Events Books

Chapter 5 on Afghanistan, gives the reader an intimate,
close up view of the country and its people. We are so
advantaged in the current war because we cannot have the
the illusion that "the enemy" is a boogey man, whose host country deserves to be obliterated. Not so. In disabling
terrorists networks, may we the people of the world make a
step forward in which we wake up to our oneness. Roger Plunk's book is a "how-to" book for living in a world connected, not only at its unified source, but also through its many venues of
information exchange.

This book tells in common languagge an extrordinary and true story that is both spiritual and pragmatic. An enjoyable easy read that will inform and inspire you, this book is refreshingly honest. The very original theme and information presented is sure to interest anyone tired of the same old stories! I highly recommend this book!

This is one of the most important books for our time. Both diplomacy and power politics in the conventional sense are consistently failing the world. The major powers have only one goal, which is to project their narrow national interest-- usually at the expense of others, whose needs are entirely ignored. The United Nations, once the beacon of hope and a cradle of impartiality, is hopelessly corrupt and driven by a Security Council that is no longer representative of today's realities.

It's high time for a comprehensive change in our approach to foreign policy, and Roger Plunk, with great humility and sound reasoning, shows us the way. If you're concerned with where the world is heading, buy this book and give copies to your friends!

Roger Plunk began a lifetime of wandering as a child. He did stay put long enough as a young man to earn two law degrees, then he began working for the U.S. State Department. He learned that his calling was to be a mediator and that he had the ability and desire to work for peace one-on-one with world leaders.

The Dalai Lama was the first to utilize Plunk's special talents. In The Wandering Peacemaker, his first book, Plunk describes mediation efforts between Tibet and China. From there, he travels to India and Pakistan, Burma, and then to Afghanistan. He not only analyzes the political situation in each dispute, he describes the history of the area and the people involved. Readers get a clear understanding of both sides.

Plunk holds strong spiritual beliefs and says "the common thread running through the stories [in his book] is the dynamic relationship between government and spirituality." Plunk was guided by his belief that one person can make a difference. He says, "I was one person on a very low budget engaging in large international issues [and] I did manage to get my message across."

Is there a place for spiritual insight in the political arena? Plunk says yes, and his stories demonstrate the power of spiritual healing in international relations. Readers concerned with human problems and world peace will find The Wandering Peacemaker engrossing, and encouraging. Like a modern Johnny Appleseed, Roger Plunk is planting seeds of peace worldwide. One person can make a difference.

I love it, very enlightening, especially when Plunk writes about Afghanistan, his work with the Northern Alliance, and his captivating discussions with the Dalai Lama. Plunk writes with great clarity, about his journeys as an independent international mediator, venturing into some of the most complicated and violent political conflicts on the planet to connect directly with the leaders and people of Afghanistan and Tibet, to name just a few of his stops. The Wandering Peacemaker is written with a piercing intelligence and a poetic touch that comes staight from the heart as he shares insights from his own spiritual journey. The bowing gesture of devotion, with forehead to the ground, is a perfect metaphor for this book, as Plunk reminds us with every stop along his path to place the heart higher than the head in our common journey towards peace.

It is extremely rare that I would consider a book a "must read", however, this book is simply outstanding. Anyone with an interest in conflict or international relations will find the authors incredibly insightful. This should be required reading for anyone in the military or anywhere else in the government who is involved in our relations with other peoples and nations.

This book gets six stars out of a possible five. (Yes, you read that correctly.)

An additional plug for Codevilla: having read some of his articles as well, I will say that any of his work is worth searching out and reading.

An instant classic when it was first published, this new edition is even better. A must read for anyone who wishes to understand the causes of war and how to deal with them.
JDW

A great far ranging analysis of military and political strategy; his serious analysis of terrorism and what needs to be done is worth the price of this book. After reading this book, one will know why our efforts are at least partially not working, what needs to be done, and when we know things are going the right way. It also indirectly tells us what we should do about Iran. Another great effort, similar to his columns in the Claremont Review and his previous book, "No Victory, No Peace."

One of the abosolutely best books I've read on the subject of war in years. There are so many good points that I can't possibly mention them here, but two really stand out.

Civilians have become the target. Perhaps 70% of the people killed in World War II were civilians. This includes jews, homosexuals, slavs, gypsys, et al in the death camps, and the people under the bombs in London or Berlin. Since then, perhaps 100,000,000 have been killed in ethnic clensing, deliberate starvation, revolutions and so on.

If you really want to take out the terrorists, go after their directors, not the terrorists themselves.

If a cleric is preaching 'Death to America' in his mosque, when the service ends and the people walk outside they find an orbiting Preadator has dropped leaflets saying that it isn't wise to go to places to hear such talking. The second time they get a stronger message by leaflet. The third time a Hellfire missile ends the sermon.

Oh but can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth among our own liberals, to say nothing of al-Jazeera and the United Nations.

Instead we look for terrorists like we look for other criminals, one at a time, and restricted to the actual perp, not the ones who sent them out.

Read this book and the thought may occur to you: "This is so bloody obvious, who needs to read it in a book?" But then put the book down, read the newspapers, listen to the talking heads on TV, or attend a university lecture on the same subjects, and you quickly realize: none of it is obvious to anyone that matters. On second or third reading, you realize that what it's saying is not "obvious" at all; the book's genius consists in making a radical and controversial thesis sound self-evident.

I have one quibble, but the quibble doesn't detract sufficiently from the book to subtract a star: because the authors discuss warfare out of relation to morality, an incautious reader could easily get the impression that they are "Machiavellian" amoralists whose advice can be dismissed as "amoral realism." It isn't true, but they might have been more explicit about why not.

It really is a sad commentary on our culture that this book is as obscure as it is.

I've read political books written by famous radio personalities and other political commentators, but this one tops them all. Besides being well written , it is an enjoyable and easy read. Brett and S.C. do a terrific job of analyzing the political positions of the left in relationship to those on the right, and just knocking the stuffing out of the left. The two young authors have a great future in front of themselves.

As Publications Chairman of the New York Young Republican Club, the largest, oldest, and most active Young Republican organization in the United States, "Why You're Wrong About the Right" has become a great ally in setting the record straight about the Republican Party. My liberal roommates, believe it or not, concede that they were mostly wrong about the Republican Party after reading it.

It is a book that everyone (from middle schoolers to retirees) should read to get around all the false inflammatory stereotypes and get the real scoop, for example, about how we "eco-destroying" Republicans are actually responsible for the EPA, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and more.

I cannot say enough about how effectively and humorously "Why You're Wrong..." turns the tables on what media stereotypes want you to believe. I'm passing copies to everyone I know and I'd recommend everyone doing the same. It's a great eye opening read.

With seemingly every pundit churning out mindless political drivel, Why You're Wrong is a breath of fresh air. While you might not agree with the political leaning of the book, you WILL find it refreshing that Cupp and Joshpe have decided to talk about themselves, and not attack others. Why You're wrong reminds you that stereotypes exists for all corners of society, and Republicans, just like other stereotyped groups, deserve the chance to dispel untruths.

Joshpe and Cupp do a great job breaking down the major stereotypes of conservatives and they do it in the most enjoyable way. They not only present facts (thoroughly!) but they also incorporate interviews and contributions from well-known athletes, musicians, writers and, of course, those involved in the political field. It's the most inventive and enjoyable take on the subject and couldn't put it down once I started reading. Definitely recommended!

Progress of any kind or political persuasion can't come from a denial of reality, a viewpoint shared by NYTimes columnists as well as Ayn Rand. Yet, pursuits of this noble goal often degenerate into simplistic name-calling, and a concomitant spiral into the world of straw-men-bashing and knee-jerk labeling.

Given the frightful prevalence of these narrow-minded specters populating any attempt at intellectual discourse, I was thrilled with S.E. Cupp and Brett Joshpe's attempt to clear some of the air. This book is well thought, well composed, and well researched. One enjoys a humorously enjoyable blend of pop-culture and Edmund Burke, all the while taking aim at those on the left who selectively deny the reality of the beliefs and character of Republicans.

As an Obama supporter, I am nonetheless happy to have read this book because of the broadened perspective it affords my understanding of American politics. If you truly believe that a sober assessment of "the other side" from a quality spokesperson is valuable, Cupp and Joshpe are very capable guides.

I was one of those kids in Southwood. Wow does this book bring it back and now it all makes sense to me.

Christy Scheck did not have to die. The mental health system is getting better but there is so far to go. Especially in the eyes of the public. People with mental illness are not lepers, they just need medicine as a diabetic needs insulin. The general public is so ill-informed. This book is about this young girl who got caught up in the protocol of management and money and greed, and she did not have to die. There is hope and with movies like A Beautiful Mind and Girl, Interrupted and others, like Mike Wallace and Kim Basinger to bring mental health to the forefront of society, it will not hide behind the doors any longer, and will be dealt with in the dignified manner it deserves.

It's amazing and truly sad what greed and money does to people, at the expense of someone else's life and a families happiness.

i read an article in Roling stone.. it in first paragraph stated the parents took this kid out of soccer coed... or something of that nature.. mostlikely the parents have all to do more with the death as much as the hospitals who take advantage .
i happend to be a honors student in art school no drugs or alchol and recovering frm bulima when my father intended to keep me from school by trying to tell a doctor iwas ill.despite he was told to leave me alone .. the next fifteen years of my life were draged into hospitals on lies and hysteria. i was subject to for no reason .. ect. and drugs and i had nt even suffered depression i was a higly educated and adjsuted happy person till my father began to do this.. he admitted this to but not to doctors my father was a md so it was easy to get away with this . my fahter was also a food aholic and gamblerand sick.. see a movie called terror in the family it goes into the lies parents tell of children and who realy is the sick person...
my life was destroyed by these places and i saw first hand what goes on and parents who realy need the places not kids who ar exposed to sick families dysfunction who are basicly reacting to an illness.....
they realy need to have the parents admitted along side the kid id they do this ...
i was kept sick for 115 years and negelcted of anything i said that would have saved me . as a reslut my life suffered ill from truama.... i saved my own life when i escaped this cycle of doctors looking for insurance. butthe effects of damge it left on my life eventuly despite i live about four to five years very happy super healty like i was before this happened i will now die from thethings that were done to me inthe years i was [mistreated] by this system.....
parents have all todo with this kids death .. if they were functional parents they would not need a shrink . they mighttry communcation and being honest with them self.. somewhere they failed and it is not just the system...

Kafka lives and her name is Leon Bing. But the truly scary thing is that Bing's report on society - "A Wrongful Death: One Child's Fatal Encounter with Public Health and Private Greed" - is NON-FICTION. This could happen to any troubled teen - and it did. But what's even more interesting than how and why this 13 year old girl committed suicide while under professional medical care is how and why this book isn't getting reviewed! Attention authors and investigative journalists everywhere: you may have a story worthy of a Pulitzer or Nobel Prize - but how's it going to effect change if no one reads it?

I thought this book was pretty good, although I didn't learn as much as I thought I would. What I did learn was all very frightening indeed.

The reason I didn't give this 5 stars isn't because I didn't learn something from every censored story, but rather that I felt there was a strong bias in this book. Clinton and Carter get off very easily, when compared to Reagan and Bush, who are attacked for verything they do. It's not that I believe they did nothing wrong, but I'm sure that Clinton and Carter weren't nearly as honest and forthright as this book makes them seem (in comparison to the Republican presidents).

You ever wonder if you are reading every news story or if some of the stories never make it to the paper? Do you ever wonder what you might be missing? Grab a copy of 20 Years of censored news and you'll be in for a surprise.

Carl Jensen takes you down the last twenty years with major headlines that were never seen. I was surprised and a little scared to think of what is held back from the public. I was amazed to see what was never told.

Proving the old adage "It's the media that control the people's thinking." This book certainly should wake you up to the fact that what you see isn't really what you get, because you get very little from the press.

I took just over two hours to complete the reading and I am very excited to read Censored 1999, to find out what I missed for the year. Overall this book will make a great gift for just about everyone - well done!

Never heard of East Timor until a few weeks ago? Well, you would have if the other news stories about East Timor over that past few years had made it into the mainstream news!

This book made me realize just how bad the situation is out there in the media. How controlled by corporate PR and government intervention our supposedly "free" media is. How could this happen in the United States of America?

I highly recommend this book to citizens who want to be better informed.

The news stories suppressed by Ronald Reagan (and his "administration") alone tell a horrifying story of how a politician tried to ram his agenda down our throats, without our knowing about it, so that we couldn't dissent or have opinions. And how he tried to censor everything he could, so the American public couldn't get any information about anything the government was doing.(Read Ch. 7, 1982, #6 "Ronald Reagan: America's Chief Censor".) There are also a multitude of stories censored by trans-global corporations what will scare you to death when you read them. What corporations will perpetrate on the public's health, just to continue making a buck, will shock you.

The orignial news stories are covered in summary form, the sources are cited, and there is usually an Update on what has happened since. Sometimes the update is more harrowing than the original!

It is your civic duty to read this book.

There is nothing more important to Freedom than a free, unbiased exchange of ideas. I now have a better idea of how "un-free" I am. Through reading this book, several layers of ignorance have been stripped away from my consciousness.

This is a scholarly, thoughtful dissertation encompassing not only issues of monopolization of the American press by huge multinational corporations, but many other issues ignored by mainstream media: environmentalism, nuclear power, government surveillance and other infringements on the civil rights of the world's citizens. This book is an essential collection of modern history so carefully hidden from the vast majority of Americans.

This is a great read. There are a great variety of stories (discounting the author's obsession with nuclear power) that should pique anyone's interest. Each of the year's stories provides interesting insights on what really happened that year (I found particularly enlightening the stories on the corporations, rich elite, and media empires that really rule American). This is a rare book that should be read by anyone who wants to be informed on current events. Rarely does such an important book come cloaked in such a simple cover.

Professor Farron's book is packed with real-life examples and official policies of how 'Affirmative Action'- or as it is called, cloaked in it's new moniker, 'Diversity'- has had discriminatory effects on people like me who happen not to be 'a person of color'. His clear descriptive quote on Diversity and its subsequent effect is so full of self evident truth that the quote alone is worth buying AND reading the whole book:

"Diversity is the most insidious and pernicious of all defenses of discrimination. The other justifications assume that discrimination is a necessary evil, a temporary expedient that is needed to produce a society in which race and ethnicity are irrelevant. Diversity assumes that discrimination is an unqualified good and that it should be perpetual."

I recommend this book to all, even 'people of color'- whatever that may mean!

A book of this quality and undoubted importance to society should be on the front page of the New York Times Book Review. Its author should be appearing on Meet the Press. Yet, I only heard of it through internet resources. The mainstream media's censorship of truth that doesn't portray women and minorities as victim is monolithic and to society's great detriment. Read this book.

Somewhere in Prof. Farina's book is a line running something like, "Most Americans know what affirmative action is, and most are against it. But very few understand how serious and deep-seated this problem is."

I am privileged to have read his monographs on institutionalized prejudice throughout the world, and on 20th century holocausts. I therefore expected the best from this book, but it turned out to far exceed my expectations.

As I do, Farron considers interracial animosity the world's greatest problem.

I have read quite a bit about the negative aspects of affirmative action policy, but this book goes into far more detail, and is far more convincing about the conspiracy of deceit, false innuendo, and misinformation put out by legislators, the media, and the universities.

I disagree with Prof. Farron as to the innate nature of the inferior IQs of nonwhite populations, and will send a 79-page word processor text file of my own theoretical and empirical reasons for doing so. I blame the schools, especially the first three years,and will send my unpublished manuscript as a free email attachment to anyone requestion one from me by email.

Farron is right that the only real way to achieve racial balance in schools and the work force would be with an outright quota system, even though this is impossible politically and constitutionally.

However, affirmative action is a horrible blight on a country, like ours, that is trying to sell "truth, justice, and the American" way to a world that is decreasingly impressed by our technological and manufacturing prowess.

This book is a must for anyone, of any race or political persuasion, who truly believes our grandchildren should be judged by the content of their characters rather than by the color of their skin.

The Affirmative Action Hoax: Diversity, The Importance Of Character And Other Lies by academician Steven Farron is an unapologetic, no-holds barred indictment of affirmative action especially in university admission, and also the less widely publicized practices of affirmative grading and graduation. Vehement in its denouncements, The Affirmative Action Hoax is unafraid to label defenses of affirmative action as "shameless frauds" and "blatant lies"; it declares, in unambiguous terms, that affirmative action is a blatant form of discrimination against white people and Asian people, and that if racial discrimination must be enacted then by far the most efficient and fair means is through quotas. Debunking the non-academic admissions criteria of "diversity", "importance of character", etc. often used to defend anti-white affirmative action by revealing that the same concepts were first introduced to discriminate in favor of white students who could not compete with the children of Jewish immigrants, The Affirmative Action Hoax is sharp-tongued yet serious minded in its call to reexamine a facet of university admissions policies all too easily taken for granted.

Steven Farron sets out to comprehensively document how affirmative action has changed and distorted our society from college admission, college grading, job applications, and job performance. His style is very readable and not at all pedantic. I started the book and couldn't put it down until it was finished. The subject is divided into various chapters, each relating to another form of affirmative action as applied by our federal and academic bureaucracies. The result is a thorough and informative recount of how affirmative action has changed the structure of our society, for good or evil. Farron is obviously on the side of less affirmative action but he gives his reasons for this stance and relates the price we all pay for our progressive social policies.
Mr. Farron's style is straight forward and easy to comprehend. Although he has done significant research into the numbers related to affirmative action the reader never gets inundated with cold facts.
His arguments are succinct and to the point, never verbose and obscure. I thoroughly enjoyed the book
And will use it as a road map as I navigate our new society.

You should read the book before this by Schwieckart titled Against Capitalism where is destroys any justification for capitalism and rips Mises' comment idea a new one. This book is just a shortened version as he states in the introduction. He criticizes every economic system predating the book. Both socialism and capitalism.

Though perhaps it significantly skewed my views to have been reading Schweickart following a close and careful reading of both Friedman's Capitalism & Freedom and Rawls' Theory of Justice, I feel that not only aided me tremendously in my understanding of the overall flow and goal of the text, but additionally, the overall experience gave me sufficient background in economics and the political interactions of economic theory, to properly appreciate the aims of the text. Many criticisms have been raised against both Friedman and Rawls and I count my own voice amongst those that would offer the critique of necessary but insufficient to both texts based on my limited but careful exposure to them. By this I mean that in reading both previous texts I was struck with the thought that although both theories are needed at least on a purely theoretical basis to provide a jumping off point for further socioeconomic exploration, neither sufficiently brings forth a theory that can be said to at once be necessary to our continuation in culture (and note that by this I mean the sort of culture to which we have grown accustomed), and at the same time be sufficient to meet the needs of a production and workable model of economic policy.
Schweickart, very much on the other hand of the discussion, seems to bring forth a theory that is both necessary and sufficient, both in providing a basis for understanding its own purpose and for meeting the needs of a culture that is heavily imbued in a single system that must be equaled or exceeded to be replaced. To my way of seeing, this system provides a basis for understanding its own purpose in that unlike Friedman and Rawls, Schweickart's system is not merely a position piece describing the merits of a system already extant (capitalism), or the creation of a theory that will help us to justify aspects of that system; rather, it is a complete system unto itself, at once a response to the existing system, while standing on it's own independent of said system and then becoming and remaining recognizable as a unique approach to socioeconomic aspects of government that instead of merely flowing behind existing structure, is itself the basis forming the structure that will arise out of it. I feel that, as I stated above, this system meets the needs of the culture to which it would be applied by replacing the existing system, not merely modifying or justifying the current one. We have in this text something simply not found in the other two and that is a presentation of a possibility that has existed all along, coming to fruition by being read now in an age of understanding, by individuals capable of taking the theories presented and applying them to actuality and not simply as a ponderable aspect of economic and political interest. This is the point that struck me most plainly about Schweickart's text that seems so vastly different if not blatantly superior to many other writings either in philosophy, or from my limited exposure to them, economics, and that is the actual applicability of the text and, building off that, the ease with which a transition could be made into such as system and the clear benefits of doing so are made remarkable clear without having to imagine anything besides the benefits to be gained and the struggle to be avoided.
Now, I realize, and it's necessary for this critique to understand that the goal of Schweickart indeed may not have been the goal of either Friedman or Rawls, but I additionally feel it to be of great import that while both previous texts made claims to improve conditions of our social reality through impacting an economic change, neither before Schweickart had either shown their theory capable of performing such a feat, or had the components in place to succeed in doing so. With Friedman the reader is asked to assume a version of an economic model that today hardly seems viable in the face of the massive structure and paradigm shifts that have occurred since it was penned. Likewise in Rawls, the reader is asked to assume a great deal not only about the world in which we live in terms of its actual workings and processes, but also to assume an unlikely if not impossible and implausible original position, and for the goal only of justifying a current system that has already been shown to be insufficient, leaving one wondering what the point in fact was and what impact it truly makes other than providing for a theoretical basis and thought experiment. In Schweickart, the reader is not asked to assume this or that, and no original position is called for, as the system argued against is that which is in place and the flaws are not only seen but felt by the reader as actuality, and not as some wild fiscal figment as in the previous two texts. We see the problem, and perhaps what we previously perceived to be a degree of inevitability, already in our daily lives and Schweickart brings forth an alternative that while not nearly as convoluted as either Freidman or Rawls is nonetheless exponentially more efficacious in theory and infinitely more believable without the crutch of assumption leaned on by his predecessors.
I enjoyed reading this book and while as I wrote above I felt that the texts read previously were necessary for a clearer understanding of this one, it was not until this point that I understood why they were read when this was out there to tie it all together.

I am very impressed with After Capitalism by Loyola University Professor David Schweickart. Both of my grandfathers were socialists and my father was a member of the Socialist Labor Party. When I grew up I was not merely indoctrinated in socialism I was marinated in it. Despite all of this I never really was given a plausible explanation how a socialist economy was supposed to work, or a plausible explanation how our society could make the transition from our very mature form of industrial capitalism to a socialist economy. After Capitalism provides a plausible explanation for both.

Interesting alternative to the current economic system. The book "After Capitalism" is not a technical book, but does flesh out enough of the economic system invisioned by Schweickart to make it worth reading and thinking about. Is there "no alternative" to capitalism? I am still not sure, but read this book and find out for your self. According to Mises, socialism cannot work, and this really must be the case with Schweikart, but I am not sure I could articulate a proof.
Also read "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Freidman, for another alternative: the real free market.

I just want to add my voice to those who have lauded this book. It is superb in every way. Also, I want to call attention to Morris Berman's work, especially to his last two books, "Wandering God," and "The Twilight of American Culture", which provide important supplements to Schweickart's analysis.

I don't want to waste anyones time from buying this book but I must say.......i'm only on chapter 2 and I am feeling and understanding more about life and spirituality than ever. BUY It,read it, LOVE IT!.

I read several books, all of which were helpful to me recently when I lost someone I loved. This book, however, stayed with me. I couldn't put it down and read it all within two nights, actually three, because I saved the last few pages until the third night (didn't want it to end). I had taken it out at the library, but after reading it decided to buy it from Amazon. Brehony incorporates all types of religious themes/spiritual themes into this book and really gave me a wonderful introduction to Budhism - which I have begun to practice after reading some of the stories and quotes in her book. She does not push any of the religions or spiritual teachings she uses, however, but she presents them in such a way that the reader is helped. I am still grieving and I plan on re-reading her book once I get it from Amazon. I have realized that nothing can truly take away the pain I have from my loss, but Kathleen's book has helped me to see that the best thing I can do is to feel how I feel, instead of figuring out how to run away from it. I recommend this book highly and if you are very open, you might try reading Walking in the Garden of Souls, by George Anderson, which also helped comfort me during this time (although some people may not be open to some of his ideas). At the very least, read Kathleen's book, I felt as if she was sitting next to me helping me through this difficult period of time. It helps because grieving can feel very lonely at times.

How is it that some people become bitter while others thrive as they live through difficult or painful experiences? What can we learn that will guide us through our own dark times to greet the dawn with brighter sight?

Most of us are taught to expect tough times - to suffer horribly. We expect to be diminished, to be tested & found wanting. Most of us think grieving is for wimps & the emotionally unstable. We are taught that control is all & surrender cowardly; that destiny rules our lives & choice is for the wealthy. Most of us have been taught poorly & After the Darkest Hour has a lot to help us re-teach ourselves so we may walk our path in our own shoes.

I really relished Dr. Brehony's Practical Suggestions & her stories as she recounts her insights from the lessons her clients & family taught her.

After the Darkest Hour is a rich & thoughtful read. While gently instructive, it does remind us, frequently, that we are not alone & that walking blindly through our lives will surely cause us to whack our shins on what we insist upon not seeing or believing that no one else, ever, has felt or known such misery. Do visit my site for my full review.

I stumbled upon this book when I needed to read it most, proving "of course", that there are no "coincidences!" Don't even open the cover until you have a highlighter in hand, as you will want to go back and read again - and again - and again...

Easy to read, very well organized, thought provoking. This is NOT a sad book, in spite of the title. Communicates a great understanding - makes sense of suffering - allows the reader to move on, and begin the "journey to wisdom."

Many of my books find their way, ultimately, to a second hand bookshop. Not this one... it has found a place on my permanent collection shelf. Thanks, Kathleen. Well done.

With this book, Kathleen Brehony has eloquently reminded us that through our suffering, we are sometimes given our most precious gifts. How we choose to deal with our grief makes all the difference; will we choose love over hate, wisdom over ignorance, compassion over bitterness, or life over death? Which will you choose? Read this book & share it with someone you love!

Chossudovski has gathered a tremendous body of literature to make his case against America's mythological war on terrorism.
Creating a myth is essential to manufacture consent and unity. Fear is more essential to manipulate the herd and take away their natural rights. Chossudovsky elucidates America's war on terrorism with overwhelming evidence that would leave the reader angry and flabbergasted.
This book is a must read for every citizen who is concerned about his country's affairs, and for every critical thinker who cares about the truth.

Michel Chossudovsky's ultimate goal is to serve World peace by revealing extensive war crimes behind the `War on Terror'. His picture of the world and the US is far from rosy. For him, the `War on Terror' is in fact a `War of Conquest'.
This is a very convincing but disturbing book pointing to the criminalization of upper echelons of the US State with the complicity of the media, which upholds the Bush administration's war agenda, camouflages war crimes, floods the world with blatantly distorted facts and disseminates fear amongst the population.
For the author, the US is on the brink of becoming an authoritarian state. Key decisions are taken behind closed doors at the intelligence headquarters and the Pentagon, with the US Congress as a façade and a president as a public relations figurehead. The military/intelligence establishment acts as a parallel government.
The `War on Terror' is used for the repeal of civil liberties and Constitutional government. New legitimacy emerged that undermines the judicial system (`Rule of Law') and that lays the foundation of a totalitarian state: emergency procedures can be used to usher Martial Law, leading to the suspension of Constitutional government.
In the US national budget, state resources are redirected towards financing the military-industrial complex and domestic security, while social programs have been slashed.

Internationally, the `War on Terror' is a pretext to conquer new economic frontiers, establish corporate controls (e.g. Iraq's oil), to encircle Russia (permanent military bases in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan and in former USSR republics) or to prevent pipeline ventures with China and Iran.
The US continues to support Islamic fundamentalism (India, China, Chechnya) in order to weaken `enemies', or to disarm social movements against the US (e.g. with the Taliban they try to create a new Saudi Arabia in Afghanistan where the leader of the Northern Alliance backed by Russia, was killed).
Al Qaeda was heavily supported by the CIA and NATO in order to destabilize the Yugoslav federation.

With `private wealth is in fewer and fewer hands', the author sees an upcoming world dominated by big corporations (finance, energy, pharma) and the military/intelligence establishment with the media as their mouthpiece.

The author concludes with very disturbing facts about the London bombings which provided a new legitimacy to those who had ordered the illegal invasion of Iraq and which weakened significantly the antiwar and civil rights movements.

Michel Chossudovsky has written a dark and frightening book.
It is a must read for all those interested in the future of mankind.

I also recommend the works of W.G. Tarpley, W. Engdahl and N.M. Ahmed.

Chossudovsky is an economics professor and a staunch critic of the New World Order agenda and the ongoing lies and war profiteering connected to that agenda. This book is a well-documented analysis of how the imperial racketeers operate, with an extensive deconstruction of the official mythology of the 9/11 attacks. Chossudovsky makes a solid case that elements with the US Government and the associated military-industrial complex were involved in orchestrating the attacks, using their CIA-created Arab assets as patsies for the official story used to justify the planned wars and freedom repressing legislations such as the PATRIOT Act. Chossudovsky traces the workings of U.S. intelligence operations and policies for many years, showing how the idea that 9/11 was a "make it happen on purpose" affair is most logical and best supported by the evidence. He looks at the long term agenda being pursued and how it will affect us if it continues unchecked. This isn't a difficult book to read and comprehend but it may be difficult for those who have held faith in the government and media establishment to digest. Chossudovsky has studied this subject well and his materials have been available at www.globalresearch.ca for several years. Anyone wishing to learn about the topics of 9/11, American imperialism, and the role of wars in the move toward globalization, is encouraged to read this book.

Many of the facts mentioned in the book I knew already, but it was for the first time when my conclusions and assumptions were supported by facts, names and figures.

Michel Chossudovsky has been one of my favorite writers on issues like globalization and the bogus "war o'terror" for some time now. He elegantly documents his meticulous research simply and without sensationalized embellishment. Unlike many other writers, Chossudovsky isn't attempting to entertain you or sell books; rather, he is delineating critical information in a lucid and precise fashion that will make sense for even the most casual reader.

While I personally didn't necessarily glean a great deal of strikingly new information of which I wasn't at least partially previously aware, this book certainly helped me to put the puzzle pieces together and frame a better glimpse of the larger picture, outside of the perception management. It was nice to see this volume tie up loose ends and illustrate a time line of sorts. This is an especially great book for a new student of this topic.

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM: AN ENCYCLOPEDIA is essential college-level reading for any interested in the history, philosophy and politics of the American conservative movement: contributions from over two hundred leading scholars pack a weighty reader which blends biography with concepts and history in over six hundred entries. College level holdings strong in social science should consider this 'bible' a must-have reference: from Lord Acton to William F. Rickenbacker, cross-comparisons between theorists and their works make for an essential reference.

Diane C. Donovan
California Bookwatch

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM: AN ENCYCLOPEDIA is a monumental resource for anyone wishing to delve into the evolution of what I would term as "modern" conservatism. By that I mean, this is not a history of conservatism, dating back to its origins in American politics, but is rather a study of conservatism of the last thirty or so years. For me, that is this books only shortcoming.

I would have loved to have seen the editors trace conservatism back to such statesmen as John Taylor of Caroline, whose "New Views of the Constitution" truly expresses the origin of conservative thought in America and still exemplifies true conservative principles far more so than today's rather diluted version, but such was not the case. That is not to say there is not much to glean from this massive volume.

Heavily laden in today's climate of political discourse and polarization, too many people unfairly equate conservatism and liberalism with party politics. Perhaps to some degree, there is some validity to placing conservatism in the same pot as the Republican Party, and certainly even greater logic in placing liberalism squarely in the hands of Democrats, but then along comes a politician like Zell Miller (D) or John McCain (R) and that whole theory goes out the window. The premise of this book, however, is not to assign a label, but rather to insight to the people, concepts and ideals that make up the crux of the modern conservative movement.

Constructed in encyclopedic fashion alphabetically from abortion to Zoll, and everything in between, the book is laden with pillars of modern conservatism from scholars, politicos, activists, authors and more. The book seems adequately geared not only to conservatives seeking to better define themselves but also to anyone open minded enough to absorb the evidential presentation and advance their own conclusions as to valid and judicious modern application.

This book is highly worthy for what the editors surely envisioned, but it is not a history of conservatism. If that is your target, this one is off that mark.

Monty Rainey
[...]

~American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia~ is an insightful encyclopedic compendium offering a survey of the American conservative movement and its diverse elements. The publisher Intercollegiate Studies Institute makes it clear that the focus is upon a distinctively American conservative movement, particularly in its postwar mold following the Depression and World War II. This insightful reference book covers a litany of iconic personalities, people, events, organizations, and concepts of major importance to the American conservative movement. One thing ISI does surprisingly well is achieve a balance while allowing for a profile of an older traditional conservative thought. In the twentieth century, the political fortunes of conservatism are too often measured merely by the successes of the Republican Party. This encyclopedic reference, however, points readers to a diverse, broad conservative movement within the United States. To many outsiders, the conservative movement suffers from a crisis of identity as avowed neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, traditionalists, libertarians, and those who simply call themselves "conservatives," cling to the conservative movement. However, as this encyclopedia makes clear, the diversity of the movement is its strength, and the ensuing debates between its varied elements, has contributed to the advancement of the nation. The American conservative movement will perhaps allow for a brighter future for ordered liberty, a renewed culture and a more vibrant civil society. Herein, this volume, the student finds an erudite window into that American conservative movement. Understanding the movement, its history, and its impact, is integral to sustaining its impact on society for the better in the twenty-first century.

This powerful tome features articles from one of my former professors Dr. S.A. Samson as well.

In this highly interesting and informative book, the reader will be introduced to the main currents in conservative thought, and in a manner that is objective and with only a few exceptions free from an excess of bias. There are many names and ideas associated to American conservatism, and readers may find that they hold much more in common with it than they might have first realized. Its history and content have been tarnished greatly in recent years, due mostly to the popularity of `neoconservatism' (which is discussed in the book), and the current regime in Washington. This book will hopefully assist in putting conservative thought into its proper perspective, and illustrate to the uninitiated reader its great diversity in ideas. The average reader will probably not read every article in the book, but will instead concentrate on those of interest. There is a fair representation of the major (and minor) philosophical trends that have dominated American conservatism, along with those that have or are losing credence.

By far the best article in the book is the one entitled `Liberalism' and written by Peter Augustine Lawler. In spite of its length, it gives a fair and interesting overview of what constitutes liberal thought and some of its intersections with conservative thinking. It is a refreshing alternative to the vituperation that so frequently occurs in discussions of liberal philosophy. The author does refer to `liberalism' as being `elitist' but this is put in the context of its belief that individuals must be liberated from religion, morality, and other traditional beliefs in order to become fully human. In this sense it is `elitist' in that it makes special and frequently exclusive claims to knowledge about what it means to be fully human. Also interesting (and it is fair to say accurate) is the author's statement that American liberalism has been a mixture of conservatism and liberalism. There is fairly good evidence that suggests even more so, namely that liberals have actually switched places with conservatives in recent decades. Both liberals and conservatives will deny this vociferously of course, but the conservative thought of George Will, who is also included in the book, is a good example of this crossover effect, with his notion of "statecraft through soulcraft", which sounds suspiciously like the belief from liberalism that governmental institutions should be used to promote beneficial social change. The next article entitled `Liberalism, Classical' offers more insight into the nature and philosophy of liberalism, and in fact reinforces this `crossover' effect between the liberal and conservative camps, albeit in a much longer time scale (on the order of a few centuries rather than decades).

It is very surprising to see an article on Ayn Rand appear in this book, given that she chose to distance herself from `conservative' thought throughout her lifetime. She also despised `Whittaker Chambers' due to his extremely negative review of one of her novels. But an article on Whittaker Chambers of course appears in this book. The ideological distance between Chambers and Rand is infinite but they find themselves in close proximity in this book, separated only by a little over six hundred pages. They both are no doubt turning over in their graves over this inclusion, but if the truth be told, Rand does qualify as being a conservative, if one thinks of libertarianism as an element of conservative thought (as it is in this book, having an entire article devoted to its elucidation). Rand's atheism is no doubt one of her most annoying features, but ironically, the renowned Sidney Hook, who is also included in this book, and who was mentor to Leonard Piekoff, Rand's designated heir, was also an atheist. His atheism was apparently excused however, due possibly to his strong anti-communist stance (but Rand was strongly anti-communist?). Edward S. Shapiro, who wrote the article on Hook in the book, is careful to note that Hook did not believe in the "goodness of mankind", and it is fair to say that most conservatives consider it naive or misguided to believe otherwise. They stumble greatly here though, since statistically most people throughout history have conducted themselves honorably, even if measured by a conservative yardstick. To believe in the "goodness of mankind" is to accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the belief.

Conservatives though, it might be fair to say, have had some difficulties with empirical reasoning, and this is especially true in the scientific realm. This is brought out to some degree in the article entitled "Science and Scientism" by M.D. Aeschliman. Scientific and technological progress is at odds with most conservative thought, due to the latter's anathema for change. Most of the article concerns the effect of "scientism" on the individual person in that it negates purpose and meaning. C.S. Lewis (who is also written about in the book) is quoted in this article as support for the alienating effects of scientism, and its capacity for the "abolition of man." But interestingly, the area of science that studies human behavior and its connection with the brain, namely neuroscience, seems to support to some degree conservative thought, due to its contention that thought patterns via neuronal processes are heavily influenced by cultural inputs and are difficult to change once they are learned. On the other hand, neuroscience, and science in general, has learned to live without the concept of a soul, and even some research circles in neuroscience have given up even the notion of free will and personal identity. These two notions are hard for conservatives (and liberals) to give up, with the prospect of doing so even considered extremely frightening. The scientific doctrine of evolution is also of great concern to conservatives, as one will notice in the articles in the book, one being on the Scopes trial.

The only troubling omission in the book is an article entitled "War" or one that would shed more light on the conservative philosophy of war. The article on Neoconservativism says a lot, as does their behavior in real life, but one would like to see an article that compares the different schools of conservative thought on war. Many individuals, who refer to themselves as conservatives, and who are popular in the national press, such as George Will and Patrick Buchanan, have come out strongly against the current conflicts.

As this book reveals, sometimes succinctly, conservative thought and liberal thought are intertwined, and to omit any influence of liberalism on conservatism (and vice versa) is to destroy both systems. One cannot view them as two separate dogmas, and both will have to deal with the unique challenges of the twenty-first century. Maybe one could say that conservatives generally view themselves as cautious and pragmatic, while liberals generally view themselves as future pointing and idealistic. But the twenty-first century is about change, extremely drastic change, and conservatives are intimidated by change, even perhaps frightened by it. It is difficult to predict what elements of conservative (and liberal) thought will survive this century, but whatever strands are left will no doubt be chastened by radical technological changes. The technology itself will create its own ideas, its own history, and its own politics, all of which it might indeed classify as being conservative.

This is one of my favourite `encyclopedic dictionaries', an underappreciated genre if there ever was one. The "American Conservatism" now stands pride of place along side two worthy peers. Namely Robert Nisbet's superb "Prejudices - A Philosophical Dictionary" and Richard Milner's "Encyclopedia of Evolution", a dictionary style encyclopedia of Darwinism that spans not only the science, but the history, pop and folklore of evolution.

I can see the critics pounding away at their word processors now. They'll say the volume doesn't give sufficient cubic mass to George W Bush and his merry band of Vulcans; or that the neocon movement doesn't get the required number of column inches; or that GOP Republicanism herein seems more a trickle than the mainstream. And why does Eugene McCarthy seem to get more coverage than Tailgunner Joe McCarthy?

I can see their point, and there are a few facets of American conservatism that I would have liked to have seen better represented. For instance, that rare, but tough sub-species, the American monarchists. There are at least two that I can think of. Charles A. Coulombe, a traditionalist defender of throne and altar, who hails from Hollywood, and Hans Herman Hoppe, an anarcho-monarchist libertarian professor from that hive of chivalry, Las Vegas.

Still I think this kind of word processor pounding is misplaced. The book is, after all, a single volume encyclopedia / dictionary. It is meant to be comprehensive in width, not depth. That's what is great about it. It is meant to sacrifice detail for coverage. It is more important that conventional narrative histories dive deeper into the murky depths of the mainstream. The dictionary format, in contrast, gives a Cooks' Tour of the lesser known, but rarely paddled alternative creeks, tributaries and billabongs. And that's what "American Conservatism" does superbly.

The pounders' may as well criticize the Oxford English Dictionary for being full of words most of us never use. That's the point. Dive in and increase your conservative vocabulary.