Politics Government Books

This book was required for my social policy class for my undergrad work in social work. The author uses elementary language to explain policy which makes the term "policy" not as intimidating for a beginner. Highly recommend for someone wanting to know more about this subject.

Politkovskaya's book is important in the sense as it gives a voice to people that is not heard in other books about contemporary Russia. Especially the chapter "Tanya, Misha, Lena and Rinat - Where are they now?" where she looks up people that she used to know in the 70s, gives a remarkable description of personalities that anyone that gets to know Russian's personally will be able to recognize.

A weekness of this approach is that it is difficult to recognize and appreciate theese personality-types without personally knowing ehough Russians to see what she is talking about. Unless you know Russians personaly it will also be difficult to experience and take in, how many simply will refuse to read, know and take in her story either becuase it is something they have decided to act as if theese things never happened - focusing on this is negative, or simply because they are very emotionally difficult to discuss. This attitude and feelings among ordinary Russians is in my view farmore important than the authorities attitudes towards her writing.

I agree with the other reviews that claim her writing is very emotional. This is a problem because it makes me suspicious of her writing, even when what she tells is probably compleately true. By being less emtional she would undoubtful come through as more trustworthy, that is especially important because we to a large degree only have her side of the stroy to hold on to. Though considerably more moderate than Litvinenko and Felshtinsky's "Blowing up Russia", I find myself having some of the same mixed emotions about some of the consparicy-like claims that come up in the book, where we only have whether we belive the author or not to hold on to. Though experience have learned me that few seemingly over-the-top fantastic rumours can be ruled out when it comes to Russian politics, I am still laved with mixed emotions.

Her personal aproach also leave the basic, structural facts that is important to understand contemporary Russia in the background. Gaidar has used the relevant comparison of Russia in the 90s with the last similary desperate economic situation in Germany in the 30s. About 15 years after the democrasy was established in Germany, Hitler came to power under similar economic conditions. Who ever Putin is, he is like a boy-scout in that perspective. Politkovaskaya fails to give the political and economical understanding to put things into perspective. As another review states, you will not find what progresses Russia has made under Putin in this book. It is not that critical though, as long one can get that perspective from other books. Polikovskaya gives an understanding of the people acting under this cicumstantions that I have seen no other books on contemporary Russia.

Especially Politkovskaya have written other books and articles on Chechnya, I think Chechnya has got too much coverage in the book, compared to other topics. It might be that she should have chosen a different title, instead of writing relatively less about Chechnya though. It is nothing wrong woth writing many books about Chechnya, it is just that the topic "Putin's Russia" is considerably broader than that.

Another review claims you can not find Politkovskayas books in Russia. I can confirm that I have found them in English in ordinary book-stores and Russian friends confirms they have fond them too.

Do read this book. Make sure you fill out the picture with other books on the Putin era and the political and economical development in Post-USSR Russia though.

Having read only a portion of the book i can only express mild shock due to the fact that power corrupts and absolute power absolutly corrupts.Mr Putin has much to ansewr for,whether he does will remain to be seen.
Anna Politcovskaya has to be admired for her courage,in the face of intimidation and death threats. To fearlessly pursue the truth and seek to expose a corrupt regime,provides us in the west with a most worthy example as long as we dont hold too dearly our life or reputation.This is very much like America with George and his cronies re:911 and New Zealand which is similar in that Mz Clark has a small group of people around her who are changing the social landscape of the country to fit their idea of a modern,all inclusive society, and blatently ignoring the express wishes of the people.May she enjoy her imminent retirement.A country or corporation,business will only grow and prosper according to the wishes,goals and desires of its leaders,be they people of integrity or corrupted by the privilege of power.

I had seen a piece on tv about Anna and the plight of journalism in Russia, so decided I had to learn more. I could not put this book down. Her courage in face of insurmountable danger for journalists during the Putin regime should humble any American journalist. I am saddened by the fact that she along with many other Russian journalists, ended up a victim of the very regime she wrote so bravely about.

I was also a bit taken back by some of the Putin regime activities that we could corrolate to recent political events in the U.S.

I think this book should be required reading in any/all high school and college journalism and political science classes.

A must read for all those contemplating on working, investing, living, or visiting Russia and before more authoritarian restrictions are implemented (or should I say the "New Soviet Russia" is completed?).

Ana Politkovskaya's book is a fast read, but the truthful descriptions may be shocking to some. For me, it brought back dark memories from my years working and living there. There is so much increadible [underlined] poverty outside the major cities (e.g., Moscow, St. Petersburg, etc.) and so much more she could have continued writing about... unfortunately, because there is no real free press anymore (& as far as I know, her books have never been published or sold in Russia) the majority of Russian citizens are misinformed and uninformed.

On the other hand, Russia is a vast and beautiful country and it's people (the "real" people) amiable, warm, and very hospitable (once they get to know you). The citizens want so much more for their country, but are afraid to make concrete changes in a unified manner, may not know how to move forward due to conditioning and oppression from the old and new regimes, or are terrified of reprisals. Thus, the current leadership is dismantling Russia's constitution, eliminating the opportunity for real democracy, and is building a "New Iron Curtain" behind the old one.

Again, a must read!

The AUTHOR'S NOTE states: "... this book is not an examination of Putin's policies. I am not a political analyst. I am just a person among many, a face in the crowd, like so many.... These are my immediate reactions, jotted down in the margins of life as it is lived in Russia today."

Well, Politkovskaya doesn't all together stick with this decree, but touches upon Putin's "policies" by way of presenting his lack of policy in helping his people.

There are many events detailed in this book: soldiers being beaten and tormented by their commanding officers. Family members trying to find out the truth about their loved one's death, or murder. Corruption plaguing the Russian judicial system. Yury Budanov's kidnapping of a young Chechen girl, her rape and murder trial. Examples of friends the author has known and how their lives (good and bad) have been affected by the changes in the wake of the New Russia. The gangster life being rife throughout Russia, given in the example of Pavel Anatolievich Fedulev. The storming of the Dubrovka Theater in Moscow during the "Nord-Ost" musical by Chechen terrorists wishing to end the war, and how the government unleashed an unknown gas that ended up killing 200 hostages. The waging of "Antiterrorist Operation Whirlwind" that caused the Chechen people living in Russia to be harassed, framed, and forced to sign confessions that they plotted the attack; many were sent to prison or lost their jobs. According to Politkovskaya it was "Putin's belief that an entire people must shoulder collective responsibility for the crimes committed by a few" pg 224. The hostage situation in the town of Beslan on the day of "Lineyka," the celebration of the beginning of school when many families were at the school. 100 people went missing and the government said that they fled with the terrorists (hu?).

One can't deny that something is happening in Russia. But I can't say I was won over with Politkovskaya's argument that Putin is entirely to blame for it's current state. This is partly due to the author's writing style, which must have been affected by the translation process (there are many words and phrases that come off sounding disjointed), which make for weak arguments. The stories Politkovskaya's shares with us are stories we outsiders have heard for a number of years under the old Soviet Union. Just because one has a new government everything cannot be expected to change quickly. It takes time. It does sound like Russia has reverted to old habits either because that's all its' leader's know, or it's their intentions to align themselves with communist ways in order to gain more power for themselves. The truth is, I don't know what progress has been made under Putin, and certainly you wont find any in Politkovskaya's book. The problem is that politics usually attract power and corruption. Place people with this tendency in a government rife with corruption and things are bound to fail. Unless Russia can find someone courageous enough to stand up to it, willing to put their life on the line, I fail to see how things will ever change.

One things for sure, I'm always amazed by the resilience of the Russian people. I always get a strong sense that they love their country dearly and want nothing more than to live in a free society where the rules are fair. Hopefully one day they will have this. Unfortunately the fact that Politkovskaya died for writing stories like this shows how far Russia still has to go in acheiving freedom.


Chapters:
"My Country's Army and Its Mothers"
"Our New Middle Ages, or War Criminals of All the Russias"
"Tanya, Misha, Lena, and Rinat: Where Are They Now?"
"How to Misappropriate Property with the Connivance of the Government"
"More Stories from the Provinces"
"Nord-Ost: The Latest Tale of Destruction"
"Akaky Akakievich Putin II"
"Postscripts"
"Notes"

We used this textbook with the accompanying teacher's guide and student activity book for a home school high school American Government class this past school year. This text was easy to understand, dealt with the most essential information, was very interesting and held the interest of the students. None of them ever complained the text was boring or unpleasant. The activities book provided good ideas for additional expanded projects and research. I think all the kid's had great fun and I sure learned an incredible amount teaching this class and using this resource.

As a student, I really enjoyed how this book is very detailed, yet to the point, and also the lightness and small size of it. I learned a lot from it, and didn't have a boring time at it either.

If there are any teachers out there that are going to be teaching American Goverment - Get this book!! Your students will love you for it!

American Government: A Complete Coursebook is a great resource book. I know, as a student, that you can find a lot of topics in this book that aren't even touched upon in any ordinary textbook. This is a wonderful resource, especially for Economic, Legal, and Political Systems (ELPS) students, and U.S. History students. From the definition of "bill", to 105+ Supreme Court cases, this book has found almost all of the information I have needed. Maybe, it will work for you or your student too.

In After Hegemony neoliberal institutionalist Robert O. Keohane deals with the 'central political dilemma': How to organize international cooperation without hegemony? Or in other words, is cooperation possible in the post-hegemonic world? Keohane audaciously contends that cooperation is possible without hegemony since international regimes make this cooperation possible. In this sense, he criticizes hegemonic stability theory (HST) since HST necessitates a hegemon for regime maintenance specifically and for international cooperation in general. This book, however, might not be considered as a fundamental criticism of the realist theory since it accepts basic realist premises of international cooperation. For instance, he takes states as the major actors in international politics in which they have interest maximizing goals. On the other hand, Keohane also basically argues that 'although hegemony can facilitate cooperation, it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for it...hegemony is less important for the continuation of cooperation, once after began, than for its creation'.In this respect, he differentiates hegemon's role in creation of international regimes from their maintenance. While he keeps hegemonic power important in creating regimes he does not see hegemon so significant for the their maintenance. What are the functions and/or benefits of international regimes? Institutions/regimes provide information, decrease transaction costs, monitor compliance, create issue linkages and prevent cehating. Then, they serve states' self-interests and generate international cooperation. Fear of retaliation and search for reputation are the key reasons why states eschew to break the rules of international regimes. The concept of 'bounded rationality' is also important in Keohane's functionalist theory of regimes. In this framework, states are willing to uphold international regimes for their self-interests. According to him 'bounded rationality' relaxes the strict assumptions of rationality and they make states emphatically interdependent to each other. Then it leads to shifts in state preferences and they will be more likely to cooperate by means of international regimes. In this respect, Keohane tends generally to see interdependence as a beneficial element for international cooperation. Moreover, After Hegemony have case studies in three issue areas; trade, money, and oil. Keohane examines international regimes in these areas for post-hegemonic period when the US power began to decline by the early 1970s. He finds hegemonic stability theory relevant for oil while he does not for the issue areas of trade and money. in this sense, he also point out the limits and possibilities of both HST and his regime theory.Overarall, he makes the point: non-hegemonic cooperation is difficult but not impossible.

I have never shared realism's pessimism towards international politics in general and international cooperation in particular. For me, cooperation among states was logical and practical. It was logical, because in the long run cooperative states were better off than non-cooperative ones; it was practical, because most international problems -such as nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, setting up an international monetary system, and alleviating international poverty- required collective solutions. What makes Robert Keohane's After Hegemony important in my eyes is its logical and empirical support to the possibility and existence of cooperation among states.

The aftermath of WWII witnessed a mushrooming of international organizations/institutions to facilitate international cooperation in political as well as economic issues. The dominant realist theory of international relations did not have a well-defined theory of international organizations. But a sub-theory of realism -hegemonic stability theory- argued that the unchallenged hegemony of the United States was the driving force behind this international institutionalization and the relative peace it espoused (Gilpin 1981). All these institutions were established under the hegemony of the US and therefore their influence on world politics was dependent on the hegemonic status of the US. Thus, when in 1970's and 1980's the hegemony of the US declined with the recuperation of the Japanese and the West European economies, hegemonic stability theory expected a reversal in the impact of international institutions on world politics.

Keohane's central aim in After Hegemony is to challenge these pessimist realist evaluations of the decline in US hegemony. Keohane rejects realism's pessimist evaluations on two grounds. First, he argues that international cooperation is possible among nations and does not require a hegemon in the first place. Second, he argues that even though the national interests of states have a role in the establishment of international institutions, these institutions take a life of their own once they start rolling.

Keohane first challenges the neorealist link between states' egoism and the rarity of cooperation among them. He states, "Realist assumptions about world politics are consistent with the formation of institutionalized arrangements, containing rules and principles, which promote cooperation," (67). He maintains that egoistic governments "can rationally seek to form international regimes on the basis of shared interest," which actually reflects "rational egoism," (107). From his perspective, only a "myopic self-interest" understanding prevents states from cooperating when it is actually in their interest if the issue is evaluated with other issues (99).

Keohane then develops a theory of international institutions in which he argues that international institutions, or more broadly international regimes, influence the way and the extent to which states cooperate with each other. He states that by providing principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures, regimes "prescribe certain actions and proscribe others," (59). However, international regimes are valuable to governments not because they enforce binding rules on others, "but because they render it possible for governments to enter into mutually beneficial agreements with one another," (13). Regimes do that through multiple channels. First, they create an environment whereby states obtain information about other states' intentions and preferences. Second, international regimes can be regarded as "quasi agreements", which, although lacking a legally binding force, "help to organize relationships in mutually beneficial way," (89). Once a regime is established, states' concern about `retaliation' and `reputation' makes them "forward looking" and generally urges them to cooperate. And third, Keohane argues that international regimes decrease "transaction costs" for parties involved, thereby increasing incentives to cooperate (90).
Keohane was heavily influence by Ernst Haas who challenged the statist view in international politics and argued that the actors in international relations are all entities capable of putting forth demands effectively; "who or what these entities may be cannot be answered a priori," (1964, 84). Thus, Keohane is opposed to the realists' argument on the insignificance of international institutions and argues that regimes can affect the interests and policies of states by influencing their "expectations and values," (63). Although he accepts that international regimes are not "beyond the nation-state," he maintains that they are not pure "dependent variables" as argued by neorealists, but rather "intervening variables" with semi-independent effects on states' behavior (63-4). Therefore, international regimes are easier to maintain than to create (50).

I do not have significant problems with the institutionalist theory Keohane develops in After Hegemony. Yet I must confess that institutional theory is more a theory of international cooperation than a theory of international relations. By borrowing from both realism and liberalism, Keohane succeeded in developing a concrete and persuasive theory of cooperation among states. Also, like some others (Moravscik 1997, Mearsheimer 1995, Gilpin 2001) I do not think that Keohane's institutional theory can be regarded as a "neoliberal" argument. Keohane shares realism's assumptions of anarchy, rationality, and egoism but maintains a more optimistic view on the cooperation among states. Hence, as he himself states elsewhere, his position is not "against" structural realism, but "beyond" structural realism (1984, 191). Personally, I would rather consider him an "optimistic realist" than a "neoliberal institutionalist". Yet this does not undermine the strength of his arguments.

Finally, if empirical evidence is a support to the accuracy of theories, the history of the European Union since the end of the Cold War gives extensive support to Keohane's argument on international institutions. Some realist (Mearsheimer 1990) expected a reversal in the integration of European countries after the end of the Cold War. By contrast, Keohane argued that because common interests are likely to persists and the institutions of the European Community are well-entrenched, we should expect further integration in Europe (1993, 291). The current deepening as well as expansion of European integration after the Cold War confirms Keohane's prediction and gives further support to Keohane's institutional arguments.

Hegemony is a popular buzz word in international politics these days. Talking heads throw it around every Sunday morning. So one might expect a book entitled After Hegemony to be discussion on American foreign policy "after hegemony." In this case - Wrong! This is a nearly 20 year old book with a title that is currently a trendy topic. And it deals with political economy and "regime" formation, such as international monetary regime, international trade regime, and international oil regime, how these regimes were founded during the time period the author considers the time of US economic (and military) hegemony (the 1950's and 60's) and how they evolved during the years after US hegemony had passed according to the author.

For students and academics who are interested in the political and economic theory of how organizations are created and evolve, how "rational actors" (governments) behave on the macro scale, how preponderance of power allows a nation to create regimes (that is rules sets) that favor its policies, how these regimes become self-perpetuating, this is the book. It is an academic analysis of the subjects.

If you are looking for something relating to the oft discussed current "American Hegemony" and its likely impact on US and world relations, this is not the book. Look on.

Robert Keohane is one of the top five International Relations theorists today. His book "After Hegemony", written in 1984, is considered to be the iniciator of the neoliberal institutionalist school of IR. In this book, Keohane shows that although states live in an anarchic world and are racional actors, they can cooperate with each other through institutions. This book revolutionalised the field and opened a fierce debate on cooperation that lasts until now. A very interesting book written by a master in the field - that is enough recommendation.

Author makes some statements that children in a marriage will lead to unhappiness. I have two teenage daughters and they do bring unhappiness at time, but this is temporary and there behavior can be corrected, bringing joy again.

Brooks sets out to discover who is happy, and why. The information is likely to surprise you.

For one thing, "Religious people of all faiths are much, much happier than secularists" (p 44). The difference is huge. "Of those who believed there is no way to find out if God exists, a paltry 12% claimed to be very happy people" (p 46). Hmmm...no wonder Dawkins and Hitchens' books drip with unhappiness and malice.

And here's one those famous atheists will really gag on: "Religious individuals today are actually better educated and less ignorant of the world around them than secularists" (p 51).

Married people are happier than those who are single, too. Researchers studied people who seemed alike "but one is married and the other is not, the married person will be 18 percentage points more likely than the unmarried person to say he or she is very happy" (61). This will come a as a blow to the feminists.

Among the nations, North Korea is at the bottom of the happiness scale, with Cuba a close second (p 91). What, atheist communism hasn't brought happiness? Shocker.

On the other hand, mere wealth doesn't help much, once a country has achieved a decent level of health and nutrition. At least the wealth of Japan is not helping. And Mexicans are much happier, on average, than the French.

And here is one I would not have guessed: "For most Americans, job satisfaction is nearly equivalent to life satisfaction. Among those who say they are very happy in their lives, 95% are also satisfied with their jobs" (p 159).

This is a interesting and fun.

I have read 'Gross National Happiness and I am very disillusioned with it. The first few chapters provided some insights but after that it digressed into cherry picking of data and, what I believe is stretching the facts with misrepresentations and misinterpretations of the data, all to foster the author's conservative beliefs. It is really pathetic from a scientific point of view. When I finished, I was totally disgusted.

The author is supposed to be an academic (even an economist) and claims the book is research. But it is a polemic, in my view. He refers to "averages" when the distributions are clearly non-Gaussian (such as the distribution of income) so he should be using medians - "averages" is not a statistical definition - he should define it as a mean or median but I assume he uses means as they help to make his argument. He uses regression to argue causality when all it shows is a relationship (that may well be spurious). And he jumps back and forth between "findings", beliefs, personal views and "conclusions" - many of which do not logically follow.

I do not recommend this book. If I could, I would have given it zero stars.

This book was motivated by the fact although "the pursuit of happiness" is enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, "little has been done ... to find out what actually makes America a happy nation" (front inside of dustcover). The book argues that what make America happy are: political orientation, marriage, income (albeit unequal), giving to charity, and work. These are the subjects of the chapters of the book, divided into parts: "The culture of happiness" and "the economics of happiness." The latter is a misnomer for the "business of happiness."

The first part consists of four chapters and the second includes a few more chapters. While Part I focuses on non-monetary matters like family, religion, and such, Part II is mainly about the connections of happiness to money; how money can sometimes "buy" happiness; and why inequality, no matter how bad, does not prevent individual upward mobility. In the end the book concludes that happiness is a personal and internal condition; if someone wants it, he/she must work full-time for it. Among the chapters of Part II, Chapter 8 on giving to charity as "the secret of buying happiness" is simply the greatest.

The book ends with a list of prescriptions for happiness: avoiding extremism, having a religious faith, having a decent family life, serving and protecting freedom, promoting equality of opportunities for all, celebrating work, giving to charity, respecting the humanity of others including enemies, and limiting government involvement in the business of life. Some of the prescriptions derive beautifully from the analyses of the book, and some appear to be ideological afterthoughts - poorly articulated and perhaps not even necessary. But, hey, why stress the negative when the purpose of writing is to communicate thoughts freely? No one should be penalized for sharing their thoughts. A good read.

Amavilah, Author
Modeling Determinants of Income in Embedded Economies
ISBN: 1600210465
http://www.amazon.com/Modeling-Income-Determinants-Embedded-Economies/dp/1600210465%3FSubscriptionId%3D1NNRF7QZ418V218YP1R2%26tag%3Dbookfindercom0e%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3D1600210465

Arthur Brooks is to be applauded for writing a book with conclusions based on data. However, he wasn't able to convince me that the methodology for obtaining most of that data is a reliable indicator of happiness. When people are asked "Are you happy?" they may give you an honest or a dishonest answer, but you cannot be sure. Brooks tries to allay this concern by arguing that surveys have replicated the results, but this is still unsatisfactory. If conservatives are more likely to say that they are happy, then this, and only this, is what we can conclude: that conservatives are more likely to say that they are happy. The right question to ask, then, is not, "Why are conservatives happier?" but "Why are conservatives more likely to say they are happier?" The reason could be that they are happier. But you might pose alternative hypotheses. For example, it could be more socially acceptable in America to say that you are happy. Conservatives are more likely to obey this cultural rule. Liberals, atheists, and other cultural rebels may feel freer to break the rule. I'm not proposing this as an actual cause of the results reported in Brooks's book, but the fact that he takes people's responses at face value and doesn't dig deeper is a reason to question those results and is a bit disappointing if you were hoping for a deeper analysis.

I'm one of the readers who suspects Brooks of having a political agenda. The reason isn't simply that he finds that you are more likely to be happy if you are conservative, religious, hard-working, and family-oriented, in addition to living in a society which promotes opportunity but not economic equality, charity rather than government support of the disadvantaged, and limited government. Rather, it is because he focuses on political issues such as these, to the exclusion of other, more benign factors. Does active participation in a sport make people happy? How about owning a pet? Reading novels, shopping, watching TV, going to art museums? How about political activism, foreign travel, great cooking? And what about less benign factors? Does your happiness depend to any extent on what race you are? Why are topics like these missing from this book? By focusing on factors that support the conservative agenda, Brooks does raise suspicions about his motives.

Nonetheless, what is there is interesting, fairly light if not exciting reading, but with a few surprises thrown in.

Every day it seems the world looks a little more broken to me. It helps so much to read a few pages of Wendell Berry. He is a fantastic example of someone who thinks for himself; and really strives to get to the core truth about the important issues we face as a civilization. It should be required reading for everyone in the United States - IF we want to get on a path to restoration and healing of our society. But that's where the scary part comes in. I'm beginning to think people would put this book down and give up on it a few pages in. Even if they did get all the way to the end, not many would be willing to put the ideas into practice in their daily lives.

I picked this selection for my book club, and it was very interesting to watch the responses of the participants. You could sense the tension - watch them wiggling in their chairs. They were so relieved when we were finally done with the book; and not because it was poorly written; just because it requires an examination of how far we've all fallen from what is true. I will continue to encourage people to read this excellent and important book, but it will never be an easy sell...and that's a shame.

This highly stimulating collection of Berry's essays contains some of the most important things Berry has written. The essay "Christianity and the Survival of Creation" is one of the most insightful and important theological statements of our day. It is in everyone's best interest to work to see that the organized churches take Berry's essay to heart. Of course, the book is also notable for the beauty of Berry's writing -- not coincidental, since he argues here and elsewhere for a recovery of the idea of work as sacred and for beauty as a measure of "right livelihood."

This is the first Wendell Berry book that I've read, and from the introduction, I found it to be an immensely interesting and engaging read. I was amazed at how skillfully Berry could take complex social issues and boil them down into bite-sized (read: understandable) pieces. I typically wouldn't find myself being overly interested in a collection of essays like this, but needless to say, I was pleasantly surprised by the enjoyable read.

The one element of this book that was hard for me to swallow was Berry's overly idealistic view of people and communities. Granted, significant changes to the current social, economic, and agricultural systems would most likely have to begin in the mind of an idealistic individual, but I felt like many of Berry's arguments rested solely on the inherent goodness of people as a whole. Here's the core problem - individuals act in their own self interest. People are selfish.

This is still a worthy book to read, however, and can bring about fantastic discussion. (I may be frequenting a farmer's market now, as a result of his arguments...Just trying to close the distance between producer and consumer!) Read it and wrestle with it.

This, I think, is a difficult book to review. There are so many diverse themes throughout the book that it is hard to describe what the book is "about", and my reaction to the book was a mixture of excitement, personal conviction, and intellectual challenge. Yet, hopefully I can get something coherent down for you.

The book is a collection of eight essays written by Berry, all of which deal (sometimes loosely) with the degradation of community. "Community" is a term of art for Berry; it is more than merely a group of people living in close proximity to one another who happen, from time to time, to bump into each other at the store. Rather, community is a defined group of people who live together in a particular place, over time, in a way that fosters a strong sense of togetherness. People who have this type of community have experiences together in everyday life, such as work, play, tragedy, and joy. In community of this nature there is a sense of belonging that most Americans today would not be able to relate to.

Berry is not the only intellectual (a label I would guess he'd hate hear applied to himself) to suggest not only that our communities are deteriorating, but that this deterioration adversely effects the quality and essence of our lives. For a more empirical approach to the subject, see especially Bowling Alone : The Collapse and Revival of American Community by Robert Putnam. I think when Berry's book is read in light of Putnam's we see not only a picture of the problem but also a recipe for the remedy.

Berry is a challenging author. He is at times very radical, and he sometimes employs demagoguery to press his point. However, when taken as a whole he approaches his topic from a position of humility and honesty. There is even a sense, after coming to grips with this humility and honesty, that Berry comes to his subject with righteous indignation. He is clearly passionate about small, rural communities like his own, and his passion easily rubs off onto the reader. After reading this book, I feel like I have a heightened sense of compassion for people who are trying to keep their communities alive.

This book is probably not for everyone. I would recommend it to people who already have sympathies for the rural, self-sufficient lifestyle and those especially who have concerns for the quality of our environment (a topic that Berry hits upon numerous times). This is not to say that this book cannot change minds. However, many people who read this book from the point of view of an average modern American will dismiss Berry's ideas as utterly and hopelessly out of date. This is because Berry criticizes the way in which most of us (including himself, he admits) tend to live our lives. It takes a special intellectual state of mind to read such a book, in which you are being criticized, and keep an open mind. I hope that, if this book is for yourself, that you do keep an open mind, and allow Berry to convince you that he is right, and to show you a better way. Happy reading!

...thinkers I was exposed to in high school while researching for an essay report. His well-balanced thoughts on various agrarian and community-based themes are the most eloquent I have found from a single writer. His words and rationales spring from the land and argue pursuasively for more restraint for the betterment of the world by the human animal. The most compelling living philospher I know of is Wendell Berry. I recommend all of his written works.

I would not take Stupid White Men seriously. I wonder if it was intended as a humorous sally lobbied into the ether, but you can't be sure with Moore. It comes across as a rant against every ill he can conjure up that oppresses his view of what America should be - and clearly isn't, at least to Moore. I found it very funny at times, but I also found it very one-sided and even disturbing, as when he suggests that blacks in America will one day rise up and violently overpower whites.
I think to suggest that white men are the sole reason this country is in bad shape is simplistic, although I definitely agreed with some of his reasoning. There is no doubt in my mind that white men have perpetrated many ills. But how can you paint the picture so broadly? Moore can, happily. He never bothers to give us both sides of the equation - this is a one-sided rant that picks up steam as it goes on, as if he's writing it while swilling down a giant tanker of coffee.
Moore has been characterized as a hysterical populist who has tinkered with the footage of his movies and, in real life, ain't such a nice guy. I don't know if he is, or he isn't. I read this book for entertainment purposes only - to take it seriously would suggest a higher level of reasoning and deduction than are contained therein.

I do not really think this book is for someone that has a thorough knowledge of politics. In general, it could have been written in a more eloquent manner; as it is easy to notice that it is for the average, disgruntled American or someone that does not like America period. Most of these people do not read enough to criticize anything. If you are ignorant to the dynamic of American politics than this book seems like it is revealing something profound. Truly, it is not. Moore tries to be a "shock jock" in the political sense but he is more than likely a hypocrite in many different ways. If you want to hear a unique yet a poorly defined argument, than read this book. I would not waste my money or time on this book. Be warned about Moore because he is really sly in how he presents his research. I also get the feeling that he is anti-semitic. Moore also tries to appeal to the poor, the lower middle class, and to minorities in a way that makes him seem holier than thou. It is my honest guess that he is a flaming racist as well, even though he pretends not to be. Moore is a fake. Do not be taken by the way he constructs his arguments as there are many holes in his presentation. If you are using this book to present a well-defined argument, something with more clout, than read Noam Chomsky. I do not always agree with Noam Chomsky but at least you could be prepared to tackle all sides of a political argument, whether you agree or disagree. Lastly, do not let Moore put you into an emotionally charged state that is his usual aim, it is so obvious and weak on his part. Honestly, it's hilarious that he actually wasted people's time in droves, including my own. In the interim he made money, I should have never read it. As someone else said, even a penny is too much for this book! You may even have a few smirks or laughs at the content, but it is not worth such an unsophisticated experience. In retrospect, I wonder if he wrote this book the way that most respectable authors would have written it; or did he just put on a cape, a top hat, and wave his magic wand and said, "Abracadabra!" It is shameful that Moore IS aware of the group of people that he is using in order to get his poorly examined point across. Moore's formula reminds me of Ralph Nader's speeches because he complains about everything but I am not underneath the guise that he tries to create. Moore has an alterior motive and I am not convinced that he believes his own argument which is drowning in mediocrity and ignorance. If Moore ran for President of the United States, would you vote for him? Just think about Moore running the country for four years! Please! Spare me. I would vote for the Fonz before I voted for Micheal Moore. Do you understand? Do not buy this book.

Upon the release of Stupid White Men, Michael Moore has arguably established himself as the answer of moderates and liberals to the likes of corporate America.

Though many are outraged about the allegations of this book, it is not so apparent that Moore's critics and opponents have answered the indictments in this publication with strong, highly reasonable, clearly expressed responses. From what I see and hear on most of the news shows, the only discussions from pundits center around using false diatribes and trying with no success to portray Moore as an anti-patriot. They just cannot seem to effectively deconstruct the perceived merits and flaws of this work, whether in print or on film.

I do agree that this book might be somewhat slanted, but the so-called extenuating circumstances that critics have tried to espouse in defense of the State of the Union hold very little weight. And who are these critics? Again, Moore's opponents.

Don't get me wrong. There are annoyances from the leftist view, but when you have those espousing their venom under the guise of news talk radio, leaving little room, if any, for other points of view, perhaps for those other opinions to receive any undivided, uninterrupted attention this book had to come out.

Our nation is divided. Plus, it does not help when it is so apparent that those in power seek to elevate their status, regardless of whether it is at the expense of America's working classes. And if they took the time to read this book, then they might conclude deep down inside that Moore has managed to hold a mirror that reflects their greedy, prideful arrogance.

This is an autobiography, I think. Michael is about the size of two of me, which means that he can be considered more than one.

In fact, the better title for this book would have been "The Stupid White Whale." But I think Mr. Moore respects whales, so he didn't do that.

He was 100% right on everything. Time is the true judge and it show Michael 100% right about Bush. He picked his buddy to run government. How many have resigned, been indicted, be convicted? Remember FEMA and Katrina?

As we watch the Democrats and Republicans "square-off" again, Professor Boller has done a Yeoman's job with this classic of American politics, reminding us what this "National crazy season" is all about. Here in one volume, Boller summarizes all but the last four of America's Presidential campaigns: from the first, George Washington's in 1789, to the fortieth, Ronald Reagan's in 1980.

My favorite campaign is the 1876 disputed and brokered election, reminiscent of the "Supreme Court decided" 2000 election. The 1876 election took place in Philadelphia during the Nation's Centennial Year, between two Governors: Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio and Samuel J. Tilden of New York. Arguably this was the most controversial as well as the most defining campaign of all of American History. Hayes a Republican, known for his honesty and integrity and Tilden known as a reformer, squared off over how to deal with the remnants of the Civil War, the primary issue of which was how to end Reconstruction.

Tilden, the Northerner, and a pro-slavery proponent, sympathies lay with the South and with ending Reconstruction and removing Federal troops from occupying the South, thus leaving the South to manage its own affairs -- meaning of course leaving the problem of what to do with the freed slaves up to the white southerners. Under Tilden's formula the slaves were thus to be left to their own devices in a sea of hostile "foaming at the mouth" Southerners still licking their wounds from the lost of the Civil War. Hayes, though a Republican, was not a Radical "pro-freedom" Republican, and thus was only slightly less accommodating to maintaining the Reconstruction status quo than was Tilden.

When the dust settled, both were short of the necessary electoral college votes, with the 20 votes of SC, La., Fa., and Ore. still in doubt -- even though Tilden had garnered a quarter million more votes than Hayes. Tilden needed only one of the outstanding 20 Electoral College votes, while Hayes needed all 20. Yet after the back room haggling ended, a compromise was struck with Hayes declared the winner. Hayes may have won the battle but Tilden won the war: Reconstruction was ended; the ex-slaves were sacrificed in the process; and the "Jim Crow curtain" descended on the U.S. for the next one hundred years.

The book is well-research, written with the flair of a journalist and full of interesting anecdotes and colorful stories.

Five Stars

I own a previous edition of this book. Facinating information about each campaign. You think 2000 was bad? Take a look at 1876 or 1824. I'd offer more in this review, but it's 4 am and I need to get back to sleep.

This book reminds me again just how much fun the study of history can be. The basic facts of Presidential elections from the beginning to today are solid historical accounts. But they also include the tidbits of electoral trivia that go on in each election, but that are often obscure or unnoticed. This book is both informative and entertaining. I plan to give it as a gift to my opthomologist who is also a history buff. As a retired history professor I look forward to chatting with him during my annual examinations.

Presidential Campaigns: From George Washington To George W. Bush by Paul F. Boller, Jr. is a lively, informative, and often surprising history of American presidential election campaigns. This is a complete chronological history of from the unanimously concented ascent of General george Washionhton, to the divisively contested Gore vs. Bush recall scandal. Presidental Campaigns is a superbly written and presented political history that, in these politically divise days of presential electioneering, deserves as wide a readership as possible among the electorate.

You wouldn't have recognized the election of 1789. There were no primaries, nominating convention, rival candidates, campaign speeches, or debates on public issues." (All quotes are direct from the book.) Yet the will of the people was perfectly expressed. Everyone simply agreed that Washington had to be the President. Four years later they had political parties, but both of them picked Washington. That was the end of the smooth sailing.

In 1796 Adams and Jefferson remained on friendly terms with each other, but had their supporters do a lot of name calling (sound familiar?). By 1800 Adams was calling Jefferson ... well, read the book. Suffice to say, the American way of politics was in full swing, has continued unabated until now and shows no sign of making significant changes in the future.

I must say that I do miss the rum. When Washington was running for the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1758, there were 391 elgible voters. Washington gave them 160 gallons of rum. It's kind of a wonder just how they could vote.

This is a delightful book. I remember taking American History in college, and that was pretty dull. This reads like a novel, full of interesting anecdotes while conveying the facts as well.

Patrick Buchanan's readable style and straightforward approach to a difficult problem, makes this book outstanding in its field. His use of commonly accepted statistics, historical trends and today's headlines assures the reader that they are on solid ground. As usual Mr. Buchanan is a bellwether of common sense and the ideals of our Founding Fathers. Immigration IS the issue of our times.

Illegal immigration is a big problem for America. It is being debated for many years. Due to a huge Hispanic population, many politicians are doing their utmost to avoid this kind of debates. I command Mr. Buchanan for facing it without hesitation. In "State of Emergency" he discusses the problem of US immigration, providing a lot of valuable statistics. This book is a wake up call for all Americans. Especially, it is a call to the politicians to forget about their divisions, political correctness and political opportunism, to unite and to do something useful for a change. For a good background on American Immigration I suggest reading Coming To America: The Story Of Immigration by Betsy Maestro.

I purchased this book for Fathers' day for my husband. I have not read the book yet,but my husband liked it very much.

Buchanan has a total grasp on world politics. His warnings are solid and the USA must not ignore them if we are to survive as a free nation. The demographic shift that is happening as you read this is real.

Disclaimer: I am not the Mike Ferry who wrote the book listed on Amazon "How to Develop a Six Figure Income in Real Estate"
(paperback Nov. 1, 1992). But I think that I shall put it on my wish list.

Consider: Jamiel Shaw Jr. (age 17) was gunned down March 2, 2008 near his home allegedly by an illegal alien 18th Street gang member just 24 hours after the killer's release from an L.A. County jail. The victim's mother (an Army Sgt.) was serving her second tour of duty in Iraq. The victim's father heard the fatal shots being fired.

Consider: Jamiel Shaw Jr. was black but not a gang member. He was a football star who last season ran 74 times for a total of 1,052 yards. The last pass of his football career was a 60 yard touchdown strike. He was intent on going to college.

Consider: The first L.A. County prosecutor assigned to the case wanted to paint the murder victim as gang affliated so the motive for murder could be tossed on the public table as gang related. The real motive for Jamiel's murder is that in and about L.A. County illegal alien reinforced gangs are killing black youths; but since L.A. is a sanctuary city no city nor county politician will tell you that can possibly be the case.

Consider: August 6, 2007 four black teens (three of whom where found to have Delaware State University I.D.s) where lined up against a wall near a school parking lot in Newark, NJ and shot in the head. Three died and one was reported in fair condition. The prime suspects are illegal aliens.

Consider: Tom Bradley was the first black mayor of Los Angeles. Ponder: Based on realistic demographics, when do you suppose L.A. will have another black mayor?

Consider: Ted Hayes who is black and has been an outspoken advocate for the homeless (he even sat in the Wally George hot seat some 20+ years back) has campaigned with the Minutemen. Why? What has he figured out about massive demographic shifts from illegal alien influxes that the rest of the Maxine Waters voters haven't? Perhaps Mr. Hayes is concerned that those same type of voters will become increasingly politically marginalized.

Consider: Congressional sources reveal that 25 people in America are killed every day by illegal aliens (12 are killed by violence and another 13 are killed by illegal alien drunk drivers). If you do the math with a 364 day year, you get 9,100 dead people in America every year who in theory should still be alive were it not for illegal immigration.

Consider: The Bubonic Plague dramatically contributed to the strengthening and ultimate rise of the middle- class in Western Europe due to the fact that labor (especially skilled labor) gained new found value because of scarcity. With massive numbers of hard working (yes, I concede most illegal aliens have a strong work ethic) illegal aliens pouring into the U.S.A., is it unreasonable to suggest that the lower rung of America's hardscrabble middle-class might some day pretty much disappear? In my neighborhood you don't see many (any) roofers that look like they can read the front cover of the Los Angeles Times. Maybe you live in the Midwest and have memories of when a living wage was paid to meat packers and chicken processors.

Consider: Pat Buchanan's other book "Where the Right Went Wrong" and look closely at the chapter titled "Economic Treason". With upper skilled jobs moving offshore and jobs that Americans just won't do here in country being given to illegal aliens, is it just nuts to suggest that (with the exception of financial planners and interior decorators) the American middle-class is under attack? Where America's middle-class goes, so goes America.

Consider: Muslim immigration (illegal and otherwise) in Western Europe. [I know that doesn't read as a complete sentence, but the word 'consider' is the verb and you (implied) is the subject.] France had some issues with this situation, but it wasn't something that thousands of torched cars and a few burned out city blocks couldn't solve... temporarily. So I wonder, how many illegal alien Muslims do we have in the U.S., and what are their intentions?

America is mankind's last best hope. We are that shining city on the hill. The hill; however, has some serious erosion problems. I know many people believe immigration strengthens and renews America. I agree. America legally allows more people into this county every year than all the other countries of the world combined. But if you defend illegal alien immigration to this country, do you have a limit? Most of the people who come here illegally leave their countries of origin because their own respective cultures and societies have failed them. How many people from corrupt cultures and faltering societies can be packed into any given area before that area starts to resemble the same culture and society those very people fled? Last I heard there are over six billion people on this planet; just how many of them do you want here?

Enjoy Pat's book. It only keeps me awake at night when I think about it.