Government and Politics Books

While this might not be the best book to read if you've never before met this astounding intellect in print, it still serves to succinctly elucidate the most salient hallmarks of Chomsky's approach to world affairs and, more specifically, his country's foreign policy. These hallmarks include an incisive dissection of the subservience of intellectuals to state power, the flagrant hypocrisy of the US government, in this case the Reagan administration, as their public pronouncements project an image of inviolable nobility while their actions tell quite a different story, and the concentration of private power in a few hands which underpin, thus making possible, these disturbing aspects of American intellectual and political culture.
The book began life as a "postscript" to a number of foreign editions of Chomsky's Turning the Tide, which dealt with many of the same points raised in this book, though The Culture of Terrorism deals with the Iran-Contra scandals at some length which the earlier text did not. Although the actual facts detailed in often exhausting rigorousness are well out of date, one is thoroughly exposed to the brazen dereliction of basic journalistic duty by those that Chomsky derisorily refers to throughout as representatives of the Free Press. They fall so effortlessly in line with state doctrine that the achievements, again noted by Chomsky, would make a totalitarian regime proud. That this happens in one of the freest countries in the world is nothing short of sickeningly scandalous. In case there are those that think Chomsky is a conspiracy nut or a devotee to the school of hyperbole he provides ample evidence which shows that even the so-called liberal press, namely the New York Times and the New Republic, are guilty of obscene apologetics for, and often advocates of, aggressive state terror.
The Culture of Terrorism deals predominantly with the campaign of subversion and harsh repression conducted by the Contras in Nicaragua who were armed, trained, and constantly supplied throughout this terrible period by the US government. There were flights over the countryside on an almost daily basis and the examples of their weaponry cited in the book would put most armies in other third world countries to shame, let alone the guerrilla forces who were fighting in nearby El Salvador, a country Chomsky also sketches in much socio-political detail. In 1979 the Nicaraguans overthrew the brutal dictator Somoza, a member of a dynasty stretching back to the middle of the 1920s, whose reign ended with a "paroxysm of violence claiming the lives of 40-50000 people". This tiny Central American nation elected the leftist Sandinistas regime which immediately caused the big neighbour to the North considerable consternation. The Reagan Administration proceeded to destabilise this government by employing the Contras, many of them previously employed as members of Somoza's abysmally vicious National Guard, to raid innocent villages, destroy houses, steal livestock, and even kill Americans who had come to aid this miserably poor country that was improving dramatically under the Sandinista regime. These leaps ahead in terms of health care, education and reduction of poverty were documented by such aid agencies as Oxfam at the time who compared the situation in this country with that of Guatemala and El Salvador. The picture created in the US media was quite different, however, as that charnel house Guatemala, along with El Salvador where political violence, including rapes, mutilation, tortures, and `disappearances', were endemic, were described as "fledgling democracies". Conversely, Nicaragua under the Sandinistas was portrayed by the Free Press as a totalitarian state who was one of the tentacles of the Soviet Union. How interesting that by ordering an economic embargo of Nicaragua, and forcing allies to do the same, the Sandinistas are forced to turn to Russia for help which provides a retrospectively convenient basis for the Reagan Administration to scream from the roof tops that the Evil Empire is upon them. Also very intriguing, illuminated by copious quotations from leading journals and newspapers, that a country such as Guatemala, where it is estimated that around 150000 people may have been killed during the Reagan era, and El Salvador, the site of 50000 politically motivated murders during the same period, raise no impassioned denunciations of their odious socio-political conditions, or even an acknowledgement of these figures cited by human rights organizations and specialists of the region. Ignorance is indeed strength, as Chomsky notes in a very apposite evocation of Orwell, whom he often refers to throughout the book as the noted linguist creates for the reader a truly terrifying Orwellian world, all the more horrifying because it actually exists and is not only an acutely perspicacious exercise in allegory, where "democracy" implies regimes friendly to US business interests and "moderates" are people such as El Salvadoran president José Duarte who just happens to preside over a regime that assassinates Archbishops, union leaders, students, journalists of opposition newspapers, and just about anyone who dares to question the economically polarising policies of this staunch proponent of the US "development model", another term Orwell would be proud of as the development in question applies to rich folk while the poor become demonstrably poorer, as is still much the case today in our world of ever "freer" markets.
The picture, as usual with Chomsky, is bleak, though when you have this much factual knowledge at your command, and have none of the necessary illusions required of the mendacious elites, then it is a tall task to be sanguine about world affairs, particularly those directed by the biggest terrorist state. The problem with reading a book published almost two decades ago about events that were then much publicized, is that much of the currency is unavoidably lost. At the very least the book provides an abundantly extensive historical overview of a time not all that different from our own, the primary deviation being the names of the victims and perpetrators, and at its most elevated altitudes of significant scholarship The Culture of Terrorism cogently demystifies the key characteristics, established by the voluminous historical and documentary record, of the most influential institutions in US society. This has always been Chomsky's greatest gift and this book amply, though not definitively, showcases his remarkable ability to not only render events in breathtakingly astounding detail, but always ensures that they are related to a wider context of previous incidents and current practices.
This is not a book for those individuals who still foster illusions that the United States is the most benevolent super power the world has ever known. For those willing to look beyond the purposely constrained bounds of the mainstream media, as well as the limits of their own often self-willed ignorance, the book provides ample insights into past practices and their very grave implications for future conduct by the globe's sole remaining hegemonic force. Chomsky may be less a voice in the wilderness than he was when the book was published, but still not enough people are hearing his extremely vital message.

I am a true fan of Noam Chomsky. I have a collection of most the books written by Noam Chomsky. I like the writing style of Noam Chomsky and the way he presents his research, facts, and analysis regarding the subject. However; recently I read a book
"Terrorism or Awakening" ISB number: ISBN: 969-8898-00-X
One can check the introduction of the book from the website
http://www.terrorismorawakening.com.pk

The author of this book is so direct and to the point that it is a must have book even by Noam Chomsky.

Chomsky once again holds the mirror up to America and shows how blatantly hypocritical and disingenuous our foreign policy actually is. In this book his primary focus is on the Reagan administration and Central America, where corporate and military interests were promoted at the expense of the indiginous people and "true" democracy. Recent events (the 2000 Bush "coup", Webb's book on cocaine and the contras, the Columbia "aid" package, etc.) show how truly relevant this research is. Also, do not let the simpletons of the right and the mainstream (is there really a difference between the two anymore?) critique Chomsky without comment or evidence. His research, unlike theirs (on those rare occasions when they actually engage in true journalism) is meticulously documented and uses their own words and documents as source material. One last thing, if you don't get this book then get any book from Chomsky on American economic and foreign policy (I recommend his work on Israel and the Palestinians as a particularly contemporary selection).

Enlightening for those who suffer it; outrageous for those whoprofit from it. The culture of terrorism (overt and covert) is verymuch a global reality to deal with. A bad book for those whom the culture of terrorism has managed to brainwash into blind denial and self-censorship. An excellent book for us, 99% of the world oppressed by that culture.

It has become impossible to write a review of a Chomsky piece without focusing a large content of the review on Chomsky himself (witness ... slew of one-star versus five-star reviews of all his books, which often feature personal opinion rather than genuine, responsible argument). Being something of a free-thinker with an interest in politics and psychology, I've understandably been drawn toward the debate surrounding Chomsky and his stunning claims about the nature of Western (usually US) policy -- and have been very disappointed with the childish nature of that debate, as it has declined hopelessly toward name-calling and a ridiculous skewing of facts and quotes. How does a person know who to believe? (I should reiterate that it really has become a case of "who", not "what", as if the merit of an argument has anything to do with its author.)

With that state of mind I decided that the best way to get a handle on these astonishing claims about Western policy would be to actually read a book by its most prominent critic. Deciding which book to read wasn't a problem, since, of the two bookstores and one library in my area, an obscure 1980's text called "The Culture of Terrorism" was the only of Chomsky's publications that I could find.

The first two chapters, in introducing the main thesis -- that, unlike the US government's claim to "further the cause of democracy" worldwide, the US's policy is actually to maintain control of as much of the Third World as possible via manipulation of its governmental systems -- assume a familiarity with the Iran-Contra dealings and the US invasion of Nicaragua, and, since I was rather ignorant of these matters, at first the book only served to alienate me.

But from Chapter 3 onward, the book is a focused exercise in intense -- and superior -- fact-finding, very effectively discrediting the popular, US media-supported claims that America was doing Nicaragua a favor by funding a guerrilla movement to destroy its government and replace it with a more America-friendly one. The book argues that the Sandinistas, far from being a perfect government, were certainly a step in the right (or, rather, left) direction for Central America -- making Nicaragua an intolerable ideological exception to the US's (unstated) insistence that the world remain effectively owned by businesses and the upper-class, at the terrible expense of poor people's rights and living conditions. Chomsky provides a thorough and shocking contrast of American media reports of the Central America situation (with even the "respected" media -- e.g. the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. -- acting as a virtual mouthpiece for US government propaganda) and the disinterested overseas media and human rights groups that reported much more objectively and responsibly on the same incidents.

Half the book is about the reality of the US invasions of Nicaragua, while the other half is about how horrendously the submissive domestic media was able to butcher the facts. I found both parts of the book to be extremely well-researched and persuasive -- not to mention surprisingly hilarious in parts (nobody writes with more humor about state-sponsored terrorism than Noam Chomsky).

Being born in America, and having grown to be very critical and cynical of it, I'm certainly susceptible to the idea -- as forwarded by most of Chomsky's critics -- that a major reason for his appeal is not because he is a great historian, but that he provides endless fodder for anti-American views. In other words, for people who call themselves "free thinkers" (as I did above), it becomes tempting to cling to the opinions of like-minded souls, regardless of the fact that their arguments may lack merit. I will allow that, to a certain extent, this phenomenon does apply to me. However, having finished "The Culture of Terrorism", I returned to the same old websites featuring the same slew of Chomsky-bashing, and tried to find coherent arguments to the effect that Chomsky's analysis of the US invasion of Nicaragua was anything but dead-on. I could find nothing. For this reason, I should stress that I wholeheartedly enjoyed "The Culture of Terrorism", I think its conclusions are extremely well-supported, and I have every reason to believe it is a landmark piece of nonfiction. As for other books by Noam Chomsky -- I haven't read them yet, so I'd feel ludicrous if I were to join all the cheering Chomskyheads in claiming that he can do no wrong. I apologize for writing a review that was probably too lengthy, but unfortunately I felt it necessary to emphasize that my complete, unreserved endorsement for this excellent book was actually a recommendation for the book's argument, not its author. This is a phenomenal study of US domestic and international policies regarding its dealings with Central America in the 1980's -- simple as that.

This is an excellent book, a long awaited and much needed factual account of a group of courageous men whose activism had major impact on the movement. Hill has produced a wealth of documentation to prove the history he has brought to the fore.
This account does tribute to those brave and unsung (heretofore)
heroes who refused to further degrade themselves and thier communities by turning the other cheek! Must reading.

This book kept me up reading all night. I had in the past heard that their had been a group that pre dated The Black Panther Party, and were operating in the deep south. However there was not much information on this clandestine group. Well there is now. This is the book. My chest burst with pride as the tears fell down my cheeks. If you read nothing else this year please read this book if you want to know what our people were really doing during the "movement". The media had been lying to us about our role in our own history! This book is about us!

excellent coverage of a little-known but very important part of the civil rights movement. if you're tired of the conventional view of the crm with everyone on their knees praying, this book is for you.

An important corrective to the nonviolence theme that domninates most histories of the Civil Rights Movement. The Deacons were mostly home grown Black Veterans from working class neighborhoods in small southern towns like Bogalusa and Jonesboro Louisianna. When the Klan and Police beat on civil rights workers and local protestors the Deacons fought back. In July 1965 when a mob of whites attacked a group of civil rights, mostly children, marchers in Bogalusa a Deacon shot a Klan member sending him to hospital. This incident had a profound impact on the response to Black demands for equal rights in Lousianna. Finally, the White Establishment began to make changes that led to a better life for Louisianna's Blacks. Professor Hill's(History, Tulane Univesity) book is full of such incidents and proves that the Deaon's impact on the souhtern Civil Rights struggle must not be overlooked.

you have to speak the language of the wolf." - Henry Austin, Deacons for Defense

This is truly a lost history of the civil rights movement that author Lance Hill has found under the layers upon layers of mainstream narratives which conveniently dictate false truths that - when repeated enough - become larger than life.

Following the organized self-defense philosophy espoused by Robert F. Williams in Monroe, N.C., a small group of men in Jonesboro, Louisiana, founded an organization that had great influence in the civil rights movement of the mid-1960s. The success the Deacons had in defeating the KKK and other haters on the streets by standing up, moving forward and staring them down with guns loaded brought a new sense of empowerment in demanding that justice truly be served today.

Hill explains how he became aware of the Deacons and then began his quest to research the history. Initially founded to protect civil rights workers, the Deacons' influence in the Deep South grew with a regional organizing campaign in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, along with chapters being founded in several Northern cities.

The success and expansion of the program brought interest from the FBI, coverage by an oftentimes adverse media and linkage - oftenetimes quite temporary - with a number of revolutionary organizations.

But through the comparatively brief time the Deacons operated - about four years - Hill successfully argues that the organization forced the federal government to aggressively enforce the 1964 Civil Rights Act and was the bridge to the Black Power movement that emerged later in the decade.

The Deacons' legacy continues, as former members have strongly stated over the years that the group has never actually gone away. And, as Hill writes, "Finally, there is something inspiring in a story of people who stood up to injustice when everyone around them was afraid. That is a fable that will always serve us well."

The Deacons for Defense lives in the souls of those who do their part on a daily basis to bring real justice to this country.

Dr. Francis J. Beckwith's Defending Life is simply the best, most comprehensive, most logically sound examination of abortion & the meaning of personhood available in print today. Excellent summaries of the book are available elsewhere, so let me focus on some unique features.

First, Dr. Beckwith argues for a definition & moral value to humanity that provides a defense for innocent humans in a wide variety of circumstances, not just those who are tiny & preborn. The general philosophical arguments used here are helpful for evaluating human value among those in undeveloped, famine plagued regions of the world; among populations of hardened, committed career criminals; among those yet to be conceived several generations after our pollution-promoting public policies; & those who are physically and/or mentally disabled, etc.

Second, Dr. Beckwith treats abortion rights advocates with respect & honesty, not merely fairly representing their views & arguments, but even improving their arguments when he can & yet showing that even the best abortion rights arguments fatally undermine basic human rights based on the nature of humanity. A number of years ago, I role-played an abortion rights advocate in a public debate with Dr. Beckwith. He was concerned that his opponent be formidable & insightful, but he couldn't find an available true advocate he thought would do a credible enough job. I gave it my best shot (& Dr. Beckwith kindly said I was his toughest opponent to date), but Dr. Beckwith's arguments remained compelling & invincible. That generous respect & yet actual superiority is reflected in this book.

Third, Dr. Beckwith's sharp wit makes this book a serendipitous pleasure to read as well. Without demeaning his opponents or trivializing the issues, he is able to broach illustrations packed with humor & allude to cultural comedy to make telling points. As Dr. Beckwith's students will attest, he is nothing like the typical boring philosophy professor.

Fourth, this book provides such a wide spectrum of issues, arguments, & approaches that if you only have one book on the subject in your library, you should have this one -- even (or especially) if you are an abortion rights advocate.

Regardless of your familiarity with the subject or other volumes you might possess, you can't afford to miss getting & studying your own copy of Defending Life.

Beckwith's primary purpose is to provide a thorough defense of the pro-life position and its grounding in the "substance view" of human persons--a view he claims best explains human equality. He writes: "This book is, in a sense, then, not really a book about abortion, but rather, a book about human equality." Frank contends that the larger metaphysical question--who are we?--should be answered by enlarging our definition of the human family to include the unborn. His secondary purpose is to examine the relationship between abortion and law, politics, and public discourse.

The pro-life argument Frank defends can be outlined as follows:

1. The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community.
2. It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community.
3. Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community.
4. Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong.

The book is divided into three parts. Part 1 deals with moral reasoning, the law, and politics. Part 2 is the core of Frank's case for the pro-life view, which includes both the scientific and philosophic considerations. Part 3 takes on cloning and embryonic stem-cell research.

The thrust of the text is philosophical and jurisprudential rather than religious. In each case, the arguments presented pass the test of public reason. That's not because he thinks theology doesn't count as real knowledge (indeed, he argues elsewhere it does). Rather, he's cutting-off secular critics who unjustly dismiss pro-life arguments with the wand of "faith"--which they define as non-rational and subjective.

Frank sums up the current controversy this way: "At the end of the day, the abortion debate is about who and what we are and whether we can know it."

We live in an age of paradox. On the one hand, scientific concepts are confidently and systematically understood, and our control of the physical world continues to expand through our employ of thorough, rigorous scientific method. On the other hand, the poverty of moral discourse is such that, in the words of J. Budziszewski, "it is...like a great smoke which fills our houses and dulls our minds and makes it difficult to complete any thoughts." Trying to discuss moral issues such as abortion in my experience does not lead to reasoned discussion; instead it is waved off as uninteresting or intractable, or the "right to choose" mantra is immediately invoked.

Francis Beckwith, however, notes that the climate has changed a bit in recent years. People are not so sure of moral relativism in the post-9/11 West. As stem cell research and the spectre of cloning bring to light alarming technological possibilities, we are forced to confront issues of what it means to be human. The thrust of Beckwith's argument, then, is to at the same time clarify the abortion debate and also advance the prolife position, by blowing away the smoke of confusion and appealing to our basic moral intuitions.

On January 22, 1973, Roe v. Wade was issued, and with its companion decision, Doe v. Bolton, it effectively legalized abortion on demand for all nine months of pregnancy. However, the reasoning used by Justice Harry Blackmun, who authored Roe, was flawed. To build his case, he had to overcome two legal impediments. The first was regarding the purpose of the anti-abortion laws that many states had enacted beginning in the nineteenth century. The reason, he said, these laws existed was not to protect prenatal life but rather to protect women from dangerous medical procedures. Since abortion was now a relatively safe procedure, there was no longer a need to prohibit it. Going back into common law prior to the nineteenth century Blackmun claimed that abortion was "a fundamental liberty, found in our nation's traditions and history." Therefore, given the right to privacy which the Supreme Court manufactured in the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision (but which Blackmun said was older than the Bill of Rights), abortion was declared a constitutional right. Beckwith points out that "since 1973 the overwhelming consensus of scholarship has shown that the court's history...is almost entirely mistaken." It is clear that the primary purpose of the state laws was in fact to protect the unborn from harm.

The second flaw in the court's reasoning in Roe involves the Fourteenth Amendment which protects U.S. citizens from having their rights violated by the government, and whether the unborn are persons protected by it. Blackmun argued that since the court cannot resolve the difficult question about when life begins, the state ought to remain neutral and not prefer one theory of life over another, and therefore not rule against abortion. But in practice he really is taking a position: by legalizing abortion the state is saying that the unborn is the kind of thing that should not be protected by the state and is thus outside of membership in the human community. His argument actually provides a compelling reason to prohibit abortion, since it admits that abortion may result in the death of a human entity who has a full right to life (but we just don't know for sure).

Under scrutiny, these pillars no longer seem to be able to support Roe, so one would think that when the opportunity arose it would be reversed. Such an opportunity was the 1992 case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey which unfortunately upheld Roe in a narrow 5-4 decision. What is interesting is that since the original discredited reasoning could not be sustained, all the court could do was to base its decision on stare decisis, the principle that the court respect precedent. Chief Justice Rehnquist, in his dissent in Casey said that "Roe continues to exist, but only in the way a storefront on a western movie set exists: a mere facade to give the illusion of reality." The language of Casey indicated that the court had shifted the basis of abortion from the right to privacy to a new right that they found in the Fourteenth Amendment: the right to personal autonomy. It would seem that the right to abortion was derived not so much from sound legal reasoning as from the sheer force of judicial will.

It is claimed that the prochoice position should enjoy a privileged standing in our legal framework because the prolife position is religious. Beckwith argues that this is false: both positions presuppose some metaphysical point of view. If one is a materialist (believing that the physical world is all there is) one will reject the idea of a unifying human nature. A human being, then, is not a substance ontologically, but is something that comes into being only when sufficient parts or attributes are in place, whether these are brain waves or self-awareness or whatever criteria one chooses. In this view the whole is equal to the sum of its parts, much like an automobile or a table. Many prolifers, on the other hand, argue, as does Beckwith, that the human being is ontologically prior to its parts. From conception it has a human nature that defines and maintains its identity as long as it exists. Personhood is not achieved after a minimum number of attributes are evident, but exists immediately as an integral part of our human nature. The point is that both the prolife and the prochoice positions are in a sense religious; there is no metaphysical neutral ground.

Beckwith deals extensively with popular arguments for abortion choice, and the common denominator seems to be that they all beg the question as to the humanity of the fetus. That is to say, the arguments only work if one assumes from the outset that the unborn is not a human person, but this is the very point in dispute. For example, the argument that abortion on demand would reduce the number of unwanted children and child abuse begs the question, and this can be shown by extending the principle of the argument to post natal persons: would the killing of three-year-olds be acceptable if it would eliminate the abuse of five-year-olds? Obviously not. So the primary issue is whether or not the unborn are human persons or not. Furthermore, making wantedness a criteria for the relationship between a parent and a child is destructive for family life; it gives the parents far too much power if the value of the child is defined by the parent's feelings. Surely wantedness has bearing on value only with things, not people.

There are academic abortion choice advocates, such as Eileen McDonagh, who will grant that the unborn is a human person, but that we should be able to kill it anyway because of what it does to a woman's body. The fetus is regarded as an intruder who actually is causing the pregnancy, doing violence to the woman's body without her consent, comparable to the actions of a rapist. The woman may have consented to sex, but she did not at the same time consent to pregnancy, so she should have the right to expell this unwelcome intruder from her person. But this seems to be grossly counter-intuitive on a number of levels. The nature of the sexual organs, of sperm and ova, as being intrinsically directed toward procreation, suggests that the purpose of sex is pregnancy and for many people a radical separation of the two goes against the grain of their moral intuitions. Second, to assume moral volunteerism is to distort what we know instinctively about parental obligations. And if we applied this standard to the father there would be no moral reason to demand child support from him, for he could just say that he had consented to sex but not to fatherhood.

The arguments for abortion choice may make great slogans, but upon analysis they all fail, whether they are the crude coat-hanger arguments or ones from academic philosophers. Beckwith helps us to see more clearly just what the unborn are, where they belong, and what our duties are toward them. If we are truly an honest and compassionate society, we will not suppress this knowledge because it is inconvenient. We will practice generosity and virtue toward the weakest and most vulnerable in the human community, and we ourselves will be enriched in the process.

This is certainly the newest pro-life work to appear, and arguably among the best. It not only lays out the legal, rational, moral and philosophical case against abortion choice, but it more broadly makes the case for human equality and the sanctity of life.

Beckwith is an American professor of law and philosophy who has written extensively on these issues previously. This volume brings together years of thinking and debating on this contentious issue. It is an invaluable resource for all those wishing to stand up for human life at all stages of development, and to counter the arguments of the pro-choice brigade.

The first third of the book paints with broad brush strokes, examining moral reasoning, legal considerations, and political dimensions of the abortion debate.

The second third of the book looks more closely at the abortion debate per se, looking at the science, the morality and the arguments involved in the debate about abortion.

The final third of the book extends these considerations to recent developments in bioethics, including cloning and stem cell research.

The second and longest section of this book does many things, including carefully dismantling the various arguments put forward by the pro-abortion camp. All the leading pro-abortion thinkers, such as Thompson, Boonin, Stretton, and Dworkin are taken on, with their positions carefully assessed and interacted with.

On the broader issue of human equality, Beckwith argues for the substance view which states that a human being "is intrinsically valuable because of the sort of thing it is and the human being remains that sort of thing as long as it exists". That is, an individual "maintains absolute identity through time while it grows, develops, and undergoes numerous changes".

Various functions and capacities, whether fully realised or utilised do not constitute a person. Thus a human being is never a potential person, but is always a person at different stages of development, whether potential properties and capacities are actualised or not.

This view stand in stark contrast to the utilitarian and functionalist views held by most pro-abortionists. They argue that personhood is not inherent or intrinsic, but based on certain capacities and functions, be it consciousness, sentience, self-awareness, the ability to reason, and so on.

As to the specifics of the abortion debate, Beckwith responds to the numerous objections raised by pro-abortionists over the years. For example, consider the argument often heard, involving the hard cases of rape and incest. These are certainly tragic events, but in no way can they be used to justify an abortion.

First, such cases are extremely rare, making up just a tiny fraction of all abortions. Second, to argue for the legalisation of abortion because of these extreme cases would be similar to arguing that we eliminate traffic laws because in some rare cases they need to be violated, as in rushing a loved one to hospital.

Third, it simply begs the question by assuming the unborn child is not fully human. Fifth, to justify abortion in these circumstances is to argue that it is acceptable to forfeit a life for the alleged benefit of another. But a basic ethical intuition argues that we may not kill one person to possibly save another. John may desperately need a vital organ of Mary to stay alive, but he has no right to demand it, especially if it entails killing her in the process.

The more recent, and difficult, cases of embryo research, human cloning and stem cell therapies are also examined, looking at the various justifications given for them, and their pro-life responses. Similar issues arise here concerning the nature of personhood and the inviolability of life.

Beckwith closes by laying out his case as it has been argued throughout: the unborn are full members of the human community; it is wrong to kill members of that community; abortion kills the unborn entity; therefore abortion is morally wrong.

The three hundred pages of tightly-knit argumentation and logical-constructed reasoning take on nearly all the major justifications for abortion. All are found wanting - morally, legally, and philosophically. Beckwith is to be praised for assembling in one volume some of the best pro-life argumentation around.

This book is simply incredible. Beckwith answers all the typical abortion-choice arguments, and builds an undeniable case for the personhood of the unborn. In particular, Beckwith spends a chapter answering the human being vs. human person objection, and a chapter answering the common bodily autonomy argument, the only two abortion-choice arguments that actually don't beg the question. This is, of course, after Beckwith builds the case for the humanity of the unborn. The book is extremely well researched, and each chapter contains extensive footnotes. Along with Life Giving Love by Kimberly Hahn, this is now my favorite book. A MUST for all pro-lifers, as well as those that support abortion who wish to know how the other side argues.

for any gov., hist., econ., soc., anth. student a must read

"Democracy in America", published in two parts (the first in 1835, the second in 1840), is the great work of Alexis de Tocqueville, a young, aristocratic Frenchman, who traveled through most of the Eastern, Southern, and Midwestern United States during a 9 month period in 1832. Tocqueville had originally set out to study the U.S. prison system but what he saw inspired him to write about much, much more.

The foresight he had for such a young man is really impressive to read 160 years later. What he saw in the morals, work ethic and government structure of the United States led him to accurately predict many of the ways in which the U.S. would lead and has led the world. At the same time Tocqueville was not oblivious to many of the ills in the America he saw. He very wisely writes of the cancer that the institution of slavery was to not only all black Americans, but to the white, Southern farmers and workers as well.

I hate having to give these books "stars" for ratings because in many cases it takes away from the ultimate importance and classic status of a book like this one. Tocqueville does tend to jump around and venture off into different topics that don't fit with the rest of their chapter, which could be attributed to his youth. Also, a few of his predictions, naturally, were way off. A native Texan, I had a good laugh at his view that "the province of Texas is still part of the Mexican dominions, but it will soon contain no Mexicans." But overall Tocqueville's view of America was honest, accurate, and the perfect explanation of why, on a daily basis, people continue to risk their lives to gain the freedom that only the United States of America offers.

This is one of the greatest books ever written on politics! Toqueville analyzes American democracy and its inherent strengths and weaknesses from the view of a foreigner, thus giving the reader a balanced view of the situation. A definite must-read for anyone concerned with politics and American politics in particular.

to read democracy in america is to confront greatness itself, to follow the reflections of one the greatest political thinkers of all time, a man of balanced rationality, with a passionate concern for the fate of democracy--true democracy, that is, not the kind we see politicians preach on tv everyday. personally i prefer volume 2 of this great work, where the author summons up his astonishingly penetrating power of analysis and prophesy

De Tocqueville was simply of one of the great social scientists writing about America and Democracy. From reading the book I deduced that De Tocqueville was a social scientist before Marx! He compares European culture and government with the fledgling culture and democracy he observes in America. He is very much impressed with what he sees taking place in America in the 1830's and hopes it will spread to Europe. He at first believed that America's prosperity was simply due to geography and their distance from powerful neighbors, he abandons this idea after his visit to America. He comes to realize that the West is not being peopled "by new European immigrants to America, but by Americans who he believes have no adversity to taking risks". De Tocqueville comes to see that Americans are the most broadly educated and politically advanced people in the world and one of the reasons for the success of our form of government. He also foretells America's industrial preeminence and strength through the unfettered spread of ideas and human industry.

De Tocqueville also saw the insidious damage that the institution of slavery was causing the country and predicted some 30 years before the Civil War that slavery would probable cause the states to fragment from the union. He also the emergence of stronger states rights over the power of the federal government. He held fast to his belief that the greatest danger to democracy was the trend toward the concentration of power by the federal government. He predicted wrongly that the union would probably break up into 2 or 3 countries because of regional interests and differences. This idea is the only one about America that he gets wrong. Despite some of his misgivings, De Tocqueville, saw that democracy is an "inescapable development" of the modern world. The arguments in the "Federalist Papers" were greater than most people realized. He saw a social revolution coming that continues throughout the world today.

De Tocqueville realizes at the very beginning of the "industrial revolution" how industry, centralization and democracy strengthened each other and moved forward together. I am convinced that De Tocqueville is still the preeminent observer of America but is also the father of social science. A must read for anyone interested in American history, political philosophy or the social sciences.

Joly's work is important. Reading this obscure 140+ year old text tells much about the past, present and future. It is almost prophetic.

Waggoner does an excellent job and I thank him mightily for allowing us access to this text. The commentary is a bit extensive, as I did not look forward to reading it upon completion of the consuming Dialogue. However, it is helpful, necessary and worth getting through.

I had not read "The Prince" nor "Spirit of the Laws" prior, but had general understanding of them. Needless to say, next are they on my list. My motivation for picking this one up was the "Protocols" scandal. All in all, I consider this a remarkable work providing insight on the tyrants of the 19th/20th centuries and the ones presently budding. Those especially for which the Dialogue proved a heavy and indirect influence vis a vis the forged "Protocols". Perhaps it makes sense such a telling tome remains obscure, as the masses seem to prefer their dose of soma (McDonalds, iPods, TV...) rather than actual thought, in this "brave new world".

Before I can even begin about the book, the story BEHIND the book is amazing. It would not surprise me if Cheney had a copy of the German version somewhere in his desk as Bush probably wouldn't understand a third of the amazing ideas put forth in this formerly banned book.

Watching the news is like watching Machiavelli's Dialogue come to life. Listening to Democrats is like hearing Montesquieu's feeble attempts to say that in the end, the good guys will win because of Justice and Liberty. If the Dialogue were a swordfight, Machiavelli would have not only killed poor Montesquieu, but eviscerated and beheaded him as well. Waggoner's commentaries and insights are a little dry when compared with the excellent text but are a good read and do well to put some of the outdated points in the text into context. I strongly reccomend this for anybody who is questioning the course of events that our world is being swept up in.

The reason why you see such a high price tag on this book [...], is because it is a "How-to" guide that explains how a president in a Republic acquires dictatorial powers and changes the Republic into Empire.

The model for this insightful, "spill-the-beans" work is Louis Napoleon III of France. Louis was elected president of France in 1848 in an election that was probably more legitimate than ours in 2000. The Constitution of the French Republic limited a president's term to four years. Louis was able to convince his parliament to extend this so Louis would have time to implement his policies. Louis then staged a coup d'etat and seized dictatorial powers, passing new constitutional statutes masking his power and Louis reigned France as a dictator for 20 more years.

Due to the new century and the militant foreign policy of the neo-cons, today's America is in this same position. (chillingly, super neo-con Harvey Mansfield is listed as an editor of this Political Theory Series). Following are passages in the "Dialogues" that run parallel to the political tactics of today:

Machiavelli: "I will start by having my coup against the state ratified by popular vote. In a carefully crafted message to the people, I will show that we were in a crisis situation". "On the very next day after my constitution takes effect, I will issue a series of decrees with force of law that will do away with these liberties and rights...". (PATRIOT ACT-2001).

Montesquieu: "Indeed, you've chosen your moment well. the country is still terrorized by your coup d'etat" (9/11). "As for your constitution, nothing will be denied you, since you could take everything".

Machiavelli: "But I hasten to assure you that the liberties I suppress I shall formally promise to restore after factional strife has been quieted". (THE PATRIOT ACT WAS LIMITED IN YEARS AND HAD TO BE RESTORED WITH THE PATRIOT ACT II).

Machiavelli: [Regarding the Press] "I could suppress all of you. I haven't yet done so but I can I'll let you live, on one condition, that you don't try to block my progress or descredit my power...I reserve to myself or my agents the right to judge when I am being attacked...the third time you will be suppressed". (WHY THE PRESS IS MUZZLED ON 9/11, IRAQ, AND SOON IRAN).

Machiavelli: "I shall count the number of newspapers that represent what you call the "opposition". If there are ten in this category, I shall have twenty pro-government". (MASS SUGGETION as explained in my review of the book, Propaganda. "I will put a certain number of newspapers that will adopt the official line of things in a straightforward way. They will defend my acts unreservedly. (TELEVISION TODAY-FOX NEWS).

Machiavelli: "Some malfeasance by a public official, I shall forbid the newspapers to speak of it. Silence about such things, rather than noising them about, is more respectful of public decency". (TODAY, OMMISSION OF KEY STORIES AND EVENTS).

Machiavelli: "...see how I will use statements in the press to prepare the ground for official political acts...For several months, each of my newspapers will play upon the public mind in their own fashion and then recommend a course of action. One fine morning, this course of action is officially adopted". (AGAIN, SEE "PROPAGANDA" AND THE INFLUENCE OF MASS SUGGESTION).

Machiavelli: "I would give a certain number of my newpapers the task of constantly exalting the glory of my reign while holding other governments responsible for the shortcomings of European politics". (CLINTON ALLOWED OSAMA BIN LADEN TO GET AWAY).

Machiavelli: "Do you know what SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY is? When individuals are wronged by government agents performing their duties and bring them before the courts, judges must answer them thus: "You have no legal recourse here". (BUSH INVOKES SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ON THE 600+ LAWSUITS AGAINS HIM, ROVE STILL INVOKING THIS TO GET OUT OF TESTIFYING, ETC.)

Machiavelli: "...the source of lawsuits will dry up. Public opinion would become so tame that total reliance would be placed on the official opinions of the government for the meaning of the law. At certain moments, when there is a good reason to fear that some controversy may arise over some point of law, the government will declare as an advisory opinion that the law applies to this or that situation or that the law extends to this or that case". (NSA WIRETAPPING, TORTURE, ETC).

Machiavelli: "If this district has only a small population, I simply redraw it and put in into a neighboring district where opposition voices will be drowned out and...". (REPUBLICAN TOM DELAY'S REDISTRICTING SCHEME)

Machiavelli: "I will control 19 of 20 men, all of whom will follow my instructions. In the meantime, I would pull the strings of a sham opposition, clandestinely enlisted to my cause". (CONGRESS DEMOCRATS-ALL PAID FOR).

Machiavelli: "...there is a particular way of presenting the budget to disguise rising costs". (COST OF IRAQ WAR)

Montesquieu: "...whom you will ask of such capital and for what purpose?"

Machiavelli: "Foreign wars are a great help in providing a rationale". (SELF EXPLANATORY PARALLEL).

"These financial giants would be able to manipulate the markets at will".

Machiavelli: "The wars that will occur in my reign will be undertaken in the name of the liberty of men and the independence of nations". (IRAQ)

Machiavelli: "I have brought into being around me a formidable school of political men...in all branches of government there will be veritable miniature Machiavellis, who will trick, dissimulate, and lie with an imperturbable sangfroid. Truth will not be able to come to light anywhere".

I must end this, the despair is immense...

I read this book while researching the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion." Clearly "Protocols" was heavily plagiarized from this work and was a forgery to boot. In any event, this is a captivating tale of a conversation between Machiavelli (counselor to despots) and Montesquieu (philosophical and political father of the U.S. Constitution.) Machiavelli claims to be misunderstood but as the dialogue progresses it seems painfully evident that he is generally not.

While Machiavelli and Montesquieu both claim to be followers of Christ, it becomes clear to everyone but Machiavelli that he operates out of self-interest rather than the good of society. His self-delusion is phenomenal and is readily seen in politics today. The book is obscure, true, but I found it to be a page-turner. Do not pass judgment on this book because someone later used it for anti-Semitic purposes. There is nothing anti-Semitic in this original tale.

As noted in every book I've ever read about the infamous forgery, _The Protocols of the Elders of Zion_, this book was the source, edited beyond recogintion by the Czar's secret police.

_The Dialogue in Hell_ must not have done very well, or more people would have recognized the _Protocols_ as a forgery sooner.

Sadly, political forgeries continue today. Dan Rather and Mary Mapes lost their jobs at CBS over forged memos; how odd that today's American liberals haven't learned from the Czar's secret police's mistakes.

This book was pretext for Karl MARX idea of communism. Rousseau blamed inequality among people due to ownership of property.

I find Rousseau especially creative in the way he describes how inequality progressed from the time the first humans made contact. He makes a good case for the solitary life. I think Rousseau believes it is destructive whenever humans come together in groups. Governments were formed to protect the weaker from the stronger or as Rousseau thinks to actually protect the rich from the poor. This is an outstanding book. It will haunt you.

This is a wonderful example of the 18th century enlightenment. In this work, Rousseau states that inequalities of rank, wealth, and power are the inevitable result of the civilizing process, something most of us have found to be very true if unfair. This new translation also includes all of Rousseau's own notes.

I enjoyed this tremendously, and am always amazed that the thought pattern and process is oneof the few things that hasn't changed over the centuries.

Excellent discourse. This book discusses some of the rudiments of the history of inequality and how its self supporting and ever existing in human nature. I recommend this book for those readers who either want to increase their knowledge on Jean-Jacques Rousseau or historical development of inequality

(...)

This essay was Rousseaus's submission to the Academy of Dijon contest, entitled, "Has the progress of the arts and sciences contributed more to the corruption or purification of morals?".

This text is his story about Nature, and Society, and the scandal that happens when people come together, build, divide, dance, sing, and compare themselves with one another. In many ways, it is his answer to the problem of evil.

Natural man is, in many ways, good, because his needs are immediately felt and immediately fulfilled. Social man begins to compete, to hoard, and to use cunning to enslave his fellows, to gain their esteem, take their property, and sometimes their lives.

His picture of the natural man is half what we think of an "animal" and half the "human" that we recognize in ourselves. He shifts his description as the flow of arguement dictates. The habitual provocateur, Rousseau - watch him!

In a way, he is rewriting the Christian "Creation Myth". In his version, evil does not originate at that moment when man eats the fruit of the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" --to "be like God"; it happens when Adam wants a better apple than Eve's got for herself. Before society develops as we know it, Adam would have been fine with just a pear.

I am a law student in the university of Plymouth and i would like you to send me some information that this book contains, concerning the subject of the separation of powers. Your advice will be of great help. Thank you.

First, to the reviewer looking for the doctrine of separation of powers: you'll find it in Montequieu's "Spirit of the Laws". Also check out "The Federalist", number 51.

Now then, Bagehot, like Madison, describes the operation of a modern liberal regime. The trick for founders of liberal government is to produce a government that permits the people civil liberties, but does not permit the people to abuse those liberties, or in the words of Madison, to create a government that is "democratic yet decent". Madison and the American Founders accomplish this end by so constructing the institutions of government that mens' selfish natures will be turned against each other ("ambition is made to check ambition"), rather than united in tyrannical concert.

Bagehot too describes the operation of a system of government that rules by the consent of the governed, yet which does so by restraining the vices of those who ought not to rule. Bagehot argues that the English government is moderate and decent because of a division of government into the "dignified" and the "efficient" parts, and a "noble lie" about the relationship between the two. It is this noble lie that permits the government to operate without the interference of those who would turn it away from the public good. But to discover the noble lie, you'll have to read Bagehot.

Warner Winborne

Professor of Political Science

Hampden-Sydney College

Hampden-Sydney, VA

This book stimulates the little gray cells. Every time I watch Prime Minister's Questions, the superiority of the Cabinet system over the Presidential system is painfully obvious. If Bush were subjected to the kind of scrutiny, in Congress, that Blair is subjected to every week in Parliament, he would have been exposed as an impostor long before supreme executive authority was placed in his hands. Refering to our Civil War, Bagehot wrote: "The notion of employing a man of unknown smallness at a crisis of unknown greatness is to our minds simply ludicrous. Mr. Lincoln, it is true, happened to be a man of... eminent justness... But success in a lottery is no argument for lotteries."

Well, we used up all of our good fortune in the 1860s. We've come up craps in this millenium.

If this is the unaltered version of the book of the same name and same author that I read about 30 years ago, it is a classic. It describes how the classic English Constitution worked, before Britain joined the European Union. Especially it explained how it worked without being written down, largely by constitutional convention which was morally binding but (quite often) not legally binding.

Walter Bagehot was a journalist and a social and political thinker of the middle Victorian period (1850s and 1860s). His classical work "The English Constitution" comes as a collection of polemical assays upon the structure of the British political system. Cabinet, monarchy, Houses of Commons and Lords, execution of political power, and the foundation of the systems of checks and balances are explored in the book.

Throughout the book a comparison and contrast of Cabinet system and the Presidential system (a.k.a USA) is a constant theme. Bagehot does not hide it preference for the Cabinet system, which in his view is a both more dynamic and more effective. One of his main points is that direct popular election is a myth, since most of the electorate are ignorant of the nature of the political power (and moreover are forced to this ignorance by the effective uselessness of the legislative debate in the USA as opposed to the UK). Moreover, a result of the direct election is a static Presidential term of 4 years, which allows the executive branch to execute almost unchecked control of the political process. According to Bagehot, the indirect electoral system of the Commons, where people vote for the MPs and they then select the PM amongst themselves produces a more effective government, which is more responsive to the popular will since it can fall at any time due to policy disputes. A hidden secret of British success according to Bagehot is a fusion of legislative and executive powers in the Cabinet system. In the latter chapters, Bagehot exposures two forms of power - the dignified power (in the person of the monarch and the lords) and the effective power as exemplified by the Cabinet. Dignified power serves as a façade of legitimacy under which the dynamic and opportunist real effective power can subsist. He follows through to explain how each of the minister of the government exercises its power for the common goal, what are the legal powers of the monarchy and how it is exercised indirectly via control of the composition of the peerage and the power to dissolve the Commons.

Bagehot's style is clear, flavorful, his knowledge of political process is profound (with a qualification of more so of British then American), his research is well done, and he is a master of dramatic tricks to keep the reader interested. I would recommend the book as both a scholarly reference, and a well presented popular case.

What a country! Only once in our history, did one president, (the 2nd one), decide to co-opt the US Constitution; and forcing the Sedition Act, down journalists' throats. Thank goodness John Adams didn't get a second term; and his "act" vanished in 1801. Thomas Jefferson then entered the White House.

And, pretty much the RULE that journalists can investigate things on their own; they don't have to swallow PR at all; shows ya that Franklin Foer kept fighting for this principle, above others. Sure, the army tried to get Foer to "surrender" ... the building? In New York City! That's what our army does these days?

Pretty much explains the silence; where the army can't get anything happening in Iraq covered. Or else, you'd know for sure that Maliki hates Bush's guts. And, "diplomatically speaking" all we have for our trillions; and years of toil, is a re-emergence of Putin.

Reagan's victory against the soviets didn't last long. The Bush's went ahead, promising the moon to the Saud's. Which is a whole other story.

If we're lucky? Someday, it will get told. (But not from PR machinery!)

The outstanding journalistic integrity of Mr. Foer and TNR will make this book a hot commodity. I can't wait to not get it.

I expect that at least a couple dozen will fly off the shelves just in time for Christmas.

I smell Pulitzer! Oh wait, that's something else................

In this revealing, behind the scenes look at the 2008 presidential campaign, the peerless journalists of TNR uncover - via unsubstantiated, anonymous sources of course - Republican presidential candidates committing multiple atrocities and war crimes while in the field. In Iowa, Fred Thomson and his good ol' boy colleagues mock disfigured WAC WWII vetrans while visiting a VA hospital; Rudolph Giuliani - with the aid of 9/11 rescue workers - excavates a cemetery of undocumented alien victims of the Minutemen and cavorts through New Hampshire will wearing a skull fragment over his bald spot. Finally, Mitt Romney in his fervent search for the golden plates, careens through South Carolina in a Bradley fighting vehicle clad only in his sacred underwear, recklessly luring Log Cabin Republicans within range of the Brad's tracks, and with a deftness not to be found in tracked fighting vehicles, severs them in half and leaves their writhing parts twitching in the waist-deep sewage.

The sections on Giuliani, Thompson and Romney are sure to generate the most press, but the genuinely interesting material is on the second tier candidates. For example, I didn't know that McCain's "Straight Talk Express" bus has small silhouettes below the driver's window, keeping tally of the conservatives he's thrown under the wheels. Or that Mike Huckabee once killed 930 people by baptizing them in poisoned grape Kool Aid. Or that Ron Paul was a German concentration camp guard in WW2.

This amazing, deeply researched book will tell you everything you need to know about voting in the 2008 Presidential election - but really, all you have to do is read the title of the chapter on Our Next President -

"We Love Hillary Clinton."

I am reviewing those two books together because they cover the same topic. And, I find a review comparing them more relevant and timely than reviewing them on a stand alone basis. I read them simultaneously on the coverage of the same candidates to observe if I would get different information. I actually got very similar info as I could not detect any political bias. But, the way these books impart the information is different. Thus, there is no difference in substance but there is a huge difference in style.

Within `A Voter's guide,' the coverage of each candidate is written by a different writer. After a short curriculum on the candidate, these writers write out a long narrative essay that could qualify as an article in the New Yorker. Those essays also come across as a book summary on the candidates. For a checklist of the candidate's specific position you have to refer to the Appendix.

The Undecided Voter's Guide to the Next President: Who the Candidates Are, Where They Come from, and How You Can Choose is structurally very different. The entire book is written by a single author. The coverage of each candidate is thoroughly structured as a user friendly manual or almost a college (Presidential) application package. It starts as the Voter's Guide with a curriculum on the candidate. Next, it moves on to a very detailed description of the candidate's position on all major issues. Then it goes on to a narrative section that is less sophisticated than the one in `A Voter's Guide.' Then it systematically covers the following headings: a) Areas of Potential Controversy; b) Why this specific candidate can win the General Election; c) Why this specific candidate can't win the General Election; d) The best case for candidate X presidency; e) The worst case for candidate X presidency; f) What to expect if candidate X is President; g) What supporters say; h) What detractors say; i) Facts and stories; j) Quirks, habits, and hobbies; k) The Undecided Voter's Guide Questionnaire.

Another area where the books differ is on setting up the political context. `A Voter's Guide' has an excellent historical analysis of the evolutionary changes within the parties and how they shaped Presidential elections since the late 1800s. This is one of the last chapters in the book, and I recommend you read it first. `The Undecided Voter's Guide' has no counterpart to this thorough historical analysis. Instead, it briefly touches on similar themes within the introduction. But, the latter is not even as thorough as A Voter's Guide's own short introduction.

These two books cater to different audiences. `The Undecided Voter's Guide' is excellent to extract a maximum amount of information really quickly. It is an excellent tool for the political novice. `A Voter's Guide,' although better written, does not deliver the information quite so readily and is catered to the more sophisticated reader. I am not talking about intelligence here; I am talking about political engagement. An MIT engineer who is fairly apolitical in between elections will prefer `The Undecided Voter's Guide' to acquire efficiently the knowledge he needs to vote. A lawyer who follows politics closely would probably prefer `A Voter's Guide.'

In the end, I think both books are excellent. Within both, the profiles of the candidates are very interesting and informative. If you read at least one of the two, you are bound to be a more informed voter than otherwise. But, you don't need to read both as their coverage overlaps. And, they both cover the topic objectively.