Politics Government Books

Order arrived promptly, the book was in great condition like the seller said. Would purchase again from this seller

The selected readings provide a useful reference to classic public administration literature. The writings are presented in a general chronological order covering topics important to the various time periods. The book could be improved with an updated edition of current literature (stops around the Carter presidency.) An index would be helpful. Overall, a worthwhile addition to one's political science library. I refer to it often.

FULL MARKS GOES TO SHAFRITZ AND HYDE FOR THIS EXCLUSIVE WORK WHILE EVEN FINDING A LITERATURE ABOUT PUBLIC ADMN. IS GETTING DIFFICULT. THANKS TO BOTH!

If you are unhappy about press coverage for a Presidential candidate you are supporting, you will love this book. The author offers detailed examples from both daily press coverage and scholarly articles and books as to how the media is harming American democracy by trivializing the campaigns and obscuring the messages the candidates are trying to get out. He thinks all major party candidates are poorly covered, and he unhappily blames the media for Ross Perot's strong 1992 showing.

The author blames the McGovern-Fraser Commission of 1969-1970 for empowering the press to play a major political role under the guise of opening up the system to the voters and taking control away from party bosses. He believes the party bosses produced far better candidates and Presidents--Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson--than did the voters. This reviewer certainly agrees that the boldness of Presidential leadership has become greatly attenuated in the modern era.

The author blames the media for relentless negative coverage which demeans government and the Presidency in the eyes of the people, and thus makes governing effectively extremely difficult. The greater the exposure to media coverage, the more negative toward the candidates the voters feel.

The media, he says, is a "miscast institution" in the Presidential primary process. They are concerned with what is new and newsworthy, and not what is significant over the long run. The voters are much more concerned with issues of long-range significance than the media is, he argues. A position paper on a major issue will perhaps get a day's worth of coverage, while a gaffe by the candidate can last for a week or two or more.

The media, he finds, is more about game than governing. The initiatives of candidates to build a broad coalition capable of leading our country is reduced to game elements. We learn of day by day strategical considerations, but do not learn of consistently pursued goals over the length of the candidate's career. The candidate is left with having who he or she is personified by strategical campaign decisions, since the candidate's record and plans for the future are essentially only on the table on those rare occasions--often in new media--where the candidate can get his or her message across without having it distorted by media interpretation.

The images of the campaign are all important. Media coverage can create a bandwagon effect, where candidates are backed by voters largely because other voters are backing them. He quotes the Markle Commission analysis of the 1988 Presidential campaign: "Viewers and readers are implicitly invited to assume that the strategic political game is a worthy and possibly a sufficent test of suitablity for office, and that the shrewdest candidate with the most effective campaign both wins and deserves the Presidency for that reason alone."

The author's conclusion about campaign imagery states that "The voters, as V.O. Key noted, 'are not fools.' But their decisions can be foolish when they are forced to choice without adequate guidance. They depend on the press for information about the candidates. Much of the information they receive is useful, but much of it consists of fanciful imagery."

There is a major difference, the author writes, between reporter' issues and voters' issues. Reporters want to know what a candidate thinks about what a rival did last night, while voters want to know what the candidate will do that affects their lives if he or she is elected President. The voter issues are gnerally far more relevant to the actual conduct of the Presidency than are the media issues.

The author quotes Walter Lippman, a keen Washington observer from the administration of Woodrow Wilson to that of Lyndon Johnson, many times, including the Lippman quote that "News and truth are not the same thing, and must be clearly distinguished." News, Lippman says, is found in particular events rather than in the underlying forces that create them. News is a small and unrepresentative manifestation of a vastly more intricate reality. It is what is new and out of the ordinary and thus atypical and a weak base for judging trends that are powerful and lasting.

The author further blames the media for its fascination with early winners and electability, and says that these foci "fails to distribute power evenly across the electorate." He sees the media as especially strong in primaries, where "Voters are not anchored by party loyalties, and most of them are feebly motivated and poorly informed. In these circumstances, the press' interpretations of wht is happening in the race, and the glare of its spotlight, can significantly influence the vote."

He calls the voter's process of decision the "whimsical vote" and says it is analagous to Herbert Krugman's "learning without involvement" in which "attitudes and motiavations are weak, but people do absorb some information. People 'learn ' the message, and since they are 'uninvolved' do not resist it." This contrasts with a "situation where people have strong attitudes" and "information is tested against existing beliefs, and affected by these beliefs....In this case, the individual is largely in control. Wheras, in the case of 'learning without involvement,' power rests primarily with the communicator."

The way to fix the campaign, the author concludes, is to shorten it. He envisions primaries right before the national conventions. What is actually happening, of course, is that the nomination process is being shortened to end in February, but the campaign is being lengthened, with a long period of two virtual nominees facing each other.

It is difficult for any review to do this book justice. The arguments the author makes are so filled with facts and cogent analysis that they are not easy to adequately summarize. Few sentences are wasted. Few references to scholarly texts can be dismissed as being pedantic, and few references to actual media coverage can be dismissed as anecdotal irrelevance.

With a scope of coverage from the election of John Kennedy in 1960 to the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, as well as prior historical references, this book may well be the most thorough and analytical treatment of the modern Presidential nominating process ever written. No reporter should attempt to cover a Presidential campaign without it. No candidate or campaign manager should attempt to win the Presidency without studying it closely.

My jerk, hippy, liberally biased professor made Out of Order a required reading. So I went into it expecting to cringe with disagreement. A nice surprise to me, what Patterson had to say was well thought out and really made a lot of good points about the media and its role in elections. It was a bit repetitive at times but I don't even care because it was the only book that I didn't loathe reading in my government class.

This book was required reading for a seminar and I found it very beneficial in understanding the strained relationship between two groups with conflicting goals: the media and elected officials.

I especially enjoyed his analysis on reporters making news with their interpretation of the facts.

I'm very excited to add that I will be meeting Tom Patterson and hope he will expand upon his books results as they relate to our current political situation. I welcome any questions you would like me to submit.

This book is a must-read for any student of the media or politics. Thomas Patterson writes a terrific critique of the role the media has played in corrupting politics - particularly the political election process - arguing persuasively that things are now "out of order." Patterson provides numerous examples of how the media has negatively impacted elections. Some of these are:

1. Articles about campaigns focus on the "horse race," or the constant jockeying between candidates and their campaigns, rather than on the actual platforms of the candidates or the important issues being discussed.

2. Great emphasis is placed on poll results, and on candidates' rise and fall in the polls, rather than on their stated goals or positions on various issues.

3. Reporters travel around with a candidate for months on end (as the candidate travels around the country or state to meet with voters) and as a result start focusing more on internal problems within the campaign (campaign staffers disagreeing with each other, for example) than on the substance of the candidates' speeches. Minor gaffes, such as a candidate tripping, or a candidate's spouse saying something odd, take on much greater importance in the media than they should.

4. Media "talking heads" become celebrities in their own right and dominate news casts. They may show 30 seconds of a candidate's speech and then spend 5 minutes talking about their spin on the speech. This hardly gives the candidate much opportunity to communicate directly with the voter.

We've gotten to the point now where a substantial portion of articles about campaigns tell you everything about the campaigns *except* for the candidates' stances on actual issues. Patterson proposes a number of remedies for this: shorten the nominating primary season to 6 weeks, and make it so that candidates all have the opportunity to communicate with the electorate in some sort of national broadcast. Patterson believes that this will help reduce the impact of the media on the election and give the candidates a more direct communication vehicle with voters.

This is a fascinating read, and it has greatly influenced my understanding of the media and how it affects politics. I highly recommend it.

Thomas Patterson's sweeping indictment of the media is especially relevant this election year. The press is once again fulfilling Patterson's worst predictions of its behavior and making it easy to agree with his thesis that the media is failing its duties and harming our political process.

Patterson makes many points, but his central ones are below, and it's easy to find supporting examples from the 2000 campaign cycle:

1. The press sees the election as a game, not a democratic process. Its news stories are focused on the candidates' strategy, not their views, and makes the candidates look shallow and pandering as a result.

2. The tone of the news is generally negative. Candidates are relentlessly criticized and negative stories are much more frequent than positive ones.

3. The press focuses far too much on gaffes and trivialities. In the 2000 campaign, Bush's RATS ad and Gore's simple misstatements have resulted in feeding frenzies portraying both candidates as untrustworthy.

4. Journalists have become the center of the news. Much of the news has reporters' own interpretations as the main story (In an attempt to bolster his support among elderly voters, Bush/Gore ...), instead of quoting the candidates at length.

The inescapable conclusion is that the media is failing to inform the public of the important issues in a presidential campaign and contributes greatly to our general lack of faith in our political system.

Seems to be a well-researched and accurate account of why the Unites States is so despised among the Muslims of the world, and how we got there through the policies and actions of the Bush administrations in recent years, and the mistakes of years prior to that. Scary!

Michael Scheuer lets it all out and tells us that basically "The Emperor Has No Clothes". America needs more from our professioanl politicians, Military Officers and C.Y.A. (not CIA) intelligence agencies than the constant hubris, hyperbole and regular B.S. we receive on a daily basis. I appreciate that someone has the intestinal fortitude to tell the truth about America's damaging relationship, in Muslim eyes, with the likes of Saudi Arabia and Israel. We need to get out of the Middle East and let those conflicts burn themselves out while we concentrate on our OWN economy. We need to start a "Manhattan Project" or "Race to the Moon" type of mentality to rid our need of foreign oil. The only reason we are in the Middle East or cared about Kuwait was because of one thing and one thing only..."OIL". Hopefully the next person in the White House will not be another "Village Idiiot from Texas."

Written by an ex-CIA back office dude who could not beleive the non-sense he witnessed first hand. I voted for Pres. Bush twice. I bought into the "we gotta kill 'em all now!" stuff right from the start, going back to the first WTC attack in 1993. After 9/11, all bets were off. However, over time I noticed something was amiss. This book brings all of what is amiss into sharp focus. A must read for anyone who buys into the "WAR ON TERROR" - "WE MUST REMAIN ON THE ATTACK". Simply because we are not on the right track, and have not been from the start. A factual book thats hard to put down.

Mr. Scheuer takes a serious look at why U.S. policy towards our Islamist enemies is failing and makes a compelling argument for a means to reverse this trend. As someone with years of experience in our "global war on terrorism," his discussion regarding how to deal with our enemy on the field of battle are the most illuminating I have heard since the war began. He argues that our war strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan are tantamount to Grant and Sherman occupying Richmond and Atlanta while leaving the Confederate armies marching around the Southern countryside. We need to strike out at our enemies and utterly eliminate them before we even think about nation building.

This book should be required reading for any one that has an opinion is going to form one and be involved with the future of this country.Hubris is the only way that the present administration's view of Islam can be described. This is an attitude that forces Islam to see the west by default as the enemy.If our "leaders"military and diplomatic could read this book and try to begin to understand some of the thinking of the muslim world, we might just be able to get along with them and remember the fate of all emperors .Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror

The Sixties, by Texas A&M University historian Terry H. Anderson, takes the reader on an engrossingly readable journey through one of the most turbulent decades in American life. Beginning with the crew-cut conformity of 1950s Cold War culture and ending with the transition into the uneasy '70s, Anderson charts the rise of an idealistic generation of baby boomers and its contentious politics, widespread social activism, and revolutionary counterculture.

Anderson explores the rapidly shifting mood of the country with the idealism of the Kennedy years, the liberal advances of Johnson's "Great Society," and the growing discord over Vietnam that nearly tore America apart. The book also thematically navigates the decade's many currents of social change, including the anti-war movement, the civil rights struggle, and the plethora of liberation movements that drew inspiration from it. From the lunch counter sit-in of Greensboro, N.C. in 1960 and the rise of Martin Luther King, Jr. to the Black Power movement at the decade's end, Anderson illustrates the brutality of the backlash against civil rights, the disillusionment and radicalization of some of the movement's youth, and the eventual triumphs that would change America forever. He also discusses women's liberation and the feminist movement, as well as the students' rights, Chicano, Native American, gay rights, and environmental movements.

The Sixties is comprehensive, yet concise and, in many places, gripping. It shows how the decade had the effect of radically transforming life in America and challenging the unequal status quo that has characterized most of the nation's history. Despite the overwhelming and often violently repressive backlash provoked by these changes, the Cultural Revolution and the liberation movements have left an indelible imprint upon the country.

Since I was a child in the 1960s I am intrigued by the political processes of that decade; by the civil rights movement, Viet Nam, and the three presidents of that decade. I have read a number of books and was looking forward to reading The Sixties. I was disappointed. Mr. Anderson tilts his approach and inevitable editorial comments too far to the left and leaves the reader with the sense that the book had a political agenda rather than the book being an effort to provide an objective rendition of one of the more critical decades experienced by the United States. He writes very well; but there were times that the bias in favor of hippies, campus protestors, etc., was just too much to take. I have the benefit of sitting in "judgment" of the sixties (the decade, not the book) with total objectivity since I was only a kid at the time and based on all of my reading this book is simply too biased to the left to be taken seriously. I would certainly not have high school or college students read it if the purpose is to give an accurate historical perspective on the sixties.

When I first had to read this book for class I thought that it would be bad. After I read it I saw that it is a great book. The author looks at the 1960's in stages and covers virtualy every bit of that time period. He makes it fun to read about this time and it is a very scholaly look too. All in all I give it 5 stars and wish I could give it more.

This well written book covers one of, if not the most turbulent change riddled decade in fairly recent history. Readers will follow the development of the hippies and the splinter group, the Yippies (Youth International Party); the assassinations of public figures and the growing unrest on campuses and the outside world at large.

Sixties fashion and culture are also discussed. The music of that decade changed to reflect the times. 1960-1963 still had the 1950s influence and many girl groups emerged during this period. Folk was on the rise and Pete Seeger; Peter, Paul & Mary; Bob Dylan; the Kingston Trio and many other folkies were becoming more musically vocal against war and societal ills.

In 1964 the Beatles arrived in America and during 1963-64 the Beatle influence was resounding around the world. By 1965 to the decade's close, many groups, the Beatles included experimented with different styles of music and sang of the then current issues, e.g. anti-war songs. Stephen Stills of CSN/CSNY fame and prior to that, of Buffalo Springfield fame sang the 1967 Anti-War Anthem "For What It's Worth." The decade that started out seemingly innocent (1960-63) and evolved into a wonderful era of excellent music; cool cars like Falcons and Coronets and closed with a successful moon voyage and music festivals such as the Newport Jazz Festival and Woodstock (both 1969) is nicely covered in this book.

This was required reading for a graduate course in American history.

Terry H. Anderson did an exceptional job in his book delineating how a myriad of causes and movements got started and were conducted throughout the 1960's. Politically, the sixties were the most turbulent decade in America's history. Anderson took eight years to meticulously research and write a most informative book, explaining the chain of events that took place beginning in 1960 with a lunch counter sit-in at a Woolworth's in Greensboro, North Carolina, and ending with the end of the Vietnam War. This was not an easy task, considering many of the different movement organizations were not well organized, had no membership lists, and relied on small underground newspapers that were not published on a regularly scheduled basis. Anderson wisely noted that one can look back on the decade and glean from it much good for society that is still with us today; such as, the improvement in civil rights for minorities in America, and an awareness to improve the environment. One can also find social ills spawned by the decade that still plague American society today such as, the pernicious use of illegal drugs, and the sharp rise in teen-age pregnancy rates. Anderson took a different approach than most other historians who researched the sixties. He did not look at the decade from the standpoint of the leaders of the various movements, nor did he focus his attention on movement organizational history. Instead, Anderson's book is more of a national study of the sixties. In his approach, Anderson actually traced the chronological development of activism as it swept across the country, and how different movements allied with one another and/or became outgrowths of preceding struggles. In addition, he explained how activism spawned a completely new counter culture near the end of the decade. Thus, Anderson's book is an extremely useful social and political historical guide to the 1960's.

Anderson astutely traced how activism started with the struggle for civil rights that college students joined in the South. The sixties was also an age of television, and students were disgusted by the injustices and bloody violence against Blacks that they witnessed in news stories on television. Anderson noted that this was the catalyst that caused many White students to leave the safety of their college campuses, and travel down south on Freedom Rides to help Blacks fight the inequities of the Jim Crow laws. This activist desire to change America's status quo swept up both coasts, taking hold at elite universities where students created and joined liberal organizations. Once men started to go off to fight in Vietnam in 1965, activism started to change in two ways. First, besides just being involved in the civil rights struggle, activists took on the new cause of also demonstrating against the war. Secondly, activism spread to all the liberal cities across the country with large universities, including America's heartland. Although Anderson found that the New Left ideology came from many different influences, it was the ideas espoused in the Port Huron Statement, which typified many activists' dreams for how they wanted to transform American society.

In December of 1961, Robert Haber a University of Michigan student and president of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), along with other members of a steering committee, understood that the organization needed a manifesto to express its political and social ideals. In June of 1962 at a campsite in Port Huron Michigan, 43 SDS members and a few other activists spent five days debating a draft manifesto written by Tom Hayden, a student at the University of Michigan and editor of its newspaper. What eventually emerged was the Port Huron Statement, which examined "American politics, economics, racism, and foreign policy; the nuclear issue; the role of students; communism; and the themes and values of SDS" (62). The first line in the statement embodied the reason why students in the sixties took to becoming activist. "We are people of this generation bred in at least modest comfort, housed now in universities, looking uncomfortably to the world we inherit." Anderson's research indicated that many activists believed the manifesto's significance was far reaching. The Port Huron Statement repudiated all the socio-economic and political values of the 1950's. It also proposed a new idealism that Hayden claimed was a bit to the left of the Democratic party for the sixties such as, advocating "social programs to fight poverty, establish national health care, help family farmers, and develop equal educational opportunities" (63). By the 1972 Democratic Party convention, many of the ideals of the Port Huron Statement found their way into the party platform. They were placed there by a plethora of minority delegates from various movement streams that had finally attained recognition in a major American political party. "Compared with 1968, the ratio of female delegates at the 1972 convention tripled to almost 40 percent, blacks tripled to 15 percent, and those under the age of 30 soared from 2 to over 20 percent" (397). They nominated the most liberal candidate in the party's, Senator George McGovern, who was soundly defeated by President Richard Nixon in the election.

In conclusion, although many movement activists took the loss of the 1972 election as a bitter defeat of their sixties idealism, Anderson astutely proved that activism did not die in 1972--it took a slower more peaceful pace. New activist movements, more recently termed "pressure groups," owe their birthright to the movements and activists of the sixties such as, Gray Power, a movement of senior citizens that was formed to advocate for their demands. The recent and intense focus on "global warming" is certainly an outgrowth of the sixties activists' concerns for the protection of the environment. Finally, Anderson's book showed that although various sixties movements such as the SDS, Hippies and Yippies may have disappeared, activism is a part of the lifeblood of both of America's political parties. Since the sixties, Americans have been more receptive to questioning socio-economic, political, and religious institutions.

Recommended reading for anyone interested in American history, Civil Rights history.

This exhaustive, comprehensive and completely detailed masterpiece is a complete post-revisionist account of Reconstruction, providing analysis of every conceivable angle. It includes a convincing refutation of the Dunning school, why a revisionist school emerged, the nuts and bolts of Presidential Reconstruction, why "Radical Reconstruction" was never truly radical. The book describes how the undertaking was too vast for a small 19th century central government, why the state governments were unwilling and unable to deliver very much, and how ultimately, the effort failed.

There is an abridged version of this work for the general reader. However, I suggest a reading of the longer book. Even at 600 pages, it is worth it. As other reviewers have pointed out, this is the definitive account of reconstruction.

If you are looking for a cursory overview of the Reconstruction years following the American Civil War, this is NOT the book for you. However, if you are not afraid to take on a lot of historical facts, this is a good book that covers the political waxing and waning era. I've often wondered how we got from such a "righteous cause" to the turn of the century civil rights mess we had. This book helped me better understand the realities of the times. Not easy to read but worth the effot.

The period of post civil war reconstruction has largely been a mystery to me from the perspective of a mid-twentieth century public education. With the dearth of social ills now confronting us that previously could hardly have been imagined, I decided to take the time and read Froner's dense prize-winning account of reconstruction for any insights to why America seems to be failing so many of its citizens. Froner's deconstruction of the period is nothing short of a revelation - from the beginnings of class antagonisms, capital speculation and political influence, a brightline extends from the Reconstruction period directly to today's social ills, prejudice, war profiteering, crime and the prison-industrial complex, neoconservative agenda's and shady corporate deals. The wealth of documented source evidence and period pieces leave little doubt of the historical accuracy evident in the work - it is dense, fact-filled and notated, a sampling of which I double checked personally. Reconstruction illustrates that the abuses of our Constitution aren't new or original, but only the current incarnations of an evil born out of the greed and selfishness that pre-empted a rare opportunity to fulfill the promises made by our founding fathers. This is a must read book - more so today in light of the neoconservative and fascist resurgence cloaked in bloody patriotism and false morality. Facts add weight to the truth of history and the credibility of the author.

I finished this book this weekend. It took me the better part of the summer to get through the 600+ pages of text. This is not an easy read, in many cases it was downright depressing. Oftentimes, I stopped because I just couldn't read anymore. There was only so much 'man's inhumanity to man' you can take. While good, and righteous people sit on the sidelines and do nothing.

Other times this book had me racing to Google or Wikipedias to bring back knowledge about people and places Foner describes more fully. For all the salacious things said about the Radical Republicans a huge debt is owed to Senator Thaddeus Stevens. He led the charge for overturning President Johnson's veto on the 13th Amendment and help craft the 14th and 15th as well. Steven's was a visionary, and had we done what he advocated we might have preempted 100 years of prolonged guerilla warfare after the Civil War. I read that Steven's home in Lancaster, PA was being destroyed to build a convention center. It ironic because everywhere I go in the South there is yet another memorial to Lee, or Jackson, or some other aspect of the 'Lost Cause' yet no one has the fortitude to save the memory of this great American; Thaddeus Stevens.

Sad, tragic... just like this book.

This textbook was one of the first to point out the less-than-rosy treatment of blacks in the Reconstruction era, and such a text was long overdue. However, the narrative is painfully long and regularly repeats material covered in a previous chapter. You inevitably come to feel that Foner felt - in his eagerness to show the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - that it was better to overwhelm the reader with repetition than to risk a single point being lost. One begins to crave a good editor for Mr. Foner, which is unfortunate because this book - for all its faults) really does an admirable job of pointing out the plight of the ex-slave in the South. Bottom line: Reconstruction should be read, but the reading is very painful.

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"

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.

Chaper 2 was somewhat helpful but nothing new. Maybe I need to read it again.

I learned a great deal from the authors' explicit comparison of their views with those of King, Keohane, and Verba (KKV). Indeed, to a great extent, this book reads like an extended dialogue with KKV. The authors follow the strategy of trying to show that KKV was actually not a unified statement, but rather that Keohane's actual view departs, in significant respects, from what the trio said in their book.

One of the strengths of this book is the excellent discussion of the philosophy of the social sciences and how case studies fit into the quest for knowledge about social phenomena. I found it balanced and informative.

One shortcoming of the book's discussion of "process tracing," which I think is an innovative way of thinking about dynamic analysis, is that the authors seem unaware of event history analysis. Much of their discussion reads as if they still think of social science research as a successive series of cross-sections on the one hand, or detailed narrative presentations of processes on the other. One of the great advantages of event history analysis, which is now widespread in sociology, is that it gives an investigator the ability to do micro level analyses of the timing, pacing, and rhythm of change which would simply not be possible if we were confined to verbal descriptions.

I recommend this book to anyone who wants an alternative to the KKV view of the world and who is also interested in an introduction to how political scientists do case analysis.

Livro permite compreender a metodologia "estudo de caso" para além da mera antinomia "quantitativa" versus "qualitativa".

This book provides many wonderful insights into how to conduct case studies that can withstand methodoligical criticism from the quantoids. I have used many other texts to build case study strategies, but this one by far was the best. Concpets are made very clear and accessible, which allows for clear application of these ideas.