Book Description
In this, his first major book, Mark Steyn--probably the most widely read, and wittiest, columnist in the English-speaking world--takes on the great poison of the twenty-first century: the anti-Americanism that fuels both Old Europe and radical Islam. America, Steyn argues, will have to stand alone. The world will be divided between America and the rest; and for our sake America had better win.
Customer Reviews:
Unfortunately True.......2007-10-14
Every single American should read this book! He explains exactly how the Muslims are conquering the world. More wives = more babies = more Muslims = more terrorism. This is a religion that should nor even exist in the 21st century. They are commanded to murder everyone that refuses to convert to Islam. Most Americans do not understand that the greatest threat to the future of the world (especially America) is the Muslim religion.
America Alone.......2007-10-11
Every person in the USA should read this book. Today in the Dallas Morning news(10/10/07)there is an editorial by Anne Applebaum verifing one of the facts stated it this book. Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is under death threat because of her comments about the mistreatment of women in the Dutch Muslin community had to move to the US because the Dutch say it is too expensive to protect her and she will not shut up. No free speech for her. Mohammed Bouyeri murdered the Dutch writer, Theo Van Gohg, because he made a film about the oppression of Muslim women.
Funny, but also an important message........2007-10-11
While I cannot say that anybody reading this should have more kids just out of the guilt this book might give you, it is an important message about the sad effects of low birthrates. Mark Steyn has a quick wit and funny tone that is clearly not politically correct (good for him). Anybody who enjoys a good laugh or is concerned about terrorism should read this.
A Must-Read!.......2007-10-10
This book was every bit as good as I had heard. I've always enjoyed Mark Steyn, but hadn't gotten a chance to read this yet because I had a stack of books in front of it. That's my loss, because this was one of the most profound and eye-opening books I've ever read. To be honest, I pay pretty close attention to this conflict we find ourselves in, so most of the individual facts in this book weren't exactly foreign to me. But Steyn pulls all this together and presents it in such a concise, clear and entertaining way that I was able to put the pieces together in a way I hadn't even imagined. His demographic data alone is shocking, and should make every person in Europe and Canada sit up and take serious note - I'll be paying very close attention to what happens over the next few years "across the pond", as they say, for how goes Europe, so will eventually go America. I plan to buy several more copies of this book and hand them out to friends and family. I highly suggest it.
Excelent book. Really crunches the numbers like no other book........2007-10-05
This book really lays out the problems with hard numbers and facts in a way I have never seen and is easy to understand. I recomend this book to anyone who is worried about the muslim issue. People in Europe better read it asap!
Book Description
In the course of more than sixty years spent covering Washington politics, Helen Thomas has witnessed a raft of fundamental changes in the way news is gathered and reported. Gone are the days of frequent firsthand contact with the president. Now, the press sees the president only at tightly controlled and orchestrated press conferences. In addition, Thomas sees a growing -- and alarming -- reluctance among reporters to question government spokesmen and probe for the truth. The result has been a wholesale failure by journalists to fulfill what is arguably their most vital role in contemporary American life -- to be the watchdogs of democracy. Today's journalists, according to Thomas, have become subdued, compromised lapdogs.
Here, the legendary journalist and bestselling author delivers a hard-hitting manifesto on the precipitous decline in the quality and ethics of political reportage -- and issues a clarion call for change. Thomas confronts some of the most significant issues of the day, including the jailing of reporters, the conservative swing in television news coverage, and the administration's increased insistence on "managed" news. But she is most emphatic about reporters' failure to adequately question President George W. Bush and White House spokesmen about the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, and on subjects ranging from homeland security to the economy. This, she insists, was a dire lapse.
Drawing on her peerless knowledge of journalism, Washington politics, and nine presidential administrations, as well as frank interviews with leading journalists past and present, Thomas provides readers with a rich historical perspective on the roots of American journalism, the circumstances attending the rise and fall of its golden age, and the nature and consequences of its current shortcomings. The result is a powerful, eye-opening discourse on the state of political reportage -- as well as a welcome and inspiring demand for meaningful and lasting reform.
Customer Reviews:
VERY INTERESTING BOOK.......2007-08-23
Helen Thomas has covered the White House since JFK and her insight into how the media has failed in the recent years to cover the White House and be the Watchdogs of Democracy is "Right on Point." There are very few "Real" Journalists like hardworking Helen Thomas around anymore!!
What's going on in Washington DC?.......2007-05-13
The lady in the red suit scores again with this cogent comment on the Washington press corps. Ms. Thomas, who pitches hardball questions during press conferences if she is allowed to do so, has very coherently and successfully produced a well-reasoned text about why the press corps failed the American people by not investigating the shenanigans surrounding the present administration. This is a necessary read for journalism students and probably for those interested history and political science.
A misleading title on a journalistic memoir.......2007-04-26
This book sorely disappointed me for two reasons. I strongly agree with the thesis of the title, that the media largely abandoned their important duty as watchdogs of democracy in the run-up to the War in Iraq, HOWEVER, this issue amounts to a grand total of ONE chapter in her entire book. The rest is a bunch of anecdotes tied loosely together. In fact, it reads more like an anthology than a unified work.
The second thing that disappointed me was also something of a shock: Helen Thomas, Grand Dame, Dean of the Washington Press Corps, is a lousy writer! I am serious. I read on average one or two political/nonfiction books a month, and this is one of the most poorly written I have read yet. Some of the books I have read are by "regular" people, some by pundits, and some by politicians. Nearly all of them write in a more interesting and engaging style than Mrs. Thomas. Her tone is often conversational at best, and her stories seem to be told as much to discuss presidents' interactions with the media as to tell you what an interesting career she has had.
I could not in good faith give it one star. It isn't horrible. It is just extremely disappointing.
rambling, disjointed, biasd, personal, fun.......2007-02-08
This is a rambling, disjointed, biased, personal account
of what should be an important public issue. The title
has a question mark, and the subtitle identifies the
culprit and makes an accusation. So how does "Watchdogs
of Democracy? The Waning Washington Press Corps and How
It Has Failed the Public" measure up? Not very well on
the subject, but better as a collection of snippets.
The foreword drones on and on for ten pages. Chapter 1
tells us Journalism is an honorable profession in
spite of Jayson Blair and a few others.
Chapter 2 mentions several scandals uncovered by the
press. Chapter 3 has anecdotes about presidents with
the press. Chapter 4 is about press secretaries.
Chapter 5 is about spinning the news.
Chapter 6 is about leakers and whistle blowers.
Chapter 7 admits that the news business is a business.
Chapter 8 complains about the FCC. Chapter 9 is
the subject of the book, the press as lapdogs.
Chapter 10 covers war correspondents, Iraq wars,
and Vietnam. Chapter 11 covers her choice of the
greatest American journalists. There is over 11
pages of closely spaced, double column index,
but no references.
Thomas seems to think there is little in Washington
except the White House. The other branches, and the
bureaus and departments are seldom mentioned.
Some Republicans will be bothered by some of her
attacks, and some Democrats will be delighted.
There are attacks, and both Democrats and Republicans
are the targets, perhaps in equal numbers, but they
are treated differently. Democrats tend to get the
passive voice and quirky little adjectives.
Republicans tend to get the active voice and
malicious adjectives. Bush 43 gets the worst
treatment.
Still, it is an entertaining book. The only time
I was tempted to put it down was Thomas quoting
herself giving a speech disguised as a question at
a White House Press Conference.
Neither focused nor organized.......2007-01-14
This book was clearly written for profit. Many sections of the book are only weakly connected back to the main theme and nowhere does Helen Thomas make her case-in-chief directly. Instead, the reader is treated to a series of vignettes which all too frequently bear only a tenuous relationship to one another and which make no effort to maintain continuity. While each chapter has a reasonably strong cohesion (though those boundaries frequently intersect in a way which would make any Venn diagram lover proud), they work together not as a fine Swiss watch, but instead more like a Rube Goldberg machine.
There is one theme which appears time-and-again: the idea that an objective and vigorous free press is a necessary part of democracy. This point is made consistently throughout the book from a cornucopia of different, albeit predicable, angles, and is artfully shown both implicitly and explicitly through excellent and enjoyable anecdotes accumulated during the author's sixty years as a White House correspondent. Unfortunately for the reader, her anecdotes frequently seem to be included for their value as self-platitudes rather than for intrinsic value or thematic attenuation. Also unfortunate is the inconvenient truth that Helen Thomas is no longer the type of reporter she praises, but the type she opines against: an opinion columnist.
There are certainly gems in the rough scattered throughout the 201 pages, but the author's tendency both to ramble and babble makes them difficult to find and detracts from their value. With regard to Thomas' periodic attempts a historical organization, her comments at the conclusion of chapter four are revealing: "There were other press secretaries and other spokespersons. I have mentioned only a few who stand out in my mind, for better or worse." Indeed, it seems she deemed fit to simply write down a train of thought as it occurred to her in the shower; that is to say, while not devoid of organization, the linking up of subjects is tenuous at best. Perhaps the most interesting and enjoyable aspect of Helen Thomas' writing style in this book is her robust use of vocabulary, which includes a scattering of excellent words on every page (some of which I even had to look up).
Book Description
In this powerful and provocative manifesto, Bill McKibben offers the biggest challenge in a generation to the prevailing view of our economy. For the first time in human history, he observes, more is no longer synonymous with better -- indeed, for many of us, they have become almost opposites. McKibben puts forward a new way to think about the things we buy, the food we eat, the energy we use, and the money that pays for it all. Our purchases, he says, need not be at odds with the things we truly value. McKibbens animating idea is that we need to move beyond growth as the paramount economic ideal and pursue prosperity in a more local direction, with cities, suburbs, and regions producing more of their own food, generating more of their own energy, and even creating more of their own culture and entertainment. He shows this concept blossoming around the world with striking results, from the burgeoning economies of India and China to the more mature societies of Europe and New England. For those who worry about environmental threats, he offers a route out of the worst of those problems; for those who wonder if there isnt something more to life than buying, he provides the insight to think about ones life as an individual and as a member of a larger community. McKibben offers a realistic, if challenging, scenario for a hopeful future. As he so eloquently shows, the more we nurture the essential humanity of our economy, the more we will recapture our own.
Customer Reviews:
Ok, How did Communities get their wealth?.......2007-10-08
I read Deep Economy with an open mind, however, I found it to be riddled with particular political emphasis rather than real data about economics. In short, the ideas advanced are communal farming, environmentalism through global warming mandates, and outright communism.
These are not tools for the advancement of society, as McKibben suggests, but a return to the comfort of the Dark Ages.
I was very disappointed in the content of the book, being lectured for the first 36 pages on the same uncredited drivel that Al Gore had preached about in his tour on global warming, the very irony of which, wherever Al Gore went, it snowed.
In later chapters, McKibben actually comes out as a liberal by advocating what he believes is the solution for all the societal 'chaos' going on - state socialism.
Truly this book would have been better written if it had been left blank.
If You Care for the Earth.......2007-09-29
This book is a must for anyone who wants to make a change to save the earth. The author has insight and experience about how our present course of living will lead to the destruction of the world as we know it. It's real, but there is hope and Mr McKibben shares that hope with the reader.
Useful Inefficiencies.......2007-08-29
McKibben is one of our best modern thinkers on environmentalism and conservation, ever since debuting with his classic "The End of Nature" in 1989. In this new book he has largely tackled mainstream economic theory and how it has inflicted worldwide damage on the environment and on human communities. Standard development economics suffers from an unyielding focus on efficiencies and consumption, but this more often than not leads to widespread damage and unhappiness. Planners and politicians focus obsessively on per capita utility and efficiency, and vehemently disdain anything that may reduce efficiency for some individuals but may very well improve communities and the planet. McKibben's great contribution here is his coverage of new studies of human happiness. Especially in America, we have passed the point of gaining any more happiness from increased consumption of things, and we have become largely unhappy over the ensuing loss of community and nature. A new worldwide understanding of how economics really works has become imperative - more is no longer better.
McKibben has located many useful examples around the world of communities practicing new sustainable development strategies with demonstrated benefits for all involved. Unfortunately, the areas in which such great things are happening have particular political and economic conditions that make such experiments beneficial (including the American location McKibben covers most often - politically distinctive rural Vermont). The underlying flaw in this book is that McKibben must resort to pretty wishful idealism when applying these local success stories to the world economic system. A related problem is that the second half of the book, where the rubber should be meeting the road in realistically applying the local to the global, largely degenerates into repetitive descriptions of benefits in lieu of real prescriptions for change. However, McKibben definitely deserves credit for explaining in an accessible way all the tragic flaws of mainstream economic theory (see the books and articles he cites for the real lowdown), and it's about time us regular folks resisted the power players - for the benefit of ourselves and our larger community. [~doomsdayer520~]
Turbines and Prayer Wheels.......2007-08-06
This is a wonderful book that swings your emotions from despair to joy and back. I marveled over the story of the village of Gorasin in Bangladesh where the people said no to pesticides after living with their devastating effects and the village has become an organic oases. That is the theme of the book, communities with members from near or far working together to make lives better.
McKibben mentions Heifer International, one of my favorite organizations, and their impact on one man in China with the donation of 48 rabbits and lots of technical advice and the wave of change in his community because of his successful rabbit enterprise.
A group called Future Generations trained some villagers in Tibet and the villagers devised and installed a system that carried water "through a series of split-bamboo pipes, and then through a turbine that used the dynamo from a junked car. A hydrology expert could have helped them build a more efficient system, but all the locals knew how to repair this setup."".....(Also, the hydrology expert might not have thought to use the water pouring out of the turbine to spin a prayer wheel.)"
World community - helping local people meld the old and the new.
But, McKibben asserts, it is time for the haves of the world to share more than knowledge, it is time to cut back on what we use. "Most obviously, if the rich world began making less extreme demands on the planet, poor countries would have more physical margin to work with - a little slack. ...If we Americans can use less coal and gas and oil, we'll in effect free some of the atmosphere to absorb the carbon that the poor world must emit to meet basic needs."
There is so much more in this book to ponder and act on, put it high on your reading list.
Quite a scary future.......2007-07-23
Wow, makes me want to move to Vermont and become an organic farmer. I found this book to bring up some very good points about our current unsustainable economic situation. Over the past 300 years we have created an economic "machine" based on efficiency and production that will be very hard to change intentionally. McKibben offers some ideas on what the new New Deal will need to be if we want to continue a sustainable economy, which includes taking everything back to a local scale. Food, work, consumer goods need to develop inside the community where one lives. Less efficiency, more community and "neighborliness". It's a great idea. I just wonder if people will choose this before the collapse of our current system or try to figure something out after it's too late. I pesimistically think the latter.
Book Description
Six years' worth of symposiums come together in this rich collection of essays that plot a course for African Americans, explaining how individuals and households can make changes that will immediately improve their circumstances in areas ranging from health and education to crime reduction and financial well-being. Addressing these pressing concerns are contributors Dr. David Satcher, former U.S. surgeon general; Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; Angela Glover Blackwell, founder of the research think tank PolicyLink; and Cornel West, professor of Religion at Princeton University. Each chapter outlines one key issue and provides a list of resources, suggestions for action, and a checklist for what concerned citizens can do to keep their communities progressing socially, politically, and economically. Though the African American community faces devastating social disparities—in which more than 8 million people live in poverty—this celebration of possibility, hope, and strength will help leaders and citizens keep Black America moving forward.
Customer Reviews:
Not what I'd expected...but still a good piece of information.......2007-09-25
I had expected so much more from this book I guess. Not that it was a bad read, it really wasn't, it just wasn't what I had expected. The ideals and processes outlined are very basic, with some direction to make it happen. It falls in line with many of the other books I have read in the past on money management, professional growth, etc., except it is targeted to the African American community and the plight these issues have on the community and family structure in Black America. I suggest this book if you do not have a collection of "self help" book on your shelf. I suggest this book if you want to know what the plight of the Black American is in this world and what can be done to fix it. But if your pretty well read on these topics already, it will be a repeat of information. I did buy copies and gave it to the younger generations of my family as I feel these are things they need to know and work on NOW. So in that respect this is a winning read.
Worth the Read.......2007-08-28
This book was and eye opener for the ones who want to see the truth. It's sad that we live in America who would perfer to blind themselves to harsh reality. Remember we are our brother and sister's keeper.
Sad But True.......2007-08-18
The information, commentary, and suggested solutions to improve the position of blacks are well said. I am a big fan of Cornel West anyway but the intellects that analyze the plight have done their homework and not extreme in the characterization of what is. Enjoy it for enlightenment and join the effort to change what is unfortunately sad but true.
I am in the middle of the road..........2007-07-31
I enjoyed the statistics. I enjoyed the stories of those whom changed their circumstances due to their own volitions. I did not find in this book the way to make all of these things happen. There were little snippets of information claiming "HERE, here are the steps you can make as a person and within your community!! HERE!" But this book does not take into consideration that there is no community. There is no Black American community. How do we foster a sense of community? In my opinion, this book assumes there is already a community to put these ideas into motion. I don't see that. Black Americans react. They always come out, usually in anger, to respond to something. Then, after the knee-jerk reaction, Black America goes back to its complacent niche in society until something else makes them upset.
The only reason I give this book a 3 and not a 5 is because it assumes falsehoods. There is no Black community to put these plans into action. If there were, I would give this book a 5, hands down.
Must have in reading collection.......2007-06-27
This book is a must for anyone, reguardless of your color. I waited to purchase the book, but after reading other reviews I knew I had to have my own copy. My daughter picks it up and read it which opens up discussions for us. Recommended for anyone with children.
Book Description
Surprising proof that conservatives really are more compassionate--and more generous--than liberals.
We all know we should give to charity, but who really does? Approximately three-quarters of Americans give their time and money to various charities, churches, and causes; the other quarter of the population does not. Why has America split into two nations: givers and non-givers?
Arthur Brooks, a top scholar of economics and public policy, has spent years researching this trend, and even he was surprised by what he found. In Who Really Cares, he demonstrates conclusively that conservatives really are compassionate-far more compassionate than their liberal foes. Strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills-all of these factors determine how likely one is to give.
Charity matters--not just to the givers and to the recipients, but to the nation as a whole. It is crucial to our prosperity, happiness, health, and our ability to govern ourselves as a free people. In Who Really Cares, Brooks outlines strategies for expanding the ranks of givers, for the good of all Americans.
Customer Reviews:
Compassion gap.......2007-09-21
The title of this book refers to the surprising find that the author came across in his research: conservatives are much more generous than liberals. This flies in the face of the conventional wisdom where even president Bush had to brandish his 2000 campaign as "compassionate conservatism". It turns out "compassionate" is redundant: conservatives of all stripes outflank liberalism when it comes to charitable giving and generosity. This is a very stable and robust find, and it turns out that it does not depend on the kind of charity: money, time, treasure, blood donations, secular or religious causes, in all those categories conservatives, especially the religious kind, are by far more giving and generous than anyone else. One of the great strengths of this book is the reliance on empirical, quantifiable, data and not case studies or the word of mouth. Even though the book is data driven, it is eminently readable and should be read by anyone who has even the slightest interest in public policy debate.
Important and Insightful.......2007-09-01
Given a fair reading, this book will be an eye-opener for some, and an encouragement to others. I hope there's no cause for cynicism or gloating. Keep in mind that this is a broad brush, "big picture" kind of book. Brooks is careful to point out that his study is not predictive of individual behavior, but measures influential factors on a large scale. Subtitled America's Charity Divide: Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters, this is fascinating and well documented study of correlations between charitable giving and things like religion, sociopolitical and economic views, family structure and work ethic. Brooks finds a very strong correlation between religion and giving; not just giving to religious charities but to secular ones as well, giving time and money to help others. Conservatives were much more charitable as a group than Liberals owing largely to a difference in philosophy on who is responsible for caring for those in need. Those who place less responsibility on government are more generous with their own time and money. The working poor tend to give a much larger percentage of their time and money for helping others than any other group. Charitable values are largely passed on by example from parents to children in intact healthy families. Brooks also draws some interesting comparisons of charitable activity in the USA and Europe. He finds that where government becomes more of a caretaker, people become less charitable and less prosperous. Brooks finds a strong correlation between charitable activity and the economic prosperity of a country, seeing trends that discourage personal giving a worrisome. Many commonly held stereotypes are contradicted in this book. Brooks was very surprised to see his own findings contradict the assumptions he had going in to the study. I came away from the book feeling encouraged that there are a lot of good people in this country who ought to get to know one another better. I highly recommend it.
An interesting read.......2007-07-21
This is a rather fascinating book. I find it interesting to read about who gives and why and who doesn't give and why. The way we give tells a lot about us as a people. So do the organizations we give to.
This book goes into great detail and uses only the data. It is not biased. It's interesting the read that the working poor give more than the rich when you take into account the percentage of their income.
It's also interesting to read that people who give are happier and that giving creates prosperity. I've always believed that --- in a secular and not religious way.
I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in giving and people who give and also to people who would like to increase their own prosperity by putting the law of giving into effect.
This is a well documented, well written book.
An excellent work of social science research.......2007-07-20
Some of the reviewers here seem to think this is mostly a partisan issue of which side - liberal or conservative - is more virtuous and compassionate. I think that's unfortunate. The author's aim is clearly to understand what makes people give to charity and how to increase charitable giving, not to make a narrowly partisan argument for one side or another. This is certainly about far more than Democrats vs. Republicans.
I particularly enjoyed the author's attempt to delve into the more transcendent side of giving, that is, the part of giving that brings out the best in people, that gives meaning to life, that makes life worth living. Another fascinating aspect of the book is the author's attempt to measure how giving to charity actually increases the giver's income by an astonishing $3.75 for each $1 given.
Reading this book, I often thought of Christopher Hitchens' book "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything." A debate between Hitchens and Brooks would be quite entertaining, and I think Brooks would prevail on the point that a secular society is not a very charitable one.
Did this guy say he was a sociologist, that's a social science right?.......2007-07-19
Although Brooks' facts may be true, that south dakota gives 78 percent more to charity than san francisco, what does that really tell us about his central premise, that conservatives are more charitable than liberals? In my opinion, it says very little. In this assertian, whats brooks does is to assume there is only one kind of liberal and one kind of conservative. That the attitude of a conservative in south dakota is the same as a conservative in san francisco or new york. Of course, on average, christians are going to donate more money to charity than non-christian. It is a part of their religion. But what about secular conservatives and christian liberals? Certainly both of those categories exist to a substantial degree. Wouldn't a comparason of christian conservatives and christian liberals, and non-christian conservatives and non-christian liberals be more... i dont know...scientific?
And although as another reviewer notes, "He takes pains to indicate that factors OTHER than political affiliation -- religious belief above all -- are of primary importance in predicting how much and how often one gives." what is the point of citing poltical values as a cause to charity other than to sell books? It would be interesting to see what the stats were before the right decided to bend over for christianity.
Book Description
Pat Buchanan is sounding the alarm. Since 9/11, more than four million illegal immigrants have crossed our borders, and there are more coming every day. Our leaders in Washington lack the political will to uphold the rule of law. The Melting Pot is broken beyond repair, and the future of our nation is at stake.
In this important book, Pat Buchanan reveals that, slowly but surely, the great American Southwest is being reconquered by Mexico. These lands---which many Mexicans believe are their birthright---are being detached ethnically, linguistically, and culturally from the United States by a deliberate policy of the Mexican regime. This is the “Aztlan Plot” for “La Reconquista,” the recapture of the lands lost by Mexico in the Texas War of Independence and Mexican-American War.
Comparing the immigrant invasion of America from across the Mexican border---and of Europe from across the Mediterranean---to the barbarian invasions that ended the Roman Empire, the author writes with passion and conviction that we have begun the final chapter of the Death of the West. Unless the invasion is halted now, Buchanan argues, by midcentury America will be a country unrecognizable to our parents, the Third World dystopia that Theodore Roosevelt warned against when he said we must never let America become a “polyglot boardinghouse” for the world.
President Bush’s failure to halt the invasion and secure America’s border, Buchanan writes, is a dereliction of constitutional duty that, in other times, would have called forth articles of impeachment. In the final chapter, “Last Chance,” he lays out a sweeping immigration reform and border security plan, which, he contends, if not pursued, means George W. Bush’s legacy will be to have lost for America a Southwest that was the legacy of Sam Houston, Andrew Jackson, and James K. Polk. With an estimated ten to fifteen million “illegals” already here and tens of millions more poised to pour across our borders, few books could be as timely---or important---as State of Emergency. It is essential reading for all Americans.
Customer Reviews:
How Significant is the Immigration Issue?.......2007-10-12
State of Emergency was written by television commentator, political speech writer, and political analyst Patrick Buchanan as a warning. This book isn't warning about pending terrorist attacks, an earth depleted of natural resources, or coming natural disasters. No, this book wars about something its author considers a far greater danger than any of those things: The slow but certain takeover of America by foreign people. Pat Buchanan feels that this constant influx of foreigners is going to overwhelm the United States in a very short time. He also worries that these foreign people are not becoming assimilated the way they should, and are thus still tied to their foreign cultures; making them less American than they should be and more likely to bring an end to America as we know it.
State of Emergency is basically a book about the direct problem of immigration and it points out many facts that should make us all wary of allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the country. One is the problem with illegal aliens and the likely expansion of the welfare state. This book raises a legitimate concern in this area, and I can understand why the author feels the ways he does about illegal immigrants and the impact they have on the nation's finances. Since the majority of these immigrants arrive from third world countries, they lack the education and sophistication to compete with ordinary Americans. But at the same time, American law protects children of the poor by offering them an education regardless of parent's financial status. This means that immigrants, generally speaking, are going to consume more services that they pay for in taxes. It will be up to the other members of society to foot the bill, and this will likely lead to a huge financial strain on the citizens of the land. This makes sense and it is one part of the book that anyone will agree with.
Another area where the book states the plain truth is with politicians. Buchanan is disgusted with Republican politicians who have decided to go soft on the immigration issue and grant amnesty to all illegals living in the U.S. Buchanan feels this is a betrayal of conservative principles and it shows that Republicans are willing to throw away any semblance of a principled political party if doing so would lead to lost elections. He is disgusted with George W. Bush more than anyone. But he also points out other Republicans and even some Democrats who are in favor of what the president has proposed doing with illegal immigrants. Whether you agree or not with the author's anger, there is truth to what he says in this regard.
I like that Buchanan was willing to tackle an important issue like this in print form. Buchanan stresses many key concerns- some of which I had not thought about before and now have considered as possible reasons to support sharp limitations in immigration. However, the book also points out key points that I disagree with, like building a fence along the border between the United States and Mexico or the philosophical idea that diversity does not lead to national strength. Given the reputation of the United States as a beacon of freedom for people all over the world, I don't see how building a fence is going to improve or even sustain that image. A physical fence seems like too much, even though Buchanan does argue for this and other key points quite effectively. And what about deporting individuals back to Mexico? Is this really the answer to America's immigration woes? How could this be accomplished without causing even greater problems?
Pat Buchanan doesn't want readers to simply take his word for it, so he offers many different statistical measurements to back his claims. This is smart because it shows that the concerns addressed in the books are not just the ranting of a paranoid senior citizen. They are very real, and there are plenty of statistics that prove the assertion that immigrants really are growing in number by leaps and bounds.
Overall, I found State of Emergency a pretty good book overall about the subject of immigration. I usually disagree with Pat Buchanan's political positions because they are often a little too extreme and they advocate too large an increase in government control over the people. I also feel that this book, with its fear- mongering and general pessimism, is a little bit on the alarmist side. But I can also see where Buchanan is coming from and his persuasive abilities are enough to give this book a three- star rating and a recommendation. I don't agree with everything it says, but it offers many important concerns about the issue of immigration with plenty of stats to prove that its concerns are valid.
xenophobia or rational position?.......2007-09-13
Buchanan, makes an impassioned argument that the country is in a 'state of emergency' because of our neglegence in dealing with the immigration issue. However, many of the arguments seem to steam from a fear that America is losing its traditional anglo-identity, and not rational arguments that show why largre-scale immigration is such a great evil for this country. While he does makes some good points and back them up with some statistics, most of the time is just trying to scare people with anticdotal evidence. I conclude that Buchanan's book, while completely correct that we need to pay attention to the immigration issue and that there could be catastrophic effects for neglecting it, fails to ever show that a large mexican immigration is a bad thing just that there needs to be restrictions in place on who we let in and what we require of them.
A Good Book but lacking in the Proper Historical Perspective .......2007-08-19
Texas, AZ, NM, CAL, Utah and most of the eastern US, areas the US now calls its own were neither paid for properly nor legally. They were stolen from their owners, both native american indians and latinos. Buchanan mentions that CAL for example only had 3,000 Mexicans in it when these lands were stolen from them. How many americans were there at the time????? Not very many. What he conveniently fails to mention are the lands which these 3,000 owned at the time, mnay of them were farmers who controlled huge areas of land in the most desireable climatic growing areas. The US government promised these people compensation for their lands if they permitted their lands to be squatted on by expansionist caucasian farmers, miners and cattlemen. But once the caucasian squatting started the deals were soon broken. The lands given to the american indians were even more laughable, typically dry, nearly waterless lands with little to no meaningful crop or cattle supporting abilities which the expansionist caucasians did not want to occupy anyway. Wow what a deal for them indeed.
This is what happens when the creation of "your" country is basically the result of an entirely "Illegal Caucasian Invasion" which is what the title of this book really should be. Unlike many other nations where new cultures immagrated in and assimililated themselves in a legal manner, the US as we know it today was essentially stolen at gunpoint from its occupants in a wholly illegal manner. Historical FACTOID! It's laughable how we whine about what is happening in the US but talk about how bad Hitler was in Germany. What exactly did Hitler do that was so bad? How about the fact he occupied lands at gunpoint, slaughtered millions of the inhabitants in those occupied lands, and committed all sorts of atrocities upon the native peoples of those lands he invaded. Sound like familiar story folks????? Well, it is, because that is EXACTLY how america was formed by primarily euro based caucasians in the past 200 years. Indians were slaughtered, their food sources wiped out, Latinos were slaughtered and those who were offered "deals" almost never ended up getting what they were promised by the US government. We took the most fertile lands available and left the desolate areas for indians and called them "reservations". Our cheap labor force in the caucasian controlled South for decades was Negro slave labor STOLEN from Africa. Now we whine about how a new wave of invaders isn't fair, pooh hoo hoo. This is called reaping what you have sowed. If you or Buchanan had bothered to study your history even a bit for the past millenium you would know that this is how all countries formed at gunpoint usually inevitably end up.
As for the laughable comment that Clinton and GW Bush caused the current immigration problem, better go study some more history. Good old Ron Reagan, the same guy who authorized selling chemical weapons to Saddam, the same guy who illegally sold weapons to Iran a sworn enemy of the US at the time, the same guy who deregulated the S&L's leading to the S&L crisis and a $1 trillion taxpayer funded bailout of the S&L crisis (through the RTC) is also the same EXACT fellow who promoted amnesty and opened the doors for the current wave of huge immigration into this nation. Bush SR also certainly played his part, and in fact up until this past November your Congress had been controlled by Republicans for the past 13 years, blame them too. And most of all do not fail to blame both US consumers and employers, many of them caucasians. Consumers who love the low prices they pay for various goods thanks to the dirt cheap illegal labor employed by so many of the companies you buy goods from and the employers themselves who knowingly employ much of this illegal cheap labor force to fatten their profits. Stop the illegal employment and you'll end the problem. But of course you'll also then pay higher prices for your produce, landscaping, construction, restaurant food bills, clothing, etc..
Blame the primarily caucasian employers employing this labor force and the primarily caucasian consumers willingly buying and benefitting from the prices of the products produced/sold by the employers of these illegals while simultaneously whining about it like crybabies. Anyone here shop at Walmart recently????????????? They have been found guilty of hundreds of illegal immigrant employment violations in the past decade. If you shop there even once a year you and your family yourselves are therefore overt supporters of illegal immigration by your own consumer actions. WM is just one of many examples.
Sad but True.......2007-08-17
I hate to say it but I agree with everything Pat said. We can't even take care of whose here. No point in bringing in more problems.
Open This Book Only in Emergency. Now?.......2007-08-06
Mr. Buchanan, as ever, comes through with an easy to-understand slant on current affairs, this time making the case for curbing the numbers of immigrants entering our nation in a major way. He's a good writer, yes; but he too often gets bogged down in short chronologies of historical events that occurred well prior to his topic. This does make for some dry, colorless reading here and there. From the Austro-Hungarian Empire to 1918 Czechoslovakia to French Enlightenment and on, in many cases, the reader is left asking "What does this have to do with the subject at hand"?
Several of the chapters are bursting at the seams with percentages, numerical comparisons, quantities, poll results...in paragraph after paragraph of analysis of populations, voting results, immigration details, dollar figures. Great pages for the researcher, but he really doesn't footnote much of the number crunching; so often one wonders: "Pat, where'd all this numbing number-information come from, anyway?"
All in all, author Buchanan makes some compelling points about the impending "take-over" of USA Southwest by Mexican immigrants [by "invasion without a shot"], quite sanctioned by the Mexican government. He discusses big-city sanctuaries for illegals, quotas, assimilation, low-pay jobs and languages...and takes to task the allegiance of Mexicans as they proclaim for themselves: "Mexican-American, but Mexican first." He points out (many times) that we can expect the "loss of our country [Southwest and all, by "2050"] as we know it," unless we make prompt national adjustments.
He proclaims "things will change" for us in a major way, but Buchanan doesn't tell us how different things actually will be. He doesn't even make small guesses as to what to expect [by 2050, his repeatedly target year]. How will new "MexiAmerica" will look and feel? Excepting his recurrent assertion that whites will be in a definite minority, he doesn't say much more about the year 2050. --But who knows, Pat. It could all be for the better!
Too, the author doesn't say much (if anything) about the current influx of Muslims into the country.... We might guess he's simply left that to Mark Styne and his work on the subject. --But we should ask: why isn't it part of this book? Isn't the fast migration of Islam also a concern of "The [total] Emergency" that we face...or is Buchanan's whole concept being slightly exaggerated after all? Finally, The author notes we have but "one more chance" to return to sanity and security...and offers many salable directions for us to take to save ourselves...including building a long, fat border; reevaluation of "anchor baby" laws; and, he says, "no amnesty."
I'm not sure Pat Buchanan's made his case here; even so, he's come up with another interesting read. Yet "State of Emergency" does have the texture of Mark Styne's "Alone America" and Buchanan's previous work, "Death of the West." It's the same Pat Buchanan here with an old focus--and a bit of new information plus some absorbing looks at how Mexicans see the USA. Three stars for a relevant re-hash of many things we pretty much know about...amid vacant history lessons we pretty much don't much care about.
Book Description
Oriana Fallaci is back with her much-anticipated follow up to The Rage and the Pride, her powerful post-September 11 manifesto. The genesis for The Force of Reason was a postscript entitled Due Anni Dopo (Two Years Later), which was intended as a brief appendix to the thirtieth edition of The Rage and the Pride (2002). Once Ms. Fallaci completed the postscript, she chose to expand it into a book, a continuation of her ideas set in motion in The Rage and the Pride.In The Force of Reason Fallaci takes aim at the many attacks and death threats she received after the publication of The Rage and the Pride. Ms. Fallaci begins by identifying herself with one Master Cecco, the author of a heretical book who was burnt at the stake during the Inquisition seven centuries ago on account of his beliefs, and proceeds with a rigorous analysis of the burning of Troy and the creation of a Europe that, to her judgment, is no longer her familiar homeland but rather a place best called Eurabia, a soon-to-be colony of Islam (with Italy as its stronghold). Ms. Fallaci explores her ideas in historical, philosophical, moral, and political terms, courageously addressing taboo topics with sharp logic.
Customer Reviews:
A Reasonable Polemic.......2007-07-24
I think that Oriana Fallaci and similar minded people need to be heard. Basically she is tired of the debasement of Western Civilization and the unfounded extoling of alternative cultures. Much of her rhetoric is passionate and funny. In the end we are all human and it is our thinking and culture which set us apart. Western Civilization has done much bad throughout history; however, it has also done much that is good. To naively dream that all thinking or ideas are equally valid is utter nonsense. People should be respected but not dysfunctional behaviors. This is one of the major points that Fallaci makes. In addition, it is sad to hear some of her stories about the defacing of important historical buildings in Florence and other parts of Europe. She providies a number of interesting vignettes.
What is needed, is a new Renaissance and Age of Reason. I only wish that Ms. Fallaci had lived to translate her third book in this series.
A must read for all who believe that Islam is not the religion of peace.......2007-05-14
To get a true grip on whats' happening in the world today because of Islam , you must know its' history and motives . Fallaci was quite well read and a very passionate writer. You should read the rage and the pride before starting this book .
I love it.......2007-04-11
One of the best books without political correctness and leftist liberalism twists.
Oriana's overview of Radical Islam.......2007-02-02
Quite a book! A lot of information not read in the daily media. Oriana brings her lifes work and experiences to bear on a topic that she is very agitated about, Radical Islam.
I found her final chapter interesting, worth thinking about at length, comparing the Inquisition to Radical Islam. RIP
The Force of Reason by Oriana Fallaci.......2007-01-11
This is a book which should be read by all. Fallaci is a major intellect; clear-thinking, a powerful writer and backs up her statements with verifiable proof. The free world is in great danger but by many insidious methods we don't notice, just as she says she did not notice for twenty years because she was so involved in fighting other wars.
I highly recommend her previous book The Rage and the Pride as well. The world lost a priceless treasure when she died.
Book Description
The book that launched the modern American conservative movement, now available in trade paperback.
Customer Reviews:
History of conservative ideas.......2007-09-16
This widely embraced overview of the history of conservativism gives readers a peek into the thoughts of the main conservative thinkers who have significantly influenced its contemporary form. Alexis de Tocqueville said that, "The surface of American society is covered with a layer of democratic paint, but from time to time one can see the old aristocratic colours breaking through." Kirk shows us the pallet to which de Tocqueville is referring.
illumination on every page.......2007-03-13
This book gave greater breadth and depth to my knowledge of conservative history and philosophy than any other book.
What I found to be most enjoyable about this book is its examination of the nature of many conservative thinkers, showing similarities and differences in the thinking of those who made the greatest impact on conservative philosophy. While the specifics of each thinker often differed, the "permenant things" remained in agreement and are the subject of our conservation.
I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in an overview of conservativism in politics or philosophy, and just as highly recommend it to liberals as a wonderful "come from"; that they may understand the nature and history of conservativism.
The Conservative's Bible.......2006-11-06
Kirk's book is supposedly the bible of Conservatives. Not neo-conservatives, but Conservatives. He sets up the long standing debate between the French, and Voltaie, and the English, using Burke as it's spokesman Supposedly Kirk would limit the vote, have a professional class of government officials, reduce if not eliminate most taxes, and let each individual strive for success. This is the basic mantra of classical conservatives, and is all well and good as far as it goes, but only a few of the many ever succeed this way. One of the surprises is how young Kirk was when this book was written; it's as if he had some inspiration for on high (probably not), or was cherry picking history (probably closer to the truth).
After reading this book I had a better understanding of where the Conservatives are coming from, althohgh I still don't understand why an obscure Royalist politician from the 18th century should be their flag bearer. Royality as a form of government most likely will never occcur in the US, although we seem to flirt with it from time to time.
Conservatives seem not admit of a meritotocracy, as we currently have in the US: they would rather rely on accidents of birth, cronyism and college organizations to select administrators, rather than people who have succeeded in other venues. A very informative, albeit frightening, book.
The Stupid Party.......2006-07-31
This book has been a major inspiration to me and my way of thinking. It is not very difficult to go online and read any number of Conservatives talking about all of the issues of the day. But, this book stands alone in following and celebrating the history of Conservative intellectuals. Often times it is portrayed (not without some merit) that Conservatives are anti-intellectual. I have frequently heard that Liberals are just naturally smarter or more inclined to be an intellectual. But, The Conservative Mind blows a hole through all of that. Kirk examines major Conservative thinkers like: Edmund Burke, John Adams, George Canning, Benjamin Disraeli, John Randolph of Roanoke, Orestes Brownson, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, John C. Calhoun, and T. S Eliot (amung many many others).
The most difficult aspect of this book is to accept John Randolph and John Calhoun as figures to be celebrated. They both were men who used their talents to protect an evil system of slavery. Although, as another reviewer elquently noted, Kirk was not endnorsing slavery or racism or anything like that. Just the fact that Conservatism is a The "negation of ideology," and that change will happen, in Kirk's prospective Calhoun was only following that line of thinking. I personally don't agree with it that far. As obviously slavery was antithesis of what the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution stand for. But, again stating, Kirk is not writing to argue that slavery should not have been eliminated- only that change has to follow the methods of that society.
I would recommend this to anyone- Conservative or Liberal. It is a magifnicent study of Conservativism. It can be a little dense at times, but that is to be expected and it shouldn't detour anyone from reading it.
Repellent Sale of Conservativism.......2005-08-18
The fatalistic view of Conservativism is expressed by Kirk even before the first chapter concludes as he states, "[Edmund] Burke, could he see our century, never would concede that a consumption-society, so near suicide, is the end for which Providence has prepared man". But wait. The Conservative Mind was first published in 1953, the mythical golden age of America with Ward and June Cleaver and Normal Rockwell. Meanwhile, Burke, a contemporary of the 18th century is pining for the 14th century. What a depressing ideology to think that we always live in the worst of times.
There are certain ideological threads that carry throughout the book including a belief in the stratification of society. Voting should be the privilege of a small minority rather than universal democracy which Kirk saw as contributing to a degradation of society. Kirk writes, "What men really are seeking, or ought to seek, is not the right to govern themselves, but the right to be governed well" but what he offers is a lack of true representation. The author pines for the days of the aristocrat and although he defines the elites by wealth, intellect and lineage he clearly includes race and gender. Is it so surprising that Kirk lauds some of the worst racists in American history like Nathanial Bedford Forrest whom he describes as `magnificent' before quoting his racist vitriol? In a particularly galling move he referrers to pro-slavery advocate John C. Calhoun as a `defender of minorities' and praises John Randolph for, among other things, opposing doctrines of racial equality. Kirk goes on about Calhoun's support for states rights but his support only extended to southern states as he supported the Fugitive Slave Act which forced federal officials and law officials in Northern states to return runaway slave under penalty of $1000 fine. He supported laws that would make it illegal for northerners to even protest slavery. For Calhoun states rights were nothing more than a self serving attempt to keep slavery safe. Kirk shows his own racist stripes when he refers to northern `anti-slavery agitation' and supports Calhoun for choosing racial preservation over liberty, although Calhoun has an extremely warped view of liberty. One wonders if Kirk could even fathom the supreme irony in stating the Calhoun mounted a `strong protest against domination by class or region'.
Another thread is his desire to see the reunification of church and state. The duty of the church is to keep the unclean masses in line. Quoting Samuel Coleridge, the author makes it clear that the truth or falsity of the church is irrelevant; it is an institution that must be preserved as the primary means of social control. Sounding like the inspiration for disgraced Chief Justice Roy Moore, Russell Kirk urges that, "state and church ought never to be separate entities, true religion is not merely an expression of national spirit; it rises far superior to earthly law, being, indeed, the source of all law". Kirk sees a difference between the faulty laws of man and the laws of God but never draws a distinction. I have to wonder if, like the modern Reconstructionist, Kirk wanted to see the laws of Leviticus imposed including executing homosexuals and blasphemers. He never explains how one might recognize a law of God besides using prejudice.
The third thread would be Kirk's anti-intellectual (or perhaps pro-stupid) stance. He refers to human reason as `puny' and `impotent' and claims that we find the mind of God in prejudice and tradition. `Prejudice', he writes, `is of ready application in the emergency; it previously engages the mind in a steady course of wisdom and virtue, and does not leave the man hesitating in the moment of decision, skeptical, puzzled, and unresolved'. Actually what he is advocating is for the general population to turn over rational thought to the church and those higher up the social chain. Citizens are encouraged to exhibit awe and veneration for God and those in higher stations and authority.
In order to grab the golden fleece of populism Conservatives have lately had to abandon overt stratification although veneration of wealth is certainly still evident. Like Calhoun the support for states rights remains a complete façade. I found Russell Kirk's salesmanship of Conservativism generally repellent but recommend the book because it remains a fairly enlightening view of an ideology that continues to thrive to this day.
Book Description
A classic work in political philosophy, intellectual and cultural history, and economics, The Road to Serfdom has inspired and infuriated politicians, scholars, and general readers for half a century. Originally published in England in the spring of 1944—when Eleanor Roosevelt supported the efforts of Stalin, and Albert Einstein subscribed lock, stock, and barrel to the socialist program—The Road to Serfdom was seen as heretical for its passionate warning against the dangers of state control over the means of production. For F. A. Hayek, the collectivist idea of empowering government with increasing economic control would inevitably lead not to a utopia but to the horrors of nazi Germany and fascist Italy.
First published by the University of Chicago Press on September 18, 1944, The Road to Serfdom garnered immediate attention from the public, politicians, and scholars alike. The first printing of 2,000 copies was exhausted instantly, and within six months more than 30,000 were sold. In April of 1945, Reader's Digest published a condensed version of the book, and soon thereafter the Book-of-the-Month Club distributed this condensation to more than 600,000 readers. A perennial best-seller, the book has sold over a quarter of a million copies in the United States, not including the British edition or the nearly twenty translations into such languages as German, French, Dutch, Swedish, and Japanese, and not to mention the many underground editions produced in Eastern Europe before the fall of the iron curtain.
After thirty-two printings in the United States, The Road to Serfdom has established itself alongside the works of Alexis de Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill, and George Orwell for its timeless meditation on the relation between individual liberty and government authority. This fiftieth anniversary edition, with a new introduction by Milton Friedman, commemorates the enduring influence of The Road to Serfdom on the ever-changing political and social climates of the twentieth century, from the rise of socialism after World War II to the Reagan and Thatcher "revolutions" in the 1980s and the transitions in Eastern Europe from communism to capitalism in the 1990s.
F. A. Hayek (1899-1992), recipient of the Medal of Freedom in 1991 and co-winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 1974, was a pioneer in monetary theory and the principal proponent of libertarianism in the twentieth century.
On the first American edition of The Road to Serfdom:
"One of the most important books of our generation. . . . It restates for our time the issue between liberty and authority with the power and rigor of reasoning with which John Stuart Mill stated the issue for his own generation in his great essay On Liberty. . . . It is an arresting call to all well-intentioned planners and socialists, to all those who are sincere democrats and liberals at heart to stop, look and listen."—Henry Hazlitt, New York Times Book Review, September 1944
"In the negative part of Professor Hayek's thesis there is a great deal of truth. It cannot be said too often—at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough—that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of."—George Orwell, Collected Essays
Customer Reviews:
A great examination of classical liberal principles.......2007-09-27
In the 'Road to Serfdom' Hayek has provided a lucid, thoughtful examination of the virtues of classical liberalism and the vices of socialism. His first-hand experience and historical understanding of the development of socialism and its common end in totalitarianism is a timeless lesson for any student of politics.
Greatest Book ever.......2007-09-10
This is by far the greatest book of political philosophy I have ever read. A must read, more so know than when it was written.
Conservative comments during the birth of socialism.......2007-09-06
This book details the bankruptcy of socialism and liberalism from its inception. YOu must read this before you read Coulter, Walter Williams, etc. He was way ahead of the curve.
I have not looked at politics the same since..........2007-08-28
If I recommend a book(s) to a friend this one is included. This book promotes free market ideas without using the crutch that they are more effective. At the same time Hayek realizes the need for wise governance that may intervene in economic affairs. The Road to Serfdom is written to protect us from stumbling into tyranny, as the German people did, by giving our government great economic power.
Hayek needs to be properly understood, not propagandized........2007-07-18
As far as these endless political arguments go, this is an old book used by some to light the fuse anew. As a literary piece it is a fine document from a much troubled time, but its supposed ideology is being often somewhat misrepresented. A couple of things are getting missed by the average politically motivated (well, american anyway) reviewer on this one. Despite the universality of the main thesis (that state control of a variety of aspects and enterprise, whether legally and constitutionally worded and believed in as being paramount for the benefit of the citizenry, or simply as the outcome of benevolent governance, is a way of stripping man of his means to be free), the logic of the application of this rationale is deeply affected by its placement in its moment in history. It is the case therefore that all surmisings on parallel likelihoods must be thus affected.
Hayek's main concept, whether applied to Nazi Germany, Bolshevik Russia or Rancidville's (ok, I mean Crawford's!!) Americana is notionally correct. Once you hand a right of power which can be used to create fear and subservience over to any government (unless it is populated by the likes of Voltaire and John Stuart Mill and Thomas Jefferson and maybe Seneca and Bob Dylan!) historical precedent suggests that said governance is most likely going to resist lightly handing that power back, and in many cases, given human nature's inherent uglinesses and the dead-heart ability to reason as if opponents are practically subhuman, will use this power to help build and create other power accretions which are cumulatively more restrictive and repugnant to any opposing notion of individuality.
The fallacy of utilizing Hayek as some theorist of Capitalist Corporation related governance, as some reviewers are effortlessly indulging their lucky selves, is of course, very importantly for Americans and the Western World in this day and age, that this work and its proofs are being co-opted (sociologically) as a type of political documentation of theory, and NOT necessarily anymore as, first and foremost, an economic one. The problem with this is that this makes no sense as a parameter to be viewed as the first cobblestone on the road to Serfdom which Hayek saw. Why? Because most western governments ALREADY HAVE the power to allocate and spend their exchequer funding in whatever manner they choose. Should they seek to use the majority of this largesse primarially to foster a certain notion of economic growth, or to fund basic services for the poorer of their citizenry is certainly a matter for some rational economic debate as to which instance in each case is the correct course, and where ultimately the more benefit for society lies. But it is not a matter for the same political debate as the question of what exactly it may be which leads us back along that road to serfdom.
Hayek's thesis bases itself upon varietal factors which emanated widely in the period of instability when his work was written. His thesis that central economic planning tends toward government control of the citizen's life, and therefore toward the totalitarian state, can and should be viewed as a particular of its time. Hayek would have (most likely) been the first to also accept the competing theory that this state of affairs (governmental control of freedom) is as possible in a completely unregulated society, where law is over-ruled by the wealthy and powerful when it best suits their interests. The functioning of the economic state is therefore possible at all points between, as a function of the working of a free and good society. What is required alongside it, are honorable men, who would rather use tax largesse for the betterment of the poor than the reasonless bombing of some other poor.
A final surmising on this could be stated thus:
A man who lives freely in a reasonably well policed society where law is defined between a time trusted combination of government and jurisprudence and the rationale of the individual life, is not a man who lives in a society where the law is to be defined by some combination of a government (where the members believe they are receiving messages from some word called God, and acting accordingly) and jurisprudence and the rationale of living an individual's life... etc ...
My assumption, for what it is worth, is that Hayek would join me in viewing such a society as itself being already somewhere back on the road to serfdom.
Book Description
Written by a non-Jewish analytic philosopher, this book addresses the issue of whether, and to what extent, current opposition to Israel on the liberal-left embodies anti-Semitic stances. It argues that the dominant climate of liberal opinion disseminates, however inadvertently, a range of anti-Semitic assertions and motifs of the most traditional kind. It advocates a return to an unrestricted anti-racism which would allow liberals to defend Palestinian interests without demonizing Jews.
Customer Reviews:
Very thoughtful and well-written.......2007-06-24
This is a careful work on the nature of the resurgence of anti-Semitism. We see the ill will, the falsehoods, and lack of logic displayed by the anti-Semites, and there's some speculation on what gets some folks to behave in such a manner.
Bernard Harrison starts by discussing some of the properties of political anti-Semitism. He says that it generally includes, as a minimum, the proposition that Jews are a mysterious, depraved, and conspiratorial society which threatens the well-being of any nation which harbors them. And he reminds us that many of the accusations made against "the Jews" are simply self-inconsistent or incoherent. For example, the blood libel accusations are generally of the form that observant Jews commit ritual murder for religious reasons, something which is, of course, expressly forbidden by their religion. We also generally see anti-Semites simultaneously claim (or imply) that Jews are so powerful as to be responsible for the bulk of the evil in today's society yet are so powerless that they can be attacked with impunity (I tend to believe that those who make such claims are more serious about the latter one).
We also see discussions of the preposterous claim that mere criticism of Israel is sufficient to get one automatically branded as an anti-Semite. As well as another ridiculous claim that almost anyone who finds anything about Israel that is worthy of support is Jewish, and that pretty much anyone who is Jewish supports Israel. And the even more absurd claim that Israel is basically a colonial enterprise is also quickly refuted.
Harrison also is careful to distinguish between explaining why Israel exists and justifying Israel's existence. I agree. The fact that Jerusalem had been (and still was) the Jewish capital city in the 19th century helps explain why many Jews tried moving to the region once they had the opportunity to do so. The White Paper of 1939 helps explain why the number of Jews who demanded a Jewish state quickly became a majority once World War Two broke out. But these facts, by themselves do not "justify" what happened, nor do they "establish" Israel's "right to exist."
The author does write about fascism and the concept of "total war," including war against civilians. Here, he makes an excellent point, namely that claims about the "guilt" of such civilians make no sense. As he explains, even if one assents to the idea of capital punishment, "punishment" makes no sense without the concept of desert, desert makes no sense without a practicable and practiced system of laws, laws require some general acquiescence in their operation, acquiescence requires reconciliation, and reconciliation requires all sides to admit their own errors and as a minimum the right of their adversaries to exist. Obviously, any bunch of gangsters can go around murdering people, but we ought to remind ourselves that they are not necessarily "punishing" those who "deserve it."
There is a discussion about whether or not there ought to be a "Holocaust Day" for remembering that societies can make some terrible moral mistakes. Here, Harrison is careful to explain that the emphasis on the suffering of the victims is probably misplaced, as plenty of people have suffered in all sorts of tragedies. No, the emphasis ought to be on the terrible results, systematic annihilation of groups of people, of a certain kind of corruption which springs from a philosophy of racial superiority. Again, I agree. I'm not so sure we need a Holocaust Day, but I certainly do not buy the argument that such a day makes the Jews special, or makes Jewish blood worth more (or less) than the blood of non-Jews. The author makes the point that some people are envious of the sympathy that they think some Jews receive for the Holocaust and wish to use that word (often without its actual meaning) to get some sympathy for themselves. I find such an idea doubly misguided, as I tend to agree with Herzl that even appeals for sympathy by the genuinely oppressed are futile and dishonorable.
Some folks do insist on "dismantling" Israel, and Harrison discusses this at length. Here, he makes another good point, namely that the would-be dismantlers do not seem to worry much about how to protect the rights of the Jews in the region after the "dismantling." Instead, we see one anti-Israeli claim to be worried about the "fate" of the Jews, as if the Jews ought not have rights and as if whatever happens to the Jews is not only the fault of the Jews, but something the rest of us can't possibly prevent or be responsible for.
The lack of logic of some anti-Semitic claims does get exposed. We see the "mysteriousness" of the Jews used as a means to explain how the Jews can accomplish vast crimes even when they lack both motive and opportunity. Of course, when it gets to claims that "the Jewish lobby" has managed to reduce "the entire American political establishment to a state of bemused sleepwalking" for the past forty years, Harrison explains that we're not only talking about Jews doing the impossible, but about the American people being quite a bit stupider than they really are.
Near the end of the book, the author asks if anti-Semitism matters. Does it matter that the Guardian spouts a fair amount of it? Well, yes, it does. The terror we see is not helping Arabs, Jews, or anyone else. And responsible people ought to feel bound by a duty to support truth and facts. Harrison says that while one can live without understanding world affairs, one can't "live perfectly well on a diet of murderous lies. Europe tried that in the 1930s. It would do well not to try it again."
I highly recommend this book.
Focused, well-argued, important.......2007-01-15
I write as a long-time leftist, writer on Marxist theory, and charter member of the New Left.
Harrison brings a precise philosopher's intelligence to the vexing, frightening, and at times disgusting phenomenon of left-wing anti-semitism. If his history is at times one-sided and his account of the left simplistic, he has nailed the many failures of left moral clarity and intellectual imagination. If you've ever wondered why and how seemingly liberal, left, anti-racist, nice people can hold such distorted views on Israel, this is an excellent book for you. If you think of yourself as progressive and think Israel has no right to exist, or is the sole cause of the conflict, you'd better read it immediately.
Books:
- Architectural Graphic Standards, Tenth Edition (Book only)
- Back to the Bedroom
- Buddhism Plain and Simple
- Call of the Mall: The Geography of Shopping by the Author of Why We Buy
- Classical Living: Reconnecting With the Rituals for Ancient Rome
- Color for Interior Design
- Color Your Home: More than 65,000 at-a-glance Room Combinations
- Complete Deck Book (Complete Book)
- Concise Rules of APA Style (Concise Rules of the American Psychological Association (APA) Style)
- Concrete Countertops: Design, Form, and Finishes for the New Kitchen and Bath
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- Proposals That Work: A Guide for Planning Dissertations and Grant Proposals
- Family Therapy Sourcebook: Second Edition
- The Secret Power of Music: The Transformation of Self and Society Through Musical Energy
- Tintin in the Congo
- Applying UML and Patterns: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and Iterative Deve
- Encyclopedia Prehistorica Dinosaurs: The Definitive Pop-Up
- Cut and Run: Loggin' Off the Big Woods
- Understanding Your Accounts
- Unit Roots, Cointegration, and Structural Change
- J.D. Robb Collection 4: Witness in Death, Judgment in Death, and Betrayal in Death
General
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years
While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within
The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Islam (and the Crusades) (Politically Incorrect Guides)
The Face of the Tiger
