Conventions Books

It may be hard to believe now but there was a time when Norman Mailer was America's leading prose writer. Before he descended into self-parody, Mailer was America's leading novelist and its most controversial essayist. Some Honorable Men, which covers twelve years of Mailer's writing (in this case, focusing on the presidential conventions of '60, '64, '68, and '72), allows the reader to follow Mailer as he goes from cocky, young know-it-all through the first hints of middle age and the sourness it brings with it to finally, the beginnings of Mailer's transformation from a serious artist to an overused punchline. In doing so, it also provides an insightful, often times cruelly humorous view of the transformation of the American political system. For both reasons, this is a valuable book for any student of literature or political history.

The book begins with one of Mailer's strongest peices of writing -- Superman comes to the Supermarket which provides wonderful converage of an oddly neglected piece of political history -- the 1960 Democratic convention that resulted in the nomination of John F. Kennedy and the final gasp of the "intellectual" wing of the Democratic party. Writing in his best sarcastic prose, Mailer shows us how the Kennedy glamour was used to blind observers to any possible concerns and how the overly earnest efforts of Adlai Stevenson's supporters to win the nomination for their candidate were defeated by Stevenson's own refusal to admit he was a politician first, a super hero second. Though Mailer attempts to be critical of the Kennedys (even as he barely hides his lust for Jackie), its still obvious that he, too, has been enraptured by just the pure showmanship of the first showbiz presidency. Though Mailer does show some sympathy to the Stevenson forces, its also clear that -- for him as with the rest of America -- the dour self-righteousness of the Stevenson liberals has run its course. In short, this essay -- whether intentional or not -- serves as a perfect introduction to all that Camelot would become and one gets the feeling that Mailer's seduction perfectly follows the seduction of the rest of America. In short, this essay is a perfect example of a genius as the top of his game and a reminder that Norman Mailer actually could write when he let himself.

The second essay -- "In the Red Light" -- is minor Mailer and is mostly interesting just because of the absolute dread inspired within Mailer by the thought of having Barry Goldwater as President. In prose so sarcastic that it finally becomes rather condascending (and, in fact, leaves you feeling rather sorry for Mr. Goldwater), Mailer dismisses Goldwater and his followers as a fringe cult of sorts and basically, blames them for the death of JFK. As opposed to "Superman Comes to the Supermarket" this is not vintage Mailer and in fact, it all comes across as a little hysterical today. Still, it is an accurate reflection of the times and I think most serious students of political history will, at the very least, chuckle at Mailer's dire predictions of what a Goldwater victory would mean -- esepcially when you consider that all of those predictions came true, more or less, because Lyndon Johnson defeated Goldwater by calling him a "war mongerer" and then proceeded to plunge the country into the most wasteful war of its history.

1968 is represented by what I consider to be Mailer's finest nonfiction book "Miami and the Seige of Chicago." Its indeed fascinating to compare this book to "Superman" written just eight years earlier. Watching the violence at the Democratic convention, Mailer finds himself coming to doubt both the Democratic Party and the liberals themselves. While he is uninspired by the Republicans (and his coverage of the Republican convention is a bit dull), Mailer records in vivid detail being in the middle of the chaos in Chicago and watching as his beloved party seemed divided between spoiled trust fund kids and party hacks like LBJ who seemed determined to get everyone killed in Viet Nam. Its a dark record of events that continue to haunt us today.

The book concludes with Mailer's weakest nonfiction book -- St. George and the Godfather which covers the '72 conventions. In this book, Mailer seems bored and indeed, he admits being sick of the whole political process. He watches as the party of Kennedy nominates George McGovern (a man who made Adlai Stevenson look like JFK) and as the Republicans nominate Nixon and the apathy he feels is reflected in the prose he writes. While he engages in his usual tricks -- he shows up as a character, he rather sarcastically records the thought process of George McGovern as he considers running mates, it is obvious that Mailer is growing bored and desperately trying to pump some intensity into a book about apathy. Its an apathy that the rest of the country seemed to share and from which neither Mailer nor the nation seems to have totally recovered.

Excellent book that concisely captures the history of the Southern Baptist denomination, from 1845 - 1991. A scholarly work with at least 3 chapters that read with all the drama of a fictional best-seller. Details the takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention by the fundamentalist faction; defines "democracy" as it applies to Southern Baptists (local church autonomy, "one voice-one vote" per member); considers the effect of two major Southern Baptist traditions -- priesthood of the believer and pastoral authority; and more. The book was very engaging and, when I'd finished it, I hoped this author was working on a sequel because I want to know what's happened in the past 8 - 9 years in the SBC!

My father-in-law recently made a visit to Eastern Canada and Halifax was one of the destinations. He brought this little book back and loaned it to me. I'm glad he did as I found it thoroughly enjoyable.

The book's title admittedly isn't the most captivating, but it is very descriptive of the contents. And the contents themselves are indeed captivating as they provide a level of detail that takes us back in time to the days immediately before and after that fateful date of April 15, 1912. The book provides interesting background on the ship and its crew, but primarily concerns itself with the details of the victims - who they were, how they were dressed, what effects were found on their persons, and wonderfully poignant anecdotal stories about their role onboard ship (if staff) or their families and circumstances if passengers.

As the closest North American port to the site of sinking, both the rescued and the dead were transported to Halifax. Ultimately 150 of the 328 bodies recovered were buried there, with the remainder either buried at sea or transported elsewhere for burial at the request of the families. The book is richly detailed and includes many photographs and newspaper clippings that immerse the reader in the culture, gossip, news, and activities of the day surrounding the Titanic and its tragic demise.

In many ways, it felt to me like a PBS documentary. In fact, it is a story that would lend itself well to such a medium on the History Channel or PBS. Although most of us have seen the movie "Titanic" and the resurgence of interest it created, the movie was more the story of an unlikley but passionate love affair between two passengers from opposite ends of the social spectrum. In contrast, this book provides a look at not just a handful of the victims, but all of them, with details that I found more captivating than even the movie.

I can highly recommend this book, regardless of whether you are a Titanic "buff" (which I am not) or just have a passing interest. If you have never been interested in the topic, this book will capture and hold your interest because it makes the many tragedies personal, putting faces and details and families and stories to the long list of names that lost their lives.

Thank you, Mr. Beed, for capturing this fascinating slice of history.

This book is very aboundant with many sample. It is suitable for every walks of society, including lawyer and teacher.It is worthy of reading.

This book is perfect, in explaining the future of microsimally manufactured systems.People will come to know that such tech. exists not on movie screens, but in reality. The best for a SOC designer, covering the topics what & where he needs.

I found this book to be a very strong outline of the necessity to act in responsible and accountable means to further appropriate conduct of others. I felt the basis in which Dr. Brown pursues proper solutions and reasonableness in problem-solving assessments is very insightful, and the clear acknolwdgement of not all solutions being best for everyone was paramount in the message of the text.

I will look for additional writings by Dr. Bown, and hope that these comments can be relayed to him.

The authors of this book provide a rare outsider's inside look at Canadian leadership politics. Because they are not party partisans or media spinmeisters, they put obvious insights in a totally new light. That alone makes the book a worthwhile read. But there are also great snippets of dark humour and commentary here. No matter who you may have supported--Clark, Mulroney, Wagner or otherwise--you will wince and delight at this take on the 1976 PC leadership convention. Also includes savage cartoonery by Aislin! I just wish the authors could have written more.

This book was published in 1979, but it gave a good account of the subject. Not only did it tell a broad story, but it gave interesting stories of individuals, discussed both sides of the issue and covered not only developments in the SBC since the 1600's but in Christianity as well. It was a fun, informative, emotional read with some surprises.

Anyone who loves dogs needs to read this book. Not only is it a great read--funny and well written--but it is packed with well documented information. I am sure I will read it again (and probably again) in order to fully appreciate the explanations and examples in all their depth. Mysterious (but interesting) behavior is no longer (very) mysterious, and annoying habits suddenly make sense--at least if you realize that your dog actually thinks like a dog. Highly recommended.

Mr. Budiansky claims to be a dog lover, however blaims "canine aggresion" on loving and kind owners. He advocates harsh treatment of dogs, leaving the door wide open for the defense of corporeal pushiment and abuse. He claims that if you pet your dog when he wants to be petted, or play ball with him when he brings you his ball, that you're inviting your dog to bite you(see p. 197-198).
The HSUS and the American Humane Association both agree that dog aggression stems from aggression, not, as Byudiansky suggests, being nice to your dog. An HSUS fact sheet on dog care mentions that abuse, even prolonged tethering, can lead to behavior problems, including aggression.
On p. 204, Budiansky claims that dogs respond to aggression from a dominant owner "by immediately and lavishly demonstrating their submissiveness," as positive. Most people would probably refer to the dog's reaction as cowering in fear.
Budiansky refutes the majority opinion that dog aggression can have multiple sources, snidely referring to these studies as "learned articles." According to him, dogs respond to kindness and love automatically with dominance aggression, their only type of aggression. Anyone who has owned a dog knows that this is simplicity ludicrous.
Budiansky is irresponsible, un-imaginative, and not someone who I would trust with my dog.

I thought this book was very shallow, though somewhat entertaining. Budiansky summarizes the gist of a lot of research on dogs, but you might as well go to the source--it will be a much more interesting read. Instead of this derivative and superficial book, read Raymond and Lorna Coppinger.

Although I love dogs, I read this book because I have been informally studying animal cognition and it was cited in another book. Most "dog books" are written by dog trainers and/or breeders. This is more of a scientific book on animal behaviorism, but it should be of great interest to anyone who loves dogs. Some people may be emotionally offended by the concept that dogs do not have the exact same emotions as humans or that they are not just like people in the way their thought processes operate. The author does refer to dogs as parasites. This is technically true in the sense that humans do not gain any evolutionary advantage from our association with dogs. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on it. The author obviously loves dogs and the parasite comment is not a big part of the book.

The book deals with how dogs evolved from wolves, why dogs are the way they are, what is happening inside a dog's mind, the effects of inbreeding among breeds, and other topics. I won't try to summarize the entire book, but I particularly liked the following two points. They were not major parts of the book. I refer to them only as examples to illustrate the general tone of the book.

Human psychologists can place blame for a person's faults on either the individual, society in general, or the parents. Dog trainers can similarly place the blame for a dog having problems upon the dog, the kennel, or the owner. Since dog trainers train dogs, it is in their self interest to blame the owner for everything. In truth, it is probably a little bit of all three. In particular, kennels are breeding dogs for their looks and not for their personalities.

For aggressive dogs, trainers typically break their behavior into categories such as dominance aggression, fear aggression, food aggression and so forth. If human psychologists did this for people, they would refer to "hate being stuck in traffic" aggression, "can't stand the boss at work" aggression, "hate waiting in line" aggression, and so forth.

This is a great book. People with a scientific interest will get a lot from it since I don't believe that dogs have been treated in such a way before, and people have such a ready knowledge of dog behavior. I think dog lovers who haven't been exposed to the science of animal behaviorism and animal cognition will really love the new perspective.

Partial kudos to Stephen Budiansky for this look at the supposedly true nature of man's best friend. On the one hand he easily dispels many of the common myths that most (if not all) of the famous so-called dog experts out there still cling to. On the other hand he should take a harder look at the real causes of aggression (it's always based on fear). And he should especially re-examine the alpha theory, which he's totally in love with.

Don't get me wrong. It's great that he's put the Bar Harbor experiments into perspective. Too many breeders are now sending puppies home way to early. And far too many puppies and dog owners are still suffering from the myth of the "critical socialization window" by putting their dogs into training before the pups are emotionally developed enough for learning. Even though the idea that there are "critical windows" has been thoroughly de-bunked (as Budiansky rightly reports they're now called "sensitive periods"), puppy classes continue to be a bustling business, and the trainers who run them either don't see the disservice and potential harm they're doing to these lovely little animals, or they just don't care because such classes make for a good, steady flow of revenue.

For the most part Budiansky does a first-rate job of whittling down canine intelligence to its actual level, particularly when it comes to the kinds of "signals" dogs deliver through vocalizations and body language (Budiansky, who's careful not to mistake these signals as use of actual language, calls them hints, which I think is still too anthropomorphic). It's very helpful for dog owners to know that the so-called signals their dogs make aren't about what the dog MEANS, they're about what the dog wants to ACCOMPLISH. In other words, your dog isn't trying to TELL you anything, he's trying to get you to DO something.

On the other hand, he's way off-base when he says: "A great many of the touchy-feely therapeutic types declare that physical punishment is never `appropriate' or that `aggression only creates aggressiveness.' The fact is dogs who are given one swift whack the first time they try to assert themselves in a menacing manner will often never try it again."

First of all, "touchy-feely?" Is that a scientific term I'm unaware of? And secondly, while it's true that dogs who received such an aggressive form of punishment may not "try it again" with the person who whacked them, it practically guarantees that they'll do it again with someone they perceive as weaker, such as a child. (Unfortunately the dogs may also feel less interested in playing again because there's a direct correlation between sociability and rough play, which is a means of reducing aggressive feelings.)

Budiansky makes matters worse when he goes on to say: "Dogs respond to aggressiveness from someone they perceive as dominant not by becoming more aggressive, not by becoming fearful, but rather by immediately and lavishly demonstrating their submissiveness."

The fact is what he's describing isn't submission at all; it's a sublimated form of aggression. (See Rudolf Schenkel's commentary below.) And since all aggression is based on fear, it's also a fearful response. So he's just contradicted himself. Whacking a dog actually does cause him to demonstrate both fear AND aggression.

It seems to me that the clue to the brutal mindset that Budiansky exhibits here is his complete, blind devotion to the now discredited alpha theory. He completely misses the boat on how and when and why this theory was misconceived. Nor does he give more than a passing thought to the kinds of intelligence this theory would require dogs and wolves to have. The simple, unathrompomorphic fact is that dogs with strong, assertive temperaments, who end up in a constant state of anxiety (generally due to mistreatement of some kind), will exhibit the same kinds of stress-related behaviors that captive wolves did in the initial studies (done in the 1930s and 40s) that gave us the alpha theory. A lot has changed since then. Just read the studies of wild wolves done by L. David Mech and others. Read Alexandra Semyonova's study on the self-emergent nature of a dog's social instincts. Budiansky gives one paragraph to Mech (in which wild wolf packs are seen to be more of a cooperative system than a linear hierarchy), but spends half of this book glorifying the old mythology.

Another mythology-based quote: "Dogs are easily trained to sit, lie down, and stay because those are precisely the sorts of postures or actions that subordinate wolves display toward dominant individuals."

The "down" used in obedience isn't remotely similar to the so-called submissive posture exhibited by dogs and wolves. And even that posture has been mis-labeled as submissive. Rudolf Schenkel, a contemporary of Konrad Lorenz who disagreed with the alpha theory from its inception, made a very important observation: "It is always the inferior wolf," Schenkel wrote, "who has his jaws near the throat of his opponent." So the apparent posture of submission is actually one of readiness to attack. Schenkel and others go on to point out that submission is actually a way of winning such confrontations without violence, and of controlling the other wolf's behavior. If so, then who's really in charge of things? The dominant loser or the submissive winner?

Finally, when Budiansky asserts that the sit, and stay, and down are reflective of submissive behaviors observed in captive wolves he's dead wrong. They're actually based on the predatory motor patterns of wild wolves: The down and the stay are part of the eye-stalk. The heel mimics the way wolves travel together when searching for prey. Even coming when called mimics a part of the hunt. Nearly everything a dog does is related to his inherited version of the wolf's prey drive. And when dogs aren't given a proper outlet for that drive, yes, they exhibit the same kinds of stress-related behaviors seen in those captive wolves. But these are abnormal, unnatural social behaviors that have been misperceived as dominance, submission, and hierarchy for the last 60 years. It's time to move on, away from the old era, and get to the real truth about dogs.

I'm afraid Stephen Budiansky's own instincts for getting at the truth have let him down. Two stars.

I'm not a baptist, and before reading this book knew that there had been a controversy in the SBC but didn't know any of the details. As one of the key players, Pressler knew the inside story and does a good job of presenting it in this book. I came away thankful for how this denomination was able to fight off the encroachment of liberalism and for the men who worked so hard to bring this about. This is an important story that anyone who is interested in the modern history of the church should read.

Some weaknesses are that Pressler spends a lot of time on details of his life not relevant to the controversy, and that when he does deal with the controversy he at times seems pretty defensive (but perhaps there are good reasons why!).

Judge Pressler's views in "A Hill On Which to Die..." though may be sincere, lacks the breadth of theological understanding of the various expressions of Christianity. Pressler, like many Fundamentalists, fail to accept that much of our understanding of scripture and theological concepts are interpretations and very few of the arguments that he is willing to die for would effect salvific truth. Every sincere believer and every denomination thinks in one way or another they have the "correct" view and interpretation. The problem is not believing. Pressler is correct in his argument that one must stand firm in one's belief. However, his failure in the book is the adequate display of the fact that Christianity, even among faithful Southern Baptists, is broader than the narrow views which he holds. His concepts of Christianity would undoubtedly reject the Christianity of C. S. Lewis (Anglican), J. I. Packer (Anglican), Eugene Peterson (Presbyterian), Mother Theresa (Roman Catholic), and the vast majority of both main line and evangelical Christianity. For these reasons and others, I would not recommend this book.

This book has an "I" problem. The Judge repeatedly uses "I" did..., "I" thought..., "I" knew ..., "I".... It seems egotistical, judgmental - and paranoid. We have experienced the whole thing, first hand...he puts a lot of spins on the truth! Christian love doesn't do things this way!

Having read this starting yesterday, I'm halfway through this book. It's is a definite page-turner. The Lord had certainly blessed Paul Pressler with the giftedness to see liberalism for what it was and still is, the courage to stand up to it, the wisdom to strategize courses of actions, and the networking of friends, colleagues and rivals on both sides of the theological camp, while remaining focused to the heart of the matter - the truth of the Gospel and the salvation of souls.

Currently living in liberal Bay Area where conservative Christianity is muted or mutated by postmodern secularists, atheists, agnostics, pantheists, liberals, New Agers, Buddhists, etc. and where a number of Southern Baptist churches are pastored by women, dually-aligned with liberal Baptist denominations, and simply doctrinally shallow, I read the story of Paul Pressler with great admiration and inspiration.

Paul Pressler embarrasses himself in this disgraceful memoir. The story of his "decision" to turn down President Bush's offer of a government post is laughable in it's inaccuracy. This is just one example of Pressler's egomaniacal and self delusive re-interpretation of his own history. He exemplifies everything that non-Baptists falsely believe are typical of the Southern Baptist Convention, to it's shame.