Events Books

When I left England to live in the United States for one year last August, there was only one book I took with me - Alistair Cooke's `Letter From America'. What else could I have taken? Cooke saw into America like no other Brit (or no other non-American, for that matter).

Starting at the mid 1940s, the book winds its way through post-war America nearly right up until the authors death in 2004, picking out the best of his weekly broadcasts. The subject matters range from politics, history, current affairs, entertainment and the topics from the New England fall, jazz, Robert Kennedy's assassination and O.J Simpson.

But it is not the subject matter that makes this book so special (for we already know about most of them anyway) it is none other than Cooke's insight and writing style. The articles flow like the finest novel or poem (which is probably attributed to Cooke's background in theatre). Each time you come back to read the book again it feels as though you are receiving the opinions of a familiar friend, and not some distant journalist.

There are drawbacks. Cooke was often criticised, and quite rightly so, for ignoring the darker side of the American dream. The other possible drawback, depending on your viewpoint, is that Cooke was a committed conservative, especially in the latter half of his career. Many of the final articles from the late 90's and early 00's lament the current position of America and (what he saw as) the sliding standards of journalism. Maybe, but you also can't help feel that he was by this point slightly out of touch.

These minor quibbles, however, cannot undermine Cooke's overall achievement of helping us better understand this important nation, which could be described as love letters to America.

Alistair Cooke is an observer of the American social fabric, of our heros, of our blemishes, of our short history and sense of place. His first hand accounts of American and Americans is not unlike a nation looking at itself in a mirror. He is at times generous with his observations. At other times he is very British in his ability to be critical with a smile. He can describe a familiar person and make us see the person anew. The book is a pleasure to read, each chapter a new adventure of wit and insight. He wanders a bit but his style makes you enjoy the journey and look forward to the next excursion.

For many years I listened to Alistair Cooke's ' Letters from America'. The calm, erudite voice , the super- civilized tone , the suggestion of great intelligence somehow always promised to provide insight into America that no one else had. The British Tocqueville of the airways who knew more about the Americans than the Americans knew about themselves.
Yet somehow I more often than not felt a certain disappointment in the communications. Reading them without the Cooke tone and pause, without his special emphasis diminishes them further. There is it seems to me a great deal of observation and color , and not enough striving for deep general understanding.
And there is too in the calm of Cooke's tone something strange and distant.The many rich voices of America, its ways of shouting and making itself felt are not transmitted strongly here.
Nonetheless in close to sixty years of reporting there are numerous insights and observations and much that entertains.
I think of Cooke's elegy for his old friend Isaiah Berlin. I think of reports made from all kinds of whistle stops on Presidential campaigns. I think too of his capacity for friendship, and how that does move through these letters and give them a warmer feeling of comraderie.
I think also of Cooke's basic real affection for America, his interest and appreciation of much what is good and beautiful in it.
I think too of how many listeners he delighted with his wit, and dry humor and clear - cut language.
This is a lifetime work of special meaning and value for the many thousands who waited each week for those fifteen minutes of his often most delightful and insightful talk.

Alistair Cooke's wonderful Letter from America broadcasts were heard world-wide and were an institution for close to 60 years. In that time, Cooke - UK born but for most of his life a resident of New York City - sought through his thoughtful pieces to convey the complexity of life, of society and of politics in the United States.

In this collection of essays, organised chronologically, Cooke takes us from post-war America through to mid 2005, and his subject matter ranges from the specific relatively "small" topics (for example McLaren's dogged creation of San Francisco's Golden Gate Park) through to large, world-changing subjects including the Vietnam question and the assassinations of both John and Robert Kennedy. The latter is a riveting account because Cooke was there when it happened and his journalistic and observational skills come through as finely honed, dispassionate yet all the more powerful.

What gives this volume real richness are two things in particular.

First; Cooke has an unfailing grasp of history. In writing each week's snapshot of a changing nation, he manages to contextualise what he sees, and to draw upon both his enormous grasp of history and his unparalled contact with top politicians, writers and artists over 60 years. In today's age of soundbyte editorializing and glib simplifications (history seen through the eyes of Forrest Gump, if you will), Cooke's essays are thoughtful, well researched and highly reasoned. As a reader I'm struck by how prescient his comments are, and I'm also struck at how relevant his thought provoking comments about previous political events resonate in today's unfolding history.

The second facet of this rich gem is Cooke's beautifully crafted writing style. He wrote these essays for radio and perhaps this is why they read so beautifully. In his portrait of Charles Lindbergh, for example, he talks about the man for 500 words - creating a vivid, recognisable picture before he even mentions the name of his subject. In so doing, Cooke furnishes the reader (or listener) with the frisson of a delightful guessing game (he's talking about Lindbergh, right?) that allows us to hear more about the subject matter without letting us backfill the story with our own preconceptions. His humour is delightfully wry, and his ability to choose surprising and sometimes quite earthy quotes from the history makers of the past 60 years provides additional pleasure. Cooke clearly laboured over each and every essay to ensure their seamless recipe of wit, fact and observation.

This volume is a remarkable collection of essays: a format that encourages thoughtful, enjoyable bedside reading. In devouring this marvellous book, you are taken to the heart of a complex nation. An easy 5 stars; I'd add that this book makes an excellent gift, regardless of which way your friends vote.

When I left England to live in the United States for one year last August, there was only one book I took with me - Alistair Cooke's `Letter From America'. What else could I have taken? Cooke saw into America like no other Brit (or no other non-American, for that matter).

Starting at the mid 1940s, the book winds its way through post-war America nearly right up until the authors death in 2004, picking out the best of his weekly broadcasts. The subject matters range from politics, history, current affairs, entertainment and the topics from the New England fall, jazz, Robert Kennedy's assassination and O.J Simpson.

But it is not the subject matter that makes this book so special (for we already know about most of them anyway) it is none other than Cooke's insight and writing style. The articles flow like the finest novel or poem (which is probably attributed to Cooke's background in theatre). Each time you come back to read the book again it feels as though you are receiving the opinions of a familiar friend, and not some distant journalist.

There are drawbacks. Cooke was often criticised, and quite rightly so, for ignoring the darker side of the American dream. The other possible drawback, depending on your viewpoint, is that Cooke was a committed conservative, especially in the latter half of his career. Many of the final articles from the late 90's and early 00's lament the current position of America and (what he saw as) the sliding standards of journalism. Maybe, but you also can't help feel that he was by this point slightly out of touch.

These minor quibbles, however, cannot undermine Cooke's overall achievement of helping us better understand this important nation, which could be described as love letters to America.

"Letters from Lexington : Reflections on Propaganda" is a compelling collection of letters which reveal the role of the US major media in justifying and championing US government and corporate actions throughout the world. One chapter which illuminates Chomsky's dissident analysis is the chapter entitled, "The PC Thought Police". In this chapter, Chomsky compares the US propaganda system to that of Brezhnev's USSR:

"In the study of any system, it is often useful to look at something radically different, to highlight crucial features. Let's begin, then, by looking at a society that is close to the opposite pole from ours: Brezhnev's USSR.

Consider policy formation. In Brezhnev's USSR, economic policy was determined in secret, by centralized power; popular involvement was nil, except marginally, through the Communist Party. Political policy was in the same hands. The political system was meaningless, with virtually no flow from bottom to top.

Consider next the information system, inevitably constrained by the distribution of economic-political power. In Brezhnev's USSR there was a spectrum, bounded by disagreements within centralized power. True, the media were never obedient enough for the commissars. Thus they were bitterly condemned for undermining public morale during the war in Afghanistan, playing into the hands of the imperial aggressors and their local agents from whom the USSR was courageously defending the people of Afghanistan. For the totalitarian mind, no degree of servility is ever enough.

There were dissidents and alternative media: underground samizdat and foreign radio. According to a 1979 US government-funded study, 77% of blue-collar workers and 96% of the middle elite listened to foreign broadcasts, while the alternative press reached 45% of high-level professionals, 41% of political leaders, 27% of managers, and 14% of blue-collar workers. The study also found most people satisfied with living conditions, favoring state-provided medical care, and largely supportive of state control of heavy industry; emigration was more for personal than political reasons.

Dissidents were bitterly condemned as "anti-Soviet" and "supporters of capitalist imperialism," as demonstrated by the fact that they condemned the evils of the Soviet system instead of marching in parades denouncing the crimes of official enemies. They were also punished, not in the style of US dependencies such as El Salvador, but harshly enough.

The concept "anti-Soviet" is particularly striking. We find similar concepts in Nazi Germany, Brazil under the generals, and totalitarian cultures generally. In a relatively free society, the concept would simply evoke ridicule. Imagine, say, that Italian critics of state power were condemned for "anti-Italianism." Such concepts as "anti-Soviet" are the very hallmark of a totalitarian culture; only the most dedicated and humorless commissar could use such terms.

Well-behaved party hacks were guilty of no such crimes as anti-Sovietism. Their task was to applaud the state and its leaders; or even better, criticize them for deviating from their grand principles, thus instilling the propaganda line by presupposition rather than assertion, always the most effective technique.

With these observations as background, let us turn to our own free society.

Begin again with policy formation. Economic policy is determined in secret; in law and in principle, popular involvement is nil. The Fortune 500 are more diverse than the Politburo, and market mechanisms provide far more diversity than in a command economy. But a corporation, factory, or business is the economic equivalent of fascism: decisions and control are strictly top-down. People are not compelled to purchase the products or rent themselves to survive, but those are the sole choices.

The political system is closely linked to economic power, both through personnel and broader constraints on policy. Efforts of the public to enter the political arena must be barred: liberal elites see such efforts as a dangerous "crisis of democracy," and they are intolerable to statist reactionaries ("conservatives"). The political system has virtually no flow from bottom to top, apart from the local level; the general public appears to regard it as largely meaningless.

The media present a spectrum of opinion, largely reflecting tactical divisions within the state-corporate nexus. True, they are never obedient enough for the commissars. The media were bitterly condemned for undermining public morale during the war in Vietnam, playing into the hands of the imperial aggressors and their local agents from whom the US was courageously defending the people of Vietnam; a Freedom House study provides a dramatic example. For the totalitarian mind, again, no degree of servility is enough.

There are dissidents and other information sources. Foreign radio broadcasts reach virtually no one, but alternative media exist, though without a tiny fraction of the outreach of samizdat. Dissidents are bitterly condemned as "anti-American" and "supporters of Communism" as demonstrated by the fact that they condemn the evils of the American system instead of marching in parades denouncing the crimes of official enemies. But they are not severely punished, at least if they are privileged and of the right color. Again, the concept "anti-American" is particularly striking, the very hallmark of a totalitarian mentality."

Just one example of Chomsky's brilliant analysis contained in this seminal study of how the major US media works together with the US government and its corporate interests to undermine democracy. A must read for any student of journalism.

The double entendre in the title of my review is intentional. Chomsky's letters not only sketch how the USA government manufactured domestic consent for its foreign policies during the early 1990s, it also (perhaps intentionally?) adumbrates by demonstration the salient aspects of the "propaganda model" Chomsky and Edward Herman explored in considerable depth in their work *Manufacturing Consent*.

As for the content of the work, I recommend that readers consult the excellent reviews by Chris Green (always, always read his reviews), Egalitarian, and "Reader" (10.10.99) on this page. I couldn't possibly improve on them.

One last observation: Chomsky resides in Lexington, but I can't help but wonder if the title selection plays on the historical significance Lexington has as the location for the beginning of the American Revolution. Perhaps I am poeticizing the title. Nevertheless, I am quite certain that this work will make the canon of literary political dissent as so many of Chomsky's works have already done.

Chomsky writes that the Sandinistas won an election in November 1984 widely perceived as free and fair but U.S. elites put this down the memory hole. Michael Kinsley noted the "Orwellian" rhetoric of the Reaganites in blaming the Sandinistas for Nicargua's ruined economy, after it had been the official policy of the U.S. backed contras to destroy it. But he praised Nicaragua's 1990 elections as free and fair. Anthony Lewis praised the elections too but criticized the Central American policies of the administration--which included the economic embargo on Nicaragua supported by liberals like him. Chomsky quotes the UNO economist Fransisco Mayorga as estimating that the embargo cost Nicaragua 3 billion.

The implications suggesting that the U.S. is a terrorist state in that it was telling the Nicaraguan people that Contra terror and the embargo would continue unless they voted out the Sandinistas in Feb. 1990, was not noticed in the U.S. media. Indeed Time magazine celebrated the attacks on Nicaraguan civilian infrastructure i.e. U.S./contra war crimes as causing the Sandinistas to be voted out. The killing of the poor by the U.S. backed security forces in El Salvador and Guatemala, which ran elections under extreme terror, received little sustained attention.

Chomsky observes that Laurence Pezullo, while the last U.S. ambassador to Somoza, had advised the National Guard to continue its final mass murder operations which were killing tens of thousands. After Carter couldn't prevent the Sandinistas from taking power, the National Guard, the future Contras, were flown out in U.S. military planes with Red Cross markings (a war crime). The media had nothing to say about the U.S. successfully pressuring the new UNO government in Nicaragua after 1990 to drop its demand that the U.S. comply with the World Court ruling of 1986 that the U.S. stop terrorizing Nicaragua and pay 17 billion dollars in reparations. After the U.S. withheld desperately needed aid, the Chamarro government dropped its demand for U.S. compliance

The media suppressed that evidence of Libyan involvement in the murder of one American that led to the "retaliation" against Libya in 1986 which killed many dozens of civilians, was non-existent according to the West Germans. . Chomsky writes that likewise evidence for Libyan involvement in the Lockerbie bombing is negligible (and years later this is still the truth, see--William .Blum's new book "Freeing the World to Death). In any case, Lockerbie may have been "retaliation" for the U.S. shooting down an Iranian civilian airliner in 1988, killing 290. The commander of a nearby vessel, David Carlson later wrote that the Iranian plane was clearly civilian.and not acting otherwise.. The shoot down, by the U.S.S. Vincennes, Carlson suggested,was designed to test the ship's Aegis missile system. This atrocity was the culmination of U.S. support for Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war; for a few days later Iran capitulated to a cease fire on Iraq's terms. When the commander of the Vincenes came home, he was awarded medals by George Bush Sr. In another case of the U.S. and blowing up planes, Chomsky writes that George Schultz later admitted "in a backhand way" that the terrorists who blew up the Air India Flight over Ireland in 1985 killing 329, originated in a mercenary training camp for Central America in Alabama. It was a sting operation that went haywire.

The U.S. funded Noriega's candidate in 1984 elections in Panama that Noriega stole with great violence, a period when he was knee-deep in the drug trade.. George Schultz went down to the inauguration of the candidate, Barletta. The U.S. later soured on Noriega of course, for reasons having nothing to with his bad qualities. As the U.S. invaded Panama to install more reliable drug tycoons in the name of freedom, the Bush senior administration was resuming high tech sales to China and lifted a ban on loans to Saddam's Iraq. After the U.S. suppressed peaceful settlements of the first Gulf war and killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, Thomas Friedman and Alan Cowell explained that after the first Gulf War the U.S. undermined the anti-Saddam rebellion.. They hoped Saddam would remain in place until a more pliable clone of the dictator could overthrow him and restore Iraq to the "iron-fisted" rule that the U.S. had so admired before August 1990.. Ahmad Chalabi complained in the British press about the U.S. supporting Saddam's butchery of the rebels. Chomsky notes that the late Senator Moynihan was heard a great deal during this period about his devotion to the UN charter/international law. Of course, Moynihan had bragged in his 1978 memoir about blocking UN efforts to stop Indonesia's aggression against East Timor in 1975 while U.S. ambassador to the UN. He admitted that the invasion, supported by the U.S. until 1999, had killed 60,000 people by early 1976... The media did not juxtapose proclamations of U.S. opposition to aggressive dictators with U.S. support for aggression in East Timor, Morocco in Western Sahara(also helped along by Moynihan at the UN), Turkey in Cyprus, Turkey's ethnic cleansing of its Kurds, South Africa in Namibia and Angola, etc.

Chomsky analyzes a review by Caleb Carr about a book about America's mid 19th century Indian wars and notes its similarity to a hypothetical apologetic for Nazi expansionism. He exposes some embarrassing contradictions and fallacies in the venerable A. Schlesinger's claim that JFK intended to withdraw from Vietnam without victory.

This short book is lucidly written and full of Chomsky's subtle humor. It is Chomsky at his best and most accessible.

Chomsky is the American Empire's worst enemy. Like anyone who challenges powerful interests and their claims to authority, he has been the target of an unrelenting, but increasingly ineffectual (sometimes comical), smear campaign. Noam Chomsky is a national treasure and a credit to the human species. Read Chomsky's "Letters", or anything else by one of the world's leading advocates for democracy and freedom.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) wrote "Leviathan" in 1651, it was his most important philosophical work. I think you should know something of Hobbes to understand how his thinking was influenced by his experiences. He was born 2 months prematurely on the day the Spanish Armada approaches the English coast. His mother's fear of invasion caused the premature birth. Hobbes remarked late in life, "his mother brought forth twins-myself and fear." Fear seems to be Hobbes life long companion and the key passion in his political system, which uses human passions as its foundation. He was a child prodigy reading Latin and Greek at the age of six years old. At fifteen, he entered Oxford University and hated his educational experience there. He thought the curriculum was too immersed in the ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle. He called them "erroneous doctrines," and throughout his life he railed against English universities for there stodgy curriculum.

At the age of 22, he graduates and takes a job to tutor the son of the Earl of Devonshire. It gives him the opportunity to travel throughout Europe where he meets with Galileo in Florence and Descartes in Paris. Descartes calls Hobbes the greatest political philosopher of his day. During the British civil war, Hobbes flees to Paris because he is a well-known monarchist sympathizer. In 1651, he publishes his monumental work "Leviathan." He returns to England, submits to Cromwell's government, and withdraws from politics. He is on friendly terms with Charles II when the Stuart's are restored to the throne.

Hobbes philosophy is "materialistic"; he is greatly influenced by Galileo's mechanistic approach to science, and Euclidian geometry. His ambition was to explain all phenomena, man, and government with mathematical precision. In "Leviathan," he explains human conduct is a product of human passions. The most dominant passions are fear of violent death and desire for power, both are manifestations of man's most basic impulse, "self preservation." Hobbes asserts that the basic impulse is the right of the individual; he calls it a "natural right." All men process this natural right equally. This theory leads Hobbes to believe man's natural state to be one of constant conflict with each other. This leads him to write the following quote he is most known for: "men's lives are solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." So as not to have to live in constant state of fear or conflict, men make a contract for protection with the state. Hobbes believes that the best state is one led by a single sovereign whose power must be unrestricted with all three branches of government devolving to him. A single sovereign who has absolute power and cannot be replaced by the people.

His political writing had immediate influence in the world and influences other philosophers like Spinoza, Hutcheson, Locke, and Hume. Hobbes is the first man to write about political philosophy in such methodical terms. He is an excellent writer and his theories are easy to understand by the laymen. As a graduate student of political philosophy, I recommend if you have an interest in politics, philosophy, or government then you must start with reading Hobbes "Leviathan."

There are lots of editions of Leviathan around, so why buy this one? The things the editor, Ed Curely, has done to make this edition accessible yet scholarly, like:

1. Updated spelling and punctuation. Although I personally miss Hobbes' original spelling (see the Penguin edition for that), as a teacher I appreciate Ed's making it easier for beginners to read Hobbes' words.

2. Index. Most editions do not have one.

3. Glossary. Hobbes used many terms that are now archaic, and Ed's brief but clear glossary helps clarify the text.

4. Ed's Introduction. Curley is one of the most careful and knowledgeable commentators out there, and he briefly but expertly introduces some of the major themes of the book.

5. Latin variants. Hobbes wrote Leviathan in English and in Latin, and there are some interesting differences between the two versions. Ed presents many of these in the footnotes, plus he includes English translations of the Appendices of the Latin version.

This is one of the few books in western thought that cannot recieve enough praise. It is all at the same time a compilation of classical and medieval thought, a biting commentary and critique of 17th century Europe (England in particular), an exploration of philosophy as science, and to top it all off the first truly modern work of political philosophy. This is one of those works that anyone who truly wants to call themselves educated must read, whether their focus of studies is philosophy, politics, literature, science or even mathematics.

The fundamental nature of this work is to construct a reasoned materialistic account of human behavior starting from basic definitions and postulates (very similar to geometry). From these basic principles Hobbes constructs an account of human physchology based on human desires which then culminates in man's need to leave the natural state of the world into the constructed society, which Hobbes calls the leviathan. I cannot even attempt to give a summation of the steps of Hobbes's argument here that would do him justice, but suffice it to say that Hobbes's conclusion is that in order to be happy and safe man must give up his rights to a strong soveriegn. This is a conclusion that may not look modern or attractive at all to most readers, but Hobbes's reasonong is so clear and detailed that it forces the reader to, if not agree with all of his principles, at least take them very seriously. This is one of those books that forces one to reaxamine all of their assumptions about the world. Hobbes is also one of those misunderstood authors who are portrayed as being cold and ruthless, but are simply trying to provide their readers with an accurate and analytic account of humanities problems and hopefully providing solutions.

If all of this hasn't scared you away yet I do have to say that Leviathan is not an easy book to read. Its thought is difficult and its language is archaic, but for those who are willing to accept the work this book can be very interesting and rewarding. Hobbes might be a dense writer, but unlike many philosophical writers, he is a very clear and concise and often surprisingly witty and wry.

There are two editons that I recommend. The first is the Hackett edition. Not only does it take the liberty of changing the veried spellings of Hobbes's 17th century english, but it also includes textual variances from the earlier Latin edition of the work. Some of these variants are significant and should be takin into consideration by the serious student. The other is the Cambridge Student Edition, which is the edition I used because I'm one of those students that enjoy reading the early english texts with their strange spellings. The disadvantage of this edition is that it does not include the latin variations. The introductions and suplementary material in both of these editions are fine, but my personal favorite is the introduction written by Michael Oakeshott which can be fond in a collection of his essays entitled, "Hobbes on Civil Association". Another work which greatly elucidates some of Hobbes's strong almost vehement reactions to anything democratic is Hobbes's "Behemoth" in which he provides his account of the English Civil War. If you are really interested in Hobbes I also highly recommend his work "De Cive". Hobbes is hard, but he is unavoidable for anyone interested in understanding our modern world and our world in general. You may even find that, like myself, you just can't get enough of Hobbes.

Hobbes is a misunderstood philosopher. He envisaged that executive power would be based on the will of the people who allow it to be exercised. In this way Hobbes saw the development of a social contract between members of society and those who govern, based on individual rights not to subsciptive service as vassals. He also warned that agreements (or covenants) without either armed or moral right to be enforced would remain simply that - words. Hobbes does indeed speak to all peoples who live in our society - white, black and any shade in between.

Why Absolute Sovereignty Can Not Offer Perpetual Peace
-On the Desires of Men

In the Leviathan, Hobbes brings forward the theory that Commonwealths arise because without governments, people live in a state of nature with the constant danger of death. Furthermore, he believes that the best form of Commonwealth is one ruled by a monarch with absolute power; just like a person with two brains will not function, if the power of the monarch is not absolute, the commonwealth will fall back into the warring state of nature. When the sovereign power becomes truly absolute, Hobbes believes the Commonwealth could "live as long as mankind" unless attacked by foreign powers (p210).

Indeed, Hobbes is right in that life under any government is better than life with no government, and also that multiple powers inside one commonwealth will cause an end to the commonwealth. Nevertheless, he is wrong in asserting that absolute monarchy is the panacea for perpetual internal peace. There are two intrinsic flaws in the his system which are bound to push the commonwealth into the state of nature: one flaw is the unchecked greed of the monarch, another is caused by the unfulfilled desire for power of the subjects. Although this paper can not offer a better formula for governments, it will show that absolute monarchy does not provide the perpetual security that Hobbes promises.

First of all, extraordinary greed of the absolute ruler can break the Commonwealth. A ruler's greed can impoverish his subjects so abjectly that they no longer have enough food to survive on. Since the purpose of the commonwealth is to guarantee the security of life, and without food there is no life, the greed of the ruler will force the absolute Commonwealth to fall back into the state of nature.

Hobbes believes that the interest of the ruler and the interest of his subjects are so interdependent that the actions of the ruler will always be in the interest of his people. He writes,

"Now in monarchy the private interest is the same with the public...the riches, power, and honor of a monarch arise only from the riches, strength and reputation of his subjects." (P120)

Hobbes is right; the sovereign is the incorporation of its subjects, and so any injuries to the people are collectively an injury to the sovereign. Nevertheless, arising out of the great complications of the businesses of state and the wide expanse of a Commonwealth, there will always be a lag between when acts of the sovereign takes effect with people and when the sovereign feels the reactions of his people himself. A ruler with perfect prudence might be able to see through the gap and act in ways that are only ultimately good for the people and himself, but as Hobbes rightly observes, no one has perfect prudence (P14). This imperfect prudence becomes especially short-sighted when the ruler's reason is clouded by his present desires. Hobbes acknowledges these desires, for he says:

"And hence it is that kings, whose power is greatest, turn their endeavors to the assuring it at home by laws or abroad by wars; and when that is done, there succeeded a new desire, in some of fame from new conquest, in others of ease and sensual pleasures, in others of admiration or being flattered for excellence in some art or other ability of the mind." (p58)

So clouded by the lack of prudence and by excessive desires, the monarch might take actions that seem good at the moment for himself, but which turn out harmful for himself later. To illustrate this, let us observe the following scenario:

The new ruler of a poor but secured country builds a modest palace, for he has learnt from history books that he should not splurge. A couple years later, however, a desire for great things tempts him, and he wants to build a winter palace. He seeks advices from ten advisors, who had all the qualities that Hobbes praises (Chapter XXV); nine out of ten advisors privately dissuade the king from this luxury for a flood is raging and their nation is poor. Saddened, the king turns to the last advisor, who, seeing an opportunity to gain favor with the ruler, loudly exclaims that the other counselors do not love their king who needs a winter palace to escape the cold. The king happily agrees with him as his reason becomes clouded by desires; and soon, the construction begins.

Having gained favor, the 10th advisor convinces the ruler to imprison the other advisors for their "bad mouthing" of the king, making him the sole voice by the ruler's ear. As time goes on, the king exerts ever greater taxes on his people to pay for ever grander palaces, and every time, the advisor not only finds more elaborate excuses for the king but praises him for his greatness and also funnels some of the money for construction into his own coffer. The affairs of the nation are in utter neglect.

One night, the king remembers his father's warnings against indulgence, and he shakes with fear; but when he sees his gardens filled with singing girls half naked, lacking the prudence to see the future awaiting him, he says to himself, "I have been endowed differently by God, the fate of others can not be my own."

The poor people of this nation become more desperate by the day, yet the ruler who lives deep inside his palaces can not know their suffering. Some years later, the harvest is so bad that people have barely enough to feed themselves, yet the king sends his money collectors for even higher tax quotas. Realizing that they could either die of starvation or die fighting against the dictator with at least a chance to live, the farmers revolt. Hobbes would support them, for he writes, "the obligation of subjects to the sovereign is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth by which he is able to protect hem." (P144)

When the farmers' army charges into his bed chamber, the king finally feels the injuries that he has done to the people and to himself, yet reason and prudence are too late.

Absolute sovereignty means absolute power, and as the old saying goes, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." In fact, Hobbes acknowledges the greedy corruption of the monarchs, and even gives his justification. He writes,

"A man may here object that the condition of subjects is very miserable, as being obnoxious to the lusts and other irregular passions of him or them that have so unlimited a power in their hands...not considering that the estate of man can never be without some incommodity or other, and that the greatest that in any form of government can possibly happen to the people in general is scarce sensible, in respect of the miseries and horrible calamities that accompany a civil war." (P117)

Hobbes makes no mistakes here. Any government is better than no government, but as mentioned before, he makes the claim later that Commonwealths, "by the nature of their constitution they are designed to live as long as mankind" unless attacked by foreign powers (210). In the same chapter (XXIX), Hobbes attributes all the internal infirmities of the Commonwealth that shorten its "natural" life to variations of the lack of absolute power, but describes no infirmities when the Commonwealth is ruled by an absolute monarch. He thus makes it clear that if there is absolute power, then the commonwealth will "live as long as mankind" even if the monarch is corrupted. However, as shown in the illustration above, Hobbes' absolute monarchy does have tremendous infirmities.

Hobbes can, however, still argue that the previous illustration is an extreme example that barely happens in reality. Hobbes might say that if only the absolute sovereigns all studied the Leviathan carefully, they will always initiate policies for the interest of the people. Granted, Hobbes' excellent book can convert many, yet, even when the absolute sovereign is good and strong, the Commonwealth can still fall back into the state of chaos.

To Hobbes, the foremost law of nature is to find security ("a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive to his life" [P79]), but is survival the only thing that men search for? No. As Hobbes points out himself, survival is the means and not the ends of life. And while people all want to survive, they live for different ends of life as influenced by their education and upbringings. Hobbs indirectly talks about the fulfillment of some ends life when he writes,

"In such condition (of war) there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, no culture of the earth, no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building" (p76)

For certain people, the end of their life lies in gaining political power-to be the ruler instead of the ruled. Hobbes indirectly recognizes people's "unnecessary" desire for power, when he writes (OL) "there are those who, from pride and a desire for glory, would conquer the whole world, which they pursue farther than their security requires." (P75)

This kind of desire, nevertheless, can not be fully satisfied in a state of absolute sovereignty. For one, the greatest prize of all, the prize of becoming your own sovereign is off-limits. Additionally, although those borne with the heart of Napoleon might be few, lower offices and positions in a state of absolute power come merely at the mercy of the sovereign-for one eager for any honor and position, his dream may never fly high because the sovereign can give the honor he deserves to someone else. As Hobbes says himself, "a man may be worthy of riches, office, and employment, that nevertheless can plead no right to have it before another, and therefore cannot be said to merit or deserve it." (p57)

For some, the limitation on of the fulfillment of their political dreams results in nothing other than the acceptance of their fates, yet history never fails to produce some who have the eagerness and bravery to challenge the ultimate authority and break the bondage of power.

Hobbes would call the act of such eager men anti-nature, since dissenters will almost certainly face unnatural deaths by the sword of the king, or face the danger of death by returning to the state of nature. However, again, survival is the means, not ends of life. The following example illustrates why people might endanger their means for their ends.

Colonized people have throughout history fought for independence against their colonial sovereigns. To Hobbes, these wars for independence must be irrational: for one, the colonized people could be enjoying many benefits either from direct aid or commercial links with their colonizer; additionally, hundreds of thousands of colonized people might die in the immediate war or during the consequent internal power struggles caused by the revolt. Yet, despite the "practical benefits" and the peace that the colonial sovereigns bestows upon the colonized, this smooth highway of subjugation is not the one that the people want; they desire for a road, smaller and rougher maybe, but one that is built by themselves to a destination that they determined for themselves. Thus, in their search for the power that is forbidden to them, they set out for the "unreasonable".

To be sure, Hobbes' Law of Nature still holds: on the battle fields, those who fight against the sovereign will always do all they could to triumph over their enemy and avoid death, but again, the need for survival is only a part of the story.

Regarding this fight for independence, Hobbes might say, as he writes, "those men that are so remissly governed that they dare take up arms to defend or introduce an opinion are still in war." (P113) This means that since the any revolutionaries must never have been a part of the commonwealth, and hence the commonwealth was only attacked from the outside and did not fall internally. Nevertheless, Hobbes also says that a monarch's "subjects" are delivered from their former obligation, and become obliged" to the victor in a war against their original sovereign. (P145) The new subjects of the monarch might have a high tendency toward revolting against ruler for the same reasons mentioned before, and in this case, Hobbes must certainly recognize that the revolutionaries are a part of the Commonwealth.

In the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes dedicates himself to finding the best form of government, that perfect house which can last forever and provide eternal peace for all. The book is quiet admirable with its precise arguments and high ideals. Nevertheless, Hobbes ignores the fact that people will always willingly take actions that might hurt their security because they are either short-sighted or desire for something other than mere survival. Still, the Leviathan is a work of Epic proportion, and this essay does not find a form of government better than absolute sovereignty.

I am the author of the foreword for Liars for Jesus (The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History, vol.1)

For years segments of the religious right have been speaking out against what they have perceived as the historical revisionism of the Bible. This makes their attacks and distortions on the real history of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States very ironic and it would be funny if it wasn't doing so much damage to the religious freedom this country was built upon.

Chris Rodda works to set the record straight and she does it with extensive documentation showing how these distortions are intentional and aimed at leading many well intentioned Christians into false conclusions about the faith and the intentions of our Founders. Reading this book you will be amazed by how far these distortions go ranging from creating false rationizations to carefully cropped quotes ripped from their context to repeating known undocumented and questionable quotes as reliable truth. All these and more are used by the Liars for Jesus to create a psuedo-history of the birth of our nation. Alerted by the evidence of Rodda's detailing of the recorded history you may angered by the fact that this pseudo-history is being marketed to home-schoolers who will never learn the truth and by the fact these lies are making their ways into textbooks for public classrooms.

Liars for Jesus by Chris Rodda is one of the best written and most important books about contemporary American politics that I have read in years. The only problem with this book is that it was apparently published with the author's own money, making its availability somewhat limited. This book should be widely read and discussed, because it helps explain why the Christian Right seems so incomprehensibly loony to most of us who are not part of that movement, and, conversely, why they attack the rest of us with such unfettered zeal.

There has been a series of revisionist "history" books published since the end of WWII which give a "Christian" version of American history that attempts to paint the Founding Fathers and subsequent American culture in a way that is in agreement with contemporary Fundamentalism. We have now had a couple of generations of conservative Christians who have been buying into this version of history and reacting angrily to an America that assumes fundamental principals like the separation of church and state to be at the core of what America stands for.

Author Rodda systematically lists and then busts a series of myths that these spurious history books have generated. She leaves no stone unturned in doing so.

Things get really scary when she starts quoting Supreme Court opinions written by Rennquist, Thomas and Burger, and it becomes apparent that members of our highest court do not know the difference between real history and Fundamentalist wishful thinking.

The book is a fascinating study in how the desire for a different set of facts can, over time, morph into an alternative if deluded "reality".

Ms. Rodda has presented an intelligent, well-written expose on the nonsense spewed by the religious right over the internet and in boooks.

Lies for Jesus abound. This is not a new phenomenon, as Ms. Rodda points out in her book, but the lies have greatly proliferated in the age of the Internet. It is sometimes difficult for concerned citizens and concerned Christians to refute the lies which appear to come from authority. Ms. Rodda takes the words of those so-called authorities and shows them for what they are. Her sources are impeccable.

As an Episcopalian, I was quite shocked to learn that the Liars for Jesus have stolen words out of my own Book of Common Prayer to further their questionable agenda.

Those liars do great damage to our religious freedom, a freedom that generations upon generations have fought and died to protect.

"Liars" seems a harsh term to apply to professed Christians and until lately I had--admittedly without paying too much attention--assumed that Christian fundamentalists were engaged in wishful thinking and selective quotations when they complained about activist judges subverting both the Constitution and the clear intent of the Founding Fathers to establish a Christian government. But after reading Ms. Rodda's book I realize that there is something going on far beyond taking words out of context. When she digs out the words and records that clearly demolish the assertion that no "wall of separation" between church and state was ever intended, "liars" does seem the appropriate word. Those of us who fear that the intrusion of "faith based" activities into our government and the flow of subsidies, in the guise of "contracts", to favored churches, is a step toward a theocracy, will find much useful and carefully documented information in "Liars for Jesus".

I must say i thoroughly enjoyed "Life's 100 Years in Pictures" and so did my family. Lots of memories recalled from many of these visuals..A stroll down memory lane for all of us..

As always, Life photographers do a great job of capturing important moments in our lives. I originally bought this as a gift but liked it so much I had to keep it!

I purchased this book as a Christmas present for my uncle and aunt. They are both retired, and love to read. They immediately opened it up, and lots of wonderful family memories came into the conversation. It now sits on their coffee table.

"100 Events" might better be titled, "100 20th century mostly-American events that LIFE has pictures of." Nothing wrong with that of course, but it would make for a more accurate title.

The book unfolds in classic LIFE format, with full page and double-page layouts of famous events. Some are truly momentous and have potential world-wide historical impact. The discovery of the structure of DNA will affect the way human beings heal, diagnose and even propagate. Dr. Christian Barnard's first heart transplant in 1967 also changed the way we see the human body - less as a unity than as an array of interchangeable parts. The dropping of the atomic bomb dramatically changed the nature of warfare and the way that all nations must learn to relate. And the walk on the moon in 1969 was a technical achievement that truly did astound the world and perhaps even paved the way for an end to the Cold War.

But Marilyn Monroe modeling a bikini? The Yankees acquiring Babe Ruth? Louis Armstrong? Madonna? The U2 Incident? Even the 1969 Woodstock music festival is a questionable choice.

Whatever.

The pictures are fun to look at. The events may spur debate. Which 100 would you choose? LIFE could have done worse.

There is a shot of Hitler primping in his open car before an adoring crowd, just soaking up the adulation. There is three-mile island ominously sitting in the dark with red lights (like Christmas lights) outlining it, and perhaps previewing the nuclear meltdown that occurred there in the late 70's. There is Dolly, the cloned sheep, looking at herself in the mirror, as amazed as we were at that time. There is a young Fidel Castro screaming into the microphone as he took over Cuba. There is the bus load of passengers reading about the Kennedy assassination at the same time, the disturbing headlines all facing the camera. These are just samplings of the great work that Life did.

Life was good at taking the right photographs at the right time.

This book is a good one, even if you only look at the pictures.

I highly recommend this book. It covers the psychological aspect of living under the current regime in Burma, which many people studying and following the events in Burma forget to cover at times. I even recommended this to my parents. We're Burmese. It's well written and thought out, and the author is knowledgeable about the people.

Cristina Fink's book Living Silence: Burma Under Military Rule is a hard-hitting examination of what life was (and perhaps still is) like under the repressive rule of the Burmese military. Using an extensive set of interviews, and the underground writings of dissidents, Fink outlines and looks at the real psychological consequences of years of repression. Perhaps the closest real world example of what Michel Foucault would call a "carceral society". Fink brings the Panopticon to life. My understanding of the issues in Burma was greatly enhanced by reading this book and I recommend it highly.

Miguel Llora

The book can provide an insight of Burma under military rule.
The author has learned much about real concerns and issues in the country. The interesting is that the author was able to inform the rarely known rituals of the Junta. Many interviews were done and good and first-hand informations can be seen on the book.

This book takes one to a country that is "a world apart" in a multitude of ways from what we know here in America. A fascinating read that is sure to captivate and enrich the reader with newfound knowledge and awareness. A brilliant debut by an author I hope we'll see much more of in years to come.

A facinating, well written book that sheds light on an area of the world I knew little about. I usually find scholarly works somewhat dry and hard to get through. This book was hard to put down. I won't launch into a lecture on why you SHOULD read this or try to impress with my newfound knowledge of the struggles of the Burmese people. I will tell you that this a great, readable book that will educate you and hold your interest. Buy it.

It took me until 2003 to read this book. As the book says Lil E. Tee had a dime store pedigree and I figured that being the case this book could not be that good. Boy was I wrong. Eisenberg researched this Lil E. Tee's story thoroughly. He loads the book with detail yet it reads like a novel. It is a fascinating creation. I could not put it down.

I purchased this book on a whim, let it sit around for a while, and randomly picked it up on my way to bed, thinking that I would read a little bit and then quickly fall asleep. Little did I know that I would be up all night, my usually short attention span completely riveted, as time flew by. This book provides a wealth of information about Lil E Tee's origin, racing career, and the people around him.

Even though I thoroughly enjoyed this book, the author had a tendency to introduce characters out of sequence. For example, sometimes background information would be provided on a person who was not involved in the progression of the story until several chapters later. By breaking up the sequence in this manner, the flow of the story was impaired and choppy. The author's sentence structure also tended to be loose and brief. Also this oversimplification made reading the story easier and faster, I did feel like the book was written for a younger audience.

Again, the subject matter was facsinating and the author obviously did a lot of work to uncover a wealth of information on the life of a relatively obscure racehorse. If you're interested in racing trivia, or are simply looking for a captivating sports story, then this book should cater to you!

As one of millions who was caught up in "Arazi" fever following his stunning Breeders' Cup Juvenile win, this book provides a fascinating look at a horse which most people totally over looked.

In May 1992, I sat down to watch the Kentucky Derby expecting to watch the coronation of a horse named Arazi as the best horse since Secretariat. However, a horse I had never heard of before, Lil E. Tee, pulled a shocking upset of Arazi and won the Run for the Roses. After Lil E. Tee failed to win the Preakness Stakes, he was forgotten in my mind. That was until I picked up this book.

John Eisenberg's story of Lil E. Tee is one of the most fascinating horse racing stories you will ever read. A horse with suspect breeding, chronic colic problems, bad legs and who changed hands several times (including once for a mere $3,000) went on to win the Kentucky Derby over several royally-bred colts plus the so-called unbeatable Arazi. He also gave an accomplished jockey, Pat Day, his first (and so far, only) Kentucky Derby winner, when Day himself thought Lil E. Tee was one of his worst Derby mounts ever.

John Eisenberg has provided a well-researched tale of the life of Lil E. Tee prior to the Derby. Interviews have been conducted with pretty much all of the principles of his story and those tales have been woven into an entertaining story that reads almost like fiction.

"The Longest Shot" isn't quite the masterpiece of Laura Hillenbrand's "Seabiscuit", but I think that this book might have great potential as a movie, because it really is a true equine "Rocky"!

I thoroughly enjoyed The Longest Shot. I found it at my local library but have since purchased a copy for my growing horse library. I've been a horse nut my whole life but had not been following racing too closely. However, reading this book rekindled my interest. The author weaves the story of the horse and his people. There was always someone who believed in the horse and his career continued. The trainer, Lynn Whiting, and the jockey, Pat Day are particularly interesting as they help this horse towards the top of the equine world. One does not have to be an expert in the racing world to enjoy the book, but at the same time it does not speak down to the reader. I have recommended the book to my family members who have accompanied me on my adventures to Kentucky to visit Lil E Tee. A very well written book which will bring tears to your eyes as you realize that the horse and his connections will actually WIN the Kentucky Derby. An excellent sports book. As well written as a John Feinstein book. Read it!

If you accept the notion that insanity is an illness (in contast to the whacked-out anti-psychiatry crowd) then this is an outstanding history of how America's treatment of the mentally ill has been made into a disgrace by the very ilk (counterculture/New Left types) who cry the loudest and hardest about social injustice in America. Christ warned about certain men who tie heavy loads on other mens backs, but won't lift a finger to help them; well, the anti-psychiatry crowd has made it virtually impossible for concerned, compassionate Americans to help the people who need it most. One can only take comfort in the notion that at the Final Judgment the people responsible for bringing about such mind-boggling suffering will be certainly be held accountable.

I read this book and could not put it down. It really explains how our mental health policy in America became so distorted. The abandonment of our mentally ill in the name of freedom and self determination was ill thought out. This book is thorough and riveting.

Even ten years after it was written, no other book documents the origins and failure of deinstitutionalization of people with severe mental illness so well. I only wish that the authors would update the book for the new decade.

Public policy regarding mental illness has been shrouded by myth, ideology, and fanatiscism. Madness in the Steets explains the history and myths that have caused the criminalization and neglect of people with no-fault brain disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Those myths now exposed, it is a clarion for legislative change. A must read for sociologists, legislators, and those who understand the tragedy of lack of treatment.

I am so disappointed that this book is out of print! I have been recommending it to everyone including political leaders. This book explains so well why our mental health system is failing! From the ACLU who allow our loved ones to "die with their rights on" to the anti-psychiatry movement who deny that mental illness exist.The authors have uncovered the web of a failed system which advocates need to have as a resource. This book needs to be available.

A wonderful eye-opener for any blind patriot who believes everything on TV and movies, and takes it all at face value. This book points out the hidden agenda of mass, corporate-owned media...

Parenti's critical review of the Rambo movies really made an impression on me. I used to like the Rambo movies, but now watch them mainly for laughs. Each subsequent Rambo release is, as Parenti describes it, worse than its predecessor. There was talk of reviving the Rambo character now that the U.S. is at war against terrorism. Let's hope it doesn't happen.

I'm not sure if working people are portrayed as negatively as Parenti has described it. If we only take Archie Bunker as an example, then yes, but filmmakers love to advance the theme of the powerless versus the powerful, because the opposite doesn't go well with audiences. Perhaps Parenti knows something I don't on this issue.

Parenti's favorable ratings of two films - JFK and Salvador - made me want to see them - over ten years after they had been released. I managed to see JFK, and it was great. I am still looking to see Salvador.

What I would like to see is an updated version of this book, since there has been more Hollywood propaganda released since the original version came out.

To hear newscasters avoid talk about class in America, you'd think the concept is as obsolete as the Soviet Union.Yet Michael Parenti continues to insist that class bias not only spreads out from the heart of society, but shapes it. Here he looks at TV's entertainment role in preserving social privilege. From popular stereotypes such as the Lone Ranger and his third-world flunky Tonto, to the invisible world of labor, to the well-meaning but misunderstood plutocrat, Parenti exposes capitalism's self-serving myths as portrayed on the little screen. Sure it's fun to kick around TV and a lot of people do it, but Parenti does it in a highly informative way that confronts our last remaining taboo - the role of wealth and power in American life.

Maybe the best chapter concerns profits and censorship. It's no news to point out that the networks and advertisers are in it for the money. But it is news to point out those instances when producers actually forego profits for the sake of respectability. Parenti details instances when industry has eaten losses rather than jeopardise the system of wealth and power it serves. For example, Procter & Gamble, TV's biggest advertiser, makes this allegiance clear by banning all content critical of Wall Street and the Pentagon from scripts it sponsors. In fact, most scripts - as Parenti shows - go through not 1, but 4 levels of censorship. No wonder, the public walks around in an ideological haze wondering why the world hates us -- and so much for the dollar sign's being more important than the system of which it is a part.

Another telling chapter concerns one of entertainment's most popular myths: "We only give 'em (the audience) what they want." Sounds good. But, as Parenti documents, despite this appeal to democratic ideals, the entertainment marketplace is anything but democratic. He sketches out control points or nerve centers that reduce real choice to pseudo choice, sort of like a multiple choice question whose options are narrowed to a desired range of outcome. All this is made sorrier by indications that American audiences respond to forbidden topics on those rare occasions when they seep through.

No book that debunks the FBI's screen role in the civil rights movement, or points out the class conditioning behind TV's version of Treasure Island, can afford to be overlooked. Whatever the book lacks in depth is more than made up for in focus. Despite his unperson status, Parenti remains a key figure among dissident academics banished to the book-selling fringes. Recommended to all those who understand TV viewing as anything but a passive pastime.

Propaganda is basically found in every modern society, so it should come as no surprise to find it in a movie like "Red Dawn," which Parenti refers to. He brings up such interesting facts as that all the TV networks have a department devoted to censorship, such as CBS's euphemistically named "Standards and Practices Department"; that companies like Procter & Gamble often have inordinate veto power over broadcast content considered subversive; and that PBS, which is actually anything but a "public" organization, has been dubbed the "Petroleum Broadcast Service" due to the large influence of the oil companies that help fund it. He who pays the piper..., you might say. I highly recommend this book.

Parenti does an excellent job in exposing how lopsided the entertaiment industry is, and how Right it is centered. He looks at aspects as diverse as Oscar winning movies to WWF wrestling, and how politically oriented they are, more often then not the Right. The Cold War did a number on American movies and it tainted the industry to this day in producing mediocre films that did not threaten or offend anyone high in power. I feel that today the situation is improved just a little bit, with more accurate portrayels of minorities and women and so forth, but we still have a long way to go in the entertainment industry. An excellent book for anyone at all interested in the entertainment industry and an eye opener as well.

As a nation we have just closed a trying chapter on American Government in action. A determined Special Prosecutor, with an unlimited budget, turned loose with no one holding the reigns, almost brought the Presidency crumbling to the ground.

Many people railed against the depth of intrusion that was imposed on the first family. But if you stop to think about it, perhaps government was only getting a dose of their own medicine: being repaid for their intervention and intrusion into the private life's of its citizens.

In Edmund's book this intrusion is explained and outlined in such a fashion that readers can understand and follow. In the early part of this century America experienced huge creative and inventive leaps. These advances made the inventors and the producers (makers) rich, giving birth to the American Dream.

Seeing this, government decided they needed more of a share- "for the greater good". Contoski details how the takers (government and big business) have since intervened and taken a larger piece of the pie by passing laws that benefit them and which keep the "makers" plodding along a treadmill, chasing after an "American Dream" that as been quietly stolen away from us bit by bit. Never a fan of economics or finance- I wondered if I could provide a good or objective review of this publication. Edmund has made this easy to understand and an interesting read. You'll find yourself nodding your head as you read his examples, and saying to yourself, " Yeah, I can see that now."

He fully explains the origins of the American system and how it fed and nurtured an unprecedented number of "makers.Then, just as deftly he highlights the subtle changes in our political belief system and orientation. These changes often so subtle that they have, until now, remained unnoticeable.

This book should be required reading for every registered voter in the U.S.

Amazing facts you can read about in the book MAKERS AND TAKERS

1200 people die unnecessarily because of the Food and Drug Administrations 5 year delay in approving the drug nitrazepam;

Over 100,000 people die from the FDA's 7 year delay in approving beta blockers;

The federal government-while posing as the protector of the environment-is the nation's largest polluter. The Defense Dept. alone generates more hazardous waste than the five largest chemical companies combined. Other sources of pollution include federal prisons, hospitals-and even the EPA itself.

A million Peruvians became infected with cholera-and 10,000 died-after chlorination of drinking water was stopped because of EPA policy.

Read how EPA falsified sulfur dioxide emission studies in order to force stringent regulations on utility companies and other coal-burning industries. Leslie Blanchard

Editor A Writer's Choice Literary Journal ISSN: 1521-2319 http://members.spree.com/writer/ & The Bear's Den- Spoken Word Poetry http://members.tripod.com/bearpoet icq# 33958401

Contowski marshalls an astonishingly usefull array of facts (from taxation to environment) in support of human freedom and agaist governmental intervention. Especially good at explaining why human ingenuity trumps fears of resource depletion.
This is the book that Bjorn Lomberg needs to read to understand why the statistics he understands so well, support a wholly different world view than he still clings to.

I read this last year, and have been trying to buy extra copies from Amazon ever since to send to friends. This is a book that could convert a lot of people from statists to Libertarians, if they would only read it. I rank it with my favorites from Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and Henry Hazlitt.

There are an astounding number of facts on health, the environment, industry, education, economics and practically everything classical liberals and libertarians need to refute arguments for increased government control over every aspect of our lives.

In spite of the huge amount of information, it's exceptionally well-organized, and it's also fun reading, with "Ahaas!" on every page. I couldn't put it down. In fact, some of the descriptions of government bungling, unintended consequences and dirty dealing are entertaining enough to make you laugh (or cry) depending on your mood.

I'm going to try again to order several copies for Christmas presents, because I have a few friends who have been seduced by the dark side who could be saved by this book, and a few friends who already "get it" who could use the ammo.

The book makes understandable the essense of the struggle between the left and right in the United States and throughout the world. It starts with the beginning of civilization and leads right up to today.

Contoski review

Assigning a single rating to any book, let alone this one, is an exercise in frustration. Does one go with thematic-informational integration (5 stars), wealth of detail (5 stars), reference potential (5 stars), breadth of scope (4 stars), level of readability (4 stars), or documentation of facts (3 stars, maybe 4)? Or does one consider prose style (2 stars or at best a "C" for "clear"), conciseness, particularly in setting forth the unifying thesis (2), or usefulness as a reference as derived from the quality of the index (sorry, Amazon's system doesn't provide for minus grades)? Or does one demonstrate one of the author's points about egalitarianism by assigning an average (3.6 points), thereby slighting a valuable and frequently fascinating book?

Mr. Contoski has achieved an admirable synthesis from myriad historical and economic facts and observations, adding up to both a moral and a practical affirmation of individual freedom as the source of progress in all its aspects, spiritual, intellectual, and economic. Readers of Ayn Rand will quickly recognize the theme of the mind as the "mover" in human advances. Indeed, the statement of the author's overall theme could be described as "Galt's Speech"-- and indeed, his own "Manifesto of Infividualism" -with supportive facts and without the poetry, but also without Rand's unfortunate shrill moralizing and didacticism. (That being the case, I would have liked to see Rand given a bit of credit in the text.) Without the poetry, however, the thematic statement is very tough going indeed-first because this section is so repetitious and second because Mr. Contoski, obviously by choice, excludes my half of the audience by persistent use of "man" and "men" when in 99.44 percent of the cases "humans" or "people" would serve more accurately and grate less on the millennium-tuned ear. I confess I made it through the theory eventually by reading only the topic sentence of each paragraph.

But sticking with it pays off bigtime. Most of the book-and certainly the most riveting part--is devoted to a once-through-each-type-of-purpose-defeating interventionism from currency manipulation through environmental regulation through education in a staggering demonstration of its counterproductivity in every guise and every sense of the word. Here are facts in profusion. One could wish that more statements had been documented with footnotes (though many have been), and that more had been obtained from primary sources. But as an act of synthesis, "Makers and Takers" is a marvel in its marshalling of the facts that support its thesis. Many of these facts are little known. For example, that private industry spends more annually on training and education than the entire U.S. budget for same--$240 billion versus $210. Or that rain is more acid over the ocean and some uninhabited places. Or that only one kind of asbestos is dangerous. Or the original intent and design of the Electoral College. Or ... If only the index permitted my re-finding more examples in the time I can allot to writing this review.

Lillian R. Rodberg, Allentown, PA lrrodberg@rcn.com