Events Books

Very interesting and orginal book. It's arrived very fast. Thank you.
Alessandro Mussini - Genova

Rawls has finally brought his powerful project of sociological and political philosophy to a conclusion with insights he may not have expected when he first published Political Liberalism in 1993.
The inclusion of his 'Reply to Habermas', after having also read Habermas' critique, helped him and specially me to understand the issues raised in that exchange and to enjoy following them. The inclusion also of 'The Idea of Public Reason Revisited' is very worthwhile, as it maps out the amendments he had started to make to Political Liberalism that had been cut short by his death.

Imagine that the U.S.A. has decided to re-found itself, and you have been elected by a large geographical constituency as one of the founding fathers who must negotiate the principles for a new Constitution; further imagine that you are similarly elected to the Constitutional Convention to draft the new constitution under these principles, the Legislature which translates this constitution into law, and the Supreme Court which interprets this law in the light of experience.

You must do your duty by the people who have elected you and the generations to follow, but your electorate has no specific social character and your only mandate is to found a just constitution which will provide stable conditions for social cooperation and a well-ordered society.

How will you conduct yourself in negotiations with your fellow nation-founders? What kind of reasoning can you rely upon? You have your beliefs, but the others hold to different beliefs. And you are going to have to justify your actions to your constituency which is made up of all kinds of people, with all kinds of beliefs and all kinds of interests. You are going to have to explain yourself in a way which will seem reasonable to people who may not share your beliefs and be acceptable to those who do share your beliefs.

This is the thought experiment which John Rawls invites his readers to conduct. Rawls argues that ever since Catholicism and Protestantism fought each other to a standstill in Renaissance Europe, and the separation of Church and State was accepted as unavoidable, "reasonable pluralism" has become a fact of life for modern societies, and a fact which should be welcomed. He argues that if you conduct such a thought experiment, then you would have to come up with a conception of political liberalism something like that which he develops in his own thought experiment written up as Theory of Justice (1971) and more recently, Political Liberalism (1995).

Whether to endorse slavery, free market capitalism, democratic socialism or recreate a landed aristocracy, it is up to the "parties" to decide in due course, on the basis of the founding principles they decide, but given that the constitution must be defensible in terms which will be counted reasonable by the populace at large, Rawls is confident that such a thought experiment would come up with some kind of political liberalism. Rawls regards the relations of production as a secondary question which can be sorted out in due course, once the institutions of representative democracy and the judiciary have been settled and the citizens can legislate the social system.

In Rawls' books this thought experiment is called the "original position" though Rawls describes it in slightly different terms. Rather than supposing one is elected from large geographical electorates, Rawls proposes a hypothetical "veil of ignorance" so that the delegates do not know the social status of those that they represent nor what social position they may occupy in the state to be founded. Otherwise, his thought experiment pretty much matches the current US Constitution, barring political lobbyists, big business control of election campaigns and the naked play of self-interest within the institutions of really existing democracy.

Thus Rawls does much the same as Kant when he re-invented the Revealed Religion of the 18th century Lutheran Church by means of Reason, and Hegel when he set out to discover what was rational in the reality of early 19th century Prussia, but, it has to be said, in a way which is commensurate with a democratic republic of the 20th century, as a "self-standing" conception, limited to that which could be justified from the standpoint of any comprehensive metaphysical, moral or religious doctrine.

Like Kant and Hegel, Rawls does not validate everything that exists in the present-day U.S.A. as rational; he holds that the high cost of US election campaigns which ensures the restriction of nomination of candidates to the very rich, and the lack of an adequate health service and social safety net which ensures that a substantial proportion of the population cannot pursue the good life, are contrary to the requirements of justice. Nevertheless, for Rawls it is the constitution which decides the distribution of wealth and power, not the other way around.

The "original position" which Rawls characterises as a "representation device," is used to argue for "justice as fairness" as a candidate for an "overlapping consensus" "for the right reasons," which can withstand the test of "public reason" by "rational" and "reasonable" citizens who count one another as "free and equal," as a "self-standing" "political" conception, as opposed to a "comprehensive doctrine," and thus create the basis for a society as a "well-ordered system of social cooperation".

Where is the foreword by Martha Nussbaum?
I can not find in the hardcover expanded edition.

"A Theory of Justice" presented a conception of justice (justice as fairness) in the social contract tradition of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant. In "Political Liberalism" Rawls corrects an oversight in Justice as Fairness; he attempts to apply the idea of toleration to political philosophy by recognizing the fact of reasonable pluralism. Caution: Meant only for those who wish to understand political philosophy.

Hollander puts the selective moral outrage and selective acceptance of evidence of the Left on parade as he follows these blinkered one's through the various Potemkin Villages of the Totalitarians, from the October revolution forward into most of the 20th century. Smug arrogance knows no political party or religious faith, no gender, race or sexual preference, it seems to be evenly spread among us. In this instance the highly developed capacity for self-deception of the Left is on trial and an amusing trial at that. Their tortured explanations of the intellectually unexplainable are a fictive of mankind's marvelous ability "to transform things to the liking of his desires".

Like all those who are "blowin' in the wind", these intellectual hard heads do not seek truth, but instead to validate their worldview. This book is a study of intellectuals, estrangement and its consequences.

Hollander hits an important nail on its head. Many members of the intellectual left have a horrible track record of either excusing or turning a blind eye to the brutality of socialist dictators. As such, many twentieth century leftists served as apologists for evil socialist dictators. Of course, these same people have no difficulty finding fault with the US and UK. No problem in the West is too small to warrant condemnation in their eyes.

The sad truth is that the vision of an egalitarian society has been romanticized and popularized. Even today there are some who defend and even promote the USSR. Hollander counters this nonsense with evidence. Unfortunately, there are still some ideologues to whom evidence means nothing. We need more scholars like Hollander.

Political Pilgrims is the amazing story of how Western intellectuals embraced Marxist tyrants at the very moment their colleagues were rotting in prison cells, and the common people everyone claimed to be concerned for, were starving. The book relates how cultural and religious leaders from the West, including familiar names, visited the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and other communist countries, and told the most appalling lies to flatter their hosts and express their contempt for Western society. It is quite an education, as another reviewer put it. Marx's revolutionary myth dominated history for the better part of the 20th Century, and if we are serious about not repeating the errors of that period, this book should be a part of our education. The short story Buddha's Smile in Solzhenitsyn's masterpiece, The First Circle, brilliantly tells the same story, from the point of view of Soviet prisoners. Lewis Feuer's Marx and the Intellectuals compares Marx and Engels themselves with the kind of people Hollander is describing. I also recommend the writings of the Rumanian philosopher, pastor, and former prisoner, Richard Wurmbrand.

Hollander retells George Keenan's story of a Norwegian radical who, when asked what country he most admired, said, "Albania." Keenan noted that the student obviously knew nothing of Albania, but chose that country "simply because it seems to be a club with a particularly sharp nail at the end of it with which to beat one's own society."

The same reactionary psychology has, it seems to me, been transferred in our day to an uncritical and naive attraction towards what is (simplistically) called "eastern religion." One could write an even longer book about how Westerners project their fantasies on monist ideologies: people like Joseph Campbell and Karen Armstrong "explaining" human sacrifice, the Theosophical Society standing up for caste, Arthur C. Clarke (Did he know much more of Asian history than the Albanian radical knew of Albania?) describing Buddhism as "the only faith that never became stained with blood." Even Hollander allowed that, "While the suspension of disbelief has its place in human life, it belongs more to the religious (or asthetic) than the political realm." But his book should be read, in my opinion, as a warning against all forms of ideological naivite. A love of truth, and a determination to tell it no matter how out of fashion it may seem, is essential to integrity in all walks of life. Political Pilgrims vividly illustrates, in the political realm, the evil that can be done when honesty plays second fiddle to fashion.....

This is an awesome book which helps the reader understand why intellectuals always seem to be on the wrong side of history. They loved Communism even when it was obvious that Lenin & Stalin were exterminating hoards of people! They are defective in their thinking and they stick to it. The author has a quote at the beginning of the book. "A GREAT DEAL OF INTELLEGENCE CAN BE INVESTED IN IGNORANCE WHEN THE NEED FOR ILLUSION IS DEEP." (Saul Bellows) . This book walks you through the 'needs' that these intellectuals seem to have which continually seems to cause them to deny the stark realities around them & cling to their 'ideologies'. I am so glad I read this book as I just laugh now when I hear so much of what is on the news. I GET IT!

25 years ago, "Political Pilgrims" documented beyond any doubt the willing self-deception of intellectuals in love with the totalitarian regimes in Cuba, China, the Soviet Union and East Germany. The debate no longer rages over whether these countries were "freer" than their counterparts in the West. They aren't. What hasn't changed, however, is the continued willingness of intellectuals to find paradise anywhere but in the US.

Paul Hollander brings his trademark meticulousness to the study of Intellectuals who travel to what used to be referred to as Worker's Paradises. Using mountains of evidence, one cannot help but be persuaded that Western Intellectuals experience such a depth of alienation from their cultural birthplace, that they become morally blind to the abuses of its antagonists.

What's truly remarkable, is that none of this has changed. One merely needs to point to Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 and it's grotesque representation of Hussein's Iraq as an innocently peaceful place of playful children and mothers. At no point in that execrable movie does he mention the mass graves or torture chambers.

Michael, post your wish list on Amazon and I'll send you this book. Promise.

I have twenty years of investigation experience in both law enforcement and the private sector. Never have I seen such a well written and insightful book on the art of investigative interviewing. Drawing on sound psychological theory and good old fashion practical nous; this book fully explains and provides an investigator with a solid foundation to work with, but the flexibility to move in any type of interview or interrogation setting. Sadly, Australian courts and those in the UK would render any confessions (criminal prosecutions) using this technique inadmissible, due to what some critics say is psychological thuggery. However, the technique has seen an increasing use in the private sector with excellent results, especially in the investigation of insurance fraud. Much like the Reid Technique, but more open and flowing - learn this excellent interviewing system and benefit from reading this investigative masterpiece.

I went to the Wicklander seminar recently. The book was just as great as the class, I'm very fortunate to have been able to go and receive the book. Thanks!

This is an excellent referecne book for anyone involved in both private and public sector interviews.

I found this book to be very informative. A big part of my job is interview and interrogation. This book was able to put into context what I have already been doing for a number of years. I found that I was referencing the book in my head as I watched the people I was speaking with and knew by their actions how truthful or untruthful they were being. If this is the type of work you do the book is a very good read.

As a practitioner in the field of investigations, it has been my experience that there are two excellent choices for investigators when deciding on what type of style they will employ. W-Z (Wicklander Zulawski) and Reid. I "grew up" in the W-Z system and employed it with great success. I found it to be flexible and able to approach a wide variety of scenarios thanks to the variety of interview styles it employs. Unfortunately, I also noticed that the variety of interview styles it employs generates a steep learning curve, and an expert at one style may wander into an interview that needs to turn an unfamiliar direction and find themselves drowning as they try to keep up with the change in style. I recently attended the Reid seminar and joined their association immediately. Reid and W-Z differ in a distinct area. Reid interviews and interrogations are always the same, only the *theme* changes, whereas the entire interview or interrogation changes under W-Z. Under both systems, a mistake can be fatal, but the consistency of the Reid technique introduces fewer areas to make mistakes in, and allows quick mastery of the styles needed to successfully interview. Both systems provide good (but not perfect) methods of detecting dishonesty and between the two systems, W-Z is slightly more flexible. That said, if you want to become very good, very fast, Reid is a better choice. Practical Aspects of Interview and Interrogation is a good book, and serves as a great reference for those who have already attended a W-Z seminar. If you are looking to get into investigations, are newly hired into an investigations position or just want to know more about what to expect if you're ever investigated, this book is not a good choice for you. You should be familiar with phases of an investigation, interview and know the difference between an interview and an interrogation before you pick up this book or you could be easily confused. That said, if you are familiar with investigations, this is a good resource to have on hand for both review and pre-interview or interrogation preparation. 4/5 stars because Reid's Investigator Anthology provides easier to read and more concrete, repeatable insight and experience.

This book had a big meening for me because I knew the crew of the Pride very well.I was on the tall ship Te Vega with Jennifer who was my watch officer. Our crew spent alot of time getting to know the Pride crew.It hit our crew very hard when we heard the Bad news.This book is a must read.

Having grown up on the Atlantic Ocean, this story was captivating to me. It is almost unbelieveable how dangerous the ocean can become in a matter of minutes; the author, Tom Waldron, did a great job of describing the fury of the ocean at it's most violent.

Waldron put the story together in a logical, readable format. He included a lot of interesting information about how the ship was built, the history of sailing ships, especially clipper ships, and even included numerous pictures, so one is able to attach faces with names in the narrative.

Interesting to me was the description of the life on board the Pride -- lack of space below, lack of showers, etc. A very primitive existance. The vivid descriptions of the storms were captivating -- made the book hard to put down.

Finally, the section about the aftermath was most compelling. Waldron described in detail the suffering and emotional roller coaster the survivors went through until their rescue. I recommend this book highly.

Having lived in Maryland until just a couple of years ago, I clearly remember the Pride and when she sank. I was at Martin's Airport with a friend the day the survivors returned, and it was a moving experience. I cried seeing these people, whom I had never met, yet knowing what they'd been through and seeing the sadness on their faces. It's one of those moments in time that you know you'll always remember, but life goes on and it fades into the background. But seeing this book at our local book store brought it all back to me in vivid color. I shared the experience with my husband, told him about this beautiful beloved ship that we were all so proud of and the pain every Marylander felt when we heard the news that she was lost, and that some of its crew were lost with her. This book is a moving, loving tribute to our beloved Pride and her crew and I would recommend it to anyone who appreciates the sea.

This book is a page turner. Very well written, with both historical information regarding this type of ship, and this ship in particular. Those parts of the book discussing the sailing characteristics of the Pride were highly interesting from a technical standpoint, and when applied to the storm situations described, made pretty exciting reading.
I found the backround information on the ship's crew, the story of how the ship was built, and the aftermath of the sinking, added greatly to the books interest. The story of the crews stuggle to survive after the Pride sank rates with any survival-at-sea saga that I have ever read. The details provided are just amazing, and make you feel like you were right in the raft.
This book is as good a read as you will find in current literature.

The Baltimore clipper schooners, famous for their speed, pestered the British in the War of 1812. They were slender and fast, low in the water but with two extremely tall, swept-back masts. The city fathers of Baltimore in the 1970s figured the city needed something to be proud of. It had lost its football team, crime was up, and the docks were in decay. To boost civic pride, a replica Baltimore clipper was proposed, and eagerly funded, built, staffed and sailed. _The Pride of Baltimore_ was a gorgeous ship, looking smart in any display of the beloved Tall Ships. In fact, it was first proposed to be a dockside museum, but it eventually became a seagoing craft, spreading the good name of Baltimore (and business interest in it) to Europe. The plan to resurrect the Baltimore clipper was a resounding success. Unfortunately, lots of the clippers had sunk two centuries ago, largely due to their top-heaviness, and _The Pride_ did so, too, in 1986, in an unexpected storm as she was returning to Baltimore from the Virgin Islands. Four of the crew of twelve perished. In _Pride of the Sea: Courage, Disaster, and a Fight for Survival_ (Citadel Press) Tom Waldron has given the story of the ship and the disaster, a story which ought to please true-life adventure fans. He also comes to some sensible conclusions about how the accident happened, beyond the simple explanation "freak storm."

When the proposal for a new Baltimore clipper was made, one of the first naval architects to consider the job wrote, "... an exact replica of an old sailing vessel is unlikely to meet Coast Guard requirements." Indeed, the civic boosters and the architect who got the job made a conscious decision not to have _The Pride_ certified by the Coast Guard. It was risky to sail on her, but it was authentic, and it appealed to those who loved ships with sails. There was a crew of both old salts and rookies, none of whom were over thirty. Six of them were newcomers to the boat. A violent, unexpected squall of sixty knots simply pushed over _The Pride_; there had been a risky maneuver to bring the ship under better control, but the risk had not paid off. The ship rapidly took on water, and with no compartmentalization, sank quickly. The rafts failed to work properly; only one could be inflated, so that the eight survivors had to make do on a raft that would have been crowded with its recommended crew of six. Waldron expertly describes the chaos of the sinking and the hellish five days on the raft afterwards. Time after time, ships passing near enough to see them did not see them, until a Norwegian supertanker picked them up. The only lightness in the raft comes from a couple who had fallen in love on the boat. The young woman said matter-of-factly, "I don't want to go through life without being proposed to." Her boyfriend, taken aback, issued one of the strangest proposals ever: "Sure, Leslie, if we survive, we'll get married." And so they did, after funerals and investigations and recriminations, all recounted here.

_The Pride_ and its four lost crewmen were sacrificed to nostalgia, a dream of the romantic days of sail without recalling the nightmares the sea can bring. Nothing symbolizes this as much as the hand-held radio beacons that would have sent signals to satellites when the ship was in danger. Both beacon devices were available to anyone who could grab one, but they were inaccessible, mounted on the inside of the doomed vessel. The reason? They were too modern to be kept out on deck and detracted from the vessel's historic aspect. Waldron's terrific account of the loss of _The Pride_ recounts many such lapses. _Pride of Baltimore II_ has been built, and to modern standards this time. But as a survivor reminds us, the most modern of boats are going down, too: "When you go out to sea, it's a big place out there and the sea has all the power."

When I was a child, I became an avid reader when I picked up my first secular novel, and I was particularly facinated by historical novels because of my love for history. When I became a Christian, I was in such love with my Savior Jesus Christ that I couldn't get enough of Christian literature. I put aside novels for years. I never thought that there were good Christian novels available, except for romances and the like which only seemed to arouse in me sinful passions and desires. I ran across Francine Rivers somewhat inadvertently. It had been so long since I read a novel that I decided to try once more with "The Prophet." I read it within a week and was rushing to order another one. I was overwhelmed by her skill of writing. She intrigued every facet of my interests, from a good story, to a historical drama, to a Biblical edification. The focus of this book from start to finish was the awesome glory of God. I was in tears often. As the book begins, God's glory is demonstrated in a somewhat allegorical format as we are led along with Amos in the pastures of Tekoa where he shephered his flock. I saw Psalm 23 come alive and was deeply impressed by the gracious patience of my own Good Shepherd as I saw the parallels between the sheep of Amos and myself, as well the actions of Amos to Jesus Christ. Following Amos further through his life exhaulted the long-suffering love of God in bearing with the obstinent sin of His people, and yet His perfect justice to deal with unrepentent rebellion. Rivers' novel brought the Biblical book of Amos to life, which I read in the Bible at the same time. I would highly recommend this book. It is the best novel I have read.

You did a good job in getting the book out fast and it was what I wanted. The book is like brand new.

Thank You

God Bless

Char

The Prophet (Sons of Encouragement)Even if you are an avid student of the Bible, most of us don't spend the time it took Francine Rivers to get to know the prophet Amos. We might study the words he wrote but Rivers has brought the man to life. I came away from this novelette with a new appreciation for the calling that God has on a man's life and what path that might lead one on. Just as Amos was compelled to walk the chosen way that God lead him - so are we. I thank Francine Rivers for reminding me that I too must walk in love and obedience - no matter what the personal cost.

This was a great book! I was in the middle of another book when I got it, so I didn't get to read it right away and my husband started reading it. He loved it so much and I had to wait until he was done before I could start on it! And he never reads my books! But he finished it quickly, so I didn't have to wait long. :-)

This is a wonderful read. Francine Rivers comes through again. Makes the characters real & takes you into their world. Highly recommended.

Many books and/or their reviews glibly claim to "change your life". This one doesn't explicitly make any such promises, but change my life it has. More specifically, it has changed the way I look at life and the world. Postmodernism has brought about radical and sweeping changes, whether we realise it or not. This is a book that blows the lid on reality in terms of the paradigms that most of us have grown up with, and within which humanity has come to understand religion, politics, history and culture. Indeed, it is a timely and sobering deconstruction of many of the illusions (or Socially Constructed Realities) that people across time and cultures have come to regard as sacred and infallible. Its purpose is not to deconstruct for the promotion of its own paradigm or belief system (though I suppose an element of that is inseparable from any such undertaking). One of the most enduring images from the book is the description of a postmodern art piece which shows a hand drawing a hand that is drawing a hand. What a striking metaphor for the postmodern world, and indeed for epochs that have gone before us. Where indeed is the line between objective, absolute 'reality' and that which is subjectively constructed? Does it and can it exist for human beings at all? Whatever else may be said, this is a book that challenged me and stimulated me to think about all aspects of modern life in new and profound ways. If you are anything like me and read books which do that very thing, then believe me - this one is for you.

I am an anthropologist who teaches courses on popular culture as well as culture theory and postmodernism. This is one of the smartest and most entertaining books on the subject of modern and postmodern life. If I had found it in time, I would have used it as a required book in my course.
A lot of postmodern writing is full of puffery, but Anderson not only grounds it but makes it very engaging and immediate. He makes many insightful observations and phrases things in quotable ways. Anyone who is new to, or even fairly familiar with, postmodern and popular culture would benefit from this book. The range of topics and the smoothness of style are among the best out there.

This book was published almost twenty years ago and I only wish I had found it sooner. Written in an easy-to-read and understandable style, it covers the influence of post-modern thinking on politics, pop culture, religion, art and philosophy, among other areas. Powerfully, Anderson makes the argument that everyone has their own version of reality, carefully providing examples from everyday life. For example, he contrasts the objectivist (there are a few perfect rules that everyone must obey) and the constructivist (aware that many rules are part of a socially constructed reality), the exoteric religions (Christianity and Islam - God said so, it must be true) and esoteric religions (Zen Buddhism - a personal journey without judgement).

Why is this important? Because of most of the tension in the world comes from the differences of opinion between six main groups he has outlined: Christianity, Islam, capitalism, communism/socialism, environmentalism and new age. All of these groups passionately believe in the truth of their message and would like the entire world to conform to their thinking. In the end, the book makes you wonder where all this will lead to -- complete freedom is a beautiful thing that makes many people uncomfortable.

Get this book, take it to a quiet beach and you won't see the world the same way again.

I first stumbled upon this book by accident, read a few pages, and was amazed, amused, aghast and (forgive me) agog! Written in 1993, the author's observations and predictions (although he wasnt trying to be prophetic) were accurate and correct -- especially the section about whatit would "take" to get Americans to support a war - and how long (or short) the govt. could keep the people from getting fed up. He said it would take something like Pearl Harbor -- of that magnitude in order for teh govt to whip up enough support for a vindictive invasion/assault etc. He was right about that! That's just one small section -- the entire book is fascinating, easy to read, and explains the fracas over Globalization better than any other book I've read.
Buy it.

Anderson's reevaluation of the past few decades puts a clarifying and relieving spin on everything from global memes to the Ayatollah Khomeini. He sees the postmodern era as superficially confusing but surprisingly comprehensible on a deeper level. By reconsidering the growing pains of our complex and creative species in light of the theory that we humans construct our own realities, he shows the reader pattern and order and even hope amidst the fascinating chaos of our times.

Reinventing Democrats chronicles the efforts of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) to shift the Democratic Party from its liberal orientation to a more centrist position. It details the DLC's strategies, its successes and its failures up to the 2000 primaries, before the Democratic Party had selected a candidate. It makes a compelling case that the Democratic Party needs to (1) select public policies that are fiscally responsible, business friendly, and, in short, consonant with middle-class values and (2) eschew or de-emphasize policies that are attractive primarily to the party's issue-activists -- this being necessary to occupy the mainstream of American political thought and avoid becoming politically marginalized. This message is particularly relevant now (2003) that some Democrats are panicking over the 2002 mid-term election results and calling for a shift back to the left, effectively seeking to reverse the successful course set by Clinton after the disaster of the 1994 mid-term elections.

Clinton was elected on a New Democrat (i.e. DLC) platform, but he commenced to govern, or was perceived to govern, with a liberal agenda. This led to his plummeting popularity and the mid-term disaster of 1994, and at the time it appeared he would be retired after one term. Since a good scare is always more valuable than good advice, he embraced a New Democratic agenda in his second two years and, with a little help from the Republicans, he won a handy victory in 1996, vindicating the DLC in the process. In all likelihood the New Democratic philosophy (embodied in Al Gore) would have achieved further electoral vindication in 2000 but for unfortunate lapses in the Oval Office and mis-steps thereafter -- the 2000 election was close; Clinton-exhaustion seems to have been a factor.

This book narrates events in a Democratic evolution that is still taking place, and the success of which is not guaranteed. If you care about public policy and the future of the Democratic Party, or just like to look inside the political process, this book is worth a read.

This book is a must read for anyone with even a passing interest in American politics. Baer tells the thrilling story of how a group of Democratic Party activists saved the party from itself and brought it back on the side of middle class values. This is the real "inside" story of how Bill Clinton became president and explains the politics of the 2000 campaign better than any other book I've read.

This intelligent and exhaustively researched book outlines -- in a style that both political junkies and normal readers alike will find engaging -- how Bill Clinton and like-minded Democrats, for all of their foibles, truly became the political "comeback kids" of the late twentieth century. George W. Bush and Bill Bradley would do well to stop ignoring the lessons Baer teaches, and aspiring leaders from around the world undoubtedly will turn to this book as an answer key for the tests voters put before them on election days.

Whether you have a passing interest or are a true political junky, this book is a must read to understand America's contemporary political landscape. Highly recommended.

A must read for anyone interested in our political system! At the dawn of the 21st century, the face of politics and parties is changing at an alarming rate. Reinventing Democrats takes an insightful look at the underlying truthes of government today. Baer is a thoughtful and intelligent writer who sheds light on what fuels the actions and decisions that affect the lives of all Americans. This book definetly can't be missed!

I used to work in WTC building #7 until I moved to LA about a year before 9/11. I never felt so out of place as I did for a few weeks after 9/11 as I watched the recovery and clean-up efforts from Ground Zero from California. I wanted to know everything I could which is of course impossible unless you were there. This book gives you incredible insight to the bravery, courage, strength and gut-wrenching horrors of those who were there to find, clean-up and recover.

This is absolutely a great book, probably the best one for getting you into ground zero and feeling what they felt, to as great of an extent as you can. I don't quite understand all of the [---] he uses, for example, "the [firefighters] started down Vessey". Is he just trying something new? I don't care though, I have never read a book that is as honest and makes you feel like your fighting the fires with dennis more then his series of books. Great job!

A very readable, moving book that adds still more to the memory-bank of September 11, 2001. The book is divided into two sections: 9/11 itself and the first months afterward, recounted day by day. Most of the second section is Smith's own experiences, with fewer "interviews" with others; however, this doesn't take away from the power of the work.

One peeve is that Smith too often refers to his previous work "Report from Engine Co. 82" in terms of whether or not people were aware of it--including incredulity that a police officer guarding the crime scene a few days afterwards didn't know. However, he writes some of the best descriptions of a profession, any profession, that I have ever read: "...to me it was always the best responsibility to have in a fire--to be on my stomach and to have the officer and the men shouting, 'That's it, you got it, move in, a little more, get the ceiling, get the ceiling, watch the windows, you got it now...".

One quote from an Assistant Chief of Department captures how quickly people forget--from November 5, 2001: "They came down to the World Trade Center in fire trucks and we should not let them leave in dump trucks." Five years later, don't forget all of those who did not leave that day the way they started it.

It's hard to not give this book a 5-star rating because I was moved in many places and I'm so grateful for the sacrifice of the firemen on 9/11. This book opened my eyes in many ways to their ultimate sacrifice and their continued efforts to honor their own.

I do think, however, that this could have been edited a bit better. The aftermath section (which is about half of the book) seems repetitive to me and thus, not quite as powerful as the earlier section. Also, I found it strange that there was no mention of the crash of flight 587 on November 12th, 2001. Mr. Smith records that on that day he was in a meeting with Mayor Guilliani and other firemen about their role at ground zero. He focused on this day for several pages and failed to mention that 250+ people perished in a NY neighborhood aboard that flight and everyone initially suspected terrorism as the cause of the crash. This omission, perhaps, would have been more understandable had he not mentioned 11/12/01 at all, but there is a whole section for that day and certainly this crash was on his mind, since it did indeed involve firemen.

Overall, I recommend this book.

"Report from Ground Zero: The Story of the Rescue Efforts at the World Trade Center" by Dennis Smith provides a poetic-journalistic look at a tragedy which still continues to shake America. You'll find the book stronger in intensity than many of the photographic collections of September 11, 2001.

Why? Dennis Smith was a fireman who understood tragedy from an experienced viewpoint. Like all of us, he saw the worst of humankind crash into the World Trade Center. Then, he saw the best of humankind enter those same buildings to save the victims.

Now, three years later, after many in America have preferred to see terrorism as a political event and not one of evil and hate, it is important to remember the violent images, and the tender responses to the hurting and scared. America was in one its greatest moments in those torrid days, and we should never forget.

Smith's descriptions are more than photo-realistic versions of what he saw, but brings forth the anguish and passion, and the smell of wet ash and burning debris. Smith manages to connect with the reader beyond the hype and politics. You will not be able to read this unaffected.

The people in the high-rises, on the planes, and the policemen and fireman all were real people. Even the foolish young men who hijacked the planes, the ones who believe Bin Laden -- all real people who died for another man's lie. Smith draws out the real, draws out the essence as well as the actual accounts of the awful events.

I fully recommend "Report from Ground Zero: The Story of the Rescue Efforts at the World Trade Center" by Dennis Smith.

Anthony Trendl
editor, HungarianBookstore.com

This is usually the third book you read in a Political Philosophy course after "The Republic" and the "Nichomachean Ethics".

Locke comes to an understanding of "society", "government", and "property", among a number of notions central to our way of life. Doing that, he's also justifying them, as they exist. He states better and more clearly than anyone else what it is we think these things are and why we should view them as good. I don't know if anyone is thought to have done these particular things any better. (I guess I'm saying that Hobbes, Rousseau, etc., did other things.)

Lots of good stuff written here on this. Just think it's worth pointing out that Locke's argument for man's leaving the state of nature and his argument for the establishment of property are notoriously inconsistent.

The "state of nature" is more rhetorical device or thought-experiment than historical description. Nonetheless, it is essential to the argument.

Oh well. Plato's dialogues often end in despair.

I wish more people knew political philosophy. It would raise the general level of discussion. People would spend less time monkeying demagogues, charlatans, and hucksters.

Good edition too.

John Locke (1632-1704) wrote "Second Treatise of Government" in 1690, it was the main political philosophical source that our "Founding Fathers" went to in writing the "Declaration of Independence" and in forming our government. I think you should know something of Locke to understand what influenced his thinking. His father was a small landowner, attorney, Puritan and his political sympathies were with the Cromwell Parliament. Like Hobbes, Locke attended Oxford Univ. and did not think much about the curriculum or his professors. Most of his education came from reading books in the Univ. library. Renee Descartes and Sir Isaac Newton's writings greatly influenced Locke. Like Hobbes, he took a tutoring job teaching the son of the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, and traveled Europe. His friendship with the Earl was beneficial in obtaining government appointments. During the political unrest in England, (1679-83) he fled to Holland because his liberal notions put him at odds with the government.

Locke writes the "Second Treatise of Government" to justify the Revolt of 1688 and the ascension of William of Orange to the English throne. The book argues against two lines of absolutist ideas. The first is Sir Robert Filmer's "patriarchal theory of divine right of kings; secondly, Hobbes argument for the sovereign's absolute power in his book "Leviathan." Locke argues that government emanates from the people. Locke's treatise rests like other political writings on its interpretation of human nature. He sees our nature opposite the way Hobbes did, decent and not as selfish or competitive. Man is more inclined to join society through reason and not fear. Man prefers stability to change.

His very important contribution to "law of nature" theory was his bias toward individualism. In state of nature, before government, men were free independent, equal enjoying inalienable rights "chief among them being life, liberty, and property." Where have you read that before? Property rights receive much attention in this treatise. Locke argues that government based on consent of man can still preserve freedom independence and equality.

His political writing had immediate influence in the world and influenced our founding fathers in their struggle against tyranny. He is an excellent writer and his theories are easy to understand by the laymen. As a graduate student of political philosophy, I recommend if you have an interest in politics, philosophy, or government then you must read Locke's "Second Treatise of Government"

In his book, Second Treatise of Government, John Locke (1632 - 1704) writes that all humans are born equal with the same ability to reason for themselves, and because of this, government should have limitations to ensure that people are free from the arbitrary will of another person, according to the laws of nature. Government, in Locke's view, is a social contract between the people in control, and the people who submit to it.

The editor of this edition, C. B. Macpherson, gives a little background and overview in his introduction to this book. He writes that the book "was directed against the principles of Sir Robert Filmer, whose books, asserting the divine authority of kings and denying any right of resistance, were thought by Locke and his fellow Whigs to be too influential among the gentry to be left unchallenged by those who held that resistance to an arbitrary monarch might be justified." (p. viii)
Locke's book served as a philosophical justification for revolting against tyrannical monarchies in the Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution. His book was practically quoted in the Declaration of Independence.

Locke lays out his basis for government on the foundation that people are able to reason. Because of this, people have inherent freedoms or natural rights. Though he believed in reason, Locke was an empiricist, meaning he believed that all knowledge of the world comes from what our senses tell us. The mind starts as a "tabula rasa", latin for an empty slate. As soon as we are born, we immediately begin learning ideas. Thus, all the material for our knowledge of the world comes to us through sensations. Nevertheless, Locke had an unshakable faith in human reason. He believed that people do learn what is right and wrong, regardless of what they choose to do. Locke believed that faith in God, certain moral norms and understanding consequences were inherent in human reason. So, even though people acquire everything they know about the world through the senses, they are able to think for themselves and reason at a higher level about what they learn.

Locke presumed that there are universally recognized principles and that the consequences are practically scientific. He was greatly influenced by Isaac Newton (1647-1727) who wrote The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Locke took the ideas that there were "natural laws" in science and tried to extend that to society.

Natural laws, or rights, in Locke's view, are obvious and learned through human reasoning, and apply to everyone. They are also called "self-evident," which appears in The Declaration of Independence. All humans are created equal, and Locke bases this idea on the golden rule, that people are to do to others as they would have others do to them. Natural equality is the basis of the first and most important "natural law" which is to care for one another. (p. 9) Locke believes that with or without government, there were universal natural rights.

Without government, people are unprotected from harm by other people. Where there is no government, people are free to do as they please, even to harm others. In this state, natural laws still apply, such as the right of people to protect themselves and seek reparation for injuries done to them. However, people are naturally inconsistent in executing punishments, because they have a propensity to act out of hate or revenge. Therefore, laws are necessary in a civil society to fairly arbitrate justice. The purpose of creating a civil society is to avoid major conflicts and keep peace.
Thus, civil government is a "contract" between people to regulate their affairs fairly. According to Locke's theories, people enter into a social contract by forming governments that will preserve order.

Locke describes a civil government as being democratic with some checks to ensure that it does not overstep its boundaries, and having both legislative and executive powers. A civil government is democratic or representative, meaning laws are created by the consent of the people through the voice of a majority vote. The legislature should represent the people equally based on population. (Salus populi suprema lex) All people are subject to the law, including the rulers-no one is above the law. Even the legislature needs "standing rules" to keep it from over-stepping its boundaries. Locke advocated the principle of division of powers. Because the legislature only meets at appointed times to create or revise laws, there needs to be an executive power that is constantly enforcing the laws. So Locke describes a division of the legislative and executive powers.

In contrast to what was being claimed by the rulers of the time, Locke taught that the purpose of government is to serve and benefit the people and that it should be controlled by the people for which the government was made. His claim that people have the right to rebel against government was controversial. Second Treatise of Government served as a foundation for future political philosophies.

John Locke's Second Treatise on Government is the Natural Rights philosophy's greatest essay. Locke, an English freethinker, wrote both his Frist and Second Treatise on Government to refute the patriarchial and absolutist writings of Sir Robert Filmer. Locke clearly believes man is imbued with the natural right to life, liberty, and property. He believes men have a right to live free from tyrannical government.

Locke shows how when a government degenerates into tyranny the "people" have a right to revolt and throw off such government. Sound familar? Jefferson wrote these words into the Declaration of Independence. Locke believes that liberty is a man's right by his very nature of being human. He points out how that men come together to form a government, based upon a social contract, and that the rulers or government must abide by that contract or man returns to his natural state. In the natural state men are not bound to the current ruler but may institute new government for their security and protection.

Although he believed that government should not be changed lightly or on a whim, and believed that the ruler must violate the contract and usurp power, he nevertheless pointed out that government is of men, not God or gods. He repudiated the doctrine propagated by Filmer, that rulers are appointed to rule by God, ie: the Divine Right of Kings.

This "wee little book" as Jefferson put it, has had a tremendous influence on the Western world. Locke, a child of the English Enlightenment has caused conservatives and other tyrants, socialists and communists to shudder at the right to throw off tyrannical government. A truly great read.

John Locke (1632-1704) wrote "Second Treatise of Government" in 1690, it was the main political philosophical source that our "Founding Fathers" went to in writing the "Declaration of Independence" and in forming our government. I think you should know something of Locke to understand what influenced his thinking. His father was a small landowner, attorney, Puritan and his political sympathies were with the Cromwell Parliament. Like Hobbes, Locke attended Oxford Univ. and did not think much about the curriculum or his professors. Most of his education came from reading books in the Univ. library. Renee Descartes and Sir Isaac Newton's writings greatly influenced Locke. Like Hobbes, he took a tutoring job teaching the son of the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, and traveled Europe. His friendship with the Earl was beneficial in obtaining government appointments. During the political unrest in England, (1679-83) he fled to Holland because his liberal notions put him at odds with the government.

Locke writes the "Second Treatise of Government" to justify the Revolt of 1688 and the ascension of William of Orange to the English throne. The book argues against two lines of absolutist ideas. The first is Sir Robert Filmer's "patriarchal theory of divine right of kings; secondly, Hobbes argument for the sovereign's absolute power in his book "Leviathan." Locke argues that government emanates from the people. Locke's treatise rests like other political writings on its interpretation of human nature. He sees our nature opposite the way Hobbes did, decent and not as selfish or competitive. Man is more inclined to join society through reason and not fear. Man prefers stability to change.

His very important contribution to "law of nature" theory was his bias toward individualism. In state of nature, before government, men were free independent, equal enjoying inalienable rights "chief among them being life, liberty, and property." Where have you read that before? Property rights receive much attention in this treatise. Locke argues that government based on consent of man can still preserve freedom independence and equality.

His political writing had immediate influence in the world and influenced our founding fathers in their struggle against tyranny. He is an excellent writer and his theories are easy to understand by the laymen. As a graduate student of political philosophy, I recommend if you have an interest in politics, philosophy, or government then you must read Locke's "Second Treatise of Government"

I love what he said about government, politics and toleration. It's kind of cool how he used the bible to push his point. This work is very influential and has been the modern foundation for many governments. Where would America be without John Locke? I believe that he was at the fore front of the British enligtenment. Along with Newton and Boyle he made the modern world what it is today.

The Second Treatise of Government provides Locke's theorizes the individual rights and involvement with the government; he categorizes them in two areas -- natural rights theory and social contract. 1.Natural state; rights which human beings are to have before government comes into being. 2.Social contact; when conditions in natural state are unsatisfactory, and there's need to develop society into functioning of central government.

Political Power and Natural state: He explains the need for civil government; by detailing life with the absence of civil government. This is the premature state of an entity; through this one can see the need and a role for a government structure. He begins by defining political power; which is the right of making laws with penalties varying with the nature of transgression. The laws are maintained for the preservation of property; the enrichment of the community and its defense.
He determines the need for civil government by expressing the state of society without a government. To maintain harmony; there is a need to maintain equality; this is the state of nature. The chief end for the human species is survival; to attain it we need life, liberty, health and property. These are natural rights that we have in a state of nature before the introduction of civil government, and all people have these rights equally.
The Natural State personifies a state of utopia; as it does not account for the realistic issues of violations of this natural state. There are no police, prosecutors or judges in the state of nature as these are all representatives of a government with full political power. In addition to our other rights, we have the rights to enforce the law and judge on our own behalf. We may intervene in cases where our own interests are not directly under threat to help enforce the law of nature. Still, the person who is most likely to enforce the law under these circumstances is the person who has been wronged. The basic principle of justice is that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime. When victims are judging a crime; they likely to judge it of greater severity than an impartial judge. As a result, there will be miscarriages of justice.

Slavery: Is the state of being in the absolute or arbitrary power of another. On Locke's definition of slavery there is only one way to become a legitimate slave. In order to do so one must be an unjust aggressor defeated in war. The just victor then has the option to either kill the aggressor or enslave them. Locke tells us that the state of slavery is the continuation of the state of war between a lawful conqueror and a captive, in which the conqueror delays to take the life of the captive, and instead makes use of him; only in this condition is slavery legitimate. Illegitimate slavery is the state in which someone possesses absolute power over someone else without just cause. Locke holds that it is this illegitimate state of slavery which absolute monarchs wish to impose upon their subjects.

Property: In evolution of the state of nature to civil government. It is the account of nature and origin of property, which leads to the explanation of why civil government replaces the state of nature. In discussing the origin of private property Locke begins by noting that God gave the earth to all men. Locke holds that we have a property in our own person. And the labor of our body and the work of our hands properly belong to us. The state of evolution for property is hunter/gatherer to agriculture to introduction of money; each development provides more flexibility and removes limitations of trade; creating economical inequality. The inequality may cause quarrels which increases the numbers of violations of the law.
The institution of civil government comes about because of the difficulties in the state of nature. Rather clearly, on Locke's view, these difficulties increase with the increase in population, the decrease in available resources, and the advent of economic inequality which results from the introduction of money. These conditions lead to an increase in the number of violations of the natural law. Thus, the inconvenience of having to redress such grievances on one's own behalf become much more acute, since there are significantly more of them. These lead to the introduction of civil government.

Social Contract Theory: Locke's argument for the right of the majority is the theoretical ground for the distinction between duty to society and duty to government. When the designated government dissolves, men remain obligated to society acting through majority rule. It is entirely possible for the majority to confer the rule of the community on a king, oligarchs or an assembly. Thus, the social contract is not linked to democracy; still a government must perform the legitimate function of government.

Civil Government: The aim of such a legitimate civil government is to preserve, so far as possible, the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its citizens, and to prosecute and punish those of its citizens who violate the rights of others and to pursue the public good even where this may conflict with the rights of individuals. In doing this it provides something unavailable in the state of nature, an impartial judge to determine the severity of the crime, and to set a punishment proportionate to the crime.

I could not believe how different this book was from what I expected it to be based on professors in politics classes describing Locke. I think they never read this book or were confusing him with someone else. This book is short and sweet, and at the same time a cornerstone for what the world has become in most developed countries. Many ideas in this book were revolutionary in his time (in fact Locke would not let it be known he was the author) but are now so commonplace as to be things observed in any developed country without explaining why. At least the economic ideas could be classified as such; but the ideas of the people overthrowing a tyrant due to horrible ruling is equally revolutionary in monarchies and dictatorships today, and even in poorly governed "democracies" today. A must read.

The importance of this book, first published in 1690, cannot be denied. The book's most famous and controversial idea is that the people have a right to overthrow their government if the government fails consistently in its responsibilities and duties.

The book, which lacks an introduction or conclusion, may be challenging for modern readers. Locke's writing covers a wide range of topics; conquest, paternal power (i.e. the power that fathers have over their children), despotical power and his over-arching central concern, property.

The main ideas of the book are that government exists by the consent of the governed who found government for the purpose of securing their lives, rights and property. Locke frequently contrasts people who live in a state of nature (i.e. no government; people enjoy considerable personal freedom) and those that live under government. Under Locke's view of the social contract, men give up give up the unlimited freedom they enjoyed in the state of nature so as to secure their life, limb and property more securely under government. There is also some discussion of the idea of separation of powers; what is interesting here is that Locke does not use the traditional formulation (i.e. executive, legislative, and judicial), rather he discusses executive, legislative and "federative" (by which he means the conduct of self-defense and foreign policy) powers.

The type of government that Locke describes more closely resembles the system employed by Britain and Canada, more than the United States. He conceives of a monarch or prince at the top of the government (as in Britain and Canada; the Monarch is the Head of State), with the legislature representing the people (Parliament) and so on. This is not to deny that this book still holds value for Americans, as other reviewers have pointed out.

All that said, I would not recommend this particular edition of the book. The lack of introduction to put Locke in his historical context can make the book difficult to understand and some of Locke's 17th century references will simply be skipped over by most readers. However, if you simply want a copy of the book that is plain and plan to quote from it, this edition is quite useful. Each paragraph of the book is numbered allowing a researcher to precisely footnote information.

John Locke (1632-1704) wrote "Second Treatise of Government" in 1690, it was the main political philosophical source that our "Founding Fathers" went to in writing the "Declaration of Independence" and in forming our government. I think you should know something of Locke to understand what influenced his thinking. His father was a small landowner, attorney, Puritan and his political sympathies were with the Cromwell Parliament. Like Hobbes, Locke attended Oxford Univ. and did not think much about the curriculum or his professors. Most of his education came from reading books in the Univ. library. Renee Descartes and Sir Isaac Newton's writings greatly influenced Locke. Like Hobbes, he took a tutoring job teaching the son of the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, and traveled Europe. His friendship with the Earl was beneficial in obtaining government appointments. During the political unrest in England, (1679-83) he fled to Holland because his liberal notions put him at odds with the government.

Locke writes the "Second Treatise of Government" to justify the Revolt of 1688 and the ascension of William of Orange to the English throne. The book argues against two lines of absolutist ideas. The first is Sir Robert Filmer's "patriarchal theory of divine right of kings; secondly, Hobbes argument for the sovereign's absolute power in his book "Leviathan." Locke argues that government emanates from the people. Locke's treatise rests like other political writings on its interpretation of human nature. He sees our nature opposite the way Hobbes did, decent and not as selfish or competitive. Man is more inclined to join society through reason and not fear. Man prefers stability to change.

His very important contribution to "law of nature" theory was his bias toward individualism. In state of nature, before government, men were free independent, equal enjoying inalienable rights "chief among them being life, liberty, and property." Where have you read that before? Property rights receive much attention in this treatise. Locke argues that government based on consent of man can still preserve freedom independence and equality.

His political writing had immediate influence in the world and influenced our founding fathers in their struggle against tyranny. He is an excellent writer and his theories are easy to understand by the laymen. As a graduate student of political philosophy, I recommend if you have an interest in politics, philosophy, or government then you must read Locke's "Second Treatise of Government"