Politics Government Books

by trying to read this book. Quoting another reviewer, the author is "often guilty of over-generalizing, over-intellectualizing, & inundating his work with an excessive use of abstractions".

In The Search for Order, Robert Wiebe examines the changing American society between the end of Reconstruction and the end of World War I, and the struggle of the emerging middle class to compartmentalize and understand the changes around them. America experienced a significant amount of change between 1877 and 1920. New states entered the union, the frontier closed (or so was accepted at the time), a rural to urban shift produced large and disorganized cities, and the country emerged from isolation to become a world power. Depending mainly on secondary sources, Wiebe successfully argues that progressive reformers were not simply seeking a cleaner government, nor were they merely a group of displaced elite seeking to regain power, but a middle class attempting to establish new values.

Robert Wiebe creates an interesting social and structural study of the United States during a dynamic period of growth and change. While the progressive period was not sustained into the 1920s, the lasting impact is in the programs and legislation that nurtured a sense of continuity and functionality, and provided an understandable structure that the middle class masses could understand and thrive in. The Search for Order is a very readable and in-depth study of an important time period, and although the structure and placement of the final two chapters are questionable, the book remains essential reading for one trying to understand this, and succeeding time periods.

This book provides an excellent, and now classic, synthesis of the cultural, intellectual, and political evolutions during this period of industrialization, urbanization, and economic change. Highly recommended to scholars and highly accessible to amateurs.

In "The Search for Order," Robert Wiebe provides perhaps the first unifying overview of the American Progressive period. Beginning with the Reconstruction era, Wiebe presents the United States as "a nation of loosely connected islands." The economic panic of 1873 began what Wiebe describes as as a "soul searching" period for these homogenous, stable, primarily Protestant "island communities." America was noticeably changing from simple, locally-oriented communities guided by small town ethics to complex, interdependent societies seemingly controlled by distant and impersonal forces. Wiebe explains the ways in which Americans sought to regain some sense of order as this rapidly changing nation rumbled through the first decades of the twentieth century.

A "revolution in values" took place during this "search for order." Wiebe traces a pattern of "bureaucratization" in such diverse areas as science, philosophy, business, education, journalism, law, medicine, and social work (although Wiebe neglects the influence of arts and technology). A new middle class emerged as certain occupations such as law, medicine, and teaching became professionalized. Journalism became more scientific. Social workers began to establish their distinct field. "Idealists" and "utopianists" advocated the idea of progress by stages. A "business unionism" developed establishing a set of values for organized labor and carrying "the obligation that union executives become experts in their particular industry" (125). Factories turned to scientific management. With the establishment of the American Farm Burea, even farmers allowed their former image as "the people" to fade in favor of an agricultural business image. Such bureaucratic solutions were also attempted on an international level with the League of Nations (curiously, foreign policy makers seemed quite confident of America's superior place in the world despite domestic confusion). In other words, when the new middle class joined the Progressive movement, reform had altered its meaning from results to procedures.

The success of this bureaucratic integration was made evident by the ability of the nation to mobilize for the First World War. However, as Wiebe maintains, the successes of the Progressive movement actually helped lead to its downfall. Achievements such as financial reform following the panic of 1907, workmen's compensation laws, and policies under Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom "dulled the reforming urge" (212). Former Progressives began to defend the status quo as the nation entered the 1920s. What is more, the Progressives had "constructed just an approach to reform, mistaking it for the finished product" (223). Although Wiebe does not fully explain the reasons Americans turned to bureaucratic trends in their "search for order" and is often guilty of over-generalizing, over-intellectualizing, and inundating his work with an excessive use of abstractions, he does make a strong case that there was a "revolution in values" during the Progressive era. These values of Progressivism are with us today, including an active executive begun during the administrations of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

Historian Robert Wiebe examines the USA as it emerged from mostly rural society to an industrial giant during the years 1876-1920. The author shows that the USA grew from a series of largely independent, mostly Protestant, small-town communities at the end of Reconstruction, to a more interlocked, diverse, and urbanized society by the end of the First World War. As the USA grew into the world's foremost power, diffuse forces arose to both lead and to give the changing society a sense of order. Those forces included industrialization, professionalism, scientific management, progressive reform, bureaucracy, and urbanization. In short, most elements of modern society. Not that this melding process was perfect - much division, racism, and inequality remained - but the melding process was a powerful and successful one.

We studied this book in a college history class and it was one of the best we read; not as stiffly written as some histories and very informative.

I bought this book for a combat wounded friend who was with 1/8 Marines, the unit covered in Battle of Fallujah section of this book. He couldn't speak highly enough of Gilbertson's honest portrayal of men in battle. As others have noted, the photos are stunning and the text raw and personal. Tough to look at but necessary viewing to catch a glimpse of the reality of war.

Caveats: I'm neither a photographer nor a journalist.

Since reading Ashley's book, I've read and seen a lot regarding Iraq conflict.

For me, of all the staggering photojournalism produced by folks about Iraq (folks who definitely put their life on the line), this book stands out as the most human. I'd never considered how involved war photographers get and how much trauma they can go through as a result. As I started exploring war photography, this book showed me the cost on the people being documented as much as the cost on the the documentor. It's a a wonderful, complimentary piece of work to the War Photographer documentary, where James Nachtwey seems to be the most amazing internalizer of all things shocking.

Subsequently, I've read the Bang Bang Club which describes (in part) Kevin Carter's descent into suicide, partially aided by a single, controversial, Pulitzer prize-winning photograph he took.

I also appreciate the honesty with which he captured/defined his subjects. I haven't lost someone to a war, but I can't help thinking that his honesty is the most respectful way to treat his subjects - those that live and those that don't. But, even though that's my view, he still shows how families of the KIAs reacted to his work, often angrily.

To paraphrase another comment on this book, definitely not for those who can't handle the truth. But it is definitely worth way more than the price.

Note - there is a lot of great work along these lines about Iraq by many brave, honest photojournalists. I just feel like this one edges them out.

For a photo journal the print quality is not great with pixels visual in some of the photos. Also some are disrupted by the spinal crease as the photo is spread over 2 pages.

IN A WORD,OUTSTANDING! I DONT KNOW HOW THE AUTHOR GOT THE TITLE BY THE CENSORS. VERY CLEVER USE OF THE PHONETIC ALPHABET.TO THOSE WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE MILITARY VERNACULAR IT SHOULD RAISE AN EYE. THE TITLE MADE ME TAKE A DOUBLE-TAKE ON THE SHELF AND I HAD TO BUY IT.THE CONTENT IS OUTSTANDING, AND THE PHOTOS BRING BACK VERY VIVID IMAGES OF THE SANDBOX.

What a breathtakingly vivid reflection of what we'd all sooner forget. This is an exquisite, painfully detailed collection of photos and text. Capa-worthy certainly. I can't wait to see what will come of such intense and exciting talent.

If you need access to MyPoliSci Lab online for your class, don't buy your book through Amazon. You'll have to buy the access code separately from the publisher for another $50+. Just get the book from your bookstore, or somewhere that includes an access code.

The book covers both history and the current political framework of the US. The history is covered briefly in the early chapters. In enough detail to explain key ideas and debates that shaped the nation. Federalism especially. We see how the early United States cobbled together an initially fragile federal government, that gained strength with the passing decades. Enough to prevail in the Civil War.

Most of the text describes many aspects of the contemporary scene. Including factors like the role of the media in effecting the political debate, by investigating issues. Here, the narrative delves into subtopics like a possible ideological bias by journalists.

The book also has sidebars that raise thought-provoking questions. These actually make the book distinctive, since the main narrative can be found in several other books on the subject. One interesting sidebar is why aren't Senators elected from subdivisions of their states, instead of state-wide? While this is commonly seen as immutable, it is actually not explicitly defined in the Constitution, and there were once Senatorial districts. What the sidebar omits, perhaps for space considerations, is that the establishment of these districts nowadays would open up an entirely new source of gerrymandering.

Though I'm in general agreement that Bush has screwed up the conservative movement, I can't help but think that Sullivan's screed is really about an age old conflict between protestants and Catholics, with Sullivan carrying the banner for Catholics.

Sullivan is Catholic who denounces "Religious Extremism" of the evangelical right as part of what's wrong with conservatism. Trouble is, his critiques of what he calls "religious extremism" aren't all that different than what Catholics have always said about protestants in general.

For example, one characteristic of what he calls "religious extremism" is a more "literal" interpretation of the bible. The greater emphasis on scripture is what defines protestants.



"Sola scriptura" was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the reformer Martin Luther and is a definitive principle of Protestants today.

Sola scriptura may be contrasted with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teaching, in which doctrine is taught by the teaching authority of the Church, drawing on the "Deposit of Faith", based on what they consider to be "Sacred Tradition", of which Scripture is a subset.

So when he bashes the "religious extremists" it's pretty obvious that he's talking about most Christians who don't happen to be Catholic.

As a young adult just beginning to soak in the various philosophies of politics, I would say that this is an excellent book to start with. After scanning through Bryan Burrough's Washington Post review, I'd have to disagree with his statement that Sullivan's book "is not only too polite, but too high-minded to galvanize anyone without a graduate degree in philosophy." Compared to the hyperbolic ramblings of Ann Coulter and Michael Moore, then yes, Burroughs is correct. This is a serious piece of work, but not necessarily a completely esoteric one--this book trumps Coulter and Moore, however, because it is much more accessible than the other two's arguments.

Sullivan assertions are so much more pragmatic, as well--he can be accredited for his respect towards practically everyone in the political spectrum. Even his blatant attack on Robert George's idea of "natural law," which consumed most of the first half of Sullivan's book, was notably well-rounded and treated with considerable respect towards the Fundamentalist Christian movement in the United States.

With that in perspective, everyone--Democrats, Republicans, Fundamentalists, Atheists, seniors and teenagers--should read this book. That is where I think Burrough's argument is flawed; Sullivan's belief is that every individual possesses some kind of itch to break out of the Elks club meetings, Dave Matthews Band concerts, and Coulter/Moore book clubs-- to be skeptical of what every presents itself as a routine--is truly what conservatism stands for.

This book, though lacking "narrative grace" as Burrough rightfully said, can enlighten more than just the post-graduate crowd. Besides, there are a hell of a lot of kids out there today who read the political narratives of Solzhenitsyn and Hobbes; why can't Sullivan be added to that list?

Andrew Sullivan explains at some length, and with some digression, how
he became disenchanted with what he calls the fundamentalist wing of the
current Republican party. His brand of conservatism is Burkean; he considers that the prevailing ideology of the current administration is
not conservative at all, but springs from a tradition of literal evangelism. Some chapters are better than others. The chapter
on sexuality seems labored and occupies more of the book than it should. On the whole, it is an honest and thoughtful book and would be useful reading for people who shared Sullivan's early enthusiasms for the Rovian revolution.

Andrew Sullivan is one of our premier public intellectuals and a delight to read. Both facts are confirmed by this book. While at first glance you would think he will be making talking points for a political perspective, Sullivan quickly disabuses the reader of such a formulaic approach. Conservatism, while often thought of as a series of political positions, is much more than that. In fact, argues Sullivan, it is an attitude towards life that rejects simplistic, emotional or rationalistic arguments for everything that ails the planet. In constrast to fundamentalism which seems to answer complex questions with ABC answers, the conservative attitude rejects formulas and seems prepared to embrace the questions. Not convinced of the rationalist argument for man's knowing it all, conservatives are actually more comfortable with doubt.

There are critical differences also between conservatives and fundamentalists: one believes in human imperfection, the other in the need for perfection now and forever; one believes in human nature, the other in remaking human nature by an omnipotent God or State; one seeks to preseve the past, the other is about erasing it and starting over afresh (p.72). These differences should lead to parting of the ways, not in radical fundamentalists appropriating what it means to be a conservative.

Today's "conservatives" are all too ready to use the force of government to enforce their vision of virtue (see Iran and Rick Santorum.) This in no way fits the tradition of conservatives who believe freedom is the only condition in which humanity can come to approach virtue. This is not a political book per se, it is deeply philosophical and must be read by more that the politically inclined.

Sullivan argues, for example, that using religion "as a regulatory scheme to keep human beings in line, or as a unifying principle to herd people to the ballot box, is a profound blasphemy." For a person of faith such a denigration of faith-as-politics should be deeply distrubing, yet the radical fundamentalist finds no contradiction.

Sullivan is exceptionally well versed in the works of Hobbes, Montaigne, Leo Straus (who receives a reprieve from other interpreters) and the genius of Michael Oakeshott. His ease with these thinkers and his ability to relate and apply conservative principles to current events contributes a refreshingly candid and brilliant reappraisal of the soul of conservatism as an attitude towards life. Burke and Kirk would certainly appreciate this addition. Most of today's conservatives, and liberals, could learn alot from this book too.

Without question, Andrew Sullivan is one of my favorite writers. Even when I do not agree with his analysis of a situation, be it political or philosophical, I find him to be interesting, thoughtful, and passionate. And when it comes to the Bush Administration and the handling of Iraq and other facets of the conflict with Islamic terrorists, I have to say that a good deal of his attitude (though not, I think, development of ideas) has mirrored my own over the course of the past several years. So I was very much looking forward to reading his most recent book, The Conservative Soul. I am also disheartened to say that I was tremendously disappointed. Although there are some interesting nuggets of good ideas buried in the book, I find that on the whole it was sloppy, muddled, disorganized and -- I'm sorry to say -- not very well written. Although I would highly recommend that everyone read Sullivan's blog and essays, I would not recommend this book.

The description of this product was on target, and the book came in very good condition. Hardly any writing in it, and not water damaged! The textbook was a very reasonable price and I'll be sure to shop on Amazon again for textbooks.

The group I purchased from was quick, had great customer service, and they replied to my email of questions very promptly. I was very satisfied with the product, the shipment, the entire process really.

This is a pretty informative and interesting book. I would reccomend it to someone interested in persuing an education in urban politics.

This is a good read for anyone who is interrested in the development of the city and the politics within. It opens with the birth of the city and how advances in technology led to the outward expansion of the city. One of the most interresting features is how the book describes the growth of the politcal machine in Chicago. In a later chapter, the authors then compare the fiscal policies of Chicago and New York City and how machine politics may have been the key to Chicago's success. The book also goes into detail about "white flight": the moving of the middle/upper-class sectors away from the city to settle into different types of suburbs. These suburbs then become a self-sustaining entity capable of enacting their own governmental policies which include exclusionary tactics designed to weed out those of lower incomes, certain age brackets, or those of an "unacceptable" racial background. It then goes into detail about the Court's opinion on these exclusionary policies. If you're interrested in how cities and urban politics are created then this book is a great start.

I should begin by saying that I like McChesney, and I admire and respect him as the leading authority in this area. I went into reading the book as if it were a magnum opus. The book started weak and ended strong.

Most of what you'll read here is common sense to anyone on the left who has paid attention to what has happened to the media in the past 30 years. However, McChesney does an excellent job at arguing against the common assumptions about the media. This is an excellent polemical resource for media activists for that reason, but do not turn to it for realistic policy prescriptions or philosophical soundness.

Yeah, democracy depends on a free press. But does a free press depend on democracy? I doubt that it does. A free press relies on freedom, obviously. The problem is that corporate owners manage the press, censor journalists, and set the agenda for the media. If journalists had more autonomy, you would bet that we would have a better press... but grassroots participation? The last thing we need is a press run by different interest groups that slant content towards a certain direction. Democracy is good for some things, but not for perveying truth. The press should be protected from public meddling the same way it should from private meddling. I'm fine with the public influencing media policy, but not journalism itself.

The second problem with this book is that it attributes the lack of political participation to the free press. If anything, the education system has more of an impact on public participation than the mass media. Yes, I think the media does a bad job at purveying important stories that could rouse political participation. What about people who aren't interested in current events? What about those who don't read the news? You cannot attribute a lack of participation to mass journalism when people don't read or watch the news. I know people who get most of their news entirely from mainstream television who are very into politics. They hold inaccurate ideas, but I wouldn't call them apathetic. Most of the people I know who are apathetic don't watch or read the news. Most of the people I know who are politically active have parents who were also interested in politics and had teachers who inspired them to be politically active.

Overall, this is a great book. McChesney has some great ideas about how the media needs to be nonprofit and how commercialism threatens journalism.

Another enlightening book with a more historical perspective would be Newton Minow's "Abandoned in the Wasteland", which is more focused on children, but provides an excellent history of the mass media.

Robert W. McChesney's exploration into the historical underpinnings and contemporary realities facing the United States media system has proven to be an extremely well-researched discussion. The Problem of the Media covers the evolution of American systems of journalism and entertainment media while exploring the problems of this evolution in their current manifestations. McChesney has produced an almost unerring synopsis of current problems facing the media, and, unlike most of his colleagues, offers real optimism and motions for future change.

I was extremely pleased with the way McChesney illuminates the historical nature of the media in the United States. He does a phenomenal job at coupling past incarnations of American media structures in their inherently partisan and biased formulations with today's antiseptic and sterile "professional" variety. The Problem of the Media is exceptional in this historical analysis as it does a logical and rational job of dropping left hook after right cross to the philosophical and practical foundations of the professional journalistic structures. It was as if someone has finally shown me real foundations, actual alternatives, and structures for change, but the beautiful part of all of this was that they had actually already existed (and in this country to boot).

McChesney's arguments are absolutely extraordinary as he goes toe to toe with the right wing noise machine's accusations of the liberal bias that exists within the mainstream newsroom. Drawing upon cogent arguments backed up with innumerable sources, McChesney goes on to systematically deconstruct the false arguments that are time and again posed by the conservative sophists that dominate the entirety of American information mediums. I have read several texts arguing against the so-called "liberal media," but none were as persuasive and apt as McChesney's proved to be. In addition to this, I thought that The Problem of the Media also did a very astute job of explaining to the reader all of the news that has not been covered in mainstream press, while foolish and arguably unimportant issues take to the forefront of coverage. Examples of this reality include the extremely lackluster and ill-timed coverage of the 2000 American Presidential elections as well as the seemingly censor-ridden coverage of the current war (if it can even be called that) in Iraq.

McChesney does not stop at the line of criticizing the current journalistic regime and its anti-democratic systems of "professionalism" and obtuse neutrality, but instead goes on to make vital connections between a capitalism gone crazy (hyper-capitalism) and the entertainment industry. I think if any regular American took the time to sit down and ready chapter four of The Problem of the Media s/he would find that s/he intuitively knew about the detrimental affects of massive media conglomerates, oligopolistic market controls, and the current manifestation of an increasingly intrusive and overbearing advertising/public relations sector. McChesney does a fine job at providing the reader with real examples of televisions shows (i.e. Monster Garage, Trading Spaces) that use this disgusting development in embedded advertising strategies and exposes the companies that support this process for what they are.

Fortunately, McChesney closes The Problem of the Media with words of encouragement and optimism. The discussion abounds with the realization that in order for there to be the massive change for a new positive media evolution their must be widespread education on the topic. This book is a fantastic step in furthering that agenda, however I am somewhat skeptical as I believe the media system is simply a tool of the neoliberal policy agenda, and as I understand it unless the greater economic beast is laid to rest, its pups will continue to thrive.

Extremely well researched. McChesney has been a key figure in the "media debate" and he approaches the subject with knowledge and objectivity. His disciplined, almost scientific investigation is an example of non-partisan coverage of a crucial issue. If only a few politicians were as concerned with the public interest as McChesney, we would be in a better world. I am a Mexican citizen so I couldn't care less about U.S. partisan politics, and if you care about the fate of public communications, you shouldn't either. This is a problem that affects every country, not just the U.S.A., since the big telecommunication companies are broadcasting all over the World. The interest of big advertisers is being protected by U.S. policy and their marketing messages are then blasted everywhere. Even the smallest community in the South-Mexican jungles knows Ronald McDonald. CNN has Latin editions of their biased news transmitted to most Latin countries. As an outsider, I hope the U.S. citizenry will realize that this is not an issue of Democrats vs. Republicans but a World-wide issue of the individual vs. the big corporations. In reality they don't care about your political affiliations, as long as you saturate your credit cards to buy their heavily advertised products, you can debate each other to death.

This book takes some very complicated issues and makes them easy to understand. The arguments are persuasive and well researched. I found myself getting angry at what is happening to our country and this book explains much of it. This is an interesting perspective and I hope it will start a new debate about the value of public media and spectrum as a public resource.

It's always interesting to read a Marxist view of anything to get a vastly different perspective from the usual liberal and conservative views (and the few moderate views that manage to find their way into print).

At bottom, the problem with the news media, according to McChesney, is that it's not far enough to the Left! He rejects the criticism of the media's liberal bias. This rejection is based on an eccentric use of the term "liberal". For instance, Bill Clinton and Al Gore are "moderate to conservative Democrats" (p. 102). "The Left" consists of radicals and "social democrats". (p. 103) He sees both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton as "neoliberals": "with the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan, the neoliberal moment had commenced. Neoliberal ideology became hegemonic not only among Republicans but also in the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman." (p. 49)

McChesney opposes professionalism in journalism, because professionalism "is a journalism of fact without regard to" a political ideology. (p. 67). "The claim that it is possible to provide neutral and objective news" is suspect. (p. 68) Professionalism refuses "to place every important issue in a larger political ideology." (p. 71)

He deplores the influence of corporations on news broadcasting (Don't we all?), but he also deplores NPR and PBS: "NPR and PBS at a national level tend to provide a bland variant of mainstream and conventional journalism" (p. 245). So, the root problem is that even NPR and PBS are not far enough to the Left!

He wants unlimited funding of these public media without any overseeing or accountability. (Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment--although he doesn't actually propose such a thing or say how this would otherwise be achievable.) One wonders why he is so sanguine that he would be happy with a public news broadcasting source that was not answerable to anybody. Is it because he assumes that it would be run by insiders who share his Marxist views? He would certainly not be happy with it otherwise. (See, in this connection, the film "Shattered Glass".)

Bottom line: Skip this book and buy Don't Blame the People or Freedom of the Press--for Whom?

Very interesting content but very difficult to read. One better have all their wits and concentration available in order to wade through this. I can only read it in the morning when my concentration is in top form. As a result I'll probably never get through it, because I save most of my morning reading time for the Wall Street Journal.

I was dialing around cable at my parent's house one day a couple of years ago and ran across the most incredible power point presentation being given by a dude from the Naval War College on CSPAN about how the U.S. should think about security threats in the future. Basically his point was that those alienated from global capitalism are those we need to be most worried about and that places like Central Africa will soon join Afghanistan as geographical locations from which threats will arise. That presentation became this book and it is seriously worth reading. Barnett makes his living predicting bad stuff for the U.S. government (and now, I believe, also for big corporations) and he is very good at what he does. Obviously sites of threats to the U.S. are also sites for new modes of positive resistance (those these things are not interchangeable) and also sights for economic development, so this book struck really close to a lot of my interests.

Interesting ideas and an interesting book. It's a couple of years old now, but still worth picking up.

Dr Barnett is one of those true geniuses with the ability to explain a complex global environment in terms anyone can understand. He clearly describes the current role of the US in global politics and the path we must take to ensure the future for all the peoples with whom we co-inhabit this planet. This is a MUST-READ, particularly for those who question our current involvement in the Middle East. He's unabashedly critical of the Bush Administration and the Pentagon where appropriate. But he also gives credit to the President for his understanding and foresight in the face of the current global epoch.

This is no political manifesto, rather it is a blueprint by which a truly global economy can flourish.

I give this book 5 stars for educating me about how the Pentagon thinks, organizes and deals with Internation issues such as military conflicts.

The "New MAP" refers to the POST COLD WAR ERA. Measuring up possible future world powers vs. multiple smaller conflicts, and how "GLOBALIZATION" is steering countries like China towards becoming more Democractic over time.

Mr. Barnett describes his role at the Pentagon, and politics that steer decisions in war time or peace time (Defense Budget inter fighting).

I'm still reading this book, and I know the data is a bit outdated, but for someone newer to this subject, it's still informative and facinating to read, if this subject interests you.

This book is pure salesmanship for a person and a point of view. It is not fun to read, but it is probably important that it be read because it provides insight into the incredibly mundane world of selling military solutions to congress and the administration. What are touted as great ideas turn out to be simplistic interpretations of the world situation based upon a lack of understanding of culutral diversity and concern for human rights. Because it is important for the public to understand how the U.S. gets into stupid, counterproductive militeary adventrures it is imporant that this book be widely read, however it is tedious and tiresome to be continually barraged with the authors misguided and unsophisticated views.

An Excellent Book For All The Managers In Every Organisation....... A Must Read

To most of us the name Albert Einstein is synonymous with the formula E = MC-squared. Because the formula is such a simple statement of a complex idea, the public tends to see Einstein as both a simple and complex man. Like a god of sorts, he is omniscient, omnipotent, unknowable, and incomprehensible all at the same time.

The World as I See It presents a clear and coherent picture of Einstein. It contains numerous Einstein's non-technical writings organized in four major parts: The World as I See It, Politics and Pacifism, Germany 1933, and The Jews. My favorite part is by far the first. This part is packed with pure wisdom on a variety of topics. I enjoyed reading things like: "To be sure, it is not the fruits of scientific research that elevate a man and enrich his nature, but the urge to understand, the intellectual work, creative or receptive" (p. 7). Such insights glue the entire book together.

The reader will see in this book Einstein, the scientist, and Einstein the person, both in one unit. Einstein the person was very encouraging to others and thankful to people and things in the world. His letters to a college freshman, to an Arab admirer, to Japanese schoolchildren and so on, all have the same calmness of purpose to them as his messages to VIPs like Lorentz, Berliner, Katzenstein, and others.

In these writings, Einstein distinguishes religion from science. It is clear for instance that he did not believe in God at the time of his writing. Even so, there is no evidence that he sought to dehumanize and ridicule believers, only to defend science and humanity. And defending it he did in Germany, Italy, everywhere. His defense was based on the notion that "There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair" (p.29).

It is clear that Einstein loved science. It is not hard to understand from the writings in this book how he was a pacifist. He believed in democracy as an ideal, and not surprisingly, he declared in "Germany 1933" that "As long as I have any choice, I will only stay in a country where political liberty, toleration, and equality of all its citizens before the law are the rule" (p. 81).

This is a great book - highly recommended.

Amavilah, Author
Modeling Determinants of Income in Embedded Economies
ISBN: 1600210465

einstein's essay was a good readbut the rest of the letters didnt really get to me

This is a short collection of various speeches, letters, and other writings on Einstein's thoughts on various subjects. Delves into matters such as his thoughts on war, religion, and a few other subjects. A very quick read and recommended for anyone who enjoys Einstein's brilliant insights into matters beyond Physics.

I had a v.old copy of this book which was falling apart so I replaced it with a less inspired production but still the same inspiring content. I like AE's view of the world, the greater power, truth and beauty -- it is written by a scientist with heart.

The book could have been structured a little better, but noone can argue with the words of Einstein. Several of the quotes in the book are about random and old-time topics that were lost on me, only being 23. However, this is still an amazing glipse into the man that changed the 20th Centery.