be unjust to treat all people equally. Politics is rated high by Aristotle as a human good. Education is a central feature of political life for Aristotle. "But we must find the relevant respect of equality or inequality; for this question raises a puzzle that concerns political philosophy." First, because someone is unequal on hierarchy that means better than others like more virtuous. This is like "distributive justice" who gets what goods. Do you give the best flute to the best flute player which is based on merit or to the richest or best looking person? Aristotle says inequality should tip towards those who earn it on merit. His concept of equality and inequality is based on merit. Another philosopher coined a famous formula for this based on Relevant Respect:

P= Person, Q= Quality, C= Context.
It would be just to treat P1 + P2 equally or unequally if P1 + P2 are equal or unequal in Q (quality) relevant to C (content). This is a formula on how to treat people relevant to goods. This is context dependent. Allot of empirical work to be done before we use the formula.

People who fight wars control politics in the Polis. The more people who have weapons in a civilian army is a guarantee that a small group of people will not take control of the government and democracy grows, like our 2nd amendment, this is a historical perspective of the idea that works.
Democracy spreads power to citizens a bottom up structure. Expertise in relation to politics. Many professions we tend to defer to the experts for judgment, physicians, lawyers, etc. Plato's Republic does this with his advocacy of Philosopher king running government. Aristotle says the judgment of the many combined as acting as one is better then a monarch or a few wise men to run the government. In principle, pooling of multiple people to run Polis is good. Politics by nature is a communal effort so you should use all the people's expertise. Aristotle is against letting experts running the Polis they are not always the best of judges. The best judge of the function of a house is the owner, not the builder. In addition, Aristotle says there may not really be any such thing as a political expert, like a philosopher king. Aristotle advocates for a constitutional democracy a written set of laws to protect Polis from a tyranny of the majority. "Law is reason unaffected by desire." A government of laws not men. A living being as the last word is not good.

Role of education in politics. Politics is coming together to foster human development and happiness for community, citizens, and improving human life like education. Aristotle says it should be public education.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle. Politics is one of Aristotle's most prescient works that had a profound impact on our Founding fathers.

Nicomachean Ethics (EN) is part of political knowledge. Politics regulates when virtue does not. Laws are created for people who are not virtuous. Polis= "city or state." Humans live in society, so virtue ethics is not just for individual living, community is a shared project for the good. Aristotle starts with his method, a phenomenological attitude. He starts with pairs, male and female, builds up to ruler and subject, master and slave as a natural relationship, the 1st social community thus is the household. Household is an economic relationship and has monarchy of patriarch. Villages are a collection of households with a king. Then you have a Polis, a fulfilled complete community formed from several villages. Self-sufficiency is the mark of a Polis. An organized social relationship is Polis and a reason is being able to take care of needs of life and promote living well. Only in a Polis can you have art, philosophy, etc. All these are actualized in a Polis. Politics is natural to human life. We are meant to be social. According to Aristotle, "If you don't want to live in a state you are either a God or a beast."

Logos= "rationality or language" is what helps us to be political animals. Rational language expands capacity in human life. Since Aristotle thinks the Polis has a telos or an end then the Polis as potential comes even before the household. This is similar to the acorn having the telos to become a mighty oak tree. Politics completes the human condition for Aristotle. Need a Polis to develop other human capacities.

Aristotle's hierarchy. Slaves are a living tool for Aristotle. Aristotle argues that some people are meant to be slaves right from birth. "Born to be ruled." Slavish person does not have enough rationality to rule themselves. Aristotle says not every form of actual enslavement is justified according to him. He justifies the human use of animals as a natural act.

Aristotle now wants to find what kind of government is best. In a Polis citizens have things in common. Aristotle criticizes Plato's Republic, he finds it to be overly controlling. Socrates says the soul has 3 aspects and so does the Polis. The Soul has:

1. Reason
2. Passion
3. Appetite
The Polis has:
1. Philosopher King.
2. Guardians, (military).
3. Commoners.

Both are a hierarchal ordering. Socrates and Plato talk about the state holding all property in common. This includes the state raising children after birth instead of the parents, thus there will be no family clans trying to better themselves over their neighbors. Aristotle criticizes this idea. Aristotle says a Polis is a plurality of people thus people are not all the same and a Polis must accommodate differences in people, which actually makes a Polis better. Aristotle criticizes Socrates and Plato's idea of a Polis needing to have "unity" of people. This is a contrast to the Polis of Sparta. Aristotle says the best way to integrate citizens to the Polis is to allow them taking turns in ruling it. Aristotle believes that holding property or rearing of children in common as in the Republic is wrong no one really loves children like their own and communal property never gets really taken care of. Love is diminished the less nuclear family we are.
Aristotle says you need a mix of private and public property. Thus, the best kind of Polis is a combination of a governing element. Aristotle affirms a constitutional democracy or Polity. A citizen participates in government by definition for Aristotle.

Comparison of virtue and the good citizen. Excellence of virtuous man not the same as a good citizen. There will be few virtuous men, but good citizens just have to follow the law. Aristotle says good political virtue and good moral virtue don't have to go together. "Living finely then most of all is the goal of the city."

Aristotle classifies 3 types of government which occur naturally in nature and 3 types of deteriorations of those governments, they are:

1. "Monarchy," rule by one man a king, this is a top down rule. The deterioration is a "Tyranny," who is a ruler who rules for his own benefit.
2. "Aristocracy," rule by the best few men in the Polis, also this is a top down rule. The deterioration is an "oligarchy,' which he defines as rule of the rich who want to perpetuate themselves.
3. "Polity," All citizens participate in government with a constitution set above them to guide them instead of a king or aristocracy. The deterioration is a "democracy or what today we call mob rule or tyranny of the majority. He calls it rule of the poor.

Aristotle does a good job of looking at states and how they can be corrupted. Aristotle's concept of political justice and what is the best concept. What does justice mean? Not necessarily equality for all. Not all people are equal. He implies sometimes it is unjust to treat people equally. Justice is not necessarily equality for all; sometimes it would be unjust to treat all people equally. Politics is rated high by Aristotle as a human good. Education is a central feature of political life for Aristotle. "But we must find the relevant respect of equality or inequality; for this question raises a puzzle that concerns political philosophy." First, because someone is unequal on hierarchy that means better than others like more virtuous. This is like "distributive justice" who gets what goods. Do you give the best flute to the best flute player which is based on merit or to the richest or best looking person? Aristotle says inequality should tip towards those who earn it on merit. His concept of equality and inequality is based on merit. Another philosopher coined a famous formula for this based on Relevant Respect:

P= Person, Q= Quality, C= Context.
It would be just to treat P1 + P2 equally or unequally if P1 + P2 are equal or unequal in Q (quality) relevant to C (content). This is a formula on how to treat people relevant to goods. This is context dependent. Allot of empirical work to be done before we use the formula.

People who fight wars control politics in the Polis. The more people who have weapons in a civilian army is a guarantee that a small group of people will not take control of the government and democracy grows, like our 2nd amendment, this is a historical perspective of the idea that works.
Democracy spreads power to citizens a bottom up structure. Expertise in relation to politics. Many professions we tend to defer to the experts for judgment, physicians, lawyers, etc. Plato's Republic does this with his advocacy of Philosopher king running government. Aristotle says the judgment of the many combined as acting as one is better then a monarch or a few wise men to run the government. In principle, pooling of multiple people to run Polis is good. Politics by nature is a communal effort so you should use all the people's expertise. Aristotle is against letting experts running the Polis they are not always the best of judges. The best judge of the function of a house is the owner, not the builder. In addition, Aristotle says there may not really be any such thing as a political expert, like a philosopher king. Aristotle advocates for a constitutional democracy a written set of laws to protect Polis from a tyranny of the majority. "Law is reason unaffected by desire." A government of laws not men. A living being as the last word is not good.

Role of education in politics. Politics is coming together to foster human development and happiness for community, citizens, and improving human life like education. Aristotle says it should be public education.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

Perhaps I've been reading too many ancient Greeks and Romans, and certainly too many treatises on ancient politics, but I had a great deal of difficulty getting through this book. Aristotle is a very well-known philosopher and a student of Plato. This book outlined his views on politics, and he quite blatantly goes against a lot of what Plato and Socrates said, but his ideas make sense, especially for the time and place when they were written. It was interesting to compare his ideas to those of Plato since I just finished reading Plato's Republic. I think at heart, I'm more in agreement with Aristotle than with Plato.

Yep, I feel way over my head giving Aristotle three stars, but I'm throwing in my two cents anyhow.

This book is an incredible window into another time. Aristotle's views on a number of topics (women and slavery come quickly to mind) stand out so opposed to our beliefs today that it's almost worth reading this book just to get some perspective on how new some of the social ideas we take for granted really are. Getting that sense of perspective is truly the best part of this book.

That said, there is little here beyond that for anyone but a student of philosophy or someone engaging in a very serious study of the history of government. Very little of what Aristotle says rings true today and at times it's as if he went to the future and decided to predict the exact opposite of what's come to pass.

If you are a layperson looking for a classic on government, I recommend Plato's Republic. While it is even older than Aristotle's work, it is filled with insights that feel as if they must have been written in modern times. That is a truly inspiring feat of thought and foresight.

Perhaps it is not accidental that the work of the Aristotle, the student who explored so clearly and deeply all the externals and interactions of nature and Man, is recorded as tedious, repetitious, complex lecture notes while Plato the teacher who tried to find all the answers within the confines of his own head is recorded as lucid, lively dialogue. Aristotle the rube was evidently too busy observing, cataloging, teaching - living, to write it all down in an organized coherent whole while Plato the aristocrat was at first desperate to capture all he could remember then to expand upon the works of his revered master, Socrates, trying desperately to walk in his sandals. I think maybe with Aristotle there was just too much material, to much to know, and the thing he did best was know. So here is the country boy with that horrible Macedonian accent but regal connections come to study at the Academy, to learn from the very best, and in the end, the thought he produces far surpasses all that the best laid before him.

How is the community of Man best organized? That is the concern of Aristotle's "Politics". Plato had more or less just conjured up an ideal "Republic" based on his interpretation of Socrates. But that was not enough for Aristotle. He traveled, he learned, he catalogued everything and human organization and systems of government were at the top of his list. And he did this traveling analysis at a unique time when all possible permutations of human social organization were up for a try, from the dynamic democracy of the tiny city-state to the decrepit tyranny of the Persian Empire. With this catalog, he could not just conjecture as to what government might work best but make solid statements of fact about the consequences of various human organizations and recommendations about what works best under what circumstance. And we live with the result of his systematic pursuit. As one reads (or re-reads) this the very foundation of Western political thought, images of Madison flipping pages of a well warn and well loved edition to find a particular passage as he pens drafts of the Constitution of the United States of America flash by time and again. The result of his obvious reference to Aristotle was a thriving republic that has grown and flourished providing freedom and the possibility of a good life for millions. What grew from Plato was the horror of the Soviet Union. But I have betrayed my prejudice. One must read both and in order, Plato first to discover the thoughts that inspired Aristotle's questions then Aristotle to find the answers.

That said, I must reiterate, this book is exceptionally tedious, repetitious and complex (though not intellectually difficult). Thousands of people have made careers analyzing it and commenting on it. It is not for everybody but Mortimer Adler's "Aristotle for Everybody" is. That book is a brief, well written compendium, a distillate, of all we have of Aristotle. To go through a life and not read at least that is to miss some of the best thinking ever done by a human.

John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term. Maiden speech was a disaster his second was great success. He was first MP to propose that women should be given the vote on equal footing with the men who could vote. He got 1/3 support, England gives franchise to women after U.S. He was a great Feminist, his essay "Subjection of Women" is written with great passion and prose. It was a brave position for him to take he was ridiculed for it. He favored democracy, and letting more men from lower classes the right to vote, but believed that people that are more educated should have more votes then less educated because they would make better decisions about what government should do. He would have wanted to extend education to the masses, so that all may have gotten 2-3 votes and so on. He didn't think it should be extended to where a small elite could carry the day on votes. The idea was that if the working class, and middle class, where divided on an issue, the people with more intelligence would have the power to tip the balance. Mill thought that people with more education would probably not only be better able to make political decisions, especially in terms of intellectually being able to see what would be best for the government to do, but that they would also be more concerned about the common good publicly then people in general. He was intensely educated by his father James. John could read Greek, and Latin at 6 yrs.; his Dad tutored him at home. Dad thought environment was everything. He was treated like an adult, never played games with kids; he had a very cerebral upbringing. He had a period of depression in his twenties, it changed his philosophy, and he recognized the importance of developing feelings along with the intellect, this is something that he stressed in his work. He read poetry to get out of depression; he became devoted to poetry and became a romantic. He fell in love with a married woman Harriet Taylor, was a platonic relationship, after her husband's death they married 3 years later and probably never consummated the marriage maybe due to his having syphilis. His dedication to "On Liberty" is to her, very devoted to each other. Both buried together in Avignon France where they used to vacation.

Mill as a moral theorist subscribed to a theory we call Utilitarianism. It means---In some way morality is about the maximization of happiness. Whether actions are right or wrong depends on how happiness can be most effectively maximized. I say in some way, because there are allot of different kinds of Utilitarians. Allot of different ways of saying exactly how it is the maximization of happiness comes into morality. Therefore, happiness is clearly an important idea for Utilitarians. Mill has a hedonistic view of happiness, he thinks that happiness can be defined in terms of "pleasure in the absence of pain." What is distinctive about Mill in this area is that he believes that some kinds of pleasure are better than others are, and add more to a person's happiness than other kinds of pleasures. He believes in what he calls, "higher quality pleasures." These are pleasures, he says, that we get from the exercise of faculties that only human beings happen to have. So the intellect, imagination, the moral feelings, these are the sources of higher quality pleasures people use. His view seems to be that a certain quantity of intellectual pleasure just adds more to your happiness, and a given quantity of some lower pleasure like a kind we would share with the animals such as sensation, taste, sexual pleasure, etc. His "higher quality pleasures" in a way echo Aristotle's ethics. The idea of those things that make us distinctly human that are the real key to our happiness, that is in Mill also. It is not as limited to reason and intellect as Aristotle thinks. Mill recognizes the importance of the appreciation of beauty, aesthetic pleasure, and moral pleasure. He frankly owes a debt to Aristotle that he never properly acknowledges, never gives him proper credit.

"On Liberty" is Mill's is his most widely read and enduring work. It is an indispensable essay on political thought, which strenuously argues for individual liberty. He is defending what he calls the "liberty principle." It is a principle that guarantees individuals quite a bit of personal freedom. "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." These quoted sentences in John Stuart Mill's book, "On Liberty," embody the crux of his argument; that the power of the state must intrude as little as possible on the liberty of its citizenry. In essence, Mill was against using the power of the state through its lawmaking apparatus to compel citizens to conduct themselves in ways that society deems moral or appropriate. Mill thought that people had not only a right, but also a duty to develop their intellectual faculties, which is indispensable to maximize their happiness. He believed that society improved for all its citizens when they where left unfettered to the maximum extent possible, allowing them to use their imagination and intellect to improve themselves. Mill postulates a theory that societies usually institute laws based primarily on "personal preference" of its citizenry instead of established principles. This lack of clarity of opinion often leads to the government frequently interfering in the lives of its citizens unnecessarily. For Mill, there are very few times when the state can infringe on the personal liberty of others. Firstly, the state has the right to promulgate laws that prevent a person's actions from harming others. Secondly, the state must protect those citizens who are not mature enough to protect themselves, such as children. Thirdly, he exempts, "... backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage." In Mill's view, immature societies need a benevolent leader to rule them until they have developed to a point where they, "... have attained the capacity of being guided to their own improvement by conviction or persuasion ..." Mill said this third exemption did not apply to any of the countries in Europe. Mill believed that forced morality by the state on its citizen's liberties was destructive to their inward development, and could even lead to a violent reaction by them against the government.


There are different parts of his defense of this, different arguments that he gives. He has a long chapter on freedom of speech and press. He has some very specific reasons why he thinks those freedoms are important. Always in the background for Mill is the idea of development, and making it possible for more people to enjoy these higher quality pleasures. How do we help people develop their distinctly human faculties, in ways that will help them enjoy their higher quality pleasures? Because for him that is the way, we maximize the total amount of happiness that is enjoyed in the world, and that is the object of morality as far as he is concerned. Utilitarianists believe that maximizing happiness is ultimately, what morality is all about. That does not mean maximizing your own happiness that means maximizing the total amount of happiness that is enjoyed, not only by yourself but also by everybody else as well.

Roger Kimball, in his book "Experiments Against Reality" wrote, "On Liberty" was published in 1859, coincidentally the same year as "On the Origin of Species." Darwin's book has been credited--and blamed--for all manner of moral and religious mischief. But in the long run "On Liberty" may have effected an even greater revolution in sentiment.

I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, and history.

I was happy to see that it was just as described. I could not be happier with the purchase I made.

GLOBAL ISSUES, LOCAL ARGUMENTS
Readings for Writing
By June Johnson
Seattle University

582 Pages with index
Paperback
Copyright 2007 by Pearson Educations, Inc.
Pearson / Longman
ISBN 0-321-24423-0

Global Issues, Local Arguments features high-interest arguments on significant global issues and emphasizes their connection to students' lives while developing critical thinking,
analysis,
synthesis,
argumentation,
and research skills.

What Your Colleagues Are Saying About This New Text!

"Shelley Aley,
James Madison University

"What I find appealing about the book is how it proposes to awaken us to unfamiliar topics that have a tremendous impact on our lives,
and it aims to show us how our own choices impact others.
It takes a great deal of mystery out of the issues and illustrates just how they matter to us. [...]
What I'm seeing here will connect with my students at a time in their lives when they may be most willing/needing to connect.
Johnson's writing is fresh and readable.
The book is simply a good read."

"Farrah Cato
University of Central Florida

"I currently use a global reader in my Comp I course and found it lacking in the topics covered (most deal with the idea of globalization, with few specifics); Global Issues, Local Arguments is precisely what I have hoped to find in a global reader."

"James D'Agostino
Southeast Missouri State University

"I'm immediately impressed with how the text guides students through the readings,
prompting students to focus their analysis on both how an essay's constructed as an argument,
and how it influences a reader's views;
implicit in this line of questioning is the expectation that each argument a student reads deepens and reshapes his or her understanding of an issue.
The discussion questions do that so well throughout."

"Collin Hutchison
San Jacinto College South

"The overall, interdiscuplinary approach to teaching rhetoric and composition will offer students a chance to see arguments in the context of current issues and gives them the opportunity to sense how intimately language shapes thought,
public policy and personal lives,
a form of education that will resonate with them long after the last assignment has been submitted."
[from the book of backcover]

"Why should writing instructors bring global issues into the writing classroom?
Global issues belong in writing courses because we are bumping into these issues more frequently and because global issues spark students' interest in learning and lead them to produce good writing.

Daily,
the media bombard us with stories and images that remind us that our states,
regions,
and country are part of the larger world.
Controversies over free trade,
outsourcing,
immigration,
climate change,
and bird flu increasingly demand our attention.
In my writing classes,
I have found that students welcome the opportunity to study these controversies,
to discuss and write about them.
Some of these issues are new and intriguing to students:
How does our shopping at the local mall affect workers in clothing factories in China?
How does lack of safe water in Africa threaten global security?
Some are immediately relevant:
How will sending businesses and jobs to Mexico and India affect the number of jobs available to young adults in the United States and Canada?
Some have urgency:
Should each country create an emergency plan for containing outbreaks of diseases such as bird flu that can spread in hours around the world and can kill millions?

From working with global issues in my writing and argument classes,
I have discovered that these issues,
connecting "over there" with "home here,"
appeal to today's students,
whose generation has been shaped by media images from around the world.

Global Issues, Local Arguments is based on two main ideas:
first,
seeing how global issues touch us and how our decisions as consumers and voters have far-reaching consequences is very important in today's world,
and
second,
studying the public arguments on these issues in the writing classroom has great value.

Unlike multicultural texts that have for years featured readings about the world,
this text is an argument reader that introduces students to

GLOBAL CONTROVERSIES AND THEIR LOCAL CONNECTIONS.

It helps students think their way through these issues and enter into them in their writing...."
[from the book preface]

This one was a great reference up to 10 September 2001. Then everything changed and much of what is in this book is out of date. To be fair though, there is stll considerable value here, but that value puts it into the 'buy a used one' category (but hey, that slightly dog-eared, somewhat out of date, reference work on the shelf behind your desk gives you that 'old hand' 'been there, done that' credibility, so this isn't all bad.)

What's good about this one:
-The description of the intelligence cycle.
-The discussions of challenges facing the U.S. intelligence community post Cold War (but pre-9/11; belay that, many of the issues addressed are still challenges that have not been resolved, just set to one side in the pursuit of the global war on terror).
-The description and discussion of the processes and policies surrounding the intelligence cycle.
-It is a good reference work for tracing the establishment of several of the agencies.

What's not so good about this:
-The world changed two years after this book's publication in 1999. And all the shortcomings of this book stem from this. The description of the strategic organization of the U.S. military is not accurate. The Dept. of Homeland Security is not mentioned. The National Intelligence Director is not mentioned. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda aren't mentioned. The patriot act isn't here. The National Geospatial Intelligence Agency is here under its old name, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. And so forth...
-There have been some bigger changes that are mostly technology driven. At the time this book was written, the idea that one could get 1 meter resolution satellite imagery for free (though a little dated) was pretty shocking for most folks, but if you go to Google maps right now...

Over all, 'The U.S. Intelligence Community' is out of date for descriptions of the current establishment and much of the technology, but is pretty darn good for processes and some of the big concepts. Caveat lector: be mindful that technology changes constantly, and what's in this book was declassified, hence even further out of date than the copyright date would indicate.

Post Script: Thank you, W. Blair for pointing out that there is a newer edition. This review only applies to the fourth, not fifth and current edition. Darn you, W. Blair, for forcing my hand to get the new edition 8-)

E. M. Van Court

Richelson does an excellent job of providing a link and detail to all of the U.S. intelligence successes and failures over the last 35 years. This is a superb reference book for the young and old intelligence officer in a Joint or Interagency environment that needs to know how the intelligence system in the United States works. Richelson does not write in theory. All of this book is practical, useful and hard-hitting. It will give you excellent depth and insight into those often heard but little known intelligence successes and debacles. From the USS Pueblo to the origin and current status of satellite intelligence, this book covers it all.

A most disturbing aspect of the Bush Administration is how Cheney and his chief counsel (now Chief of Staff) David Addington have maneuvered their way into essentially giving themselves a blank check that allows them to do whatever they want behind the scenes in the name of national security. The enemy has been depicted as an incalculable threat, capable of the most murderous rampages with the worst of weapons, and it is up to the Executive to use every means available to thwart them in their tracks. The War on Terror, this argument implies, requires a constant and never-ending state of emergency, in which the Legislative and Judicial branches do not have the power to check the Presidency.

The author details how the efforts by Cheney and Addington to consolidate and extend Presidential power have a history that goes back to the Nixon Administration, to the time when a young Cheney was hired by Donald Rumsfeld. The power of the Presidency had reached a low point then, and as Cheney became more empowered in government, he became more determined to reverse that trend. David Addington solidified and emboldened Cheney's efforts to defend the actions of the Reagan Administration during Iran-Contra affair, and thereafter provided him with the force of legal arguments. During the first Bush Administration Cheney became Secretary of Defense and brought along Addington as legal counsel.

Even before 9/11, Cheney was busy putting into practice the theory of the Unitary Executive (the phrase was taken from the Federalist Papers) for the new Bush Administration. In a scenario that has became all too familiar, Cheney claimed that the Executive had a right not to disclose information about the Energy Task Force. According to Cheney, the public had no right to know about the origins of the decisions made concerning energy policy (that is, how the oil industry shaped the policy), a position which in effect frees the Executive from all accountability.

The problem of accountability, of course, becomes much more difficult after 9/11 when the matter of national security becomes significantly more critical. Although the actual maneuvers are difficult to follow, because of national security barriers, it is clear the Cheney and Addington sought a legal basis for defying the Geneva Conventions and that they used their influence to get the Office of Legal Counsel of the Justice Department to do their bidding. When Jack Goldsmith tried to make relatively small changes, he ran into a buzz saw in Addington. Clearly, it was their intention to control the Justice Department. Among the shenanigans was an effort to force John Ashcroft to sign off on warrantless surveillance from his sick bed, and people like Monica Goodling using a political litmus test to hire prosecutors.

But of all the tactics, the stamp of Executive arrogance is most keenly to be seen in the signing statements. The author notes that it is unprecedented in U.S. history for the office of the Vice-President to pore over every piece of legislation, and express the intention to refuse to abide by all the parts that it does not like. But Addington acted for Cheney in this way, apparently in Bush's name. Beside insisting that the President could bypass the torture ban passed by Congress, the signing statements seek to thwart all kinds of checks on the power of the Executive over information, whistle-blowing, etc.

Finally, the question that begs for an answer is: just exactly what role does George W. Bush play? In the beginning of the book, the author notes the incident on 9/11 when Cheney seems to have been the one who called the shots. The author notes that Bush has led the way with such things as faith-based initiatives. But as the "Decider", where does he get his information? When it comes to national security, the answer seems obvious. When it comes to legislative and judicial matters, the answer also seems obvious.

Clearly written, well thought out, well supported and utterly infuriating.Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy

Could the author PLEASE tell me if President Clinton sets a precedent, and President Bush follows the same rule, that Mr Bush is held as a tyrant?

The author would never write a book about a left-wing politician doing the same thing. He COULD prove me wrong by writing a book about Senator Barak "60 states" (57+1+2)Obama, if the American populous is mentally absent enough to elect him.

This Pulitzer-Prize winning book by Charlie Savage should have received five stars. I give it only two. To learn why -- read on.

Savage is a good writer and his trenchant analysis of how the neocons have nearly destroyed our Constitutional system is basically correct. His story is also important and needs to be told.

The problem is Savage's naive acceptance of the official yarn about 9/11. In the very first chapter Savage displays his personal ignorance when he reviews the events in the White House bunker -- and gets it wrong. What is incredible is that Savage didn't bother to research this himself. It appears that he simply accepted as bible the version of events reported by Bob Woodward in the Washington Post.

There is no excuse for this lapse of critical thought.

The problem is that the version of 911 reported by Woodward in his 2002 series was largely fabricated -- a lie. It does not reflect what actually happened. It was fabricated for a reason: because Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta just happened to be present in the bunker with Cheney on 911 and witnessed what transpired.

Check out Mineta's testimony before the 911 Commission in May 2003 -- and you will discover what I am referring to. Mineta places Cheney in the bunker as early as 9:20 am. What is more, he actually overheard Cheney give the treasonous order to stand down -- as Flight 77 was approaching Washington. Mineta told how a young man, probably a Secret service staffer, came in and warned of the approaching plane. "It's 50 miles out" the young man said. Then it was "thirry miles out" -- then "ten miles out." The young man asked Cheney if the orders still stand. Cheney shouted: "Of course they still stand...Have you heard any different?" Mineta told the commission this was Flight 77 -- no mistake about the ID of the plane. In short, his testimony was incredibly incriminating. No doubt, is why there is not one word about it in the 911 Commission Report.

For this reason -- it was obvious in the immediate aftermath of 911, long before Mineta testified before the commission, that his presence in the bunker posed a grave problem for Cheney. The White House had little reason to think it could count on Mineta's loyalty. He was a civil servant, after all, not a neocon---the only Democrat in Bush's cabinet. It is now clear that the White House responded to this "threat" by proactively attempting to head off trouble. How? By rewriting history. What else?

Late in 2001 the well-known journalist Bob Woodward was invited to conduct a series of interviews about September 11, as seen through the eyes of the president and his staff. Woodward (a glory hound) was only too eager to oblige. As we know, he thereafter served as court historian. The result, beginning in January 2002, was a series of retrospective articles in the Washington Post about 9/11.

This is the version of 911 history that Savage relied on for the first chapter of his book.

How could Savage be so naive? In fact, Woodward simply wrote what he was told. His series in the Post presented a White House-friendly version of events. No surprise that one of the stories Woodward recounted was the famous episode in the bunker. In Woodward's redacted version, however, Cheney is the man of the hour who rises to the press of terrible events. The same young man approaches the VP and warns about the incoming airliner. But, of course, in this revised history the timeline has been pushed back: Now it is almost 10 am -- and the plane is Flight 93, not Flight 77. Now the plane is 80 miles out, not 50.

There is another BIG difference. This time instead of a stand down -- it is a shoot down order. When the young man says, "There is a fighter in the area. Should we engage?" Cheney responds by giving the difficult command to shoot down the plane. But the young man hesitates. As narrated by Woodward the tension in the room mounts. The plane is closing fast and is now only 60 miles out. The young man repeats the question and again Cheney gives the command. But the young man still hesitates. "Does the order still stand?" he blurts out. Cheney finally snaps and says, "Of course it does!"

Woodward's revised version of 911 is more colorful, but there is a problem. It is a fabrication -- a complete lie. In fact, it deviates just as sharply from the official narrative presented in the 9/11 Commission Report as it does from Mineta's account, since at no time on September 11 did Flight 93 approach anywhere near as close as 60 miles to the White House. This crucial detail is the fly on the windowpane that exposes the fraud.

Someone please inform Charlie Savage that he got his 911 history all wrong -- backwards. There is no excuse for this. He is a fine writer. It is simply incomprehensible that Savage -- a strong critic of the neocons -- would swallow hook, line, and sinker their version of the 911 "attack." If half of what Savage reports in his book is true -- and I have no doubt that much more than half is true -- then the neocons are easily capable of murdering 3,000 Americans in a false flag attack on 911 to vastly increase the power of the White House and catapult America into two unnecessary wars.

This is exactly what they did -- and shame on Mr Savage for not figuring it out. He's lucky I didn't give him one star. So readers - please beware. You must view the analysis in TAKEOVER through a critical lens, making allowances for Savage's failure to comprehend who was behind 9/11. There is no question that Cheney and Rumsfeld and others were personally involved in the attack.

Well written (sic) liberal tripe promoting a biased opinion with half-truths and exaggerations. Previous reviewers must have had a meeting to compare notes at a local Democratic Caucus. Skip it.

I was fortunate enough to hear David Gergan speak at my daughter's commencement last month. After hearing him in person, I couldn't wait to purchase his book. I am not normally interested in political history due to the dull reading of most, but David Gergan really makes the information come alive. His elaboration of the former presidents really gives you a tremendous sense of his deep interest & admiration of each of these men. While being truthful with the information, he finds the good to present to us in an honest way. I purchased this book for an upcoming young leader in our family, who I hope will gain insight & wisdom from reading this book. I only wish that he too will feel the same way & have the opportunity to hear David Gergan live. It is certainly rare for me to be just as interested in listening to a speaker at the end of their presentation as I am at the beginning of it. David is as good an author as he is a speaker. An excellent read for present & future leaders!

Quick turn around and received the book, just as it was listed. Thanks. I'll look for your books again.

This book has been an eye opener to the strengths of even the most despised Presidents. I learned a lot about the importance of bipartisanship in getting a President's initiatives passed. It also made me realize that the press will not give me the real image of the "Big Guy." Going into an election year we need to realize that all of the slander politics are not as important as learning about the candidates' thoughts and hopes for their and our future. Reading the candidates' autobiography or biography may be a great way to really get an understanding about a person who thinks they have what it takes to run the most powerful country in the world. Look forward to seeing reviews on a few books from our upcoming candidates.

David Gergen provides important insights into leadership. He was worked for several Presidents and has observed what creates successful leaders. He lists his observations by President and concludes the following: Leadership is something one finds internally, it is driven by a compelling goal, it is successful when it persuades others, it requires understanding how the involved process works and how goals may be attained, it often uses an atmosphere of assurance from the beginning, it involving choosing and considering advice form good advisors, and it is able to inspire followers to work toward the goals. These are only a foundation of principles which do not assure success yet should be a guide to expand upon.

The manner in which leadership is used does influence outcomes. A good knowledge of past experiences is valuable yet this knowledge must be used appropriately. The early periods of Presidencies often provide opportunities for achievement yet, simultaneously are also when some of the worst mistakes are made. David Gergen argues the Presidency requires someone who has an excellent knowledge of public affairs as well the proper temperament. He rates Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan as two of the best Presidential leaders.

The book provides many direct insights from someone who worked for Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton. He tells how Nixon was inspired by DeGaulle to rely upon both intellect and instinct, how Ford was a strong believer in the truth, how Reagan upped the ante in the arms race so the Soviet Union could no longer compete, and how Clinton understood history and established policy victories. This is a good book that uses first hand information and uses it to explain what leadership principles worked and which ones did not.

Politics is such a contact sport, with the opposing party trying to bring down the President. A house divided cannot stand, yet here in America we no longer rally around the President after the election. The losing party tries to destroy him.

I have always like Gergen and I appreciate his wisdom in this book. Even the most liberal Democrat will find much to admire about Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan if he reads this book with an open mind. Likewise, the most conservative Republican will find many positive traits about Bill Clinton, faults and all.

These men were not perfect and they all had their weaknesses, which their enemies ultimately used against them. But these men all had what it takes to make great Presidents. Sadly, Nixon was forced to resign, Clinton was impeached, and Reagan survived the Iran/Contra scandal.

Today in 2006, we hear that if the Democrats gain control in Congress, they might try to impeach the current President for his failings. Will we ever learn? Can a President ever serve an 8 year term without the threat of impeachment by the other side?

All men have faults and we will never have a President that is perfect. In "Eyewitness to Power" we learn that anyone who becomes President must have leadership skills to be able to rise to this high office. Maybe future leaders can learn from the mistakes of past Presidents. They better because in today's political climate, the other side will be waiting for any misstep.

I loved this book. It was great for my History of American Journalism class. It's not a comprehensive history book, but it goes in depth into a handful of incidents. Loved it :)

Nothing shocking, or eyebrow-lifting. It covers the basic history - plus a little more. A solid job by Streitmatter. He does a good job on Father Coughlin, the early revolutionary press and the KKK, but it's only a chapter dedicated to each subject.

I had to read Mightier Than the Sword for Professor Streitmatter's class and let me tell you, it was on the of most interesting and easiest to read books probably ever produced in academia. Beyond the fact that he is probably the best professor at AU, he really sheds light on how the media have played a huge role in shaping U.S. history. He could have put more examples in there (14 is good but there are many more to choose from). It is interesting to think if some of the events he talks about, like McCarthyism and anti-Vietnam war sentiment, would not have gathered strength if it weren't for the media. This is a must-buy for anyone interested in American history or history of the media in America.

Today's journalist lives at an odd moment in history.

While the public expresses fear at the perceived power of the news media to corrupt American society, many editors and reporters, burdened with the stresses of daily journalism and competing with a myriad of new information/entertainment outlets, wonder if they have any influence at all.

Rodger Streitmatter's "Mightier than the Sword" points to 14 moments in American history when the news media wielded enormous power despite equally enormous odds. Some of these moments were golden - Edward R. Murrow's televised stand against Sen. Joe McCarthy, for example, or the Montgomery (Ala.) Advertiser's 1927 triumph over the Ku Klux Klan. Some, such as Father Charles E. Coughlin's anti-Semitic radio tirades of the 1930s and 1940s, were tarnished.

In each case, however, the press didn't simply mirror history. "The news media," Streitmatter argues, "shaped American history. Absolutely. Boldly. Proudly. Fervently. Profoundly." Indeed, the author reminds journalists that it is still possible to affect change.

Such influence comes with a price tag.

To understand the costs, Streitmatter mines each of these events, from Sam Adams' call for American independence through the era of the Muckrakers to the talk-radio inspired Republican revolution in the 1990s, for commonalities and clues to how the news media worked. What he found is not terribly surprising, but it comes at an opportune moment to remind journalists of a lesson from their often colorful past. Courage begets change. In many episodes, journalists faced intense criticism, threats and financial crises. In each case they weren't afraid to take positions of leadership.

Streitmatter's book is something of a "greatest hits" collection in journalism history, written in an easy-going style that allows editors to ponder press power without getting bogged down in the minutia of more in-depth studies. His work, however, is well sourced and a nice addition to the historian's collection, covering print, audio and visual journalism.

However, like a "greatest hits" album, Streitmatter's study will leave readers wanting more. Analyzing 14 events in one volume simply does not allow for depth in any singular episode, as the author acknowledges. For example, he blames the mainstream press for helping to slow the women's movement of the mid-1800s by attacking leaders such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. Unfortunately, he either ignores era women's magazines or points only to their opposition to the movement. Other scholars have credited these magazines with providing women their first real voice in the marketplace of ideas. The powerhouse Godey's Lady's Book, edited by Sarah Hale in the mid-1800s, did not favor suffrage, true, but it certainly furthered women's education and employment in medicine and education. Sometimes a second look at the episodes will reveal complexities that the author did not have room to explore.

With that said, however, the author does a remarkable job placing each episode in context and highlighting many of the complex arguments about press influence. He is most compelling when he examines crusades against the Klan by the New York World, The Commercial Appeal of Memphis, Tenn., and the Montgomery Advertiser, showing how the best of journalistic intentions can backfire and how dubious motives can sometimes bring about heroic results.

The strength of "Mightier Than the Sword" is its focus on how the news media shaped America, for better or worse. By collecting these moments in one volume, Streitmatter reminds editors that it is still possible to positively influence their communities, even alter the course of history. It just takes a willingness to put reputations, reporters and, yes, even money on the line if the cause is worthy enough to justify the sacrifice.