Government and Politics Books

A deeply thoughtful and lovingly written exploration into the mysteries of Christianity and the true beauty of this spiritual path.

Although I am faithful in attending church and in studying Christianity through ordinary instructional materials, I feel strongly that something is radically missing in my own understanding and experience of the Christian Mysteries. As I began reading this book, my prejudice was that it would probably be [bad]---more or less. In seeking better understanding, I am willing to look down different dead end streets. After reading the book, I cannot reasonably say it is a dead end.

One strong departure of the author's understanding from Orthodox teachings (here, I don't mean the Eastern Orthodox religions, but more populous, American versions of Christianity) is "physicality." Both the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection are ordinarily understood as physical events. This author understands neither as a physical event. However, in his approach or understanding, the non-physicality of these events does not actually make them "less real." Certainly, the numerous theologians from my church will object to that.

According to the author, most of us receive only the "outer" teachings of Christianity. These are not substantially complete. The more fully developed understanding was made available only to an Inner Circle of believers, originally consisting mainly of The Twelve (apostles). The inner circle experienced greater teaching, both in a theoretical sense and in an experiential or transformational sense. From ancient times to the present, these inner teachings have been brought forward continuously, but only to a restricted audience of Occultists of the tradition. That is the view propounded here. While outlines of the deeper teaching are stated or at least hinted in the text, it does not really give them in a very direct or explicit way (not as in a textbook). Many convincing scriptural citations and citations from the Fathers of the Church are provided to support the thesis that the message itself is carried mainly in elite secret societies. In a sense, the author sounds almost like a Mason in his writing.

For more details or "how to" the reader is refered to the author's book on Gnani yoga and others of the author's writings. On the one hand, the author writes in a credible and mostly self-consistent way and supports a creditable, if quite alternative, view of Christian history. On the other hand, I'm not sure that it is very useful. For the practical-minded reader, it does relatively little good to have the "real" teaching locked away in some secret society somewhere (of course, somewhere secret). If we can't learn it, too, isn't something unsatisfactory or something missing? For me, it is. To be entirely satisfactory, the reader should have a good way to get in on the good stuff, too. Christianity is not a spectator sport.

This book explains Christianity as it was in its early days, before teachings were added or removed. "Mystic Christianity" was passed down from generation to generation of occult teachers & helps to explain why the teachings of modern Christianity are contradictory. It is a very powerful book.

I first read this book 15 years ago and have just finished reading it for the nth time(lost track). This is one of those books that you will want to read over and over because each time your eyes will be opened in new ways. Mystic Christianity will give you a new vision to the concepts and misconceptions taught about the Christ. If your are someone who believes there is more to Christianity than they teach you, if you want to see "the bigger picture" then this book is a must.

This book fundamentally changed my viewpoint on Christianity. I would recommend it to any who are truly interested on learning more about the life and spiritual development of Christ. It will help you on your spiritual journey. However, I didn't agree with every theory put forth. Nonetheless, it is a good read.

To try and describe the content of the book is futile. You have to read and re-read it several times to get the full impact.

God Bless.

This story of a city government responsive to community people and empowering them to build better communities through small grants and support is inspiring and hopeful...both for our neighborhoods (especially those so often left out) and people, as well as for a kind of government that partners with people to make things happen. Stimulating and gives ideas that can be replicated elsewhere. Mary Nelson

Neighbor Power is an excellent book! Smart. Funny. Inspiring. If you're interested in Seattle---or if you're interested in community building---or if you're interested in how local government works (and sometimes fails to work)---or if you're just interested in people and you like hearing good stories---read this book.

As a resident in a transitional neighborhood, I find the example and stories in this book inspiring. The book is informative with examples of individual contributions make a difference as well as the power when people organize.

This book is both inspiring and full of practical information. I recommend it to anyone interested in working at the grassroots level to make cities better places to live.

It was cheering to learn that, in a city obsessed with reaching impossible consensus before acting, things are actually getting done here. I also learned some delightful details about when, where, and how certain Seattle landmarks were born.

If you're an activist, you'll find some concrete, useful theories and techniques on how to accomplish your goals. I'm no activist. But reading about these small, very important changes--made by common citizens--could make an activist out of anyone.

~New Views of the Constitution~ is a remarkable exposition of states' rights federalism or what scholars dub the South Atlantic republicanism. John Taylor of Caroline stands out for his prudent and principled statesmanship. He stood alongside the illustrious John Randolph of Roanoke as the leaders of the Tertium Quids. He was an avid constitutionalist, a strict constructionist, and a republican at heart. For much of his life, he stood up against the depredations of the aristocracy of paper and privilege. After his Senatorial career, he retired to farming on his plantation, and continued to engage in active dialogue with his political allies and opponents. He penned 'Tyranny Unmasked' which critiqued the protectionist system of the Hamiltonians, he also authored 'Arator' which conveyed his agrarian thoughts with some political tidbits, and in 1823 he published this book 'New Views of the Constitution' shortly before his death.

Justice Joseph Story, a champion of judicial nationalism, scoffed at the book for its title and never read it. "I once saw a book advertised New Views of the Constitution. I was startled! What right a man to start new views upon it?" Though, Taylor wrote his book to answer the perennial question, "What is the American form of government-national or federal?" Utilising recently published notes from Robert Yates which were sealed as was most the proceedings at the convention for years, John Taylor sought to give clarity and insight on the Constitution. Taylor makes it abundantly clear that the nationalising tenets of the consolidationist-monarchist camp were aired and summarily defeated at the convention following ratification. The ratified Constitution was the consensus produced which was wholly "federal" and not "national." Hamilton's nationalist motions were all struck down in the Convention. "Although, neither the Virginia plan nor Mr. Hamilton succeeded in the convention, they embraced a mass of talents, too proud and powerful for humility and submission; and they resorted to the engine of construction, to be directed by many an Archimedes," notes Taylor. And this is precisely what Hamilton did, as he tried to conflate the teleocratic principle of "general welfare" expressed into the preamble into a grant of power. The so called "general welfare" clause was merely the expressed interest in which delegated powers were to serve, and is hardly a grant of power in itself as Hamilton would postulate. The language of the Constitution was to be subverted by the nationalists through construction: they would malign the "necessary and proper" clause, they manipulated the so called national supremacy clause, and lastly they animated the "We the people" clause in the preamble with an esoteric democratic nationalism as if the American people were one consolidated mass. If one studies the debates, and the deducible nature of sovereignty which flows from the States, it should be readily apparent that the United States was framed as a federal republic and not a national unitary state. John Taylor championed a true federal polity and the Constitution which he saw as compact among sovereign States. The States delegated certain, expressed enumerated powers to the general government, and the interlocking structures set by the Constitution embodied the whole federal polity. The Tenth Amendment clarified the consensus at the 1787 Convention: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Taylor was keenly aware of the lessons of history, and that "the Roman republik" having been subverted into centralised imperium "was secured by republican words." For this reason, he would not stand idle as centralizing sophists tried to engage in such chicanery, so as to disfigure the American republic.

All things considered, John Taylor of Caroline offers a remarkably insightful work and this neglected classic is pivotal in gaining valuable introspection on the study of the constitutional debates and the convention of 1787. The "Sage of Hazelwood" was a great American patriot, a principled republican and a champion of states rights. His exposition is a keystone for true federalists and defenders of states' rights.

"Sovereignty is the highest degree of political power, and the establishment of a form of government, the highest proof which can be given of its existence. The states could have not reserved any rights by articles of their union, if they had not been sovereign, because they could have no rights, unless they flowed from that source. In the creation of the federal government, the states exercised the highest act of sovereignty, and they may, if they please, repeat the proof of their sovereignty, by its annihilation. But the union possesses no innate sovereignty, like the states; it was not self-constituted; it is conventional, and of course subordinate to the sovereignties by which it was formed." -John Taylor of Caroline.

John Taylor's " New Views of the Consitution of The United States" is a brilliant refutation of the Federalist and strong central government. Taylor, the most articulate exponent of Jeffersonian Republicanism, is at his finest here. In New Views he refutes the doctrines of Madison and Hamilton in the Fedrealist which declare the United States to be a " consolidated nation" and having a supreme national government, instead of a federal one. He points out the contridictions of the authors of the Federalist, and de-mystifies it's hold on the interpretation of the Constitution. He also destroys the arguement that the Supreme Court has the exclusive right to " interpret" the Constitution and has the final word. He outlines a Jeffersonian view of limited government, and it's role in a federal republic. His predictions of civil war and geographical
domination of one section of the union over the other are prophetic. Anyone who believes in states rights, republicanism, and democracy should read New Views. This friend of Thomas Jefferson deserves the look. He espouses pure Jeffersonian Reoublicanism.

Twentieth Centurions often credit modern conservatism with being the brainchild of Russell Kirk, Barry Goldwater or some other recent conservative, but John Taylor of Caroline clearly demonstrates in this classic work that conservatism has had long established roots in American society. First published in 1823, we find that government usurpation of the rights of states and individuals is not exactly a twentieth century revelation.

The language of 180 years ago, coupled with Taylor's agonizing repetitiveness, make this a somewhat tedious and difficult read, but one that is certainly worth the effort. The basic theme of the book is how nationalism was proposed and defeated in favor of federalism at our Constitutional Convention, however, there has been, from the beginning, a behind the scenes push to propagate a system of nationalism by what would be considered today, a liberal governmental faction. Taylor meticulously explains how this objective was set into motion and its consequences of the deterioration of states rights and personal freedoms. It doesn't take much effort for the knowledgeable reader to see how that battle has been furthered in the years since Taylor first exposed the nationalism gameplan.

Americans today tend to look upon the misdeeds of government and ask, "How can they get away with doing that?" Taylor clearly illustrates how it all began and that there is nothing new under the sun. But he also goes further in explaining various ways of "righting the ship" so to speak, and discusses the consequences of each differing course of action.

Oh, if we could only find a congressman today who possessed the clear headed tenacity of John Taylor of Caroline. A person who would fear not the consequences of unpopularity and stand tall to examine the true principles upon which our founding promoted.

If you are conservative, this book is a must read and will arm you with ammunition to clearly discuss states' rights and original intent. If you are a liberal, this outstanding book will help cure your mental condition and lead you down a path of understanding.

As an endnote, I don't normally comment on the quality of the book itself, but this one warrants comment. The book is printed on quality acid free paper and comes with a cloth bookmark. A nice touch.

Monty Rainey
www.juntosociety.com

This is the seminal work on the Constitution and its true meaning. Taylor was the greatest political thinker in U.S. history and a critically important advisor to Thomas Jefferson ... his advocacy of interposition by state legislators to arrest and reverse unconstitutional encroachments upon the reserved sovereign liberty and powers of the states and their people, as advanced by Jefferson and James Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, remains the most effective means of restoring and maintaining a limited federal government accountable to the boundaries established in the Constitution.

Martyn Babitz, Esquire - author of THE ILLUSION OF FREEDOM: How To Restore The True Constitution And Reclaim Liberty Now

New Views of The Constitution, by John Taylor is one of the best reads from the early 1800's on the issue of democracy and the constitution. I have an original first edition and it is one of my most prized books. Read it, if you can find it, and you to will have a new found respect for the development of our great nation's history of democracy.

Many presentations of Jesus describe him as a wandering sage, dispensing wisdom (such as egalitarianism) congenial to the contemporary ear. Other presentations focus on Jesus' teaching within the Judaism of his day, but see it as so uneventful that it wouldn't have provoked the Jewish leadership of his time. Scot McKnight argues that any credible picture of Jesus must: (1) explain Jesus in his Jewish context; and (2) explain why Jesus' teaching aroused such opposition that he was crucified.

McKnight discusses Jesus' view of God, the present kingdom, the future kingdom and Jesus' ethics. Some of this material is familiar (such as the review of the present/future kingdom in terms of Schweitzer, Dodd, Manson and the like) but even here the discussion is informative.

McKnight's position is that Jesus was an eschatological prophet of Israel's renewal. Jesus was unhappy about the direction of Israel and he offered national renewal based on table fellowship, forgiveness of sins and a more intimate relationship with the father in which those who followed God would form a reconstituted Israel. His appointing the Twelve to lead a renewed Israel and his occupation of the Temple were obvious claim of authority that challenged the Jewish leadership.

The most interesting portion of the book is McKnight's discussion of the future kingdom. The future kingdom, which was imminent, involved the overthrow of the Romans, the restoration of the twelve tribes, and the coming of God in full glory. Jesus didn't know exactly when this would occur, but he knew that it would occur within a generation. McKnight argues that Jesus "did not see past 70 A.D." and that his predictions were fulfilled in 70 A.D., when the Romans sacked Jerusalem. This view is often called "preterism" and McKnight's presentation of it in this book is the first presentation by a mainstream publisher of which I'm aware.

This position has certain things to commend to it; in particular it resolves claims that Jesus was mistaken about an imminent end of the world by recasting such prophecies as a judgment on Israel. Yet it leads to a few problems:

1. There are certain passages in Jesus' teaching that lead most of McKnight's fellow evangelicals to conclude that some of Jesus' predictions refer to the end of the world. Many verses susceptible to this interpretation are glossed over. For example, Jesus taught that there would be judgment of the nations. McKnight argues that because the Roman Empire constituted most of the known world, Rome's sack of Israel constituted a judgment on the world. Huh? And, if Jesus believed that the kingdom involved the overthrow of the Romans, then it's clear that he was mistaken.

2. The role of the church and the gentiles also becomes problematic. If Jesus' message was directed exclusively towards Israel, then what of the situation that eventually developed: a church, consisting of predominantly of gentiles? McKnight discusses the church and the gentiles on a few occasions (none of which is mentioned in the book's crummy index) but how this fits into Jesus' teaching isn't made clear. McKnight seems to believe that perhaps the most famous statement in the gospels -"you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" - a creation of the church.

This is one of the more interesting books on Jesus that I've read in a while, and it can be read with profit even by those who don't agree with McKnight's A.D. 70 theory.

Not since J. Stuart Russell's too too often ignored book (at least, in the halls of hallowed "academia") The Parousia, has a scholarly work come along that seeks to make a Biblical and historical case for the first-century fulfillment of Jesus' prophetic claims.

Quoting a vast amount of scholarly resources,(I cannot emphasize that enough, as "preterist" books are frequently authored by laymen or self taught Bible students with little, or no, formal training in ancient languages and Biblical studies) McKnight argues that for Jesus the great event (apart from His resurrection) that must be reckoned with as a turning point in the history of the world was the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

With so much confusion about "what is the church?", Scot McKnight writes about a more important prior question: "Who is Jesus?" McKnight's section on Jesus' table fellowship was one of the best I've read. McKnight anchors Jesus in the dusty roads of Galilee and Jerusalem as a man and prophet of 2nd Temple Judaism. I found the book both immensely helpful as historical scholarship and readily practical as a pastoral resource. Centuries of theological discussions and debates about Jesus have led us away from the rugged and bold historical figure that Jesus was. I highly recommend this book.

Through this book, Scot McKnight visually details the development of Jesus in a historical context with emphasis on the teachings of God, the kingdom, and ethics of Jesus. An excellent resource for studying who Jesus really was.

McKnight has given us a profound work on Jesus Christ, and his teachings in their historical context, namely first century Judaism. His insights follow closely in the train of Tom Wright and G.B Caird. McKnight's treatment of the Kingdom of God is excellent. His study of Jesus' so-called Olivet discourse is sober and penetrating. Yet few I think would follow McKnight to the conclusion he draws about Jesus' exposition.

This work should be seriously consulted by the student and/or disciple of Christ.

Rick E Aguirre Reader in Biblical Studies Southern California <><

Attorney Martin Garbus, in the social tradition of Clarence Darrow, has laid out in concise but stark terms the damage that the now-dominant, right-wing ideologue Supreme Court justices have done to constitutional and human rights. He forecasts that if their 5-4 past decisions are prologue, then the future for the next 25 years is not bright for those who believe that no one is above the law.

This book is must reading for anyone who is concerned about fairness and compassion in the meting out of justice by the federal judiciary. It is an easy-to-read constitutional history of the most significant cases and their effects on Americans.

There are a few errors that should have been caught during the review and editing. For example, on page 56, the name of Richard Mellon Scaife is given as Richard Scaife Mellon, and on pages 110-111, the date of Baker v. Carr is incorrectly listed as 1959, rather than the correct date of 1962. It is correct in note 42. And a final example will suffice. On page 132, Justice Byron White is incorrectly identified as his 19th century predecessor Justice Edward White. However, these errors do not detract from Mr. Garbus' cogent insight and call to action of all who believe, as he does, that "We need justice now[!]"

On a personal note, as a Louisiana native and student of its history, I was aware of the Colfax, LA, riot and murders of April 13, 1873. However, I was not familiar with United States v. Cruikshank (1876) that arose from the attempted criminal prosecution of the Colfax murderer s (p. 90). And I was certainly not aware that Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and O'Connor had resurrected this Reconstruction-era bias as a precedent in Morrison v. United States to rule on May 15, 2000, that "Congress had no power to punish private violence motivated by gender" (p. 90). Another pernicious Louisiana case, Plessy v. Ferguson (May 18, 1896), has been cited by the Rehnquist and Roberts courts to "provide the basis of future decisions on issues ranging from abortion to civil liberties to race and gender persecution" (p. 70). Plessy v. Ferguson is the Supreme Court case sanctioning segregation in which the Court ruled that "separate but equal" facilities were constitutional. Plessy was not overturned until Brown v. Topeka Board of Education in 1954.

With the recently re-aligned Supreme Court, I wanted to know what is going on and what could happen to our legal system. This book gives it to you in clear language with a high level of depth and detail. Trial lawyer Martin Garbus, who has appeared before the Supreme Court many times, explains the sweeping changes that can be handed down from the Court and just might shake the foundations of this country. It's a really good read, and I'm glad I picked it up.

In 2000, when the Supreme Court crowned George W. Bush President of the United States, friends of mine argued that Bush would be a one term President and would create little damage to our foreign policy, or to any of our institutions. They were wrong on all counts. In his book, The Next 25 Years: The New Supreme Court and What It Means for Americans, Martin Garbus outlines just how deep and long term the effect of Bush' s Supreme Court appointments will be for our country. With the appointments of Samuel Alito and John Roberts, the court has moved seriously to the right rejecting precedent and chipping away at some of the court's most important rulings regarding privacy, religion and states' rights. Garbus outlines recent court decisions taking the reader through the conservative arguments. He demonstrates how these decisions are part of a conservative plan implemented by the Bush administration's court appointees which will undo major liberal decisions since the Warren court. His analysis is alarming and should be read by everyone who is concerned about the future of our democracy.

This is a wonderful book. Like his previous book, "Courting Disaster," Martin Garbus tells what really happens in the Supreme Court. He also describes the Court from a political viewpoint and goes through each of the court subjects and shows how each judge comes out. It's detailed, knowledgable and a pleasure to read. I'm not a lawyer, and I loved it.

It is hard not to be frightened by Martin Garbus' new book. I've been a fan of the legendary Garbuis since his early books (TOUGH TALK and TRAITORS AND HEROES), which covered his swashbuckling career as one of the nation's pre-eminent first amendment lawyers. His clients -- from Lenny Bruce to Vaclac Havel to Spike Lee -- are a list of the powerful and important, and Garbus' work defending them is fascinating. But this book is something different.

Instead of revisiting past cases, Garbus looks to the future -- specifically, what the next quarter century holds for America given the makeup of the incredibly conversative Roberts court. Given the ages of the most conservative members -- Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas -- these guys will be around and voting as a bloc for a long time to come. If you think the Rehnquist years were bad, you ain't seen nothin' yet. What Garbus sees happening as a result is very upsetting -- nothing less than a conservative revolution to undo every progressive decision on the Supreme Court since the New Deal. No more reguolatory laws controlling Wall Street, no more environmental regulation, no more protection for workers and minorities, no more protection for abortion (though this will not be attacked directly), no govrenment agencies regulating American business, nothing whatsoever to balance the private sector run amok and the evils of prejudice and discrimination.

It's a nightmare vision, but it's no nightmare -- it's all to real. And Garbus elucidates the developments, and the history bhind them, in a clear, simple and dramatic way. If you want to know what's going to happen on the Supreme Court -- and therefore in all of our lives -- in the next 25 years, this book will show you the very scary truth. Take it as a call to action. and make sure we don't let any more conservatives on the court for a long time to come!

A VERY GOOD JOB ON DOING WHAT YOU DO BEST I BELIEVE THERE'S ONLY ONE MISTAKE IN LIFE AN THAT WOULD BE NOT GETTING YOURSELF RIGHT WITH THE (LORD)BEFORE YOU TAKE YOUR LAST BREATH ANYTHING ELSE,IS MEANT TO HAPPEN TO LEARN FROM, AN BEOME A BETTER PERSON FROM IT. THANKYOU!

I can't say enough about these Two Great Minds of Tavis Smiley&Tom Joyner.it's important to bring to Light about Slave AUctions at Christys? folks have to Understand that Majority of AMericans don't Care about No African-Americans.Slavery is treated like Properity or a joke.folks don't really want to know the full History of this country and how the past is still very much the present.it's Important that our voices are heard mad Props to Brother Tavis&to the Hardest working Man on Radio Brother Tom Joyner.Thank you for Given up The Real On The ONE.

Mr. Smiley receives two thumbs up, two snaps, one exaggerated smile (all teeth included), a complete roll of the eyes, and a full Sista girl neck rotation. Tavis did not talk off the "cuff" but had back-up for his commentaries. It is great to know someone is letting actions speak louder than words. Tavis, Keep on! Keeping on!

If you're a Tom Joyner Morning Show listerner, you will be quite familiar with this one. It is an easy read since it refreshes your memory of Tavis' commentaries and those well known campaigns; like saving Living Single & New York Undercover, Texaco's boardroom racism, Christie's planned auction of slave "memorabilia?" and bringing hate crime cases to light. As I read it I could hear and feel the voice and emotion of the original spoken words. I really liked it and read it in just one day.

If you catch Tavis Smiley on BET here's your chance to read what millions of radio listeners get to hear each week. As the cover and text designer for this title, I had a coveted front row seat for Mr.Smiley's "AIR" show. This book is a welcome insite into the author's advocacy (a planned- then aborted auction of slave memorabilia at Christies in New York), opinions and reflections on a variety of subjects from voter registration to Tiger Woods. He's at his candid, passionate, verbose and articulate best.

Too bad we in the central NY/NJ area don't get the Tom Joyner Morning Show! Every radio within range would surely be tuned in for the fun and commentary. I look for it on the dial whenever I'm out of town. So why didn't I give it a 10? I wanted more!

The Best to Tavis, Tom, and Denise!

An anthology of Mencken's newspaper reports and analyses on politics between 1920 and 1936. Most of them, I think, do not appear in any of the other various Mencken anthologies. They are written in lucid and musical prose, full of refreshing honesty and vigor.

This book is a collection of political columns, written mostly for the Baltimore Sun, that H.L. Mencken penned in the early twentieth century. In virtually every piece, Mencken advances the view that politicians are third-rate men, devoid of convictions, willing to follow any platform that will make them electable. The only politicians Mencken likes are those that he believes have spine. He detests politicians that waver, particularly those that try to sit on both sides of the fence on the abolition issue.
Mencken is at his best when he covers presidential campaigns, as he does in many columns in this collection. He revels in the empty rhetoric he hears, and describes the bilge to the reader in truculent and uncompromising language. The whole art of politics, to him, is circus-like. The pols are clowns and their election speeches are the main act.
Anyone looking for sober commentary should look elsewhere. But anyone looking for extremely witty, well-written and combative columns should pick up this collection. There is probably no better example of attack-dog journalism out there, nor is there likely a more entertaining way to get a quick history lesson on the important political figures and issues of the early twentieth century. Enjoy!

If you are looking for a book on H.L. Mencken, I would highly recommend "On Politics." This book highlights Mencken at his most acidic through his constant verbal jabs at the "holy" Woodrow Wilson, "Silent" Cal, the "royalist" Hoover, Roosevelt Minor and the stupidity of Warren Harding.(Note: Take a look at what Mencken writes about Harding's mangling of the english language and then compare it to what some modern columnists write about George W's handling of the language. It is truly scary how history repeats itself.)

Besides being an utterly hilarious look at the aforementioned presidents and American society in general, this book is quite eye-opening in terms of showing Mencken's political leanings. I always thought that Mencken was a pure liberatarian with his constant attacks on the New Deal and FDR. Actually, Mencken somewhat liked FDR up until he was elected. Mencken also sides with progressive politicians such as Robert M. LaFollete and expresses sympathy (or as much "sympathy" as the great misanthrope can express) for jailed socialist leader Eugene Debs. Nevertheless, all of the aforementioned people also receive Mencken verbal lashings.

I would highly recommend this book for anyone interested in early 20th century American politics or for anyone with a slightly cynical bent. On days when you feel slightly misanthropic and (mad) at the world, read "On Politics" and you feel much, much better.

Favorite Mencken Quote: "All artists are idiots."

Mencken was the UberMensch. We are all monkeys beside him. Some of his best work, in my opinion, can be found in this collection. The America he covered (or uncovered) so masterfully almost a century ago is eerily similar to the one we live in today. In fact, nothing has changed. Computers may have replaced typewriters, but the Boobery remain the same, not to mention the politicians who so easily manipulate them. Read this book and evolve!

Buy everything you can find that was written by H. L Mencken, this collection is no exception. Mencken was one of the most influential and popular men of letters in America. He covered the Scopes Monkey Trial as a reporter for the Baltimore Sun, and was editor of two literary magazines: Smart Set and the American Mercury. His popularity waned for a variety of reasons. While he teased presidents Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, he gave no quarter when it came to FDR, referring to him "Dr. Roosevelt" and "Roosevelt minor." He had little use for the New Deal. "The New Deal began, like the Salvation Army, by promising to save humanity. It ended, again like the Salvation Army, by running flop-houses and disturbing the peace." This and his pro-German attitudes didn't go over too well in the depression and war years. But over the last twenty or thirty years Mencken has enjoyed a resurgence or interest and popularity. As a journalist, a wit and a social critic he has no peer today.

This is required reading for all those hooked on what the White House derides as "the cable news shows" like Chris Matthews et al. Barone's years of compiling The Almanac of American Politics are manifested in this synthesis of some sixty years of national politics and his conclusion that it really is more than the economy, stupid. Is the Lewinsky Affair just a flash in the pan or will it define the landscape of American Politics at the millenium? Can a president's peccedillos (or other foreign sounding words) affect the national scene like race relations or the Panama canal? Was Dan Quayle onto something when he declared a race in 2000 against our two-term incumbent? While its timeframe doesn't reach Clinton, this book offers great insight into the schizophrenic poll results of late that seem to have pundits on the right and left tied up in knots trying to explain/spin.

Two warnings: First, the book is long. Second, the author is conservative and doesn't make an effort to hide it. If these facts don't disturb you then I can't recommend this book highly enough. It is a wonderful story of twentieth-century American politics, crammed with polls, stats, and insightful commentary. Why has ethnicity been a more important factor in politics than class? How did the political pendulum shift from conservatism to liberalism to conservatism again? Who are some of the most important statesmen in history that you've never heard of? And much, much more. If Michael Barone's "The Almanac of American Politics" is the Holy Bible of politics, then this work is a book of prayer.

Barone's history of politics from Roosevelt to Reagan was a very enjoyable read. He included historical polling information throughout the book (presidential popularity, etc.) that really illustrated his theory on political trends. I knocked off one star from my rating because at times I felt the author's own political opinion overshadowed the points he was trying to make.

Definitely worth reading.

Michael Barone is the co-creator (with Grant Ujifusa) of the Almanac of American Politics, itself an almost inexhaustible well of the curious and (sometimes) interesting. Our Country is an effort to put the same sensibility to work in a narrative history. Barone has absorbed a lot and forgotten little, and he likes to remind the reader of things others are more likely to forget. Civil rights, for example. One wing of the Republican party had its roots planted firmly in the abolitionist movement, dating back to before the Civil War. You could call it "the Eisenhower wing," if you were clear that it did not include Eisenhower. As general, and later as president, it seems fair to say that Eisenhower just didn't get it - not so much hostility to blacks as a kind of blank incomprehension - why weren't they willing to keep the place (one is tempted to make comparisons with General Sherman). Lyndon Johnson, by contrast, is one who emphatically did get it. Vulnerable and insecure as he always saw himself, Johnson was able to show real empathy for the plight of American Blacks. So we have the kind of irony so familiar in politics - the soldier-statesman who didn't get it, imposing a civil rights bill on Congress against the best efforts of the cracker politician who did.

Barone obviously relishes the irony there, but he likes the story in particular because of an even more consistent enthusiasm. That is: he is fascinated by the hard work of governing, which he comes close to glamorizing in its very unglamorousness. You can see it perhaps best in his appreciative account of a man who he nominates as a forgotten progenitor of modern social legislation - Robert Wagner, the senator and father, inter alia, of the Wagner Labor Relations Act. Without Wagner, as Barone tells it, the New Deal's legislative agenda would have been a lot more insipid. It perhaps explains also his affection for Hubert Humphrey - a name perhaps mostly forgotten today, or remembered if at all only in the sour aftertaste of the 1968 presidential election, which he lost to Richard Nixon.

What perhaps gives zest to Barone's account is that for all his skill as a data-miner, he believes at the end that politics is culture and not economics that divides us or draws us together. It impels him to insist that there is a society more important than its contentions and divisions, more than the sum of its parts - in some sense, a res publica, or (back to Barone's title here) "Our Country." Only one afterthought: this is another book that cries out for an new edition.

Barone knows American political history inside and out. He gives the reader crisp, incisive portraits of individuals from Henry Wallace to Jack Kemp, of legislation from the Taft-Hartley Act to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- and he shows the reader how these people and measures fit into and shaped the world as it existed in their time. (The first two chapters, in which he presents brief portraits of Chief Justice William Howard Taft and Tammany Hall politico Charles Murphy, brilliantly illuminate how Republicans and Democrats thought and felt about their country in the early 1920s.) In addition, Barone knows the hard data of politics -- survey results, voting patterns, demographics -- and analyzes them in ways which often produce striking insights. His analysis of the timing and nature of the New Deal realignment, and the patchy and hesitant way in which liberal policies came to be accepted in the three decades or so following 1932, ought to be read by anyone interested in how ideological shifts really take place in American politics. Lastly, Barone (a journalist and former Democratic activist) recognizes and respects the achievements of the United States in the twentieth century -- and doesn't define "achievement" solely as "movement towards the political left" (as many other writers on American history, even sincere admirers like Harold Evans, sometime seem to do.) I cannot recommend this book highly enough to anyone with an interest in twentieth-century political and social change.

One of the better books on dealing with terrorism. I bought the book after seeing the author on one of the interview programs. I was impressed with his vision and ability to simplify portions of the problem. I started the book convinced it was worthy of a 5 star review. However, the loss of a star is the reflection of a persistent bias.

The author does a great job of dividing the threats into those which we must defend against and those which our best defense is preparation to deal with the consequences. The two examples used are bioterrorism and nuclear weapons.

He makes a great case that terrorists are not going to send their one and only , $250 million nuke into the country in a shipping container where they lose control. He misses an opportunity to bolster his argument with concept that the enemy of intelligence gathering is velocity. The time a ship takes to load then cross an ocean at 30 knots and unload ( or detonate in the harbor) is perhaps 20-40 times the time required to deliver the components via private jet. Further argument for an increased focus on aircraft and efforts to increase the care and rate at which intelligence data is analyzed.

To be successful the terrorist organization needs to obtain highly enriched uranium or other materials as they are very unlikely to be able to produce it. Once in possession of the materials the fabrication of a weapon becomes a far lesser challenge.

Bio weapons represent the opposite end of the scale with production well within the capabilities of a small organization using materials commercially available around the globe. Thus the challenge becomes the response to an attack.

Larsen's message that government is not the answer needs to be carried to the four corners of the country. People who would never think of allowing their health, life, car or pet insurance to lapse simply refuse to take the few essential steps which will greatly add to their family security in the event of a natural disaster or attack. He uses the example of people waiting in line for water just a few hours after a hurricane has passed in Florida. They are angry that the government has not yet provided them with water and yet they had 3 days warning of the approaching storm and probably left a home with 5 gallons of clean water in the toilet tanks and another 30 gallons in the water heater.

Larsen does a great job in taking the problem from the strategic issues down to what the individual citizen needs to do to prepare for something that is nearly as certain as death and taxes.

My sole reservation is that his bias shows up clearly in the way he describes problems or effective action, depending on which side of the political spectrum is involved.

With this slight lapse it remains a highly recommended read

"Our Own Worst Enemy is the single best thing that has been written on homeland security and, as Randy Larsen suggests, every American should read it. Straight talking, full of common sense and written in an entertaining style that makes it hard to put down, this book asks the right questions and provides concrete recommendations that government officials, corporate executives and every citizen need to understand and apply."

ADM Steve Abbot, USN (Ret)
Deputy Homeland Security Advisor to the President
2001-2003

"Larsen advocates a seldom used tool to fight terrorism--common sense."

Bob Schieffer, CBS News

"Larsen explains how to ask the right questions---from the Oval Office, to the front office, to your kitchen table."

Bruce vanVoorst,
former Senior Correspondent for National Security, TIME

"This book should be required reading for all who are concerned about national security--and that is everyone...An all-absorbing, page-by-page tableau, comprised of provocative ideas, eminently rational concepts, and well-skewered current ideas and initiatives."

Donald A. Henderson, MD, MPH, Professor of Medicine
and Public Health, University of Pittsburgh,
Johns Hopkins University Distinguished Service Professor

"Post 9/11, there are now many experts on homeland security. But Randy Larsen is a pioneer...This is a pragmatic and valuable book for average Americans, not just experts."

John J. Hamre
President and CEO
Center for Strategic and International Studies

"This is a must read for at least one member of every American family. Larsen is an unparalleled expert and tells us all what really matters for our security in this age of lethal unpredictability."

Arnaud de Borchgrave, Director of Transnational Threats,
Center for Strategic and International Studies

This guy knows his stuff! I learned more about how we ARE and ARE NOT prepared for terrorism (as a country and as people) from reading this book than I have from about 2,000 hours watching news programs. He obliterates the sense of helplessness so many of us seem to feel about terrorism. I'd seen Larsen on TV and come to respect his sage opinions, so I bought the book. In it, he simplifies complicated political mumbling and sleight-of-hand into real language about what's going on and what we should do. His position makes great sense. His opinion on immigration, on controlling nuclear supplies and personal preparedness are so logical you'll be wondering how the whole topic ever looked overwhelming. He does it all without talking down to people who didn't spend their time at West Point. It's an immensely readable, deeply grounded, reassuring book. It takes a genius to distill a complicated subject so eloquently. I recommend it most highly.

This was an amazing book which pushes beyond the partisan struggle over policy making in homeland security. He discusses not only the problems, but also the successes and solutions that exist. It will entertain you, enlighten you, scare you, and reassure you. It is a must read for all Americans.

I just saw Randall Larsen on C-SPAN's Book TV and I am about to order his book. He puts a healthy emphasis on the fact that the government is not able to help citizens in every situation, nor is it the government's job. To show how far we have come from the self-reliance we need, he told of a well-dressed woman who 36 hours after Katrina was demanding the government supply her with drinking water. She knew Katrina was coming; couldn't she have filled her bathtub, or bought a supply of water?, he asked. How dependent and childish can you get?

He told the story of a sheriff in Texas who is in charge of a county a third the size of Delaware, with 27,000 people. How would he deal with a security emergency? "I'd posse up," he replied. That is, he has all the backup he needs in citizens trained to help in law-enforcement.

Larsen is telling us to "posse up." Become aware of how to keep our families safe, and get training to be a part of law enforcement when the government can't supply enough manpower for our needs. We need to take responsibility for our security and be prepared to act when there is a crisis, instead of expecting the government to take care of us in every situation.

This book pretty much just made me mad. The terrorist group M-19 attempted to take government workers hostage in order to get political consideration. The first time(s) is worked. The "macho" new President decided not to negotiate and a large number (unknown) of the hostages were killed. From the few witnesses left, the terrorists killed some soldiers, but no hostages. The un-identified bodies were buried and had acid poured on their graves to prevent later identification. Fortunately for the Government, an earthquake provided hundreds more bodies to dump over the killed hostages further hindering later identification.

Bottom line, I ain't ever going to Columbia and thank GOD they don't run our police forces. The President allowed the military to kill all of the terrorists and all of the hostages that couldn't get away from the army.

The author is a good investigator and writer. She's also VERY lucky to be here.

"The Palace of Justice" is a brutal story of life in Colombia. Carrigan is a tier-one journalist who lived in Colombia and used many first hand accounts to expose the flaws in the government's coverup.

.
This is an utterly brilliant book.
.
Ana Carrigan provides a meticulously researched and detailed
account of a climactic event in the ongoing Colombian violence.
The significance of this saga is not in its direct effects but
the insight into the workings and priorities of the Colombian
government and military revealed to us by this moment of crisis.
The author gives the critical background to the saga and covers
in detail the political maneuvering and subsequent
Orwellian "official explanation" of what really happened.
.
Read this book. If it's out-of-print, harangue the publisher.

This book is truly the most complete investigation on those two intense and definitive days in recent Colombian history. Told with gripping narrative, it is hard to put down: it took me only three days to read. As a Colombian, for me it is also a source of profound sadness, because the book, through its tale, illustrates all the workings of colombian politics, with all its lies, manipulations, self-interests, and lack of any decent statemanship and generosity. Except for a few personalities, all the actors in this drama show an inmense human mediocrity, from the president of the nation on down. Also, it shows the brutality of an armed force that has always been distinguished by its corruption and incompetence in the field of battle. This book should be mandatory reading for anybody interested in Colombian politics, history and society.

A very enjoyable book about a very bloody and unfortunate event in Colombia`s recent history. As a Colombian I can vouch for the accuracy of the events the author describes. I want to congratulate the author and at the same time recommend this book to everyone.