Government Books

An eye opener from an insider non politician. Enjoyed reading the book and learnt more about how far our politicians have digressed from taking care of the people who elect them.

I've been following Ron Paul for about a year now and even I learned some new things reading this book. I think it lays out the case real well for local government and self government versus the large intrusive Federal government we now have. Our country needs to right the ship now while we still can

They both are "revolutionists" who are trying to overthrow governments. I see no difference between this book and Mao's Red Diary. I guess you can say this is the Mao's diary for infowarriors and conspiracy nuts. Worst read ever and there's a reason he only got 0.5% of Republican Delegates. Don't be persuaded by nut job and jobies Alex Jones, his propaganda is the only reason why there was so much internet hype (we all see where that went), think outside of the box and be independent...

Ron Paul is certainly the most interesting politician of his time. I am behind his domestic policy 95% of the time, but his foreign policy is very naïve. Yes the founding fathers did not want us going abroad...but they also lived in a time where the United States could free ride off the security the Brittish Empire brought to the Western World. Geopolitical changes have also brought an end to the days of noninterventionsism because our oceans can not longer protect us from planes, missiles and terrorists. And no, I don't buy into the naïve argument that "they" would just leave us alone if we left them alone. Our enemies abroad do not seek peace with us any more than our enemies here at home really want equality and multiculturalism. What they both want is the destruction of the West.
However, Congressman Paul makes an excellent argument that if we don't trust big government here at home to fix problems, why should we expect the same government to go abroad and fix the societies of the Middle East? The answer is we shouldn't. Just because we break it, doesn't mean we have to fix it. Interventionism can occur for strategic reasons without it becoming the Wilsonian foreign policy of George Bush.

You know that feeling you get right before a big election? The total and complete indifference that is akin to having tea or coffee with your meal perhaps? The apathy that I was once accustomed to experience when the conversation turned towards politics has since been replaced with a burning and intense passion and desire for real change. As we all know far too well that nothing of substance really changes within our federal government. Ron Paul proposes real change, and his source of inspiration is our Constitution.

This is quite possibly one of the best books I've ever read. And I do my fair share of reading. Don't let the size of the book scare you either. Its worth putting the time into. David McCullough writes in a readable manner. None of that academic reading stuff that gives you headaches. Listen, if you are even considering buying it you probably already have a little interest in this topic. Do yourself a favor. Buy this book. You can thank me later. Oh, and...Harry is my new hero.

This is a big and detailed book, not for the faint of heart. But, if you love history and/or politics, this is a book for you. Truman was an unlikely president and this book captures the man's personality, humility, and dignity. Carefully researched and described, the book opens the door to one of our nation's most unique and dinstinguished characters. An epic book about an epic man. Delightful.

I couldn't have been more pleased with this book. I love David McCullough and he never ceases to amaze you with this intimate portrayal of Harry Truman's life. He brings the President to the level of an average man who finds himself in an above-average position. I would recommend this to anyone looking for an in-depth look at one of our most interesting Presidents to-date.

I have to agree with a previous reviewer: upon reading this, I have such a desire to meet and converse with HST--that's how interesting and honorable he was.

As always, McCullough's narrative sweep is impressive. Truman as a lonely and bookish boy, Truman as a soldier, Truman as a failed businessman are the most interesting parts. When it comes to Truman's presidency, McCullough turns up little new grounds, however. It's the usual conventional wisdom about a guy who made tough decisions that turned out right. Read Perrett's "Commander in Chief" for a harsher and more surprising evaluation of Truman's decision-making and his monumental blunders.

The book itself was a winner - a gift for my husband. He "devoured" it. The only disappointment was how cheaply and poorly-bound the paperback was. Even with extreme care, it fell apart within the first 70 pages. The replacement nearly made it to the end, but not quite. Buy and read this book, but go for a better-bound version unless you like handling it in pieces.

"Point of Impact" is one of my favorite books and I have read all of Stephen Hunters earlier and later works. They are not all gems for those of you who haven't read them but they are pretty good.
I have been waiting for this movie for years. In the late 1990's the project was supposed to star Tommy Lee Jones but that movie never got made. This movie is pretty faithful to the book with updating for modern times. However, the ending is out of left field and a terrible conclusion. Perhaps this is because through all of the other books about Bob Lee and his father, never once did I feel ashamed of their behavior as I did watching this ending. Shame on Stephen Hunter for allowing this to happen to his story.

Well written and full of suspense. This is my first Stephen Hunter book, but it won't be my last! The story line is not predictable, in fact you'll be surprised at every turn!

Worth the buy and read. Significantly better and richer than the movie. There's good reason for the solidly high ratings given to this book.

I was delighted by the reading of such a good novel packed with a lot of suspense and actions.
Bob Lee Swagger (also called Bob the Nailer) was a top sniper in the Vietnam war. Stephen Hunter inspired by the biography of Carlos Hathcock depicts a brave man, alone, who looks like Rambo (from "First Blood" by David Morrell). In every book of the saga, we learn to respect Bob Lee Swagger. "Point of Impact" was made into a very good film titled "Shooter". Here the hero comes from Iraq and not Vietnam.
Have a nice time.

POINT OF IMPACT is the first novel I've read by Stephen Hunter, the Pulitzer-prize winning film critic for THE WASHINGTON POST. It's a very solid read, esepcially if you're a gun officiado.

This novel in many ways reminds me of the Jack Reacher novels by Lee Child. Bob Lee Swagger, the hero of this novel, is a veteran of the Vietnam War who is also the ultimate loner and tough guy. Swagger finds himself framed for a murder he doesn't commit, and is forced to go on the lam. The rest of the book deals with his efforts to prove his innocence, and take vengenance on the powerful people who set him up.

Hunter is a good writer, and he knows how to write an excellent action scene. Some of the gun fights in POINT OF IMPACT are really impressive. Like most action novels, the plot is unbelievable and much of the characterization is two-dimensional. Hunter also throws in far too much technical information about guns and ballistics -- I personally found all this data rather dry and unncessary to the storyline. Still, after a slow start, this novel becomes quite exciting to read, and Hunter knows how to tell a compelling story with heroes you can root for.

Overall, POINT OF IMPACT is a really good action novel, and I look forward to reading more of Hunter's work.

nicholas and alexandra should never had become czar and crazina of russia.nicholas was just to weak spirit and alexandra to strong without know the real russia people.she saw russian as childern who needed to be told how to run their lives by the papa czar.she hide her son illness and brought in a sexual twisted man of god into her family,ruin the romanov's relationship with it's people.stopping changes that would give citzen russian say in their country.in the end the people turn on the romanov's every thing end tragical.

I read this book many years ago and have never forgotten it, and I just recently purchased a copy of my own. Robert Massie is an excellent writer who makes this book memorable for the fun and loving family that the Romanovs were and their terrible, tragic end. I'm now collecting more books on the Romanov dynasty and the individual people who made up this fascinating family. For anyone with an interest, this is the place to start.

Far and away one of the best biographies I have ever read. Massie masterfully gives life to the doomed, tragic last Russian Tsar, Nicholas II, and his family. I was absolutely rivetted from page one by this outstanding work. The book gives a sympathetic portrait of Tsar Nicholas, his wife Empress Alexandra, and their ongoing struggle to cope with their haemophiliac son, Alexei, heir to the Russian throne. Alexei's illness indirectly leads to the downfall of the Romanov dynasty and the family's murder. An astonishingly good read, and one I highly recommend to all who are interested in this era of history.

Robert Massie's "Nicholas and Alexandra" is a biographical study centered on the lives of the last Tsar and Tsarina of Russia. Massie's portrayal of the last ruling Romanavs is like many other works on the subject in that it is poignant, dramatic, and vibrant; but never dull. However, Massie's work stands out above other works on the subject for its thorough account of the lives of the imperial couple and most of all, its sympathetic portrayal of them.

Nearly all works of the period agree that Tsar Nicholas II was not the blood-drenched despot the Bolshevik revolutionaries claimed him to be, and although he may not have been as benevolent as his contemporary Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary, he at least lacked the bellicose nature of his German counterpart (and early advisor), Wilhelm II. Massie's account demonstrates how Nicholas II was ill-prepared to ascend the throne in after Alexander III, but unlike the contention of other historians, Massie makes a reasonable case in defending the intelligence of the fallen autocrat.

Massie's account of Nicholas and Alexandra does not absolve the couple from their failure to prevent the collapse of the reign and ultimately their country, but it does partially excuse their inflexibility and fatalism on the serious of misfortunes that continued to plague Nicholas from the very day of his coronation; when hundred of Russian peasants were stampeded to death in a overzealous crowd on Khodynka Meadow. Yet, no Romanov apologist can ignore the detrimental influences on Nicholas's reign, including his wife Alexandra, a German Kaiser, and especially a corrupt starets. That such an array of persons from various strata of society could at times impose their will on a man raised to be an autocrat was a tarnish on Nicholas' character.

Despite his habit of being easily swayed at times, Nicholas is not one-dimensional in Massie's account. It is noted how Nicholas ignored the advice of able ministers and most of all; remained unyielding to grant the masses of his subjects the representation and constitution they desired--until it was too late. Even Massie can be counted among the historians who muse whether the Romanov dynasty might have survived had the Tsar been more accommadating to the popular demands of his people--or if war had not erupted in the manner it did in 1914.

Although Massie's work is very thorough, it only briefly touches the clandestine operations of the Tsarist police state in rooting out revolutionaries and assassins from its masses prior to 1917. Indeed, other works (e.g. Edmond Taylor's "The Fall of the Dynasties") are careful to point out that Tsarist police included a host of known double agents whose loyalties were perpetually in doubt. While Massie makes note of that insecurity in his account of Prime Minister Peter Stolypin's assassination in 1911 by a Tsarist agent, he fails to explain how widespread the problem actually was. Indeed, Taylor describes as monarchy's slide to collapse as a "suicide", not because they were unable to stop that slide, but rather because they were unwilling.

Just as it is difficult to excuse the corrupt system of Tsarist counter-revolutionary activity, historians are also unable to justify the Russia's policy in WWI of placing the needs of France above that of her own. The disaster at Tannenburg early in the war is described in detail by Massie, and is correctly portrayed as a premature offensive launched by Russia (with the support of Nicholas) to rescue its beleagured ally from the German onslaught through northern France. Indeed, even after his abdication and arrest, Massie notes how Nicholas pleaded with Kerensky to continue to support the Russia's allies in the war effort--a mission with which the Provisional Government leader would complete in the summer of 1917 with disastrous consequences. Although Massie's "Nicholas and Alexandra" does not outright label the monarchy as a principle agent of its own destruction, his book nevertheless provides a strong case to the conclusion that the last rulers (and their ministers) of the Romanov dynasty practiced an inexplicable policy of self-immolation.

It is perhaps this mystery--or lunacy--of the Romanovs that continues to fascinate so many readers 90 years after their unglorious deaths in their Siberian imprisonment. Undoubtedly, the story of the last Romanovs will continue to perplex students of history for decades to come, and Robert Massie's work will will remain the foremost account of the twilight of Imperial Russia.

In 2000, there was much talk about the "most important person of the 20th Century." My choice was always Gavrilo Princip, the young Bosnian assassin who killed Archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary, igniting World War I, which caused the Russian Revolution, Communism, and the Treaty of Versailles, which led to Naziism, World War II, atomic bombs, and the Cold War.

Of course, there were other factors which formed the tragedy of the twentieth century, and perhaps some of these historical events would have happened anyway. Almost for certain, the Romanov Monarchy would have fallen or been transformed out of recognition without the help of Gavrilo Princip's bullets.

Although the Ottoman Empire was always referred to as "the sick man of Europe," Robert K. Massie illustrates that Russia was not very well either, despite appearances. An obsolescent autocracy, the Russian Empire was mired in time at the dawn of the twentieth century, the great mass of its people existing much as they had 100 years earlier.

Massie's theory, that the hemophilia of Alexis, the young Tsarevich, had an inordinate influence of Russian and subsequent world history, is well thought-out, though perhaps an oversimplification. Yet, it cannot be discounted. The Romanov Dynasty had ruled Russia then for 300 years, and brought the country, by fits and starts, slowly into the orbit of the modern world. Despite this, there is much truth in the observation that "Lenin inherited a nation playing beside a manure pile and Stalin bequeathed a nation playing with an atomic pile." This is not to defend Stalinism, but only to say how little the Romanovs did overall to modernize their State.

When Nicholas II inherited the throne after his father's untimely death, he was woefully unprepared to rule. Dominated for years by archconservative and anti-modernist members of his family, he did little to educate his people, provide health care, build infrastructure, or lift the heavy cloak of official repression that lay over all but ethnic Russians in his realm, or the cloak of cultural repression that lay over the ethnic Russians.

Yet Massie shows us a man and a family of uncommonly kind nature in Nicholas II and his family. His daughter Olga paid personally for the care of a handicapped subject she spied from her carriage one day. The Tsaritsa, Alexandra, despite a reputation as an uncaring woman, herself nursed sick friends before the war and horribly wounded soldiers during the war. The family built hospitals and schools in and around the various cities wherein lay the royal estates. They acted to ameliorate suffering wherever they saw it, without reservation.

Of course, this was the problem. They acted only on what they saw with their own eyes, never recognizing that these sufferings were endemic throughout the realm. Their myopia was part and parcel of the lives of the citified upper classes, completely divorced from the mass of agrarian peasants in the countryside, magnified by the hermetically sealed nature of being an Imperial Family, aided and abetted by sycophants and the self-serving, who kept the real world at a very long arm's length, in order to maintain their own privileged positions. Living in a bubble within a bubble, they were just not aware of conditions in most of Russia.

Nicholas II ruled over the largest domain on earth. Russia today is still the world's largest nation, even shorn of Finland, Poland, the Baltic States, Belarus, the Ukraine, the Central Asian provinces, and (in 1867) Alaska. Sunset in Vladivostok was dawn in Brest-Litovsk. His hundred million subjects included hundreds of peoples speaking hundreds of languages, linked together by a shockingly small road and rail system. The sensitive Nicholas, had he been really cognizant of the shape of things, could have, by a single order, vastly improved the lives of each and every Russian (of course, as he noted, being an autocrat and giving orders does not ensure that they are carried out properly). His greatest failings, as a ruler, all had to do with his decisions to outwardly maintain his Imperial hautre and his autocracy at all costs in the face of cataclysmic change.

This bubble-within-a-bubble existence however, could not spare them from the fact of the Tsarevich's hemophilia. A genetic disorder inherited through the female line (Alexis' Great-Grandmother was Queen Victoria, whose progeny were ravaged by the disease), it prevents the clotting of the blood. When Alexis was born in 1904, the world was a full lifespan away from the development of a usable clotting factor; most hemophiliacs simply bled out and died. The Tsarevich was protected by a full retinue, but this did not help him, and the boy was often in screaming agony and close to death from what might in another child, be a bad bruise. The Heir, therefore lived in a bubble within a bubble within a bubble.

The Tsaritsa, Alexandra, was a solemn, shy, but deeply emotional and loving woman, nicknamed "Sunny" by her husband. To the world, she presented an aloof exterior, and was extremely unpopular with her subjects. Had they known the sorrows and agonies she suffered through with Alexis, her realm, and history, might have treated her far better. But the Imperial Family decided to keep Alexis' condition a closely guarded secret, fearing the destabilization of the Monarchy and Russia in the face of a physically frail Heir. This may have been the Imperial Family's worst error, as it robbed them of an outpouring of sympathy and support from a passionate populace.

Alexandra turned to religion, and ultimately, to Gregory Rasputin, a filthy, degenerate, sexually perverse and personally dissolute monk of peasant extraction. Although derided by most, and called a charlatan by many, Rasputin was perhaps one of the most charismatic men in history, had a devoted following (largely comprised of Society women he'd seduced), did have the power, somehow, to control Alexis' bleeding episodes, and therefore, had the Empress's full and unwavering support in all things.

The feared and hated Rasputin may have indeed been a seer or had mystical powers of some sort, judging from circumstances. Rasputin was not really political, but as his influence over the Romanovs grew, his power expanded commensurately, and he was able to have Ministers dismissed, Generals reassigned to sinecures, and policies changed according to his own whims (expressed as messages from God) or concerns. Capable Russian leaders, who did not know the basis of Rasputin's power, suspected the worst of Alexandra, and in challenging Rasputin found themselves toppled from power. As World War I dawned, Russia was upside-down, its best men in internal exile, and woefully unprepared for war. Rasputin himself counseled against war, stating that Russia would collapse from within. Nonetheless, the British, German and Russian grandsons of Queen Victoria went to war.In that war, millions died, empires fell, nations were born, ideological political systems triumphed, and the stage was set for a darker and yet bloodier future.

The Tsar and his genteel family were consumed, ending their days against a wall before a Bolshevik firing squad, probably not understanding, until the end, that they had been in the eye of a hurricane that remade the world.

Robert Caro's THE POWER BROKER is a lession in the use of power in the life and career of Robert Moses, and the consequent effects upon the people and substructure of New York City. Moses is such a disgusting figure, such a tyrant, that I literally found myself shaking at points. The press was in his pocket, elitest and racist, Moses painted himself as the selfless public servant. In reality, he cast people aside by the thousands in order to increase his power and accomplish what he wants. What a vile man. I'll never look at New York City the same again and I pray that I would never treat people the way he did.

Robert Caro's The Power Broker, a biography of Robert Moses, contains every attribute of a Shakespearean tragedy. Moses was brilliant, driven, an over-achiever, but possessed a deeply flawed character which aroused feelings of both esteem and disgust. Like all of Shakespeare's tragic protagonists, he was capable of both good and evil. Fully able to redeem himself, he instead moved unheedingly towards his doom. That 30+ years of unquestionable power within New York State's political, corporate, and labor elite forestalled this doom speaks to the measure of the man. Indeed, it took a Rockefeller to push him from the mountaintop.

One of the best biographies I've ever read, The Power Broker's 1,163 pages artfully and suspensefully tell the tale of a man for whom the words great and ignominious qualify as adjectives. Initially an ardent reformer, Moses was increasingly corrupted by power. At the apex of this power, Moses answered to no one and ran a wide reaching web of political commissions and public authorities as his personal empire.

His transition from reformer to elitist provides the backbone of Caro's epic. Once a voice for the common man, Moses eventually attained what can only be described as aristocratic contempt for the mob, the rabble, the lower echelon of economic achievement. The reader may marvel that such a powerful man was heretofore unknown to them, but the reader will certainly grow increasingly disenchanted at such a man's venality.

The Power Broker is a classic deserving the attention of every student of history. Despite it's heft, it remains a page turning pleasure throughout. As such, it most assuredly merits the highest ranking I can give it: 5+ stars. Trite though the term may be, Robert Caro has authored a masterpiece.

This book, written by Robert Caro - probably the best living biographer, was his first book. It is a massive, thorough, detailed, engaging study of how one man - Robert Moses - planned, shaped and built - the modern city of New York.

It is about the acquisition of power and its utilization by one man in order to bring his vision of New York City to fruition.

Robert Moses - the primary subject of the book - together with the notion of power, and New York City itself as well as its residents being the other subjects - was trained in urban planning England, was a visionary, a planner, and a "Power Broker" - and thus the title, whose materials where New York City, planned, designed, built modern New York by stamping his vision in the form of new parks, spaces, roads and parkways, new neighborhoods, new subways/rail-lines, new beach and recreational facilities and areas, had an impact on the way millions of New Yorkers as well as visitors to NYC experienced NYC - experienced NYC - for decades. His shape of NYC is still shaping how humans experience reality in such city.

This is a tour de force. This is a good book for those interested in New York City, local and state government politics, the modern bureaucratic / administrative aparatus of government and those who wield the helm. Whether you agree with Robert Moses vision of NYC or not, he had a tremendous impact. The impact was not limited to NYC. Seen as the expert on urban planning, his model, his vision, his views, spread throughout the entire field of modern urban planning. Thus, his impact is not just local or state. It is in fact national and international. Modern cities - the leadership of which visited or modeled their cities on NYC - where shaped by his creations.

A long book. A detailed book. A hard book. But excellent, very interesting, and well worth the effort and time. Probably the prime example of what an excellent biography is and should be. It made Robert Caro, its author, into the preeminent biographer of the last several decades. It set the standard. I don't know if it has or will ever be matched.

I have been waiting to read this book for a very long time, and the wait was well worth it. Mr. Caro presents a massive, well-researched piece on one of New York's most influential (and controversial) public officials. I am a sucker for great detail, and so I enjoyed Caro's painstakingly detailed portrait of how a young, idealistic reformer evolved into the ruler of a huge bureaucratic empire. What Caro makes very clear is how Robert Moses became so corrupted by power (and self-importance) that he failed to grasp how his projects were not always in the public interest. Moreover, Caro paints a vivid picture of Moses' cynicism and shrewdness, and how he parlayed those into greater and greater power. For instance, Moses realized that most state legislators were political hacks who never bothered to read the fine print of the laws that they passed. He played on this to insert such fine print into legislation which made him virtual Tsar of development in both New York State and New York City. In addition, Moses was able to convince most New York politicians that he was indispensable to them, and so had them virtually eating out of his hand (i.e., his tactic of threatening to resign, unless he got 100% of what he wanted). At once fascinating and frightening as to how one man could harness such a degree of power!

While Robert Moses' achievements are the main focus of this book, Mr. Caro also devotes a great deal of attention to the political situation that existed in New York during the era of Moses. In doing this, he gives readers a fine education on how New York and its municipalities were governed at that time (and in many ways, are still governed), along with an in-depth look at other contemporary political figures (i.e., Al Smith and Fiorello LaGuardia). I would equate reading this book with taking a college-level course, as you learn and think so much while reading it.

On a critical note, not all of Mr. Caro's conclusions about Robert Moses are universally accepted. For instance, Mr. Caro accuses Moses of single-handedly wrecking the Bronx with the Cross Bronx Expressway. However, many people have argued that this was only one of many factors that destroyed the Bronx, and not all of these things were brought by Moses. Perhaps Mr. Caro should have given space to opposing viewpoints regarding the Moses legacy. Overall, though, I think that it is a great book: required reading for anyone interested in the development of New York during the 20th century.

Robert Caro's biography reads like an extraordinary work of investigative journalism - damning, erudite and compelling - that surely would have been appreciated by Robert Moses had he not been the subject.

It is a fascinating study of the evolution of government in New York City and Robert Moses' ability to shape laws as the "best bill drafter in Albany" and to seize upon prevailing trends and work the levers of the City, State and Federal governments to his advantage. It is during the Great Depression when Moses is able to mobilize maximum resources, largely from the Federal government, for some of his most ambitious projects.

While at most times a scathing indictment of Moses and his methods, Caro does credit Moses - New York City's first Parks Commissioner - for his contributions to green spaces in the city and his creation of a premier state park system.

Caro insists that judgment about Moses' legacy is premature and that one can only say New York would be a very different place without Moses. New York was indeed a very different place at the time of publication of the Power Broker; Caro has recently commented that some of Moses projects, such as the Triborough Bridge, have been a boon for city residents. Although he never cared for mass transit, it's a shame Moses couldn't come back to start work on the stalled new Penn Station.

Bastiat's Law is one of the most important documents you could ever read. It is the basis for the philosophy of liberty, and without adherence to these ideals liberty cannot last. This should be required reading in school, but once you read what this french philosopher had to say you may start to understand why those who tax us cannot afford to have too many people read this book.

The substance of Bastiat's "The Law" is critical and accurate.

The good people at Cosimo Books, however, cut off the printing before the end of the book -- the penultimate section of the book ends in mid-sentence, and the last section of the book isn't there at all.

So I do very much encourage everyone to read Bastiat's "The Law," just don't buy this version from this publisher. (Buy it from the Mises Institute instead.)

This is an excellent book which I read years ago. "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat, in which he discusses legalized plunder, is a highly recommended work which should be read by all Americans, especially before they vote. Should also be required reading by anyone running for public office, serving on a jury, or attending law school. In fact, why not make it required reading in all public schools? That would really change the political, social, and economic landscape! Let's all buy several copies and send one each to our Representatives and Senators, state and federal. We the People can make a difference, if we try!

A fantastic pamphlet written as Bastiat knew he was dying. Besides the middle bit, where he spends a bit too much time arguing against the specific positions of the political opponents of his day, it is a fast primer on what it means to be free. Highly recommended.

While I agree with Bastiat entirely, the way that he has presented "the classic blueprint for a just society," is exactly why people who lean more towards socialist ideas scoff at those who are for capitalism, economic stability, and most importantly honoring the fundamentals of the need for law: to protect life, liberty, and property.

The first chapter started out wonderfully, articulately and simple. It was accessible and easy to understand and apply. I was excited as I hoped to share this with my husband to allow him to open up to my ideas on politics which are different from his (he's a democrat/socialist).

However, the rest of the book just seemed to be a rant that got more and more impassioned as it went along, which to me seemed to take away from the reader's ability to take what he was saying seriously. I was disappointed because even though I agreed with everything he said and thought his applications of his ideas were great, I felt sort of embarrassed about his inability to keep calm in expressing his ideas.

The book is sound, based on sound ideas and should appeal to any libertarian. I nodded a lot as I was reading it. "Yes!" I kept telling myself, "this is definitely true." Unfortunately the truth was told, in this case, in a way that I don't think would be very accessible to the people that Bastiat was intent on reaching. I think a democrat/socialist might mislabel it "too radical" when they really mean, "too impassioned."

It is for that reason, I'm sorry to say, I was unable to rate this any higher.

A great, independent book that's neither to the left or the right in politics. This book was my favorite read of the year, and worth reading regardless of political or philosophical beliefs. Approachable and easy to read, but not "dumbed" down.

I could hardly get through this ponderous tome. Unlike his book "The Revolution: A Manifesto". This is not concise. Rather it is prolix. This book consists of nearly every speech given by Ron Paul from the house floor. Although I am not sure he is correct in his beliefs, he has shown a remarkable consistency through the years.

This book is not an easy read. It contains a very large portion of Ron Paul's congressional speeches and his own post-speech commentary on the meaning of the speeches and comments on the timeliness of them. This book affirms his stellar voting record and is interesting to see his forecast of current problems we are facing on every front as a nation. If only congress could slightly awaken to these types of founding principles that our nation was built upon, maybe we would have a much healthier nation today. This book is an excellent resource for anyone who wants a historical look at Paul's congressional actions.

This book explains in Ron Paul's own words the reasoning for avoiding "entangled alliances." It is absolutely amazing how for 30 years this man has beat the same drum for our liberties here in our homeland. It shows just how tireless Ron Paul is in spreading the message of peace and liberty. His speeches given on the House floor are full of history (showing how we got where we are today) with a bit of almost "prophetic" wisdom of where this country is heading with the continuation of our poor foreign policy. In one speech in particular (NEOCONNED!) he names names. His personal diary entry at the beginning of the Iraq invasion...well it shows the man. Ron Paul will be in the history books. That is unless WE allow those who are in charge of writing them now to remain in power.

In A Foreign Policy of Freedom, Ron Paul presents his thoughts on foreign policy in a very logical manner substantiated by both reason and history. Paul provides a collection of his statements to congress over the last thirty years that will be eye opening as many of Paul's cautions that went unheard later came into fruition near exactly how he predicted.

Whether one agrees with his views and is in search of validation, or completely disagrees yet is willing to test one's reasoning against some weighty questions, one will find this book fully delivers. I have always believed that if I truly am committed to any position, entertaining the thoughts of an opposing position will serve to strengthen my views as it holds up under full investigation. What I found is that when fully scrutinized, Paul's position on foreign policy is the only logical position that leads to a stronger and safer America in the long run.

Paul prefers armed neutrality to international intervention, leaving many of his detractors asking whether armed neutrality equals isolationism, which could not be further from the truth. Critics of this policy who consider an international military presence essential to our safety will discover many revealing details throughout history that suggest otherwise.

For those tired of the hypocrisy of the right wing that views government domestically as incompetent and dangerous yet somehow able to bring freedom and democracy to any other land (or conversely the hypocrisy of the left wing that prefers the polar opposite), Paul's message will resonate with you immediately. Paul displays an understanding of history that few politicians can match and aptly displays the negative results of continuously supporting "our enemies' enemies as our friends" over the last half century. Consider that "for decades we have been both allies and enemies of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and the Islamists in Iran. And where has it gotten us?" It is interesting to note as Paul points out that we have had the same vision for decades regarding the Middle East and yet things are as dangerous and precarious as they have ever been.

Is it so unexpected that we should at the very least be asking ourselves critical questions about our foreign policies? If we disagree, would asking such questions not merely strengthen our resolve? Ron Paul poses these questions that every voter and taxpayer in the US should be asking themselves; and Paul addresses all of them.

"Most Americans do not want to appear weak; they enjoy expressions of strength and bravado. They fail to understand that self-confidence and true strength of conviction place restraints on the use of force, that peaceful solutions to problems require greater wisdom than unprovoked force." Are you among those that place pretense over result, or are you willing to get passed the foolish notion that any opposing ideas to mere aggression are unpatriotic or weak. If you find yourself in the latter, there is no book I am aware of on the issue of foreign policy that I recommend higher than A Foreign Policy of Freedom.

I read this book last semester for a Criminal Justice class and it is amazing. It opened my eyes to exactly how wrong the war on drugs is. This book is my #1 recommended book. If more people would read it I think we'd finally be able to find our way out of this fruitless war.

Q: What is the difference between the Prohibition and America's war on drugs? Mike Gray's overall answer is "very little," but the one glaring difference is that when Prohibition failed, the country repealed the Constitutional Amendment which had created it. Alcohol use remained at about the same level before, during and after the Prohibition years, but the murder, official corruption and gang battles that accompanied official proscription came and went. DRUG CRAZY analyzes the upshot of that distinction and its enormous worldwide effects. The U.S. led anti-drug effort has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars in enforcement efforts alone, not to mention the cost of prisons, imprisonment and court proceedings and has succeeded in creating an international drug consortium with an annual income higher than the U.S. defense budget. Thousands of innocent bystanders have died in sprays of automatic fire and bomb blasts. It has made pot easier to get than alcohol for most American teens and brought Colombian, Bolivian and Mexican democracy to the brink of collapse. Damningly, Gray reports that every refereed study since the 1890s has suggested that marijuana is harmless and that the opiates and cocaine are no more dangerous than alcohol (perhaps less). Even the infamous "crack babies" we heard about for a few years turned out to be an unsubstantiated myth. In every country where legalization and controlled prescriptive availability of harder drugs has been tried, addiction rates remained stable or fell, crime decreased and most addicts proceeded to live normal workaday lives. The U.S. has forced other countries to quit such programs through fiscal pressure and outright lies, insisting that all adopt our abolitionist stance. We have managed to export violence, crack cocaine, corruption and other benefits to numerous other nations along with our failed policy. At the same time, and to make matters worse, the nature of enforcement has become a defacto racist effort. Cocaine in Wall Street boardrooms is harder to see than crack runners on Main Street and while whites are the disproportionate users of illegal drugs, blacks are the disproportionate arrestees. In this country, one in four black males is either in prison, under probation or on parole, mostly as a result of drug or drug related crimes. Small wonder, as the author points out, that blacks think O.J. Simpson was framed: it is their daily experience. Police routinely lie in court to make drug charges stick. (Since private deals between consenting parties are very hard to actually witness, when police claim that a perpetrator dropped a bag or in some other way made evidence visible it is understood by judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and defendants that it is "acceptable" false testimony to cover an illegal search. So perjury is permitted in the name of enforcement.) Amazingly, the whole morass of current drug problems and policies could be eliminated with the stroke of a pen. Minus prohibition the drug cartels would be defunded. If prices fell, many farmers would find other crops more appealing. If currently illegal substances were distributed by prescription or through state-licensed stores, kids would be infrequently exposed. (How many pushers are selling beer in front of your local elementary school these days?) Mike Gray has brought his story telling skill (The China Syndrome and other screenplays) and his investigative/documentary bent (American Revolution and The Murder of Fred Hampton) to bear on an urgent national and international problem. His recommendations and observations are difficult to refute and his is a well considered voice in a growing debate which affects us all. Even now, the genie released when California and Arizona approved medical marijuana use is being clumsily stuffed back in the bottle by Federal mandate, disenfranchising voters and creating a rising uproar. As former U.S. Attorney General Elliott Richardson observes: "Anyone who thinks the war on drugs is succeeding should read this book. It shifts the burden of proof from the critics of existing policy to its defenders."

This is one of the best books I've read on the drug war to date (and I've read a bunch). The book carefully went through the origins, history, and effects of the drug war in a captivating and easy to follow manner. When finished, the reader will be left with an iron-clad indictment of the drug war which has covered all angles. This really is one of the most comprehensive and well written books on the drug war, and I highly recommend it.

When it became clear that the medicines called opiates were highly addictive and caused health problems, they were dealt with as nicotine and alcohol are dealt with today. There were honest and realistic public service messages warning of the dangers of opiates, and there was medical help that greatly limited the damage they did to the individual and which had a chance of eliminating his or her addiction. These methods worked, and where they are applied they work today. Then in the second decade of the twentieth century the country took a nose-dive into authoritarian attitudes and corruption, and people got the strange idea that you could eliminate a practice you didn't like simply by passing a law against it. Alcohol, and the opiates were completely banned, as was marijuana which was now designated a "drug" because of its association with minority groups. Alcohol use, which had always hovered between widespread and universal, had been declining but now became more common than ever before. Worse, the alcoholic drinks that were taken became much harder and not being regulated they might contain enough alcohol to be dangerous. Worse still, an untold number of criminals were created, crime of all kinds increased radically, organized crime came to control whole districts and corruption reached heights never seen before. "Public service messages" regarding what were now illegal "drugs" became simple expressions of hatred having very little to do with the "drugs" they were about, and everyone actually familiar with those "drugs" knew it. Medical treatment by doctors who were actually trying to help their paitents was declared illegal, and a number of doctors went to prison. The lives of opiate addicts had usually been no worse than the lives of nicotine addicts, but now those lives became impossible. Addicts could no longer hold jobs raise children or do anything else but concentrate on their addiction. Current "rehabilitation" for opiate addicts is an expression of hatred for those addicts and makes no attempt to help them. It mostly consists of telling them they are evil it they don't break their habits, and for those addicted to opiates or nicotine, breaking the habit altogether is usually not possible. Opiate use had always been an insignificant phenomenon nationwide, and in the early part of the century when it was being dealt with intelligently, it was declining. But then the hate laws were passed, and now a measurable percentage of the population is addicted and condemed to ruined, useless lives, organized crime is more powerful now than at any time in history, and whole countries like Columbia are completely dominated by corruption-- as are large sections of others like the United States and Mexico. None of this needed to happen. The things we call "drugs" were handled intelligently at the beginning of the twentieth century or were never a problem in the first place. If realistic laws were passed, the worst of the damage would be fixed very quickly since it is directly caused by bad laws. The rest of the damage would take a decade to undo, but if we begin treating the opiates as we treat nicotine and alcohol we will gradually undo it.
I think that is a pretty good thumbnail of what Mike Grey had to say, and he is completely right. Everyone in the country should read this book. Our real addiction is to hatred.

Author Mike Gray tackles the failed drug war in this book and effectively shows how the present war has many similarities to alcohol prohibition in early part of the twentieth century. Gray begins his discussion of the subject of drugs by taking the reader back to 1925, in the city of Chicago, during the height of the nightmare of prohibition. Gangs ruled the streets. The air was filled with the smell of cheap booze and the sound of gunfire. Police were defenseless to the total chaos going on all around them. They simply could not stop the manufacture and consumption of alcohol. There was too much money to be made by selling this "forbidden fruit". There was no possible way that this "war" on alcohol could ever be won.

Does this sound familiar? It should, because the same thing is going on right now. The government's failed attempt to eliminate alcohol is now being attempted a second time with the war on drugs. These laws are discussed in the book with a history lesson on the various court rulings and congressional decisions that led to the present prohibitions on drugs. These laws have some of their roots in the U.S. Congress. According to the book, marijuana itself became illegal as the result of a lie told to congress by Fred Vinson, a man who would later become the U.S. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Vinson was sitting in a congressional hearing one day, just before congress was about to vote on whether or not marijuana should be made illegal. The American Medical Association knew of the benefits of marijuana in medical treatments, and was strongly against such a law. But when Vinson was questioned by congress, he lied and said that the AMA backed the proposed law 100 percent to make marijuana illegal. This was enough to help push the law through congress. Vinson's lie, coupled with the onslaught of government propaganda against marijuana, marked the beginning of America's second nightmare with prohibition.

The lying and deception by government cooled off a bit during the 1940 to 1960 period. But then, the lying and deception continued when President Nixon decided to revive the anti- drug crusade, in part to cover- up his own problems with Vietnam and Watergate. George Bush then escalated the damage even more by scaring the public into backing his anti- drug package and his "get tough" policies against drug dealers and drug users. Gray talks about these and other political maneuvers; why they happened and the true motives behind these so- called "moral" crusaders.

The present- day situation looks pretty bleak. Gray points out that the United States is now the largest jailer in the world with roughly half of all prisoners being non- violent drug offenders. We have also corrupted our police officers, with many of them actively taking part in the drug trade; cutting special deals, accepting bribes, etc, because of the allure of easy money. Respect for law enforcement is low, and violent criminals have been allowed early release to make way for non- violent drug offenders, thanks to mandatory minimum sentences.

This book is an easily manageable length: about 198 pages and fairly easy to read. There are a total of eleven chapters and two appendices. Appendix "A" details the changes in the U.S. murder rate, showing how it peaked during alcohol prohibition and during the present- day drug prohibition. It also shows graphs depicting the U.S. prison population and the Federal Drug budget. And to give the book some balance, Appendix "B" contains a listing of activist organizations, both pro- drug war and anti- drug war, along with a brief description of each and their respective websites.

As Mike Gray points out, the War on Drugs is one of America's greatest failures. Gray never specifically condemns the war. He wrote this book as a means to educate the reader on the motives behind drug prohibition and the reasons that politicians continue to fight a losing battle when they know that the war is not winnable. Gray never resorts to name calling or any form of moral persuasion. He really doesn't need to. He lets the facts speak for themselves, illustrating the endless problems created by a war of prohibition and why it is so important to stop this insanity once and for all.

I have read all of the reviews that have been uploaded as of 5/23/2008, and the purpose of this filing is to summarize the points that were made AND to provide a perspective that has not yet been uploaded.

I have been carrying-around this book for a year, having learned about its author after I listened to Michael provide a speech to a Republican group in the Philadelphia suburbs. My only complaint is that it does not easily slip into my pockets, because there is so much concentrated information that I would want to reference during conversations.

It contains more than a "string of pearls"; it conveys "history with an attitude" which renders it easier to recall, and observations therein have subsequently been noted in other sources, notably the strong civil rights record of the GOP that indubitably dates-back to Lincoln...threading throughout the "narrative" that Republicans have generated for ~150 years.

COMMENTS:

Bruce Rheinstein's review serves to reinforce the history-lesson provided by Zak, amplifying and amending; it is engaging itself, and essentially the book is shown to pass muster when it emphasizes the contributions of the Radical Republicans.

Aaron Z. Gadouas's review emphasizes that Zak provided a timely manifesto and historical overview of the ideas that define the Republican Party, vital reading for activists and thinkers.

Michael Miller's review focuses upon the need to show the GOP has been anti-racist, and it recognizes the ability of Zak's book to help "recalibrate GOP compasses."

Former Diplomat observes that this book has been cited in a Supreme Court Opinion (as a DC "cult favorite") because it debunks myths and probes "simple truths." It should be noted that it has a treasure-trove of references, reflecting the extensiveness of the research that yielded it.

American laments that too few blacks appreciate the GOP's civil rights legacy. That the turning-point occurred in 1964 is probed, for Zak provides insight as to how their current D-orientation could/should be countered.

Patrick D. John considers it to be a GOP-Infomercial, claiming it oversimplifies and elides over key-points (some of which are discomfiting); the author aspires to compose a text (as a Black Republican) that emphasizes the former ("Black") more than the latter ("Republican"). His review should be consulted for myriad details that weren't included in the book, although some are more arguable as quasi-facts than are others.

George L. Lyon praises Zak for telling us the story that mainstream academia would rather just ignore, namely, that the Radical Republicans were courageous and accomplished.

PJ Hunger "Peej" praises the book because it renews excitement, corrects the course and calls for an engaging vigor not seen for a terribly long time; regarding the GOP, we can dust it off, polish it up, get it working again and show it off. The pivotal observation, however, is that the book conveys essential truths that are as relevant now as they were when first articulated and implemented.

Publius condemns the book because, to him, it represents a self-fulfilling prophesy. Allegedly, it starts with a premise and then creates supportive facts. As examples, it suggests that stereotypes applicable 100 years ago are no longer relevant. He forgets, however, that ideologies that generated those behaviors have evolved over time...but have not dissipated. The reviewer recommends Gould's "GOP" for history, but he fails to dispel the thrust of Zak's presentation of the GOP's strong Civil Rights legacy.

Jonathan Jenkins considers it to be of textbook quality, best perceived as serving as a compendium of the GOP's rich history and as a motivator for budding activists.

Karen B. portrays it as brilliantly concise, an observation recalls that Hemingway--when discussing "The Old Man and The Sea"--invoked this short-book as a model for how the best writers know what to edit OUT as much as what is necessarily included.

Jorge Roque praises the book for reminding him of why he's a proud Republican.

Ann Kotelman writes (simply/eloquently): "My friends, particularly the Democrats, are calling me a born again Republican. The book is inspiring, informative and cemented my affiliation with the party and my belief in Republican ideals." This captures, assuredly, the experience of most who have experienced Zak's efforts.

A Customer emphasizes both how replete the book is with nuggets and how well it conveys fundamental Republican principles that he tries to convey as often as possible.

S. Gershberg considers it a must-read because, by tracing the history of the Republican party, it show us where the political system needs to go at the start of the millennium. It contains so much fascinating detail that the reader must remember to try to remember all the concepts that it conveys so effortlessly.

Cathie Adams claims the book will put wind under your wings. As timely as the book may appear now to be (pre-Presidential Elections), it also has a timeless quality.

Bill Carroll says it all: "Michael Zak's book, "Back to the Basics for the Republican Party," is at once a splendid history lesson of our nation and an illuminating dialogue of our political system. Mr. ZaK begins with the events and the ideas that gave rise to the Republican Party. He goes on to explain how the fundamental tenets of the party enabled the Republicans to save the Union, rid our country of slavery and lay the foundation for the modern American economy. Mr. Zak then discusses how the GOP strayed from its principles, allowing the Democratic Party to gain the advantage. Finally, the author provides, through his own incisive analysis, the framework by which the Republican Party can regain the moral and political high ground, and lead America to even greater accomplishments. Nonetheless, this book is neither a dry nor a pedantic study. It is a thoughtful, well-written, compelling and entertaining discourse in the realm of politics. Most importantly, "Back to the Basics for the Republican Party" is a clarion call for the GOP to return to its roots. I highly recommend this outstanding book."

*

I had planned to encompass all the reviews, but the last one was so concisely correct that it cannot be bested by any other reader.

If you're a dedicated Republican and want Sean Hannity style content, Sean's your guy and Michael Zak is not. Back To Basics is truly a brilliant work, chronicling the history of the Republican party from its inception to the present.

As a moderate, I do not always agree with my party line, and am often skeptical of the volumes of political hyperbole to which we are subjected. Zak makes a laudable effort to incorporate information sources, evidenced by a 10 page bibliography, single spaced in 6pt type, and a plethora of footnotes through his book.

This is not a quick or casual read. Zak's attention to detail in his investigation of the past 150 years is evident in every paragraph, though his writing style is universally fluid. It's a hard book to put down, especially if you are not well versed in this topic.

His objectivity is evident in his persistent criticism and evaluation of significant individuals and events that have shaped the Republicans to what we are today. Zak does not hide his disappointment in several aspects of the current state of Republicans, however his admonition of returning to the basics on which our party was founded is the most compelling theme in the book.

Readable, informative, research-based, and a clear call to action, Back to Basics for the Republican Party is not only a chronicle; it is a guide for us to re-energize and to once again become the Grand Old Party.

Michael Zak's book was fascinating and made me wish it was a textbook used for high school and college students. In reading the comments, I see that some things did not appear in his book that were unfavorable to Republicans. That is unfortunate, and more study should be placed beside this book. It is a good read! It'll open many eyes.

As the chairman of the fastest growing and most active Young Republican group in my tri-state area I need books like this to more quicky educate conservatives. Whether candidate, supporter, or voter it is pertinent to understand the core values of Republicanism as well as our rich history. Back to Basics for the Republican Party is a terrific book about our values and history. It is in a must-read for all Republicans. Our principals are ever lasting yet without knowing and applying them we cannot truly unite and maintain the way of life our forefathers fought for. My challenge to every individual and campaign: Purchase, read, and pass around Back to Basics for the Republican Party.

I myself am a Black Republican, so I agree with Mr. Zak that the GOP's history on civil rights has not been fairly told. However, this book makes the same 2 errors that most GOP loyalists make when discussing Blacks and the GOP: 1) they oversimplify the ideology of the early Republicans and abolitionists. For example, notably missing from Mr. Zak's book are the following facts:that Herbert Hoover (Republican) was the first president to refuse to address the NAACP's convention, that Carter G. Woodson-the Founder of Black History Month-became so disappointed with the GOP that in the late 1920's he publicly stated that Blacks should stop being blindly loyal to the GOP, that soon after Reconstruction the GOP condoned the formation in the South of racially segregated GOP organizations, called the Lily Whites and the Black & Tans;that beginning in the 1870's Republican candidates lost elections in some Northern states because the Radical Republicans' idea of perfect equality was not embraced by most Whites, not even by most Republicans; that Lincoln was NOT a Radical Republican, he was a moderate who had ALWAYS discussed freeing the slaves ONLY in conjunction with deporting them to another country, for Lincoln openly declared that Blacks were inferior to Whites; that after the Civil War the GOP was weak nationally-since the founding of the GOP America has had 4 presidents who won by electoral vote but lost the popular vote, and all 4 were Republicans (Harrison, Hayes, Garfield, and Bush); that not all Republicans or abolitionists believed in racial equality, in fact most did NOT, they believed ONLY in ending slavery, and even on that issue they disagreed on the reasons, some were against slavery for moral reasons, others because they feared slave revolts, others because slavery competed with White labor, others because they wanted the good farmland used for more than just cotton. 2) they leave out much of how/why Blacks left the GOP in the first place: Mr. Zak's book does lay blame at the feet of Barry Goldwater, but overlooks the fact that Goldwater's victory in the GOP presidential primary obviusly says something about the views of rank and file Republicans in 1964-national civil rights legislation was clearly not a priority for most Republican voters in 1964, else Goldwater could not have won. Goldwater was just the icing on the cake. Beginning in the 1870's, the GOP began taking the Black vote for granted precisely because the Democrats were such vicious racists. Mr. Zak's book points out how the Democrats were at one point synonymous with the KKK, but he overlooks the obvious political implication for Black voters-if their only 2 choices were between the GOP and the Klan, it was an easy decision. Blacks voted for the GOP because they feared voting for the Democrats, this led to the GOP taking the Black vote for granted as the GOP moved further away from civil rights issues in order to attract more White voters, feeling confident that in doing so it would not lose Black voters. Today, it's the Democrats who take the Black vote for granted, because most Black voters are afraid of the GOP-the tables have turned.

As a Black Republican who is pro civil rights, I think what we need is a balanced review of history. This book is not balanced. Throughout history minorities have been used by the dominant group like a political footbal, and Blacks in America are no different. I'm working with some other Black Republicans to prepare a balanced view of Blacks and the GOP told from the Black perspective, not the perspective of a party loyalist.

Tommy Tomorrow is a genious! His comics do an amazing job of summarizing just what's wrong in politics, while making the situations incredibly humorous at the same time. Very highly recommended.

Ruled by incompetent right-wingers for the last 8 years, liberals like me need an injection of humor. Here we get it, with sharp sarcasm from Sparky the Penguin. Funniest part is when Sparky, the leftist Bush critic, get hits by a toilet and becomes a Republican for about 50 pages. I highly recommend this book to anyone depressed by the current state of America and needing a good laugh. Thank you, Tom Tomorrow!

Tom Tomorrow has done a fantastic job of putting humor into a political situation that one would think impossible to find humor in. "Hell in a Handbasket" is a further example of Mr. Tomorrow's ability to mix biting political satire with the funny bone. He can cut through much of the non-sense that is allowed to float around out there and make that hypocrisy painfully evident. God, I hope he gets some joy out of his own writing and cartooning, because I would very much hate for him to disappear from the shelves. Buy this book if you are leftie, just to keep the insanity away. Buy this book if you are a winger, just to cure yourself of the insanity.

This book is a must read for all the Limbaugh-listening, neocon, Bush-backers out there! Every page is filled with poignant scenes of the Bush administration. The real humor lies in the irony involved--the jokes are so "tragically true" that they make you snicker, rather than laugh. My fellow Bush-BASHERS will agree...the book is a capsulized summary of the darkest period in American politics. Hope you learned your lesson--next time, vote for Democrats!

Let's face it: outside of wealthy oilmen and Halliburton stockholders, there haven't been that many people who've benefited from the Bush years (which, as of this writing, continues to be at its nadir of popularity). Of course, one other group that has benefited are political cartoonists, who should be grateful to Bush and company for providing so much material. There are few better at working with this material than Tom Tomorrow in his comic strip, This Modern World.
Hell in a Handbasket is the title of a collection of his strips from late2002 into 2005, a period when Bush was still doing okay, but the strips point out the signs of rot that would soon become evident to others: the distortions necessary to get us into the war in Iraq, the incompetence once the invasion took place, the advocacy of torture and the branding of any dissenters as sympathizers with the enemy. (As you might guess, I'm not much of a Bush fan.)

Democrats and the political left, however, do not get off lightly either, as Tomorrow appropriately takes them to task for their willingness to accept the lies and corruption and not put up any sort of real resistance to the run up to the war. All of this is done with a sharp humor and an interesting, rather static style of art with characters that often look like they're out of some 1950's educational film.

Obviously, if you lean to the right, you probably have a different view of Tomorrow, and probably consider him (and me) as folks who hate the troops, support terrorism and want America to fall. Of course, that isn't the case, and in fact, Tomorrow actually embraces the virtues of the country and calls to task those who damage it. This Modern World is really a patriotic lament for the U.S. that has been going, well, to Hell in a handbasket.