Government and Politics Books

This book was mindblowing to read. The ideas presented in this book feel like logic that should be taught in schools, but sadly its not.

I dare you to read this book and disagree with its philosophy.

First of all, I'll concede that it's tough to find someone who argues better for libertarianism in practical, understandable terms than Mary Ruark. Moreover, her book's a very simple read and paints vivid examples of what a libertarian world *might* look like.

But this brings me to my first minor critique. Ruark provides examples of the way a free nation might run, but she elaborates on them in such detail that one begins to get the impression that she's arguing for the examples themselves. When she discusses a system of free-market private schooling, she describes the schools she envisions in intricate detail, and they don't remotely resemble what I think schooling in a libertarian country would look like. Now - Presuming I weren't a libertarian and even slightly objected to the school system she describes, I might simply reject all her ideas based on my objections to her illustrations of them.

Secondly, I just disagree with Ruark's anarcho-capitalistic version of libertarianism. I really am - as some libertarians would say - myopic enough to believe that we need government to provide public goods (I'm talking about the real ones like defense, police protection, and criminal justice). And call me a statist, but I think we'd have to fund these government activities with taxes. Of some kind. Somehow. Of the unvoluntary sort. With - yes - government force to ensure compliance.

Otherwise, though, this book should make an interesting read for libertarians and non.

I love this book. Really.

Dr. Ruwart's political philosophy's foundation is about non-aggression. This is nothing new in the libertarian creed, and the difference is that instead of concentrating on arguments of property rights, she really drives home with the non-aggression principle. She avers that by using aggression (i.e. force) to solve our problems, we end up only worsening our lives. We create a world of zero-sum games instead of a system that respects individual choices so long as they do not harm our person or property.

What also makes this book a pleasure to read is that it its tone is very friendly and accommodating. Many people (rightly) expect books on political philosophy to be badgering or aggressively written, so I like that Dr. Ruwart ditched the popular approach. Plus, her compassionate way of writing makes it difficult to call her a bloodthirsty free-market fan -- she does care about matters like helping the poor and making healthcare accessible.

Every issue she looks at shows the failures of aggression (i.e. government) to be effective, and conversely non-aggression (i.e. voluntary, private cooperation) has been more successful. Healthcare intervention? It's aggression, and it's bad for our health (and our wallet). The Federal Reserve? Central banking is aggression that monopolizes the money supply and creates the "boom & bust" cycle. The public school system? It might be obvious that the Department of Education doesn't actually educate anyone, but the whole setup is aggressive too, and children suffer because of it.

The principle of non-aggression is also applied to pollution, crime & punishment, the FDA, gun ownership, and -- the one especially important these days -- foreign policy. Non-aggression wins every time, and very few issues go untouched.

A cool touch to Dr. Ruwart's book is that she puts tons of great, great quotes in the margins, which work wonderfully with the topic at hand. One of my favorites comes from the first chapter (about the basis of non-aggression): "...we are living in a sick Society filled with people who would not directly steal from their neighbor but who are willing to demand that the government do it for them," says William L. Comer. That's classic! There's a lot of great ones, many of which I didn't recognize.

Please, read this book. This is a world where governments keep getting bigger, and that will always mean more aggression as the State invades more aspects of our lives. Know what's scary? In Chapter 19, "The Communist Threat Is All In Our Minds", Ruwart shows that the United States has implemented eight of ten policies The Communist Manifesto declared necessary for a transition into socialism. Darn. So, getting the word out on liberty is always a good thing. Please see Scott Ryan's excellent review of this book too.

There are two books I recommend as introductions to libertarian thought. One of them is Murray Rothbard's _For A New Liberty_. This is the other.

Dr. Mary Ruwart's _Healing Our World_ is in some ways a better general introduction suitable for a broader audience, in large measure because it appeals to the better nature of everybody from conservative Christians to hippie mystics: she really _does_ mean, and quite rightly, that libertarian principles are the means for healing our world. Her essential point is that, _whatever_ our goals and beliefs, we can best serve them by honoring our neighbors' choices so long as they aren't threatening our lives or property. For when we do so, everybody wins; my gains aren't your losses, and there really is a common good at which we can both aim.

Moreover, Ruwart carefully and compassionately explains why the libertarian approach is a better way to bring about the (entirely legitimate) goals of the more modern sort of liberal: for example, improving the quality and availability of medical care (including alternative medicines), reducing pollution, saving the environment, and so forth. Readers of, say, the Objectivist/Randian literature might come away with the impression that concern for the well-being of persons other than oneself (let alone the "environment"!) is just incompatible with libertarianism. Ruwart argues that in fact libertarianism offers not only the best way to _promote_ such concern but the only viable way to put it into practice. (On this ground alone, there are probably lots of _libertarians_ who could profit from a close reading of Ruwart's book just to pick up its tone and tenor. Her example of tolerant understanding could lead more "brittle" thinkers to enter empathically into values that haven't exactly been common among libertarians.)

Lurking in the background of Ruwart's exposition is her clear sense of the "market" as simply voluntary human interaction within a framework of obligatory respect for others' well-being. This view should appeal even to readers who don't care for the term "market"; it might, for example, be attractive to various sorts of communitarian and others who worry about the reduction of social life to economic exchange. The essential point is that human society, community, is an organic network of interacting centers of voluntary activity, not a bureaucratic order that imposes mechanical top-down rules via statute or regulatory agency -- and that trying to turn it from the former into the latter is just a fancy way to destroy it.

Ruwart's outlook should delight everybody from Calvinists to Hayekians to Taoists. And there has never been a time at which it's been more important to get the word out on liberty. Get this book at once and pass out copies to your friends; Ruwart's libertarianism has something to say to people of every political and/or religious persuasion or none.

By the way, you can pre-read it online if you know where to look. Amazon doesn't permit URLs in reviews, but write me if you want to know.

Well, maybe just the young idealistic legislators. The career legislators will probably pooh pooh the idea that we might be alright making our own decisions.

Sause has written an extremely informative work that deserves attention from anyone remotely interested in policy. There are points in his analysis where I feel he takes some leaps of logic that are a bit of a stretch, but on the whole he makes a very convincing case.

Specific rave review: His chapter on education reform was simply brilliant. I cannot think of another work which so aptly summarizes just what is wrong with the public education system today then Left For Dead. Through cutting analysis, he demonstrates why the current factory model school system is entirely inappropriate for the emerging information age, and he spells out necessary first steps in adapting education for this end. It was a true eye opener.

This is an incredible work, part personal epiphany and part futurist's vision.

Sause starts off by relating his musician roots and trendy Leftist worldview and how it was disrupted by, of all things, the 1993 L.A. riots. Witnessing various racial extortionists and big government advocates selling their agenda of more social programs and higher taxes like snake oil, made him rethink everything he thought he believed in.

Ultimately he comes to the conclusion that we are in the beginning throes of the Digital revolution, one that will eventually sweep away the Industrial revolution just as surely as the Industrial revolution swept away humanity's agrarian way of life.

In Sause's view, this coming Digital revolution will change our economy, our family structure and, of course, our style of government. None of this will be welcomed, especially by those at the top of the Industrial food chain, but welcome or not, it's coming as sure as summer.

This is not only an extremely well written book, but an eye opening one as well. A must read for anyone who wants to get a handle on the reasons behind all the social, political and economic upheavals of the past thirty years and an idea on where we might be heading.

A positively awe inspiring book.

This book should be mandatory reading in political science classes for high school and colleges. Of course, that won't happen because those very institutions are part of the same dehumanizing system that Sause rails against. I'm only half way through this book and I already consider it to be a classic! The book is written from the author's standpoint of having been both a left wing liberal and now a supporter of GOP conservatism. This young man wrote this book with a community college level education. The fact that he could put together such a breathless narrative of the geo-political/socio-economic forces throughout history that have led to the development of socialism and its horrendouse offshoots is validation enough of his contention that the Information Revolution is empowering individuals previously oppressed. It seems Sause's epiphany led to the realization that he had been living a lie and that he needed to self educate himself beyond the confines of the education colossus that is the media and government school system. This really hit home with me as I too had previously believed that the left wing dogma that had been programmed into me was the truth and 'intellectually hip'. After reading this book, you may not look at the world the same way again. If you have ever stopped to ask yourself, why are things they way they are in our society, then this book is for those seeking answers to that question. Its heavy. I mean, heavy like "The Matrix" heavy. The author presents credible concepts and theory's that are much in line with what I have been thinking myself for a number of years. I am glad there are other's out there like me who see the current political/socio-media sphere we live in for what it truly is. Sause will show you how the present day era is shifting from an industrial output model to that of the information age. The enactment of the industrial era served to provide history with governmental systems that valued efficiency but degraded the individual in the process. With the advent of the Information Age, the individual is becoming empowered to compete with the previous gatekeepers of power. Case in point, the explosion of financial data and legal knowledge on the Internet which allows people to circumvent the old system of brokerages and lawyers who have a vested interest in the type of knowledge and amount they share with you. Sause exposes the current home of the leftists, the Democratic Party and their efforts to impose the old order so that they can put the genie back in the bottle....or at least harness the genie to obtain their own political ends. This book should be a must read for every citizen concerned about building a brighter future for America. I personally am recommending it to my friends and family. Other related books in which you may be interested in are Alvin Toffler's Third Wave (which is requently quoted in this book) and Newt Gingrich's To Renew America.

Sause realizes that truth is simply another subjective term among Leftist agitators. And, no matter how persuasively he shatters Leftist explanations concerning racism and poverty, his political opponents will deny the implications of their own moral abandonment. For it is the total abdication of responsibility that largely explains the difference between prosperity and pathology - between the skills necessary for success and the sins responsible for criminal behavior.

Sause envisions an America that is technologically agile and politically relevant. He wants to harness the Internet's freedom alongside an individual summons for greatness. He describes a world that will soon arrive, providing consumers with extensive choices and citizens with numerous liberties.

Sause's dream will, indeed, become a welcome political reality. But Leftist critics will temporarily forestall the Information Age's principal benefits with accusatory language and inflammatory complaints about racism or sexism. These tactics, though inherently counterproductive, also signify the Left's final political breath - a last gasp before the dawn of a new political paradigm.

Thus, Roger Sause is the Information Age's version of Paul Revere. He is a man with a warning (that the Left is intellectually irrelevant), containing a fundamentally positive message (that freedom and individual choice will govern the twenty-first century). He is a political sage, aware that the Left is dead.

When I first bought this book, I did so merely because David Horowitz recommended it. After reading it, however, I was astounded with the amount of information packed within this easily read book.

I read this book just before I started college, and I am thankful that I did; it introduced me to ideas that most college professors scoff at and started me on a journey that I have continued ever since.

It is an excellent introduction to some of the basic history of the left-wing establishment and its failures. Discusses America's future and how it lies with the right-wing. Also, a very good introduction to Alvin Toffler's extraordinarily influential theories of the "Third Wave" of social and technological revolution.

Buy this book, especially if you are new to politics!

I read this book years ago and it still sticks with me. As a reporter in Vietnam, Halberstam was a thorn in the side of the Johnson and Nixon administration. He was watched by Nixon's plumbers and the FBI; Nixon thought he was a subversive. What he is is an exceptionally perceptive historian. In this book he follows the growth of the media industry from newsprint to magazines, radio and television. He told the Edward R. Murrow story before anybody else and his details on Watergate are even more frightening than Woodward and Bernstein's "All the President's Men." Halberstam seems to have that unique capacity to crawl inside the heads of people like Luce who gave us Time magazine. From their perspective, and those of everyday reporters, we see the struggle to balance grasping for the truth and the glory of the headline. We begin to understand how McCarthy could rise to power by using the deadline to sneak in enuedos about people. The author does a masterful job of showing the frustration of reporters and editors and how they finally overcame McCarthy's sinister power. This is an excellent book, not only for journalist but also for those who wish to understand the power of the media in shaping our world.

Please rate this review. Thanks.

This book is big and thick and it is hard to put down. It opens the reader to the media-the reporters-the owners-the news broadcasters and the men and women behind the scenes. He tells in vivid detail how the reporters all over the world as well as covering wars are supported or not by the publications that put them there. And he vividly relates the love-hate relationship of the above people with the various presidents of the USA. I have recommended this book to everyone who will listen to me. I would go on a book tour to get people to read it.!

David Halberstam proves again what a thorough and engaging journalist/historian he was. He presents a detailed account of the rise of the great media families and individuals of the 20th century without being pedantic or tedious. Anyone who wants to understand The L.A. Times, The Washington Post, Time or CBS should start here. The book unfortunately highlights the huge loss that Halberstam's death represents.

Author David Halberstam takes us behind the scenes as he analyzes U.S. media from the 1940-1970's, showing many factors and internal squabbles that influence the medium. The author shows how a mix of professionalism, sloppiness, arrogance, and favorites affects what the media reports, plus how it reports. We see how the media sometimes kowtows to corporate sponsors, and often allows itself to be manipulated. Consider the 2004 campaign, when the media routinely filmed President Bush before cheering crowds, but never his secret service illegally detaining silent dissenters at rallies. Readers also learn about skilled leaders like Edward R. Murrow, capable if imperfect executives like William Paley (CBS) and Katherine Graham (Washington Post), and shysters like Henry Luce (TIME) that avoid truths when they don't fit the agenda.

This book arrived in 1979, before the advent of Internet and most cable news. Still its lessons remain appropriate, even if media often fails to live up to the hopes of the founding fathers and the First Amendment. Halberstam is a talented observer who capably follows George Selby, Theodore H. White, and many others with a critical eye towards the media. I gave the book just four stars because the prose is a bit thick, but this remains an important read.

Read all the other reviews for the media impacting intent which is only a small part of Halverstam's real message in spite of the title of this epoch. Halberstam's media message ranges from imformative to scarry.

But that which will stick with me forever is the way Halberstam delivers the frailty and fate of America to a mere mortal, the President of the United States. Eisenhower fiddles, Kennedy charms, Johnson screams and Nixon frightens. It took Halberstam seven years to research and write this book and after you read it you will wonder how he did it so fast, a monumental effort.

Fortunately the truth is often downright funny. Nixon's twenty eight year old publicity man making a side comment that Nixon looks like he drops down out of his closet every morning in the same rumbled suit and badly in need of a shave.

Halberstam conveys how power was for the taking and that those who had it developed it primarily in accordance with their own agendas, personal or family politics and use it and us in the process.

No matter that this is now just history ending with Watergate. Halberstam's real message is that the circumstances he describes will remain the same in any generation.

The Powers That Be may change the way you think of power and how it affects you.

The funds for cultural revolution rest in the coffers of a bankrupt society. That's not to say that change is meaningless. Raoul Vaneigem believes - along with the rest of the troupe from THE SITUATIONIST INTERNATIONAL - that if change comes from within the very culture being critiqued, then the only way to effect change is to change the way culture affects.

UNDERNEATH THE PAVING STONES - THE BEACH!

Urban renewel and changing the economic goal posts cannot prevent the inevitable exploding of the plastic society. Sometime. When the world becomes its own refuse the voices of refusal will echo down time until it pins the world against its own refusal.

If madness is the only remedy against the insanity of our contracting world, then THE REVOLUTION OF EVERYDAY LIFE might be a good guide. Its truth will speak to anyone whose heart is passionate, whose soul is strong, and whose mind is as yet still taciturn; it will help them express the homily:

I TAKE MY DESIRES FOR REALITY BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN THE REALITY OF MY DESIRES.

I concur wholeheartedly that this is momentous writing:
one that is even now more critical and urgent than 40 years ago, when it was first published.

Each page offers words-thoughts that ricochet long after their initial bang! Here's a sample:

+ to work for delight and authenticity is barely distinguishable from preparing for a general insurrection.

+ the surest chances of liberation lie in what is most familiar. Was it ever otherwise?...
the living reality of non-adaptation to the world is always crouched ready to spring...
it confronts you at each self-evasion, it grasps your shoulder, catches your eye, and the dialogue begins...

+ docility is no longer ensured by priestly magic, it results from a mass of minor hypnoses...
ideological hypnosis is replacing the bayonet.

+ people who talk about revolution without referring explicitly to everyday life,
without understanding what is subversive about love and what is positive in the refusal of constrains,
--such have a corpse in their mouth.

+ if the word 'innovation' means anything it means transcendence, not camouflage.

+ consume, consume: we take ashes for fire.

+ the young are already old and everything we are building is already a ruin.

+ the obligation to produce alienates the passion for creation.

+ affluent survival entails the pauperisation of life.

+ the dictatorship of quantified exchange (market value) colonized everyday life... the bourgeoisie traded in BEING for HAVING.

+ the fight is unfair. words serve power better than they do men...
at this moment language swoops down on living experience, ties it hand and foot, robs it of its substance, ABSTRACTS it.

+ the system of commercial exchange has come to govern all of people's everyday relations with themselves and with their fellows.
every aspect of public and private life is dominated by the quantitative.

+ ideology still has one trick up its sleeve--that of posing false questions,
raising false dilemmas and leaving the conditioned individual with the worry of sorting out which is the truer of the two.

+ even when it is co-opted and turned against its original purposes, poetry always gets what it wants in the end...
no poetic sign is ever completely turned by ideology.

+ the long revolution means that we have to build a parallel society
which can counter the dominant system until such time as it is strong enough to replace it.

+ the fight for language is the fight for the freedom to love, for the reversal of perspective.
the battle is between metaphysical facts and the reality of facts:
i mean between facts conceived statically as part of a system of interpretation of the world
and the facts understood in their development by the praxis which transform them.

And on and on the explosive phrases go, injecting heavy doses of adrenaline into our resolve.

Even though I take exception to Vaneigem's advocacy of violent resistance,
his book comes the closest to diagnosing the cause of our present narcosis and, even better,
grounds the revolutionary turning on the rich dirt of everyday life.

How could we ever think it would be otherwise?

This book, along with Debord's "Society of the Spectacle", forms the core of the theoretical output of the Situationist Movement which emphasized the necessity of spontaneous, joyous creative activity to overcome the alienation and oppression of mass consumer culture, giving inspiration to the youthful insurrectionists of Paris '68.

The book is peppered with witty, canny, and memorable aphorisms on revolutionary struggle, and its emphasis on spontaneous activity motivated by felt needs for freedom and self-expression was at the time an important corrective to the Stalinist model of the revolutionary as selfless, altruistic drone. Vaneigem and the situationists go overboard at times in emphasizing the revolutionary value of selfishness, pleasure and spontaneity-- the shortcomings of 1968 are the proof. These shortcomings have been stretched to the point of parody in Hakim Bey's "Temporary Autonomous Zone" and the writings of the Crimethinc collective, but there are important elements of truth in them.

The presentation of the ideas is hobbled by Vaneigem's writing style-- you have to slog through 5 pages of bloated abstractions before coming across one of the keen one-liners that make the book worthwhile-- I think the ideas come across much more powerfully as street graffiti than in a 200 page manifesto. For a more palatable presentation of situationist ideas, check out American situationist Ken Knabb's wonderful piece "The Joy Of Revolution", available online or in his book Public Secrets: Collected Skirmishes of Ken Knabb.

No Amazon review can really do this masterpiece justice. This is simply one of those classics that will sweep you away, leaving you stunned that someone was able to so precisely articulate the mechanical alienation from self and palpable inner decay that you feel daily as you sit in your cubicle (wash, rinse, repeat) and mimic the farcical motions assigned to humans in modern industrial civilization--a hierarchical vaccum in which "survival" is contingent upon our economic value, obedience to Power and our ability to force others to either consume or produce. The dominance of the lie of economic value has poisoned every area of our lives and left us defunct as human beings, most notably stealing from us the innate urge to spontaneously create and give.

Vaneigem attacks the dead, vacuous nature of modern life with all of the venomous intensity conceivable. He does not misuse or mince words. Each sentence is filled to the brim with harsh truth, the sheer brute force of which will take your breath away.

[...].
I recommend at least printing it out to fully revel and enjoy the intensity, though!

This is one of the most viscerally exciting political / philosophical books in history. You can't help but be swept up by the force of Vaneigem's appeals... and though one may not assent to all of his positions or specific interpretations, all in all you will have to say that he had managed to tap into something very true.

read it, ponder it... and get out and live. you have nothing to lose but your boredom.

Mr. Horovitz has written an excellent account of both the personal side to living in a time of constant terrorist attacks as well as a factual account of the detail that have been overlooked or misreported by most of the world's press outlets. Included in this book are some brief analyses of the political climate in Israel before, during and after some of the more violent bombings as well as Israel's responses. At times the author disagrees with the government's decisions, and is not ashamed to say it. In general, an excellent read and a good look into the facts of the situations as seen by a reporter who has to raise his family while enduring these terrible bombings.

When peace talks at Camp David collapsed in 2000, a conflict began which was stronger than any previously: Jerusalem Report editor and author David Horovitz considers the effects of this latest conflict and its terrorism in Still Life With Bombers, a survey of life in Israel since 2000. Israeli experience is the focus in a survey of daily lives, violence, and politics, with chapters juxtaposed between interviews with government officials on both sides of the conflict to experiences of relatives, refugees, and his own friends and family, creating an intimate social and political portrait of a country at war within its own boundaries.

This book is absolutely incredible! Thank you so much David Horovitz! I want to read your day-to-day accounts of life in Israel beyond the end of this book.

I have been a religious right-wing supporter of Eretz Israel, anxiously awaiting the time that I am in a financial position to make aliyah. I have strongly supported the anti-disengagement fighters.

Your book has made me think. It has opened my eyes to the Arab side of the story, as well as details of politics on both sides that I was not previously aware of.

This book has filled me with hope of someday living in the holy land and at the same time has made me cry, and evoked terror. Reading the chapter on Yussuf makes me wonder if there is ever any hope for peace - on the political side there is, but on the religious side it seems hopeless, as religious Jews can never voluntarily relinquish the Temple Mount or any of Jerusalem.

There have been times that I have had to put it down and walk away for a while to digest what I have just read (and cry) - and I'm only on page 166!

For a long time I have thought the solution to this problem was for millions of North American religious Jews to make aliyah and change the government in Israel, now I'm not so sure... More to come...

Reading through a volume of literature having to do with the Arab-Israeli Conflict, one is sooner or later impressed (or depressed)in realizing how little new ground is ever, really covered by the defenders of Israel, and by those of the Arabs. The same ground is laboriously traversed, over and over and over; the same charges thrown at the opponent, the same anger and outrage, the same impossible hopes floated. To paraphrase an unnamed British military man from Mandate days, "and Jew will kill Arab, and Arab will in turn kill Jew, now unto the end of time."
Horovitz's book, written by an Englishman who emigrated to Israel in the early 1980's, belongs to the Arab-bashing, or in his particular case, Arafat-bashing variety of books in this genre. He soon dispenses with his worm's eye view of fellow Israelis in the midst of the horror of the al Aqsa Intifada, perhaps the strongest and most interesting part of the book, and gets to his main argument.
To wit: all the violence that has afflicted Israel since the collapse of the Camp David Summit in 2000 can be left at the door of Yasir Arafat, who opted, at Camp David as after, to ignore substantive negotiations, even with a negotiation-mad Israeli leadership, and to proceed with the bombing.
Well, yes, this argument is possible, but Horovitz dins it into the reader's memory, again and again and yet again. There is nothing, he argues, that might explain Arafat's evident loathing for dealing responsibly with Israel save his long-harbored malificent desire to wipe out the Jewish state, by short range suicide bombings, or long-term Palestinian overbreeding. I resent propaganda, especially from a side I would otherwise support, and Horovitz's so-evident desire to "put the account straight" makes for a tedious, maddening reading, where objectivity is thrown out the window when it might uncomfortably intrude into his little truth.
How might he improve his work? Well, here is one way: tell the reader why so many Palestinians are willing to strap explosives under their belts and assure their own extinction, along with those of so many complete strangers. What, in other words, has Israel done to the Palestinians to make them so desirous of death?
I do not expect Mr. Horovitz to pick up the cue on this one. Whether or not he admits it, his political sentiments are that of the political right. He might have been a wet-behind-the-ears liberal naif back in the later 1980's or early 1990's, when he was still finding his feet on the treacherous Israeli soil, but he now, in this book, shows himself to be a Likudnik back to front. He never, ever, finds fault with the Israeli policy of saturating the Territories with Jewish setlements, depriving Palestinians of their land, their water, and their hopes of national sovereignity. He doesn't note the right wing religious-nationalist Jewish psychotics (Baruch Goldstein, Meir Kahane and his "Kach" neo-fascist thugs) whose own merry band of terrorists have further poisoned the atmosphere between Palestinian and Israeli. He doesn't talk much, most importantly, about the atmosphere of everyday Israeli inhumanity that makes Palestinian life so tedious and hard. But he does blame, vociferously,monotonously and uncritically, the string of Palestinian terror bombings, that he, again,views as Arafat's mark of Cain.
He forgets that Israel herself bears the mark of Cain, in bloodying the Palestinians, in taking their land, in treating them as second or third-class citizens of "Greater Israel".
In short, Horovitz's book is propaganda, not a study of history or current events; comforting for die-hard supporters of Israel, but in the end answering no new questions, breaking no new ground.

After the collapse of the Camp David talks in 2000, Arabs launched a wave of terrorist attacks on Israel. And while some people in faraway nations may have failed to see just who the aggressors were, those who lived in Israel could not avoid noticing.

Horovitz does a superb job of describing living with the threat of terrorist attacks. We see how both Jews and Arabs react to all the fighting. And he also explains the extent to which the conflict is misdescribed by many in the media. I was shocked to discover that several star reporters were under the misimpression that the West Bank and Gaza had been some sort of independent sovereign territory prior to 1967. Other disturbing signs were the reluctance of reporters to believe Israelis who disagreed with Arab lies, the eagerness of reporters to believe that Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was some sort of wicked war criminal, and the "conventional wisdom" that Israel was to blame for the conflict since it was holding territory that it did not stake a sovereign claim to. In addition, I was puzzled by the fact that a reporter insisted that Israel had to be held to a "higher standard."

The author explains how the Big Lie technique was used to accuse Israel of war crimes at, of all places, Jenin (where Israel went in with ground troops, dramatically sacrificing the lives of many soldiers to reduce Arab civilian casualties). And he quotes Kofi Annan, who maliciously asked "Can the whole world be wrong (in condemning Israel)?" Horovitz has a one-word answer. Yes. Any reasonable person would, if shown the facts that European Union officials were demanding to punish Israel for trying to thwart terrorist bombings and simultaneously shown that the EU was supporting the bombers financially, letting them buy explosives with its money, would see that the EU is wrong. His point is that a misinformed world will indeed be wrong.

For me, the mangling of truth by the media stood out in this book as the most serious aspect of the fighting. It is sad that Arabs are attacking Israeli civilians. It is good that the media are positioned to report on this. I think even vaguely honest reporting would bring enough political pressure to bear so that the attacks would stop. That is why it is such a pity that we are seeing nothing of the sort.

There are many other regions in the world where there is plenty of violence. They don't have anything like the media coverage we see in the Levant. If the media are failing so utterly in covering the Arab-Israeli conflict, one has to doubt their ability to get anything right.

I highly recommend this book.

The dream of the electrical vehicle was first inspired by the success of the sunraycer, a vehicle capable of 41 mph and able to traverse the US on five gallons of gas. EV technology faced two signicant barriers: the DC to AC inverter and the 100,000 mile battery life. AC motors were lighter and but the electricity had to be chopped or inverted. Alan Cocconi had built a inverter for his SunRaycer and also designed and built regenerative braking. At Aerovironment, Brooks used the Sunraycer power design and built an EV with a more power inverter and AC motors and battery pack. Cocconi built two inverters which each powered a 50 kilowatt motor.

The GM impact prototype solved both of these problems. Alec Brooks was assigned to study Paul MacCready in the offices of AeroVironment and his efficient motors. MacCready had built an Electric Vehicle prototype for GM - with its streaming lines; the initial idea was too make the rear wheel base shorter than the front creating a tapering effect. The car was to be built from aluminum rather than steel. The Impact had a fiber glass body.

It was Baker's job to bring the EV car to market. Baker reluctantly took the task, a task he dreaded because of early failure with the electrovette.

Lead Acid batteries were a problem, but they were cheap and they worked. Lead acid batteries needed water replenishment; engineers tried to devise methods and these batteries could not be 100% discharged and recharged for a 1,000 cycles. Heat and cold affect the electrical output of the battery. The batteries weighted about 900 pounds. Nickle Metal Hydrid was proven but not used immediately; Baker didn't want any delays; Baker needed to get the EV quality to production status: heater, air conditioner, radio, and suspension system.

The impact could accelerate from 0-60 seconds in 7.9 seconds reaching a speed of 75 mph; it could travel 124 miles at 55 mph and in city reach 300 mile range.

This is a great book. The author follows the tangled story of how GM developed the first production electric car... but he went to press just a year or two before GM sent it to the crusher. See the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? for the sad end to this story.

For contrast, google for the on-line copy of "The Prius That Shook the World". While Schnayerson was following GM he was totally unaware of the development of the Toyota Prius. Like Shnayerson's book, the Prius book takes the development of a new car from a clean sheet of paper to production. From reading both, Toyota seems to have much longer term plans and much less in-fighting. GM changed it's mind with every new CEO.

By coincidence, neither book has a single photo in it (aside from the cover) and lots of personalities. But from 2007 looking back the Prius story has a much happier ending.

Shnayerson tells the story up to when the GM Impact was introduced. The film "Who Killed the Electric Car?" got me interested in electric cars. The GM Impact (EV1) was the most successful modern electric car, but it disappeared into the crushers shortly after its introduction.

His story is that of a dedicated crew inside GM working against budget cuts and management changes to make the car. It is a good read.

A shortcoming is that there are so many major characters-- A new one on each page in some chapters. One is Ken Baker, who runs through the whole narrative, as do Roger Smith (yes, that Roger) and Robert Stempel, one a former GM Chairman.

Another major character doesn't appear until chapter 20: Stan Ovshinsky. The 12 pages describe his career and the Ovonic 12-volt NiMH battery, and the test on the track at Mesa, Arizona, where his batteries powered the test Impact EV 201 miles on a single charge.

All of these 100+ GM execs and engineers were heart-and-soul dedicated to making the EV succeed. One cannot read this book and feel that GM was against the electric car. Shnayerson is an outsider, and was in no way a mouthpiece for GM or an industry apologist. When he tells of GM execs moving their families to Lansing or to Troy so they can work more on the Impact, you get a strong feeling that GM wanted this car to happen. GM sunk a few billion dollars in it.

I could have done with fewer pages of office drama and a new character on every other page, all of whom "exuded midwestern charm," and less about whether so-and-so was "on the fast track to a senior vice-presidency."

I would have preferred line drawings of new assemblies, for example, regenerative brakes-- a first by GM. I wanted more technical details! Cut a couple dozen pages of drama and give us line drawings! For example, in one of the few technical discussions; Setting a standard for EV chargers, page 223, after 3 years and $10 million, GM accepted Hughes's inductive 220 volt charger. Ford stayed with the basic prong-and-socket conductive charger. I wanted a line drawing of each, a photo of each, a short description of each.

Shnayerson gives an objective account of politics, noting the reelection of California Governor Pete Wilson in 1994, and Republicans unseating Democrat governors, and Republicans making huge gains in Congress in Nov 1994-- as a factor in reducing the auto industry's motivation to push the EV. That political revolution is missing in explaining the death of the EV in California in "Who Killed the Electric Car?" where the government villians are made out to be Bush, Cheney, and Rice. Shnayerson suggests that a Republican sweep in 1994 may have been the bigger factor, with a repudiation of 25 years of environmental legislation.

We humans may be incapable of analyzing economic factors, but we always emphasize political factors. This mental shortcoming has to do with the Availability Bias, from cognitive psychology: We overestimate factors easy to imagine or remember (like political figures we don't like) and ignore factors difficult to imagine or remember (like anything to do with economics). So when GM cuts funding in 1992 for the Impact, everyone, like director Chris Paine of "Who Killed the Electric Car?" screams out that there is a giant conspiracy by bad guys in Oil, but few recognize that when a company has a loss of a billion dollars, they need to cut back somewhere.

Shnayerson spends only a few pages on Japanese electric cars: All four major Japanese carmakers had cars to show at the Anaheim California December 1994-- EV Symposium 12. Mazda had an EV Miata. In France, residents were paying for the privilege of test driving 50 Peugeot-Citroen ZX and 105 model prototypes. If Big Oil, Autos, and the U.S. Gov killed the GM EV, who killed the French and Japanese EVs? Which brings up the Big Red Cars in Southern California.

Did Standard Oil and GM and B. F. Goodrich destroy Henry Huntington's Pacific Electric, the world's best electric car system, with its more than 1000 miles of standard gauge track? Or rather than a giant conspiracy, is the fault in the hands of my mother and father and thousands like them who destroyed the Pacific Electric-- they purchased a shiny new 1949 Nash, instead of spending that money on tickets to ride the Red Cars. We blame the "greedy" oil companies, but we don't think about tens of thousands of Southern Californians ready to buy that status symbol, their own auto, after years of rationing during and after World War II.

This is a fascinating inside story about the development of electric cars in the early '90s.

GM unveiled a prototype electric car in 1990 and conveyed the message to California (and other states) that they could develop such a vehicle for consumer use. California shortly thereafter adopted standards requiring the top 7 car manufacturers to sell emission free vehicles totalling 2% of sales in 1998, increasing to 5% in 2001, then 10% in 2003.

GM proceeded to lose enormous sums of money in the early 1990s. But they still worked to develop the electric car for two reasons. One was to be able to meet the California standards. The other was hoping they would be ahead of the curve and make money on the new technology.

But many technical issues needed to be resolved to bring the car to market, the biggest being batteries. Developing batteries capable of providing adequate storage capacity for a reasonable amount of driving was (and remains) a monumental problem.

At the same time GM was developing a marketable electric car, they (along with Ford, Chrysler, and Big Oil) lobbied hard to eliminate the emission free mandates, claiming the technology and consumer demand wasn't there. What did GM want to happen? It seems that they didn't really know, in part because they were bleeding money.

California blinked in the 4th quarter of 1995 and eliminated the mandate. Then, in January 1996 GM unveiled the EV1, a 2 seat electric sports car.

For a follow-up on the "success" of the EV1 and other EVs, I recommend the movie "Who killed the Electric Car?". Disturbing.

The book "The Car That Could" tells the story of GM's EV1 much better than the film "Who Killed the Electric Car?". The book tells the story of the EV1's birth. That is of course a more hopeful story than the EV1's death, which the film covers. And that fact alone makes a big difference in the impact of the story that is told.

But there is another difference. "The Car That Could" tells the inside story of how the EV1 came to be. People within GM make a huge effort to give birth to the car. This was no sham attempt to live up to the California Air Resources Board mandate to put electric cars on the road. GM clearly had its technical and marketing people do their best work. And they did build a great little car, a car that could.

As we know now, though, GM's EV1 did not live very long. The passion of those who put their money down to lease the cars could not make up for the fact that they were few in number. When the California Air Resources Board's mandate went away, that spelled doom for the EV1.

No new EV1s were made. Those that had been made were crushed. A sad end for the car that could.

But though the film "Who Killed the Electric Car" implies that GM killed the EV1, the reasons for its death were more complex than that. And the real story of its death has not, I think, been told. Certainly not as well, and with so much insight, as the story of its birth.

But the story of the electric car has not ended. And there may be some hope for a happy ending. Recently GM's CEO Rick Wagoner has said that he regrets the decision to kill the EV1. And GM promises to come out soon with a new series hybrid electric car. That may put GM back into competition with Toyota and Honda, and their parallel hybrid cars. If so, maybe we will see another, more successful version of a GM car that could.

Michael Shnayerson did a great job researching and writing about the birth of the EV1. Many of the insights written into the book will help those thinking about electric cars today.

So in my mind, "The Car That Could" should be required reading for anyone who wants to participate in the electric vehicle industry. Copies are hard to find now. But if you are interested in electric cars, find a copy and read it. "The Car That Could" makes the must-read list; "Who Killed the Electric Car?" does not.

In "The Condor Years", Jonh Dinges does a wonderful job documenting US complicity in overthrowing the democratically elected Popular Unity government in Chile and instituting Operation Condor, a network of right-wing military dictatorships in Latin America's six southernmost countries with the aim of crushing popular movements for economic democracy, social justice and political freedom. As such, it is an essential text for activists and scholars interested in human rights, civil liberties, union organizing, political repression in the Americas, corporate globalization and peace. The book also delves into the role that pro-business, reactionary Cuban exiles played in hunting down Chilean dissidents living in the US. Given current events in Colombia, Iraq and elsewhere, this is an urgent and frightening book!

John Dinges first wrote about the terrorist activities of the Pinochet dictatorship as long ago as 1980 (in Assassination on Embassy Row, written with Saul Landau), but, however much one might have suspected at that time, it was impossible to support it with much documentary evidence. A great deal more is available now, in part because of the case brought by the Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón in 1998, and in part because the declassification of many US Government files in the years from 1999 onwards. Dinges has therefore returned to his subject, and has written a detailed count of the years of terror in the southern part of South America, in which numerous military dictatorships -- led by Chile, but with enthusiastic participation of Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay -- conspired to murder and torture many of their own citizens, transferring them between secret prisons at their convenience.

Despite the emotional and dramatic nature of the events that he describes, and despite his clear commitment to democracy, Dinges has written a balanced book, allowing the facts to speak for themselves and refraining from the sort of exaggeration that can easily convert a good case into an incredible one. Despite the much higher profile that the Chilean dictatorship had in the European and North American press than the even more vicious ones in Argentina and Uruguay had, he recognizes that -- contrary to what most people think -- there were far fewer murders in Chile than in most of the other countries involved, around 3000 in total, compared with around ten times as mant in Argentina. At one point he talks of several orders of magnitude more in Argentina, implying several millions, but that is clearly absurd, and is probably not so much an exaggeration as a careless use of words: certainly, there is nothing in the surrounding text to suggest that this means what it literally says.

Dinges concludes his book with the words "the history of the Condor Years is not one we are condemned to repeat." Let us hope that he is right.

I think this was a very good book.It gives you an excelent report on the atrocities committed by the military in countries like Chile,Argentina and Paraguay.Mr Dinges did a great work in gathering all the information and evidence necessary to present a clear and bullet-proof case against all the parties involved.I was fascinated by all the evidence and information that clearly connects Henry Kissinger with this military goverments and the uncontested proof of his knowledge about the situation in this countries.The only thing i didnt like about this book is that sometimes it gives you the impression that you are reading a goverment report.Because, at times, the author is just giving you facts, dates and names with a certain dryness that sometimes bored me.It felt like you were lectured like in a class room.But,again, the book is full of fascinating tales and information that makes you wonder about our own goverment and the way it manages information.Good work!

This is a true story of terrorism and international terrorism patronized by the US government, then led by such honest and law-abiding statesmen as Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger (I guess Gerald Ford was also there, but permanently asleep). In this case the terrorists were not marxist revolutionaries or religious lunatics, but seven or eight South American rogue states - all of them military dictatorships and impeccable US allies. When in September 1976 the Chilean state terrorists choose Embassy Row, Washington DC, as the background for another assassination (in the person of ex-Chilean foreign minister and ex-ambassador to Washington Orlando Letelier), the US government coughed twice to cover its embarrassment, then coughed a third time, then ordered the US diplomats and secret services to cancel their almost manifest collaboration with the state terrorists, who still had plans to eliminate Ed Koch and other dangerous revolutionaries like him in the USA and Europe. These actions were canceled, but Operation Condor (the serial killings' corporate name) continued secretly at least until 1981. Some of the military have been tried and a few are still in jail now, but Operation Condor's top responsible Augusto Pinochet avoided any punishment till this day and Kissinger, though innocent and free at home, is on the run in half planet Earth.
We still don't know everything about this shocking story, but John Dinges' book The Condor Years is a great breakthrough. The only reviewer here who rates this book four stars tries to absolve the South American military dictatorships from their crimes, saying that they were fighting communism. Hitler always said the same.

The first thing we have to make clear in these types of books is who the author is and the author of this book is John Dinges. Dinges is a serious journalist who worked as the editorial director for National Public Radio for over ten years (1985 to 1996). He has worked as a foreign correspondent for Time, ABC, and most notably the Washington Post. And he is currently a Professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.

This book is well-researched, documented, and in it Dinges is himself extremely careful about what he states as fact and is not afraid to acknowledge when there simply is not enough documentation to make clear judgments. He frequently cites cables sent between the White House and the U.S. embassy in Santiago and as well as information from his own interviews with major players within Condor and embassy/government officials during the period.

He makes clear how important Operation Condor was in the context of South American politics such as the fact that traditional enemies like Argentina and Chile were co-operating fully for the first time in contemporary history. And, initially at least, the real fear amongst the military dictatorships of guerilla movements united under the "Revolutionary Co-ordinating Junta".

Dinges shows how DINA (the Chilean secret police) was created with U.S. support and turned from a small intelligence department to the hand of Pinochet under the leadership of Manuel Contreras. More interesting is how the book documents how operations were run in Europe headed by American-born DINA operative Michael Townley along with Italian fascists to eliminate the exiled Christian Democratic/Socialist Party opposition. All of this, of course, climaxs with the Letelier assasination in D.C.

This is perhaps the best book you will find on the subject of Operation Condor. Documents obtained by Dinges in making this book are frequently cited by institutions such as the National Security Archive at George Washington University. It deserves all five stars I am giving it.

Only a libertarian, or the authors' mothers, will truly agree with all 12 of the Supreme court cases featured in "Dirty Dozen." So what. It is thoroughly fun to read. As stated early on in the book, the authors picked the 12 worst cases decided since the New Deal, the period they define as the modern era of eroding freedoms and of government expansions. Most cases also have a "dirty dozen honorable mention" case to hold hands with it's main "dirty" case. They explain how the cases were selected, and the substantial legal assists they asked for and received in making the selections. Commendably, the authors prefaced their book with a legal expert who did not fully agree with their picks - how often does that happen!

"Dirty Dozen" reads smoothly for the non-lawyer, this reviewer included. The reasoning for all the cases was especially easy to follow, and the analyses were uniformly organized. Warning to future readers: three cases over the last 70 years pop out as naturals for a book like this: Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and Bush v. Gore. All are mentioned, but none show up in the dirty dozen! Roe and Bush, though, appear as postscripts, with explanations why they may have been bad law, but not included. Buy the book just to see these!

The gem which charms this entire book is its reference to, and love of, our US Constitution. This document with all amendments - plus dates ratified - show up at the back of the book. Get "Dirty Dozen" along with three bookmarks: one for the page where you stop for the day, one for the endnotes, and one for the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is governed by humans, and humans do make errors."The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom" is an examination of these mistakes that have cost America dearly. Pointing out cases in which the Supreme Court has bumbled and allowed the federal government to interfere with private contracts or political support, detain prisoners charge, wrongfully seize property, and other misdeeds of the court, "The Dirty Dozen" is an expertly crafted and harsh criticism of the courts. Highly recommended for community library law collections.

This book is a good complement to Randy Barnett's _Restoring the Lost Constitution_. _The Dirty Dozen_ looks at twelve bad Supreme Court decisions that have effectively erased some of the explicit constitutional limits on the federal government and reduced individual freedom. The preface by Richard Epstein expresses a few minor disagreements about some of the cases chosen, and the end of the book explains why Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore didn't make the cut. Those that did include Korematsu v. United States (1944), which said that the U.S. program of internment for Japanese Americans was constitutional, Kelo v. City of New London (2005), which said that governments can seize private property in order to give it to other private hands, Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934), which said that the government can unilaterally void parts of private contracts despite Article I Section 10's explicit language to the contrary, and Bennis v. Michigan (1996), which said that government can use civil forfeiture to take property without compensation that is involved in a crime even if the owner of the property has no involvement in that crime.

I have read the Constitution several times and it has always been a mystery to me how many (if not most) laws are permissible by our courts and deemed congruent with our founding fathers vision. This book no only addresses my confusion but does it in a clear entertaining style free of Latin and other confusing "legalese". I highly recommend this well written engaging book.

I listened to Robert Levy on Harvard Book Club. The man is brilliant. To the extent that the book claims that the Supreme Court failed to interpret the constitution in a reasonable manner, the book is one-man's opinion of what the constitutional law should be. Levy criticizes the notion of a "living, breathing" constitution because it encourages "judicial policy-making." Yet, this is what the law interpreters have done since Roman and Norman times. Law has never been a fixed rule, in our common-law system. The law is a reasonable interpretation within the established structural and doctrinal framework to fit the evolving standards of decency. This book is just one political opinion of what the constitutional provisions are. My fear is that a non-lawyer, reading this book, will inevitably get an idea that the Supreme Court is not upholding the constitutional principles. Nothing could be farther from the truth. For those non-lawyers, that are intrigued by the book, I can not stress enough the following: You must read many more judicial opinions to get a glimpse on how the Supreme Court operates and how laws evolve and devolve. For example, legal students have a benefit and duty of reading casenotes and comparing many opinions on a narrow topic; which the non-lawyer readers of this book do not.

Discourses on Livy or Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius by Niccolo Machiavelli

Love it! Just as advertised!

Machiavelli's Discourses... a book that is a compendium of historical events analyzed in such a way as to obtain a lesson that is both precise as well as eternal. I think that all who consider going into politics or any kind of management role should be handed a copy of this book. And by any kind of management I mean from management of a state to managing a home and family. It is practical, ruthless and efficient. You can glimpse its central premises through the actions of those who succeed.
The translation of this book is flawless and delivers the full content of the author's message.
I'm convinced that this was a life changing book for me to read, it certainly affected my perspective of events around me and my way to interact to them. It is a self help book if you can interpret it beyond the historical dressing.
I strongly recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in history, management, or politics.

This book describes how Rome was being governed as a Republic and gets into detail about the wars they fought. Even for Machiavelli these writings we distant history and what really surprised me was the way this book has been written and translated.

Being an admirer of Rome and its golden age this book really gave me new insights, despite reading a lot of other books about this subject. As in Machiavelli's most famous book 'The Prince' politics are again the major subject. It is really astonishing to see the details and consequences of the actions that are being taken.

If you would like to know more about Rome, history or politics, grab a copy of this book.

Nicholo Machiavelli earned a bad rep with those who read and mis-read his best knon work, The Prince. It was not his intention to write this book to correct that bad image, but with this book we are given a different look at the great Itsalian poitical scientist/historian. He shows us the virtue of a democratic form of government. Recommended by anyone who wants a clearer view of the author, the Renaisance, and the growth of political theory.

Niccolo Machiavelli, (1469-1527), writes the greatest treatise on keeping a republic vi