Activism Books

The book does an excellent job of discussing the women whose high risk behaviors, not identities, are thought to spread HIV to some. The authors are racially diverse and there is a blend of professional writers and everyday contributors. I've seen many anthologies discuss straight women and lesbians, or bisexual women and lesbians, but this is the first book that I've seen with chapters devoted to straight women, bisexuals, and lesbians. Many lament the absence of racial and class-based matters in most women's studies text. However, when these writers say that AIDS activism needs to be culturally sensitive, multilingual, and designed for women of limited funds, it tries to address multiple identities, not just biological sex.

Although the book is edited by ACT-UP, it doesn't not have the radical style of a Larry Kramer or Michael Signorile. The chapters are professionally edited and full of scientific references. This book is a solid example of women's studies, not a loud manifesto that many apprehensive readers may fear. I do think the title is misleading as "activism" does not come close to consisting of one-third of this text.

This book may feel incredibly dated. To begin, ACT-UP hasn't been in the spotlight in the way it had been in the late 1980s. This work was published when AZT was the only medicine for AIDS; the new and more effective HAART regimen was not released yet. The authors continually lament that not enough research on women and HIV has been done, but I imagine now that it has, especially as HIV has risen so sharply in developing countries.

I enjoyed this book a lot. It was fact-filled but not impenetrable. Those concerned about American women and HIV may wanted to read it, despite its dated nature.

This book is an excellent read and pulls no punches. It is a "call to arms" for any responsible citizen. I disagree with "A Reader's" review. Huffington offers many solutions to the problems discussed in this book. If you think for even a moment that government can be made better, this is a book for you. Oh, and did you notice? "A Reader" chose to stay anonymous and is from HOLLYWOOD!

A more appropriate title would be "Why the Government needs to be overthrown; and how to do it." Regarding the need for overthrowing, Arianna Huffington identifies a few causes: first, money in politics (her parts on pharmaceuticals and campaign finance are excellent); second, the establishment's resistance to political pluralism; third, the desire to listen to polls instead of standing firm on issues and leading (although Mrs. Huffington criticizes polls, she uses them quite often too).

As for the overthrowing of the government, Mrs. Huffington suggests political activism (including not participating in opinion polls). But she spends little time on this; while Mrs. Huffington has put together an impressive list of political wrongs, her collection of "success stories" is rather modest (not sure if that is the product of poor research or poor activism).

This book is witty and well written, and Arianna Huffington spared none in her criticism. Her ideas should be taken seriously by anyone interested in the health and future of the American political system.

This is a book that many people will rate based on their agreement or disagreement with Huffington's politics. Beware of low ratings that people give simply because they don't like the author's record, while some high ratings may have the same problem. These are hardly useful to someone considering a purchase. Certainly this book is political, but it is not necessary to agree with Huffington 100% politically to appreciate her main points. So if you're prone to reducing any piece of public discourse into an archaic (and currently nonsensical) liberal vs. conservative dichotomy, don't bother with this book because you won't get it. What Huffington's talking about here is far beyond left vs. right squabbling. The only problem with this book is that it was written in the middle of the 2000 presidential campaign and was immediately outdated in certain sections. Huffington's opinions on that election's disastrous finish would have given this book some extra kick.

Huffington has a great insider's view of the horrendous state of our current political system. She's a Republican but she's got just as much (maybe even more) vitriol for the GOP in its failure to live up to its ideals, as she does for the Democrats. Plus her Centrist ideas reveal her to be one of the most levelheaded and realistic pundits around. For example, her proposal that all corporations and rich people should give 10% of their income to charity sure isn't a Republican-like idea. In her great tongue-in-cheek and slightly sarcastic style, Huffington shows the ineffectiveness of the system, as career politicians on both sides are enslaved to corporate contributions, opinion polls that only ask inane lowest-common-denominator questions, and a lapdog media that convinces people that "character' (actually reputation and personal rumors) is more important than leadership skills. And unlike other books of this type, Huffington's ideas for solutions aren't cheesy platitudes like "take the power back," but real options like politically oriented volunteering, "None of the Above" options on ballots, and local clean finance campaign initiatives. Corporate contributors really spread the money around to all politicians, as a way to latch onto whoever has power regardless of ideology, while politicians utilize this vicious cycle to hold onto power instead of making real decisions or exercising true leadership, and the system looks down its nose at a disillusioned and disenfranchised electorate. This book is about overthrowing this plutocracy, and people of all political persuasions should be concerned, unless you're a slave to the big money.

Arianna is barely a neoconservative, ...She is on the centrist fringe, tolerant of a lukewarm welfare state. She rails against the Beltway establishment, but really doesn't offer any concrete platform for change. This book is little more than a feel good puff-piece for the alienated voter without any clear-cut political leanings, but a penchant for interventionism. Being partisan isn't as bad as she'd have you believe...

I began to read this book, wondering how this writer proposed we
common folk change the government. About halfway through, after the author trashed money-grubbing polititians, false pollsters, and
the distorted media, I still had yet to read a word about overthrowing anything; I started to skip pages...I know how bad things are in Washington - I really never found any ideas, or information, unless you consider dropping the MoveOn.com website as her idea of an overthrow proposal? Yes, it's a decently written litany of the sins of current political affairs, BUT, when the contents of a book does not connect with the title, well, that's a "D" in my grade book.

My personal feelings at the time Ms Fonda was misbehaving in Viet Nam were that she was a spoiled rich kid making an over-zealous and stupid statement regarding her feelings about the war and the conservative 1950's mindset of the politicians who were running the country. She was used to not being heard by her father, whose approval she wanted so much, and did not think she would be heard or paid so much attention to. She was wrong, and she has apologised. She realized later she had done something stupid, she apologised. I think she would have risked her life for one of our boys then, and I think she would now. I think she is a good person. She made a mistake. Don't think she doesn't regret it.

This book deals with Jane Fonda and her actions when she visited North Vietnam during the Vietnam War and in authors' sense of belief, gave aid and comfort to the enemy during the time of war. On this, I have utterly no doubt that Jane Fonda, one of our most infamous liberal nazis of Hollywoodland, is guility as she stand.

However, the presentation of the book is bit questionable because the authors appears to be too overzealous in their approach. Research although pretty good, appears to be bit one sided. Not to say that on certain things, they almost sounds outright racists. A good example would be on page 33 when they referred to the term "subhuman Asian communists". Indeed, if the Asian communists were "subhuman", then their behavior would be acceptable since they are not human anyway, right?? Second example, the authors' zealous to paint traitors got them looking in the case of Iva Toguri, and they got her on the crosshair right with Jane Fonda. Unfortuately for the authors, Toguri was actually pardoned by President Ford (first time ever for a case like this). Her trial was misfire of justice as perjury tainted her actions and supporting statements by American and Australian POWs who were aided by her went unnoticed by the court of that period as well as by the authors today. (It was also left out that most of broadcasts made by Toguri were written by American and Australian POWs). It doesn't helped the authors that most American high commands regards Toguri's broadcasts as more of a morale booster for American troops who enjoyed her music and meaningless bombastic statements. Putting Toguri case in this book reflects on one sided research and utter lack of understanding on the part of the authors.

So what is the point of all this? The authors put together a nice case against Jane Fonda but the text of this book is filled with overzealous errors. Most people who read this book like me, needs no convincing that Jane Fonda should be hung, drawn and quartered for she is an out right traitor to our nation. The authors I believed, should stick to that element since every traitor got a their own different story and Jane Fonda's story is unique by itself. There isn't enough impact story on her personally and why even today, Jane Fonda should not be let off the hook. I am not aware of any statue of limitation on treason!

It is now more than 30 years since the last Americans left Saigon, and while most of the embers stoked in the 1960s have cooled, the visit by anti-war activist Jane Fonda to North Vietnam still inflames many. Given the temperature of the topic, any indictment of Fonda should be documented thoroughly and analyzed rigorously. The review of Fonda's activities should be divorced from any discussion of the merit of the war itself (or whether the United States was right to have been involved.) This book fits the bill on all counts.

Unsurprisingly, since one of the authors is a law professor emeritus, this book is written as a legal brief would be: the Holzers discuss the facts in detail; then explain the law; and finally apply the law to the facts. "Aid and Comfort" starts with a discussion of Fonda's early life and her involvement as a young adult with left-leaning French friends of her then-husband Roger Vadim. None of this background is necessary for the indictment, as Fonda's motive in going to Vietnam is irrelevant -- what counts are her acts. Nonetheless, it is interesting, and provides a picture of a very insecure woman whose political opinions were formed and shaped by the men with whom she was involved.

The next chapter is a harrowing discussion of the treatment of American POWs by the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong. It is hard to read, but is necessary to demonstrate the effects that Fonda's words would have on these servicemen. After all, broadcasting propoganda aimed at destroying the spirit of those who were barely clinging to life is more serious than disseminating it to a well-fed population with other sources of news. (In either case, as the Holzers demonstrate, a charge of treason could be levied.) The authors then discuss Fonda's actual speeches (reproduced in full at the end of the book.) They make an eye-popping read. I was unaware, for example, that Fonda had falsely accused the POWs themselves of taking anti-war positions -- a charge which could only sap the strength and morale of these men when the broadcasts were later played to them.

The Holzers then devote two chapters to a detailed discussion of the law of treason. Although legal discussions sometimes can be dry for non-lawyers, the facts of the cases (including the prosecutions of "Axis Sally" and "Tokyo Rose") are interesting and the authors clearly explain the standards for treason. The book then demonstrates why there is enough evidence against Fonda to at least bring a case to a jury. That the government did not do so was due more to the politics of the time than any lack of proof.

Many believe that we should put the Vietnam War behind us and stop ripping scabs off festering wounds. This, in my opinion, is the wrong way to view it. As with Holocaust survivors, the POWs of Vietnam need some measure of justice, no matter how late it comes. While the US government will never actually prosecute Fonda, this book provides necessary healing by trying -- and convicting -- Fonda in the "moral" court.

historically or legally. Meticulously documented, logically argued indictment of Jane Fonda--with "character" development that no Hollywood biographer, let alone autobiographer, would dare pursue. We learn far more about the actress-agitator in Aid and Comfort than in her own fact- and reality-deprived My Life So Far which, I'm not the first to suggest, appears to have been written for no more compelling reason than mitigating the Holzers' claims. The claims, unfortunately for Ms. Fonda, however, leave little or no spin-room. Ms. Fonda wasn't tried for treason for lack of evidence or lack of intent but for lack of prosecutorial will. As a result, the very concept of treason--the only crime defined in our Constitution--has become so gravely defined-down as to render the crime meaningless and prosecution impossible.

A great read for all who see the spectre of the Vietnam antiwar, antimilitary, antiAmerica movement looming over our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and a must-read for those who don't.

For some time, I have owned this book and would often think about reading it, even picking it up and toying with the idea of glancing through it before placing it back on the shelf opting for another book instead. I guess I was afraid that Erika and Henry Holzer might somehow tarnish my view of Jane Fonda- my pristine unveiled despising of Jane. I always liked my attitude in such matters. What if they told me things about her that I hadn't known were true or worse that I had thought I had known? Though it would be another testimonial to the mystique and unrest of the Vietnam War, I really did not want anymore knowledge of Jane in my head.
I broke down and read it recently and in fact my worst fears were true, but not in the way I expected. I did feel pangs of guilt as I read page after page. They did tell me things about Jane Fonda I had not known, though none improved my image of her. What the authors did do however, was give a very detailed accounting of the cloud surrounding Jane Fonda and her activities in the early 1970's, including trips to Vietnam and other foreign lands. I felt guilt because I had wasted so much time avoiding this book. It is a fine book. It is an incredible book actually. I found it to impressively detailed and well documented. As the scholars that they surely must be, they presented the information based on many sources that are easily verified. I cannot imagine the level of dedication and tenacity required of the authors in order for them to complete their work so thoroughly. I have read many books related to Jane Fonda and her exploits of the early 1970's and none are better. None are even close.
They presented information that was damning to say the least but were just as quick to give research that exonerated Ms. Fonda of acts that she has been accused of for years. Usually books that would seem more of a reference book than a memoir or fiction would bore me, even if they had useful information. To the contrary I was able to start from one cover and work to the other with little interruption. At the end, I was struck by the fact that this book was so well researched and written that it could also easily be used as a reference book.
Knowing what I know about the activities of some American citizens during the Vietnam War, I am quite grateful to authors/researchers such as Erika and Henry Holzer, for I credit them with great wisdom and fortitude themselves for being more objective than the person they chose to write about. I would think the authors would agree with my response to a friend not long ago who told me that Jane Fonda was vilified. "If Jane has been vilified, it has been by her own actions". The authors make clear at the conclusion of their book what they think of Jane Fonda and her actions during the Vietnam War and I completely and wholeheartedly agree and am not afraid to say so. I do not know what the authors think now with so much time that has passed both since the war and since the writing of their book. Perhaps they feel a slight pang now and then that there is a time to let things go, to forget or pretend at least that past wrongs, however vile never happened. I feel a slight pang now and then like that, but it is so small it is a little like gas, maybe it is gas. Because I know that the proof is in the pudding or the book as it were and the things Jane Fonda and her associates did were in fact treacherous and immoral and yes villainous. I recommend this book more highly than I ever recommended any book as a work for history to be truly known.

Your contention, "[Chomsky's] infamy is merited for his lack of loyalty to his own Jewish ethnicity and the U.S.," is telling, as an index of both extreme right (read: 'arrogant') entitlement Statism, as well as your own personal lapse of reason. That is, an individual's loyalty is owed not to any institution, authority, or State (i.e., no ethic inheres via the neurotic, mass obedience you suggest). Rather, an individual's loyalty is owed--FIRST AND FOREMOST--to what their own informed conscience compels. For Chomsky--as scientist, as educator--this rule abides. "'Twas ever thus..."

Noam Chomsky has thrived greatly in this great country of his, yours, and mine - the United States of America. He has made millions of dollars teaching, lecturing, selling his books, and investing. His world-wide fame in psycholinguistics is well-deserved. His infamy is merited for his lack of loyalty to his own Jewish ethnicity and the U.S., in spite of the fruits he has received by being a citizen of the United States. He has repaid this country in bile with his incredibly biased analysis of American foreign policy. He goes way beyond a balanced multiculturism, when he always ranks the U.S. and Israel as foremost among the terrorist forces in the world now, and even in history. His distrust of any authority, benign or otherwise, is reflected in his dogmatic and unexamined support of the "underdog," even if that underdog is a suicide bomber or a major terrorist organization such as Al Queda or Hezbollah. Chomsky's moral equivalence of Israel defending itself and accidently killing civilians as the same as Terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah deliberately killing civilians is moral insanity.

Yet since 1955, hypocrite Chomsky has worked for the "overdog" Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which has actively and enthusiastically participated in the development of weapons of War and mass destruction, and continues to this very day.

Chomsky trumps his own potential for gifted analytic objectivity with his simple hatred of the United States and the Jewish State.

If he were not so attached to the freedom of making money, earning the adulation of the American Left, and freedom to express himself, he might be able to give more direct and personal support for our enemies and his friends by taking up residence in North Korea, Iran, or Syria. Let us hope he retires outside of our homeland that he hates so much, the United States of America.

God Bless America, which will continue to give Chomsky the right to speak, teach, and make lots of money.

Rayboy

Noam Chomsky has been a pioneer in the field of linguistics. He helped restore a rationalistic approach to the subject. Chomsky came up with the concept of context-free grammars, and developed many of their properties. He has backed the idea that language acquisition in humans is largely innate, and the evidence for this idea seems to be increasing. He's a very bright person who has made many genuine scholarly contributions to society.

Even Chomsky's approach to social issues has had some positive aspects. While many people have addressed national policy issues principally in pragmatic terms, Chomsky has emphasized moral issues. He has wisely advised us to avoid resolving debates on moral issues purely on pragmatic grounds. And he has advised us to be wary of the role of the media in obtaining popular consent for dubious policies.

But this book is useless trash.

Sure, there are plenty of details about what Chomsky thinks of Arab-Israeli peace, and sure, I disagree with plenty of what he says, but the main problem is the lack of any credible basis for evaluating where we stand. Before we can even consider solutions to the Arab war against Jewish rights in the region, we need to apply some facts and logic. This is something Chomsky could have done extremely well, but he chose not to do that.

Chomsky says in this book that both sides can make a persuasive case. Well, I suppose one could claim that both the Blacks and the Ku Klux Klan can make a persuasive case. But those of us who support human rights are not going to be persuaded by the claims of the Ku Klux Klan or by Arab racists into oppressing Southern Blacks or Middle Eastern Jews.

Now, here are some facts and logic that Chomsky appears to have chosen not to consider:

Humans who have an interest in buying land and the means to do so will often buy land and improve it. Land that is for sale often goes to the high bidders. The high bidders tend to have the biggest interest in making good use of that land. Jews are humans. Jews wanted land in the Levant and were willing to pay very high prices for it. And they bought land for those prices.

Human rights include property rights. If racists are going to be allowed to steal land from Blacks, Jews, or other minorities, that will violate property rights for everyone.

Israel became a nation because Great Britain came up with the White Paper of 1939, which kept large numbers of Jews from moving to the Levant. This cost most of these Jews their lives and convinced almost all of the survivors that the only way to support human rights in the Levant was to have an independent state there that would allow Jews to have rights. Since Jews are humans, repudiation of Jewish rights is a repudiation of human rights. Needless to say, human rights do not preclude Arab rights. Quite the contrary. Arabs are humans and repudiation of Arab rights would repudiate human rights.

Israel is land-poor. That is a fairly well-defined concept. Namely, if everyone in the world actually owned the land they lived on but had to put it up for sale to the highest bidder (which in many cases would be themselves, since they would be paying themselves for the land), in peacetime, Jews would buy up more of the Levant than they have now. Unless violence is employed to do something about Israelis, they'll wind up with a little more land, not a little less land. There are five million Jews in Israel now, and in peacetime, even more Jews might want to move there. And the amount of territory five million people in that region tend to be sovereign in is well over 11,000 square miles.

That is what truth, justice, facts, logic, and human rights tell us.

It is true that many Jews lost land in the past century. So did some Arabs. I could argue that the Jews tended to lose it in wars of aggression against them, while the Arabs tended to lose it in wars of aggression by them. But, I think that is irrelevant. Most of the victims are long dead now, and I think it is time to close that chapter. However, it is preposterous and counterproductive to indict only the victims of such crimes, and reward the villains. And I think we ought to find something better to do than that.

Part 1 is a reprint of Chomsky's 1974 book, Peace in the Middle East? examining the 1967 war and its results. Part 2 looks at the same themes of Israel, Palestine and the US role, from the perspective of 2002. Part 3 studies the world after 9/11 and the `war on terror'.

Israel, like most US dependencies, has huge inequality, great and growing poverty, high and rising unemployment, falling wages and worsening working conditions. It constantly expands its illegal settlements in the occupied territories, cuts the Palestinians' water quotas, and imprisons Palestinians in areas sealed by a net of bypass roads meant for Jews only.

Israel organises torture, terror, the destruction of tens of thousands of homes, and detentions without trial. Under Israeli occupation, Palestine's unemployment has doubled, investment has halved, income is down 20%, and GNP is down 40%. When the Security Council reaffirmed that the 4th Geneva Convention applies to occupied territories, Clinton abstained.

In mid-September 2000, the US shipped attack helicopters to Israel, and US Marines conducted joint exercises with elite units of the Israeli Defence Force. On 29 September, Sharon made his infamous, government-authorised visit to the Temple Mount, with a thousand armed guards. On 3 October, Israel signed its biggest arms deal for a decade, buying 35 Blackhawk military helicopters from the USA. In February 2001, Israel bought nine Apache attack helicopters. Curiously, this huge backing for Israel went virtually unreported.

In December 2001, the USA vetoed a Security Council Resolution calling for international monitors to oversee a reduction in violence. The USA has consistently rejected a Palestinian state: as elsewhere, nationalism is its enemy.

The USA is repeating the British Empire's Middle Eastern failures. Dean Acheson said that Britain `may act as our lieutenant (the fashionable word is partner)'. Britain is still the lieutenant in Iraq; Israel is now the lieutenant in Palestine, bleeding from its doomed struggle to kill off Palestinian sovereignty. In its Middle East colonies and dependencies, the British Empire created an `Arab façade' to have `the outward semblance of sovereignty'. Now the USA does the same in Iraq.

I have not read this book. I have read other books and articles by Noam Chomsky and listened to some of his speeches. While I sympathize with many of his views--I do not necessarily subscribe to all of them.

My reason for writing this review is that I discovered what I consider an unethical use of Amazon's reader reviewing space. I read the reviews under the assumption that the reviewer has actually read the book. The reason I read the reviews is to find out what the readers thought of the book. I'm sincerely interested in what honest readers have to say--whether they are of the right, left, or mushy middle political persuasion.

Cutting and pasting the same review of the same author--Chomsky in this case--for 10 different books of Chomsky's is outrageous! The reviewer in this case, Raymond T. Keen, was even too lazy to edit the 11 total reviews to make an attempt to show that he had actually read all 11 books.

I don't care if the reviewer hates Chomsky. That's his right. However, he doesn't have the ethical right to deceive the rest of the Amazon readers with the implied claim that he's read all 11 of the reviewed books. Actually, I'm skeptical that he's read any books of Chomsky's. Given the reviewer's obvious laziness and inartful ability at deception, I would suggest that he submit his resume to the present administration in Washington, DC.

I found myself feeling that something wasn't quite right with the people claiming to be Christians around me who were mocking the President or telling jokes at the expense of homosexuals. This book demands that we respond biblically to governments and politicians and is a great help to applying biblical truths as a believer today. This book made me excited to obey God through good citizenship.

My church did a bible study using this book. I find it very interesting that "armchair christians" like John Macarthur can thrive in this country by tearing down its very fabric and foundation. I have read christian and secular views on the American Revolution and believe that it is nothing short of miraculous that a group of unskilled soldiers defeated the greatest armed force of the time, the British Military. I further find it interesting that after 9/11/01 John MacArthur jumped on the patriotic bandwagon with a video production that refutes the ideas in his own book and talks about how God was involved in the forging of this nation.
I served 24 years in the United Stated Navy and I, as well as many others, was a patriot long before 9/11. The evidence in this book shows that John MacArthur will never be able to say that.

The most persuasive part of the book was Chapter 1 and the appendix that contains a sermon entitled "Citizenship in Heaven," written by the famous 19th century, English pastor, Charles Spurgeon. The balance of the book does a fine job of setting forth the Scripture and arguments supporting our responsibility to government and authority, even on the Christian's responsibility support our leaders, be involved in civil service, and finally how a Christian can live in a pagan culture.

Mr. MacArthur emphasizes that he is not opposed to Christian involvement in government, but rather that the issue is primarily of keeping priorities straight. He sates "The issue again is one of priority. The greatest temporal good we can accomplish through political involvement cannot compare to what the Lord and accomplish through us in the eternal work of His kingdom. ... [God] has called the church to be a kingdom of priest, not a kingdom of political activists." Scriptural support for this is given by way of examples of Jesus, Paul and Peter, all of whom taught to obey government and honor those in authority. This is particularly brought home in two chapters addressing our tax obligations.

But what seems to be missing from the book is the fact that unlike the governments that the Jewish and early Christian cultures were dealing with at the time of Christ, we Americans have a direct say in who leads us (we elect them) and in what our leaders positions will be (our political process presumes that leaders will be influenced by public opinion, lobbyists, etc.). This is not an inconsequential difference. Since our Constitution says we the people are in fact self-governing, then as responsible citizens, there is certainly a strong argument to be made that Christians have a duty, both to God and Country, to take a stand to influence the government that they elect to represent their interests in adopting policies and laws consistent with Christian principles and values.

When liberals complain that Christians should not be influencing government with their conservative Christian beliefs and "agenda," what they seem to be saying is that is permissible to bring beliefs (even Christian ones) into the political process only so long as they are liberal views, but that if they are conservative, it violates some tenant of separation of church and state. I wish this issue had been addressed in this book.

One other issue that this book did not address is the Scripture that instructs Christians that they are "soldiers" for Christ, and that "soldiers" must not become involved in "civilian matters." 2 Timothy 2:4 reads as follows: "No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs-he wants to please his commanding officer." I have struggled with this passage in that it appears on its face to say that since we are serving Christ, we should be doing exactly as John MacArthur suggest, making our number one priority to serve God's kingdom and live our lives in a manner to evangelize others for Christ. Civilian matters such as politics must not be our focus. Curiously, this passage was not addressed in this book, and I feel it should have been the very basis for the discussion.

Personally, MacArthur's work has clarified my understanding of how to serve God faithfully in both my job as a public school employee and as a member of a Southern Baptist Church. It has helped strengthen my committment to both without separating them.

A perfect treatise on the church's sidetracked theology that we can change the world through political might.

This book defends the Christian's responsiblity to be involved, but correctly eschews trusting in man-made structures such as government to solve what are spiritual problems at the core.

This book will cause Christians to consider whether God has ever given them the right to punish the world through boycotts or other hevay-handed methods of force.

Another excellent resource in the same vein is "Blinded by Might" by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson.

This book is pretty good in that it gives a third-party, yet sympathetic look into Hizballah. The author's bias toward them permits her access, which leads to a very interesting read. The problem is that her bias also opens up the door to misinformation. I recommend this book, but I also recommend "The Voice of Hizballah" (English translations of Sayyad Hassan Nasrallah's interviews and speeches - an unvarnished view at his thoughts and motivations) and maybe an anti-Hizballah book sprinkled in.

In the book, the author argues that Hizballah has basically removed itself from the business of terrorism since the early 1980s. She claims the Party of God has transitioned to a political party and social service provider for disaffected Lebanese Shia. The book provides incredible detail about Hizballah's social service programs (a hospital here, a water-purification facility there, schools, etc - how many people the services are helping, where the money is coming from, etc).

Bottom line: This is a good source, but it shouldn't be your only source.

Hezbollah: The Changing Face of Terrorism provides detailed history of Hizbu'llah, especially insightful, when it comes to the Lebanese context and politics. It does not aim to cover all features of this organization, but rather focus on the transformation, in the opinon of author, from fundamentalist group to resistence and moderate potical actor.

+ an unorthodox point of view on Hizbu'llah, author tries to proove that it is not in fact a terrorist group. Debatable, but very interesting.

+ greatly covers the Syrian influnce on Hizbu'llah and the double track Syrian policy towards Lebanese government and the Party of God.

+ presents pluralistic political system of Lebanon and puts Hizbu'llah in it's framework.

- biased, favouring Party of God.

- does not cover changing relationship between Tehran and Hizbu'llah

- slightly outdated, Hariri's assassination, Syrian withdrawal, July war or recent skirmish between Hizbu'llah and government are not included. These events shed diffrent light on Hizbu'llah than Palmer-Harik presented.

Summed up, great book that presents new insights, facts and ideas about Hizbu'llah. When read the shortcoming should be kept in mind to prevent biased and uncomplete image of Hizbu'llah. Still a must for anynone interested in Party of God.

Petr Zelinka,
Journal of Security Issues

Dr. Harik provides an in depth analysis of the struggle between Hezbollah and the Israelis as well as the roles of the U.S., Syria and Iran. I learned more in the first few pages than in hours of mainstream media. HIGHLY recommend it!

Harik is an American Political Science professor at the American University of Beirut and as such has had an upclose and personal perspective on Hezbollah for some time now. But rather than using her relatively unique perspective as an American academic to provide a revealing look at Hezbollah, Harik has written a fairly straightforward history of the group that does not go into enough detail and is hampered by her obvious sympathy for the group.

The basic thesis of the book is that Hezbollah has transformed itself from what some would call a terrorist organization in the early 80s, to a legitimate Lebanese political party that is capable of compromise. She takes the reader through Hezbollah's early days and describes the domestic political context that led to the group's rise. She also places a fair amount of weight on the regional context and goes into great detail to explain to her audience how Hezbollah is affected by Israel, Syria, Iran, and the U.S. This is the book's greatest strength since these outside actors have a huge impact on Hezbollah and no book that ignores the regional context would be complete.

However, Harik presents Hezbollah as if it were a homogenous actor that has no internal struggles. The only key figures of Hezbollah that Harik takes the time to descirbe are Hassan Nasrallah (some Americans will remember him from the war w/Israel in the summer of 06), and Mohammed Fadlallah. This is problematic because no political organization is without internal divisions or debates, but Harik never really acknowledges this. Presumably, she would have access to many members of Hezbollah and would be able to present a much more detailed look at the internal dynamics of the group, but unfortunately she never does. It seems odd that she would spend so much time describing the history of the group (which was already well-known) and not take the time to tell her audience how the group really functions.

The other main problem with the book is that Harik is plainly a "fan" of Hezbollah and it is hard to tell at times whether or not she is leaving out a wealth of information that does not affirm her perception of the group. This becomes clear when she describes actions by the U.S. or Israel as always being negative in nature, when they're really just acting out of their own perceived interests in the same way that Hezbollah does. You don't have to agree with or like what the U.S. does or with what Hezbollah does, but when you clearly pick a side and cannot be critical of your side, the argument ceases to be a serious academic study.

Anyone wanting to learn more about Hezbollah should read this book. For the most part it is well-written and easy to follow. At the same time, the reader should be aware that Harik is presenting a very one-sided look at her subject and that additional research will certainly be necessary after reading her book.

With 'Hezbollah: The Changing Face of Terrorism' Judith Palmer Harik has achieved a comprehensive and highly detailed history of the militant group. Her stated goal is to determine whether Hezbollah is a legitimate fighting force, as many in the Arab world believe, or simply a terrorist organization. While it is clear that the author leans toward the former, she does, to her credit, give an ample amount of attention to the view held by Israelis and Americans. So while her conclusions are certainly debatable, she essentially sticks to the facts. She thoroughly discusses Hezbollah's origins as a direct offshoot of the Iranian Revolution, for the purpose of combatting Israel. She discusses at length, their political objectives, their religious beliefs, and their transformation from radical militia, to mainstream political party. She also effectively puts the movement into the context of the general Mid-East conflict. My only criticism of the book, aside from the author's bias, is that it is severely academic in tone. The average lay reader might find it a bit too tedious. That being said, I would still recommend 'Hezbollah: The Changing Face of Terrorism' as a solid introduction to the the subject.

Tell everyone you know to read this book! What a great way to promote peace, and offer a very interesting read. I highly recommend this book to anyone concerned about where our world is headed right now.

I'm about 75 pages into this book so far, and I love it. It offers up a lot of food for thought, including ideas for moving from a "dominator" model in our society to a more democratic "partnership" model, how to educate your children in peacebuilding, and so on.

We live in dark and violent times. That is why a book like "Stop the Next War Now," edited by CodePink founders Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans, is such an important tool in promoting peace, hope and the belief that a small group of individuals really can change the world...for the better.

This amazing and empowering book is a collection of essays by some of the leading female experts, scholars, artists, activists and journalists in the world, all coming together to talk about their vision for a world without war. But the essays are more than just wishful thinking, they are powerful and passionate pleas for peace and motivating and energetic calls to action that provide the reader with real and effective ways to make a difference.

Featured in "Stop the Next War Now" are such luminaries as Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Nobel Prize winner Jody Williams, author Naomi Klein, Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto, Journalist Helen Thomas, activists such as Julia Butterfly Hill, Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman, Doris "Granny D" Haddock, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, and dozens more. The voices and visions of these great leaders speak of the terrors and horrors of war, the silent victims of violence, the tragedy of global poverty, the demand for corporate responsibility, the dangers of false democracy, the power of dissent, the need for non-violent solutions, the healing forces of hope and so many other topics, all from the viewpoint of women who have seen the sides of war and violence that the media rarely chooses to show us.

Editors Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans formed CodePink: Women For Peace (www.codepinkalert.org), an organization devoted to global peace issues, as a way for others like them - women who care about the world - to come together and protest, organize, educate and change. Since its inception in 2002, the organization has grown tremendously and is often mentioned in the news, challenging the rush to war and injustices of our own government, as well as those of other nations.

Mothers, artists, working women, political officials, activists... all women from all walks of life converge their resources, knowledge and passion in this amazing book that will no doubt serve as inspiration to generations currently working for peace, and generations to come, whose very survival depends on "stopping the next war now."

This is a moving and challenging book, a call to action, a tool for change and so much more. The stories and ideas of the authors who contributed to "Stop the Next War Now" have the ability to really make a difference...but only if enough readers choose to pick up this book, pay attention, and learn. Buy this book. Read it, then pass it on to a friend. If enough people learn that there are effective responses and alternatives to war and violence, who knows just how bright our future could be?

REV. MARIE JONES, author of LOOKING FOR GOD IN ALL THE WRONG PLACES

Susie Stalin aka Medea (child killer) Benjamin is a really disturbed maniac and should be ashamed of herself. This woman is devoid of any intellectual honesty. A puppet of the Left she disgraces peace. As anyone know there is no peace without justice. Apparently Ms Benjamin would rather live enslaved in a Communist state than as a free individual.

The best I can say about this book is it's comic in its infantile brashness.

What a bunch of liberal fanaticism. What a
shame so many trees had to die to print this trash.

... where a few organizations serve as the umbrella for the activism of many. Interesting premise of how the shift toward centralized activism has hurt liberal/left political causes by distancing them from true grassroots. It's missed the value of community relationships and narrows a pipeline through which future leadership develops. Certainly the Democratic party did better nationally when they focused on party infrastructure closer to the grassroots. And that's this author's premise: to shift the democrartic party away from a more top-down elitist structure to the more grassroot egalitarian approach of the republican party.

While candidates and issues matter, her book is strictly about presentation of these. And she underscores the idea that people who know their neighbors and are involved in a community are more likely to win votes. Good documentation (4 stars) and dry until nearly the end (2 stars) but worthy reading.

"Just the Facts" needs to check his or her facts (beware of anonymous reviewers). The book is well-sourced and the author clearly documents how the Democratic Party has outsourced their campaigns which led to the 2004 disaster. That's why Dean launched the 50-states campaign. I also suggest the following article from the American Prospect that addresses the problem of canvasser outsourcing (http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11993).

The basic premise of this book is incorrect, but is only one of many inaccuracies in this book. Sadly, this subject matter is valid, and there are other areas that could be improved in Democratic politics, but this book is completely off base. The author writes that young people that are hired as canvassers for fundraising and specific issues become discouraged because they are not appreciated. This might be true, but might also be said about any low-level entry-level job. However, her main point that this type of canvassing job is the entry point job into Democratic politics is simply not true. These jobs are not even in the pipeline for entry into other types of political jobs. She is comparing apples and oranges. This would be the equivalent of saying that the product testers/sample distributors in grocery stores are in line for management in those same stores. They might be working in the stores, but they usually are hired by outside companies to hand out the samples. A stockperson would be entry level into grocery store management, but not someone that is hired by an outside vendor to just comes in to hand out samples. It's the same in politics. These are not jobs that lead to other jobs in politics, as they are somewhat parallel to campaign work. She also compares these jobs to electoral, campaign jobs. Again, not the same realm. The biggest inaccuracy is to say that Democrats hire these canvassers and Republicans use real volunteers that then talk to their friends and co-workers, and therefore have better results. She is not comparing similar items. She is comparing fundraising/data collection to actual field work...and outsider might think they are the same, but they are not at all the same. Since her basic premise is off, the inaccuracies are further magnified when she tries to expand her theory. I understand how she could have come up with her theory, since she thought that her personal experience as a hired canvasser was something that it clearly was not. However, it would be a worse injustice to continue to perpetuate her flawed ideas by widely distributing this book. It's upsetting that the interview she did on the WNYC (NPR) radio program, "the Leonard Lopate Show", is now one of the most widely shared e-mails on their website, since she clearly does not know what she is talking about. When I listened to it with other political folks, our jaws dropped, not because we were being exposed, but because of how factually untrue her book is. I could go on and on, but it's not necessary--it should suffice to say that the entire book is based on flawed thinking.

If young (or any age) people want to get involved in politics, they should volunteer on local campaigns, or even the next presidential election. They should contact their local Democratic club, or even reach out to the national party in Washington, D.C. Someone should have told this to the author years ago--before she was hired by a canvassing company, and before she wrote her book based on that experience. All my former colleagues and I did just that, and it led us to the highest reaches of Democratic politics. At the beginning, I'm sure I made less than a basic canvasser, but at least I was in the right ballpark for advancement into other jobs within the hierarchy of politics.

None of this is to say that hired canvassers are not valuable. They have a function, but it is not the same as the field canvassers that go out from campaigns.

By the way, I was involved in national Democratic politics for almost 15 years, and have worked for many national campaigns, the White House, the DNC, the DCCC, the DSCC, a major 527 and other organizations. I know what I am talking about, and know that she does not. I am not putting out a blanket defense of Democratic politics; I am just saying that she is way off in her basic premise, and this should have been corrected before she expanded it.

Reviews on this book are going to be slanted based on whether the reviewer agrees with the author's thesis. I feel that the author did a good job of presenting both the positive and negative aspects of canvassing, and of doing her research. More often people's opinions on canvassing tend to fall to the extremes.

Interestingly the most vehement defenders tend to come from the 1% or so of canvassers who have stuck with it, and secured higher-level positions in canvassing or social change organizations.

What's missing is a model for an alternative form of getting people started in activism. For me, that model would be to get involved in community organizations that get to choose their own local campaigns, run themselves, and fund their own positions by doing grassroots fundraising (and raise the money from people who are involved in the democratic decision-making of the organization - for instance by having regular membership meetings). These organizations would stay in a community for ten years or more, build deep relationships with its members and other progressive organizations, and create a base for longterm social change.

Ward quotes Martin Buber: "All forms of government has this in common: each possesses more power than is required by the given conditions." Buber calls this this "political surplus". One only has to look around the world to see how such political surplus is spent.

I was surprised at the extent of anarchist influence. Ward devotes 4 pages to how anarchism functioned practically is Spain in the 1930's, where 3 million people were organized in anarchist communes.

Anarchists have been at the forefront of considering ecological sustainability. Ward cites authors who believe that anarchism is the only approach that can meet the ecological challenges we face.

Given the problems socialism has faced, Ward argues it is too soon to write off anarchism when looking for alternatives to present forms of government. We may have been taught little about anarchism except to be dismissive of it, but Ward's book is an excellent start to understanding what anarchism offers. There are many references to the works of anarchists.

If capitalism seems to work, albeit at a considerable ecological cost, the growing ecological crises may force us within our lifetimes to explore alternative ways of living. Socialism may not be a big enough change, retaining as it does a strong central government with its own political surplus. If you think you can manage more political participation that casting a vote every few years, anarchism may be worth studying.

Initially, I became interested in reading Colin Ward's book because instances in which I encountered the phrases 'capito-anarchist', and 'minarchist' were growing increasingly frequent. In each of these instances, authors - generally scholarly or pseudo-scholarly authors - were referencing the work of the late Robert Nozick, and others without seeming to appreciate the gravity of the term 'anarchism' as an idea. I should note at the outset that I'm not exceedingly fond of Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia".

Ward does a moderate job of outlining anarchy, and many of the major thinkers that evaluated, promoted, and propagated the idea of anarchy as a challenge to liberalism, to communism, to Tsarism, and to statist socialism. He provides brief reviews of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, William Godwin, Michael Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, and in a moment of genuine humor, Ward reveals his thoughts about Max Stirner's "The Ego and Its Own." Ward, quoting Kropotkin, explains that anarchism is "the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements, concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilised being." If one were hoping for a definition of anarchism - that's essentially it. And, if one were wondering about the central issues in anarchism, they are threefold: (1) property; Ward quotes David DeLeon as writing that, "While the liberatarians of the Right despise the state because it hinders the freedom of property; Left libertarians condemn the state because it is a bastion of property"; (2) liberty as a value either instrumentally or intrinsically conceived; and, (3) equality as isonomia, or equality of outcome. The problem with the first point is that most libertarians do not want anarchy because they recognize that without the state (or some type of mutual protection society) there cannot exist freedom of (or a right to private) property because there is nothing to defend, uphold, or in cases of dispute, resolve that freedom or right. There are problems with liberty and equality in the sense that they are not seen as conflicting values, but confusingly, as means and ends to one another. In this regard, Ward's book is more of a history affectionately told, than a philosophical examination.

What Ward has written is something akin to a biography of an idea, and like many less than stellar biographers Ward is in love with his subject. My own prediction is that this work will not, as it were, mature on the shelf: Ward conspires to make his subject relevant by incorporating chic radicalism, and celebrity causes such as ecological/environmental rights groups, anti-globalization protests, anti-Americanism/anti-capitalism, and the libertarian movement into the anarchist tradition. It's the same recklessness with political rhetoric and ideology that has made all political conversations potential minefields: what is presently called liberalism bears few resemblances to J.S. Mill's liberalism (think Joseph Raz or Peter Singer), and contemporary conservatism looks nothing like what Burke, or Hume, or Hayek, or Oakeshott had elucidated. The final shortcoming of Ward's book is that it fails to seriously examine the crux of the problem with anarchism: that freedom and equality are two competing values in any social system, and that to have pure liberty would advance only the strongest, and thus equality comes at the cost of liberty vis-ý-vis some type of authority. This authority cannot spontaneously appear out of the ether, but the bulk of the anarchists seem to believe that the good-will and underlying commonalities of all human beings will suffice in place of state authority (and that it will not later develop into the state they've rejected similar to what occurs part way through Orwell's "Animal Farm"). Ward tries to dismiss this by stating that anarchists are too often caricatured, but this is the reason why - they have failed to coherently address this problem, and so too has Ward. The first deficiency, then, is an inability to be objective; the second, an inability to properly delineate and denominate; the third, an unwillingness to explore the central value conflicts in anarchism.

What the general reader would very much appreciate is a sort of brief, unbiased, and unpretentious anarchism reader; what is unfortunate is that Ward's book is not it. There are collections of anarchist's texts if you're interested, such as Daniel Guýrin's "No Gods, No Masters" in two volumes, but one shouldn't suppose that it appeals to objectivity as it's published by AK Press in Edinburgh (whose self-described goal is to "make available radical books and other materials"). However, also worth reading are George Woodcock's "Anarchism and Anarchists: Essays," (1992) and James Joll's "The Anarchists" (1979). Among primary texts are Michael Bakunin's "Statism and Anarchy," William Godwin's "The Anarchist Writings", Peter Kropotkin, "The Conquest of Bread and Other Writings", Sergeý Nechayev "The Catcheism of the Revolutionist", Proudhon's "What is Property?", and if you're feeling very brave, Max Stirner's "The Ego and Its Own." The texts of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon, and Stirner have been included in the Cambidge University Press editions, "Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought," and all have excellent introductions, and fine translations.

Colin Ward was probably not the ideal person to write this little book on anarchism--not, as another reviewer has said (in what's a very good review, by the way) because he's an anarchist and hence isn't objective so much as because the book reeks of a very specific kind of anarchism: British, urban, secular, and communistic. The first bias makes a good deal of the discussion either arcane or dull for the nonBritish reader; the second virtually ignores intentional community experiments away from city areas; the third incredibly ignores Christian anarchists such as Jacques Ellul or Dorothy Day; and the fourth (although a position I personally endorse) gives shortshrift to libertarianism. To give him his due, Ward does discuss the latter more than he does nonurban or religious anarchism. But his understanding of libertarianism is sketchy. This only makes sense, since it's largely an American phenomenon, and Ward is sketchy on American. (On page 63, he and his editor even misspell "Cincinatti". I mean, really!)

Ward is strongest in discussing three 19th century Euopean giants of anarchism: Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin. Moreover, his chapter on education's discussion of William Godwin is both interesting and worthy. But on the other hand, much of the rest of the book falls flat. The most potentially interesting and important chapter in the book, on federalism, just doesn't deliver. Ward fails to follow up, in even an introductory way, on the anarchist claim that regionalism/federalism makes more sense than statism. Instead, he just quotes a couple of stirring but inadequate passages from an 1867 Bakunin pamphlet, doing little to refute the standard criticism that anarchist modes of organization are inadequate with large populations.

The problem is that there are few books out there that can give the beginner a good idea of what anarchism is all about. But almost all of them are better than this. So skip Ward and instead try George Woodcock's classic Anarchism, or Peter Marshall's later (but already hard to find) Demanding the Impossible. To be fair to Ward, however, his Anarchy in Action is well worth reading, and highly recommended.

A Very Short Introduction on anarchism by Colin Ward is just what it says. A short history with just enough details to allow the reader to understand the many types of anarchism that are out there. A list of books for further reading and the references allow you to easily expand your knowledge on whatever type of anarchism that you wish to know about. From their ideas about education to the environment, anarchists are everywhere.

This book is a must-read for global justice activists interested in understanding the triumphant people's movement in Bolivia to take back their water. An educational, inspirational and engaging read! Olivera's afterward, "They can't privatize our dreams" is simply breath-taking!

This book doesn't help to understand why there was a war for water and seems that it tries to layout that because of the Water War Evo Morales is President or something like that. If the author has a personal problem to be recognized for what he did, please don't write a book, go a press interview. Lost my time reading this book.

Tired of feeling helpless in the face of the institutions that try to dominate and control our lives? Reading Cochabamba! by Oscar Olivera may be just the tonic you've been looking for.

When Bechtel--currently (re)constructing Iraq and the vastly over-budget Big Dig--tried to privatize the water supply in Cochabamba, Bolivia the people said No! And they meant it. Ordinary working people participating in assemblies and cabildos (town meetings) developed demands. They proclaimed, "The water is ours!" and stood behind those words. After a series of growing protests shut down the town and highways, Bechtel was forced to flee and the town's water regained.

Due to the strength of the movement, and the connections made between different groups, the water is currently managed more democratically than it was by the government before the privatization. An essay on the challenges of administering the water supply provides further inspiration to those struggling for freedom. (Especially those of us who sometimes wonder, "What if we win?") Other essays analyze the significance of the Water War and are complemented by a selection of writings by Oscar Olivera on the imposition of neoliberalism, which created the conditions for the Water War, and what the next steps towards liberation may be.

The essays "For a Constituent Assembly: Creating Public Spaces," "Petroleum and Natural Gas: Reconquering Our Collective Patrimony," and "The Legacy of the Coordinadora" are essential to understand the current uprisings in Bolivia.

About a quarter of this book actually covers the Water War and what lead up to it. Very basic explanations of what happened and why. The eight days of chaos at the height of the Water War are left almost without description. It seems an odd thing to skimp on details of when the time was so critical.

Most of the book analyzes the impact for privatization and social movements. It's more of a scholarly book than an explanation for the average person.

The end of the book covers the "Gas War" (the fight against privitization of Bolivia's oil and gas reserves).