Events Books

The idea of a book full of arguments for the war in Iraq from liberal authors seemed so interesting that I immediately ordered it and started reading it as soon as I had finished my book of conservative authors not so happy about the war.

Seeing the way liberals had reacted to Iraq was one of the biggest reasons why I have started calling myself moderate instead of liberal. I'm not trying to imply that the word liberal is monolithic by any means, but seeing the way so many different types of liberals were so strongly opposed to this war (many times out of pure hatred of George W. Bush and nothing else), really made me take serious look at what I thought.

Some of the articles in this book are a bit dense, and the average reader might not be able to get through them, but there are numerous other brilliant articles in this book that make a very strong case for their arguments. Put simply, the main point of this book is that a perfectly logical case can be made in favor of invading Iraq from a humanitarian perspective.

The authors in this book are not fans of Bush in any way, but yet they still make the case that getting rid of Saddam Hussein is a good thing. One of the contributors, Adam Michnik, put it best when he said "I believe you can be an enemy of Saddam Hussein even if Donald Rumsfeld is also an enemy of Saddam Hussein."

Throughout the book, the authors pose tough questions such as "If Bush really did lie about the weapons (and knew that none were in Iraq), why did the U.S. not arrange to plant the weapons after the invasion? A simple, but ironclad point in my opinion. The authors also tackle many of the liberal points used to argue against the war. Michael Moore is mentioned several times and because of this book, I am firmly cemented in my view that Moore has about as many positive contributions to make to the political world as Ann Coulter (which would be next to none).

Something I found particularly interesting was that a lot of what was said could be found coming from the right, but the point here is that the talk of liberating the Iraqi people from these authors are genuine. Hearing someone like Sean Hannity making these arguments isn't convincing because he's only for liberating another country if a Republican President is the one doing it. You never hear Hannity-types making the liberation argument in any other case.

I sincerely hope that anyone calling themselves a liberal that is opposed to the war in Iraq reads this book. It really challenges liberals to look at Iraq from the humanitarian perspective and I would venture to say that if you're a Michael Moore fan or a Noam Chomsky fan that could make it through this book and not have second thoughts, you're no different than the Republicans and conservatives you accuse of being blinded by ideology.

Irrespective of whether it leaves you believing that the Iraq war was just, this book is a fresh and valuable perspective. It explores important and critical arguments of a sophistication and depth that the lightweights and bigots of the contemporary media simply ignore (whether through bias or ineptitude).

Read the introduction here:

http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10415/cushman.pdf

...and another example of the books chapters is here:

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi04/berman.htm

Highly recommended.

With the exception of Roger Scruton, all of the contributors to this thought-provoking book come from the left of the political spectrum. It is most refreshing to see that there are still rational people on that side and that the strident, hateful and juvenile shrieking that one encounters in the media are not the only voices of the left.

Part One: Reconsidering Regime Change, contains contributions by the brilliant Christopher Hitchens, Jeffrey Herf, Jan Narveson and Mitchell Cohen. These essays state the case for the overthrow of the sadistic Saddam whilst discussing the liberal and humanitarian case for the liberation.

The next section, Philosophical Arguments, includes a reflection on national interest and international law by the conservative Roger Scruton, an essay on a just war against criminal regimes by Mehdi Mozaffari, and moral arguments on sovereignty, agency and consequences by Daniel Kofman.

Critiques Of The Left is the third section. This contains the most interesting dissection of leftist positions and thoroughly undermines the fallacy created by the mass media that liberals and leftists were unanimously against the war. My personal favourite essays in this group include Pages From A Daily Journal Of Argument by Norman Geras, Ethical Correctness And The Decline Of The Left by Jonathan Re and A Friendly Drink In A Time Of War by Paul Berman, a liberal.

In European Dimensions, people like John Lloyd, Michel Taubmann and Anders Jerichow reveal that many prominent European intellectuals, including Vaclav Havel, supported the war on liberal-humanitarian grounds.

Part Five: Solidarity, contains an interview between the compiler Thomas Cushman and the Polish intellectual Adam Michnik. There are also moving essays by Timorese leader Jose Ramos-Horta, Johann Hari, Pamela Bone and Ann Clwyd. It is quite clear that unlike the rest of the Left, these authors have genuine compassion for the weak and the oppressed. An important point made here is that indifference to the plight of the oppressed means abdication of the duty to protect them.

The volume concludes with Liberal Statesmanship that contains Prime Minister Tony Blair's full statement to the House of Commons on 18th March 2003 and another speech of his titled The Threat Of Global Terrorism. They are both eloquent arguments for the liberation of Iraq that are rooted in principle and morality.

This valuable book demolishes many myths perpetuated by the academic and media elites and more importantly, exposes their malignant mindsets to some extent. For example, Johan Hari points out how Anti-Americanism has become a religion and how leftists ignore the crimes of sundry third world dictators. It is made clear that the anti-war camp really did not care about Saddam's victims. Then again, this is nothing new - leftists of the past also tried to suppress knowledge of Stalin's atrocities and those of Pol Pot.

Another lie that is exposed is the myth of American unilateralism. Forty Eight countries had joined the Coalition by March 2003 and in Europe, states like the Netherlands, Italy, Hungary, Denmark, Poland, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Croatia and Macedonia strongly allied themselves with the USA. Many Asian states supported it too, including Australia, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and the Philippines. That puts the myth of unilateralism to rest.

In his introduction, Cushman mentions the relentless campaign of hatred and disinformation against Israel by the United Nations and the travesty of a UN Human Rights body that that includes representatives of cruel totalitarian states like Libya, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

He also mentions the shady motives behind the anti-war position of France, Germany and Russia. These essays were written and the book compiled before the full extent of the UN Oil For Food graft became widely known, but this scandal of the century only confirms the hypocrisy of the leadership of the aforementioned countries.

The book is not flawless. Some of the writing is perhaps too self-critical and as a Reaganite, I obviously disagree with many contributors on a range of other issues. But they are brave people who are willing to stand up for their convictions in a hostile environment. I regard the George Galloway/Michael Moore Moonbat Left as one would a hairy spider, but these authors are rational and decent. Their concern for the wretched of the earth is genuine. Their hearts are in the right place.

I also recommend A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq by Christopher Hitchens, Unholy Alliance and The Anti Chomsky Reader by David Horowitz, The Force Of Reason by Oriana Fallaci plus everything written by the wonderful Norman Geras.

The essays in this book about the Iraq War and international law are for the most part in clear and accessible English and do not rely on theories that are left unexplained in the body of the essay itself. For that reason I would recommend this collection to people who are interested only in the development of international law and mores and who are not much concerned with the Iraq War.

For those who are interested in the Iraq War, this collection is, I feel, indispensable. Not because the authors agree (they do not) but because the debate in this volume has about it a quality that has been largely absent from the Iraq debate: candor. Thus while the authors disagree on fundamental issues such as:

* was the war in Iraq, on balance, justified;

* did the governments that lead us to war lie or act in good faith;

* was the suffering of the Iraqi people alone sufficient justification for war; and

* do we have what it takes to see this war through

they do so without simplifying the arguments and without assuming that the Iraqi people agree with their positions.

For as profound as their disagreements are, the authors agree that:

* Saddam's regime was genocidal;

* leaving Saddam in place was not costless either (and most immediately) to the Iraqi people or (eventually) to the West; and

* the Bush administration has terribly botched the occupation, thereby endangering the whole enterprise.

And finally these authors point out that when in a public policy debate, the liberals sound like Henry Kissinger while the conservatives echo John Rawls, the political landscape is out of joint.

This is the sort of debate liberals like myself had every right to expect in the days and months preceding the Iraq invasion. We did not get it (for reasons addressed in this volume). We get it here; in this collection of essays. I highly recommend it.

This book is not just for people who do drugs, but for anyone who wants the violence that the illegal drug trade brings to stop. It has some conspiracy theorys, but they are backed up by facts. I found this book inspirational, because while reading it I wanted to go out and alter the drug laws. I recommend this book to everyone, because it helps clear up some of the propoganda that the government has been feeding us for many years. There also is a web site www.maximizingharm.com with more information (it's free, go there now!)

Steve Young explains in an easy to understand format, how US drug policy is clearly responsible for everything it is supposed to prevent. The book is a treasure trove of facts, which paint a stinging indictment of America's most terrible pork-barrel disaster and exposes those who cash in at the expense of a nation, the drug war profiteers.

"Maximizing Harm" is a must read. Makes a great gift, for those who just can't seem to see through the smoke and mirrors of the drug war facade.

Meticulously documented scholarly treatises are supposed to be dull. Not this time. In making his case for ending our government's 25-year war against drugs, Stephen Young has written a book that is fascinating, shocking, frustrating, heartbreaking, sometimes downright horrifying - but never dull.

Young tells us that dozens of attempts to eradicate the use of drugs have been documented throughout the ages - including executions of tobacco users in 17th century Russia. All of them failed.

Lest you think that we have become wiser and more civilized in recent times, Young points out that as recently as 1989, William Bennett, the nation's drug czar at the time, while appearing on the "Larry King Live" show agreed with a caller who suggested that drug dealers be beheaded

In such a climate, Young argues, it is not hard to understand how our civil liberties have been among the first casualties of the drug war with mandatory harsh sentences for drug users, resulting in the overcrowding of our prison system. The eighth amendment is supposed to stop "cruel and unusual punishment," yet we are now seeing multi-year sentences for possession of small amounts of illegal drugs.

Ever hear of Melinda George? Neither did I until I read this book. She is serving a 99-year prison sentence for the sale of one-tenth of a gram of cocaine!

To relieve the prison overcrowding caused by prisoners such as Melinda George, we have seen reduced sentences and early releases for non-drug offenders, including violent criminals. This puts career criminals back on the streets sooner, ready to commit more crimes.

Young poses the question, why does this counterproductive drug war continue? He suggests the answer: That certain powerful special interest groups benefit by its continuance, like large pharmaceutical companies that would suffer financially if certain of their drugs were forced to compete with a cheaper and more effective medicine such as marijuana.

I urge everyone to read this book!

This is the first book I've read on this topic, and the author was able to sway me to believe that the war against drugs is not only harmfull, but worse than the actually drugs themselves. I really don't have time to write more, because I'm suppost to be writing a 5 page book report, but this book was worth every penny. It is a wide collection of data from a variety of sources and it brings up ideas that aren't even thought of in our "just say no" generation. I really wish people would take time to read a book like this, because its really easy to just sit back and think "the drug war is a neccesity" when you have the information the government keeps spewing out. The truth is that the drug war doesn't stop drug use, it increases drug use and the harm associated with it..

I'm not 100% converted, but this book has got me off to a great start. Thanks.

-Seth

An excellent account of some very important and under-discussed issues. Sincerely wish it would get suitable attention.

That last word in my review title refers to any American who is concerned about the true values of democracy, regardless of political party. This book is an essential overview for anyone with a scholarly or political interest in the state of the American media and free speech, with a strong focus on economics. Granted, Baker does present some real difficulties with readability, and the book is often quite difficult to get through, especially in the early chapters on economic theory. But rest assured that beneath the dense academic writing, there is a powerhouse analysis of different political science theories of democracy, how they interact with economics and market theories, and how all of the above create an American media environment that might give the people the information they want (and need) with varying levels of success. Baker finds, with convincing evidence, that the misnamed "free" markets that are currently all the rage politically do not work for a public good like useful media content, and he's got many highly plausible policy recommendations that are both politically and economically feasible in the real world. Watch closely and you'll also find a few winning insights beneath the dissertation, such as a recommendation that government provide incentives to producers for creating better content, rather than trying to censor the sex and violence that results inevitably from unfettered market trends. This book is difficult but does a masterful job of summarizing and analyzing all current knowledge of media economics, politics, and ethics. [~doomsdayer520~]

This book evaluates the role that government regulatory power can play in ensuring a free and dynamic press, using economic analysis and Bakerian democratic theory. I found the book to be very interesting, exceptionally well written, and singularly rectangular. The author has a deft touch and keen sense of his audience.

Ed Baker's book is a superior examination of the notion of a free press and its relationship to market regulation and democratic values. Baker studiously and carefully lays out one of the finest critiques I have ever seen about the limitations of markets for democratic communication. I cannot exaggerate my enthusiasm for this book.

"This valuable book draws together key aspects of the Medicare story seldom combined in a single volume. Sue Blevins (R.N., M.P.H., M.S.), president of the Institute for Health Freedom, describes Medicare's key characteristics, analyzes its consequences for current and future retirees, outline's the programs historical evolution, and formulates an agenda for reform. Medicare's "midlife crisis" includes, among other things, the inexorable rise in Medicare spending, the beneficiaries' ever-rising out-of-pocket medical costs, the reduction in the number of taxpaying workers per Medicare beneficiary because of the retirement of the "baby-boom" generation, the threat to medical privacy associated with efforts to reduce Medicare fraud, and Medicare's impending bankruptcy. Blevin's concern is what needs to be done to remedy that midlife crisis."

"This volume provides a useful reference for general readers and medical professionals. Its greatest strength is in combining, in a highly readable and concise volume, practical information about how Medicare works and insightful analysis of Medicare's history, consequences, and possible reform. Its weaknesses are chiefly organizational, including a sometimes disconcerting tendency to repeat facts previously discussed. "Medicare's Midlife Crisis" is intended primarily for those not acquainted with how Medicare actually works and how it originated. I would strongly recommend it to a friend who wanted to inform himself quickly about the Medicare issue."

"This book is not about political or economic theory; it is about Medicare's history, administration, and practical effects. Its great virtue is blending the historical with the current, the political dynamics with the actual effects of Medicare. As such, "Medicare's Midlife Crisis" will appeal to a wide spectrum of readers."

Proposed Medicare 'reforms' will hurt seniors and consumers alike: Medicare's Midlife Crisis tells how Medicare should be restructured to help reduce the impact of change on those who need it most. Medicare's growth, Blevins argues, has forced seniors into restrictive health choices and has raised issues of privacy. Issues of freedom of choice for seniors come into play as Blevins examples the problems of a single-payer government healthcare system.

This is a concise, well told tale of the morass that the Medicare program has become. Although Blevins described herself as a "policy wonk" to me in a recent interview, the book is well written, and clearly explains a complex subject.

The book tracks the early efforts at compulsory insurance efforts, on the national as well as the international scene, up to recent schemes for expanding the program by adding a prescription drug entitlement.

Waste, fraud, abuse and misuse account for some 800 million to 1.6 billion dollars yearly in this program. And, as Blevins points out, "If health care costs continue to rise with fewer workers to finance the program, the federal government will have to raise taxes, increase seniors' out-of-pocket costs, reduce benefits, or implement a combination of these reforms."

Most seniors believe that Medicare pays for everything. Nothing could be further from the truth. The tables in the appendices outlining the payment limitations should be read by everyone who uses Medicare to pay for their medical expenses.

If you are 65 or 25, you must read this book. Why?
Because everyone of us is affected by Medicare now --
regardless of age. If you're 25, you are affected by the
Medicare taxes taken from your paychecks. If you're 65,
Medicare rules your health care.

Ms. Blevins has written a concise and informative expose
about this immensely expensive and influential bureaucracy.
She tells the story of Medicare with six eye-opening chapters:
1. Don't Know Much About Medicare?
2. The Push for Compulsory Health Insurance: EarlyInternational and National Efforts.
3. Medicare's Enactment in the United States: From State to
State to Federal Coverage.
4. Did Government Officials Ignore the True Costs of Medicare?
5. How Has Medicare Affected Seniors?
6. Medicare Reform in the 21st Century: Time for True Choice
and Competition.

Learning about Medicare doesn't sound like a necessary, let
alone interesting thing to do -- at least, that's what I
thought before reading Ms. Blevins' book. However, my
outlook quickly changed after only reading a few pages
of Chapter 1.

I read this work in the original in Hebrew. I was impressed by the depth of Ravitzky's knowledge of the ultra- orthodox world, and learned much about Haredi resistance to Zionism , a subject that had always perplexted me. And this because I praying daily the verse 'And return our eyes to Zion with mercy' always assumed that somehow to be religious meant to support a modern Jewish state in the land of Israel.
As I know Ravitzky's political position and bias ( He is a left- of center religious Zionist, ) I have a certain reserve about his writing about Habad , who are in the other camp completely.
But this is certainly a work worth reading, and even studying if one wishes to understand the variety of religious positions on the redemptive character and nature of the modern state of Israel.

It is a shame that such a truly critcal subject as the Jewish right and its Messianic pretensions, has at this point, only one good resource in English, and this is it. More specifically, The Ultra-Orthodox right, has found it's chronicler in Avi Ravitzky and his history of their Messianic throught. He provides a comprehensive historical summary of the Messianic idea, going all the way back to the Destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, then moves the discussion to the subjects of radical anti-zionism, religious zionism, contemporary Messianism in the various ultra-orthodox sects, and their continuing relavance in Jewish religious politics.

Especially important are the "Three Oaths" which the Rabbis developed to forestall Messianic Zionism, after 70 AD. These were so successful, they prevented Zionism from developing in times when it could have, and made the 20th century development of it much more difficult. However, the Three Oaths were only one strand of Jewish Messianic thought, which to a large degree still ignores the stupendous developments of the past 60 years as having no significance.

However, for this writer, the Holocaust and the birth of Israel, are exactly what would seem to an untrained observer: the arrival of the Messianic age. In my recent book, "Jewish History and Divine Providence" I provided an integrated Messianic view of Jewish history from a Liberal point of view. However, I begin from the point of view of Maimonides, whose messianic views were as sober and rational as the rest of his thought. In addition, the Kabbalah and its special rationality, is also critical in my analysis.

Ravitsky provides one side of the Messianic debate. However, until now a liberal side to this debate has been lacking. Those who read both Ravitzky and "Jewish History and Divine Providence" will get the full story.

Aviezer Ravitsky has done great work covering the history and beliefs of the full spectrum of religious responses to Zionism. From those who believed that Zionism was evil because of its secular nature and attempt to replace Divine Redemption with political redemption, to those who believe that the establishment of the State of Israel was preparation for Divine Redemption. He explains the differing points of view in such an unbiased and understanding manner that you are left wondering who is right. This was a mind-bending trip, and in my specific case, greatly helped me understand the beliefs and concerns of the Satmar Hassidim, whom my family left behind two generations ago in Satmar.

A superb scan of theologically hard-right sects within modern Judaism, with a suprising focus on the situation in the NYC area and American religious Jews generally. The book could benefit from a fuller treatment of the Orthodox view toward Zionism in the pre-state period, but this area is in fact addressed fairly well. It is surely an essential volume in any collection pertaining to the history of Zionism.

This is a great book for those who would like to understand how the Middle East really works and thinks. It contains information not readily published about America's challenges in the region. It looks forward to what we can expect from this area and gives an understanding of why and what we are doing there now. Mr. Robison's experience there, working with military, intelligence, and business sources along with his love and knowledge of the cultures of the area, give this book depth and breath not found in other publications. A great read for anyone who really wants to understand our involvement in the area. I gained a completely new understanding of our challenges, opportunities and risks as he explained them from the perspective of the power, governments, culture, and history of the people there.

The MIDDLE EAST WAR PROCESS is easily understood by the lay reader, yet interesting and informative to anyone working in or studying the Middle East. The book provides new, unusual and little-known facts explaining America's challenges and long-term problems in the region. The United States has shouldered a long-term commitment in the region that will last for generations. The MIDDLE EAST WAR PROCESS offers insights into ways to make this transition less painful, if we will learn from the past.

With American interest in the Middle East at an all time high, The MIDDLE EAST WAR PROCESS is an insightful and interesting book.

I found this book easy to read and very informative. The writer explains in lay man terms why the Middle East is so relevant to America's interests. In addition, he explains that there is a "war process" in the Middle East as oppossed to a "peace process" (a quote from Shimon Peres if I recall correctly).

I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants a fresh, interesting, and personal analysis of the situation in the Middle East.

I had the opportunity to interview Richard Robison for a two-part article in Utah Spirit Magazine (March & April 2004), and in the process I read "War Process." I found a thoughtfulness that only nearly a quarter century in the Middle East could deliver, an insight that only a CIA case officer could gain, and the kind of read that only a master storyteller could create.

The message of the book is tactful, but very forward. Robison loves the Middle East, its culture and people, but he doesn't let that stop him when it comes to calling a spade a spade. The pages of "War Process" contain many elements of U.S.-Mideast foreign policy that readers won't currently find in mainstream media. For instance, Robison examines the Islamic "taqiya," where "a lie is not a lie," and also how terrorists often exploit the idea that "Americans don't bleed well" to create incredibly damaging attacks on American forces and civilians.

"Fear the man who has little to loose," Robison warns.

Robison also spends a great deal of time examining the gap and overlap between Islamic and American cultures. He uses many personal experiences to show how little known parts of Islamic culture, when overlooked, can create a great embarrassment and, in some instances, a great divide. He also explains how popular American culture with all of its tantalizing skin and revealing clothing has become the perfect recruitment tool for terrorists.

He offers an interesting insight into why the US went into Iraq, even toying with the idea that America might have had some part encouraging the first Iraq war. And however incredible such a claim might seem, Robison was there as part of the Gulf War Task Force, something that few others can claim. He was there.

Robison says that America is in the Middle East to stay. It has little to do with the price of oil, and yet it has everything to do with the security of oil. For the answers, Robison says, look to China, its increasing dependence on oil, and a future conflict that many intelligence experts (both American and Chinese) say is inevitable. America is in the Middle East to place a firm hand on the spigot---a tactic similar to one that America employed against Japan in WWII.

The book is beefy with ideas, but it can be read fast. Robison keeps the info simple and critical, never wasting his readers' time.

I absolutely recommend "War Process." Readers will find that many of the more cryptic reports in the world press more revealing. There's a lot to miss out there when, as Robison said during the interview, "you don't know what questions to ask."

As a European historian who was preparing to travel to South Africa for the first time in the spring of 1998, I found Sparks's analysis of South African thought, culture, and society since the mid-17th century to be extremely helpful. The book is both informative and lively, and I recommend it without hesitation.

I suppose that this was the book that I most wanted to find after my trip to South Africa. I wanted something that would try to explain what the white South Africans were thinking. I wanted to know how a system as pernicious and self-evidently evil emerged-- because basically I don't accept that people are evil. No bad dogs or kids, that sort of thinking.

I'm not going to say that Allister Sparks totally succeeds in providing an explanation. However, he at least explained the combination of religious and political beliefs that led up to the system being instituted. It was fascinating (as an expat in the Netherlands) to read how much influence Holland has really had on the country. Wacky conservative Dutch leaders seemed to find open arms there, particularly after the war. And this is, of course, one of the points of the book. Before WWII, South Africa was more or less in step with world thinking. The real divergence came post-WWII, as they rejected the message of freedom and the end of the colonial era that was sweeping the rest of the world.

The book is also interesting in that it was originally written in 1990, on the very eve of the change. So, of course, although some predictions and fears turned out to be true, others are less so. Mugabe, for instance, turned out to be much less benign than Sparks hoped based on the events of the 1980s.

It helped me put some of the thinking behind the historical facts of the apartheid era. Sparks (a well-established and experienced journalist) is a good writer, if not a great one. The Mind of Africa flowed well and was relatively easy to read. Recommended.

Okay, so we all know what took place once the Afrikaaners came to South Africa, but just exactly 'why' did they feel so superior to all people and all races. Where did this mentality come from? Allistar Sparks goes into great detail about the minds of Afrikaaners before they came to South Africa and after. I have read many a book about South Africa and by far this is one of the best. Truthful, and holding nothing back. I applaud Mr. Sparks !

As a black South African I have read a lot of history books about my country and found a lot of distortions. Allister Sparks has come out with the most straight story of how it all came to be. This book tells you both sides of the story: Thank you Allister for representing the truth.

Buruma has the key to a door I, a newbie Nipponophile, use: cinema. His own personality leaks tastefully into his blend of experience and academics. Just the levels I like! Some of the articles are a little outside my area of interest, but he managed to hook me into finishing them.

I found Buruma's collection very absorbing, especially helpful to someone living out East (Hong Kong and Singapore), as I was in the late 90's. The Singapore essay, "The Nanny State of Asia," is an extremely perceptive look behind the official facade of Harry Lee Kuan Yew's police state. If you plan to visit/live in S'pore, the things the locals won't dare discuss with you (out of fear) are dealt with here. Even if you're just travelling from the armchair, this is a well-written and (again) extremely absorbing read.

As someone who lived out East I rank this up with Christopher Lingle's Singapore's Authoritarian Capitalism and Stan Sesser's The Land of Charm and Cruelty (another great essay collection on various Asian countries) as books helpful to the Westerner trying to learn about the region. Buruma's God's Dust has more essays on Asia, including S'pore. For Singapore, I also recomend Francis Seow's A Prisoner in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, and Paul Theroux's Saint Jack (a Singapore novel set in the Seventies but (I found) remarkably up to date in the attitudes it records of both locals and expats).

Very well documented essays about the East, although most of the articles are treating already out-of-date items. Still they will continue to be essential reading for historians.

In his ironic style, he unveils the lies and double-talk of political and industrial leaders. E.g. Sony's Akio Morita's statement that 'today's Japanese do not think in terms of privilege', while he almost disowned his son, when he wanted to marry a popular singer.
Other targets are Benazir Bhutto, Cory Aquino, Imelda Marcos and most of all the imperious leader of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew.

I recommend nevertheless the autobiography of Yew 'From first world to third', because it is an essential read in order to understand what's happening in China today. Lee Kuan Yew is Jiang Zeming's best friend.

Buruma is a very perceptive observer and reader. His analyses of writers like Yuhio Moshima, Mircea Eliade or Junichiro Tanizaki, or movie directors like Nagisa Oshima or Sayajit Ray are brilliant.
This book is to be put on the same high level as the works of Simon Leys on China.

Sceptical of all talk of "asian values" (profound "culture differences" used to justify the denial of human rights), Buruma is a clear-sighted observer of the East. Buruma describes the phases that Western visitors to Japan tend to go through; an initial phase of delight oft succeeded by rage, and ultimately leading to a sort of near manic-depressing rapidly-alternating hatred/love of the East. Buruma, while obviously retaining a great love and respect for Eastern culture combined with a deep scepticism about "asian values", is unseduced by either extreme. The book opens with essays on individual figures, such as Yukio Mishima (it is impossible to take Paul Schrader's 'Mishima' seriously after Buruma's curt dismissal of its portentious bombast) and Wilfred Thesiger (again, one sees this oft-romanticised figure anew, as a misogynistic, rather sinister worshipper of racially pure noble savages) It closes with a section of essays devoted to Japan, on topics as diverse as Michael Crichton's Black Rain, the Hiroshima peace industry, the treatment of black American baseball players in Japan and the continuing echoes of Pearl Harbor.

This book is great for Political Theory classes and a must read for anyone majoring in poli sci. The translation is quite good.

Niccolo Machiavelli, (1469-1527), writes the greatest treatise on keeping a republic vibrant by comparing Rome to republican Venice. Machiavelli has gained an unwarranted notorious reputation for his "evil" treatise on political thinking and acting through his authorship of "The Prince". "The Prince" received more notoriety than his politically erudite work "Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy" in which Machiavelli espouses his belief that the Roman Republic was the best and most virtuous form of government to emulate. His breadth and understanding of Roman history is remarkable. Machiavelli's love of his country Florence, and the proud political work as a minor government administrator and ambassador Machiavelli performed during its years as a republic show through in this work. It was on his many ambassadorial trips to the French, Papal, and Italian courts that he learned to observe political leaders and their governmental institutions which formed the basis of his political theories in his many writings. My favorite quote from Machiavelli is; "It's better to act and repent then not to act and regret".

Modern philosophers starting with Machiavelli reject the classical view of politics as undemocratic and elitist. Only wealthy men of leisure would have time to develop the virtues and character necessary to rule. Machiavelli believed that man by nature was selfish and driven by ambition. Machiavelli is not interested in character formation and moral appeal but in building the right kind of institutions to govern society. Laws and justice would protect men from power hungry rulers. Modern philosophy is an out growth of the revolution that takes place in the natural sciences during the Enlightenment. The purpose of science is the conquest of nature man is in control of human life. Philosophers from Machiavelli on become sectarian. "Everything good is due to man's labor rather than to nature's gift."

As a retired Army officer and student of political philosophy, I found this to be an indispensable book to continue one's journey into political philosophy and history of Europe.

"The authentic interpreter of Machiavelli," wrote Lord Acton, "is the whole of later history." Thus, Bill Clinton to his peril, ignored Machiavelli's advice: "Men have less scruple in offending one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared." Nearly 500 years ago, Machiavelli set out to teach the lessons of power. And his teachings remain as valid in our day as in his own. Want to size up a ruler's competence? Then "look at the men he has about him." Want help in making hard decisions? Consult your advisors, deliberate privately, and then stick to your decision. It was Machiavelli who first described the fundamental law of public relations: "Everybody sees what you apear to be, few feel what you are." Even those who want nothing to do with executive authority will profit greatly by learning the truth about how such power is actually gained and used. Above all, Machiavelli urges those who must deal with the real world to remain clear-eyed about its dangers: It is necessary for a prince, he warns, to "learn how not to be good," and to sometimes use this knowledge in effective defense against ruthless enemies. This is admittedly strong stuff for many idealistic readers. But those who reject Machiavelli's advice do so either in ignorance of the ways power is actually used, or in a well-intentioned but doomed attempt to create a Utopia populated not by men but angels.

In the course of my political science training, I studied at great length the modern idea of realpolitik. In that study I came to realise that it was somewhat incomplete, without the companionship of 'The Prince', by Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine governmental official in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. 'The Prince' is an oft quoted, oft mis-quoted work, used as the philosophical underpinning for much of what is considered both pragmatic and wrong in politics today. To describe someone as being Machiavellian is to attribute to the person ruthless ambition, craftiness and merciless political tactics. Being believed to be Machiavellian is generally politically incorrect. Being Machiavellian, alas, can often be politically expedient.

Machiavelli based his work in 'The Prince' upon his basic understanding of human nature. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way.

Machiavelli did not see this as a permanent or natural state of being -- in fact, he felt that, during his age, human nature had been corrupted and reduced from a loftier nobility achieved during the golden ages of Greece and Rome. He decided that it was the corrupting influence of Christianity that had reduced human nature, by its exaltation of meekness, humility, and otherworldliness.

Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others. One of the innovations of Machiavelli's thought was the recognition that the prince, the leader of the city/state/empire/etc., was nonetheless a human being, and subject to all the human limitations and desires with which all contend.

Because the average prince (like the average person) is likely to be focussed upon his own interests, a prince's private interests are generally in opposition to those of his subjects. Fortunate is the kingdom ruled by a virtuous prince, virtue here not defined by Christian or religious tenets, but rather the civic virtue of being able to pursue his own interests without conflicting those of his subjects.

Virtue is that which increases power; vice is that which decreases power. These follow Machiavelli's assumptions about human nature. Machiavelli rejected the Platonic idea of a division between what a prince does and what a prince ought to do. The two principle instruments of the prince are force and propaganda, and the prince, in order to increase power (virtue) ought to employ force completely and ruthlessly, and propaganda wisely, backed up by force. Of course, for Machiavelli, the chief propaganda vehicle is that of religion.

Machiavelli has been credited with giving ruthless strategies (the example of a new political ruler killing the deposed ruler and the ruler's family to prevent usurpation and plotting is well known) -- it is hard to enact many in current politics in a literal way, but many of his strategies can still be seen in electioneering at every level, in national and international relations, and even in corporate and family internal 'politics'. In fact, I have found fewer more Machiavellian types than in church politics!

Of course, these people would be considered 'virtuous' in Machiavellian terms -- doing what is necessary to increase power and authority.

Perhaps if Machiavelli had lived a bit later, and been informed by the general rise of science as a rational underpinning to the world, he might have been able to accept less of a degree of randomness in the universe. Perhaps he would have modified his views. Perhaps not -- after all, the realpolitikers of this age are aware of the scientific framework of the universe, and still pursue their courses.

No matter where you stand on the issue of animal rights, this book will give you a better understanding of the animal rights movement, and the case which launched the founding of PETA. It is very well written, describing in great detail the story of the Silver Spring monkey abuse case, in which an NIH-funded researcher, Edward Taub, was convicted of animal abuse for neglecting and abusing his research subjects. It is essential reading for animal lovers and anyone who is interested in animal rights and/or animal welfare. I found it easy to read, educational, and yet, disturbing. Other suggested reading is Next of Kin by Roger Fouts.

No matter where you stand on the issue of animal rights, this book will give you a better understanding of the animal rights movement, and the case which launched the founding of PETA. It is very well written, describing in great detail the story of the Silver Spring monkey abuse case, in which an NIH-funded researcher, Edward Taub, was convicted of animal abuse for neglecting and abusing his research subjects. It is essential reading for animal lovers and anyone who is interested in animal rights and/or animal welfare. I found it easy to read, educational, and yet, disturbing.

Monkey Business blows Debra Blum's Monkey Wars out of the water. Where Blum tries to appear unbiased by giving equal space to activists and vivisectors, Guillermo demonstrates that NIH and its vivisectors are scum by recounting the details of their repeated lies to Congress and their sordid back-room plots to keep a few tortured monkeys from ever seeing the sky or smelling fresh air.

No one who reads her account can have any doubt that the NIH should be gutted and massively reformed, or sadly, that Congress is incapable of doing so.

If you want to hold on to some illusion that our government will ever act openly, with honesty, or cares one whit about curing human disease or the humane treatment of animals, don't read this book.

I read this book while in juvenile detention waiting to be placed in a foster home. It was given to me by a vegan employee. I wasn't going anywhere so I though "why not?" I was vegetarian at the time (for health reasons only), but knew and cared nothing about animal rights. Reading this book compelled me to be otherwise. Additionally, for those of you who think that PETA is just a bunch of hippie wackos - read this. This book is also about the founding of PETA and you will soon find out they are nothing more than people who love animals.