Editorial Review

THE FACTS.

THE FUTURE.

THE FIGHT TO FIX AMERICA—

BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.

In the words of Harvard historian Niall Ferguson, the United States is “an empire on the edge of chaos.” Why? Glenn Beck thinks the answer is pretty simple: Because we’ve turned our backs on the Constitution.

Yes, our country is financially broke, but that’s just a side effect of our broken spirit, our broken faith in government, the broken promises by our leaders, and a broken political system that has centralized power at the expense of individual rights.

There is a lot of work ahead, but we can’t move forward until we first understand how we got here. Starting with the American Revolution, Glenn takes readers on an express train through 234 years of history, culminating with the Great Recession and the bipartisan recklessness of Presidents Bush and Obama. It’s the history lesson we all wished we’d had in school. (Did you know, for example, that FDR once made a key New Deal policy decision based on his lucky number?)

Along the way, you’ll see how everything you thought you knew about the political parties is a lie, how Democrats and Republicans alike used to fight for minimum government and maximum freedom, and how both parties have been taken over by a cancer called “progressivism.” By the end, you’ll understand why no president, no congress and no court can fix this problem alone. Looking toward them for answers is like looking toward the ocean for drinking water— it looks promising, but the end result is catastrophic.

After revealing the trail of lies that brought us here, Broke exposes the truth about what we’re really facing. Most people have seen pieces of the puzzle, but very few have ever seen the whole picture—and for very good reason: Our leaders have done everything in their power to hide it. If Americans understood how dire things really are, they would be demanding radical reform right now. Despite the rhetoric, that’s not the kind of change our politicians really believe in.

Finally, Broke provides the hope that comes with knowing the truth. Once you see what we’re really up against, it’s much easier to develop a realistic plan. To fix ourselves financially, Glenn argues, we have to fix ourselves first. That means some serious introspection and, ultimately, a series of actions that will unite all Americans around the concept of shared sacrifice. After all, this generation may not be asked to storm beaches, but we are being asked to do something just as critical to preserving freedom.

Packed with great stories from history, chalkboard-style teachable moments, custom illustrations, and Glenn Beck’s trademark combination of entertainment and enlightenment, Broke makes the case that when you’re traveling in the wrong direction, slight course corrections won’t cut it—you need to take drastic action. Through a return to individual rights, an uncompromising adherence to the Constitution, and a complete rethinking about the role of government in a free society, Glenn exposes the idea of “transformation” for the progressive smokescreen that it is, and instead builds a compelling case that restoration is the only way forward. ... Read more

Reviews

A Review of the Book - Not My Position Statement
Broke, the latest release by Beck, is a surprisingly entertaining text to
be sure. It's engaging, easy to read and designed as an unapologetic
agenda...Beck style. It's also packed full of information that is sure to
create a "teachable moment" among even the most vocal opponent. As a college instructor and business writer, Beck is one of the personalities that tends to draw a lot of attention and followers/critics; for that reason I attempt to stay somewhat up to date with what he/others are doing however, I'm not a "fan" of Beck per se. Although I consider him in the realm of "entertainer" rather than serious economic or political leadership, Beck has done a very real service with the publication of this book if for no other reason than the historical and educational value of the first 2/3 of the book. Also, despite the fact that this is an early review of the book (versus my own personal opinion and/or agenda), please note that this is a verified purchase unlike others. If you want to debate the pro's and con's of the "agenda", the tea party, republicans vs democrats, liberals versus conservatives etc...this is NOT that review.

Basics About the Book

First of all, this is a 400 pages of facts, figures, charts, explanations,
history, examples and action-steps. It contains plenty of resources, ample
visual impact and a clear concise style that encourages the reader to
continue reading. This is the hardcover version with dust-jacket and I'm
happy to say that it was well designed for maximum readability and
audience appeal. Whether you are the type that sits down and reads 400
pages at once or just likes to browse a bit here and there, this book will
work equally well. Plenty of conversation with oodles of tidbits and
factoids.

Who Should Read

Beck Critics - Those that dislike Glenn Beck will not be disappointed - he
provides plenty of fuel to fire-up even the most reserved of his critics.
In fact, even hard core Beck advocates are likely to take issue with a few
items here and there due to "spin" so commonly used by Beck when
interpreting information and data. Like the old adage, there are lies,
d-mnded lies and statistics...the cited data is often used for/against
both sides of a debate, definitions are distorted to the benefit of both
sides and the usual chicanery is alive and well throughout the book. Yes,
I cringed at times but let's face it, that is a daily event for most
Americans that haven't already tuned out entirely. Critics of Beck will
find ample opportunity to criticize the details, the proposed plan of
action and even the man himself. However, there is a good chance that even
the most critical opponent of Beck will actually learn something from this
book! It is interesting and packed full of relevant historical detail as
well as food for thought.

Beck Fans - If you enjoy Beck, this may be his best book to date. It's
packed with information and is unapologetic in the proposed agenda set
forth. It's funny. It's informative. It's entertaining. It's educational.
Without a doubt you will want to buy a copy for yourself, a couple to loan
out to friends and at least one to keep on hand for naysayers and critics.
Unless they are so closed to anything other than their very own agenda,
every thinking person is likely to find something of interest in this
book. Yes, there is slant or angle but that is true of every "side". What
does come through (quite clearly) is the position taken by Beck and his
supporters as well as the reasons and rationale. Agree or disagree, it's
worth reading.

Teens & Those New to Politics, Economics, Tax Issues etc. - Anyone with an
open mind is likely to enjoy this book even if you don't agree...or
actually disagree...with Beck and his conclusions. This would be a great
tool for teens, home schooler and others that would like to initiate an
open conversation about what it taking place (or not) in this nation. The
historical perspective alone is well written, filled with facts and open
enough to spur endless debate.

What is Covered

With over 400 pages packed to the brim, this book provides a big bang for
the buck! It's roughly divided into three parts:

Part I - Part I begins with ancient history, the foundation of this
nation, monetary policy of Hoover, FDR, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush II and
now Obama.

Part II - Covers the crime of the century, the cover up and "the murder
weapon".

Part III - The Plan. This is Becks' call for action, response to critics
and his understanding of the role religion, government, family etc plays
in shaping our nation.

Citations, Resources etc...

The Great National Turning Point
As a financial planner, I am always advising my clients on sound financial investments and it kills me to see our government (suposedly for the people, of the people, and by the people) got absolutely berserk with spending. Most of the facts and figures in this hefty but easy to comprehend book follow common sense and the news that you've heard recently about our country's debt problems (the $202T is new--I've always heard our unfunded obligations at $50T). It is a great resource though.

What this non-fiction wake-up call means is that what you've read in the great political fiction (Gods of Ruin is right: we have a government full of power-hugry elites that could give a hoot about "the people".

The timing of this book is impeccable- out just before midterm elections. It provides a clarion call to readers to put restraints on our government or risk some horrendous fiscal consequences (this section in Broke is excellent). Kudos to Beck for doing this at a major turning point for our nation!

Sounds Like A Good Plan
After reading the free book sample on Kindle, I decided to move on and get the audio book download on Audible. Why? Because, just by reading the sample, I realized that "Broke" reasoning and arguments are not directed to blame anybody or anything in particular. It blames us: the people. The approach of explaining today's struggles from a historical perspective on political systems that once thrived and then failed when people, by some reason and sometimes not willingly, renounced their own freedom is absolutely convincing and agreeable.

The tale of the working ant and the lazy grasshopper presented in the beginning - and that is of knowledge to the most of us - is a very comprehensible example on how to turn a stimulating and constantly growing environment into something abysmal, allowing government to take part on things that we could manage ourselves. When there's no personal savings, there's no liberty. The whole book develops around this concept which is so simple in theory, yet so difficult to put in practice. We need somebody to remind us about it from time to time.

To make a case, the book contains in several passages an "interruption" with quick facts comparing past to present data on social and economic indicators which is very hard to disagree if we look around. I believe these fast, non intrusive breaks are quite welcomed and provides to all readers/listeners not only with reasons to keep moving on until the end of the book and let everyone draw their own conclusions, but also the very reason to why this book was written.

Another Eye Opener
Glenn Beck's newest book is another eye-opener and perhaps his best. Beck continues to educate America, even though it seems to be politically incorrect with some. This book is easy to read and provides clear facts and figures to prove his point that the USA is financially broke. Not only is our economy broke; we are spiritually broke; our faith in our government is at an all-time low...we are a train wreck! The author doesn't leave us without hope, but provides the facts, so that Americans can start to heal their country and themselves. This is a must read for all voters and those who really care about turning our country around before it is too late.

Glenn's best so far!
Broke is Glenn Beck's third "text book" styled book. The same high gloss, colored pages are back with all your favorite wit and humor used to tackle serious issues. This book, unlike Beck's others, is much more focused in it's scope. It deals with the past, present, and possible future of the financial state of the Nation.

A great feature in this book are citations that take up over 50 pages! You may not agree with his conclusions, you may say they are reaching a bit, or paranoid, but you definitely can't say that he is simply pulling all this stuff out of thin air!

I'd recommend this book to any Glenn Beck fan, and to anyone who has never actually watched his show. If your entire view point on Beck's character is made up entirely by Stewart and Colbert, you owe it to yourself to find out exactly what it is this guy is saying.

How we got here, our current status, and how we can fix it.
One of the things that I think speaks well of Glenn Beck is the kind of crazed hatred he inspires in the Progressive / Collectivist / Socialist class. I am sure this book will be wildly criticized, with few to zero citations, and the non-arguments against it will be personal attacks against Beck.

But I have read this book and while no one will mistake it for Milton Friedman, David Ricardo, and Adam Smith, it's head and shoulders better than most anything we are being told by Beck's peers on radio and TV. And given the importance and timeliness of what Beck is saying, I recommend that everyone read and think about what Beck is saying. We need to wake up, people. We are broke. While we might have some cash in our wallets, our long term obligations are frightening. Changes are coming. The only choice we have is to plan and manage them on our own or wait until the train leaves the tracks and disaster forces us to change.

Part I takes us through the history and how thrift, savings, and productivity were transformed by the Progressives into bad things and what the revaluation of those values has been a big contributor to our current crisis. My only question of the material is whether or not Andrew Carnegie really did make a major contribution to the University of Chicago since it is so closely associated with John D. Rockefeller. Maybe he did. But either way, it is no big deal. Chances are, you will learn a lot by reading this section.

Part II discusses how honest government accounting went out the window during the Reagan administration and has gotten steadily worse. Beck demonstrates why we have to look at the off book spending to realize that there really was no surplus under Clinton and the deficits were always works than the Feds ever admitted. He also shows how the huge Federal Government spontaneously calls into being lobbyists to work on funneling Federal Spending to their clients in return for helping those in power stay in power. Frankly folks, the number one way to get the Feds out of our lives is to quit asking them to give you stuff. Shrink the demand, shrink the spending, and most of their power goes away.

Part III is the most controversial because you may or may not share Beck's values and his 8 step plan for restoring the values, as he sees them, that made this country wealthy, powerful, and great. What are they? 1) Realize that we have individual rights and that collective rights are an excuse to grab power and chain people to the government. 2) Realize that we have equality of opportunity and that trying to make equal outcomes is just a government way of grabbing more power to try and do something that cannot be done. 3) Believe in America and her greatness. 4) Refashion government to be closer to the people. Decentralization takes away power from the elitists who want government as free of actual control by the people as they can get it. 5) Give the Progressives a taste of the activism they have been giving us for more than a century. 6) Cut spending everywhere. A little, some more, and a lot. 7) Stop printing money. Create policies that support a sound currency with real value. 8) Live your own life so you are "out of the system". Don't allow yourself to become dependent on the government and vote for those that support liberty and responsibility rather than dependence

Can we do it? Yes! Will we do it? That remains to be seen. I hope we do.

Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Saline, MI

The book is better than 2010 midterm election results
This book is incredibly informative and I'm recommending anyone interested in the state of the country whether conservative or progressive to read it. There's alot in here that's good for discussion. It's the smash mouth call outs in the margins of the text that make this book punchy and lively. They back up alot of what he says.

Of course opinion will vary depending on your interpretation so it's up to the reader to decide. But when you have the likes of Thomas Jefferson calling out from the grave in the pages of this book...it's hard for people who disagree with Glenn Beck to counter his proposals and historical accounts of what's happened. Bottom line is I believe progressive thinking is in serious trouble if Glenn Beck is right in his new book.

Very Educational!
I found that this book taught me a lot of things that I felt I should have already known and didn't. It is written in three sections: the first is our past, and how our Presidents and congresses have brought us to our current financial situation. The second section is all about our current situation, and the many "slight of hand" tricks that are used to make finances look better than they really are, and where that is going to lead us. The third section is how the author feels we need to change things to turn our country around financially.

First, let me say that I am ashamed that I knew so little about our former Presidents and our own history. Second, I am a bookkeeper, and when I discovered how the accounting in Washington is done I was appalled! Any individual or business who kept books and budgets the way that the government does would be in prison right now. And I never knew! While it is chocked-full of facts and information, I also found the book very entertaining. I had thought it might be dry, but I didn't find that to be the case at all. In honesty, I couldn't put it down.

Even if you disagree with Beck's positions, suppositions, or suggested actions; the book is a good read if you would like to understand better how the country's finances are figured, and how the figures for their reporting are kept. It certainly makes for a much more educated American voter, when we understand what a politician is saying (or not saying) about our financial futures, and those of our children. When we understand the rules of the game, we know the questions to ask. I HIGHLY recommend this book. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Since the publication of her bestselling memoir, Going Rogue, in 2009, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has traveled the country extensively. She has visited cities and towns in almost every state, dropped in on military bases, given talks and speeches to small groups and at massive rallies. Throughout her travels, she has had the privilege of meeting thousands of Americans—ordinary men and women who have shared with her their hopes and dreams, their love of country, and their fears about what lies ahead. Governor Palin, inspired by these encounters, celebrates in her new book the enduring strengths and virtues that have made this country a beacon of liberty and hope for the rest of the world.

America by Heart is a highly personal testament to her deep love of country, her strong roots in faith, and her profound appreciation of family. Ranging widely over American history, culture, and current affairs, Governor Palin reflects on the key values that have been such an essential part of her own life and that continue to inform her vision of America's future.

Reviews

Ghost-written, December 27, 2010
After reading a few dozen pages, I seriously doubt that the woman who has demonstrated problems speaking coherent sentences in public is able to communicate effectively with the written word. Sarah Palin did not write this book. In addition, she offers nothing new. For her, parroting patriotic slogans, attacking her opponents and promoting failed policies from the past is what passes for political discourse. Astonishing that so many Americans consider her seriously. Her public should love this book. For everyone else, read it for light amusing entertainment.

Signed Edition-not!, December 26, 2010
No way these books are signed personally by Palin. I ordered two and the signatures are identical-stroke for stroke.Must be signed by a machine.

She borrowed a lot from another author/book, November 29, 2010
Reading this I was starting to wonder if Palin was a true student of political history, and how she had found the time to do so much heavy reading that she quote and discuss Alexis de Toqueville, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson along with Calvin Coolidge and someone as obscure as John Witherspoon. Really, how had her breadth of study and knowledge not been known - was she hiding this in 2008 or has she spent the last 2 years studying - in between book tour, Tea Party and speaking appearances, filming a reality show and being a FoxNews commentator?

But then I checked out a source she mentioned a few times - the book WE STILL HOLD THESE TRUTHS by Matthew Spalding - and saw a lot of commonality, including the de Toqueville and Coolidge and Witherspoon references. Now it seems apparent (to me) that she read and relied heavily on Spalding's book, adding those folksy touches that her fan base loves. They won't question her originality, anyway (but Spalding should).

Palin neatly separates progressives and DC people from the patriotic Americans she is so proud of - her base will love it but I found it insulting and distasteful to imply that people who hold different beliefs are somehow less patriotic or "American" than those who agree with her. She considers the term "American exceptionalism" to mean American superiority, when the term really came from an observation of the country's unique ideology. She criticizes some of the leading voices of modern feminism, and admits she's a feminist, but seems oblivious to the societal differences of the 60s and 70s, as well as their contributions to the societal changes that have allowed her to take advantage of opportunities that she wouldn't have been given then.

I thought Palin's first book was more authentic; this one seems more like a less academic version of Spalding's book. Maybe she can get back to something original next time.

Who wrote this book?, November 26, 2010
I've read both of Sarah Palin's books and the "voice" in this book is different than the "voice" in her first book. This book reads like a sales pitch and a 300-page infomercial for the author. I can't tell if she's setting herself up for a run in 2012 or to continue her wildly lucrative speaking business. Either way this book is purely money in her pocket and not at all worth the time I wasted/lost reading it, and complete waste of trees.

She tells it like it is!, December 28, 2010
While not everyone agrees with Sarah Palin's views, my opinion is that the woman is sure not fearful in standing up for what she believes in - and that belief is that America is terrific!

Condescending; doesn't raise level of discourse or present new ideas, November 28, 2010
When I read non fiction, I want something that raises the level of discourse, stretches my thinking, presents new ideas, challenges my old ones, and expands my horizons. I have found none of these in this book because it's all the same old ideas she's hashed over since she was introduced to the nation, and they weren't new ideas then. I admit I haven't finished this book, nor will I for the reasons already stated and because the writing is condescending, boring, and, along with that, written on about a sixth grade level (I know; I teach sixth grade, and I did several reading level tests on it.) I want a book that treats me like I'm intelligent and can understand new concepts and constructs. This book does not. It doesn't present any solutions except in platitudes we've heard over and over like "take our country back." Back to what? How? Or stereotyping all liberals. I hold many liberal views, wanted to learn more of Palin's views, and only got shot down by her for being liberal. Why? I'm not shooting her down; I'm trying to learn more about her, more about how she would run a nation. Why not anything about how capitalism is changing and how that might affect our democracy? How about ideas for how we should change to energy sources not based on oil because even if we drill we will run out? Where's the level of discourse that she so admires in the Declaration of Independence and which would help establish common ground for solving national and world difficulties? If she thinks we should invade Iran, how would she do this with more success than in Iraq, and how would she balance the budget at the same time?

For those that agree with her, I imagine that reading it was fun and affirming, but it didn't do anything to help a dialog between left and right, nor did it raise the level of discourse. We don't need another cheerleader book meant to rally those already on "our" side. In addition, there are many areas that don't ring true to her voice; googling certain passages has revealed that she or her ghostwriter have lifted sentences or passages with minimal editing without giving credit to the original author. I want my politicians to be honest, to be able to express their ideas in their own words, and to give credit where credit is due. There's a bibliography of sorts at the end, so maybe these "lifts" are included there. But they should be cited where she uses them. I expect that of my sixth graders. I also expect being highly above board of someone who calls themselves a Christian.

I am not comparing her to anyone else; I am simply saying that I have certain standards I expect my elected officials to meet and surpass, and I expect certain things of those that call themselves Christian. She has fallen far short in both these areas.

Ms. Palin, you've disappointed me.

As in Going Rogue, a lot of lies, misstatements & stretching the truth, December 2, 2010
Here I go for a second time and although my feelings have not changed since I first read the book, I'll have to change the review a bit. I was told that someone complained about the quotes I used. Strange as it may be, those quotes backed up my assertions that Mrs. Palin lied or stretched the truth by omitting certain parts of quotes that would change the meaning of what she wrote.

Palin references American's exceptionalism and yet, in doing so, she had to try to tear down her President's words about the exceptionalism of the country he leads. When she spoke of our President and his alleged non-belief in America's exceptionalism, she omitted a large portion of his quote. When the quote is read in full, you'll find that our President said he believed in our country's exceptionalism just as citizens of other countries around the world believe in their individual country's exceptionalism, using Greece and England as two examples. Was he denying American exceptionalism? Absolutely not. He went on to speak of our allies during WWII and our invaluable help that was provided which aided them greatly in becoming the strong, dependable countries they are today. We can count on the help of their military in our fight against terrorists whose greatest desire is to see us fail. Our President spoke with pride in regards to our unmatched military strength, the values found in our Constitution, our love and regard for equality and freedom for all people. He said that the recognition of other countries strength and admiration for them in no way lessens his pride in his own country as Palin would have us believe.What Palin has done is quite typical of the things I've seen on Fox countless
times. She's learned well from Sean Hannity as he does this nightly on his show. It's not misleading, it's LYING. How can anyone call Palin admirable when in order to boost her own self-esteem, she attempts to tear down our President's
character and does so with an outright lie? What does her character assassination attempts towards the President of our country say about her? That she is not patriotic. In fact, anyone who loves this country, despite disagreement with our President would still respect the power of the office and all it stands for. You are not considered patriotic if you find it necessary to lie about our President in order to try to attract attention for one's self or boost your own overinflated ego.

Palin complains on page 263 about Obama's enemy-centric policy is coddling our enemies. In using this phrase here
in the book and in a speech she gave earlier this year, it's obvious she doesn't know what enemy-centric means. For instance, Bush was criticized for using an enemy-centric policy in Afghanistan early on which only caused our enemies to
move to a different location. Enemy-centric is not a term meaning friendly towards the enemy as Palin indicates in her writing. What does her mistake tell me? That she's picking phrases out of books or earlier speeches and using them
for herself but not knowing what they mean. Rather than copy the lengthy passage, I've given you the page number or you can do a search for the term here on Amazon.

Palin has revealed herself to be a phony many times. These are just a couple of instances, in fact, I could give you hundreds. If you have any interest in seeing her become President, you might be wise to do some research on websites
prior to 2008 (then you can't blame them on Obama) before deciding to rally around her. If you're horrified at the thought of her attempting to lead our country, you already know what I'm referring to."

she has no clue, December 22, 2010
I read the first three chapters of this mess and wow, this woman is clueless about real America.
She blatantly stole ideas from other authors. Also, is it possible for her to not use sappy and pointless cliches?
Save your time and money and get something substantial, not this tome of mediocrity.

Sarah's #2 BOMB, December 26, 2010
This woman as I wrote about her last book....She is a Con. Making money after she got a taste of the limelight thanks to McCain, she has wasted no time, quitting her job as governor and making oodles of money off of people who buy into her rhetoric. Trust me, she is NO THREAT to Liberals. Plus she is not a woman who should even be considered a Feminist! P.S. She doesn't even write her own books. L. Rudzinskas, Denver, Colorado

The book only deepens the mystery..., November 27, 2010
First I'll acknowledge right up front that I worked for McCain-Palin, in Alaska, during the first two weeks of her VP run. At first I was thrilled by her as a result of her reputation in Alaska, and the potential lift to the sagging GOP ticket. However once she began to speak publicly, without a script, I got very nervous. It was clear she had a lot of catching up to do on current events and important historical contexts.

So I've been following her closely since, believing that with a little reading and thinking she could be a serious contender. This book should have been the proof that she is the full package. Instead it read to me like a pamphlet distributed at a college campus political rally, not anything substantive that would electrify conservatives or give birth to a movement, much less have any meaning on a world stage.

While it is worth a read to get an updated view of of Palin, I think it is a missed opportunity for her to be substantive and reach a bigger, more thoughtful mass of the electorate. Perhaps she is too green to be substantive. Either way, this hyper-partisan brand is solidifying around her and this book may seal it.

There is a anti-partisan rebellion building in the U.S. and I doubt there will be little tolerance for hyper-partisan candidates in the next election, so why she has chosen this path is a mystery to me. ... Read more

Editorial Review

The astonishing, uplifting story of a real-life Indiana Jones and his humanitarian campaign to use education to combat terrorism in the Taliban’s backyard

Anyone who despairs of the individual’s power to change lives has to read the story ofGreg Mortenson, a homeless mountaineer who, following a 1993 climb of Pakistan’s treacherous K2, was inspired by a chance encounter with impoverished mountain villagers and promised to build them a school. Over the next decade he built fifty-five schools—especially for girls—that offer a balanced education in one of the most isolated and dangerous regions on earth. As it chronicles Mortenson’s quest, which has brought him into conflict with both enraged Islamists and uncomprehending Americans, Three Cups of Tea combines adventure with a celebration of the humanitarian spirit. ... Read more

Reviews

A blueprint for making a difference
After four trips over the past three years to Pakistan and Azad Kashmir, and after founding Kashmir Family Aid (www.kashmirfamily.org) to aid victims of the Oct 8, 2005 earthquake, I whole-heartedly endorse Greg Mortenson and his work. This book adds new life to the over-wraught dictum that "one CAN make a difference." Beyond that, if one wants to truly get inside the rural Pakistani's heart and soul, this is mandatory reading.

My personal experience has been that once I met these people (and yes, had tea with them in their tiny homes, or in the quake region, in their tents), it was difficult to want to leave to return to the West. It's a hard thing to explain but Mortenson's book will absolutely do the job. A powerful thread within his story: It would be impossible not to love these people after getting to know them one-on one.

These remote village people are simple, strong and proud. Their lives are spent nurturing their families and working hard in a politically and environmentally tortured region. BUY THE BOOK, get inside the people of this place and then send Greg Mortenson your donation.

One man's remarkable vision
"Three Cups of Tea" is a compelling account of the difference one fiercely determined person can make in the world. I won't use this space to repeat the descriptions already covered in the editorial reviews, but Greg Mortenson's passion for educating children, especially girls, in the rugged mountain regions of northern Pakistan is truly remarkable. The relationships he has patiently built with local people and moderate Muslim leaders in the area over many years are key to his success.

In addition to education, Mortenson's Central Asia Institute funds projects that provide health care and clean water. He is also building schools in northern Afghanistan, again with the support of local people.

One alarming chapter of the book includes a discussion of the spread of fundamentalist madrassas in the mountain regions of Pakistan, which should deeply concern Americans, including the government. It is essential for Americans to support Mortenson's Central Asia Institute initiatives to provide children with educational alternatives.

"Three Cups of Tea" is very well written, with heartfelt portraits of courageous people. It is a superb and moving story of an exceptional man.

So Much More Than Just a Book
It's a book but then so are the latest bestsellers yet they offer nothing beyond a mindless distraction. To say Three Cups of Tea is about peace is to say that Mortensen goes hiking in the mountains. To say it's about building schools in the most desolate, remote, obscure part of the planet is to say an idealistic young man had a wild idea.

Mortenson and co-author David Oliver Relin bring the reader to the foot of K2, into a village so isolated from everything that there doesn't even exist a bridge to connect them to the world beyond the raging river that flows from the glacier fields. There Mortenson introduces us to children so eager to learn they work multiplication tables in the dirt without benefit of a teacher or books.

How does this man, so grateful to the people who saved his life, repay them? One school at a time. It's a truely inspirational story of what any of us, including a kid born in Minnesota, can do to change the world. The fact that the book is also a true page-turner and is so "can't put it down, don't interrupt me, I gotta know what happens next" good makes this must reading for every high school senior, every empty-nester, every one of us wondering what to do with the rest of our lives. Although I likely won't venture to the high mountains of Pakistan or Tibet, Mortenson has inspired me to find a way to make a difference. Go read it and find your inspiration!!!

STOP what you are doing...
you.. yes YOU behind the terminal, surfing the web, maybe finding that cheap chotcky to buy or something. Stop what you are doing if you have come across this book and this review. You need to read this more than you think!

Within the confines of 350 pages you can be transported to a world that for most Westerner's and specifically Americans, is probably very unknown, and more than likely, highly misunderstood. In this world you will be introduced to a man named Greg Mortenson, or as you soon to know him, as Greg Sahib..

The story that is told by David Oliver Revin, will not just be inspiring, will not be just teeth clenching, it will make you re-evaluate what you do in your life. While most of us may talk about the incapacity of the administration, or some (unfortunatly) the hatred of the middle East, or maybe some of you are even lying down in the streets, but there is ONE person who is TRULY doing something about the problems of foreign policy by litteraly getting his hands dirty touching the earth to build a school foundation, and risking his life ten times over.

When you have read this journey, you will be saying to yourself, did he really do that? That guy is CRAZY! Did that really happen?, the Taliban? , How is that possible? In the journey that is fortold of a change of fate through a failed mountain expedition, you can see what the spirit of the individual can do and how it can be transformed. As the events of 9/11 soon come to fruition, Greg couldn't be in a better place at the right time, and with David's narration, you are litteraly put in the drivers seat.

After reading Mortensen's journey, you will want to litteraly book a plane ticket to somewhere you have never been before. In reading the accomplishments of a somewhat flawed (hey what person is perfect) individual, you will feel small and insignifigant. David Relin will not just explain what Greg did, he will make you live it, with some enjoyable side narrations that will make you grin.

In Three Cups of Tea, David has managed more than anything to explain the heart of a problem (Islamic hatred of the West) of a very complicated nature (through numerous foreign policy debacles and politics spanning decades), and how one man knows of an easy solution (Go to poor regions of the Middle East and give education and extend the olive branch. Build schools for the poorest of the poor, ecspecially for girls. And more importantly, let them know that it was done.. by an American).

As if it was so difficult to understand.

I encourage you to take this journey and figure out that sometimes the biggest problems in life require some of the most common sense solutions. I also echo the other comments on here that you should buy this book from the actually CAI institute and consider a donation as well.

Greg Mortensen is doing what he is doing best, and his passion comes through the pages. For myself my passion is to write. Like Gregg I feel it is what I can do best (when I put my effort my passion, and my soul into it).

now if you'll excuse me...

I have to go write a check.

What an incredible story...
My goodness. I just finished the book, and I am in tears. I am a world traveller (32 countries in just about every region on the globe), and consider myself compassionate to a fault; but even I, after September 11th, possessed a fair degree of anger at Muslims. I had spent some time in the Middle East and North Africa, and although I tried to respect the traditions as much as possible (covering my arms, wore long skirts, not looking at men in the eye), I was still assaulted in broad daylight in a street bazaar in Cairo, Egypt, surrounded by at least a dozen of my classmates (an old man came up and grabbed my [...]). The anger that started then had totally blown up after September 11th and consumed me, the point where I had actually said that I will never believe Islam is a religion of peace, especially after the reaction to the Mohammed cartoons.

Well.

I was wrong.

This book has reminded me why I loved the regions in the Himalayas and beyond; the simplicity of life, the fierceness and protectiveness towards family and friends; and their incredible desire to do the best for themselves with whatever they have on hand, even if it means going to school on a bare field covered with morning frost. Greg and David describe these people in Baltistan and beyond so well that you cannot help admiring or even falling in love with these proud, strong people.

I've always told people if you encourage positive change for just one person, you'll change the whole world for them. Greg and his CAI cohorts have done that for literally hundreds of thousands of children. It was so gratifying for me to read, despite the selfishness of our people today, that there are still some who passionately believe in changing the world for others.

For me, it was the speech by Syed Abbas (on page 257, hardcover) that broke the last of my hard-core attitude towards Muslims and Islam.

I am off to make my contribution - meager but still a contribution - to CAI so they can continue their incredible work.

A MUST read
Greg Mortenson's three cups of tea is an account of his unsuccessful attempt on mighty K2, world's second highest peak in Himalayas. Though unsuccessful, his failure embarked him on a mission to educate people of an area inhabitants of breath taking hills and valleys and virgin plains. Whats mind boggling about his adventure is his spirit of self sacrifice for a people of a land much misunderstood by the west. His story proves that with love, compassion and sincerity, you can melt the hearts, even those of mountains. Rightly regarded a hero in Northern Pakistan, his book would go a long way in bridging the divide between the inhabitants of East and West. If you haven't read the book, you are Missing on something. Highly recommended.

Promote peace on Earth. Read this book.
This is the most amazing and inspiring book I have read in a very long time. I am a high school teacher and the mother of a U.S. Army Seargent who has completed a tour in Afghanistan and is currently serving in Iraq. I bought the book to send to him, but thought I would read it first. I'm very glad I did. The book is as exciting as an adventure novel, but it's true. Anyone who cares about the education and welfare of children and who desires to understand the problems faced in fighting terrorism should read this book. There is hope for peace in this world and Greg Mortenson is doing wonderful things to make it happen. He is a true American hero. Everyone needs to read this book and everyone who does will want to share it with others.

A lesson in altruism
This book is absolutely wonderful. Mortenson shows us how one dedicated person can make a difference. He also poignantly shows the world that education and non-violent assistance does a profoundly better job of winning support and "attacking" terrorism than warfare! (Duh!) I think there are very few Americans who would be willing to make the kind of sacrifice Greg Mortenson has but he has certainly inspired me to support his and similar efforts in the best way I can. In my opinion, he deserves a Nobel Peace prize. I would like to see this book in every high school library in America. ... Read more

Editorial Review

This is the best-selling Original Authorized Edition regularly featured by Glenn Beck to Fox TV viewers as a Must Read!

The nation the Founders built is now in the throes of a political, economic, social, and spiritual crisis that has driven many to an almost frantic search for modern solutions. The truth is that the solutions have been available for a long time -- in the writings of our Founding Fathers -- carefully set forth in this timely book.

In The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World, Discover the 28 Principles of Freedom our Founding Fathers said must be understood and perpetuated by every people who desire peace, prosperity, and freedom. Learn how adherence to these beliefs during the past 200 years has brought about more progress than was made in the previous 5000 years. These 28 Principles include The Genius of Natural Law, Virtuous and Moral Leaders, Equal Rights--Not Equal Things, and Avoiding the Burden of Debt. Published by the National Center for Constitutional Studies, a nonprofit educational foundation dedicated to restoring Constitutional principles in the tradition of America's Founding Fathers.

The National Center for Constitutional Studies...is doing a fine public service in educating Americans about the principles of the Constitution. -- Ronald Reagan, President of the United States

This is possibly the most comprehensive treatment of the genius of the American Founding Fathers which has ever been encompassed in a single volume. --Kenneth C. Chatwin, District Judge, Phoenix, Arizona

Reviews

A Must Read For All Americans, November 23, 2007
This is an incredible book that should be read by all Americans.

I first read this book back in the mid 1980s shortly after it was first published. It had such a profound effect on me that I can still recall where I was when I was reading it. That is rather amazing as I have I have probably read about 1600 books since then.

I was excited to see that it had recently been republished as my original copy is pretty ragged. It was great to reread it and brush up on the great ideas contained in it.

The premise of the book is that because of the free market system that took root after our Constitution was enacted, the United States literally made a 5000 year leap of progress in the time since then. The author, W. Cleon Skousen, discussed the changes from the time of the founding of Jamestown in 1607 to the early 1980s when the book was written. In discussing Jamestown, he said: "The most striking thing about the settlers of Jamestown was their startling similarity to the ancient pioneers who built settlements in other parts of the world 5,000 years earlier. The whole panorama of Jamestown demonstrated how shockingly little progress had been made by man during all of those fifty centuries."

He went on to say, "The settlers of Jamestown had come in a boat no larger and no more commodious than those of the ancient sea kings. Their tools still consisted of shovel, axe, hoe, and a stick plow which were only slightly improved over those of China, Egypt, Persia, and Greece. They harvested their grain and hay-grass with the same primitive scythes ..."

He then discussed the Constitution that was developed by the Founders. It took 180 years for them to put it all together from the beginning of Jamestown in 1607 to the enactment of the U.S. Constitution in 1787. He goes through the inspirations and sources for their thoughts in explaining how the U.S. Constitutional system came about.

Dr. Skousen contrasted the situation described in Jamestown above to the present day. He talks about the phenomenol results produced by the free enterprise system. Some of the incredible inventions and changes that he cites are as follows: the internal combustion engine, jet propulsion, exotic space travel, 'all the wonders of nuclear energy', massive changes in communications, the doubling of the life expectancy, central heating/air conditioning, surgical miracles, cures for numerous diseases, etc. Needless to say, the list could go on and on.

In showing how our system was designed, Skousen goes through 28 principles that the Founders developed from their study of sources such as Cicero, Locke, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, and others. Skousen has done what most people don't have the time or inclination to do: Study the original source materials and bring it all together.

Obviously, it would be great if every American studied the sources listed above as well as The Federalist Papers, the writings of Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, and others. Since that is unlikely, this is a great way to gain a good general understanding of the roots of our nation.

One great thing about this book is that the author discusses some of the problems that we have faced in recent years due to failing to follow the Constitution and the principles of the Founders. Some of these are issues like the mounting national debt, excessive taxation, and judicial activism.

Dr. Skousen also does a great job of explaining the political spectrum and the absurdities of the left-right labeling so often used in discourse today. He explains in an easy-to-understand manner that the far left and far right as the terms are used today are really the same thing, ruler's law, and are totally out of step with the way the system was intended.

One could easily go on about this book for a long time, but I will spare the reader that. Suffice it to say, this is an amazing book that should be read by all.

I would also highly recommend, "The Making Of America" The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution by the same author. Anyone who reads those two books will know more about the way our system was designed and supposed to work than 99% of all Americans including 'constitutional lawyers'. Buy this book.

Contextual perspective of the Constitution from the Founders, January 17, 2009
Over the years I've read many books on the founding of America, the Constitution and our government. From the Federalist papers to present day books on specific politicians and policies. This book has put a perspective on how America came to be the 'Tip of the Sword' of planetary development in only 200 years after a human history that runs on for many centuries consisting of bare bones existence for the masses by illuminating not 'just' the beliefs of the Founders but what they were from the inside out... and what their intent for this nation really was.
Above all they were academicians in every aspect of the word... but also they actually felt individually responsible not only for what they were doing but for each and every word they uttered or wrote in regards to the archival evidence they understood they were creating for the new Government. Something you won't find in any politician today.
An easy read, very enjoyable and ultimately educational. Be careful, you may actually learn something you didn't know.

If one doesn't know what it means to be free in America, this book will teach you., October 12, 2009
I remember going through school and learning about American history and the writing of the Constitution, but I never felt like I had a feel for the language or the principles upon which that great document was written. W. Cleon Skousen's book, The 5000 Year Leap, does just that. This is a book that anyone of almost any age could pick up and understand just what it was the Founding Fathers were striving for. I think that every individual should pick up and read this book at least once, but preferrably multiple times.
This book lays out 28 principles with which the Founding Fathers tried to integrate into the Constitution. It seems that over 50% of the book is actually quotes by the Founding Fathers themselves, allowing it to do a great job of showing the reader what they actually meant and not just what the author thinks they meant. This book is a must-have for any American history fan or any individual who studies politics. I would recommend it to everyone, though.

Look no further, March 25, 2009
As a member of Pi Sigma Alpha, the National Political Science Honor Society and someone who considers themselves well read and current on our nation's politics, this book, The 5000 Year Leap is the absolute best. If you wish to understand the founding of America. If you wish to learn how the founders wrestled with the issues. If you want to know whether or not America is really a unique and great nation, not merely in the world today, but throughout all of human history. If you are troubled by our current day's politics and wonder just how closely our leaders today, regardless of political stripe, remain true to our founding principles. If you have wondered about any of this, you need read only one book for your answer. READ THE 5000 YEAR LEAP!! I promise you will come away with a renewed sense of America and great hope for our continuing success as a nation.

Illuminating but breezy, January 7, 2008
The 5000 Year leap left me irritated, challenged, and wanting to read more.

I found the historical material the most interesting, but every time I read the views and conclusions, I felt the need to check the facts. Somehow it seemed that Dr. Skousen was bending the story. I may be off-base here, or I may not. It has inspired me to do more research.

I had two problems specifically. Skousen's concept of good government, which he says he shares with the Founders, is to seek a balance between anarchy, which he equivocates with chaos, and tyranny. To me that sounds like halfway to tyranny, and doesn't help differentiate between the activities where government arguably has a role, and those in which it doesn't.

He takes to heart the purpose of government as described in the Declaration of Independence, but I still felt an authoritarian streak running through the book.

I think the Founders model was to get as close as possible to liberty, and keep the federal government as small as possible, leaving all else to the people or the states. It may sound like a small semantic difference, but the idea of seeking a balance between pure liberty and pure tyranny is a lot different than staying as close to pure liberty as possible.

My other problem was his notion that the part of natural law that is political law is not discovered but revealed. I believe he is saying that the laws which are used to govern human behavior have been revealed by God, through scripture, and are not discovered through experiment as are the laws of physics. He quotes Blackstone on this. I am uncomfortable with this idea, and plan to read more of Blackstone's work to see for myself.

My understanding is that common law is the best origin of political law, and that it was discovered through centuries of case law arising from the resolution of disputes. Some forms of resolution work, others don't. The workable solutions last, the others fall away. This is a discovery process, a science of behavior, not a matter of applying scripture.

This book came out in 1980. In 1943 two books came out which I think better express the idea of the emergence of liberty: The God Of The Machine by Isabel Paterson, and The Discovery Of Freedom by Rose Wilder Lane.

A little disappointed, September 7, 2009
Don't get me wrong, I think this is a great book, and I highly recommend it. With all the rave reviews, maybe my expectation was set too high. I enjoyed reading the book, and agree with all of it, but was still disappointed.

Here's the catch: This book is written by religious people, for religious people. The title should be changed to "How Religion played a role in the Founders writing of the Constitution".

I've been a conservative all of my life, and am a Libertarian, and even though I grew up in a church, and respect religious people, I no longer believe there is a God. However, I do believe in the morals taught by religion, and choose to associate with these good people.

This book covers many topics, but every single chapter has the same theme: How religion played a role when the founders wrote that part of the Constitution. It makes sense, is well written, and is a very positive book for religious people to read, but if you are not religious, it does eventually start to get old. I made it through about 85% of book, before I hit religion overload. I scanned the rest, reading the bullets and highlights, and agree with them too.

If you are an Atheist (I don't like that word, the incorrect stereotype assumes you are anti-God which is simply not true for many Atheists), I still recommend this book. You will learn a lot, and it makes sense. Just be warned, it reads at times like a church sermon.

For those of you wondering: Yes, I do agree with this books' premise that a government SHOULD have officials that adhere to MORALS found in religion. I may not pray to God myself, but I would rather our government officials do. I am just as offended by the "God hating" Atheists; they are the ones who seem hell bent on destroying America with their immorality. I usually vote for officials who fear God and love their neighbors. I love my country, and am proud to be an American.

It will change your views of America, June 3, 2008
The constitution, what does it mean anymore? This document changed the course of the world and this book will tell you why the United States of America changed the world in 200 years. Sadly, it is also pointing out why we are loosing what has made us so strong.

This book yes, should be required reading.

Do you want a book that will honestly change your whole way of thinking about American Government, are you willing to be challenged? Take the dare, you will not regret it.

If you are a liberal, Democrat or Republican, how about, just an American, this book is for you.

Are you new to the concepts of Natural Law? This is a good jumping off point.

The book is an easy read, easy to grasp for the beginner, yet I believe an advanced reader will still find it fascinating. It is a new perspective of our country, or rather just highlighting the original intent which seems to be new in this day and age.

Really Makes One Wonder...., March 24, 2009
This is one of those books that has the ability to change lives and, if not that, to at least get a person thinking. The Romans were an incredible people with astounding technology, as were the Greeks and other ancient civilizations. But what happened in the early 1800s when suddenly technology suddenly began changing the world faster than the world could handle it?

The United States was driving this technology to a great degree. Unfettered by the oppressive governments in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, it was as if someone suddenly turned on a light...literally. Electric lights, cars, trucks, tanks, telephones, machine guns, airplanes, radar, sonar, submarines, satellites, microscopes, electron microscopes, telescopes, astrophysics, astronomy, computers, cell phones, telecommunications, medical knowledge, atomic energy and a dizzying array of other advancements that made life not only easier, but in many ways much more dangerous.

The 5000 Year Leap brings this home and leaves one wondering...why?

The ride is far from over, and this book makes one wonder if we're not all trading our greatness for a mess of pottage. Very readable and highly recommended.

One Nation Under God, December 3, 2002
A great compilation of the inspired ideas that are shaping our nation; a must read for all patriots. In this post-September-11 world, this book reminds us of the need to return to the religious and moral foundation upon which our republic rests.

Although the book's thesis is based on Judeo-Christian principles, I had no problem (nor did our nation's founders) in extending its premises to all humanity and all humane belief systems. I especially liked the summary of Ben Franklin's fundamentals of all sound religion on p. 77.

For those of you who deny the need for a religious and moral component to our society, I can only side with an intellect greater than mine. Let us remember George Washington's warning from his farewell address excerpted on p. 76 of the book: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indespensable supports...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...Reason and experience forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle."

Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, anyone who believes in an ordered universe will find much to ponder in this book.

The best way to understand our founding fathers ideas., July 6, 1998
This book is the most detailed collection I've ever seen discussing the constitution and the men who wrote it. I'm planning on making it one of my children's schoolbooks! If you are interested in finding out more about your country and why it was founded, you need to read this book. You'll look back on it often for reference, and you'll have a hard time not loaning it out to every person you know. ... Read more

Editorial Review

The dramatic story behind the most audacious power grab in American history
 
The financial crisis that exploded in 2008 isn’t past but prologue. The stunning rise, fall, and rescue of Wall Street in the bubble-and-bailout era was the coming-out party for the network of looters who sit at the nexus of American political and economic power. The grifter class—made up of the largest players in the financial industry and the politicians who do their bidding—has been growing in power for a generation, transferring wealth upward through increasingly complex financial mechanisms and political maneuvers. The crisis was only one terrifying manifestation of how they’ve hijacked America’s political and economic life.

Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi here unravels the whole fiendish story, digging beyond the headlines to get into the deeper roots and wider implications of the rise of the grifters. He traces the movement’s origins to the cult of Ayn Rand and her most influential—and possibly weirdest—acolyte, Alan Greenspan, and offers fresh reporting on the backroom deals that decided the winners and losers in the government bailouts. He uncovers the hidden commodities bubble that transferred billions of dollars to Wall Street while creating food shortages around the world, and he shows how finance dominates politics, from the story of investment bankers auctioning off America’s infrastructure to an inside account of the high-stakes battle for health-care reform—a battle the true reformers lost. Finally, he tells the story of Goldman Sachs, the “vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity.”

Taibbi has combined deep sources, trailblazing reportage, and provocative analysis to create the most lucid, emotionally galvanizing, and scathingly funny account yet written of the ongoing political and financial crisis in America. This is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the labyrinthine inner workings of politics and finance in this country, and the profound consequences for us all. ... Read more

Reviews

Wonderfully written and biting
I've been reading all kinds of books since I was 8-9 and have always been able to absorb the information without getting too emotional or involved in the story. I can't count the # of times I shook my head in disbelief or cursed or hoped it was a joke while reading this one. Although I've read all of Matt's books and pretty much read all his blogs/essays that I can find online, this book has left a different mark on me. Is it the seriousness of the tone in this book that's different from the funny/sarcastic humor & petty name calling that's prevalent in his other works(btw there is no shortage of funny one liners and comparisons-the best one being the answer you get for asking why you like pepsi)? I don't know, but I wish, and I certainly plan to do my homework, someone or a lot of folks would prove these assumptions, allegations and accusations to be wrong. Not in the way it was presented (as was the case in all the responses I saw after the squid RS article) but factually! I need someone to prove he's wrong about everything in this book and prove that Matt doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. If there aren't any factual rebuttals to the discussions in this book, I am afraid I'll regret reading this book in the first place. This is too corrupt and cruel to be true. I've never wished for author to be so wrong about so much. Not sure how this review appears to a stranger but as much as I want and need to commend Matt on his efforts, I am not able to. Because if the book is true, I guess he's done too good a job of exposing a lot of painful things that am not able to see past. Ultimately, may be that's the best review an author can get-doing such a wonderful job that the reader wishes he hadn't read it!
Great, just a great book.
Thanks Matt.
murugan ... Read more

Editorial Review

Ben Macintyre’s Agent Zigzag was hailed as “rollicking, spellbinding” (New York Times), “wildly improbable but entirely true” (Entertainment Weekly), and, quite simply, “the best book ever written” (Boston Globe). In his new book, Operation Mincemeat, he tells an extraordinary story that will delight his legions of fans.

In 1943, from a windowless basement office in London, two brilliant intelligence officers conceived a plan that was both simple and complicated— Operation Mincemeat. The purpose? To deceive the Nazis into thinking that Allied forces were planning to attack southern Europe by way of Greece or Sardinia, rather than Sicily, as the Nazis had assumed, and the Allies ultimately chose.
 
Charles Cholmondeley of MI5 and the British naval intelligence officer Ewen Montagu could not have been more different. Cholmondeley was a dreamer seeking adventure. Montagu was an aristocratic, detail-oriented barrister. But together they were the perfect team and created an ingenious plan: Get a corpse, equip it with secret (but false and misleading) papers concerning the invasion, then drop it off the coast of Spain where German spies would, they hoped, take the bait. The idea was approved by British intelligence officials, including Ian Fleming (creator of James Bond). Winston Churchill believed it might ring true to the Axis and help bring victory to the Allies.

Filled with spies, double agents, rogues, fearless heroes, and one very important corpse, the story of Operation Mincemeat reads like an international thriller.

Unveiling never-before-released material, Ben Macintyre brings the reader right into the minds of intelligence officers, their moles and spies, and the German Abwehr agents who suffered the “twin frailties of wishfulness and yesmanship.” He weaves together the eccentric personalities of Cholmondeley and Montagu and their near-impossible feats into a riveting adventure that not only saved thousands of lives but paved the way for a pivotal battle in Sicily and, ultimately, Allied success in the war. ... Read more

Reviews

A Rollicking Good Read!, April 4, 2010

A masterwork of historical storytelling, April 1, 2010

Tasty Mincemeat, April 2, 2010

Good read, not great, May 26, 2010
I read an occasional spy book for their entertainment value. This one came highly recommended. I enjoyed it, but I did not find it nearly as great as many of the other reviewers.
It is the true story of a spy caper that is credited with diverting Hitler's attention away from the Allies invading Sicily in 1943. It is the same incident that was dramatized in an earlier book called "The Man Who Never Was," which was also turned into a movie back in the 50's. The author presents some new details these 50 years on that were suppressed in the original due to security considerations at the time.
There are certainly some interesting characters involved, including some of the leading lights of the British MI5 & MI6 operation. Ian Fleming makes a brief, but pivotal appearance, as do the real life inspirations for his "M" and "Q" characters in the James Bond novels. Kim Philby and Winston Churchill also make cameo appearances.

The gist of the spy story is the British secret service dropped a dead body off the coast of Spain rigged with phony letters designed to put the German army off the scent of the upcoming invasion of Sicily. The fact that this crackpot scheme worked certainly makes a good story. As in all books of this type, the British triumph, so there's not much in the way of suspense. There was a great deal of spycraft necessary to make this work that is elaborated in great detail, and there is certainly a lot of spying going on.

One of the more interesting ideas mentioned in the book was that the gambit's success may have hinged on the willingness on the head of the German intelligence effort, someone named von Renne, to swallow this "fish" story, not because he believed the story, but because he figured it for a plant. He wanted Hitler to fail, so he may have put his stamp of approval on the intelligence gathered in Spain because he doubted its probity. If this is true, it makes for a very different story. Unfortunately, it is not possible to do more than speculate about this possibility because von Renne was rounded up, tried and executed in the aftermath of the undersuccessful attempt to assassinate Hitler known as "Operation Valkyrie." So we will never know, but it certainly seems fishy that he never asked the hard questions about the veracity of the original intelligence reports emanating from Spain, which is unusual behavior for a spymaster of his stature.

Another interesting aspect is how the British's Project Ultra that cracked the German navy's Enigma coding scheme allowed British Intelligence to monitor how well their ruse was actually working. The Ultra project gave the British access to all manner of secret military communications and was a pivotal to the success of the entire war effort. Operation Mincemeat is certainly an interesting episode, but Project Ultra was much more important and, at least, to this Reader, a more engrossing story.

An Intricate, Tricky, Brilliant Plot, May 19, 2010
You may well be aware that in World War II the British played a fine trick on the Germans by letting them find a floating a body bearing bogus secret invasion plans. This is a well known and factual story, which was the basis of a 1956 film The Man Who Never Was. It might seem an easy enough trick, but the Nazis and their military intelligence branch Abwehr were no fools. The deception was one of astonishing intricacy, and has not been told in full until now. Ben Macintyre, who has given us fine presentations of slices of WWII history in _Agent Zigzag_ and of WWI in _The Englishman's Daughter_, turns his researcher's doggedness and storytelling skill to the tale of probably the greatest of military deceptions. _Operation Mincemeat: How a Dead Man and a Bizarre Plan Fooled the Nazis and Ensured an Allied Victory_ (Harmony Books) is a grand story, full of colorful and odd characters on both sides of the battle, and it traces the plot from its conception through the victory it brought. The plotters were careful to work their scheme down to the smallest of details, and it was because of this that the trick succeeded (and also because of a good deal of luck and because of taking advantage of the wishful thinking of individuals within German intelligence). All the details are here, and it is an exciting tale.

The point of the deception was to fool Germany about where Allied forces would land coming from the southern Mediterranean. Hitler had to be convinced that the push from Africa would not be to the obvious Sicily, but that the canny Allies were going to head toward Sardinia to the west and Greece to the east. The idea man whose "corkscrew mind" was most responsible for the corpse trick was Charles Cholmondeley (pronounced "Chumly"), a gangling giant with a six inch waxed mustache, who worked for MI5. His boss was Ewan Montagu, a wealthy barrister who had become an intelligence officer for the war. There were plenty of other contributors, including the creator of James Bond, Ian Fleming, who worked in intelligence during the war and had found the corpse plot - "A Suggestion (not a very nice one)" - in a detective novel. Macintyre has revealed that the body was that of Glyndwr Michael, a homeless Welshman who was found dead in London after eating rat poison, deliberately or by accident. Poor Michael had been a nobody when alive; when dead he was to change the course of history. It would not do just to put phony secret plans upon the body and float it away. Anything that might raise a Nazi eyebrow had to be anticipated. A new uniform, for instance, would look suspect, so Cholmondeley put on Marine battle dress and wore it every day for three months while the body was on ice. The secret plans were sealed carefully, including a deliberately-placed eyelash that would stay in their folds if they were undisturbed, but would fall out if they were opened. The body was taken by submarine to Spain, where it washed up as planned. The resultant dance between the pro-Nazi officers of neutral Spain, the German spies, and the British contacts resulted in the documents being carefully extracted from their envelopes without disturbing the seals, photographed, and replaced (without that eyelash) so that the Germans could think they had fooled the British undetected. Their head of intelligence in Madrid, eager to please and to make a name for himself, personally took the documents to Berlin, embellishing the story of how they came into his hands to make them seem even more plausible. There were questions the Nazis should have asked, holes in the story they should have seen, but the eagerness to believe this spectacular intelligence coup extended all the way to Hitler. (Goebbels alone seems to have had his doubts, but kept his skepticism to his diary.) The Fuhrer gave commands to fortify preparations in Greece and Sardinia, and Sicily dropped from precedence.

The exact degree of success of Operation Mincemeat cannot be calculated, and taking Sicily was no milk run, but British casualties were a seventh of what had been expected. By the time the Nazis realized that their forces were in the wrong places, Sicily was an Allied territory. The operation was deadly serious, but a reader gets the sense throughout that the plotters were having fun despite all the detailed steps and bureaucratic shufflings it took to make the plan go through. Macintyre, in a sparkling and gripping book, reminds us that in war, having plenty of guns is important, as is having well-trained soldiers. But imagination, and even whimsy, have their place in battle, too.

The definitive account of the "Man Who Never Was", April 15, 2010

Excellent update based upon recently declassified documents, May 19, 2010

Tried to like it, but..., September 13, 2010
2.5 stars. It took three weeks to muddle through this book. When the story stayed on point, I flipped through the pages with ease and looked forward to learning more. Unfortunately, the author provides too much rambling, irrelevant, mundane information that serves only to distract the reader from the real story. Maybe Mr. McIntyre thought the reader would find the mind-numbing minutia interesting...maybe he needed to meet a page requirement. For whatever reason, I found his style of writing very frustrating. Had this subject been placed in the care of a more fluid writer, I think I would have enjoyed it very much. Guess I'll skip Agent Zigzag.

Amazing and entertaining,, April 7, 2010

Better than the movie -- a real spy story to sink your teeth into!, May 10, 2010
Ben Macintyre can't seem to write a bad book, and he has a knack for finding unusual, quirky stories and characters or, as in the case of this book, the unusual twist/angle to a story that may already be well known to readers and movie-goers thanks to the 1950s publication and film of The Man Who Never Was. That film was an indifferent drama based on an incredible story, and Macintyre has done even better, delivering a far more complete narrative of that story, jam packed with interesting characters and coincidences.

Essentially, it's a spy story, set at the height of World War II, in the months leading up to the invasion of Sicily. Already the Allies were using all kinds of misdirection to feed inaccurate intelligence back to the Germans, but they were particularly concerned about the Sicily landings, not just as a trial run for D-Day but in their own right: if they were repulsed, there might very well never be a D-Day, just a stalemate. How to convince the Germans that the Sicilian attack was only a feint; a cover for the real attack on Sardinia or Greece? Some of the smart and very eccentric minds in the intelligence operations got pondering this, and decided to float a body, containing secret documents, onto a Spanish beach in hopes that the ostensibly neutral Spanish fascists would share the information they found with the Germans AND that the Germans would believe it. Sound incredible? This is the story of that operation, from idea all the way through to the Sicily landings, and it's quite something. Even those familiar with the story will find all kinds of quirky sidenotes -- the main protagonist, for instance, had a brother who was a Soviet spy: he was a typical ecccentric in that he founded a cheese-eating society at Cambridge, was a table-tennis nut, collected rare species of mice and, oh yes, spied for the Soviet Union. (In between producing films for Hitchcock and Eisenstein, and teaching Charlie Chaplin to swear in Russian, of course...)

If you're interested in taking a broader look at this kind of World War 2 intelligence coup, the best book of all (although not as lively or succinct a read as this one) is Churchill's Wizards: The British Genius for Deception, 1914-1945 by Nicholas Rankin, which covers Mincemeat and the various misdirection operations that surrounded D-Day itself.

Meanwhile, do hunt out Macintyre's other books, which include a book about jewel thief Adam Worth and one focusing on a little-known event in World War One that is a poignant mystery -- The Englishman's Daughter: A True Story of Love and Betrayal in World War I.

Highly recommended, and not just to military history buffs (whose ranks I would not include myself in.) ... Read more

Editorial Review

Unabridged CDs • 14 CDs, 16 hours

From the author of the #1 national bestseller Three Cups of Tea, the continuing story of this determined humanitarian and the schools he has established. ... Read more

Reviews

Stones Into Schools: Mortenson Summits Again, December 3, 2009
In his latest book, Greg Mortenson hosts the reader as a valuable and welcomed traveling companion as he retraces his steps through the most remote areas of Pakistan's Northwest Frontier areas and the formidable terrain of Afghanistan holding a mirror to our humanity. Mortenson introduces us to his trusted companions t...urned employees of Central Asia Institute, the so-called "Dirty Dozen", who truly embody the virtues of goodwill and perseverance in the name of literacy and, of course, God.

In short, Greg Mortenson's work makes Anthony Bordain's exotic travel look like a visit to Epcot Center.

Mortenson's committment to cross-cultural understanding beyond the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan is rivaled only by his determination to educate the under-served girls in the most remote areas of these countries. Stones Into Schools is a suspenseful, heart-breaking as it is heart-warming, true account of a life well lived and a people well-served. Mortenson is an honor to the human race and diplomat for world peace. About now, Greg Mortenson would do well to take his own advice and sit for a month under a walnut tree to recuperate.

Inspirational - Should be a must read for high school graduates, December 4, 2009
I read Three Cups of Tea was was incredibly inspired by Greg Mortenson. His second book is even better in my opinion. Teaching people that they have the power to change themselves is so simple but sometimes takes incredibale amounts of work by other people. Greg and his team have performed incredible acts of bravery, endurance, and dedication to the noble cause of providing education to the girls of Pakistan and Afghanistan. You will not be able to put this book down. You also learn firsthand accounts of the success of many of the first girls to go through Greg's schools.
Read this book for an incredible account of an individual who has changed the world for so many people,

A Knotty Problem, December 3, 2009
I tend to collect mostly management books on my Kindle, so I have been looking forward to Greg Mortensen's latest report on his activities in his remote part of the world (also where my son works every day). I don't think the world has two more opposite places than Burnet County and Kunar Province. Since 2003, we've built a nice high school here in Burnet for our 1000+ kids, and later on a playground (stadium). Greg's outfit has built and staffed 129 schools, and innumerable civic improvements, such as bridges and water systems, to supply educational services to a previously unserved populace, at a cost of $1-3/student. I think their whole budget for the six years is less than the cost of one Tomahawk missile, with guidance and delivery (and spare parts). On the other hand General Motors, working in the most car consuming section of Planet Earth, with significant manufacturing infrastructure worldwide, has a hard time making ends meet. In short, Greg's book is now at the top of my list for 2009 management books.
Mother Teresa, in response to an interview question about the best way to go about changing the world, said 'Reach out to the nearest one.' Greg, in response to the same question, would probably say 'Go to the Last Best Place.' Both of these people have found a way to impact their world, and improve conditions more than a thousand-fold by their efforts.
Three cups of Tea has become required reading for the US Counterintelligence school at West point; I would hope this book gets added to the curriculum quickly.

STONES INTO SCHOOLS: PROMOTING PEACE WITH BOOKS, NOT BOMBS IN AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN, December 7, 2009
Not a sequel to Mortenson's THREE CUPS OF TEA, STONES INTO SCHOOLS is a saga of Mortenson's ten year struggle to keep a promise to Commandhan Abdul Rashid Khan, chief of the Kirghiz, to build a school for his tribe at "the roof of the world" in the village of Bozai Gumbaz, 12,480 feet up in the Pamir Mountains of northern Afghanistan. It was this promise that caused Mortenson and the Central Asia Institute (CAI) to expand its operations beyond its original stomping grounds in the remoter villages of Pakistan.
During their struggle, jihad if you will, Greg Mortenson and his Afghan and Pakistani comrades, AKA "The Dirty Dozen," enjoy as, Safraz Khan, one of the many heroes in this story, describes it, "much success" as the Central Asia Institute build a chain of schools, scholarship programs, and literacy centers in war-torn Afghanistan and quake-stricken Pakistan.
Mortenson describes an Afghan people who are tired of and traumatized by thirty years of war. Still, they have not given up on life or a better future for their children. He details the slow, if enjoyable, process of building relationships with local leadership in countless villages in Afghanistan and Pakistan (AFPAK) during his many journeys. Important to note, Mortenson does not attempt to inflict American missionary culture and values on AFPAK villagers. I gather from reading Mortenson that every one of the 131 schools he and the CAI built in AFPAK was built at the request of local villagers and with the blessing of local leadership. He did not go village to village selling education as a good thing; villagers sought him out as word spread that he helped build schools.
Key to the success of CAI is local ownership of the schools it builds. In each case, CAI requires the local villagers to provide the land and supply unskilled labor to help build the school. CAI provides funds for raw materials and skilled labor to build the school as well as money for school supplies and to pay the teaching staff for up to five years. Mortenson writes of one village where the Taliban nailed a "night letter" to the door of a new CAI school and delivered another one to the home of one of the teachers. In these letters, the Taliban threatened to burn down the school if any girls attended it. They also promised violence to the families of any girls over the age of fourteen who attended school. The villagers responded by naming one of their three mullahs as headmaster for the school. He met with local Taliban and informed them that the actions they proposed in their letters were clearly wrong and against the teachings of the Koran. No more "night letters" were delivered in that village and girls were allowed to attend the school.
Along with "much success" there are setbacks. Mortenson writes of a Pakistani girl who was prevented from accepting a CAI scholarship by a jealous brother-in-law. He tells of an Afghan shepherd boy who is killed by a Soviet land mine while grazing his flocks close to a CAI school that is being built in his village. (The boy's father later trains to become a humanitarian de-miner and returns to his village to remove thirty land mines from the areas surrounding the school.) He describes the anguish (seen through Safraz Khan's eyes) of the hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis made homeless by an earthquake in 2005. He tells of weathering mob violence in Afghanistan after Newsweek printed false claims that American soldiers had attempted to flush a Koran down a toilet at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
Mortenson speaks at length about his relationship with the military. Like most non-governmental organizations (NGOs), CAI strives to maintain strict neutrality. CAI takes no money from the United States Department of Defense or the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and relies totally on donations and book sales (Buy this book!) to fund its operations. Mortenson notes that his initial support for Operation ENDURING FREEDOM quickly waned when he read of civilian casualties from the American bombing campaign against the Taliban. He recounts a lecture on Afghan tribal culture he gave a group of officers at the Pentagon in 2002. He explained that before one tribe made war on another tribe, "the warring parties hold a jirga before joining in battle to discuss how many losses each side is willing to accept in light of the fact that the victors will be willing to care for the widows and orphans of the rivals they have vanquished." He went on to tell the officers "the worst thing that you can do is what we're doing - ignoring the victims by calling them `collateral damage' and not even trying to count the numbers of the dead. . . For that, we will not be forgiven."
Mortenson began to see the United States military in a far different light later on. In 2003 he published an article about CAI in Parade Magazine. As a result of this article, CAI began to receive a flood of donations. One of his staffers informed him that a disproportionate number of donations came from military communities. Later that same year he received a letter from an officer who had fought in Afghanistan with the 82nd Airborne Division. The officer wrote "CAI's projects provide a good alternative to the education offered in many of the radicalized madrassas from where the Taliban sprung forth . . . The Central Asia Institute is now my charity of choice." Mortenson goes on to write of an e-mail he received from then lieutenant colonel Christopher Kolenda in September, 2007. Kolenda wrote:
I am the Commander of Task Force Saber which serves the 190,000 people in northern Kunar and eastern Nuristan Provinces in Afghanistan. Our primary goal in this counterinsurgency is to provide hope for the good people of Afghanistan, particularly the children. Building schools is one of my top development priorities . . . The conflict here will not be won with bombs but with books and ideas. . . We have delivered a wealth of school supplies, but there is never enough. . . Reading Three Cups of Tea has inspired me even further to pursue the development of Afghan schools and education. I am not sure if the CAI can help these schools in any way. . .
Kolenda had delivered an indirect challenge to the CAI to come to his "humanitarian space" and build schools that would help ensure the "next generation grows up to be educated patriots," not "illiterate fighters." Mortenson and "the Dirty Dozen" could not resist the challenge. In the end, CAI's AFPAK staff devises a plan to build a chain of girls' schools through Taliban territory, to include one in Mullah Omar's home town of De Rawod.
Many NGOs may feel at this point that Mortenson and CAI have forsaken neutrality for the sake of convenience, but that is not the case. CAI takes no "blood money" from the United States government and relies on the goodwill of local Afghans and Pakistanis for its security, not armed escorts by United States or coalition military. If CAI has forsaken its neutrality, it has done so not for the sake of convenience, but for the sake of conscience. CAI realizes that it cannot morally remain neutral in a world where "men with Kalashnikovs . . . help to sustain the grotesque lie that flinging battery acid into the face of a girl who longs to study arithmetic is somehow in keeping with the teachings of the Koran."

President Obama, please read this book, December 12, 2009
The last chapter of this book before the Epilogue is called "The Last Best School". Mortenson calls it that because, due to circumstances, he had to step away and leave Afghanistan, compelling the Kirghiz people in the remote Wakhan corridor to build the school themselves, which they did, in record time. There was some assistance of supplies and skilled labor from the Central Asian Institute, and supervision from Safraz Khan (Mortenson's substantial partner and guide), but the Kirghiz, a people who had essentially been abandoned by everyone including the central Afghan government, completed the school themselves. They had asked for assistance using US Military helicopters but due to the distance, altitude, and inability to re-fuel, it was not granted.

This was the most important message that I found in this book. This school was built ten years after a request was made to Mortenson by Kirghiz men who rode on horseback for a week or so to deliver it to him. I read his first book "Three Cups of Tea" last summer, and it seems as if Mortenson's message has changed a little to encorporate the following: 1) listen to the Afghan (Pakistani,Kashmir, fill in the blank) people, 2) let them tell you what they want to accomplish, 3) ask them what they need to accomplish it, 4) then say (in the words of Baba Ram Dass) "How can I Help?".

Another part of the book described how a conflict was solved via communication between a respected mullah who became the headmaster of a girls' school and the local Taliban fighters who were threatening the girls who were attending it. Without committing any violence, he was able to convince them to leave the girls alone. Violence (i.e.,war) should always be a last resort, after all other options have been exhausted. Education is the key to ensuring peace. Let's hope.

The Value of Education, December 9, 2009
In the follow up book to Three Cups of Tea, Greg Mortenson's story comes full circle from his original promise to build a school in Korphe, Pakistan, to the decade-long fulfillment of another promise to build a school for the Kirghiz horsemen of the Wakhan Corridor, Afghanistan. The first part of the book fills in some of the details of events from the latter part of Three Cups of Tea.

As the story continues, we meet earthquake survivors in Kashmir like headmistress Saida Shabir who became so frustrated with empty promises from her government, relief agencies, and NGOs that she nearly turned down an offer of help from Mortenson's right hand man, Sarfraz Khan. Khan led Central Asia Institute's effort to raise the bar by building earthquake-resistant schools only after listening to the concerns of the local people and taking their needs into account. Gundi Piran, Shabir's new school, was unique in that it was built around the grave of seven girls killed when their school collapsed during the earthquake. With an open-air classroom around them, the girls were laid to rest with their heads facing the blackboard so that their desire for education was honored.

We are also introduced to Faisal Mohammed and his family in Lalander, Afghanistan. As CAI began building a demonstration school there, Faisal's only living son, 14-year-old Gulmarjan, anxiously awaited the completion of the school so that he could attend. Unfortunately, while walking nearby to observe the progress of the construction, he stepped on a land mine and died in transit to a medical center hours away in Kabul. Although Gulmarjan never got to study in the school he was so excited to attend, his sister, Saida, is a top student with the dream of someday becoming the first woman doctor in Lalander, and his father also went to school to study demining.

Finally, the third part of the book details the challenges of building "the school on the roof of the world" that ultimately fulfilled Greg's promise to the Kirghiz horsemen. As the winter snows approached and delays mounted, the school was completed only when the Kirghiz banded together and literally took matters into their own hands.

As an American public school teacher, Mortenson's story inspires and humbles me. I am inspired to share with my own students how fortunate we are in America to have free, public education and how we must seize the opportunities we have been given. When I read of the sacrifices and even deaths of some who never fulfilled their dreams of being literate, I am grateful for my own education. I am also humbled by Greg Mortenson and CAI's relentless work and astounding progress at making a difference in an area of the world torn apart by wars, earthquakes, and poverty.

Rather than focusing on the news of fighting and terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, read Mortenson's book to learn how education is changing the lives of the young generation and empowering them to choose peace.

Much praise and some criticism on Mortenson's new book, December 26, 2009
PRAISE:

I read this whole book in one sitting. A bit slow in some portions, but overall I couldn't put it down.

Having lived a portion of my childhood in Kashmir and then having spent time with other rural cultures and regions in the world, I can say with confidence that what these guys are doing out there is incredibly courageous and amazing. What really stands out about Greg's work is that he basically "taught them how to fish" rather than just "present them with fish". I like how the book captures the viral trend Greg has imparted in Afghanistan when it comes to schools for girls and especially, the woman's vocational centers. He even inspired a local women's NGO in Kabul. From reading this story one also gets a sense of the creative (quirky) and passionate ways of Greg and his team that get the job done in a manner that is not quite matched by others. Given the current chaotic state of affairs in that region, this Indiana Jones style is possibly the best approach since they need to change and flow as needed to meet the demands of their environment. I will look forward to Greg and the Dirty Dozen getting the Nobel peace prize sometime soon. I'll also look forward to part three as the story unfolds.

MINOR CRITICISMS:

1) This first edition is laden with numerous spelling errors, typos and is in need of some word-smithing. However, the story is so wonderful that it is not worth getting hung up on these points. I imagine they were in a hurry to get this out before Christmas.

2) There are errors on the maps in the front. For instance, just across the border from Lahore, in India, you don't have the "Rajasthan Desert" but rather Punjab. Another thing that might be helpful to an organization that promotes secularism and open-mindedess is to not present a politically biased map of Pakistan and India. For instance the disputed region of Kashmir is not labeled but is rather shown as a part of Pakistan. Any reader familiar with the complexities of the region cannot help by wonder if this has something to do with the politics of Greg Mortenson trying to stay on tab with the Pakistani government, which recently recognized Mr. Mortenson with their highest civilian honor. This may or maynot be the case of course. I think Greg's work and book would gain a wider audience and bridge more gaps if he presented this particular issue with a bit more sensitivity (as in Three Cups of Tea) and more matter-of-factly.

3) Pako-centricism: This is sort of a continuation of the previous point. Firstly, the book sort of makes it seem like Afghanistan and Pakistan are cultural islands. However the cultural "dial" turns very smoothly across Asia and the boundaries and national borders are only recent creations. For instance, although Delhi and Islamabad may have beef, the people of the Punjab and the Kashmir regions are quite sympathetic and welcoming of each other across the border. There in north-western India, just as in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and also in the other central Asian countries, the "three cups of tea" ritual has equal significance. Secondly, there are numerous people in the high Himalayas who are not Islamic (some of whom they do mention, such as the Kafirs of Nuristan... who by the way were there way before Alexander the Great, but MAY HAVE intermarried with his soldiers; these latest anthropological findings are incorrect in the book. Also some thousands still remain pagan). I kind of felt that though they were promoting a secular education, they were quite biased in wanting to focus only on the muslim communities, which are certainly the majority. Of course, this may simply be due to the fact that their relationship chain just worked out that way. However, there was a huge emphasis in the book on Islam... perhaps this is meant for the American audience, the majority of whom have some pretty negative preconceived notions about Islam.

I do feel that if some of these seeming biases are corrected in a third book, or other presentations by Greg Mortentson and the other writers, his cause would gain a wider audience and more sympathetic response globally. It could also be a financial gain and advocate peace if for instance they also gained the South Asian market with this book (i.e. India and so on). It may be a turn off for those markets in it's current form which will certainly be perceived as careless and thus loose some credibility. Perhaps the next edition of this book will take this into account.

All this said, I am still in admiration of their work, and fully support it by giving Mr. Mortenson's books as gifts and I am a financial supporter of CAI. You are doing an amazing job Dr. Greg and Khan Sahib and the rest of the Dozen!

Buy this Book!!!, December 24, 2009
I saw that Greg Mortensen had written Stone Into Schools when I traveled through the Salt Lake City airport. I could not wait to get home and order it through Amazon. After reading Three Cups of Tea, I wanted to know what happened afterwards. I wasn't disappointed.

Please Buy this book, and if you haven't read Three Cups of Tea, buy it and read it first Three Cups of Tea: One Man's Mission to Promote Peace . . . One School at a Time. Stones Into Schools begins where Three Cups of Tea leaves off. Mortensen has helped numerous villages in Himalayan Pakistan build schools.(See my review Three Cups of Tea). He is approached by tribesmen from a literal ends-of-the-earth place in Afghanistan to build them a school so their children can have hope for the future. As what Greg has done filters through the rural areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, more and more tribal elders approach him and his colleagues to build secular schools throughout the tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan where the central governments have all but forgotten the population. (The only education is through Taliban Madrassas.) The elders want their daughters as well as their sons to go to school and don't like the Taliban message. It is clear these people don't want a hand out; they want a hand up. ("Give me a fish, and I eat for a day; teach me to fish, and I eat for a lifetime.")

This exceptionally well written page turner follows Mortensen's adventures as he and his Afghani colleagues build schools in Pakistan, Afghanistan and in Pakistani Kashmir after the devastating earthquake; places in the world that are hot beds of fundamentalism, war and hatred. The work expands to forming women's centers where women learn skills. His approach points out a new, but very old way of making peace in the world. Listen to others, help them build what they think they need, not what we think they need to have. Live with them, honor them relate to them one person at a time on day at a time. Sit down and have tea. We too have much to learn from them.

Mortensen's work comes to the attention of the American military. They finally get the message and under Petraeus command long needed changes start to happen.

The lessons of these books are profound and simple. The book touches one's heart and soul. They are lessons we all need to learn. One man can make a difference one moment at a time, one person at a time; failure can bring success of immense proportions. And more.This book is also about Greg's imperfections and about being human.

We are living in difficult times where fear and anger and ignorance are causing us and our children to become depressed and disenfranchised. Gandhi said," My life is my message." Mortensen's life is his message. It is a message we sorely need to hear and our children need to learn.

Buy this book and after you buy this book buy Three Cups of Tea and the young adult's edition of Three Cups of Tea Three Cups of Tea: One Man's Journey to Change the World... One Child at a Time ( The Young Reader's Edition)8 and Listen to the Wind Listen to the Windfor your children. Talk to your children about their observations and understanding of these books. Help them find ways that they can help not only Greg and the peoples of Pakistan and Afghanistan, but in their own neighborhoods and cities. Then maybe, just maybe we can become better human beings and change then world.

Talk with your friends get them to buy the books and have a book club discussion. Better still go to the Three Cups of Tea website ([...]) and click the link that take you to Amazon.com so more contributions can be made and schools can be built. Then get your mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers and their friends to buy this book. Just by buying this book each of us can make a difference and have a great reading experience.

As a postscript a year and 1/2 ago I was traveling alone in rural Kashmir on the highway that skirts the Pakistani Indian border . There were Indian troops stationed 50 yards apart on the hilltop that skirted the highway. As a photographer I frequently got out and walked and took photos. One that was particularly compelling was of 2 Kashmiri women walking. One had a bag on her head, and she showed me her book that she was reading with great happiness. It was the Koran which had previously been only the province of men to read. I learned first hand the thirst for learning of these women.

One person can make a difference, December 6, 2009
Greg Mortenson is one of the select very few who poses a combination of being human with capital H, finds right focus in helping people in great need and writes inspirational books from this. His mission began after failed K2 attempt in 1993 where his life was saved by villagers of Korphe and where he promised them something they missed the most: school. This was very well told in his Three Cups of Tea and this book starts where the first ends. If Korphe, in Baltistan region in northern Pakistan was remote, now schools are being built on even more unthinkable places: in war torn Afghanistan and in post-earthquake Azad Kashmir, that was off-limits for foreigners before earthquake in October 2005. Most surprising were his (and his Central Asia Institute organization) successes in two parts of Afghanistan: one is, where Taliban insurgency is quite high and the other is godforsaken Wakhan corridor. Key ingredients are listening to wishes of local population, ensuring their buy-in, later their participation in building (at least donation of land) and focus on girls' education.
If US and allies would implement something like this following military successes in 2001, plus curb corruption and stop opium trade, today Afghanistan would be much happier place (and for much less money).
What's interesting is that he and his NGO Central Asia Institute are so successful despite great odds: working in islam countries, in years after 9/11 and in time of great financial crisis. This shows that ordinary people are willing to donate money for just and passionately argued cause.
Title comes from the words of local security commander and former mujahadeen: " ... each rock and every boulder you see represents a mujahadeen who died fighting either the Russians or the Taliban. .. it's time .. to take up the stones and start turning them into schools."
Book is really pleasure to read because is so well written, in structure and style. Credit goes to two anonymous writers who spent many houres with Greg.

Splendid and Desperately Important, December 14, 2009
Anyone who looks carefully at a map of Afghanistan must wonder about that long narrow sliver of land that sticks out like a pointing finger from the country's eastern edge. What purpose can such a strange, seemingly absurd boundary serve? This is the Wakhan Corridor, home to a varied assortment of wandering nomadic peoples, farmers and villagers who are hemmed in on all sides by some of the world's most forbidding mountain ranges: the Pamir, the Hindu Kush and the Karakoram. There is no industry there or any roads in its eastern third.

The corridor was originally created as a geopolitical artifice so that Russia and China would not have a common border in that part of the world. Yet this primitive wilderness is a main theater of operations for Greg Mortenson and his brainchild, the Central Asia Institute, whose mission is to bring education to this area by building schoolhouses. All residents are welcome, but the main thrust is the education of women, which Mortenson sees as the best means of rescuing the area from destitution and eventually defeating the Taliban, to whom the idea of educating women is, of course, anathema.

The Wakhan is central to Mortenson's story because it took him a full decade to fulfill a promise he made to a delegation from a small village at the extreme end of the corridor. They sought him out in Pakistan and asked him to build them a school. He agreed, knowing full well that nothing in war-torn, politically unstable and largely primitive Afghanistan is simple. The book ends with the construction of that school in the village of Bozai Gumbaz, and you can almost hear the cheers and trumpet fanfares sounding from inside the book's final pages.

Mortenson's story, however, ranges well beyond the Wakhan, embracing many other towns and provinces in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. He outmaneuvers insensitive government bureaucrats in Kabul, uncooperative family members who actually do not want their daughters educated, murderous Taliban goon squads, a horrendous earthquake, snows that render whole regions isolated for months, shipping delays, financial constraints, his own bouts of exhaustion, and all sorts of other impediments. But the schools get built --- 131 of them --- and all without a dime of U.S. government funding.

This region where Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, China and Tajikistan collide in a sort of geographical, ethnic and religious stew will be as unfamiliar to most American readers as the landscape of Uranus. Fortunately, the book includes excellent maps and a kind of cast listing up front, plus a useful glossary at the back to help one keep nations, languages, religions and peoples sorted out. Mortenson gives due credit to his on-scene staffers and brings them engagingly to life --- notably his chief lieutenant, Sarfraz Khan, a Pakistani who seems to be everywhere at once, performing miracles of organization and logistics. Mortenson admits that he himself had to spend long periods back in the U.S. making book-tour appearances, raising money and shuffling papers. You get the impression that those grueling lecture tours were more of a trial for him than anything he did in the Asian mountains.

In THREE CUPS OF TEA, Mortenson had dismissed the U.S. military as unsympathetic and obstructive, but in this book he completely reverses himself, lavishing praise on uniformed officers, many of whom had made his earlier title required reading for their troops. He taught them his main lesson: listen to the local people, get to know them, find out what they want, and build up trust with them; do not simply march in and start issuing orders that do not take their lives into account. It is a lesson that military minds very often ignore, but to their credit they seem to have listened to this quiet and unassuming fellow from Montana.

STONES INTO SCHOOLS is an unashamed promotional tract for the Central Asia Institute. It comes fully equipped with talking points, suggestions for promoting the book, website listings, e-mail addresses, and even telephone numbers and postal mail addresses. Ordinarily, this kind of baggage might seem tacky, but Mortenson's cause is so obviously right and his pursuit of it so well organized that those objections seen churlish. This man has accomplished something splendid and desperately important.

--- Reviewed by Robert Finn ... Read more

Editorial Review

Reviews

Definitive Indeed!
This new edition of the RTS is worth buying even if you already own an earlier edition. The editor has included important material on how this book was developed and interpreted.

As for the book itself, the Road to Serfdom explains the rise of totalitarianism in twentieth century Europe. Yet it also made a more general argument concerning the incompatibility of democracy and comprehensive central planning. Hayek argues that the pursuit of socialist ideals leads to totalitarianism. While socialist ideals seem noble to many, those who persist in realizing these ideals will find it necessary to adopt coercive methods that are incompatible with freedom. Thus socialists must choose between their egalitarian goals and the preservation of individual liberty.

Hayek describes how Europeans came to expect progress, and became impatient for faster progress. The liberal reforms of the 19th century delivered unprecedented economic progress. Much of this was directly due to scientific discovery. The role of free competition in promoting scientific discovery was less obvious. Europeans increasingly came to believe that scientific planning of society itself could accelerate greater progress.

Europeans also changed how they thought about equality and freedom. Insistence upon freedom from want displaced the yearning for freedom from coercion. Democracy came to be seen as a means of realizing an increasing number of social goals, rather than as a means of preserving freedom. To Hayek, these were dangerous errors. Democracy could only work effectively in areas where agreement upon ultimate ends could be attained with little difficulty. A democratic government could enforce general rules of conduct that applied to all equally (i.e. free speech and free association). Democracy can never produce agreement over policies that affect specific economic results. One always gains at the expense of others in such matters. Such Economic planning places impossible demands upon democracy. This is because pursuit of specific ends requires timely and decisive action. Democracies move too slowly to attain specific ends, so arbitrary powers of government will grow. A planned economy will ultimately require acceptance of dictatorship. This is a dire consequence, as it is the worst sort of tyrants who are most adept at wielding dictatorial powers.

Some might say that these arguments are unduly pessimistic. Hayek points to the examples of Hitler and Stalin to support his case. Of course, these are worst case scenarios. Have not England, Sweden, and the US adopted large welfare-regulatory states without such tyranny? This is a fair point, yet we should remember two things. First, Hayek claimed that centralized control of the economy would destroy freedom ultimately, but gradually. Second, Western nations have not yet gone as far in planning their economies as did Russia and Germany in the 1930's. The fact that we have yet realized the horrible results of Stalinism implies neither that were are safe from despotism in the future, nor that our present situation is entirely satisfactory. One can easily argue that we have already started on the wrong path. For instance, Hayek's chapter on `The End of Truth' applies to modern political correctness.

Hayek wrote this book not only to warn people about the limits of democracy and the incompatibility of planning and freedom. This was the start of his project concerning the abuse of reason. His warning is also about the tendency to overestimate the abilities of even the best and brightest individuals. Not even the best and brightest can comprehend modern societies. Socialists who favor comprehensive planning, and even modern liberals and conservatives who want to plan part of society, proceed on a false assumption concerning human reason. Ultimately, Hayek makes a strong case for limited constitutional government. To expect more of democracy than what Madison and Jefferson intended invites disaster.

The Road to Serfdom is a profound defense of commercial society and limited government. The RTS also is where Hayek started his 'abuse of reason' project. To fully appreciate Hayek's genius in the RTS, one should read his subsequent books in this project- The Constitution of Liberty and Law Liberty and Legislation V1-3.

The RTS has its critics, mainly on the left. Due to its insightful nature the Road to Serfdom has produced hysterical responses from the left. Leftists despise the RTS simply because it strikes at the core of both democratic-socialist or Marxist beliefs. Some serious scholars have attacked the RTS (i.e. Farrant and Levy) but their objections are misguided. The Road to Serfdom stands out as a true classic, as timeless as it is insightful. It offers insights that are relevant to our current problems with growing Federal spending and regulation. Read it completely and repeatedly.

Ahead of his time
Over 30 years ago, when I was in graduate school, this book was nowhere to be found on any Political Science or Political Theory reading list. I suppose part of the reason was that once the Nazis and Fascists had been defeated, their ideas were no longer seen as important. The question then was whether or not Communism would succeed. Furthermore, then and now, many people in academia had no complaint about government power as long as their side holds the power.

Hayek skillfully deflates that delusion by showing how the very economic powers of government created by the Social Democrats were the powers the Nazis used to consolidate their power.

This book was published 64 years ago but is as timely today as it was then.

Too bad we aren't taking this advice
Friedrich Hayek, the Nobel prize winning economist, wrote this brilliant classic as a critique of government intervention and manipulation in markets. I am neither an economist nor a political scientist, but I was led to this book after watching with horror the recent outrages that are consciously being inflicted on us by our elected officials, most recently the bailout and socialization of the two giant mortgage lenders, Freddie and Fannie. I couldn't remember that I ever received any share of the loot when those companies were making huge profits and their CEOs were earning tens of millions per year, but now I find that our elected officials have written a blank check in my name, the taxpayer, to bail out these companies' losses and stupidity, and then handed the check to a group of unelected officials (and, surprise, surprise, those two companies spend hundreds of millions on congressional lobbying). Privatize the gains, socialize the losses: sounds like a win-win situation for somebody.

This kind of disastrous socialism is exactly what Hayek critiques in devastating form in this book, specifically government control of the economy. Apparently, they say, this book has been very influential, but a layman could certainly never tell by looking around. Hayek was writing from the perspective of a central European who had recently witnessed first-hand the unfolding development of National Socialism (Nazism) in Germany, and he is warning that the exact same attitudes and policies that had been followed in Germany were uncritically being followed by the Allies, merely at a few years distance.

He begins by recollecting the ideals of old, classic liberalism, "the forgotten road". Of course, in Hayek's context, "liberal" means the true, historic liberalism of limited government, free markets, and private property, not "liberal" in the bastardized sense somehow hijacked by Leftists to mean unlimited government, socialized markets and massive forced wealth redistribution. He looks at the rise of collectivist thinking versus individual (it's all for the greater good); the problems of central planning in a democracy (someone in power makes the economic decisions for everybody else); the downfall of the Rule of Law (government is no longer bound by fixed rules announced beforehand but instead possesses arbitrary power limited only by its own discretion); the inextricable link between centralized economic planning and totalitarian regimes (if we're going to follow a plan, someone's got to force everyone to follow it); the problem of deciding how the society's production will be distributed; a chapter showing that "nothing is more fatal than the present fashion among intellectual leaders of extolling security at the expense of freedom" (Republicans apparently didn't get the memo); how in a socialized economy the worst individuals inevitably rise to the top (Really? Can it be? Obama and McCain?); the necessity of manipulating truth in a socialized society; and the fact that Nazism was a direct outgrowth of socialism and socialist ideology.

The relevance of the points enumerated above does not require comment. We are running madly down the road to serfdom, which is the road of socialism. Unfortunately for those of us who are being dragged along against our will, history is not neutral, and we will suffer the consequences of other peoples' decisions, just as the Jews in Germany did and the Russians in the Soviet Union did. Socialism has always led to poverty and oppression, and freedom, on the rare occasions it has been tried, has produced unparalleled prosperity. Hayek shows in detail why. We've decided to give socialism another try. God help us.

It will convert you into a libertarian
I read it at the University, here in Guatemala, where my University has a library that is called Ludwig Von Mises and the Auditorium's name is Friedrich Von Hayek.

Once you read this book, it is impossible not to believe in freedom and to know that freedom and big interventionist government are not compatible concepts.

The principles are so basic that you do not need to be an economist (I am not) to understand them. If people do not trust themselves to make decisions because "people are ignorant or greedy" then they will give someone else the power to decide for them (government) that is the road to serfdom. People will lose their freedom to decide which insurance, retirement plan or things to buy, which charity to help, these decisions will be made by powerful burocrats (that maybe who friends of someone in government) that will know what is best for you. Big taxes so government will decide better what do do with the money you earned.

I have seen my government follow all these steps that go to the road of serfdom and I have seen exactly the results Hayek points out, I have been seeing that happens for 20 years (since I read the book). The book is so logical that after reading, if you have common sense and do not have a burocratic position to defend, you will definitely become a libertarian.

True Liberty Is Not the Freedom to Take From Others...This Book Explains Why
This is a new version of "The Road To Serfdom." Although it is a classic, I had never read it until now. I appreciated the additional information about how it was developed and interpreted. I believe Hayek is brilliant in his perception of with is the big picture regarding the results of the various political philosophies. It is not any easy read, but it is worth reading.

Primarily this book explains the rise of totalitarianism in twentieth century Europe and extends it to an argument concerning the incompatibility of democracy and comprehensive central planning. Hayek argues that the pursuit of socialist ideals leads eventually leads from socialism to totalitarianism.

While many think that socialist ideals are noble, those who implement socialism will find it necessary to adopt coercive methods that are incompatible with freedom of the poeple. Thus socialists must eventually choose a big central form of government that sets aside their egalitarian goals as it destroys individual liberty.

Hayek describes how Europeans tried to accelerate greater progress and freedom from want by giving up individual freedom from coercion. Their form of democracy came to be seen as a means of realizing an increasing number of social goals, rather than as a means of preserving freedom.

Hayek believes these were dangerous errors, especially for those countries like Germany and Russia, which ultimately required the acceptance of dictatorship. This is a dire consequence, as it is the worst sort of tyrants who are most adept at wielding dictatorial powers. The fact that other European countries have yet realized the horrible results of Nazism or Stalinism does not mean that they are safe from despotism in the future. It only says they are just moving toward it more slowly.

Hayek wrote this book to warn people about the limits of democracy and the incompatibility of social planning and freedom. Socialists who favor big government and its comprehensive planning, and even modern liberals and conservatives who want to plan part of society, proceed on a false assumption concerning human reason. Ultimately, Hayek makes a strong case for limited constitutional government. To expect more of democracy than what Madison and Jefferson intended invites disaster.

I believe "The Road to Serfdom" is a profound defense of our U.S. Constitution and its form of limited government. Because of that I give it 5 stars. I can see why this book stands out as a true classic. It is both timeless and it offers insights that are relevant to our current problems with growing Federal spending and regulation.

I also beleive it wakes people up and will get them to join the new American Revolution that the Tea Party started in order to take back the Government and make it responsible again. If you love America and want to see it continue to be free for your children, then I highly recommend you read this book ASAP.

A WORD OF CAUTION: If you read this book and begin speaking out or taking action to defend Liberty, there is a very high chance that those who embrace social governmental control (and the removal of our U.S. Constitutional rights) will become offended. And, because they don't have a regard for following laws (because they equate liberty with the freedom from moral discipline), they might try to accuse you of false wrong doing (i.e. lie about you and perhaps call you a racist) and otherwise try to harm your reputation.

Therefore, I would highly recommend getting another book called, Wild West 2.0: How to Protect and Restore Your Reputation on the Untamed Social Frontier. As a Patriot, it is inevitable that you will run across people who will try to ruin your online reputation (like they do to other conservatives). This book tells you exactly where to look for the problems that Liberals might cause for you and then how to repair them.

A major SOURCE (not always credited) for many of today's trendy writers
The Road to Serfdom by F.A.Hayek


(Note: I own and have READ this book) (...)

Short review: strongly recommended. A timeless classic. An analytic exposition of the same old re-cycled, cancerous, glib, smug nonsense that we hear endlessly repeated so often today. Namely that (yawn) Capitalism and the Free Market are unjust, inequitable, and dying anyway. No good has ever (EVER) come from rich, corrupt businessmen. They are exploiters and parasites. They need to be replaced by a benevolent, kind, compassionate 'planned' society. Administered by an Elite body of Federal Planners in Washington, who are wise and kind, (a tear trickles down our cheek), and who consist heavily of academics, intellectuals and Supreme Court Judges. We need more Government bodies, because they are fair, balanced, and wise. We need more rules, regulations, taxes and government inspectors to help business and private investment. (All kneel....)

A heavy read, requires concentration and dedication, and be prepared to look up many references. Some long paragraphs, some convoluted sentences, some ponderous pronunciations, but a work, written roughly between 1938 to 1944, which can be used as a stunning blue print to understand today's misleading representations by left wing extremists and political agitators. .What we see today in America is nothing new. The poorly read, uninformed, short sighted, activists, eager as ever to mount the barricades, but quite unwilling to sit, read, listen... and think.
It's the Old Marxist Brigade, the dreamers and the malcontents, revamped, with changed colors, new rhetoric, and lots of Utopian promises of 'free lunch' for all. In fact, they are intent on their own personal gain and self aggrandisement. Power politics as usual. Hayek foresaw it all, and described it for us in this incredibly clear sighted and clairvoyant work. This book has been an important inspirational source for many of today's more popular trendy conservative writers, although, so it seems, most will not admit to it. (With the exception of Mark Levin in his interesting "Liberty and Tyranny")

Long review: I like an author who entitles a chapter "Why the worst get on top" (chapter 10). I've often wondered the same thing. On page 160 he says: "There are three main reasons why such a numerous and strong group with fairly homogeneous views is not likely to be formed by the best but rather by the worst elements of any society."
He then gives "three main reasons", which I suggest are well reasoned, well thought out, and ring remarkably true of today's self appointed saviours of the exploited masses. Check it out yourself.
I'll quote you part of his third reason:
"It seems almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program - on the hatred of the enemy, on the envy of those better off - than on any positive task."
P.162: "Collectivism has no room for the wide humanitarianism of liberalism but only for the narrow particularism of the totalitarian."
Chapter 2 is called "The Great Utopia", and if you're a bit of a weathered cynic like me, you'll enjoy it. Page 77 contains the classic quote from Tocqueville "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude".
On p. 78, Hayek says: "There can be no doubt that the promise of freedom has become one of the most effective weapons of socialist propaganda and that the belief that socialism would bring freedom is genuine and sincere. But this would only heighten the tragedy if it should prove that what was promised to us as the Road to Freedom was in fact the High Road to Servitude..."
Chapter 11 is called "The End of Truth" and you have to smile. Maybe Hayek was a secret time traveler. Maybe he visited America in the year 2009. If he did, then he penned the opening paragraph of this chapter for Americans today. Read it, you might like it. He continues on page 172: "The moral consequences of totalitarian propaganda....are of an even more profound kind. They are destructive of all morals because they undermine one of the foundations of all morals: the sense of and the respect for truth."
Chapter 13 is called "The Totalitarians in our Midst", and must have been written yesterday. It contains so many quotable quotes, I shall limit myself to two: "...there is scarcely a leaf out of Hitler's book which somebody or other in England or America has not recommended us to take and use for our own purposes." (p.195)
Or how about this one, same page: "Individualism must come to an end absolutely. A system of regulations must be set up, the object of which is not the greater happiness of the individual.... but the strengthening of the organized unity of the state for the object of attaining the maximum degree of efficiency..."

This book is a classic. The introduction by Bruce Caldwell is detailed.
My two minor grumbles would be:
1) that some of the sentences are very long winded. Lots of clauses, juxtapositions, conditional statements. I read a lot, but I frequently found myself forced to re-read a sentence, and sometimes a whole paragraph. Hayek crams a lot into every word. Anybody who says this book is an 'easy read', with 'smooth prose' possesses a much higher IQ than I do.
I still can read any page in Hayek, and enjoy it. It's a rich offering.
2) So why in heck are there only 44 reviews so far of this masterpiece on Amazon? Many authors today, with over 1,000 reviews, widely feted with lots of rah-rah-rah and prime time hoopla-la-la, clearly show Hayek Road-to-Serfdom influence in their work. They don't always admit it.
For my money, THIS is a major source for many of today's writers. Yup, you have to work at Hayek. He's not easy. Roll up your sleeves. Take notes. You can't watch the 'Commie News network' (CNN) at the same time, do the crossword, and listen to your favorite rapper. But Hayek is overwhelmingly well worth every effort.
A truly great, gripping, far sighted classic.

The Road to Serfdom Revisited
This is Friedrich Hayek's magnum opus. It is so, however, not because it his most insightful, his most deep, or his most innovative book (his more specialized works in political philosophy and economics claim those titles), but because it is the opposite, that is, a general book, and because this is the kind of book that the world most needed then, and most desperately needs again now.

I say this because Professor Hayek's work is essentially a restatement of the age-old principles of classical liberalism, dating at least back to the Enlightenment, in light of the then seemingly insurmountable approach of socialism, which Hayek feared (rightly) would lead to a totalitarianism just as deadly as that of Nazi Germany. Hence Hayek's thesis is twofold: it is a warning against the path Great Britain was on at that time (which is a path well-trod by the twenty-first century), which Hayek believes leads to slavery, to misery, and to totalitarian control; at the same time, Hayek makes these critiques in light of the central tenets of old liberalism (to be clear to reviewers, this liberalism has nothing to do with modern day "liberalism") - free markets and individual liberty.

As for Hayek's analysis itself, it is nothing short of brilliant. Again, Hayek more meticulously works out the details of his political theory in works like the "Constitution of Liberty", but here he is at his best, providing the big picture of the threat of socialism, in all its guises, and what it represents to any country which values individual freedom. A number of chapters will seem prescient, such as "The End of Truth" (Orwell's 1984 clearly borrows from this), detailing how under a totalitarian regime, truth becomes a matter of utility for the ruler, a pliable tool rather than an objective goal to be sought and conformed to. Most scary, Hayek shows how this is partly accomplished by the manipulation of language.

There are two things, however, which make this book so accessible, and therefore serve as the quintessential introduction to classical liberal thought. First, it is remarkably conciliatory towards opponents. Hayek is not a firebrand or an ideologue, but an intellectual, who holds strong views, but knows and respects members of the opposite camp. Hence, he dedicates this book, "to socialists of all parties," and never lowers himself to the level of diatribe or rambling. His earnest goal is to open his readers' minds to ideals that are perishing, and he knows eristic does not accomplish that. This alone allows the book to stand in marked contrast to any contemporary book. Second, however, Hayek's book is still read because though the circumstances have changed, it is as relevant as though it were written yesterday. As Milton Friedman says in his introduction, during the first half of the twentieth century people praised socialism but practiced capitalism; today, we praise capitalism but practice socialism. We are moving, sluggishly it is true, but certainly nonetheless, down the same road that Hayek feared sixty-six years ago. We are traveling down the road to serfdom.

Do Not Stop Here!
This book has come across some recent popularity after Glenn Beck dedicated an entire show to this book.

I picked up this book a year and a half ago. It is truly a tremendous book, and one that provided me motivation to continue my studies at a fervent pace.

I suggest Glenn Beck fans should not stop here. The Austrian school is going to open your eyes. If you have not already, I highly suggest you begin to look into studying the many important works of Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises. Rothbard particularly had a tremendous ability to make complex subjects simple and actually pleasurable, so fear not if you are at all turned off by studying economics. It is much too important to push aside. If you do not wish to buy the books, you can download e-books absolutely free on the Mises Institute website. Also, the site offers free articles, lectures, and audio downloads on subjects including economics, history, and libertarian thought.

Especially relevant in today's world
This book contains the most notable works of F.A. Hayek, the famed, Nobel-prize winning economist who explained yet again why democracies are best based on free market capitalism, and that socialism tends to lead to tyranny.

Hayek demonstrates how socialist governments, motivated by political considerations, can't help but interfere with markets. But economic principles are like the law of gravity...they can't be altered at the whim of a state bureaucrat, so government tampering usually results in cycles of clumsy tampering, suboptimal economic performance, financial crisis, and greater intervention. Hayek would argue for solutions based on individual freedoms while limiting government's ability to intervene in markets, but socialists see it differently. Instead, they demand greater and greater powers, claiming that only greater intervention can fix the problems their actions have caused. To the extent that people buy into this thinking and vote to grant governments ever more power, economic and personal liberties are surrendered, eventually resulting in tyranny and totalitarianism.

One of the other interesting points Hayek makes is that socialism and it's characteristic centrally planned economies tends to concentrate power in a small band of political elites. In this type of system, only the most corrupt and politically ruthless tend to advance, and over time it gets to be increasingly difficult to oppose them. Leaders, unable to offer real growth and prosperity, turn to things like thought (media) control and other nefarious means to stay in power and advance their socialist agendas.

It's also important to understand that this book, while scholarly, has its roots in a far more pragmatic and patriotic place. Written in 1944, Hayek and some of his peers were afraid that the drastic government market intervention surrounding WWII would be carried forward after the war, and the entire world would settle into a Soviet-style socialism. At the time, the Soviets were seen as successfully managing their economy through central planning, and socialism was the darling of intellectuals around the globe. Hayek, fearing this outcome, organized numerous meetings among the world's leading economic minds, and eventually, his book would have a dramatic impact on economic thinking for people in general as well as economists. Milton Friedman writes on this topic and it makes a fascinating read.

Although Hayek used Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union for most of his examples, it's striking to see current events through the lens of this book, whether the mortgage lending crisis, AIG, GM, Cap and Trade, US health care system intervention and so on. Although few disagree with Hayek's principles, it is as though we need to relearn them every so often. Indeed, Hayek isn't the first (or last) to advocate these principles...Hobbes, Locke, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman and so on have been pointing the way for most of the last three centuries. Perhaps "Hope and Change" is just easier to believe in than sober, economic policies of individualism and personal freedom.

Very highly recommended and should be required reading for patriots and voters trying to make sense out of today's march towards socialism. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Editorial Review

In Obama's Wars, Bob Woodward provides the most intimate and sweeping portrait yet of the young president as commander in chief. Drawing on internal memos, classified documents, meeting notes and hundreds of hours of interviews with most of the key players, including the president, Woodward tells the inside story of Obama making the critical decisions on the Afghanistan War, the secret campaign in Pakistan and the worldwide fight against terrorism.

At the core of Obama's Wars is the unsettled division between the civilian leadership in the White House and the United States military as the president is thwarted in his efforts to craft an exit plan for the Afghanistan War.

"So what's my option?" the president asked his war cabinet, seeking alternatives to the Afghanistan commander's request for 40,000 more troops in late 2009. "You have essentially given me one option.... It's unacceptable."

"Well," Secretary of Defense Robert Gates finally said, "Mr. President, I think we owe you that option."

It never came. An untamed Vice President Joe Biden pushes relentlessly to limit the military mission and avoid another Vietnam. The vice president frantically sent half a dozen handwritten memos by secure fax to Obama on the eve of the final troop decision.

President Obama's ordering a surge of 30,000 troops and pledging to start withdrawing U.S. forces by July 2011 did not end the skirmishing.

General David Petraeus, the new Afghanistan commander, thinks time can be added to the clock if he shows progress. "I don't think you win this war," Petraeus said privately. "This is the kind of fight we're in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids' lives."

Hovering over this debate is the possibility of another terrorist attack in the United States. The White House led a secret exercise showing how unprepared the government is if terrorists set off a nuclear bomb in an American city--which Obama told Woodward is at the top of the list of what he worries about all the time.

Verbatim quotes from secret debates and White House strategy sessions--and firsthand accounts of the thoughts and concerns of the president, his war council and his generals--reveal a government in conflict, often consumed with nasty infighting and fundamental disputes.

Woodward has discovered how the Obama White House really works, showing that even more tough decisions lie ahead for the cerebral and engaged president.

Obama's Wars offers the reader a stunning, you-are-there account of the president, his White House aides, military leaders, diplomats and intelligence chiefs in this time of turmoil and danger.

From the Washington Post
By Steve Luxenberg, September 22, 2010:

President Obama urgently looked for a way out of the war in Afghanistan last year, repeatedly pressing his top military advisers for an exit plan that they never gave him, according to secret meeting notes and documents cited in a new book by journalist Bob Woodward.

Frustrated with his military commanders for consistently offering only options that required significantly more troops, Obama finally crafted his own strategy, dictating a classified six-page "terms sheet" that sought to limit U.S. involvement, Woodward reports in Obama's Wars.

According to Woodward's meeting-by-meeting, memo-by-memo account of the 2009 Afghan strategy review, the president avoided talk of victory as he described his objectives.

"This needs to be a plan about how we're going to hand it off and get out of Afghanistan," Obama is quoted as telling White House aides as he laid out his reasons for adding 30,000 troops in a short-term escalation. "Everything we're doing has to be focused on how we're going to get to the point where we can reduce our footprint. It's in our national security interest. There cannot be any wiggle room."

Read the full Post news report on Obama's Wars.1 ... Read more

Reviews

Run, Don't Walk to get this Book - Woodward pens another Important Best Seller!!!, September 29, 2010


In the author's personal note to this book, Bob Woodward thanks his assistant Josh Bock with words of such kindness that I was completely taken aback by the grace that this man possesses. Many writers wouldn't take the time, or interest to be so encouraging to someone else.


Woodward's writing has the poet's touch. It is elegant, straightforward, and of such compelling interest that this book like many others he has written, is a page turner. You start it, and you just keep going until you are finished.


First we must discuss his sources and methods. This author doesn't publish unless he has confirmation of what he is being told by an additional 3rd party. His interviews are recorded, transcribed and then checked for errors. He sometimes revisits the same interviewee 4 or 5 times. He works with notes, documents and recollections.


Although a person being interviewed may request that it be background only, once Woodward gets the same story from another independent source, the story is no longer background. Many people have talked to Woodward on the basis of background in an effort to remain anonymous, and control him. It just doesn't remain that way. You are not going to fool this man.


When you read Obama's Wars, you realize that you can't obtain this much great information if you read a year's worth of the New York Times. You are getting the real deal here, and you don't get it anywhere else. Let me illustrate:



* When meeting President Bush's intelligence officer and hearing what he had to say prior to the election, then Senator Obama responds that he was worried about losing this election, now he's worried about winning the election with the information he is being told.



* Woodward confirms for us that Pakistani intelligence, the so called ISI has been giving aide to the Taliban, while taking $2 billion a year in cash from us.



* During the first half of 2008, the US made only 4 Predator strikes in Pakistan. Pakistan made the US warn the ISI ahead of time before a strike could be made. The ISI in turn would warn the Taliban and the bad guys would head for the hills prior to the strike. Once American got wise to the setup, we only gave the ISI simultaneous warning, and frankly we waited until the Predator was ready to fire its missiles before giving that warning. Where are you going to get information like this? I don't see it in the Washington Post, and certainly not the NY Times.



* President Obama was informed that 35 countries do not require Visas prior to coming to the United States. Terrorists are now coming to the US through those countries and forming cells. Our worst nightmare may be yet to come.



* Iran will have a gun-type nuclear weapon between 2013 and 2015 which will be demonstrated in the desert. Saudi Arabia will immediately notify Pakistan that you help us develop a nuclear weapon, or we cut off oil supplies to your country.



* Then Senator Obama was the victim of a cyber attack on his campaign by the Chinese government that copied his documents and files. The greater danger was what would happen if they destroyed the files as opposed to just copying them. The same thing happened to Senator McCain and his campaign.



* But Wait - there's more. Senator Obama was then told that every day both the Bank of NY and Citibank handle $3 trillion a day in funds transfers, whereas the entire economy is equal to $14 trillion in gross domestic product. Other countries now have the capability to interfere with those transactions through cyber war. The resulting financial chaos would be exponentially worse than the World Trade Center destruction. We do not have a cyber defense yet.



Woodward is at his best when discussing personalities. His discussion of Hillary Clinton's reluctance, then refusal and finally acceptance of the Cabinet position of Secretary of State is absolutely fascinating. Senator Clinton did not want the position, but Senator Obama's people sensed the door was still opened, so they told her to sleep on it over night. During the night Senator Clinton consulted Mark Penn, the Clinton pollster who basically asked her if she was crazy. Take it, "you will have an unmatched record of public service." He also reminded her that you are weak on foreign policy and national security, and now you will have absolute bonafides in both, and it didn't hurt that you she will finally show independence from her husband.



Yes, there's Richard Holbrooke the egotist, and General Petraeus comes through looking great. No one lays a glove on the General. The Secretary of Defense Robert Gates gets very high marks in the book. Over and over again, when you read Woodward, you recognize that the story you are reading is not something that is covered anywhere else. You are a part of the decision making process. You are involved. You know who makes sense and who doesn't, who's brilliant, and who's all talk, and no show.



I have given you pieces here and pieces there, a flavoring of a giant ice cream Sundae. Every page has a great story, and there is nothing superfluous in this great read. This book gets five stars. If you love politics, a good story, history, and reading what a great author operating at the peak of his powers can do, read Obama's Wars, and thank you for reading this review.


Richard C. Stoyeck

Enquiring Minds Want To Know, October 2, 2010
Woodward's latest book presents a treasure trove of information about a young presidency still in progress. Yes, it's too early for a comprehensive history or evaluation of the Obama administration, and that's not what this book purports to be. The focus of this book is the first 18 months, beginning with many of the discussions that took place while Obama was President-elect. As the title suggests, this book covers the decisions behind the war in Afghanistan and the related al Qaeda and Taliban activity into Pakistan. A September 22, 2010 Washington Post article also suggested another meaning for "war" in this book's title is the conflict among the president's national security team. Woodward has done his homework, and the results are marvelous.

Reading this book is quite educational. Woodward incorporates many characters into this book, including some that are probably unknown to those who don't regularly follow the news. Prior to reading this book I wasn't aware of the extent of Biden's influence, and I didn't fully understand the gravity of the Mumbai bombings or exactly how important Pakistan is to the war on terror. This book gave me a much better understanding of both the similarities and differences between al Qaeda and the Taliban, between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and between Karzai and Zardari.

For those who have read recent Woodward best-sellers such as "State of Denial" or "The War Within," the feel of this book will be familiar. His writing style is far from elegant prose. Some passages are borderline robotic; this is often due to directly paraphrasing or selectively quoting sources.

Woodward successfully avoids any partisan slant, despite what some other reviewers have implied. The amount of information Woodward has here is amazing. As time goes by we will have a much more complete picture of what is currently happening, but for a present-day look at the Obama administration, this book would be very hard to beat. A page-turner!

A review of the Book itself, not the characters it portrays, September 29, 2010
Woodward has crafted one of his best books yet. This book is informative and well researched. As you read it, you cannot help but realize WHY certain news stories appeared at specific times. The debate about troop numbers is captured in a clear and concise manner, yet you will shake your head as to why it had to take place in such a public forum. Woodward's portrayal of GEN McChrystal is especially useful given the bad press surrounding his departure. An insiders viewpoint of events that most of us at the time had to rely on the media to learn about. Woodward does a fine job counteracting a lot of the Washington Spin by providing unparalleled insight behind the scenes.

For those wondering if "Obamas Wars" covers both Iraq and Afghanistan, I would opine that it does not. Obama arguably inherited a war and a drawdown when he took office. As I read the book, I felt that the use of "wars" plural referred to the ongoing Afghanistan conflict, the "war" within the White House over what policy to back, the "war" within the Department of Defense over what military options to exercise, the "war" between US foreign policy and domestic political concerns as the latter seemed more important to Democrats while Republicans preferred to emphasize the former, and the "war" - percieved or not - between military and civilian authorities, in this case a President who did not feel as if his wishes were being carried out to the letter. The book ends in July 2010 around the time when Woodward interviewed President Obama.

No Exit!, October 5, 2010
The focus of this book is the complicated process that led to President Obama to increase the level of U.S. troops deployed to Afghanistan in support of the so-called "surge strategy." Like all of Woodward's previous books this book is apolitical and contains minimal analysis and commentary. It is a chronological compilation of quotes and paraphrases that Woodward has selected to demonstrate how the decision making process in this case actually worked. Woodward is a respected journalist and has a track record of accurately reflecting White House Deliberations.
Woodward makes it clear that President Obama's concerns with Afghanistan so often articulated in his run for the Presidency were genuine and unfortunately well founded. The military and political situations in Afghanistan were rapidly deteriorating to the point of endangering the U.S. position there. The President wanted to formulate a new strategy that would neutralize the threats posed by al Qaeda still operating on the Afghan-Pakistan Border, the Taliban insurgency, and transform Afghanistan into stable country that would not serve as a host to al Qaeda. To do this, he sought to obtain at least three or four strategic alternatives that he could choose from rather than simply going with the military centric strategy option that was already on the table.
The military centric option was favored by Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff (JCS), General Petreaus (USA) Chief of CentCom, and General McChrystal (USA). General McChrystal strongly argued that the Afghan security forces could be quickly brought up to such a level (400,000!) and that an all American Force of 40,000 troops (four brigades) could easily seize, hold, and transfer key population centers over to Afghan Security Forces. Although his optimism was at variance with actual conditions in Afghanistan, Admiral Mullen and General Petreaus supported McChrystal's argument.
Still President Obama wanted to be able to review other options before committing so many troops to a failing state like Afghanistan. He also was aware that any Afghan solution would by necessity involve a Pakistani solution. The all powerful Pakistani Military had a very complex relationship with the Taliban movement and, it was suspected, al Qaeda. He therefore sought to develop a strategy that would recognize this.
In one sense this book is a chronicle of the President's efforts to pry alternative strategies from the National Security Council (NSC). Saving for Vice-President Biden's "counter-terrorism" strategy which would require considerably fewer troops than the counter-insurgency plan he was unsuccessful in obtaining any real alternatives to the surge strategy. In the end the President simply caved into the military and accepted General McChrystal's counter-insurgency strategy even though it offered only an Afghan centric and an unrealistic military solution to what was and is a much more complex regional problem. Woodward's account of how the President got to this point is quite fascinating.

Obama's Meetings (Actually The Same Meeting, Over and Over Again), October 10, 2010
This is at least the sixth book by Bob Woodward that I have read, and I continue to be amazed at the access he gets and the subsequent direct quotes from private and confidential conversations and classified documents. He is a reporter's reporter (and a very pedestrian writer - he's more Dragnet than Gay Telese). There is just not a very gripping story here. There is no Deep Throat; there is no smoking gun; there is no big reveal. It is, essentially, 400+ pages of the same meeting taking place over and over and over and over again, over the course of several months.

The Lowdown on How Obama Expanded the War in Afghanistan, October 5, 2010
Bob Woodward has become the go-to guy to chronicle the inside story of how Washington operates. His latest book, OBAMA'S WAR, details how President Barack Obama presided over a year-long study that led to an expansion of the American war in Afghanistan.

It is a convoluted, fascinating read that gives the reader unique insights into Obama and the leading characters of his Administration.

Woodward paints a portrait of Obama that is generally positive. He describes the young president as a thoughtful chief executive who maintains his cool among the hotheads that he has surrounded himself in the White House. And like most White House administrations there is considerable infighting among Obama's aides.

Woodward gives us a gossipy version of how Obama arrived at his decision to send an additional 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan. We get the mindset of the principal players, including Vice President Joe Biden (a chattering nabob who serves as a brake on some of the other hawks on the White House staff); national Security Adviser Gen. James Jones, a well respected military chief who seems to be in over his head politically; Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, who is a loyal, if cautious adviser to Obama, and chief of staff Rham Emanuel who is a profane, rambunctious lieutenant who cracks the whip with a hair trigger in an effort to get things done. Richard Holbrook, the man who would be Secretary of State under a Hilary Clinton Administration, loses the confidence of Obama as he (Holbrook) fails to resolve the enigma of a Muslim Pakistani nation that is trapped by its fear of India.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates comes off as a wily, practical politician who remains faithful to his command structure and the troops in the Afghan theater of war. Army Gen. David Petraeus is depicted as a cautious, but media savvy, politic military commander who successfully walks a high tension wire between his bosses at the Pentagon, the White House staff and the political heavy weights in Congress. Woodward describes Gen. Stan McCrystal as probably the best field commander for the war in Afghanistan - but who stumbles over his inability to keep his mouth shut.

Woodward also gives the reader useful insights into the politics of both Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as the intricacies of the geopolitical framework of the Middle East.

Woodward always amazes with his ability to wring information out of the key players in Washington. Clearly everyone from Obama on down talked to Woodward. He quotes frequently from Jones' private notebooks, for example, and his extensive verbatim quotes from all the key players indicate he had virtually unfettered access to the White House and the Pentagon.

An unexplained mystery is who gave Woodward the copy of McCrystal's top secret, highly restricted assessment of the war in Afghanistan? After considering the likely culprits, this reviewer suggests that the culprit was either Petraeus, DOD chief Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, Mike Mullen, or most likely Richard Holbrook. Whoever it was, Woodward couldn't wait for publication of his book and published a page 1 story in the Washington Post nearly a year ago. The details of how Woodward and his editors at the Post negotiated publication of the report with the White House team are fascinating.

While Obama comes off reasonably well in this book, his legacy of course will depend on the final outcome of his war in Afghanistan. The reader should remember that in his four books on the Bush war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Woodward also gave George W Bush high marks early on, but in the final book, THE WAR WITHIN, Woodward described Bush as "intolerant of confrontations and in-depth debate.... he never got a handle on it and over these years of war, too often he failed to lead."

Even ace reporter Bob Woodward can be fickle, it seems, and while OBAMA'S WAR is a fascinating read, it is by no means the final word on a very difficult war in a far-off land that has never been permanently conquered. While Woodward successfully connects the dots thus far, the full story of hte AfPak War remains elusive -- and will remain so for a long time in the future.

Great book .. everyone should read this., October 2, 2010
Obama's War is a real page turner. It reads like a suspense novel. Woodward did a great job of simply presenting the facts, thoughts and expressed feelings of others, while himself remaining neutral -- good old fashion journalism without an agenda. The book isn't preaching right or left, and lets the reader decide. It's amazing how he manages to gather the information he does.

Insight into the 10 year war, October 15, 2010
Just finished reading Obama's Wars by Bob Woodward. I honestly stepped into this book not looking to lean to the left or lean to the right. I just wanted to wrap my head around the collaboration between the military and Washington. I wanted to get a better understanding of each person's wants and perception of the Afghan War.
I believe now I have a much better understanding of each individual and their contribution (or lack thereof) in the last two years. Whether our citizens want to continue this war or end it ...it's best to understand that this war is far more complicated than Iraq.

On the Money as Usual, October 8, 2010
I found it hard to put down Bob Woodward's latest, although it's not a quick read.

He introduces a big array of characters. They consist of the hands on military guys like McChrystal and Petraeus, Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Gates and a bunch of White House staff. Then there is a bewildering variety of security advisers. For decades the USA has had a bunch of security agencies and they do snap at each other's heels.

Obama comes out well, partly because he doesn't gang up on anyone. This book mainly details a long series of meetings designed to assess McChrystal's request for 40,000 more troops for Afghanistan. (The title is misleading: this book is about Afghanistan, not Iraq). Obama is diligent in making sure everyone's voice is heard, in not rushing a decision, and most of all in being determined not to be steamrollered by the military.

In today's paper we learn that General Jones, National Security Adviser, who frankly comes out of Woodward's book as limp (as McChrystal illadvisedly said to Rolling Stone back in June) has just been sacked (as McChrystal was) for telling tales out of school in Woodward's book. Obama told Woodward about McChrystal he welcomed debate but wouldn't tolerate division.

For someone like myself who doesn't read the papers and blogs in depth this is a very useful account of Where the Americans are currently at in central Asia.

One of the problems is Pakistan. Current conventional wisdom is that Pakistan is fighting the Taliban and Al Quaeda within its own borders but also supporting them. They need American aid and fear their wrath but they also want the fundamentalists because they scare India. The attack on Mumbai was run by a terrorist group based in Pakistan for example. Pakistan also fears that a Taliban-free Afghanistan would be India's ally.

Another key issue is that while the Americans have more or less driven Al Quaeda out of Afghanistan and with the extra numbers show signs of making a real impression on the Taliban at the time of Woodward's writing there were still few signs that they were doing much of a job in terms of getting to a point where Afghanistan's own security forces would be ready to take over. This is what the USA believe they have achieved, more or less, in Iraq, but of course Afghanistan is a different country and corruption is out of control.

In all the debates Woodward recounts there is very little about how this can be sorted.

Nevertheless MacChrystal comes across as an incredibly talented guy who was making things work. Unfortunately he liked to party with Rolling Stone journalists and tell the truth, not always a good policy.

The other message is, for all those who supported Obama: you picked the right guy. Although Clinton for me comes out well too. Her contributions were few in number but probably decisive.

a sobering view of war, September 30, 2010
woodward has done an excellent job of clearly defining the complexities of the afghan war. this book showed that the military brass should take as much if not more blame than obama. woodward poimts out that after 6 years of war no uniform goals had been established and no one was on the same page. it was like pulling teeth for the president to get options from his military leaders. its ironic that this war was begun with little/no planning and when obama comes in and has the military/pentagon take the time for a review, he is blasted by the public for not being decisive. its a strange dichotomy because when a war is succesful the military gets the credit but when unsuccesful the president gets the blame. cant wait for woodwards next book. ... Read more

Editorial Review

For everyone who was too cheap to buy the hardcover, the blockbuster, award-winning #1 New York Times bestseller is now in trade paperback-with a new introduction, fully updated, and with equally unsettling nude photos of the newest Supreme Court justices, and a text corrected by the most reputable college professor we could find/afford.Including:Historical inaccuracies, gross distortions, complete fabrications-corrected by real-life bearded college professor. ... Read more

Reviews

Buoyantly profane, actually thoughtful, supremely funny, October 14, 2004
Jon Stewart and his Daily Show writers would have you believe this is humor masquerading as a "fake" civics textbook, but they undersell themselves. It's both funnier and smarter than that premise. It actually does spell out, chapter by chapter, the workings of the branches of government, the election process, and the role of journalism in creating and destroying all these (complete with in-class exercises and homework!)

If you're a fan of the show, you will enjoy listening to Stewart riff on journalism's loss of integrity, to Samantha Bee's apologetic asides about "do you mind if I tell you how we do it in Canada?", Ed Helms' presentation of his qualifications to be Supreme Court justice, etc. The book is, however, not just a rehash of pieces from the TV show; the book form allows the writers to make their favorite comedic jabs against our system's foibles with more historical and literary support. (Who knew, for example, the role that the rivalry between newspaper magnates William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer played in instigating the Spanish-American war?)

Coming from any source but the Daily Show, this premise might have been tedious, but from this team it is consistently and hysterically funny. Free of the time and vocabulary limits of TV, they really cut loose. The seven-dirty-words-you-can't-say-on-television here are put to good use, amended by such popular modifiers as bat, horse, bull, and mother. So don't bring it home to the kiddos, or listen to the audiobook on your mini-van stereo, and avoid it altogether if you don't yourself throw a good hearty @*$%&% around every now and then. But remember the best, funniest lines about the preservation of democracy and repeat these lessons to your kids. It's funny and important stuff.

Funny (period), October 16, 2004
This is Jon Stewart at his best. And let's be honest, folks, he rips both sides of the aisle in this mock-textbook of American history. Man, how I wish this was my history book back in high school. I would've studied then. So there's truth here, as well as good political humor. And a clever pull-out poster comes with it on the shadow democracy we have. Now, who can say that doesn't bear some truth!

Take My Government, Please!...ba-bum-bum, September 20, 2004
This book may not be the most incisive in its examination of the performance of the Bush administration, but it sure is the funniest. We are talking laugh-out-loud funny, not the bemused chuckling of Maureen Dowd's "Bushworld: Enter at Your Own Risk" or the laughter-through-fears treatment of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11". But Bush is hardly the only target in this consistently clever, brightly illustrated book. This may very well be the textbook you wish you had while you were pretending to listen to your civics teacher in high school. Even if you don't get the Comedy Central cable channel and watch the "Daily Show", you can still enjoy this book for its shamelessly funny but sadly accurate observations of our government at work. However, if you have seen the clever antics of Jon Stewart and his crew, you know what you're in for, and you won't be disappointed. All you miss with the book is the clever editing of TV news clips, press conferences and convention speeches, which they love to skewer.

Any cynical thought you have had about government bureaucracy and the execution of democratic principles will be supported wholeheartedly here. The writers go as far as illustrating the timeline for democracy from its supposed birth in prehistoric times through the lightning-striking Biblical period to early American history and then of course, to the current political landscape. It all has a strong Mel Brooksian feeling of Borscht Belt schtick and frat house humor topped off with some tasty zingers like "...it turns out if Betsy Ross was alive and sewing American flags today, she'd be a 13-year-old Laotian boy". By all means, get this book as we all need a good laugh considering the paucity of options we have come November. You may find something sadly ironic when you read it and absorb the abuses and absurdities built into our political processes and institutions. But then again, any book that introduces a potential Bush-Kerry boxing match as "The Thrilla in Vanilla" is aces with me.

Oh, how we needed this!, September 20, 2004
I hold in my hands a copy of the book "America--the Book" by Jon Stewart. From his zany foreword by "Thomas Jefferson" that literally made me spit out my coffee...to his open letter to Sean Penn requesting he keep his opinions to himself (oh, it rings so true), he had me laughing every time I turned the page. What an absolute delight in the wake of such a controversial election year. If you think he is biased, think again--he rips EVERYONE apart in a clever way.

Make sure you check out the "voter registration form" on page 123. Actually, I could point you in the direction of many funny things, but there are too many to write about here. Buy it, buy it, buy it!

Is Educational Schtick an Oxymoron?, September 21, 2004
As a poltical science student I can tell you without hesitation that you will LEARN something by reading this book!

How much have you forgotten since 11th grade Civics class? More than you realize!

While you're busy wetting yourself laughing at the graphics, you will subconciously be relearning what were once boring and useless factoids of history. Don't be surprised if suddenly you realize,"Hey! Wait a minute! There ARE nine Supreme Court justices! I always forget that guy with the teen-tiny (...)." You won't forget him now!

WARNING: The (second) chapter on the media will have you contemplating spending the rest of your life with the Amish.

America (The Book) (the review), October 20, 2004

Anyone into the daily show will love this book, no doubt about it. And those who enjoy witty humour will also love it.

The concept of the school-book is really well developed and the result is simply hilarious. For my part, I did not know it was a book of that kind; I expected a book without pictures and all that great stuff they put in there, so I was surprised, but in a good, a very good way.

PS: I read a preview on amazon some weeks ago and I remember one of them complained about "Bush-bashing"; well, the first mention of mister Bush does not come before something like the 140th page and it's so little it can hardly be considered bashing, besides, the guy doesn't get the half of a quarter of a third of what he ought to get, but anyway that's not the point. Point is; that's not a book about Bush so if you support him that should not be a reason not to read this book, since you will virtually see nothing related to him (except the very last pages about the election process, but in there you'll find an equal amount of stuff on Kerry, and an equal treatment of both of them).

Not only this book is seriously funny, but it's also very informative at times.

The textbook style is priceless, September 21, 2004
I wish history was really this fun... This book is a take on our government in all of its forms. Peppered with the daily show and John Stewart's unique brand of comedy satire, this book lampoons both democrats and republicans equally as it progresses through documenting the absurdity of modern politics.

If you are experiencing burnout from all of the 30 second ads, political commentary, and talking heads that are pervading the media nowadays I would definitely prescribe this book. (I couldn't set it down!)

If you only buy one red, white and blue book ........, September 20, 2004
.......during this peculiar political season - make it this one.

The whole thing - every page - from beginning to end is sardonic and ingeniusly written. The humor is not restricted to just one format. There are hilarious forms to fill out, games to play and paragraphs that made me flat-out laugh and giggle.

The phrasing and timing of each "piece" is perfect and if you can imagine some of these spoofs on the show it's even more hysterical. But you never need to have seen the show to enjoy this book and I mean just enjoy it - page after hilarious page.

Rarely do I laugh out loud when reading a book!, November 1, 2004
It happens so rarely that I laugh out loud when reading a book (or any other form of printed work). This book has had me laughing out loud SEVERAL times!

For those of you that *hate* The Daily Show, don't be dismayed, this book might still be for you.

You see, there is a lot more to this book than the naked pictures of the Supreme Court (those are basically disturbing, not funny). The humor in this book takes real intelligence to understand. If you don't know who Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Machiavelli, or Marx, etc etc is, then you will *NOT* find this book funny.

I must give the writers credit, for it is one thing to come up with fart jokes and potty humor. However, in America, they have shown the ability to research a subject and change a certain underlying fact or two to really bring out some satire. If you don't know your history or classic authors, you'd probably find this book dull and boring (having missed all the references).

To put this book over the top, it is ENTIRELY like a TEXTBOOK! Seriously...form the silly "FACTS YOU SHOULD KNOW" balloons, to the silly illustrations and pretend learning games. The authors really put in the effort to make this a (non-partisan, mind you) brilliant satire on America's political system and the methods we use to teach our own history!

So, even if you hate The Daily Show, if you enjoy intelligent satire this book may just be for you.

Enjoy!

Get Comfortable with History and LAUGH!, October 4, 2004
Okay, for the few who are writing in 1 Star reviews, claiming that Jon Stewart is merely spouting liberalists views, I have to say two things: 1) Get a sense of humor. This book is just plain funny, and yes, it does take jabs at all sides of the political spectrum 2) This book isn't just about politics. It's a humourous view at our history, our self-rightousness, and only those who have a firm grasp of U.S. history will find this book amusing. If it's not your cup of tea, perhaps you should read a history textbook, and then you'll understand. ... Read more

Editorial Review

From two of our most fiercely moral voices, a passionate call to arms against our era’s most pervasive human rights violation: the oppression of women and girls in the developing world.

With Pulitzer Prize winners Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn as our guides, we undertake an odyssey through Africa and Asia to meet the extraordinary women struggling there, among them a Cambodian teenager sold into sex slavery and an Ethiopian woman who suffered devastating injuries in childbirth. Drawing on the breadth of their combined reporting experience, Kristof and WuDunn depict our world with anger, sadness, clarity, and, ultimately, hope.

They show how a little help can transform the lives of women and girls abroad. That Cambodian girl eventually escaped from her brothel and, with assistance from an aid group, built a thriving retail business that supports her family. The Ethiopian woman had her injuries repaired and in time became a surgeon. A Zimbabwean mother of five, counseled to return to school, earned her doctorate and became an expert on AIDS.

Through these stories, Kristof and WuDunn help us see that the key to economic progress lies in unleashing women’s potential. They make clear how so many people have helped to do just that, and how we can each do our part. Throughout much of the world, the greatest unexploited economic resource is the female half of the population. Countries such as China have prospered precisely because they emancipated women and brought them into the formal economy. Unleashing that process globally is not only the right thing to do; it’s also the best strategy for fighting poverty.

Deeply felt, pragmatic, and inspirational, Half the Sky is essential reading for every global citizen. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Amoral, cunning, ruthless, and instructive, this piercing work distills three thousand years of the history of power in to forty-eight well explicated laws. As attention--grabbing in its design as it is in its content, this bold volume outlines the laws of power in their unvarnished essence, synthesizing the philosophies of Machiavelli, Sun-tzu, Carl von Clausewitz, and other great thinkers. Some laws teach the need for prudence ("Law 1: Never Outshine the Master"), the virtue of stealth ("Law 3: Conceal Your Intentions"), and many demand the total absence of mercy ("Law 15: Crush Your Enemy Totally"), but like it or not, all have applications in real life. Illustrated through the tactics of Queen Elizabeth I, Henry Kissinger, P. T. Barnum, and other famous figures who have wielded--or been victimized by--power, these laws will fascinate any reader interested in gaining, observing, or defending against ultimate control. ... Read more

Reviews

Black/White/Gray, August 15, 2001
When it comes to morality and ethics, people are used to thinking in terms of black and white. Conversely, "The 48 Laws of Power" deals primarily with the gray areas. At the risk of sounding melodramatic and trite, I say that most of the Laws covered in this book can be used for great evil or for great good. It depends on the reader. There is really nothing wrong with most of the Laws per se.

Each Law comes with true stories from history about those who successfully observed it and those who foolishly or naively trangressed it. Robert Greene has an interpretation for each story. Though each Law is self-explanatory, Greene's explanations are not padding, fluff or stuffing to make the book longer. They actually give greater clarification and depth. Greene's insight even extends to crucial warnings about how the Laws could backfire.

There are two reasons to read this book:

1. For attack: To gain power, as have others who have carefully observed the Laws;

2. For defense: To be aware of ways that people may be trying to manipulate you.

As Johann von Goethe said (as quoted in "The 48 Laws of Power", of course): "The only means to gain one's ends with people are force and cunning. Love also, they say, but that is to wait for sunshine, and life needs every moment."

Those who say they have never used any of these laws are either being hypocritical--or lying.

Read in spirit of the "Screwtape Letters", March 15, 2004
In one's life, you're better off following the teachings of Moses, Jesus, or Buddha to gain long-term happiness. But the sad fact is, many people live by a very different set of rules, and while most of these folks eventually self-destruct, they can inflict severe damage on our personal and professional lives in the process.

48 Rules of Power is a good primer for learning how these people think. I've spotted a number of similar books in the Business section (like "Career Warfare" and classics like the "Art of War") of my local bookseller, but none put things quite as succinctly as this one. In today's predatory work culture, with good jobs (read: jobs that let you own a home and pay all the bills month to month with a little left over) becoming harder and harder to find, you almost certainly will be the target of these techniques at some point. A friend once made an innocent and extraordinarily minor faux pas at an office Christmas party, and had a homicidal CEO attempt to destroy his future using methods as varied as slander and identity theft, all done through middle manager proxies to keep his own hands clean. You need to read books like these to know how too many people at the top think. But don't live out some of these rules in real life (e.g., crush your enemy completely) - there'll always be someone who does it better, and you will get crushed. Martha Stewart got hers, so don't think you're going to smash people and live to tell the tale. Reality simply doesn't work that way - and even if you survive professionally, the spiritual rot and personal decay will leave you an isolated, paranoid wreck. Read this book in the spirit of C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters, in which a master demon gives advice to a protege on how to destroy mortals. Learn how to spot people who live like this - and then stay very, very far away. Jesus said, "Be wise as serpents but innocent as doves." This book, read in the right spirit, will help you with both.

Not bad, but not all that good either, September 4, 2001
This book is well-written and very nicely designed. Beyond that, it's hard to see what the fuss is about.

First of all, and on the one hand, the book isn't the torrent of Machiavellian amorality you may have been led to believe. The author does go out of his way to make it _sound_ as though he's presenting you with sophisticated, in-the-know, just-between-us-hardheaded-realists amoral guidance. But as a matter of fact almost every bit of this advice _could_ have been presented without offense to the most traditional of morality.

(For example, the law about letting other people do the work while you take the credit is made to sound worse than it really is. Sure, it admits of a "low" interpretation. But it's also, read slightly differently, a pretty apt description of what any good manager does.)

Second, and on the other hand, the advice isn't _that_ good; it's merely well-presented. How it works will depend on who follows it; as the old Chinese proverb has it, when the wrong person does the right thing, it's the wrong thing.

And that's why I have to deduct some stars from the book. For it seems to be designed to appeal precisely to the "wrong people."

Despite some sound advice, this book is aimed not at those who (like Socrates) share the power of reason with the gods, but at those who (like Ulysses) share it with the foxes. It seeks not to make you reasonable but to make you canny and cunning. And as a result, even when it advises you to do things that really do work out best for all concerned, it promotes an unhealthy sense that your best interests are at odds with nearly everyone else's. (And that the only reason for being helpful to other people is that it will advance your own cloak-and-dagger "career.")

No matter how helpful some of the advice may be, it's hard to get around the book's rather pompous conceit that the reader is learning the perennial secrets of crafty courtiers everywhere. Even if only by its tone, this volume will tend to turn the reader into a lean and hungry Cassius rather than a confident and competent Caesar.

In general the book does have some useful things to say about power and how to acquire and wield it. Unfortunately its approach will probably render the advice useless to the people who need it most. Readers who come to it for guidance will come away from it pretentiously self-absorbed if not downright narcissistic; the readers who can see through its Machiavellian posturing and recognize it for what it is will be the very readers who didn't need it in the first place.

Recommended only to readers who _aren't_ unhealthily fascinated by Sun-Tzu, Balthasar Gracian, and Michael Korda.

May be unethical, but it's true and it works, April 28, 2004
I am not earning over a million bucks a year so I might not be qualified to judge the value of the book. However, as somebody in his late thirties and always stuck in the middle of world class big corps, I can tell just knowing the laws can greatly improve your ability to defend against arrows shooting at your back.

For your easy reference, the laws are:-
1. Never outshine the master
2. Never put too much trust in friends, learn how to use enemies
3. Conceal your intentions
4. Always say less than necessary
5. So much depends on reputation - guard it with your life
6. Court attention at all cost
7. Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit
8. Make other people come to use - use bait if necessary
9. Win thru your actions, neer thru argument
10. Infection: Avoid the unhappy and unlucky
11. Learn to keep people dependent on you
12. Use selective honesty and generosity to disarm your victim
13. When asking for help, appeal to people's self interest, never to their mercy or gratitude
14. Pose as a friend, work as a spy
15. Crush your enemy totally
16. Use absence to increase respect and honor
17. Keep others in suspended terror: cultivate an air of unpredictability
18. Do not build fortresses to protect yourself - isolation is dangerous
19. Know who you are dealing with - do not offend the wrong person
20. Do not commit to anyone
21. Play a sucker to catch a sucker - seem dumber than your mark
22. Use the surrender tactic: transform weakness into power
23. Concentrate your forces
24. Play the perfect courtier
25. Re-create yourself
26. Keep your hands clean
27. Play on people's need to believe to create cultlike following
28. Enter action with boldness
29. Plan all the way to the end
30. Make your accomplishments seem effortless
31. Control the options: get others to play with the cards you deal
32. Play to people's fantasies
33. Discover each man's thumbcrew
34. Be royal in your own fashion; act like a king to be treated like one
35. Master the art of timing
36. Disdain things you cannot have: ignoring them is the best revenge
37. Create compelling spectacles
38. Think as you like but behave like others
39. Stir up waters to catch fish
40. Despise the free lunch
41. Avoid stepping into a great man's shoes
42. Strike the shepherd and the sheep with scatter
43. Work on the hearts and minds of others
44. Disarm and infuriate with the mirror effect
45. Preach the need for change, but never reform too much at once
46. Never appear too perfect
47. Do not go past the mark you aimed for: in victory, learn when to stop
48. Assume formlessness

I hope you wont find the above "laws" too repugnant. Anyway, this book is well written with plenty of lively and interesting examples or stories. An excellent read for both leisure and self improvement, I must say. Highly recommended.

Interesting, but not "how to". Shows our Sore Spot, January 13, 2001
The most interesting thing about this book is not the book itself, but the reactions it excites. It has drawn an incredible number of reviewers, many of whom are very critical and emotional about it. Our culture has a sore spot where power is concerned, and this is a good illumination of it. As others have noted, the various laws are contradictory and inconsistent. The book openly admits this, by giving examples of "reversal". It would be nice if the book openly proclaimed that power and politics are all situational--And in fact this point is made in the book. But it probably wouldn't look enticing to potential buyers if they put it on the cover! The book does have some fascinating accounts of past experiences in it, and is interesting to read on that basis. I'm even willing to agree that carefully reading all these accounts of power-grabbing will probably help an avid powermonger become more aware of the dynamics of different situations. But it isn't going to make you into a Kennedyesque figure in and of itself (thank goodness!). The book is beautifully designed and laid out.

People...Grow Up, July 3, 2001
I have read the many reviews that criticize the 48 Laws as "Not Practical", "Dangerous" and "Shameless". What planet are you people from. I went to night school to get a college degree, I have followed my fathers advise and worked an honest days labor. I came in early and stayed late to get the job done. I have recieved great reviews and many promises of money and promotion. All for little. I noticed my peers, who were not as dedicated as I by their own admission, careers were moving along at the same pace as mine or faster. When I had enough, I began to talk to managers that I trusted and employees who have had success in career advancement. Guess what, their comments and advice were very similiar to many of the laws in this book.

This book is very "Practical" and, while I admit, practicing many of these laws would be "Dangerous" and "Shameless" to ignore that they are present in our every day lives is delusional.

It does not matter if you want to play the game or not, you are in it. You don't have to take a sword with you but for heavens sake at lest wear some armor. This book is that armor, to understand the 48 laws allows you to see the oppertunity/danger before it is to late. NO, I WILL NOT HURT PEOPLE FOR GAIN but I will no longer be used if I can help it.

THE 48 LAWS OF POWER: YOUR THINKING WILL NEVER REMAIN THE SAME, November 1, 2005
Read this book and your thinking will never remain the same. Drawing upon historic examples that portray man's journey through the ages as one long, unending quest to dominate his fellows, The 48 Laws of Power reads somewhat like a much expanded version of Machiavelli's The prince. Yet it carries a lot of its own originality - on many levels. One interesting, innovative feature of this book can be found in the numerous illustrations and anecdotes appearing along the page margins that the writer uses to buttress his points. Quite educative, they provided me an easy opportunity to browse through and be acquainted with fascinating classic literature from Aesop's Fables down to Sun Tzu's The Art of war.

Can we refer to the 48 Laws as success literature? Some of Robert Greene's advice seems innocent enough: Never outshine the master; win through your actions, never through argument; concentrate your forces; enter action with boldness. These are tips you would find in any self-help book that should put anyone on a stronger footing in the workplace with their boss, with colleagues, or even within the curious context of a romantic relationship.

But there is a darker, more sinister side to the 48 Laws, a side that appears to be responsible for all the notoriety that surrounds this book. There are laws which, seeming to controvert themselves in some instances, advocate underhandedness and the practice of outright evil in the pursuit of one's ambitions. Reading The 48 Laws awakens a moral conflict within us and presents two philosophies that attend the attainment of power - one inspired by goodness and the other governed by guile. But I think it all depends on the kind of success you seek. To those that would stoop to guile I would point out that Robert Greene has neglected to include what perhaps might have been the first law: All that goes around comes around; you reap what you sow.

On the other hand, some of these laws that appear to advocate evil - taken in the right context, they shed their malicious intent and turn out to be very helpful, well-meaning principles. For instance, I agree with the thought `So much depends on your reputation - guard it with you life'. But I think my reputation rests, more than anything, on my character and commitment to whatever I do, and it is along these lines I will seek to guard it. Also, when I think of `Make other people come to you - use bait if necessary', I tend to see it in the light of the principle that pronounces: The kind of person you are, to a large extent, determines the kind of people you will attract into your life. So I go about developing my `bait' - myself - in the best way I can. Fishing, as opposed to hunting, one success writer calls it.

An anecdote which fascinated me and which I kept returning to was one about Cosimo de Medici, the 15th Century Florentine banking magnate, who rode a mule instead of a horse and decidedly deferred to city officials, but effectively controlled government policy in Florence for decades. He spent a lot of his own funds on grandiose development projects across the city but preferred to live in a nondescript villa, and when he died asked to be buried in a simple tomb devoid of lavish ornamentation. Robert Greene uses Cosimo's example to illustrate a concept that is profound as it is though-provoking: the REALITY of power is much more important than the appearance of it. Unfortunately, most people tend to see it the other way.

On the whole, the 48 Laws awaken one to the on-going struggle for domination and control even in the most mundane transactions between humans. They insist that power is a reality, whether we like it or not. They impress upon us the thinking that, to survive in today's world, one has to become a man or woman of the world - at least, if not in one's actions, in one's awareness. For me, the 48 laws show one how to discern power-bids in relationships, how to read between the lines and scour the fine-print; how to recognize various inter-personal issues at stake in business and the workplace, navigating with panache and perceptiveness. They show one how to be `peaceful as a dove but wise as a serpent', how to `see the tricks coming', as another reviewer put it. Indeed, the 48 Laws seek to banish our innocence. And you'll agree...innocence, many times, can be a painful thing.

One meeeeellion dollars!, March 30, 2007
This is not a "how to" guide for world domination, which seems to have left some reviewers perplexed and/or disappointed. You can take the Laws and historical examples and apply them how you see fit, or you can use Mr. Green's book to help you better understand the motives of those around you and maybe dodge a bullet or two.

Defense, October 23, 2003
In some sense this book offended me. It is cold and ruthless and the opposite of an aloha spirit. However, it also prepared me. I am in business internationally and you meet a lot of sharks. It is important to understand the offensive mindset to fabricate a defense when needed. I just finished my second reading of the book and plan to read it yearly.

Terrific synopsis of the classic historical writings on power., September 15, 2006
This book is a no holds barred open discussion of raw power, entertainingly presented. It took me a little while to get over the almost completely amoral tone of the book, but I eventually got the sense that the amoral tone is there for a purpose: to clue you in to the fact that people who practice power at this level can often be completely amoral themselves. In that sense, the book truly gives the reader a sense of the mindset of those who will do anything to stay in power. There is a sense as one reviewer pointed out, that the book could have been written without this amoral tone, but then one would miss out on the opportunity of being immersed in its sense of amorality, which is an education in itself. Experiencing the amorality is a wakeup call that offers insight into how some of the world's ills have come to pass, though you may find yourself wanting to shower afterward. After reading it, you will definitely be more aware of the laws being played out on the world stage, and you will begin to recognize people in government who seem to be using it as a playbook. Some laws are even applicable in personal relationships...a scary thought.

By reading this, you will get an overview of the major philosophical writings on power, who as sources likely include at the very least Machiavelli, Han Fei Tzu, and Sun Tzu, though the authors do not identify the sources of the material for each law. This is one thing I wish they had done. That would have made it more useful to those wishing to put these laws and their development into some kind of historical framework. The authors have done a nice job however of blending together into one seamless volume the writings of these philosophers, whose works are also written in this amoral tone.

One of the most intriguing and worthwhile aspects of the book, are the many historical vignettes that the authors paint of how each law of power has been implemented, along with how failure to follow the law can be one's undoing. It is like two books in one in that sense. Not only do you get an understanding of raw power, but you get a very entertaining history lesson as well. The authors are also very careful to point out exceptions to the laws, and how they may backfire, making it read like a very thorough treatment of the subject for general readership.

One particularly interesting vignette has vivid application for our current situation in the war on terror, wherein we find ourselves exposed by going it alone without a substantial alliance while the rest of the world looks on. The vignette concerns a law which states that in seeking to increase power, let your rival do your fighting for you. The authors discuss how Mao Tse Tung suggested he and his rival Chiang Kai Shek set aside their differences and form an alliance in order to defeat the Japanese in World War II. Chiang Kai Shek agreed. Mao then suggested Chiang send his army in first, promising that he would follow Chiang into action by sending his army in as replacements. Once Chiang Kai Shek's army was committed, Mao held his army in abeyance and let Chiang Kai Shek take a beating. Then when Chiang's army was weakened, Mao's army was able to defeat him and exile him to Taiwan.

The warning for our own national campaign in the war on terror is that hopefully we will not allow ourselves to dissipate our national resources and become foolishly weakened by going it alone at the same time as other rival countries are growing stronger at our expense. The grandiosity of thinking we can go it alone makes us vulnerable to even more severe threats by potentially predatory nations who pretend to be sympathetic now, but who secretly revel in watching us deplete our national will, our troops and our treasury.

"The 48 Laws of Power" is a fascinating read, though except for a few of the laws, I can't imagine how it could actually help the average person's career unless you were a political operative or someone who had already accumulated a lot of political power and were predisposed to bend towards the amoral. But to build background knowledge and be able to recognize shadowy abuses of power while learning a little interesting history, I heartily recommend it. ... Read more

Editorial Review

This book was converted from its physical edition to the digital format by a community of volunteers. You may find it for free on the web. Purchase of the Kindle edition includes wireless delivery. ... Read more

Editorial Review

A groundbreaking work that identifies the real culprit behind one of the great economic crimes of our time— the growing inequality of incomes between the vast majority of Americans and the richest of the rich. We all know that the very rich have gotten a lot richer these past few decades while most Americans haven’t. In fact, the exorbitantly paid have continued to thrive during the current economic crisis, even as the rest of Americans have continued to fall behind. Why do the “haveit- alls” have so much more? And how have they managed to restructure the economy to reap the lion’s share of the gains and shift the costs of their new economic playground downward, tearing new holes in the safety net and saddling all of us with increased debt and risk? Lots of so-called experts claim to have solved this great mystery, but no one has really gotten to the bottom of it—until now. In their lively and provocative Winner-Take-All Politics, renowned political scientists Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson demonstrate convincingly that the usual suspects—foreign trade and financial globalization, technological changes in the workplace, increased education at the top—are largely innocent of the charges against them. Instead, they indict an unlikely suspect and take us on an entertaining tour of the mountain of evidence against the culprit. The guilty party is American politics. Runaway inequality and the present economic crisis reflect what government has done to aid the rich and what it has not done to safeguard the interests of the middle class. The winner-take-all economy is primarily a result of winner-take-all politics. In an innovative historical departure, Hacker and Pierson trace the rise of the winner-take-all economy back to the late 1970s when, under a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress, a major transformation of American politics occurred. With big business and conservative ideologues organizing themselves to undo the regulations and progressive tax policies that had helped ensure a fair distribution of economic rewards, deregulation got under way, taxes were cut for the wealthiest, and business decisively defeated labor in Washington. And this transformation continued under Reagan and the Bushes as well as under Clinton, with both parties catering to the interests of those at the very top. Hacker and Pierson’s gripping narration of the epic battles waged during President Obama’s first two years in office reveals an unpleasant but catalyzing truth: winner-take-all politics, while under challenge, is still very much with us. Winner-Take-All Politics—part revelatory history, part political analysis, part intellectual journey— shows how a political system that traditionally has been responsive to the interests of the middle class has been hijacked by the superrich. In doing so, it not only changes how we think about American politics, but also points the way to rebuilding a democracy that serves the interests of the many rather than just those of the wealthy few. ... Read more

Reviews

Transforming American politics, September 16, 2010
This is a transformative book. It's the best book on American politics that I've read since Rick Perlstein's Before the Storm. Not all of it is original (the authors seek to synthesize others' work as well as present their own, but provide due credit where credit is due). Not all of its arguments are fully supported (the authors provide a strong circumstantial case to support their argument, but don't have smoking gun evidence on many of the relevant causal relations). But it should transform the ways in which we think about and debate the political economy of the US.


The underlying argument is straightforward. The sources of American economic inequality are largely political - the result of deliberate political decisions to shape markets in ways that benefit the already-privileged at the expense of a more-or-less unaware public. The authors weave a historical narrative which Kevin Drum (who says the same things that I am saying about the book's importance) summarizes cogently here. This is not necessarily original - a lot of leftwing and left-of-center writers have been making similar claims for a long time. What is new is both the specific evidence that the authors use, and their conscious and deliberate effort to reframe what is important about American politics.

First - the evidence. Hacker and Pierson draw on work by economists like Picketty and Saez on the substantial growth in US inequality (and on comparisons between the US and other countries), but argue that many of the explanations preferred by economists (the effects of technological change on demand for skills) simply don't explain what is going on. First, they do not explain why inequality is so top-heavy - that is, why so many of the economic benefits go to a tiny, tiny minority of individuals among those with apparently similar skills. Second, they do not explain cross national variation - why the differences in the level of inequality among advanced industrialized countries, all of which have gone through more-or-less similar technological shocks, are so stark. While Hacker and Pierson agree that technological change is part of the story, they suggest that the ways in which this is channeled in different national contexts is crucial. And it is here that politics plays a key role.

Many economists are skeptical that politics explains the outcome, suggesting that conventional forms of political intervention are not big enough to have such dramatic consequences. Hacker and Pierson's reply implicitly points to a blind spot of many economists - they argue that markets are not `natural,' but instead are constituted by government policy and political institutions. If institutions are designed one way, they result in one form of market activity, whereas if they are designed another way, they will result in very different outcomes. Hence, results that appear like `natural' market operations to a neo-classical economist may in fact be the result of political decisions, or indeed of deliberate political inaction. Hacker and Pierson cite e.g. the decision of the Clinton administration not to police derivatives as an example of how political coalitions may block reforms in ways that have dramatic economic consequences.

Hence, Hacker and Pierson turn to the lessons of ongoing political science research. This is both a strength and a weakness. I'll talk about the weakness below - but I found the account of the current research convincing, readable and accurate. It builds on both Hacker and Pierson's own work and the work of others (e.g. the revisionist account of American party structures from Zaller et al. and the work of Bartels). This original body of work is not written in ways that make it easily accessible to non-professionals - while Bartels' book was both excellent and influential, it was not an easy read. Winner-Take-All Politics pulls off the tricky task of both presenting the key arguments underlying work without distorting them and integrating them into a highly readable narrative.

As noted above, the book sets out (in my view quite successfully) to reframe how we should think about American politics. It downplays the importance of electoral politics, without dismissing it, in favor of a focus on policy-setting, institutions, and organization.

First and most important - policy-setting. Hacker and Pierson argue that too many books on US politics focus on the electoral circus. Instead, they should be focusing on the politics of policy-setting. Government is important, after all, because it makes policy decisions which affect people's lives. While elections clearly play an important role in determining who can set policy, they are not the only moment of policy choice, nor necessarily the most important. The actual processes through which policy gets made are poorly understood by the public, in part because the media is not interested in them (in Hacker and Pierson's words, "[f]or the media, governing often seems like something that happens in the off-season").

And to understand the actual processes of policy-making, we need to understand institutions. Institutions make it more or less easy to get policy through the system, by shaping veto points. If one wants to explain why inequality happens, one needs to look not only at the decisions which are made, but the decisions which are not made, because they are successfully opposed by parties or interest groups. Institutional rules provide actors with opportunities both to try and get policies that they want through the system and to stymie policies that they do not want to see enacted. Most obviously in the current administration, the existence of the filibuster supermajority requirement, and the willingness of the Republican party to use it for every significant piece of legislation that it can be applied to means that we are seeing policy change through "drift." Over time, policies become increasingly disconnected from their original purposes, or actors find loopholes or ambiguities through which they can subvert the intention of a policy (for example - the favorable tax regime under which hedge fund managers are able to treat their income at a low tax rate). If it is impossible to rectify policies to deal with these problems, then drift leads to policy change - Hacker and Pierson suggest that it is one of the most important forms of such change in the US.

Finally - the role of organizations. Hacker and Pierson suggest that organizations play a key role in pushing through policy change (and a very important role in elections too). They typically trump voters (who lack information, are myopic, are not focused on the long term) in shaping policy decisions. Here, it is important that the organizational landscape of the US is dramatically skewed. There are many very influential organizations pushing the interests of business and of the rich. Politicians on both sides tend to pay a lot of attention to them, because of the resources that they have. There are far fewer - and weaker - organizations on the other side of the fight, especially given the continuing decline of unions (which has been hastened by policy decisions taken and not taken by Republicans and conservative Democrats).

In Hacker and Pierson's account, these three together account for the systematic political bias towards greater inequality. In simplified form: Organizations - and battles between organizations over policy as well as elections - are the structuring conflicts of American politics. The interests of the rich are represented by far more powerful organizations than the interests of the poor and middle class. The institutions of the US provide these organizations and their political allies with a variety of tools to promote new policies that reshape markets in their interests. This account is in some ways neo-Galbraithian (Hacker and Pierson refer in passing to the notion of `countervailing powers'). But while it lacks Galbraith's magisterial and mellifluous prose style, it is much better than he was on the details.

Even so (and here begin the criticisms) - it is not detailed enough. The authors set the book up as a whodunit: Who or what is responsible for the gross inequalities of American economic life? They show that the other major suspects have decent alibis (they may inadvertently have helped the culprit, but they did not carry out the crime itself. They show that their preferred culprit had the motive and, apparently, the means. They find good circumstantial evidence that he did it. But they do not find a smoking gun. For me, the culprit (the American political system) is like OJ. As matters stand, I'm pretty sure that he committed the crime. But I'm not sure that he could be convicted in a court of law, and I could be convinced that I was wrong, if major new exculpatory evidence was uncovered.

The lack of any smoking gun (or, alternatively, good evidence against a smoking gun) is the direct result of a major failure of American intellectual life. As the authors observe elsewhere, there is no field of American political economy. Economists have typically treated the economy as non-political. Political scientists have typically not concerned themselves with the American economy. There are recent efforts to change this, coming from economists like Paul Krugman and political scientists like Larry Bartels, but they are still in their infancy. We do not have the kinds of detailed and systematic accounts of the relationship between political institutions and economic order for the US that we have e.g. for most mainland European countries. We will need a decade or more of research to build the foundations of one.

Hence, while Hacker and Pierson show that political science can get us a large part of the way, it cannot get us as far as they would like us to go, for the simple reason that political science is not well developed enough yet. We can identify the causal mechanisms intervening between some specific political decisions and non-decisions and observed outcomes in the economy. We cannot yet provide a really satisfactory account of how these particular mechanisms work across a wider variety of settings and hence produce the general forms of inequality that they point to. Nor do we yet have a really good account of the precise interactions between these mechanisms and other mechanisms.

None of this is to discount the importance of this book. If it has the impact it deserves, it will transform American public arguments about politics and policymaking. I cannot see how someone who was fair minded could come away from reading this book and not be convinced that politics plays a key role in the enormous economic inequality that we see. And even if it is aimed at a general audience, it also challenges academics and researchers in economics, political science and economic sociology both to re-examine their assumptions about how economics and politics work, and to figure out ways better to engage with the key political debates of our time as Hacker and Pierson have done. If you can, buy it.

(RIch) Winners Take All, September 14, 2010
Many people have observed that American politics and the American economy reached some kind of turning point around 1980, which conveniently marks the election of Ronald Reagan. Some also pointed to other factors such as the deregulation of stock brokerage commissions in 1975 and the high inflation of the 1970s. Other analysts have put the turning point back in 1968, when Richard Nixon became President on the back of a wave of white, middle-class resentment against the 1960s. Hacker and Pierson, however, point the finger at the 1970s. As they describe in Chapter 4, the Nixon presidency saw the high-water market of the regulatory state; the demise of traditional liberalism occurred during the Carter administration, despite Democratic control of Washington, when highly organized business interests were able to torpedo the Democratic agenda and begin the era of cutting taxes for the rich that apparently has not yet ended today.

Why then? Not, as popular commentary would have it, because public opinion shifted. Hacker and Pierson cite studies showing that public opinion on issues such as inequality has not shifted over the past thirty years; most people still think society is too unequal and that taxes should be used to reduce inequality. What has shifted is that Congressmen are now much more receptive to the opinions of the rich, and there is actually a negative correlation between their positions and the preferences of their poor constituents (p. 111). Citing Martin Gilens, they write, "When well-off people strongly supported a policy change, it had almost three times the chance of becoming law as when they strongly opposed it. When median-income people strongly supported a policy change, it had hardly any greater chance of becoming law than when they strongly opposed it" (p. 112). In other words, it isn't public opinion, or the median voter, that matters; it's what the rich want.

That shift occurred in the 1970s because businesses and the super-rich began a process of political organization in the early 1970s that enabled them to pool their wealth and contacts to achieve dominant political influence (described in Chapter 5). To take one of the many statistics they provide, the number of companies with registered lobbyists in Washington grew from 175 in 1971 to nearly 2,500 in 1982 (p. 118). Money pouring into lobbying firms, political campaigns, and ideological think tanks created the organizational muscle that gave the Republicans a formidable institutional advantage by the 1980s. The Democrats have only reduced that advantage in the past two decades by becoming more like Republicans-more business-friendly, more anti-tax, and more dependent on money from the super-rich. And that dependency has severely limited both their ability and their desire to fight back on behalf of the middle class (let alone the poor), which has few defenders in Washington.

At a high level, the lesson of Winner-Take-All Politics is similar to that of 13 Bankers: when looking at economic phenomena, be they the financial crisis or the vast increase in inequality of the past thirty years, it's politics that matters, not just abstract economic forces. One of the singular victories of the rich has been convincing the rest of us that their disproportionate success has been due to abstract economic forces beyond anyone's control (technology, globalization, etc.), not old-fashioned power politics. Hopefully the financial crisis and the recession that has ended only on paper (if that) will provide the opportunity to teach people that there is no such thing as abstract economic forces; instead, there are different groups using the political system to fight for larger shares of society's wealth. And one group has been winning for over thirty years.

Adapted From Baseline Scenario Website

The Culprit: Enormous and Growing Inequality of Incomes, September 17, 2010
In Winner-Take-All Politics, two political science professors explain what caused the Middle Class to become vulnerable. Understanding this phenomenon is the Holy Grail of contemporary economics in the U.S.

Some may feel this book is just as polarizing as the current state of politics and media in America. The decades-long decline in income taxes of wealthy individuals is cited in detail. Wage earners are usually subjected to the FICA taxes against all their ordinary income (all or almost their entire total income). But the top wealthy Americans may have only a small percentage (or none) of their income subjected to FICA taxes. Thus Warren Buffett announced that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. Buffett has cited income inequality for "poisoning democracy."

When you search the `Net for Buffett quotes on inequality, you get a lot of results showing how controversial he became for stating the obvious. Drawing attention to the inequity of the tax regime won him powerful enemies. Those same people are not going to like the authors for writing Winner-Take-All. They say these political science people are condescending because they presume to tell people their political interests.

Many studies of poverty show how economic and political policies generally favor the rich throughout the world, some of which are cited in this book. Military spending and financial bailouts in particular favor the wealthy. Authors Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson document a long U.S. policy trend favoring wealthy Americans. This trend resulted in diminished middle class access to quality healthcare and education, making it harder to keep up with the wealthy in relative terms. Further, once people have lost basic foundations of security, they are less willing and able to take on more risk in terms of investing or starting a business.

The rise of special interests has been at the expense of the middle class, according to the authors. Former President Carter talked about this and was ridiculed. Since then government has grown further from most of us. Even federal employees are not like most of us anymore. In its August 10, 2010 issue, USA Today discussed government salaries: "At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds."

An excellent documentary showing how difficult it is to address income inequality is One Percent, by Jamie Johnson of the Johnson & Johnson family. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, by Pulitzer Prize-winner Jared Diamond Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed shows examples of what can happen when a society disregards a coming disaster until too late. I hope that Winner-Take-All will prompt people to demand more of elected officials and to arrest the growing income gap for the sake of our democracy.

A Compelling Book, September 21, 2010
Even if you disagree with the implications, the book is very convincing that:

1. The richer you are, the more you have benefited from economic changes over the past 30 years.
2. The poorer you are, the worse your economic life has become over the past 30 years.
3. The previous two conclusions are largely the result of government policy.
4. If we want to avoid becoming a Latin American economy where the rich get richer and the rest suffer, we need to change government policies.

I am convinced that these 4 "facts" represent our current reality.... and that we need to address them. The book is required reading for anyone interested in federal tax or regulatory policy.

Interesting and Timely, but Also Off-Base in Some Regards, September 15, 2010
The thirty-eight biggest Wall Street companies earned $140 billion in 2009, a record that all taxpayers who contributed to their bailouts can be proud of. Among those, Goldman Sachs paid its employees an average $600,000, also a record, and at least partially attributable to our bailout of AIG, which promptly gave much of the money to Goldman. Prior to that, the top 25 hedge fund managers earned an average of $892 million in 2007. "Winner-Take-All Politics" is framed as a detective story about how we got to inequality levels where the top 300,000 (0.1%) receive over 20% of national income, vs. 13.5% for the bottom 180 million (60% of the population).

Between 1947 and 1973, real family median income essentially doubled, and the growth percentage was virtually the same for all income levels. In the mid-1970s, however, economic inequality began to increase sharply and middle-incomes lagged. Increased female workforce participation rates and more overtime helped cushion the stagnation or decline for many (they also increased the risk of layoffs/family), then growing credit card debt shielded many families from reality. Unfortunately, expectations of stable full-time employment also began shrinking, part-time, temporary, and economic risk-bearing (eg. taxi drivers leasing vehicles and paying the fuel costs; deliverymen 'buying' routes and trucks) work increased, workers covered by employer-sponsored health insurance fell from 69% in 1979 to 56% in 2004, and retirement coverage was either been dropped entirely or mostly converted to much less valuable fix-contribution plans for private sector employees. Some exceptions have occurred that benefit the middle and lower-income segments - Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Medicaid, and Medicare were initiated or expanded, but these have not blunted the overall trend. Conversely, welfare reform, incarceration rates rising 6X between 1970 and 2000, bankruptcy reform, and increased tax audits for EITC recipients have also added to their burden, Social Security is being challenged again (despite stock market declines, enormous transition costs, and vastly increased overhead costs and fraud opportunity), and 2009's universal health care reform will be aggressively challenged both in the courts and Washington.

Authors Hacker and Pierson contend that growing inequality is not the 'natural' product of market rewards, but mostly the artificial result of deliberate government policies, strongly influenced by industry lobbyists and donations, new and expanded conservative 'think tanks,' and inadequate media coverage that focused more on the 'horse race' aspects of various initiatives than their content and impact. First came the capital gains tax cuts under President Carter, then deregulation of the financial industry under Clinton, the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, and the financial bailouts in 2008-09. The authors contend that if the 1970 tax structure remained today, the top gains would be considerably less.

But what about the fact that in 1965 CEOs of large corporations only earned about 24X the average worker, compared to 300+X now? Hacker and Pierson largely ignore the role of board-room politics and malfeasance that have mostly allowed managers to serve themselves with payment without regard to performance and out of proportion to other nations. In 2006, the 20 highest-paid European managers made an average $12.5 million, only one-third as much as the 20 highest-earning U.S. executives. Yet, the Europeans led larger firms - $65.5 billion in sales vs. $46.5 billion for the U.S. Asian CEOs commonly make only 10X-15X what their base level employees make. Jiang Jianqing, Chairman of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (world's largest), made $234,700 in 2008, less than 2% of the $19.6 million awarded Jamie Dimon, CEO of the world's fourth-largest bank, JPMorgan Chase.

"Winner-Take-All Politics" also provides readers with the composition of 2004 taxpayers in the top 0.1% of earners (including capital gains). Non-finance executives comprised 41% of the group, finance professionals 18.4%, lawyers 6%, real estate personages 5%, physicians 4%, entrepreneurs 4%, and arts and sports stars 3%. The authors assert that this shows education and skills levels are not the great dividers most everyone credits them to be - the vast majority of Americans losing ground to the super-rich includes many well-educated individuals, while the super-rich includes many without a college education (Sheldon Adelson, Paul Allen, Edgar Bronfman, Jack Kent Cook, Michael Dell, Walt Disney, Larry Ellison, Bill Gates, Wayne Huizenga, Steve Jobs, Rush Limbaugh, Steve Wozniak, and Mark Zuckerberg).

Authors Hacker and Pierson are political science professors and it is understandable that they emphasize political causes (PACs, greater recruitment of evangelical voters, lobbying - eg. $500 million on health care lobbying in 2009, filibusters that allow senators representing just 10% of the population to stop legislation and make the other side look incompetent, etc.) for today's income inequality. However, their claim that foreign trade is "largely innocent" as a cause is neither substantiated nor logical. Foreign trade as practiced today pads corporate profits and executive bonuses while destroying/threatening millions of American jobs and lowering/holding down the incomes of those affected. Worse yet, the authors don't even mention the impact of millions of illegal aliens depressing wage rates while taking jobs from Americans, nor do they address the canard that tax cuts for and spending by the super-wealthy are essential to our economic success (refuted by Moody's Analytics and Austan Goolsbee, Business Week - 9/13/2010). They're also annoyingly biased towards unions, ignoring their constant strikes and abuses in the 1960s and 1970s, major contributions to G.M., Chrysler, and legacy airline bankruptcies, and current school district, local, and state financial difficulties.

Bottom-Line: It is a sad commentary on the American political system that growing and record levels of inequality are being met by populist backlash against income redistribution and expanding trust in government, currently evidenced by those supporting extending tax cuts for the rich and railing against reforming health care to reduce expenditures from 17.3+% of GDP to more internationally competitive levels (4-6%) while improving patient outcomes. "Winner-Take-All Politics" is interesting reading, provides some essential data, and point out some evidence of the inadequacy of many voters. However, the authors miss the 'elephant in the room' - American-style democracy is not viable when at most 10% of citizens are 'proficient' per functional literacy tests ([...]), and only a small proportion of them have the time and access required to sift through the flood of half-truths, lies, and irrelevancies to objectively evaluate 2,000+ page bills and other political activity. (Ideology-dominated economic professionals and short-term thinking human rights advocates are two others.)

Interesting -- but the argument is not credible, September 23, 2010
This is a very interesting and well written book. The central argument is that growing income inequality is primarily a result of the political policies enacted since the Reagan administration.

The book makes many valid points, for example marginal tax rates on the wealthy have been reduced dramatically.

The problem is that the book discounts the impact of both technology and globalization, and I find that to be simply not credible. The evidence of factory relocations, service offshoring and automation are all around us.

I believe there is solid evidence that globalization and technology are the primary forces driving inequality. The problem is that for most workers labor is becoming less and less valued -- and as a result they have less bargaining power.

Politics is certainly important, and if we had had more progressive, countervailing policies, then we could have mitigated the impact of technology an globalization. Instead we adopted conservative policies that actually accelerated the push toward more concentration of income.

It is very important to understand what is going on here, because if technology is to blame, then it is going to get worse. Technology is moving faster than ever before, and we will soon have far more advanced job automation. More and more people are likely to find that they no longer have marketable skills. Politics may worsen that -- or fail to help -- but it is NOT the fundamental cause.

For the real story on what is happening, and more importantly, a look at what is likely to happen in the future, I'd recommend this book:

The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future.

Read "Winner Take All Politics" by all means, because it certainly raises valid points. But if you want to understand the danger we face in the next couple of decades, be sure to read "The Lights in the Tunnel".

4.5 stars-Wall Street speculators control both parties, September 19, 2010
This book basically argues that Wall Street controls both political parties through the use of massive campaign contributions and lobbyists who buy off both the Republicans and Democrats in the White House,Senate and House.This is essentially correct but obvious.Anyone can go back to the 1976 Jimmy Carter campaign and simply verify that the majority of his campaign funds and advisors came from Wall Street.This identical conclusion also holds with respect to Ronald Reagan,George H W Bush,Bill Clinton,George W Bush and Barack Obama.The only Presidents/Presidential candidates not dominated by Wall Street since 1976 were Gerald Ford,Walter Mondale,Ross Perot,Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan.
For instance,it is common knowledge to anyone who carefully checks to see where the money is coming from that Wall Street financiers ,hedgefunds,private equity firms and giant commercial banks are calling the shots.For example,one could simply read the July 9,2007 issue of FORTUNE magazine to discover who the major backers of John McCain,Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were.One could also have read Business Week(2-25-2008) or the Los Angeles Times of 3-21-2008.Through February, 2008 the major donors to the McCain campaign were 1)Merrill Lynch,2) Citigroup,3)Goldman Sachs,4)J P Morgan Chase and 5)Credit Suisse.The major donors to the Hillary Clinton campaign were 1)Goldman Sachs ,2)Morgan Stanley,3)Citigroup,4)Lehman Brothers and 5)J P Morgan Chase.Guess who were the major donors to the Obama campaign ? If you guessed 1)Goldman Sachs,2)UBS Ag,3)J P Morgan Chase ,4)Lehman Brothers and 5)Citigroup,then you are correct.

It didn't matter who became President-Hillary Clinton,Barack Obama or John McCain.All three had been throughly vetted by Wall Street.The campaign staffs of all three candidates ,especially their economic and finance advisors,were all Wall Street connected.Wall Street would have been bailed out regardless of which party won the 2008 election.

Obama is not going to change anything substantially in the financial markets .Neither is Rep. Barney Frank,Sen. Chris Dodd ,Sen. Kerry or Sen. Schumer,etc.Nor is any Republican candidate going to make any changes,simply because the Republican Party is dominated even more so by Wall Street(100%) than the Democratic Party(80%) .The logical solution would be to support a Third Party candidate,for example, Ross Perot .

One aspect of the book is deficient. True conservatives like Ross Perot,Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs have been warning about the grave dangers of hallowing out and downsizing the American Manufacturing -Industrial sector,with the consequent offshoring and/or loss of many millions of American jobs,for about 20 years at the same time that the " financial services " sector has exploded from 3% of the total service sector in 1972 to just under 40% by 2007.This is what is causing the great shrinkage in the middle class in America .

Must reading for those concerned with economic equity, December 2, 2010
The book offers a revealing review and analysis of the politics behind America's shift from a nation of middle-class opportunity to one of �ber-rich privilege. Convincingly tossing aside the usual culprits--globalization, technology, educational decline, China, etc.--the authors illustrate the bipartisan nature of this swing in economic reality, with flashpoints occurring in the Carter and Clinton administrations when Democrats held sway, not during the popularly suspected Reagan and Bush-I regimes.

The egregious role of money in our political system--surely to be amplified following the recent Supreme Court decision allowing unfettered use of corporate funds in political campaigns--looms large in the analysis. It helps explain why both parties have abandoned economic fairness in favor of the have-it-alls, but party strategy and effectiveness on the ground also have played their role.

Although much content is disheartening for those concerned with decency and fairness in the economic lives of all Americans (and amazingly light in terms of prescriptions for change), it is certainly important fodder for those who favor a Congress concerned about the middle-class instead of the already very rich.

Great title; reasonable arguments, September 16, 2010
Some of the authors' positions may come off as slanted, but overall their arguments appear to be sound. Read this book along with "What Greenspan Can't Tell You", Jan '08, which addressed many of these issues (and many others), and argued how the imbalances in the system would lead to an imminent crash of the real estate and stock markets.

Timely and Important!, December 10, 2010
I give this book five stars because it is well written, well researched, AND because it is IMPORTANT! If every American were to read this book the political discourse would change significantly for the better. The book is very informative and (although I have not checked all of the references) it seems to be factual and fair. Any political biases of the authors seems to me to be restrained by facts and the desire to arrive at an accurate description of reality. ... Read more

Editorial Review

This book was converted from its physical edition to the digital format by a community of volunteers. You may find it for free on the web. Purchase of the Kindle edition includes wireless delivery. ... Read more

Editorial Review

In 2008 , the presidential election became blockbuster entertainment. Everyone was watching as the race for the White House unfolded like something from the realm of fiction. The meteoric rise and historic triumph of Barack Obama. The shocking fall of the House of Clinton—and the improbable resurrection of Hillary as Obama’s partner and America’s face to the world. The mercurial performance of John McCain and the mesmerizing emergence of Sarah Palin. But despite the wall-to-wall media coverage of this spellbinding drama, remarkably little of the real story behind the headlines had been told—until now.

In Game Change, John Heilemann and Mark Halperin pull back the curtains on the Obama, Clinton, McCain, and Palin campaigns. Based on hundreds of interviews with the people who lived thestory, Game Change is a reportorial tour de force that reads like a fast-paced novel.

Reviews

Changing your opinions of politicians and a great gossipy read!, January 11, 2010
"Game Change" was not even on sale and it was already roiling the political waters with its shocking revelations. There is a rich tradition of books about presidential campaigns that break news not revealed during the campaign and "Game Change" has PLENTY of revelations. The one getting a great deal of play was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's inappropriate racially tinged comments about candidate Obama, which managed to be kept under wraps, while then-Senator Biden's made their way out. 2008 was the year of "Candidates Gone Wild," saying ridiculous and inappropriate things like Obama's comment on people clinging to their guns, religion, and bitterness. But there's so much here that never got out. Like Elizabeth Edwards, who has carefully cultured a public persona as the victimized suffering wife, belittling her husband John as a "hick" and in private launching into obscenity laced tirades at him and about him. Heilemann and Halperin examine both sides of the race and there are plenty of great gossipy stories on both sides, as well as other shocking revelations, such as how rushed the selection of Governor Sarah Palin as Vice-President was. We already knew that virtually no one in the Republican leadership was consulted over the choice and only know do we learn how rushed the decision was and how little thought or consideration was truly given to the choice. Moreover, the choice was primarily tactical in nature, designed to knock the Obama campaign off balance and off guard. Only after Palin was selected did the McCain campaign realize that they had made a huge tactical error they could not undo. The ensuing problems within the McCain-Palin campaign are chronicled here, but considering how much press there was at the time there's little here that breaks new ground. It is however a very great, gripping recounting of the chain of events.

Obama comes off every bit as stage-crafted and stage-managed as Ronald Reagan ever was. Heilemann and Halperin aptly capture the duality of his persona; on the stump Obama is well spoken, on message, cool, calm, and collected. Off the stump he is profane, prone to quick flashes of anger, and at times tentative and uncertain. Hillary Clinton comes off pretty much as was covered in the press at the time, but what IS news is her unsurprisingly blunt comment to Obama that she "cannot control her husband". Bill Clinton gets almost as much print here for his wildly inappropriate comments on the stump and in private about Candidate Obama and it's clear to see that what undid Hillary wasn't her efforts, but those of her husband. We get the clearest glimpse into Obama's hard sell when he talks Hillary Clinton into ending her campaign and into becoming Secretary of State as well.

"Game Change" answers many of the questions you had about the campaign, but which were never answered, like Rudy Giuliani's foolish all-or-nothing gamble on the Florida Primary and why he truly got out of the race, the Democratic conclave that prodded then-Senator Obama into the race in the first place, and so much more. Reading "Game Change" is like reliving the campaign all over again, but THIS time with the insider knowledge of details that were omitted by the campaigns and the press. If anything this will not only enlighten you but enrage you, as the media and the press clearly are NOT doing their jobs at all. All of this SHOULD have made it's way into the news during the campaign and yet it didn't. Truth is stranger than fiction, and with truth written this well, who needs fiction?

We're All Human -, January 11, 2010
"Game Change" is about the 2008 election. The most obvious question is "What could be new in this book - the campaign was already covered in incredible detail for nearly two years by bloggers, national media, local media - anyone with a camera and/or a link to the Internet. The answer is that most of the material concerns previously unreported personal details rather than much in the way of national policy or any sort of analysis of the electorate. The result is that whether you like it or not, "Game Change" has put the nation back into a supercharged 'gossip mode,' combining high-level scandals in the Clinton, Edwards, and McCain campaigns, with allegations of presidential unfitness in the Clinton, Edwards, and McCain-Palin campaigns, along with a bit of racism thrown in for good measure. This volatile mixture has since been ignited by "60 Minutes," "Good Morning America," and other TV interviews. Initial reaction from those named in the book has largely been denial, except for Senator Reid regarding his comments on Senator Obama's relatively benign blackness not being an impediment for the presidency. Denials, unfortunately, will probably go unrebutted - the book makes extensive use of unattributed quotes and deep-background interviews that don't permit fact-checking.

Sarah Palin clearly provides the juiciest material, mostly from McCain's campaign manager Steve Schmidt. It's a strange position - he led McCain to Palin, then lambasts her unfitness and poor preparation, and finally ends up admitting that without her it would have been worse. Regardless, it's scary to see how close she came to being a heartbeat away from the presidency, despite barely understanding what the Cold War was all about, not understanding why there's a North and South Korea, or even what the Federal Reserve does. Palin even believed that Saddam was behind 9/11. "Game Change" also contends V.P. Cheney thought she was a poor pick. Worse yet, some contend she had bipolar symptoms - perky at times, catatonic at others. McCain operatives clearly had not done their vetting homework, then tried to make up for it by shielding her from the press - no open press conferences, and planning to make her a ceremonial V.P. in the event the McCain-Palin ticket won. Palin's real attraction was being a female - Schmidt et al somehow hoped that disillusioned Hillary supporters would flock to Palin.

Surprisingly, Elizabeth Edwards doesn't come off well either, given problems with cancer and a philandering husband. Instead, we learn that she was seen by insiders as an abusive, intrusive, paranoid, and vindictive crazy-woman, not the public persona of valiant and heroic. Elizabeth also referred to her husband back in 2004 in front of others as being her intellectually inferior - something that hard to accept at face value given his success as a trial lawyer. Naturally, John Edwards doesn't come out well either, though its surprising how badly he did. There was the obvious problem with his affair with a publicist; worse yet, his attempts to sell his endorsement to Obama in return for first the V.P., then the Attorney General positions. Obama, in return, responded that if he took such a deal he himself wouldn't deserve to be president.

Hillary Clinton was the smart-money choice for the Democratic nomination early on. However, some party leaders worried about her polarizing effect, as well as old baggage from the Bill Clinton presidency. Thus, supporters that the Clintons thought they could count on worked quitely to pord Obama to run - hence, Reid's ill-fated thoughts on a 'light-skinned Negro.' Hillary Clinton's supporters, not surprisingly, also had concerns about Bill's womanizing possibly affecting the campaign. To their relief they found that only one of the rumors was likely true - surprisingly, it never became an issue. Bill did cause/acerbate a serious problem, however, in his early discussions with Senator Kennedy - the former president's negative and racist comments about Obama offended Senator Kennedy deeply. On the other side, Mrs. Clinton's reaction to the loss in Iowa, however, did make some of her supporters wonder if she was stable enough to be president. "Game Change" also reports that Hillary had a staffer attempt to obtain Caroline Kennedy's endorsement - making it easy for Caroline to refuse the call and ignore Hillary. Interesting factoid - Hillary was talked out of running in 2004 by Chelsea, who recommended completing Hillary's Senate term first. If Hillary had won the 2004 nomination, it's not likely that Obama would have been offered the keynote speech, and . . . . Regardless, Hillary also gets a black mark for thinking about her V.P. partner as early as 2007.

Then there's the scandal I just never would have suspected - Mrs. McCain. We already knew she had a prior problem with, and overcame a drug addiction. Now we learn that there's credible reason to believe she had a long-term Arizona boyfriend. Campaign aides reportedly forced the Senator to confront her on it (no names offered), and the book also reports that they often fought in public and that there was little warmth between the couple. (Based on reports elsewhere, that probably is true.)

Bottom Line: "Game Change" is readable, interesting, and unfortunate. Unfortunate in that we learn that many of those who would lead us aren't worthy of the responsibility.

Does it live up to the hype?, January 20, 2010
Amid the hoopla surrounding this book in the days prior to it's release, I couldn't wait to get a copy. Reading this book, I continually asked myself it was really worth all the hype or just a ratification of things I already knew. The last 10 years, the United States has been embroiled in such a divisive political atmosphere it comes as no surprise that most of the best-selling books are about politics and politicians ... intelligent books written about or by politicians have proven to be cash-cows that do nothing more than "energize the base" or fuel/ignite the opposition. "Game Change" gives me mixed feelings.

We should have known this was coming ... the implosion of political candidates is as entertaining as the losers that humiliate themselves on the American Idol auditions year-after-year. Years ago, a news periodical like Newsweek or Time would run juicy after-election articles documenting a defeated candidates horridly-run campaign that always included incidents of the candidate "losing grip" at one point or another. "Game Change" seemed to be nothing more than a compilation of such articles, but expertly welded together to create a generously smooth flow for the reader. In other words, other than the juicy details of the vitriol and carnage, the book didn't really reveal anything new about anyone or anything.

After all, the 24/7 news cycle already gives us more information than we need to know about all the subject matter in this book:

- we already knew obama was a "smooth operator"; intelligent and gifted at reading other people's speeches ... his outright cocky demeanor and his obvious, deep and admirable devotion to his wife and children.
- it came as no surprise that the facade Hillary Clinton publicly displays will never fully conceal the hostility simmering inside her or the holier-than-thou ego that creates a deep sense of distrust by others.
- is it surprising that John McCain is "out of touch" or that John Edwards is a narcissistic snake that is all style and NO substance?
- is there ANYTHING new (positive or negative) about Sarah Palin that hasn't already been revealed?

As a whole, "Game Change" seems to rehash many of the same stories that have been popular on most of the mainstream political blogs, which I felt was somewhat disappointing. For me, there are too few eyebrow-raising moments. If anything, the book reminded me of a movie trailer on TV that is so good you are enticed to actually see the movie in a theatre ... only to leave the theatre realizing the only good parts of the movie were in the trailer (the Harry Reid quote comes to mind).

However, what I DID enjoy about this book was:

1) it was definitely a very entertaining read ... after all, these politicians are just regular dopes like the rest of us ... they do and say stupid things ... and oftentimes, they don't always have their acts together ... in fact, I enjoyed the depiction of all these politicians displaying playground-level antics and tantrums.

2) the President has a penchant for dropping F-bombs, which I found humorous on a number of occasions

3) finding out how truly selfish, shallow and egotistical our political leaders really are.

4) how much all these people genuinely detest one another ...

5) the book is fair in that it doles-out dirt on everyone and really doesn't take sides (a truly refreshing change of pace)

Finishing "Game Change" left me with one huge question: With backstabbing, dirty tricks, lying and snickering being such a way of life for these people; how or why should ANYONE really trust ANY of them?

A raunchy romp into the dirty laundry of the high and mighty, January 11, 2010
We always wonder what's going on behind the scenes of an election and in the lives of the Washington elite. Most of us know, or eventually learn, that politicians are typically loathsome characters of few morals and mammoth egos who think nothing of lying, cheating and, in general, being insufferable human beings. And, we get a chance to see it all, up close, in this new book by political reporters Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. We get the opportunity to look behind the scenes and see these people as they really are. It's both fun and frightening. It's quite revealing. To wit . . .

Bill Clinton wanted Ted Kennedy to endorse Hillary. But instead, he angered Kennedy so badly that Kennedy went all out for Obama. Here's how it happened according to the book . . .

"As Hillary bungled Caroline, Bill's handling of Ted was even worse. The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said,' A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.' "

Of course, we have to wonder if Kennedy was telling the truth or perhaps colorizing it to fit his own agenda since Kennedy was not a moral or virtuous man or one known for telling the truth. So, in reality, this story is secondhand. It could be false or it could be taken out of context. Or, it could be true.

On another matter the Clintons wanted to go after Obama's drug use. Can you imagine alleged coke sniffer Bill going after alleged dope smoker Obama? Well, that was going to be the way it went down if the Clintons had their way.

And . . .

Before BHO decided to run for president, the Obamas flew to Nashville, TN to get Al Gore's assurance that he would not run.

Among the things we learn . . .

When Obama asked Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state, she initially turned him down. Why? Bill's penchant for controversy. She felt it would interfere with her efforts in the job.

When President-elect Obama called her again to convince her to be his secretary of state, Clinton told him there was a problem. That great big mouthy problem was her husband. "You've seen what this is like; it will be a circus if I take this job," she said to Obama.

Clinton almost never admits this to anyone. And, Obama who seldom shows his vulnerable side, admits to Hillary that he needs her. He seems overwhelmed with the economy and all that's going on, all that faces him.

The McCain-Palin camp was afraid that Sarah Palin would screw things up because of the tremendous amount of information she needed to debate Biden. "The debate was going to be a debacle of historic and epic proportions...she was not focused...not engaged." She was not really participating in the prep, the authors add.

Sidebar:

In a recent news article Palin's spokeswoman, Meghan Stapleton, said in a statement: "The Governor's descriptions of these events are found in her book, 'Going Rogue.' Her descriptions are accurate. She was there. These reporters were not." Stapleton was talking about what was said about Palin in this book by the authors.

and then . . .

McCain aides confront Cindy McCain over reports that she had an extramarital affair.

The authors tell us that Hillary Clinton was so confident she would get the Democratic nomination that she had two top advisers planning her transition for after she won the general election.

They also point out that up until only days before the Republican Convention, Sen. John McCain was still thinking Sen. Joe Lieberman would be his running mate, until the "blowback" was so strong, they feared Lieberman would be rejected by the party, forcing the last-minute choice of Palin for the role.

Steve Schmidt, John McCain's former chief campaign strategist believes the Obama-Biden victory would have been even more lopsided without Palin on the Republican ticket, according to the book.

On John Edwards . . .

John Edwards went from being typically conceited to having megalomania. Women were always after him. He loved it and it fed his enormous ego. But it was also a problem for the campaign.

Edwards thought the contest would be between him and Hillary. The Clinton camp thought the same thing.

Edwards was normally warm to his staff. But he turned disdainful. He ignored and dismissed them. He even mistreated both staff and supporters. "You can't talk to people that way, "an aid told him after one of his displays. "People didn't like the new John Edwards."

Surprisingly, Elizabeth Edwards was fast to show John that she was his intellectual superior. She called him a "hick" in front of people and derided him for having "redneck parents." She called some staffers idiots. Her illness mellowed her in the early months of 2005 - but not for long.

While John's wife may have made him feel small, his new gal pal made him feel like a king. She told him that he had "the power to change the world," that "the people will follow you." She told him that he could be as great a leader as Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. She told him, "You're so real. You just need to get your staff out of your way." She reinforced everything he already believed about himself. She told him exactly what he wanted and needed to hear.

No one gets off free in the book. The authors tell us that Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had referred privately to Barack Obama early in his campaign as a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

Ladies and gentlemen . . . meet America's elite.

This book makes Lady Chatterley's Lover as sexy as a high school algebra text book. It makes Madame Bovary look positively saintly. If even half of what this book reports is true, I've got higher forms of life on the bottom of my shoe than we've got running our country.

What a read. Gustave Flaubert couldn't have written it any better.

- Susanna K. Hutcheson

Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, Sarah Palin - all new material. Unexpected., January 12, 2010
I was amazed that this book had so much NEW to say, after the plethora of books, commentaries and TV/print reporter opinions about the 2008 election. I thought that we knew everything about John & Cindy McCain, Sarah Palin, John Edwards and his wife, Hillary & Bill Clinton and of course Barack & Michelle Obama. But no. The authors provide tons of insightful material that gives more clues about why the Obamas won the election. The McCains were fighting furiously between each other, Mrs Edwards was not the nice person we all thought and the Obamas were even happier than they appear to be. The Harry Reid comment has captured the media attention this week but this unexpectedly good book provides valuable new material about one of the most historic elections in this country. Well done.Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime

Some real surprises, January 14, 2010
I think this book is a must-read for political junkies, but also for those who are interested in American politics but never knew how parties choose candidates, how caucuses work (and how candidates with little popular support get to be "kingmakers"), or appreciated how hard it is to be a presidential candidate, with punishing schedules, warring staff members and having to modify positions and even campaign themes at a minute's notice.

The single chapter on Sarah Palin doesn't tell us much we didn't know about her already or could be reasonably expected (loss of appetite, periods of depression, the rigors of the road, missing her baby and no understanding of how national campaigns work). It's interesting that she (and Todd) were so obsessed over her ratings in Alaska (which would not impact the election) versus in the Lower 48 (which would), and that she seemed ready and willing to change her positions if it helped the McCain ticket win the election (backtracking only when asked to do a TV ad in support of embryonic stem cell research). In fact, despite the revelation that Sarah Palin is not knowledgeable about American or World history or domestic or foreign policy, she comes off as rather more sympathetic when the urgency of her selection - giving her no time to prepare - is taken into context. However, it reinforces the belief - even among people like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney - that McCain only cared about winning the Presidency, and put America LAST. And that when he made the poor decision to leave his VP choice until the last minute then cynically choose Palin, when she faltered, he let his staff do the hatchet job on her.

The chapter focussed entirely on the Edwards was explosive - not for revelations about his affair with Rielle Hunter, but how the reality differs so much from the public perception...and especially Edwards' desparation to take any old job, offering to cut a deal with Obama to be his VP before Iowa and one to be Hillary's Attorney General after she won New Hampshire.

The real surprises included: Obama was the only member of Team Obama who sympathized with Hillary when she cried in New Hampshire (although she insisted privately that she never cried); Mike Henry intentionally leaking an internal memo to a member of Rod Blagojevich's staff; that Maureen Dowd was part of the inner circle which urged Obama to run for President; how Hillary's camp tried to get Bill Richardson and Joe Biden to get their delegates to move over to her side during the Iowa caucuses but was spurned; the Harvard Professor who knocked heads together when the Obama campaign was faltering; Lindsay Graham's intensive lobbying for Lieberman to be on the McCain ticket; how Democrats who publicly supported Hillary were backing Obama behind the scenes due to fear of retribution if Hillary won; the number of women with whom Bill Clinton was believed - by Hillary's campaign - to be romantically involved, and how important both potential First Ladies were in deciding who was in and who was out of favor. It's stressed throughout that Obama has a huge ego, but he comes off as one of the saner players in the craziness that is national politics. That said, he allowed his minions to covertly go negative on Hillary when he found out Hillary's supporters or her campaign were the source of every accusation, rumor and dubious story that made it to the internet (and some, eventually, to the MSM).

It's worth investing in this book (even if it's not on Kindle - can you Kindlers PLEASE stop rating a book you haven't read?) to learn how the whole selection and election process works - the behind-the-scenes manoevering, horse-trading and betrayals.

A wildly enjoyable read, January 16, 2010
Game Change is a great read. Regardless of who you voted for or supported, Game Change is a book worth reading. Exposing the behind the scenes events of the major Democratic and Republican players with a keen eye towards the details, conversations and motives, Halpern and Heilemann deftly provide an insiders view to the reader. This is one of those "can't put down" books that you will most likely finish within 48 hours of starting. Whether you are politically oriented or not, Game Change is well worth reading - and an added benefit is you'll have a better eye for what is happening in upcoming elections based on the insights gained in reading this eye-opening view of the 2008 Presidential election.

Personal Flaws and Uninhibited Ambition Mark This Shrewd Look Back at the 2008 Campaign Season, January 11, 2010
Regardless of your political preference, there was something inspiring about Barack Obama's election if only for the precedent he set for those outside of Capitol Hill's inner circle and for the resonating vision of change he conveyed. Perhaps to no one's surprise, the events that swirled around and eventually informed his victory were not as high-minded in motivation. A lot of the juicy details are provided by longtime political reporters John Heilemann (author of Pride Before the Fall: The Trials of Bill Gates and the End of the Microsoft Era) and Mark Halperin (author of The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008) in an intriguing, sometimes insightful and eminently readable chronicle of the events and personalities that shaped the 2008 campaign trail. As it turns out, the intense scrutiny of the public spotlight was far more forgiving than one would have expected given the revelations presented. The Obamas come across quite well here, but other key figures - Hillary and Bill Clinton, John and Cindy McCain, John and Elizabeth Edwards, Sarah Palin - are portrayed far less flatteringly.

To be sure, there is lots of good gossip to share, but credit needs to go the co-authors in providing the much-needed depth of political analysis to provide the appropriate context for the combination of observations and allegations that inform their account. There are no source notes offered at the end of the book, and the co-authors make extensive use of unattributed quotes and Bob Woodward-style deep-background interviews, which bring to question the veracity of some of the revelations. However, they manage to bring credibility to a narrative that reads like a Sinclair Lewis novel by referencing emails and interoffice memos and interviewing pertinent players like McCain's campaign manager Steve Schmidt. It is Schmidt who exposes Sarah Palin's inadequacies as a national candidate as McCain's handlers believed her to be "mentally unstable" showing bipolar symptoms, a revelation that came to light during the debate preparations and the infamous Katie Couric interview.

There is also the volatile Clinton marriage that introduced a level of political hubris to her dysfunctional campaign which led Hillary to ask Roger Altman, a Clinton confidante and deputy Treasury secretary in her husband's administration, to form a clandestine transition plan to the White House based on the assumption that she would win the general election. Obama had already been eliminated as a potential running mate due to his lack of experience. Later on, Bill's infidelity apparently reared its head yet again when she felt a need to form a "war room within a war room" for the sole purpose of managing the ongoing threat posed by Bill's sexual addictions. The irony is that Bill is portrayed as the driving force behind Hillary to stick with the race until the bitter end, and his approval meant a great deal to her at the end of the day. Her political career has been riddled with such misjudgments from missing her real opportunity in 2004 to missing out on an early endorsement from Caroline Kennedy.

Receiving a lot of undesirable press from the book are the racist comments from Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, who encouraged Obama to run early on, arguing that the candidate's light skin and eloquent manner should make him acceptable to the white masses. At least Reid has acknowledged the remarks and apologized. The book's most surprising sections are the ruthless dissections of the McCain and Edwards marriages. The McCains are portrayed as relatively estranged with wife Cindy accused of carrying on an affair with a long-term boyfriend. John Edwards comes off as even worse, a narcissist who was quite open about his infatuation with video maker Rielle Hunter and harbored self-delusional hopes of being Obama's attorney general. Wife Elizabeth, portrayed in the media as a valiant survivor of breast cancer and a philandering husband, comes across as an irrational shrew who constantly browbeat campaign staff. Through all this melodrama, Heilemann and Halperin manage to reveal a campaign season populated by key public figures compromised by their own ambitions and limitations.

Very informative, behind the scenes look at the campaign, January 12, 2010
Because of the long and credible history of the authors they were able to get the true behind the scenes look at the 2008 campaign. Their insight was not all new but it was good to see that a lot of the things I've read in bits and pieces were actually true, but then again, where there's smoke, there's fire usually holds true the great majority of the time.

If you love politics, whether you're a member of the Democratic or Republican party, you'll enjoy this book. You might not like reading the truth about your favorite politician but it's wise for all of us to remember that is what they are no matter how they try to come across.

For all of you giving this book One Star because it's not available on Kindle, do you mean to tell me you can't wait a month? Or is there some other type of behind the scenes work at hand here?

I read this book from cover to cover in one sitting and thoroughly enjoyed it. I don't usually buy political books but as I said they've established themselves as Washington insiders over the years and knew the people to talk to. It's worth waiting a month for the Kindle version. At least give the authors a chance, they don't deserve a one star review for the publisher's decision to bring it out a month later. Complain to Harper Collins if necessary but don't bash the authors!

Inside Story, January 11, 2010


A little more than 24 hours later, after the highlights of Reid's unfortunate remarks were reported, and he apologized, the book was released. Michael Steele, RNC, asked for Reid's resignation, after Steele's own remarks of 'Honest Injun' the week before. Pot/kettle? The book is full of the sort of information you might know if you were an insider in Washington, DC. But much of it occurs outside of Washington and out of harms way. Few are mentioned that know these facts first hand, so we must take it on faith, that these are true. Essentially, this book is an intimate portrait of the lives of those who ran for the Presidency in 2008 and some of the people surrounding them. Gossip, true, but much of it sounds true to life. Revelations abound and some of them are shockers.

The Edwards- John and Elizabeth. Elizabeth is the woman with cancer who has an unfaithful, jackass of a husband. She garnered all our sympathy and now we find out she was abusive to her husband all along. What an unhappy and miserable existence that family must follow.

The Clintons- Bill and Hilary- she, who decided she did not want the Secretary of State position after it was offered because of Bill. He was too much of a problem, and then Obama told her how much he needed her. She has turned out to be the most valuable of his cabinet. And, Bill's remark about Obama who would have served coffee in another time instead of becoming the candidate.

The McCains- John and Cindy- the kind of marriage that we didn't know about but had been whispered about- she cold and calculating, with a lover on the side. John may have followed the same path. It seems he spit out so many F Bombs, it filled a chapter.

Sarah Palin- as bad as we thought and worse, some staff members assigned to Sarah Palin by the McCain campaign discussed the "threatening possibility: that Palin was mentally unstable" and, yet without her, McCain would have lost by more.

VP Biden- how many goofs and mistakes would he make, yet to be decided.

Mark McGuire- he was not in this book, but he is the only one the media is decrying as a liar.

Lots of inside info that I will leave for you to read. Much of this is hearsay- that bothers me a bit, but yet, publishing lawyers must have fact checked what they could. Nothing here about policy, the personal lives and decisions of those that are discussed are on display. Somehow, this all feels real, like an inside look into the lives- the true personalities. Read at your own discretion, and believe what you will.

Recommended. prisrob 01-11-10

Language and Human Nature

Pride Before the Fall: The Trials of Bill Gates and the End of the Microsoft Era ... Read more

Editorial Review

Reviews

"Nelson Mandela Declares He Is No Saint".
This is a rather very interesting & personal book, composed of Nelson Mandela's vast archive material in the form of letters, papers, conversations, interviews & speeches/recordings he made/written while in Robben Island as a prisoner, after his release from prison & when he was the first democratic elected President of South Africa and the book is titled "Conversations With Myself". It has been put together by the Nelson Mandela Foundation, dedicated to his grand-daughter who died in a car accident in June this year during Fifa Soccer World Cup 2010 & is foreworded by President Barack Obama.

The book outlines Nelson Mandela's views among others on leadership & as well as his fallability as a human being : he was quite 'anxious/uncomfortable' while in Robben Island that he was being regarded/portrayed as a Saint by some followers/quarters. He does not however regard himself as a Saint even though his definition of a "Saint is a sinner who keeps on trying/repenting"!

This book is an excellent read because of a diversity of material contained : it's not like a story with a plot or narrative thread. Thus this book can be studied in bits/chunks as you wish with ease without loosing 'the flow' of the book. Some of his letters/speeches reflected/presented in this book are in Nelson Mandela's own handwriting, making this book rather very personal & special (collectable). This book, "Nelson Mandela : Conversations With Myself", is a highly recommended reading from one of the most famous prisoners in the world, known for his fight for human rights (Nobel Peace Prize Winner), reconciliation & a humble personality (and hence his declaration as no Saint).

Different but well put together
I have never read an autobiography before but is not one.It is put together by notes he made,letters he wrote and interviews.From all these bits and pieces there is a great flow and easy to read.It brings to the reader his great thoughts and views on specific events that happened to him during his life.

If you cant meet the man,see the man or get close to the man this is an alternative to get a chance to reach out to him though this book of personal letters and notes.

I recommend this to anyone to sit back and change from the trash that is pumped out from authors every day and think and feel what this great man is feeling. ... Read more

Editorial Review

The compelling and insightful account of a New York Times reporter's abduction by the Taliban, and his wife's struggle to free him.

Invited to an interview by a Taliban commander, New York Times reporter David Rohde and two Afghan colleagues were kidnapped in November 2008 and spirited to the tribal areas of Pakistan. For the next seven months, they lived in an alternate reality, ruled by jihadists, in which paranoia, conspiracy theories, and shifting alliances abounded. Held in bustling towns, they found that Pakistan's powerful military turned a blind eye to a sprawling Taliban ministate that trained suicide bombers, plotted terrorist attacks, and helped shelter Osama bin Laden.

In New York, David's wife of two months, Kristen Mulvihill, his family, and The New York Times struggled to navigate the labyrinth of issues that confront the relatives of hostages. Their methodical, Western approach made little impact on the complex mix of cruelty, irrationality, and criminality that characterizes the militant Islam espoused by David's captors.

In the end, a stolen piece of rope and a prayer ended the captivity. The experience tested and strengthened Mulvihill and Rohde's relationship and exposed the failures of American effort in the region. The tale of those seven months is at once a love story and a reflection of the great cultural divide-and challenge-of our time. ... Read more

Reviews

The Worst Nightmare, December 16, 2010
On a morning in November of 2008, David Rohde a NY Times journalist, set out with an Afghan journalist to interview a Taliban commander. This was to be a safe interview, but as it is known, the risks are always there. David was kidnapped. David, the Afghan journalist and the driver were all taken by car over many hours to an unknown place somewhere in Afghanistan. David's wife of two months, Kristen, a photography director, for a well known magazine, was working on a project when she received word from David's brother, Lee, that he had been kidnapped. This is their story from each of their perspectives.

David was treated well. He was never beaten, was fed well, given water and housing but was held hostage. It is believed that the Pashtun tribe wanted to negotiate for money, millions of dollars and exchange for other terrorists. Kristen became involved immediately with the FBI, the NY times administration and owners, the State Department, security companies and various journalists and others who had been involved in previous kidnappings. Their story is one that ended happily, but the seven months that David was kept hostage were filled with woe and fear and extreme times for Kristen and their families. She spoke daily with government officials, kept in touch with family and at one point her mother came to stay with her, to help keep her spirits buoyed. Their experiences are well documented, and they both share their emotional highs and lows and how they kept themselves together.

An important aspect of this story is that David's kidnapping was kept secret. It was felt that would give them a better stance in negotiation. At one point Al Jazeera had a video that had been sent by the kidnappers and showed it on their channel, but once it was found and a request was made to redact the video, they complied. Many people knew about David's kidnapping, but they kept it close. Kristen and David's brother, Lee, became the center of the world that revolved around David. They made decisions after involving family and their close confidents. Kristen particularly felt that Sec Of State Clinton, Richard Holbrooke, their security team and friends were the most helpful throughout the ordeal. Kristen found herself sifting through all of these people and the information they supplied. They were not sure who could be trusted and as time went on, they found their way.

One portion of the book that I found most helpful is the history of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan that David gives us. He keeps us privy to the region with his knowledge, and the history he has shared. The tribes and how they were formed and the history of the regions. It is helpful to be able to put names and tribes together with their regions. Background of the areas, the religions and the day to day tribal rituals was an added piece to try and understand, to give us a piece of how these Pakistani and Taliban live. David Rohde explains some of his beliefs and his knowledge of Pakistan and Afghanistan. David had been kidnapped years before for 10 days in Bosnia, but he found these seven months so very trying. He firmly believes that if he and Asad had not escaped, he would still be there as a hostage. In discussions after David got home, the negotiations seemed to be futile, and no one expected a positive outcome. David was held by the most hardline of the Taliban tribes. They firmly believed that they could control the entire region, they were radical in their beliefs and he is indeed lucky to have escaped.

David's escape is especially telling and forceful. The Pakistani Army received them with open arms after they understood who David was. They were very kind and generous. David was very surprised and pleased, but did not believe he was safe until the US Army flew him to Saudi Arabia. He reunited with Kristen, and they began their lives, anew.

A forceful book, full of factual history and emotionally laden at times. The day to day existence combined with the history of the region and interspersed with Kristins life in New York City. We see and understand the story from both sides, and it gives us great insight into these seven months. I find a renewed interest in the history of Afghanistan and Pakistan. A much more informed person about our war, and the people we are fighting for and with.

Highly Recommended. prisrob 12-16-10

Endgame: The Betrayal And Fall Of Srebrenica, Europe's Worst Massacre Since World War II

Charlie Rose - David Rohde / Jann Wenner (October 26, 2009)

Excellent insight and a fascinating story, December 19, 2010
I initially picked up Rohde and Mulvihill's book after hearing them interviewed on NPR--their story sounded interesting even though I am not someone who is usually interested in hostage or kidnapping narratives.

Their way of presenting two sides of the same horrible ordeal allows the reader to fully capture what both the hostage and his/her family had to experience, as well the perception of the different players involved in the situation. Also, the thread of black humor that intermittently arose added to the "human factor" of this book--after all, often times humor can save us from the deepest levels of dispair.

I also appreciated David's insight into his captor's perceptions of the West as well as their extremist twist on their religion. For those of us who don't completely understand the complexities of the region, A Rope & A Prayer broke it down quite well. Highly recommended. ... Read more

Editorial Review

The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles or essays advocating the ratification of the United States Constitution. Seventy-seven of the essays were published serially in The Independent Journal and The New York Packet between October 1787 and August 1788. A compilation of these and eight others, called The Federalist; or, The New Constitution, was published in two volumes in 1788 by J. and A. McLean. The series' correct title is The Federalist; the title The Federalist Papers did not emerge until the twentieth century.
The Federalist remains a primary source for interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, as the essays outline a lucid and compelling version of the philosophy and motivation of the proposed system of government.The authors of The Federalist wanted both to influence the vote in favor of ratification and to shape future interpretations of the Constitution. According to historian Richard B. Morris, they are an "incomparable exposition of the Constitution, a classic in political science unsurpassed in both breadth and depth by the product of any later American writer."
At the time of publication, the authorship of the articles was a closely-guarded secret, though astute observers guessed that Hamilton, Madison, and Jay were the likely authors. Following Hamilton's death in 1804, a list that he drew up became public; it claimed fully two-thirds of the essays for Hamilton, including some that seemed more likely the work of Madison (Nos. 49-58, 62, and 63).
... Read more

Reviews

Serious Political Thinking, April 16, 2006
The new edition of THE FEDERALIST PAPERS edited by Clinton Rossiter and co. is probably the best paperback edition. Rossiter and Charles Kesler did a good job in presenting these papers, and their explanations and notes make this book clear for readers. THE FEDERALIST PAPERS alone are an important source of serious political thinking. In an age of almost unbridled political power, corruption, empire buidling, etc. THE FEDERALIST PAPERS are important reminder of what a Free Republic (not an empire) should be.

THE FEDERALIST PAPERS were written by Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804), John Jay (1745-1829), and James Madison (1751-1835). Due to concerns about the New York State legislators ratifying the The U.S. Constitution, these papers were journal pieces written to New York journals and newspapers to convince both the residents and state legislators to ratify The U.S. Constitution. One should note there were other published articles supporting ratification of The U.S. Constitution and other articles can be read in a text titled FRIENDS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

What is alarming about THE FEDERALISTS PAPERS is that they were written for most readers. If one were to write such articles these days, most Americans would not read them nor comprehend them. This is a sad commentary on Americans regarding serious political writing regarding their birthright. If THE FEDERALIST PAPERS were assigned to high school kids, whoever would make such an assignment would be fired or worse.

THE FEDERALIST PAPERS give important explanations of the separation of powers, limits of each branch of the central government (The Federal Government), and how political power should be used within severe limitations. These articles were a brilliant attempt to mitigate fears that The U.S. Constitution would give far too much power to the the central or federal government.

The late Clinton Rossiter had a useful suggestion for those who did not want to read all 85 of THE FEDERALIST PAPERS. He suggested that the best numbers were 1,2,6,9,10, 14, 15, 16,23, 37, 39,47, 49, 51, 62, 70, 78, 84, and 85. Those readers who read these numbered papers would probably want to read the remainder.

This newer paperback edition of THE FEDERALIST PAPERS has some valuable features to help the reader navigate complex political thinking. The U.S. Constitution is placed in the end of the book with page numbers of the book whereby the authors of THE FEDERALIST PAPERS refer to that section of the U.S. Constitution. This gives clarity as to exactly what the authors were arguing regarding specific sections of the proposed U.S. Constitution. Another important feature of this edition of THE FEDERALIST PAPERS consists of the notes. The men who wrote THE FEDERALIST PAPERS were learned men who had seriously studied history and political thought. The notes explain the examples of Ancient Greek and Roman History used to make some of the arguments. These notes also refer to examples of Renaissance and English History which were also used to make good arguments from historical examples. One could get first rate learning experience of Ancient Greek and Roman History as well as a better view of European Renaissance and English History.

Readers should not forget that the authors of THE FEDERALIST PAPERS were responding to the Anti-Federalists and their articles titled THE ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS. Too often the Anti-Federalists are referred to as obstrcutionists and narrow minded men. This is simply not true. The ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS were as well written and brilliantly argued as THE FEDERALIST PAPERS.
One should note that one of the major objections of the Anti-Federalists to ratification of The U.S. Constitution was that it did not contain a Bill of Rights. The Federalists took this argument seriously. Basically, one could argue that without the Anti-Federalists, there would have been no Bill of Rights. Ergo, without The Bill of Rights, there would have been no U.S. Constitution. The Anti-Federalists were very important in the ratification of The U.S. Constitution.

Anyone who wants to define who Americans should be should read THE FEDERALIST PAPERS. They should also read THE ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS and read clear, informed, and well written political theory from men who could actually think. Most political hacks and too many American citizens are not even vaguely aware of this important political writing. Yet, this political writing is the very best American political thinking in U.S. History. This reviewer highly recommends the Rossiter-Kesler edition of THE FEDERALIST PAPERS and other editions of THE ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS.

The rich keep getting richer..., November 18, 2000
and the Mentor Federalist Papers keep getting better. Yes, that's right. They actually managed to improve on it. The great new additions include the Declaration, the Articles, and an excellent new introduction by Charles Kessler. I think the killer feature for new readers will be the notes in the back, which, if you (like me) are shaky in your Greek history (and the finer points of European), do a great job of explaining allusions and references by the Papers. Be sure to use this feature -- there's no indication in the text that a note exists, but you should just look if you're unsure of a historical setting (or something similar), and there probably will be one.

On the minus side, I do miss Rossiter's introduction. It wasn't as good for laying out the plan of the work, but it should have been included (along with Kessler's) for its excellent overview of the contemporary situation and the philosophy behind the papers. Also, I feel that Rossiter's contents were slightly better than Kessler's. And, the page numbers are changed, invalidating older references to them. But all in all it's an improvement, and certainly the Mentor edition is the only one to have. Period. It's the one used by at least some of the Supreme Court Justices, and it retains that single dominating feature, Rossiter's cross-referenced Constitution (and index of ideas).

As for the Papers themselves, of course, they need no review. They are the first and ultimate Constitutional commentary, and fascinating reading besides. As literature they stand out for the exceptional style (all the more remarkable considering the haste in which they were written) and clear thinking, and more than any other book they define how the U.S. _should_ work.

All in all, this is one of the best book bargains on the market, that rare coincidence where best edition meets mass-market paperback. What are you waiting for?

-Stephen

The best edition of the Federalist Papers, May 13, 2000
This is the best edition of the Federalist Papers. It includes many extras, but especially useful is the text of the US Constitution with cross-references to specific pages of the Federalist Papers referring to that provision. I highly recommend the Federalist Papers generally, and more specifically this edition to anyone wishing to know more about the founding and ratification of the Constitution.

Vital to Understanding the US Constitution, July 10, 2004
The Federalist Papers is probably the most seminal discourse on the U.S. Constitution that has ever been written. While there are occasional inconsistencies and undoubtedly many of the founding fathers that took part in the Constitutional Convention and favored adoption of the Constitution would disagree with some of its contents, it is vital reading if one hopes to understand the original intent of the founders.

A Contention and a Suggestion, August 24, 2006
One of the reviewers below challenges the notion that the US was ever a Democracy, however, he (apologies if it's a 'she') is viewing the Federalist Papers from the perspective of modern times, and that is a fallacy in reviewing this work, but fortunately it's an instructive fallacy.

The issue with the Federalist Papers is that although it is the leading arguments for the creation of a more centralized government (to replace the Articles of Confederation which seemed inpractible), not all of these arguments were adopted in the Constitution, and some that were did not survive very long. As a result, you may get the wrong impression that the Federalist Papers=the Constitution. Remember, Hamilton's party, the Federalists, did not survive much longer after the defeat of Adams by Jefferson in the 1800 election. The populism of Jefferson and Madison were the ultimate winners *at the time*.

And my *at the time* comment is important. Nowadays the federal government of the US holds a superior and decisive position in the governing of its people; this has not always been the case. In the early-to-mid 19th century, federal power was severely limited when it came to internal affairs; most of the government was conducted at the local level, with some county and state control thrown in where applicable. So *at the time*, the fact that the Senate had 2 members from each state (and appointed by the state legislature) regardless of population was *not* a measure that was anti-democratic in purpose. Democracy existed because the government was predominantly local and the people were predominantly involved in its affairs.

Thus my contention; now for the suggestion: if your project is strictly to research the creation of the US Constitution, than the Federalist Papers by themselves are fine. If, however, you are more interested in how the Constitution affected American society at that time, I would recommend that you start by reading de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", and working backwards. The immediate results of the Constitution are best expressed in de Tocqueville (he toured the United States and published his work in Europe within 50 years of the ratification) because its not the causes of the Constitution he is discussing, but its effects. After you have completed Democracy in America, then you'll be able to approach the Federalist (and of course the Anti-Federalist) Papers with the understanding of what worked, what didn't, and maybe what we need to work again for.

The best edition of a must read collection., May 4, 2000
The Mentor edition (used by Scalia among others) is by far the best edition of the Federalist Papers. It includes substantial amounts of related information, but of primary importance is the entire text of the Constitution with cross references to specific pages of the Federalist Papers on that topic. This is an extremely useful tool to anyone desiring to gain more knowledge about the Constitution and the founders intent, and it is especially useful to anyone taking a Con Law class.

In general the Federalist Papers is a must read for anyone interested in the founding of the US, or desiring to learn how our system of federalism, and separation of powers was intended to work. I recommend reading numbers 10, 49, and 78 first.

A stripped down edition the The Federalist Papers, April 25, 2009
Given my inexorably advancing age, my eyes are not what they used to be. I therefore welcome this version of "The Federalist Papers" in that while not a "large print" edition, the print IS larger and easier to read than elsewhere.

The book is of good quality and I expect it to last at least as long as me. The only reason I gave this edition four stars instead of five is that there is absolutely NO commentary. Many may declare this a feature and not a bug. However, new as I am to the actual text of these famous essays, a little guidance (if only a simple introduction) may have been helpful.

That said, there is endless commentary available from other sources including readily accessible material on the internet so this really isn't a problem.

I wanted a quality, hard copy edition of these essays and I got it.

Enjoy.

A necessity to understanding the founder's intent, May 4, 2000
This is a good edition of the Federalist Papers, the introduction by Gary Wills is excellent. However, I would strongly recommend purchasing the Mentor edition, as that edition contains the text of the Constitution, as does this edition, but the Mentor edition has cross-references to specific portions of the Federalist Papers which address that clause of the Constitution.

In general the Federalist Papers is a must read, no matter what edition you use, for anyone interested in the founding of the US, or desiring to learn how our system of federalism, and separation of powers was intended to work. I recommend reading numbers 10, 49, and 78 first.

Understanding The Founders Reasoning, August 2, 2005
Before the ratification of the Constitution of 1787, three of its Framers, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, published a series of articles called The Federalist in a New York paper under the pen name of "Publius." These articles are now published as The Federalist Papers. Publius' intent was to defend the proposed Constitution by explaining its overall integrity and the republican government it would establish. Ironically, one of Publius' intents was to defend the Constitution against the argument it was too weak to withstand those who would subvert republicanism in favor of some form of aristocratic domination.

Sadly, not many read this work, despite the fact that it is one of the few documents that define what the founders' intent really was. This omission has not stopped many from espousing their (lack of) knowledge of that intent. The casual reader can be put off by the size of the work, 85 articles, and the seriousness of the articles. This work was intended for serous people. However, one can approach it with a pen and yellow highlighter and LEARN its wisdom or the more casual reader can let the Introduction guide them to the pieces that interest them.

These casual readers will learn The Federalist Papers are divided into two divisions, each with different themes. The first division addresses the issue of a "firm" and "well-constructed" Union as opposed to a lose confederation of states. This division then addresses how the constitution is protected from the founders' anticipated accidental and intentional threats and answers: what the respective purposes of the Union and the Constitution are; what should be done with society's will; the problem of politics; and even the issues of taxes and maintaining an army. All of these together described the function of government as defined by the Constitution.

In the second division, The Federalist Papers move from the basic function of government to the structure of the American government and using that structure to secure society's common good, the people's happiness, and the public good. All this is accomplished using a moderate tone that makes the reader part of the discourse and not the object of a lecture. This is a constitution aimed at the public in many ways.

So at heart, The Federalist Papers is a guide to the Constitution intended for the casual reader, a reader who can pick and chose those elements that are meaningful.

Adequate, August 21, 2001
This book is adequate. It contains the full Federalist Papers and a copy of the Constitution in the back, plus synopses of the content of each of the Papers. However, not much blank space is left on each page, making it difficult to write margin notes and underline. The paper and typeface are pretty low quality, a little better than newsprint. A good copy if you're not planning to spend a lot of time with the book, but if you are, go for another edition. ... Read more