Events Books

This book predicts the future in a way that no other does. I think 20 years from now, the world will look back at this book as one of the great works of the 21st Century.

The Internet Candidate came from out of nowhere, blindsiding everyone with its revolutionary ideas and Childress' clear understanding of the world we live in today. To read this book is to read a masterpiece, carefully crafted to be understood easily by everyone, but with deeper subtexts that forecast a great change in our political climate here in the United States. This book puts ideas into play that would help every single person living in America today. These ideas are easily implementable with the help of tools such as the Internet along with the support of people everywhere.

Other authors have written books that may hint at some of the ideas that The Internet Candidate contains, but these authors only hint at them, afraid to be bold and let their opinions be known. Albert Childress is a man of action, unafraid of writing ideas that others would just be too afraid to even go near. These ideas are the ideas that the politicians up in Washington D.C. don't want the public to understand. These ideas would improve the quality of life for everyone, and take the power away from those elite few that just don't understand the needs of the people.

If you only read one book in the next twenty years, make this one it. The Internet candidate will profoundly change your political views, and with enough support the ideas presented here have the potential to create a more effective government chosen directly by the people, that works directly for the people.

This story is a short, thought-provoking read. Childress' clear, informative writing style adds to the grace and professional elegance of The Internet Candidate. Anyone who reads this book will be amazed at the exciting ideas Childress has for the future of politics and our nation. This book can inspire anyone to have hope for what the future holds and it certainly inspired me.

Good Book! Short and easy to read. Very novel concepts. The internet for grassroots politics, very appealing!
One author speaking his mind.

"'Introduction to Fall Protection' by J. Nigel Ellis, is a masterpiece in the art and practices for fall protection. Excellent resource packed with useful information. The great value in this book is that it simplifies an otherwise tough subject! It will, no doubt, save many lives. How much more worth could you get than that?"

"'Introduction to Fall Protection' by J. Nigel Ellis, is a masterpiece in the art and practices for fall protection. Excellent resource packed with useful information. The great value in this book is that it simplifies an otherwise tough subject! It will, no doubt, save many lives. How much more worth could you get than that?"

Introduction to Fall Protection, Third Edition
J. Nigel Ellis, Ph.D., P.E., CSP
514 pages

This book is an excellent source of comprehensive technical information written in an easy to read and easy to understand style by a leading authority in the field of industrial and construction fall protection.

The 12 chapters, 7 appendices, and 80-page glossary of terms and references are logically arranged. Over 240 illustrations and tables help readers understand concepts. The 9-page index helps one quickly locate material.

I like the format and the fact that it almost doubled in size, as compared to the 2nd edition. This contains a wealth of useful information relating to falls and fall protection.

The book addresses various Fall Protection Codes of Practice including the OSHA standards and the ANSI standards.

It is most helpful guide in learning about falls and fall protection, and is valuable reading for all people and organizations concerned with falls and fall prevention, such as contractors, people in trades with fall exposures, property owners, builders, and attorneys.

This book is on the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) list of Safety Resources recommended for use in preparing for the Associate Safety Professional (ASP) or Certified Safety Professional (CSP) exams.

Book Review by Richard Dresser, CSP, CET, Deerfield, IL, USA. (...)

The Importance of Properly Using Fall Protection.

Fortunately, serious injuries from falls occur only rarely, because falls only occur rarely. The chance of a person falling while exposed to heights is remote, which may lead to complacency.

A person may not use fall protection for many reasons.....I've been doing it this way for years and nothing happened; I'm too tough; I didn't know; it takes too long; it is uncomfortable; etc. The person receives positive reinforcement by the fact that they didn't fall. Every time a person doesn't fall while performing a job unsafely increases the positive reinforcement, and makes it more likely the same task will be again performed unsafely.

This book helps us realize the importance of knowing why to use fall protection (education) and how to install fall protection (engineering).

The principles in the book should be used to train all workers exposed to falls. If a person doesn't catch on, retraining is necessary, or perhaps enforcement. This should be done before the biggest negative reinforcement happens, serious injury from a fall.

I am the site safety manager for steel erection for a large steel erection company. We are following a 100% fall protection over 6 feet. Very interesting with ironworkers that are used to working at much greater heights without fall protection. I am able to use the principals I learned from Dr. Ellis' book!

Leon Trotsky asked George Novack to study this topic, give the lectures involved, write this book. George always saw this as his task in memorial to the OLD MAN, and his duty to take up the cudgels of Marxist Philosophy. Once real Marxism is revived in the world, George Novack will become know as the leading Marxist Philsopher after the Russians, Lenin, Trotsky, Plekhanov and all the revisionist, pseudo marxist, academic fools will be known for what they are. This is a book that registers the transformation of a man, what being a revolutionist can bring into your life. It is simple, clear, but not superficial, and it begins your trip through the many texts George wrote continuing what Marx Lenin and Trotsky taught. Maybe you can get the flame and continue the battle forward.

While Amazon may not always have this book available for regular order it is always available from booksfromPathfinder which you can find by clicking on new and used books on the top o fthe page!

This book is the compilation of a lecture series in which a scholar lad bare a fundamental shortcoming underlying how science is understood and viewed in modern society and -- true to form -- offered an improvement.

Mr. Novack carefully cultivated his skill in fulfilling one of the unwritten rules of science: he proved a profound understanding of rigorous concepts by rendering them in everyday terms. The result is gems like this one.

So why is philosophy important? There is much wisdom in the proverb, "nothing is more practical than a good theory." If you can't think your way out of a paper bag, how can you change the world? The contradictions and misconceptions of "globalization" must be understood on their own terms so as to be able to break through them and establish a new order.

This is precisely the type of push-pull interaction that exemplifies the dialectical nature of reality Novack explained so clearly in this volume.

Read it. Reason is what will build the foundations for a reasonable world. If you, too, are disgusted by how much creative energy is wasted by designing and advertising useless products, if you're revolted by the logic of a society that can justify bombing the world's poorest nations, killing a dozen or a hundred of their citizens daily, as a perfectly reasonable way of keeping its economic indexes from slipping a fraction of a point: then George Novack is for you!

George Novack claims in the beginning of the book that, "in fighting against the mad chaos of capitalism for a socialist system free from class exploitation and oppression, wars, crises, imperialist enslavement and barbarism, we Marxists are the most reasonable individuals alive."

The book begins by explaining the necessity for revolutionists to ground their strategy in a materialist, scientific approach to reality. Materialism is the fundamental method of science; to begin with the facts-no preconceptions, biases, or prejudices to interfere with understanding the world as it really is. Only those who understand the how capitalism really works can lead the way to overcoming it.

Novack explains the development of the two fundamental forms of logic-formal and dialectical-from their origins among the classical Greek thinkers. Formal logic, developed most completely in antiquity by Aristotle, divides up the world into objects that have limited and fixed definitions. Within the system of formal logic objects can change in many ways, but there is no way of analyzing the necessity for anything to perish, or to give rise to anything really new. Formal logic treats the world as if it were a perpetually fixed structure, an aggregation of essentially unchanging objects.

Dialectical logic, on the other hand, while it recognizes the limited usefulness of formal logic for dealing with familiar objects on a day-to-day basis, goes beyond it and penetrates deep into the processes of change. Dialectics, starting from the ideas of Heraclitus and other ancients and culminating in Hegel's system at the beginning of the 19th century, analyzes the clash of opposing forces that drive changes in the form and nature of matter. Small changes in form accumulate, ultimately precipitating a radical transformation in the quality of an object. Dialectics treats the world as it is: in motion and dynamic flux. Stability is always relative, and hinges on a balance of opposing forces. There are striking contrasts between inner reality and external appearance; hidden potentials bring forth new elements. This way of thinking is characteristic of science, but only Marxism has applied this method to the science of human society and history.

This small book, by the American revolutionary George Novack, is a great intro into the philosophical underpinnings of Marxism. A must for all people beginning a study of Marxism. For all young Communists out there, this book provides a way to systemize and understand all those theories we've read about, and act as a jumping off point for further reading and study. Only drawback: It's open to capitalist accusations of being "outdated" since it was written in the 40s.

Hannes Artens is the author of The Writing on the Wall, the first anti-Iran-war novel.

At one of my discuss and book signing events for The Writing on the Wall I had the privilege to share the stage with Erlich. His enviable ability to explain the most complex intricacies of Iranian politics in just a few concise, laconic sentences, almost adopting the proverbial Spartan reputation for austerity to his illustrations, and yet enriching them with such a compelling storytelling and personal anecdotes, that the suspenseful excerpt I had read from my novel before paled in comparison, already fascinated me back then (right after the event I immediately set off to revise my script's flow). This clarity and conciseness in analysis and style is what may appeal most to novices to the intricacies of U.S.-Iranian relations, thus rendering The Iran Agenda the perfect introduction to the subject.

Contrary to many of us who write about Iran these days - guilty as charged - Erlich, a seasoned field veteran who has reported on Middle East crises for NPR, Radio Deutsche Welle, Mother Jones, The San Francisco Chronicle, and Dallas Morning News - to just a name a few - has frequently shuttled in and out of to Iran over the last years - once even accompanied by actor turned activist Sean Penn. Drawing upon this wealth of resources and experiences, Erlich provides us with a manifold kaleidoscope of impressions and insights from the bazaars of Tehran, a former traditional stronghold of the supporters of the Revolution where the harm caused by U.S. sanctions and international embargos is felt most these days, to the back yard offices of courageous NGOs and civil advocacy groups, to the mountain fortresses of Kurdish insurgents, and finally to the world of make-believe of 'Tehrangeles', where the exile community keeps plotting on schemes for regime change as realistic as Dick Cheney's (they're perceived so out of touch with how people in Iran really feel that they don't even receive funding from the State Department, who usually pours out the horn of plenty on every dubious diaspora group they get aware of).

It is in describing this triangular relationship between the indigenous Iranian opposition, the pipe dreams of Ahmed Chalabi-wannabes and the exile entourage of Reza Pahlavi, craving to trade their suburban Washington DC mansions for Niavaran Palace, and the U.S. employing PJAK (Party of a Free Life in Kurdistan, the Iranian PKK equivalent) and MEK (the Mujahideen e-Khalq, officially designated a terrorist organization by the State Department) as proxies in their covert war against the invidious Mullah regime where The Iran Agenda is at its strongest and offers some valuable, new insight to even versed pundits of U.S.-Iranian relations. In fact, Erlich's book is the first to problematize and discuss in greater detail Washington's utilization of Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilize the regime and actively finances splinter groups to launch terrorist attacks against Tehran, killing dozens of innocent civilians (this dirty covert war, reminding one of the CIA's activities in 1970 Cuba, was first uncovered in a 2006 The New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh). In assessing these forms of regime change Erlich and the Iranian human rights activists he has interviewed, most prominently Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Shirin Ebadi and independent journalism-icon Akbar Ganji, are equally clear and unsparing:

"Every opponent of the Iranian opposition that I spoke to criticized the disastrous impact of U.S. policies. When the United States periodically threatens military attacks, funds dissidents, and sponsors terrorism, the administration helps fuel anti-American nationalism, said Ganji.

"'Passing this [(85 million), part of the Iran Freedom and Support Act, N.B. H.A.] budget has made our work much more difficult and the work of the democratic forces much more cumbersome in Iran,' Ganji told me.
"Shirin Ebadi explained that Iranian activists also opposed unilateral U.S. economic sanctions that began under Jimmy Carter. The sanctions prohibit most trade, investment, and many cultural exchanges. 'Economic sanctions hurt people more than the government,' said Ebadi."

Beside the book's enlightening inroads into the maze of Iranian politics and the neocons' pathological traumas with the Islamic Republic, Erlich, who has earned quite a reputation as a forceful critic of corporate media in his first book, Target Iraq. What the News Media Didn't Tell You, also mercilessly reckons with his peers' coverage of Iran. In light of American corporate media having degenerated into court writers of this administration and the current Republican candidate, together with Vice President Cheney utilizing his actual Middle East "peace trip" to heavy-handedly beat the war drums again, Erlich's frankness about the media's role in distorting the public's picture of Iran as a bunch of crazed Mullahs trying to get their hands on a doomsday weapon, are more important now than ever. His tireless efforts to confront us with the other, the real Iran, and the cursory outline of the about-to-unfold drama's major actors in Tehran and Washington make The Iran Agenda a strongly recommended contribution, both as a first overview for curious beginners, but also in offering close observers some interesting facets they may not have been aware of yet.

A theocratic democracy? by Tim Redmond, Thursday September 20, 2007, San
Francisco Bay Guardian Online.

My old friend Reese Erlich is remarkably optimistic about Iran, which is a pleasant perspective. I'm glad somebody is.

In his insightful, if sometimes choppy, new book, The Iran Agenda: The Real Story of U.S. Policy and the Middle East Crisis, he offers an alternative view of a nation and a culture that has been either ignored or demonized by the mainstream press for more than 30 years. His basic thesis -- that US policy toward Tehran is moronic, driven by foolish politics, bad information, and greedy geopolitical aims -- is hard to dispute. His subtext -- that there's real hope for democracy in Iran -- is a bit of a tougher sell.

Erlich has done what few US journalists ever do: he's visited Iran, repeatedly, and taken the time to meet not just with government officials and activists but with ordinary Iranians. Almost across the board, they condemn the United States and support the Islamic state.

We're presented with "liberal" politicians -- which might be a bit of a stretch -- and radical activists, including Marxists, who offer a vision of a democratic Iran. Me, I'm dubious about any hope for theocratic democracy; as a proud atheist, I think that separation of church and state -- strict, inviolable separation -- is essential for any functioning democracy.

But Erlich's willing to give other cultures and ways of thinking a break, which is one of the main reasons he's such a good reporter. And in The Iran Agenda he presents a picture of a nation far more complex than the caricatures we've seen depicted by the administration and the evening news.

That's the real value of this book: you get a sense from a veteran journalist of what you've been missing all these years. Erlich tries to sort out the ethnic geopolitics of Iran and explain which groups are aligned with whom (and why the United States supports some of them). It's all somewhat dizzying, but that's part of the point. This situation is more complicated than most American opinion makers are willing to admit.

And for all that, it's a good read.

Journalist Reese Erlich grew up in Los Angeles just south of UCLA. As a child he used to walk up Westwood Boulevard toward Westwood village, past a stockbroker's office and the Crest movie theater. At the time there was no Tehrangeles. The Westwood legal offices I visited last year to fix my Iranian passport mess used to house the ultra-right-wing John Birch Society. As an aborigine of sorts, Erlich has no grievances against the Iranians who have colonized the Westwood of his childhood. On the contrary, he seems to delight in the cultural upgrade. His latest book, The Iran Agenda: the real story of U.S. policy and the Middle East crisis, should however give the American reader a nostalgic lump in the throat. Not because of old memories of a neighborhood now transformed; but because this seasoned journalist writes in a tradition now mostly abandoned by the US media. Trustworthiness.

Erlich identifies his sources by name, and gives references which independently corroborate his statements. By contrast the average American's perception of Iran has been largely defined by "unidentified sources." The Iran Agenda begins in the real Tehran bazaar where Erlich--along with actor Sean Penn and columnist Norman Solomon--had put their journalistic "boots on the ground" to report on the Iran situation. Erlich mentions other American reporters in Iran, but he observes, "Most American reporters I met saw Iran as an evil society and a danger to the United States. While many expressed disagreement with President Bush's policies, they believed Iran was developing nuclear weapons that threatened America. In short, their views tracked the political consensus emanating from Washington. Rather than proceeding from reality, they filtered their reporting through a Washington lens. When a Washington official makes a statement, even a false one, the major media dutifully report it with few opposing sources."

Of course this is not news to we Iranians. The value of The Iran Agenda is its usefulness as a tool of argument in discussions with curious Americans who ask us to be their tour guides on the Iran subject. Most educated Iranians carry an overall knowledge of the Iran-US quarrel, from Mossadegh's overthow, to the hostage crisis, to the US Navy's shooting down an Iran Air passenger jet. The Iran-Iraq war, NPT, human rights violations, student protests, worker's union discontent, Ganji, Ebadi, Ossanlou, are all swimming somewhere in our data base. But it takes a professional like Erlich to organize these floating facts into an engaging story with a strong moral. To undo years of skilful propaganda, equal skill is needed. And Erlich is certainly a talented story teller.

While he informs us that the Kurdish PJAK guerrillas are funded by the US and Israel, Erlich simultaneously evokes a feeling of action and travel reminiscent of the colorful adventures of Tintin:

"The PJAK camps are located in inhospitable terrain. During winter months, the snowy roads are accessible only on foot or by tractor. Luckily the snow hadn't yet blanketed the area, and we drove up easily--if slowly--over winding dirt roads. Suddenly, young women in green pants in the distinctive Kurdish head scarf were walking along the road. They were female guerrillas. PJAK claims its troops are almost 50 percent women."

Erlich's very brief history of the Kurds updated me on some interesting statistics. For example, I was under the impression that Kurds were mostly Sunnis. This is true in general, but in Iran 50% of this minority is Shiite. This figure makes a difference in my thinking on the Kurdish issue.

Erlich goes on to remind his readers of other ethnic minorities, the Azeri, Baluchi and Arab Iranians, who could destabilize the Iranian regime. Little of this is intelligently discussed in the US media. For obvious reasons even the Iranian media tend to keep the lid on news of ethnic unrest.

Not all of Erlich's criticism targets mainstream media. He has harsh words of advice for Iran's exile media in his native Westwood backyard. He mentions Amir Taheri's infamous false report about a Majils law requiring Iranian Jews to wear a yellow stripe on their clothing. "With each phony or exaggerated story," Erlich warns, "the LA newscasters and commentators [who continued to play the story long after it was falsified] think they are helping the popular struggle against the Iranian government. But repeated over time, the distortions discredit the exile media and, by extension, all exile opposition." Erlich describes another, bitterly funny incident--the Hakha affair-- as being "something right out of the Keystone Kops." I can't find a web link that explains this fiasco nearly as well as Erlich's narrative.

Clarifying his own agenda in writing The Iran Agenda, Erlich says, "...I personally don't trust mainstream politicians, lobbyists, and think tank gurus to resolve anything soon. Nor do I trust the clerics in Tehran to stop their belligerence. A pro-peace, pro-democracy movement exists within Iran. I think people in the United States need to build one as well." It seems Westwood had earthy, smart people long before Iranians arrived.

In his opening pages of The Iran Agenda: The Real Story of U.S. Policy and the Middle East Crisis, Reese Erlich introduces you to the people of Iran and immediately makes you feel comfortable with them. You quickly get his sense for both the simplicity of their world and the complexity of the situation there. His discussions of the U.S.-Iranian relations since the 50's are historical and straightforward, free from the typical spin-and-bias of today's reporting. Despite the fact that his book brings you to the reality of just how far astray U.S. foreign policy has gone, it is an extremely enjoyable read.

Erlich makes sense out of all the forces that are present, be they global, regional or internal. He easily moves between religious histories, petroleum politics, ethnic minorities and media credibility with an objectivity that is rarely found in today's rush to war. His descriptions of blatant and alleged covert activities of several of the players makes one realize that there are many forms of `terrorism' currently being employed by our leaders to manipulate today's public opinion. His closing thought could not be more prophetic -

`If the governments of the United States and Iran won't make peace, the people of our two countries must.'

Bob Magnant is the author of The Last Transition... - a fact-based novel about Iran, Iraq and the Middle East...

This is an interesting book. Anyone who is interested in an alternative to the right wing talk radio and tv news should seriously consider checking out the Thom Hartmann radio show opposite Rush Limbaugh weekdays at: thomhartmann dot com / showlisten.shtml

Whether democrat, republican, or indepedent, so many of the facts out there are completely ignored by the mainstream media and talk shows. This show is one strong example of an examination of the facts regardless of your political affiliation. I am not affiliated with the show in any way, just struck by the facts so many seem to ignore.

"As of this writing no weapons of mass destruction have been found. And, even if a cache were to be uncovered, can anyone seriously believe that weak, defenseless Iraq ever seriously intended to attack the United States?
No, we really must conclude that it was oil, the need of the United States to control the oil of the Gulf, that sent America to war.
The important thing now to comprehend is why was the oil of the Persian Gulf specifically so important to get control of?
And that is where this book should be a help. . . ."
-from the Preface

Recently I did an extensive college research paper on the connection between oil and the recent Gulf Wars, and of all the books that I used, this one was the most useful. Great for understanding the Iran-Iraq war, the media blitz against saddam in the run up of the first Gulf war, and more. I highly recommend it.

Pelletier, I think, is a bit controversial because he places the blame for the Halabja massacre about equally on Iran and Iraq, but his credentials are impeccable and his version of events is highly plausible.

Written by the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq throughout the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq And The International Oil System: Why America Went To War In The Gulf is a stinging indictment of America's true motives behind its military expeditions to Iraq. To this day no "weapons of mass destruction" have been found in Iraq; Iraq And The International Oil System postulates that the real reason for America's involvement in Iraq is not just to have a source of oil, but to strategically control the oil of the Persian Gulf and arguably the world, Iraq And The International Oil System dissects politics, lies, real motives, the ties of U.S. and foreign oil companies and the wherewhithal of nations to manipulate one another. A sober wake-up call to dark true motives and the desperate need for the truth to come out.

Ms. Roraback's "Iraq in a Nutshell" as well as her entire Nutshell Note series should be required reading in our Public Schools. Ms. Rorabacks' written work will "open the eyes " of readers wishing to learn and experience the present middle east including information regarding its origin, social and cultural way of life. The "Iraq in a Nutshell" book is extremely organized, professional and informative. Ms. Roraback has a profound way of sharing information while being completely objective both politically and religiously . Our present perceptions of the middle east are generally based on both myth and strero-type. Ms. Roraback has managed to show us a new a clear image of a people and land we know little about. I highly recommended this reading. Daniel Burke, Los Angeles, Ca.

I am amazed at how clearly, concisely, and objectively this book explains the complex history and politics of Iraq in just 60 pages! As a high school history teacher I strongly recommend this book for every household, classroom, and White House bookshelf.

I have a few of these "Nutshell Notes" books and I have even visited the website, www.nutshellnotes.com and I must say that these books do a superb job of telling it like it is--no fluff, no confusion, no words that I have to look up in the dictionary every other sentence, just pure, concise information.
I also really like that the author's voice is not tainted by any particular right or left wing opinon, it is very journalistic and straight forward. You can pick it up, read for one minute or one hour and you will come away having learned something new.
I recommend these books for anyone from a seventh grader doing a school report to an adult interested in getting themself more educated in the world issues at hand. It is definitely worth $5.95, in fact, I think they should go for more!

After enjoying Amanda Roraback's Islam in a Nutshell, I allocated a portion of my day to devour another in her series of "Nutshell" books. Iraq, with its pivotal location as a hotbed of humanity, seemed the next logical destination. I turned off CNN (talking heads blah blah), unplugged the phone (telemarketer blah blah), hopped offline (porn blah blah) and began reading. Once again, my time was well spent as I journeyed into the Middle East as it was then and learned why it is now. Granted, this wonderful read went to publication just as the war commenced, so don't expect any capture of Saddam insights. Not to worry, though, as you'll be brought up to speed as to Iraq's history in a way that's as entertaining as is it informative. Roraback's objectivity remains intact, as it concludes with a valuable Arguments Against War and Arguments In Favor of War section that should be required reading for hawks and doves alike. Someday soon I will try and contact Ms. Roraback to see if she's working on a Britney Spears' Wedding in a Nutshell, but she'd probably tell me that would be redundant.

This book opened up a new appoach to understanding what brought America into the war. It was informative and stylish and got me to read other works by Sam Pender.

I liked the book. It's certainly not a political talking points list for either party, and I was shocked to see so many quotes and facts. The author does a nice job of putting the 13 year Iraqi/US relationship into a historical perspective. I was surprised to see that it didn't really try to sway a for or against the war opinion like so many others. Instead, Pender seems to make a case that the war was almost inevitable since the US didn't demonstrate the resolve to deal with Iraq seriously, and Iraq never really made an effort toward peace or cooperation with the UN-at least not a very substantive one. I've read Dr. Blix' book on the war, and a few others, and this is easily the coldest and most numbing in terms of the reality checks. I was also surprised to see so many of what I thought were WMD lies compared to Dr. Blix' report. If you've read his book, and any of the personal accounts of the war that are coming out now, it's pretty clear that Bush was essentially just parroting the UN. I was also saddened to see the concerted effort by so many Presidential candidates to politicize the war instead of to genuinely provide a better option-like the Biden Luger authorization instead of the Edwards-Lieberman one. The book is also very good in that it takes some of the pictures from after the 1998 attack and shows that, yeah, Iraq really was re-building its facilities. This is also what was in Dr. Blix book (which I also recommend buying!).

If you want to learn the facts about the war-not the rhetoric, then this is a great book. If you want an anti-war rah rah rah, or a Vote for Dubya book, this is NOT for you. Personally, I thought it was very well written, very logical, a bit cold in its rationalizations, and well worth the time and money!

This book is not for the faint of heart. As the description says, it is not partisan. It is chock full of primary source material, including quotes and photos. For example, it has a photo of the airliner at Salman Pak where it is said terrorists trained (with the full knowledge and support of Saddam). It has copies of some critical documents in their entirety in the appendix. Was Saddam a threat to the United States? Absolutely! Not because he had a mighty army, but because of his capability of supplying weapons to terrorists, and his ties to them. We were lucky that we had people who understood how to defeat Saddam's army with a minimum of bloodshed, and who did their best to protect civilians. But that has nothing to do with whether Saddam wanted to rule the world, or whether he had the capability to bring the world economy to its knees, resulting in the deaths of billions. He did. He would have.

Did President Bush lie? No, for several reasons. First of all, he believes what he says. A liar knows he is lying. Secondly, just about everyone with any power in government supported our actions in Iraq, so leveling blame at Bush simply ignores reality. Thirdly, the intelligence on which Bush based his statements was, and remains, sound. This book is not for the faint of heart, because it shows why the war was inevitable. It gives all the facts that the media have been trying to sweep under the rug. Some people care more for partisan politics than the safety of the American people and protecting Americans from terrorists. They will even twist the truth, as one reviewer here has done. This book is an essential antidote.

The amount of research that went into this book was phenomenal. It lays everything right out on the table. Yes, mistakes were made, but our overall course was necessary, and the documentation needed to understand why is right here in this book. This book is seminal. You cannot understand the situation without having these facts, and Mr. Pender has done us a wonderful favor by putting it all together for us. If you never read another book on the war in Iraq, read this one! And if you do read another, read this one anyway. It is desperately needed to counteract all the lies of people who would willingly sell America down the river, and aid and abet the morale of the terrorists so that they will continue to kill our young troops. Back where I came from, we call that "treason." And if we don't put a stop to it, then freedom for us will become a distant memory. This book is an antidote. Read it. Urgently.

This book takes the numerous WMD allegations from the Bush Administration and shows that almost all of them were repeated by the UN inspectors just days before the war. It then describes many as legitimate concerns and hardly lies because of the UNMOVIC 3/6/03 Unresolved Disarmament Issues report and how it supported so many of the Bush WMD claims. It is also the first book to really consolidate all of the known facts about Iraq's ties to Al Queda. People who are convinced that "Bush lied" or that the war was somehow created will be disappointed by those quotes. The same is true for many Democrats supporting a handful of presidential candidates as there are literally hundreds of quotes showing their justification for authorizing the war, and then paired with their "anti-war" quotes from after declaring their candidacy. On the other hand, the book also slams the Bush Administration for intelligence failures that are apparently losing the War on Terror. It also comes down hard on the first Bush Administration for failing to support the Iraqi Democratic uprisings after Desert Storm. Yep. No one escapes blame for the war in this book. Even the American people catch it for their lack of support for anything but airstrikes and quick raids since 1968! I did like the way that the book brings reason to the many conspiracy theories, proves one I hadn't thought of, and describes the reason for the war in a historical context and not a political one. The author claims to be anti-partisan, and that is abundantly clear! "Bleeding-heart" liberals and "neo-cons" beware. You will be offended-though you will also be pleased. This book is for those who are fed up with the partisan at all costs ideals of so many turncoat and fair-weather leaders. In the end, the conclusions were so anti-partisan and historical in context, that the real reasons for the war-the ones that people will look at 20 and 50yrs from now seem clear, and-although embarassing-they seem to be the truth. I thought it was GREAT!

I bought this book on the basis of the title, with no idea of the author's deep history of accomplishments. This is a lovely book, largely an essay. The author opens by telling us he is concerned about the lack of political argument (dialog) in the USA, including substantive coherent dialog about core issues such as:

1. Nature and role of human rights in defining legitimate behavior by both individuals and governments

2. Role of religion in politics and governance

3. Distribution of community's economic wealth

I bring back from page 125 the following superb quote: "But our national politics fails the standard of even a decent junior high school debate."

And on page 127: "So Americans are horribly misinformed and ignorant about the most important issues." This is true. What he does not tell us, which we learn in the following book, is that all of our politicians and their so-called "advisors" are equally ignorant. See: Security Studies for the 21st Century

I was in error when I first thought the author was a conservative, forming that impression from the index and the endnotes, where I usually start a book. He is rather a very educated and philosophically well-grounded person of liberal to centrist perspective, and I found this book to be sensible, easy to read, and compelling.

The book could not be more timely for me (published in 2006) as I wathc Senators Clinton and Obama behave like children and avoid substantive policy backed up by a balanced budget they are both incapable of producing, while Senator McCain gets a "bye" and is not asked any tough questions at all (for 52 tough questions and transpartisan "starter" answers, visit the 501c3 Public Charity, Earth Intelligence Network).

The author, with a deep legal understanding and much work previous to this book, probes how character and forms of governance and politics shape the decisions we make.

He labels partisanship destructive, and puts forward his view that despite the superficial divide between "red" and "blue" he believes we can still come together at a deeper level of understanding such that we can overcome partisanship. I urge one and all to visit Reuniting America and especially their page on transpartisanship, it is consistent with what this author presents to all of us for consideration.

He specifically labels campaign rhetoric from 2004 to be shallow, as shallow as any since the last substantive debates in America, between Lincoln and Douglas (he says, I agree although Kennedy and Nixon I thought did well).

The author identifies his agenda in two parts: to explore how we might find shared principals, and to explore how such might lead to good outcomes for the Nation as a whole.

He puts forward three propositions early on:

1. Equal rights for all, meaning that both US citizens and foreigners (e.g. the ones in Guantanamo) should be treated equally, i.e. human rights should prevail here and both groups have equal right to dignity and justice and equality.

2. No television advertisements for political campaigns in the months leading up to an election.

3. Poor merit special protection and consideration as part of establishing the legitimacy of government and the equality of all (e.g. the poor cannot insure themselves the way the wealthy can). At a stratgeic level, there is no finer book than Max Manwaring (ed)'s The Search for Security: A U.S. Grand Strategy for the Twenty-First Century.

The author lists and discusses two dimensions of human dignity:

1. Human life as having special intrinsic value

2. Each person bears responsibility for themselves

He suggests that in discussion political versus human rights, the latter is the more stringent test, and I agree, as one of those who signed the letter to Senator McCain opposing torture by CIA or the US military. The author clearly states that to treat the "enemy combatants" as we have is to declare them to be less than human.

He places great emphasis on the importance of dignity for all, and I am reminded of the superb book, All Rise: Somebodies, Nobodies, and the Politics of Dignity (BK Currents)

He suggests that the religious clash in America is not about the more fundamental issue of faith and the value of faith, but rather about the role of religion in national life. The author leans toward the belief that we should (as the founding fathers intended, see Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America, be tolerant with selected unitarian references to God (e.g. in the Pledge of Allegiance, in coin) but not--as most extreme right fundamentalists would have, as a "Christian Nation." As the author of Founding Faith makes clear, the latter is simply not an option.

The author states that we need to have a faith-based dialog between left and right, and I agree, while also noting we need to do this at an international level, where we are long overdue for a global Truth and Reconciliation Commission on what damages America has wrought "in our name" but against our public moral faith. A couple books worth close scrutiny (or at least read my reviews:

God's Politics LP
Faith-Based Diplomacy: Trumping Realpolitik

The author addresses liberty as not just being freedom, and defines it rirectly as the right to do what you want with the resources that are rightfully yours. That last bit is of course subject to long discourse: is Exxon entitled to $40 billion in profit while externalizing $12 in costs to the planet and future generations? Is Wal-Mart entitled to profits and the abuse of most of its employees while destroying small busiunesses for 150 miles around each Wal-Mart, and destroying the South Pacific off the coast of Chile so as to produce cheap fish while killing all life on the ocean bottom there? See my many lists.

The author specifically confronts and rejects the "culture of life" as being a compulsory sort of paternalistic and judgemental intrusion into our liberty. He defends abortion by pointing out that the fetus, while undeniably alive (so is a cancer) has no mind and hence no intersts. I for one place higher status on the mother's desires and needs in the first tri-mester.

He strongly supports gay "marriage" as a loving contract, and demands scientific proof before being willing to consider "intelligent design" (in passing I note that Germany has declared Scientology to be a cult, and outlawed it. I am reminded of the excellent book, Forbidden Knowledge: From Prometheus to Pornography.

He provides an excellent discussion of how legitimacy in political authority stems from shared morality and balanced equality, and on this basis believes that the poor merit special consideration. He does not address how corporations should be deprived of their abuse of the personality privilege.

He tells us that a big reason the conservatives want to cut taxes is their desire to end the "welfare" state. From where I sit, we do need a smaller government but until labor unions are restored, and the Secretary of the Treasury starts to do his job instead of fronting for Wall Street against the public interest, I believe the author is on target and merits our respectful attention.

I completely agree with him on the indefensability of the gap between rich and poor in America, and elsewhere.

The book draws to a close with two contrasting views of what comprises a democracy, the one being majoritarian, the other in which We the People are full partners and the majority cannot impose its views on the minority, whose rights and views must be treated with respect and protectied. Here I point the reader to the formidably scathing Running On Empty: How The Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It. BOTH parties are nothing more than two branches of a single organized-crime family, and both should be forced to pass the Electoral Reform Act before November 2008, or every incumbent dismissed and the two parties vanquished by Independents, Greens, Reforms, Libertarians, moderate Fiscal Conservatives, and conservative Southern Democrats.

He closes the book calling for equality for all, and dramatically increased self-government. He says we MUST do better in Education (I am reminded of Thomas Jefferson, "A Nation's best defense is an educated citizenry"), and calls for public election channels, the regulation of private networking (to which I would add Open Spectrum), the Right of Comment (e.g. on Jack Cafferty saying "Ralph Nader should be batted away like a fly"), and on term-limits for Supreme Court justices, he suggests 10 years.

As I contemplate the existence of 27 secessionist movements in the United States; the collapse of the Federal government whose ineptness is virtually complete, the criminality in the White House, hijacked by Dick Cheney, I have to come down strongly in favor of a public demand for a Constitutional Convention in 2009, making that the litmus test for any candidate. NONE of the three is qualified to govern in their present condition. We may yet need a third party candidate with a transpartisan cabinet, a balanced budget, a commitment to both Electoral Reform and a Consttutional Convention (see also Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People Can Correct It))

My review does not do this author justice. His book is elegant, thoughtful, philosophical, balanced, not at all confrontational, and the best thing I can say of this book is that I had to read it and think about it. This is a first-class piece of work, one the Founding Fathers would have found worthy.

See also The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World and my many lists on the Earth Threats (10) Earth Policies (12) and Earth Challengers (8).

All americans should read this book. Ronald Dworkin has the corage to say the truth about the President Bush. And the truth is: YOU DID NOT HAVE DEMOCRACY.

Only Dworkin can get you back to understanding just how important principles are to decision making. "Principles Matter" (his best work in my opinion), and now he applies that same logic to preserving democracy in a world where we are continously befuddled by mass media and political spin bent on stirring our emotions. Anything to keep you "tuned in" and riled.

His arguements are solid, as always. Even if you prefer other "principles", you have to respect his approach and where his values weigh in on critical decision making. Dworkin has a way of revealing to the reader just what principles he or she are applying and sometimes we come away horrified at your own logic, which, of course, we thought was flawless. This book helps us take stock of own own opinions and how we can be more constructive towards preserving the democracy we all believe we cherish. Somewhere we need a divisor to utilize against the bombardment of mass communication and political belligerence. This is an excellent beginning.

Having weathered another election cycle of verbal and emotional combat between the polarized "red" and "blue" electorate, one begins to wonder if there is any common ground for constructive political debate in our contentious democracy. In his new book, legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin answers in the affirmative. He believes that there are certain principles on which both sides can agree. Problems, however, arise when these principles are applied to making concrete policy decisions.

Dworkin sets forth two principles of human dignity to which all parties can agree: 1) "that each human life is intrinsically and equally valuable," and 2) "that each person has an inalienable personal responsibility for identifying and realizing value in his or her life."

These principles are highly abstract and probably most parties would disagree on their application. The improvement in political debate here lies in the fact that debates can go back to a common starting point rather than having parties try to demonize and discredit each other as if they had mutually exclusive worldviews.

In the application of these principles to the policy on torture of enemy combatants, I found Dworkin's views recognizable because they coincide with my own. The use of torture is clearly at odds with any principle of human dignity and should be condemned. However, there are extreme and unique situations where torture may extract information that could save thousands of lives. How does one balance this against human dignity? Dworkin seems to suggest that we do a cost/benefit analysis - typical of legal thinkers. And I tend to agree. However, it is a problematic area and remains unresolved.

On the issue of capital punishment Dworkin tries to show two sides of the argument. Being a liberal, he is personally against capital punishment. On the other hand, he argues that death as punishment is not at odds with human dignity. A death penalty advocate would argue that there are issues of deterence and retribution that must be observed. Again this opens the debate to other sets of issues. Where does one draw the line on human dignity?

These two examples illustrate how difficult it is to achieve a substantive political debate as opposed to the disparagement and invective that we witness today. Dworkin's principles are hard to disagree with, and he clearly illustrates the problems we get into if we deviate too far from these principles. This book is an interesting and useful contribution to the need for civilizing our current political debate.

Overall, I enjoyed this book a lot. The author does have a bias, but supports his arguments well. The idea that the New Testament is reliable without having to rely on the 'every word is true' approach is refreshing.

This book is thoughtful, straightforward and well written. I'd recommend it.

It seems to me that the most often quoted resource on this subject (for works written for lay-readers, anyways) is "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" by F.F Bruce, which was recently reprinted. I have read both Bruce's book and this one, "Is the New Testament Reliable?: A Look at the Historical Evidence" by Paul Barnett. I think that while Bruce's book is well written and quite detailed, I prefer this book, by Barnett, because it is easier to read and contains all of the information I was looking for.

I especially found chapters 2 ("Did Jesus Exist? Early Non-Christian References") and 3 ("Fixing the Time-Frame") to be succinctly written and clear. I still reference material found in these chapters.

The only problem I found was that many of the references for further reading at the end of the chapters are now out of print and/or hard to find. If you want more details on a specific subject, you may need to search out a dedicated source on that subject.

My only previous knowledge of this subject matter was from Lee Strobel's excellent "Case for Christ", and my purpose for buying this book was that I wanted to know more details about the historicity and accuracy of the Bible. I found what I was looking for here, and this is a simply terrific book which I recommend wholeheartedly.

Is the New Testament an historically reliable source of information about Jesus and the early church?

According to a number of contemporary scholars, the answer to that question is no. For example, Robert Funk and the members of the Jesus Seminar argue that Jesus did not say or perform a majority of the words and actions attributed to him in the Gospels. Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman argue that multiple versions of Christianity competed for the allegiance of the faithful in the early centuries of the church. The books of the New Testament - and the history and theology they communicate - are simply the documents of that competition's winners, who went on to forcibly suppress alternative Christianities. Even popular media debunk the New Testament. Last year, just in time for Christmas, both Time and Newsweek ran cover stories that expressed skepticism about the veracity of details of Jesus' birth.

But these voices represent only one side an ongoing debate. Paul Barnett's Is the New Testament Reliable? is a representative of the other, affirmative side. Barnett is a churchman and a scholar - the former Anglican bishop of North Sydney, Australia, and currently a teaching fellow at Regent College in Vancouver, Canada, and a visiting fellow in ancient history at Macquarie University in Australia. He is the author of Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity and Jesus and the Logic of History, among other books. The first volume of his trilogy, The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years will be published in April by Eerdmans.

Four Questions
In Is the New Testament Reliable? Barnett argues that "Jesus and the first Christians are genuine figures of history and that they are faithfully and truthfully written about in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles." To bolster this conclusion, Barnett asks and answers a number of questions.

First, "Did Jesus in fact live?" Barnett cites several early Roman and Jewish writers and texts that confirm both his existence of the spread of Jesus-worship from Judea to Rome by the mid-First-Century A.D.

Second, "Can we know the time frame in which the New Testament was written?" The latest date that the New Testament books could have been written is approximately A.D. 95, when patristic writers began to cite them in their own works. The earliest date they could have been written was A.D. 33, which is the date Barnett offers for the crucifixion of Jesus. (He notes that most scholars date Christ's death to A.D. 30.) Based on internal evidence, Paul began to write his letters around A.D. 50, and the last of his letters was written in the early 60s. Most scholars date the Gospels and Acts in the 60s to 80s. What this means is that the books of the New Testament were written within a generation of two of Jesus' death. By contrast, "our major sources [for the life of Tiberius, 42 B.C.-A.D.37] are considerably later-Tacitus about A.D. 110, Suetonius about A.D. 120 and Dio Cassius about A.D. 220." If we can be reasonably sure of the historical reliability of our late sources in reconstructing the life of Tiberius, we can be reasonably sure of the reliability of our much earlier sources for a life of Jesus.

Third, "Can we be confident about transmission of the manuscripts from those times to the present?" Once again, yes. "There are more than five hundred manuscripts or manuscript fragments [of New Testament books] in Greek that have survived from the early centuries," Barnett writes. By contrast, "there are only nine complete manuscripts [of Jewish Wars by the first-century author Josephus], the oldest of which is a fifth-century Latin translation. There are only two manuscripts of the Annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus, neither of which "is earlier than the Middle Ages." If we can be reasonably confident of the accuracy of Josephus's and Tacitus's texts, we can be reasonably confident of the New Testament's textual accuracy.

Fourth, "can we know that what we read of Jesus is a true account?" Obviously, this is the most important question. Barnett answers it by revealing the multiple, independent sources that underlie the Gospels. We tend to think that there are four primary historical sources for the life of Jesus: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But that is not actually the case. A cursory reading of Matthew, Mark, and Luke reveals that they are similar to one another in both the arrangement and wording of their material. The majority of New Testament scholars have concluded that Mark is our oldest Gospel and further that Matthew and Luke used him as one of their sources. Noting that Matthew and Luke have material in common that is not shared with Mark, scholars have also concluded that those two Gospels employed a source, which they refer to as Q (from the German word Quelle, or "source.") But Matthew and Luke also present material unique to them. Scholars refer to this unique material as M and L, respectively. Finally, because the Gospel of John is so unlike Matthew, Mark, and Luke, many scholars believe that he represents another source of historical information about the life of Jesus. So, instead of the four Gospels, we have at least five historical sources: Mark, Q, M, L, and John. We might add to this the independent traditions of information about Jesus culled from the New Testament epistles. Although there are differences between these sources - including some conflicts that are hard to resolve - the basic picture of Jesus they present is largely consistent and, I might add, theologically traditional.

Miracles
The greatest challenge to the historical reliability of these sources is the presence of miracles within them, miracles such as Christ's virginal conception, his healing of the sick, and his own resurrection from the dead. Barnett points out multiple sources attest to the reality of all three. The birth of Christ is described in the two very different accounts of M and L, which nonetheless agree at significant points. Similarly, all the New Testament sources of our information about Jesus (Mark, Q, M, L, John) present him as a miracle worker, and several extrabiblical historical sources (Josephus, the rabbis) confirm this impression. Whatever else may be said about the historical Jesus, first-century writers believed that Jesus had the power to perform miracles.

The greatest miracle, of course, is Jesus' own resurrection from the dead. Christian apologists sometimes defend the reality of miracles on philosophical grounds. (Consider Miracles by C.S. Lewis, for example.) Barnett argues for the reality of Jesus' resurrection on historical grounds, however.

We know from Paul's letters that the resurrection of Jesus played a significant role in the faith of the early Christians. To quote Paul, "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born" (1 Cor. 15.3-8 [TNIV]). To Paul, the resurrection of Jesus was a fact confirmed by eyewitnesses. And it had spiritual importance: "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" (1 Cor. 15.14 [TNIV]).

How should we account for this faith in Christ's resurrection? Barnett considers and rejects "alternative explanations" for the belief, such as (1) "the resurrection was a hoax," (2) "another man was crucified," (3) "Jesus did not actually die on the cross," (4) "the body was removed from the tomb," (5) "the women returned to the wrong tomb," (6) "the resurrection stories are legends," and (7) "the resurrection stories originated in the Osiris myth." The historical sources underlying the Gospels provide no credence to any of these explanations. And some of them are absurd. If Jesus' body was removed from the tomb by the disciples, for example, then they died for a belief they knew to be false. If it was taken by the authorities - whether Jewish or Roman - then simply producing the body would have ended Christianity at its beginning. If the women returned to the wrong tomb and thought Jesus had risen from the dead, a quick visit to the right tomb would have dispelled their illusion. Belief in Jesus' resurrection appears too early for it to be a legend, for legends take long periods of time to develop.

What emerges from Barnett's discussion of the resurrection is that the best historical explanation of belief in Jesus' resurrection is Jesus' resurrection itself. This explanation accounts for the early disciples' belief in what neither Jews or Greeks thought possible or desirable. Jews taught the resurrection of all the dead at the end of time, not the resurrection of one man to eternal life while those around him still died. And Greeks desired the immortality of their souls, not the resurrection of their bodies. Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection was unique to them, attested by multiple sources, and confirmed by the change in the lives of members of the early church.

So What!
Does Barnett's case for the basic historical reliability of the New Testament make any difference in our spiritual lives? Yes, for if the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles are reliable sources of information about Jesus and the early church, then we ought to confess and practice the faith of the early church. If the New Testament picture of Jesus as the divine Son of God, crucified for our sins, and raised that we might have eternal life is correct, then we must seek eternal salvation in him. History, you see, impels us to act - or rather, to believe. If Jesus lived, died, and rose again, he is the Lord, and we must follow him. If not, then whatever respect we may have for Jesus as a teacher of morality, we need not pay any more attention to him than we pay to Socrates, St. Francis, or Dr. Phil.

In this little review, I have tried to communicate the gist of Paul Barnett's argument for the historical reliability of the New Testament, as well as its relevance. But read the book for yourself. And draw your own conclusions.

This books is an incredible resource for anyone interested in taking a serious, objective look at the background information behind the NT. It does not simply assert it's truth, as many opposing views of the Bible do, but calmly weaves many seemless arguments which, to this author's knowledge, have gone unchallenged thus far in Christianity.

I'd like to round up all of the Washington D.C. policy-makers and lock them into a big room and make them read "The Islamic Shield." Then we'd discuss what they read, without the usual patriotic and political flatulence filling the air. We'd discuss Professor Elhadj's six strategies to defeat the Jihadists, plus the three political and moral strategies that the United States must follow in order to get ourselves out of the Middle-East quagmire that we helped create. There are also three strategies that Arab rulers must follow (they do not include democracy and free elections), and the United States needs to lend a hand (perhaps in the form of a few discreet shoves) in this effort, too.

As President Eisenhower might have remarked, it's time to take our foreign policy back away from the military-industrial-big-oil complex, and earn the respect of our neighbors, again.

"The Islamic Shield" is brilliant, but pessimistic. If you read the leaked National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq that came out yesterday, describing Iraq as the 'cause celebre' for Jihadists, this book will expand on that theme in excruciating and maddening detail. Professor Elhadj concludes by asking, what is the likelihood of a terrorist defeat? He answers:

"On the short-term, the likelihood is rather slim. The confrontation today involves fundamentalist politicians brandishing the Quran and the Bible, bent on crushing each other into submission."

The author of "The Islamic Shield" was born in Syria, and had a thirty-year banking career in New York, Philadelphia, London and Riyadh before he decided to return to London University's School of Oriental and African Studies at age 54, "seeking answers to questions on cultures and religions, politics and developmental prospects of Arab countries." This book is the result of his personal experiences (with the emphasis on Syria and Saudi Arabia), and his seven years at London University. He presents a very unique perspective on Arabic religious and cultural history, and on the differences between the Shiis, the Sunnis, the Wahhabis, the Ismailis, the Druzes, and the Syrian Alawites.

Believe me, you will not be bored. Most likely you'll be gritting your teeth with rage at the ignorant, arrogant Middle Eastern policies implemented by our government. You will learn why suicide is such an attractive option to the Jihadists. You'll find out how (this is the one that maddens me) "...on April 9, 2003 the US army won the battle against a tattered Iraq. But, Iran, without firing a shot won the war for Iraq."

This is an important, fascinating book even though the US government is exposed as inept and foolish. I suppose we can take comfort in the knowledge that the author is even harder on the Ulama class (mullahs) and their needlessly archaic interpretations of the Islamic Hadith (the traditional sayings and actions of the Prophet Mohammed).

My only wish is that "The Islamic Shield" had been proof-read a bit more closely. There are many misspellings, and at least one egregious statistical blooper. Hopefully, future editions will correct these problems.

Most of us are uneducated about the religion, culture, domestic and foregin political factors, and history of the region that is now so important to our future. Reading this book explains a great deal that is missing in our history books and periodicals. Dr. Elhadj has written a pessimistic book that exposes our attempt to use democratization as a main weapon of the War on Terrorism as a fantasy. His use of history, academic literature, Islamic law and references to the Quran is illuminating, as well as a good read. He offers solutions at a critical juncture of time. We can only hope the Baker Committee has read this excellent book.

Flowers and cheers for the US troops marching into Baghdad -- this is what Vice President Cheney blithely promised. It was a pleasing thought to entertain on the eve of a problematic war. However, the author of The Islamic Shield, with his intimate knowledge of the Middle East, would have found the frivolity of such a thought appalling: "Arab frustration over American Middle Eastern policies since the late 1950s have gradually transformed Arab admiration and affection towards American egalitarianism, sense of justice and fair play into dislike, and then into hatred. It is as if each one of the victors' triumphs has scarred the collective memory of the Arab generations. It is as if the effects of the events that humiliated Arab pride and sensibilities have been accumulating in the Arab minds and psyche well after the victors had thought that they got away with their attack. It is as if every man, woman, and child killed, every young man's bones crushed, every home bulldozed, and every tree uprooted kept accumulating in the Arab collective memory and psyche until a critical mass of humiliation and anger was reached." Obviously, there is dissonance of memory between the victim and the victimizer. The US troops marched in, and were met by bullets and bombs. They still are. It was insane to expect flowers to grow and cheers to rise on such a terrain.

Had The Islamic Shield been in print a few years earlier and had certain key decision makers actually had the curiosity to read it, perhaps we would have been spared the glib litany of democracy and freedom overnight, if not the war itself. Briskly and incisively, the author lays out a whole gamut of Arab behaviors, practices, and institutions that stubbornly keep the Arab world what it is now, or rather what it has been for centuries. The problem of the undemocratic political culture of the Arab world is compounded by the pervasive influence of an immobile religious orthodoxy. Repeated foreign intrusions only made matters worse. Needless to say, this way of shorthand summation does not do justice to the author's finely discriminating handling of the subject. For example, he highlights the contrast between the Arab Muslim states and the non Arab Muslim states and rejects the careless generalization of the Muslim world at large. He also compares the political tyranny of Saudi Arabia with that of Syria, and shows why the most violent expression of Arab frustration had to come from a particular religious ideology nurtured in Saudi Arabia.

Dr. Elie Elhadj, the author, had a successful career in banking before he decided to immerse himself in a scholarly pursuit. The way he conceived this book reveals a cast of mind fashioned in the crucible of the world of practical affairs. He doesn't seem particularly interested in exhaustive description or analysis for its own sake; rather he is intent on determining the nature of the problems and on how to solve them. Part I is a comprehensive analysis of the various forces which have shaped the contemporary Arab reality. This is followed in Part II by a discussion focused on today's most burning issue, namely, the Jihadist terror. The author offers four possible strategies to counter Jihadist terrorism. These are: (1) taming religious orthodoxy; (2) removing the domestic spark through democratic governance and poverty alleviation; (3) removing the foreign spark by solving the Arab Israeli conflict; and (4) removing the foreign spark by ending the US occupation of Iraq. These are, to say the least, daunting propositions. To begin with, where are the necessary political wisdom and courage to be found? The author does not say. All the same, we are indebted to him for the questions he asks. Without consideration of them, there is no path out of the conundrum of the Middle East.

Although this book could use a good editor and some serious proofing--there are needless repetitions, some quizzical expressions, inconsistent spellings and capitalizations, hard-to-read tables, and a whole slew of typos--I still give it five stars because it is otherwise a great piece of work.

Elhadj writes with a penetrating clarity that eschews most of the usual biases--both Middle Eastern and Western--about what is happening in the Middle East, and explains why democracy and religious reforms are not about to happen there any time soon. His thesis includes the important insight that it is Arabic culture that is resisting change as much as, if not more than, Islam itself. After all, there are Islamic democracies--but they are not in Arab lands.

Elhadj makes the case that it is the interpretations of clerics more than the content of the Quran itself that has inspired the Islamic terrorists. He draws a distinction between moderate Muslims, orthodox Muslims, and jihadist Muslims. He says that there are three factors--Islamic extremism, tyranny by Arab rulers, and the Israeli and American occupation of Arab lands--that are "driving moderate Muslims into orthodoxy, and orthodox Muslims into Jihadism and terrorism..." (p. 13) He presents solutions to this "vicious-cycle" including reforms by the Ulamas who interpret Islam, reforms by autocratic regimes, and a one-state solution to the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict.

However, the reform of the clerics is not likely to happen, and certainly autocratic rulers do not voluntarily give up their power, and a one-state solution has never been acceptable to the Israelis and the Palestinians. Result? The situation in the Middle East is likely to get worse before it gets better.

Elhadj is particularly critical of the America invasion of Iraq. He gives the American "objectives" as seen from an Arab perspective:

"The first objective is to control Iraq's 113 billion barrels of proven oil reserves." In support of this objective (denied by the Bush administration and its supporters, but obvious to just about everybody else in the world), Elhadj notes that on the day Baghdad fell, "US troops proceeded to protect the Ministry of Oil while mobs nearby were not prevented from looting and burning other government ministries and libraries, museums, and colleges." (p. 199)

The second objective, "is to hand US corporations billions of dollars in business contracts to reconstruct Iraq's war ravaged infrastructure..."

"The third objective aims at bolstering Israel's security. To the Arab mind, destroying any Arab asset would benefit Israel."

"The fourth objective is to use Iraq as a base to change the regimes in Damascus and Tehran and to warn other countries not to oppose US interests."

"The fifth objective is the Arabs' belief that American Evangelists [sic] interpretations of the Old Testament to expedite the second coming of Christ plays a major role in influencing the Bush Administration's policy against Iraq."

Elhadj sees the sixth objective as a personal vendetta held by President Bush against Saddam Hussein since Hussein plotted to kill his father.

And finally, he believes Arabs see the invasion of Iraq as the beginning of a war against Islam to replace the Cold War and to foment sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiis. (pp. 170-171)

For the record I agree that objectives one, two, five, and part of seven are likely true, but tend to disagree with the others. Certainly a replacement for the Cold War is an enticement for Bush and the military establishment. After all, a war unites the populace at home behind the government. And of course the military and those who supply the military like to see their soldiers and equipment tested under actual combat conditions. On the other hand, sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiis does not further American interests in the Middle East. What America really wants in the Middle East is stability.

Elhadj explains some of the many fine distinctions made between what the Prophet said or didn't say, and what he really meant, as interpreted by various Islamic Ulama. For some this is an important part of the book. For those of us who hear this sort of thing all the time regarding Christianity, it tends to make the eyes glass over. The difference between the largely symbolic and the literal interpretations of the Bible as well as the differing spins are rather too well experienced, and largely irrelevant to our problems. The real solution--as Elhadj suggests--is to abandon the parts of these religions that are out of step with the modern reality and especially those that call for violent solutions.

Of more interest are the chapters comparing Islam in Wahhabi Saudi Arabia and Islam in more secular Syria. Elhadj allows us insights into the political, social, and economic realities in those countries.

However I thought the chapter on solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was less than convincing. Elhadj proposes a one-state solution but doesn't show how that might come about. There is also a slight Muslim bias in his expression. For example, he writes, "The fact that 850,000 Jews emigrated from the Arab world on the eve of Israel's creation is an indication that these people must have found it agreeable to live with Muslims under Muslim rule for centuries before leaving." (p. 158) A better interpretation would be that the fact that they left their homes for an uncertain place in a new land suggests just the opposite.

Elhadj sees the "root cause of the Arab Israeli dispute...in the fear that grips the Arab World..." He says that Arabs believe that the two lines on the Israeli flag indicate that Israel wants to occupy all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates rivers and that this frightens Arabs. (p. 158)

I could argue against this notion but I am running out of space. The best thing to do is read this important book yourself and experience a different point of view, some with which you may agree, and some with which you may not.