Political Books (Official Thread)

[Posthardcore]

I've seen a lot of political books through my researches, So i figured I'd thread it.

Questions:

What political book(s) have you read, who was the author, are they Liberal, Moderate, or Conservative, and what do you think of the book?

_______

I'm currently reading Red, White, and liberal by Alan Colmes who i'm sure as most know, is a liberal.

http://www.curledup.com/books/redwhite.jpg

I'm actually surprised about the book. I was very skeptic on reading such a book like this, but it has really widened my views on the war.

[Neo Cassady]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/I_Am_America_%28And_So_Can_You%21%2 9.jpg

But it's been a while since I've read any serious political books. I'll be looking in this thread for recs.

[saysmydoctor]

Sticky this thread, I'll be here later.

[boykosaurus]

Eh, I can't really suggest any books that deal with domestic politics since I haven't read one for years. I could toss in my two cents on international affairs books though.

[Broken Parachute]

http://www.conelrad.com/images/glorious_disaster_cvr.jpg

[Broken Parachute]

Has anyone ever read this? I've always wanted to so badly, but never got the chance...

http://www.shopaim.org/assets/images/blacklistedbyhistory.jpg

[Machu505]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51U1uT7ZRzL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb -sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg

[IAmNietzche]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41DbFfBAvVL._SS500_.jpg

[Mitch]

I just started The Communist Manifesto. Somehow, I never really learned about Marx in school.

[xshady121]

I've read a bunch of books this semester. While I'm about to read Huckabees book , I've been told good things about "Averting the Final Failure" http://www.amazon.com/Averting-Final-Failure-Meetings-Stanford/dp/0804748462 I should be getting that for christmas.

[xhellalujahx]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41CZ985V5DL.jpg

I'm about halfway through at present, and find it very enthralling. Very thorough, highly recommended for anyone interested.

[boykosaurus]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41CZ985V5DL.jpg

I'm about halfway through at present, and find it very enthralling. Very thorough, highly recommended for anyone interested.

Excellent book. I have two copies, a clean one and one completely filled with notes and highlighter.

If people like this book check out his other ones.

[lightupthesky]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/I_Am_America_%28And_So_Can_You%21%2 9.jpg

But it's been a while since I've read any serious political books. I'll be looking in this thread for recs.

god damnit, came in to say this

[Brianfarg]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y161/salebay/nchomsky_pic1.jpg

[Broken Parachute]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41DbFfBAvVL._SS500_.jpg
Is this really good? I've wanted to read it so badly.

[xshady121]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21PJ9CQ7YTL._SL500_AA140_.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/Mortal-Presidency-Illness-Anguish-White/dp/0823218376

It's really interesting, about how illness has affected presidents.

[1Roth4]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/HowToTalkToALiberal.jpg


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c0/OReillyCultureWarrior.png

I'm just kidding. I have, and would never read these

[OldJersey]

Im glad you were kidding, fuck Ann Coulter. Fuck her.

[Machu505]

Ann Coulter needs to burst into flames.

[1Roth4]

haha, I agree. I consider myself a Conservative, but they're just ignorant fucks.

[1Roth4]

Actually, I'm lying. I was given the O'Reilly book as a joke one year, I have yet to open it.

[Machu505]

haha, I agree. I consider myself a Conservative, but they're just ignorant fucks.

Conservative in the American sense or the Canadian/European sense?

[1Roth4]

Conservative in the American sense or the Canadian/European sense?

Probably Canadian. Being Conservative in the U.S brings along being a social conservative, something I am not. Those key social issues that the Republicans have campaigned on, aren't things that Conservatives worry about in Canada.

[Machu505]

Probably Canadian. Being Conservative in the U.S brings along being a social conservative, something I am not. Those key social issues that the Republicans have campaigned on, aren't things that Conservatives worry about in Canada.

So you aren't a social conservative? Sounds good to me.

[1Roth4]

So you aren't a social conservative? Sounds good to me.

Gay Marriage, Abortion, Stem Cell Research, (among others) I don't agree with the Conservative stance on these issues.

[Machu505]

Gay Marriage, Abortion, Stem Cell Research, (among others) I don't agree with the Conservative stance on these issues.

Haha, in the States you'd be on the far left.

[1Roth4]

Haha, in the States you'd be on the far left.

Oh for sure. Those issues in Canada are moot.And rightfully so. Its probably mainly because our "religious right" is a small minority, where its massive in the U.S.

[LastPlaceRocks]

At the moment I'm reading The New American Story by Bill Bradley.

[born to expire]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41CZ985V5DL.jpg

I'm about halfway through at present, and find it very enthralling. Very thorough, highly recommended for anyone interested.

I started trying to read this a year ago but only read 100 or so pages. I should pick it up again.

Right now I am reading bits and pieces of this:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41F3WN42S4L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb -sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg

I had to read part of it for a class two years ago so I figured I'd pick it up and read the chapters that looked most interesting. Did WWII, late 70s, and now I'm on Reagan. Next up is this:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lcKxxPHEL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb -sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg

...which I also started reading a year and a half ago but never got through. Gonna start from the beginning.

[born to expire]

So you aren't a social conservative? Sounds good to me.

I am also conservative, but not socially. The religious right has destroyed the idea behind true conservatism and ultimately what it means to be a Republican anyway.

[Machu505]

I am also conservative, but not socially. The religious right has destroyed the idea behind true conservatism and ultimately what it means to be a Republican anyway.

The religious right are to blame for many of the United States' current problems. The way I see it, they created the political gridlock we see in Washington today. Nothing ever gets done because of the division. The "wedge issues" are killing us.

[xshady121]

The religious right are to blame for many of the United States' current problems. The way I see it, they created the political gridlock we see in Washington today. Nothing ever gets done because of the division. The "wedge issues" are killing us.

:crackup:

[boykosaurus]

They've created a gridlock on some issues, like science, but certainly not an overall gridlock.

[Machu505]

They've created a gridlock on some issues, like science, but certainly not an overall gridlock.

Those are the exact issues I'm speaking of.

[GuitarR0cker1]

They've created a gridlock on some issues, like science, but certainly not an overall gridlock.
Well of course the religious right will mostly care about social issues.

[born to expire]

They've created a gridlock on some issues, like science, but certainly not an overall gridlock.

To be fair, there is a pretty big gridlock. Presidential candidates have succumb to their party ideologies, which, in the case of the Republican party, is a damn shame. McCain's campaign was miserable because he had to. accept the Republican party ideology. He was a "maverick" before, but definitely didn't display it because of the close-mindedness of the Republican party. Most people assume Republicans are idiots or inconsiderate because of the monopoly that the religion has in the Republican party. I think that poses a huge gridlock. One party is seen as forward thinking, the other as backward. The majority of well-educated young voters are liberal and think Republican is a bad word... I would know, I get enough shit for being one.

[xshady121]

To be fair, there is a pretty big gridlock. Presidential candidates have succumb to their party ideologies, which, in the case of the Republican party, is a damn shame. McCain's campaign was miserable because he had to. accept the Republican party ideology. He was a "maverick" before, but definitely didn't display it because of the close-mindedness of the Republican party. Most people assume Republicans are idiots or inconsiderate because of the monopoly that the religion has in the Republican party. I think that poses a huge gridlock. One party is seen as forward thinking, the other as backward. The majority of well-educated young voters are liberal and think Republican is a bad word... I would know, I get enough shit for being one.

No, gridlock is a product of congress, and the polarization of the political parties. To put it solely on the presidential candidates is wrong.

[GuitarR0cker1]

No, gridlock is a product of congress, and the polarization of the political parties. To put it solely on the presidential candidates is wrong.
The polarization of political parties has been caused by Reagan rhetoric and the movement that put him into power. You would have to be a fool to not see that both the Religious Right and Club For Growth will work to shun any Republican that is not far to the right with primary challengers. Notice there are no real moderates left in the Republican Party. This has to do with other large reasons too but there is a good chance the Republicans will be out of power for 8 to 12 years if party infighting happens(which is quite inevitable if the economy improves under Obama's administration)

[born to expire]

No, gridlock is a product of congress, and the polarization of the political parties. To put it solely on the presidential candidates is wrong.

Yes. My point is that the polarization exists because of the religious right. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear above, I sort of went on a little rant.

[LastPlaceRocks]

To be fair, there is a pretty big gridlock. Presidential candidates have succumb to their party ideologies, which, in the case of the Republican party, is a damn shame. McCain's campaign was miserable because he had to. accept the Republican party ideology. He was a "maverick" before, but definitely didn't display it because of the close-mindedness of the Republican party. Most people assume Republicans are idiots or inconsiderate because of the monopoly that the religion has in the Republican party. I think that poses a huge gridlock. One party is seen as forward thinking, the other as backward. The majority of well-educated young voters are liberal and think Republican is a bad word... I would know, I get enough shit for being one.
That's always the case with young voters, although it will change some as they grow up.

No, gridlock is a product of congress, and the polarization of the political parties. To put it solely on the presidential candidates is wrong.
I have to partially agree with this. A lot of gridlock is a result of the two parties being unwilling to compromise.

[born to expire]

That's always the case with young voters, although it will change some as they grow up.


Yes, but I think that there is a culture right now that is unprecedented in its hatred for Republicans.

[LastPlaceRocks]

Yes, but I think that there is a culture right now that is unprecedented in its hatred for Republicans.
I agree to a point, but that also has something to do with the continuing polarization of the two political parties. There's still an "us versus them" mentality on both sides which has been implemented upon us young adults who came of age during the Bush administration.

[xshady121]

The polarization of political parties has been caused by Reagan rhetoric and the movement that put him into power.
Political polarization happened after Reagans administration, under both Bush and Clinton, and more recently Bush II. However, this does NOT mean that it is purely the fault of the president.

You would have to be a fool to not see that both the Religious Right and Club For Growth will work to shun any Republican that is not far to the right with primary challengers.
Yes, as will the far left shun any candidate that is too far too the middle. It's Campaigning 101, you run as far to your respective side in the primaries, and back to the middle in the general.

Notice there are no real moderates left in the Republican Party.
Notice how there are no real moderates left in the Democratic Party. Or Liberal Republicans or Conservative Democrats. Your point?

This has to do with other large reasons too...
No, the polarization is a result as both parties viewing the other as enemies, rather than people fighting for the same common goal. They think in terms of winning rather than compromise. Both sides are guilty, if you think it's just one OR the other, you're severely mistaken.

[xshady121]

Yes. My point is that the polarization exists because of the religious right. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear above, I sort of went on a little rant.

Polarization isn't purely because of the religious right. The religious right is guilty of contributing to it, but as I said above, the fact that there are no Conservative democrats or liberal republicans anymore.


I have to partially agree with this. A lot of gridlock is a result of the two parties being unwilling to compromise.

You should read the book "Governing By Campaigning" , it studies the Bush presidency and how he has adopted the technique (That Obama is now implementing) of taking his message to the public rather than taking it to congress and working on compromising. He did so because if the public applied pressure to congress, they would be more willing to compromise, because polarization was so bad that he couldn't get anything done. This method worked for a bit, but even the Republicans went against him in 2004...

[x togepi x]

Political polarization happened after Reagans administration, under both Bush and Clinton, and more recently Bush II. However, this does NOT mean that it is purely the fault of the president.


You are the most misinformed person on this website.

[LastPlaceRocks]

You should read the book "Governing By Campaigning" , it studies the Bush presidency and how he has adopted the technique (That Obama is now implementing) of taking his message to the public rather than taking it to congress and working on compromising. He did so because if the public applied pressure to congress, they would be more willing to compromise, because polarization was so bad that he couldn't get anything done. This method worked for a bit, but even the Republicans went against him in 2004...
Sounds interesting, I'll put it on my list.

[asmolitor]

Political polarization happened after Reagans administration, under both Bush and Clinton, and more recently Bush II. However, this does NOT mean that it is purely the fault of the president.

... seriously? polarization of political parties is only 20 years old? seriously?

The polarization of political parties has been caused by Reagan rhetoric and the movement that put him into power.

again? really?

i'd say the best catalyst for polarization in the modern era would be the congressional reforms around the early 1970's - with purging the "southern democrats" with more conservative viewpoints from the party, stemming from vietnam/civil rights fallout. not to mention the democrats subverting the committee chairmen power they held by strengthening subcommittees, which in turn increased polarization by overpoliticizing the composition of those (sub)committees. by leaving the democrats comprised of "northern" liberals, and letting the southern conservative democrats defect to the GOP, i'd say that aligned the current liberal-democrat and conservative-republican divide.

[xshady121]

... seriously? polarization of political parties is only 20 years old? seriously?



again? really?
No, but it is undoubtedly more prevalent in the past 20 years. I would lift the quote directly from the book (http://www.amazon.com/Governing-Campaigning-Politics-Presidency-Questions/dp/0321437675), but I don't have it with me, but it was something like, when discussing Bush's Social Security reform, he thought the big hurdle would be getting the democrats on board. Under his father, the president had a list of 25-40 democratic senators and reps that would vote republican if courted, but that list dwindled down to around 8-10 during the first W. term (and even lower in the second, but Edwards didn't have any solid figures). There is no doubt that polarization has never been THIS bad.

i'd say the best catalyst for polarization in the modern era would be the congressional reforms around the early 1970's - with purging the "southern democrats" with more conservative viewpoints from the party, stemming from vietnam/civil rights fallout. not to mention the democrats subverting the committee chairmen power they held by strengthening subcommittees, which in turn increased polarization by overpoliticizing the composition of those (sub)committees. by leaving the democrats comprised of "northern" liberals, and letting the southern conservative democrats defect to the GOP, i'd say that aligned the current liberal-democrat and conservative-republican divide.


This is what I was getting at in my post earlier.

[xshady121]

You are the most misinformed person on this website.

There is no doubt that in the history of politics, polarization has never been as bad as it has been in the past 15 years or so. So no, I am not "misinformed". Also, polarization is solely to blame on both parties purging itself of the liberal-republicans and conservative democrats.

[boykosaurus]

Political polarization happened after Reagans administration, under both Bush and Clinton, and more recently Bush II. However, this does NOT mean that it is purely the fault of the president.


Yes, as will the far left shun any candidate that is too far too the middle. It's Campaigning 101, you run as far to your respective side in the primaries, and back to the middle in the general.


Notice how there are no real moderates left in the Democratic Party. Or Liberal Republicans or Conservative Democrats. Your point?


No, the polarization is a result as both parties viewing the other as enemies, rather than people fighting for the same common goal. They think in terms of winning rather than compromise. Both sides are guilty, if you think it's just one OR the other, you're severely mistaken.

Blue Dogs, and I don't know of their Republican equivalent but I'm sure they're out there.

[born to expire]

You should all read Barbara Sinclair’s Party Wars: Polarization and the Politics of National Policy Making.

[xshady121]

Blue Dogs, and I don't know of their Republican equivalent but I'm sure they're out there.

In the late 50s early 60s, they were a lot more obvious then they were today.

[GuitarR0cker1]

... seriously? polarization of political parties is only 20 years old? seriously?



again? really?

i'd say the best catalyst for polarization in the modern era would be the congressional reforms around the early 1970's - with purging the "southern democrats" with more conservative viewpoints from the party, stemming from vietnam/civil rights fallout. not to mention the democrats subverting the committee chairmen power they held by strengthening subcommittees, which in turn increased polarization by overpoliticizing the composition of those (sub)committees. by leaving the democrats comprised of "northern" liberals, and letting the southern conservative democrats defect to the GOP, i'd say that aligned the current liberal-democrat and conservative-republican divide.
Of course it isn't but in the modern era of politics(which I would say starts with the Great Depression), this type of polarization is pretty new.

Well of course this is what started the end of an trend(southern democrats defecting) but Reagan rhetoric was the blow that finally won almost all of these voters over to the Republican Party. The roots of discontent were already there among southern Democrats and had been there since the 1940's. Without Reagan there would have beena much slower turnover to the Republicans among southern Democrats which would have slowed polarization down considerably. This would have led to less turnover among moderate Republicans in the northeast to the Democrats because of less social conservatism among the Republicans etc. Reagan and the modern conservative movement were what finally severed the blow to have our current alignment not the 1970's "purging".

[Machu505]

Blue Dogs, and I don't know of their Republican equivalent but I'm sure they're out there.

Olympia Snowe is definitely liberal, and Shelley Moore Capito and John Warner are moderates. I'll call 'em red dogs.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Olympia Snowe is definitely liberal, and Shelley Moore Capito and John Warner are moderates. I'll call 'em red dogs.
I would just call her moderate, add in Susan Collins too if you have Warner.

[Machu505]

I would just call her moderate, add in Susan Collins too if you have Warner.

I was just naming the first ones to come to my head.

[boykosaurus]

When I visited Congressmen (almost met Nancy Pelosi to make it women) this past Summer I got the impression that you have to look at Congress in two ways: they make our country "run" and they help create and/or support policy. Of course, setting policy is part making the country "run" but in this regard there's a lot of cooperation to get it done. On th other hand, most other issues that can directly, indirectly, or not at all tied to the progress of our country (yeah somewhat of cheap catch-all way to defend this, but whatever) receive so much passion from two or more sides in addition to media attention the negative that there appears to be this partisan gridlock.

I believe that we can do better at coming together on issues but congress--not the electorate however--does a pretty fine job at a basic level in my opinion.

[x togepi x]

There is no doubt that in the history of politics, polarization has never been as bad as it has been in the past 15 years or so. So no, I am not "misinformed". Also, polarization is solely to blame on both parties purging itself of the liberal-republicans and conservative democrats.

See, what's awesome is that you claim that there's "no conservative democrats" yet you ignore the Blue Dogs, which were a huge reason the democrats won seats in 2006. who are the blue dogs? CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS.

and seriously? polarization has never been as bad as it is in the past 15 years? You do realize that polarization in the 1800s was way worse, to the point where people were beating each other with canes on the senate floor, and polarization in the 50s essentially included calling people traitors outright instead of just implying it and trying to get them arrested for being communist.

[xshady121]

and seriously? polarization has never been as bad as it is in the past 15 years? You do realize that polarization in the 1800s was way worse, to the point where people were beating each other with canes on the senate floor, and polarization in the 50s essentially included calling people traitors outright instead of just implying it and trying to get them arrested for being communist.

To quote GuitarRocker,
Of course it isn't but in the modern era of politics(which I would say starts with the Great Depression), this type of polarization is pretty new.

You can't compare politics now to the 1800s. That's apples and oranges. In the modern era, which if you read this thread you would have known was being discussed, yes polarization is the worst it's ever been.

[x togepi x]

To quote GuitarRocker,


You can't compare politics now to the 1800s. That's apples and oranges. In the modern era, which if you read this thread you would have known was being discussed, yes polarization is the worst it's ever been.

Interesting, since I also used an example from the fifties where people were literally losing their jobs because things were so polarized that people feared that members of certain political parties ie: liberals were USSR agents. I'm pretty sure the 50s post-date the great depression. I really don't think Bush outright said "liberals are members of terrorist cells."

Your boy Reagan was polarizing. just admit it. that's what that whole morning in america bullshit was all about. to point out that the good guys won.

[lazzarat]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y161/salebay/nchomsky_pic1.jpg

I like Chomsky, but I didn't like this book at all... just wasn't very well written or organized and a lot of it was just kinda nutty... Failed States was a bit better... but honestly I think his best stuff is in interviews, which are often released in books (relatively recently, What We Say Goes and Perilous Power), or just go to chomsy.info.

[xhellalujahx]

I like Chomsky, but I didn't like this book at all... just wasn't very well written or organized and a lot of it was just kinda nutty... Failed States was a bit better... but honestly I think his best stuff is in interviews, which are often released in books (relatively recently, What We Say Goes and Perilous Power), or just go to chomsy.info.

I'm reading this periodically alongside Ghost Wars, and agree with it being a bit disorganized. I also agree that as a whole Chomsky's best stuff is in interviews as well as lectures. He holds up well though, Manufacturing Consent is still largely relevant, I find. I'm still towards the beginning of the book, so I'm hoping once Ghost Wars is polished off I'll be able to delve into it more thoroughly.

[Brianfarg]

I like Chomsky, but I didn't like this book at all... just wasn't very well written or organized and a lot of it was just kinda nutty... Failed States was a bit better... but honestly I think his best stuff is in interviews, which are often released in books (relatively recently, What We Say Goes and Perilous Power), or just go to chomsy.info.

I'm definitely a bigger fan of his interviews--his interviews after 9\11 were very interesting. I've been meaning to pick up failed states, but I've been reading more literature lately than political stuff. Definitely gotta get back into it.

[goodarmcindy]

I've been meaning to read the Israel Lobby by Mearsheimer and Walt. I have read small extracts from it on my course but never the whole thing.

Has anyone read it?

[boykosaurus]

I've been meaning to read the Israel Lobby by Mearsheimer and Walt. I have read small extracts from it on my course but never the whole thing.

Has anyone read it?

I read it after he gave a talk at my University. That was one of the most uncomfortable lectures I've been at. AIPAC or an organization like that was there and grilled the shit out of him.

[born to expire]

I've been meaning to read the Israel Lobby by Mearsheimer and Walt. I have read small extracts from it on my course but never the whole thing.

Has anyone read it?

It has gotten terrible reviews because the argument is weak and without proper justification. I haven't even read it, I'm just going by every review I've read and every person I've talked to who has read it. The book is based on an essay that the two of them wrote... I will probably get around to reading it at some point. Read it if you want, but just keep in mind that it's pretty much full of BS.

[lazzarat]

It has gotten terrible reviews because the argument is weak and without proper justification. I haven't even read it, I'm just going by every review I've read and every person I've talked to who has read it. The book is based on an essay that the two of them wrote... I will probably get around to reading it at some point. Read it if you want, but just keep in mind that it's pretty much full of BS.

I wouldn't be so sure. Of course there are many, many people on both the left and the right who "love Israel" and thus wouldn't like a book like this, but I think few would actually deny the huge influence the Israeli lobby has on U.S. politicians. The New York Times criticizes the book for having too negative a tone and not being realistic enough about what the U.S. can do, but they certainly don't say its arguments are "weak," "without justification," and "pretty much full of BS":

"It is a little odd that so chilly a book should generate such heat. Most of Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt’s arguments are familiar ones, and it is hardly inflammatory to point out that the major Jewish organizations tend to take a much tougher line on, say, a two-state solution to the Palestinian problem, the Iraq war or settlements in the West Bank, than most American Jews favor. The writers stand on eminently defensible ground when they argue for a more constructive, creative American role in peace talks."

The book also has a 4 star average review on Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230074631&sr=8-1 - which is impressive since you know there are people on a site like this who are going to flock in and give it negative reviews.

[boykosaurus]

It has gotten terrible reviews because the argument is weak and without proper justification. I haven't even read it, I'm just going by every review I've read and every person I've talked to who has read it. The book is based on an essay that the two of them wrote... I will probably get around to reading it at some point. Read it if you want, but just keep in mind that it's pretty much full of BS.

X-)

[born to expire]

X-)

X-) right back at you. I've talked to enough people and read enough about it to justify what I am saying. They blame the Israel Lobby for Iraq, which is ludicrous. There are plenty of lobby groups in the US that have influence. Israel is of strategic value to the US-- it's not conducting its foreign policy based on the pull or influence a few powerful Jews. Plus they are buddy-buddy with Jimmy Carter... I guess if you think what he does is great you would buy into their thesis.

[born to expire]

The book also has a 4 star average review on Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230074631&sr=8-1 - which is impressive since you know there are people on a site like this who are going to flock in and give it negative reviews.

The 1 and 2 star rating customer reviews don't just say "this book sucks" though. They have some pretty substantial arguments. The original essay can be read here - http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf

I have been so busy with school that I still haven't been able to read it. I'm going to try to over the next few days.

[lazzarat]

The 1 and 2 star rating customer reviews don't just say "this book sucks" though. They have some pretty substantial arguments. The original essay can be read here - http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf

I have been so busy with school that I still haven't been able to read it. I'm going to try to over the next few days.

I'm sure they do have substantial arguments, but the point is that you way overstated your case in saying the book is full of BS, every review is negative, etc. Surely you can have a more nuanced view of the world than that. I think it's completely silly to deny - and I don't think even the most ardent Israel supporters would deny - that the Israeli lobby has a lot of influence. What they've had influence over we can debate, but of course they have lots of influence.

[boykosaurus]

X-) right back at you. I've talked to enough people and read enough about it to justify what I am saying. 1.) They blame the Israel Lobby for Iraq, which is ludicrous. 2.) There are plenty of lobby groups in the US that have influence. 3.) Israel is of strategic value to the US-- it's not conducting its foreign policy based on the pull or influence a few powerful Jews. Plus they are buddy-buddy with Jimmy Carter... I guess if you think what he does is great you would buy into their thesis.

1.) I agree, it is ridiculous, but it's one part of a hundreds of pages. I may have to re-read the book, but that section seemed murky to me anyway; it seemed like from the way he wrote it one could argue that the Lobby caused the Iraq war or simply argued (ultimately ineffectively since it was going to happen anyway) for it.

2.) This is true as well, and each one has its effects in domestic and international policies. This book deals with one that exerts influence in domestic and international affairs. What's the problem with questioning it?

3.) The argument of the book is that it no longer is a strategic value which is something we can discuss further if you want (I don't agree with their thesis here entirely, but I do think it's important to take a step back and consider what Israel' really offers us). You're taking the larger picture and boiling it down to a conspiracy theory; the argument is about the lobby--which is huge and rightfully garners support--and not a select group of powerful Jews.

[born to expire]

I am 5 pages into the essay. They are, in fact, full of shit. Page 5 is a winner, click the link I posted above and enjoy.

[Mitch]

I've read most of the book, and I disagree that it's all "full of shit." Of course there are a bunch of questionable accusations/suggestions in it, but that doesn't automatically invalidate everything else.

[lazzarat]

I am 5 pages into the essay. They are, in fact, full of shit. Page 5 is a winner, click the link I posted above and enjoy.

Read it. I'm not seeing what's so "full of shit." Again, your inability to formulate a nuanced opinion is amazing. Try again?

[born to expire]

Read it. I'm not seeing what's so "full of shit." Again, your inability to formulate a nuanced opinion is amazing. Try again?

"The terrorist organizations that threaten Israel (eg Hamas or Hezbollah) do not threaten the US, except when it intervenes against them"

"As for so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire threat to vital US interests, apart from the US commitment to Israel itself."

"The danger of a 'nuclear handoff' to terrorists is equally remote..." HAH

Give me a break.

And my inability to formulate a nuanced opinion? I'm an IR major with a great GPA at a top university... don't be so condescending, I never made a jab at you.

[boykosaurus]

"The terrorist organizations that threaten Israel (eg Hamas or Hezbollah) do not threaten the US, except when it intervenes against them"

"As for so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire threat to vital US interests, apart from the US commitment to Israel itself."

"The danger of a 'nuclear handoff' to terrorists is equally remote..." HAH

Give me a break.

And my inability to formulate a nuanced opinion? I'm an IR major with a great GPA at a top university... don't be so condescending, I never made a jab at you.

The word itself is ambiguous in how it relates to Israel vs. the US. Physically? Rhetorically? I do believe that the US is only a talking point to bolster the legitimacy of these groups, while Israel faces something worse.

They are not, but this depends on what you consider "US interests". I'm more concerned with Islamists in North Africa than the ones in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, etc if we are considering future terrorist attacks.

This is where I'm weary of Walt and Mearshimer. While I consider a hand-off unlikely I think it's dangerous to discount it so easily. However, I think they pose an interesting and valid argument.

Just because you have a "great GPA at a top university" doesn't mean anything. I'm sure plenty of other users on this site have great GPA's form other universities as well or much better, so doe sthat make their argument better or more true than yours?

[Skadrist]

Anyone read Imperial Hubris?

http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Hubris-West-Losing-Terror/dp/1597971596/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230158882&sr=1-1

[boykosaurus]

Once I get done some Salinger and Camus I'm gonna tackle this guy...

http://www.ospreydesign.com/foreword/archives/fiasco.jpg

[GuitarR0cker1]

Once I get done some Salinger and Camus I'm gonna tackle this guy...

http://www.ospreydesign.com/foreword/archives/fiasco.jpg
That's a great book.

[boykosaurus]

That's a great book.

I've heard good things. And if I can finish that before break I' going to start the book version of this film.

http://www.filmforum.org/films/noend/NEIS-posterFinalmed.jpg

[Nevuk]

"The terrorist organizations that threaten Israel (eg Hamas or Hezbollah) do not threaten the US, except when it intervenes against them"

"As for so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire threat to vital US interests, apart from the US commitment to Israel itself."

"The danger of a 'nuclear handoff' to terrorists is equally remote..." HAH

Give me a break.

And my inability to formulate a nuanced opinion? I'm an IR major with a great GPA at a top university... don't be so condescending, I never made a jab at you.
What is your opinion on Chomsky?

[born to expire]

Just because you have a "great GPA at a top university" doesn't mean anything. I'm sure plenty of other users on this site have great GPA's form other universities as well or much better, so doe sthat make their argument better or more true than yours?

I only said that because he said ''your inability to formulate a nuanced opinion is amazing"

[born to expire]

What is your opinion on Chomsky?

Have never read.

[born to expire]

And here's a great critique: http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2008/03_israel_rabinovich.aspx

[boykosaurus]

Brookings, of course...but I will read.

[born to expire]

Brookings, of course...but I will read.

Brookings is pretty liberal. So why, "of course."?

I also found that by searching on google and not through the Brookings site itself. I clicked it because of the author.

[TxRepresent]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51t5Uarxb7L.jpg

http://a5.vox.com/6a00bf76d0956f438300d4141ccb753c7f-500pi

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51CtZAnGDTL._SL500_AA240_.jpg
Working on the two bottom ones. But the manifesto I always keep handy.

[GuitarR0cker1]

I got a 25$ gift card to Borders. What book should I get? I was looking into something more modern economic or foriegn policy based rather than history but anything works.

[boykosaurus]

I can't believe you used this as evidence. It's convoluted beyond anything I've ever read. There is no central argument for God's sake. The author disagrees with their thesis but offers no evidence as to why. I give him credit in a few areas, such as the section Syria and the reliance on revisionist history, but this was torture to read. Anyway, here is my--long--aperçu.

It is fair to say, then, that if the authors merely wanted to revive and upgrade conversation about a subject that, contrary to their own protestations, has long been with us—at least since Congressman Paul Findley published They Dare Speak Out in 1985, George Ball wrote The Passionate Attachment in 1992, and Senator J. William Fulbright referred to the Congress as “Israeli occupied territory”—then they have succeeded.
"...has long been with us..." It's been with us but how many people knew about it outside of the beltway or upper academic circles? I think one of the beauties of this work is the publicity it has garnered. Rabinovich himself recognizes this and quotes this same attitude expressed by critics. Why did he even bring this up?

The truth of the matter is that, insofar as the lobby ever tries to intimidate and silence, the effort usually causes more damage than it redresses. In any event, the power of the lobby to do that is very modest.
I've had personal experience with the lobby when Walt gave a lecture at my University. I've never seen such raucous behavior in an academic setting. I know this is one incident, and perhaps things are much different in D.C. or any other place, but their behavior and bullying caused shock and silence in the audience that inhibited important debate.

And as anyone will know who remembers President George H.W. Bush’s famous plaint—that he was “just one guy” standing against the wrath of the Israel lobby over the granting of loan guarantees to help settle Soviet Jewish immigrants in Israel—not every administration since Carter’s has been so pro-Israel.

This would be a good argument if he went farther back in time, maybe say, Eisenhower. It all matters on how you want to measure "pro-Israel". Are we considering aid or positive rhetoric? I'm sorry to sya that the amount of aid speaks for itself in this matter.

He identifies a bias in The Israel Lobby’s historical narrative, observing that Mearsheimer and Walt could be labeled as “being in some respects anti-Israel.”
What does this mean? They want to reverse the creation of Israel? They want to attack Israel? They want to punish Israel? Why does criticism always lead to being labeled "anti"? This charge is asinine, they openly support the existence of Israel and believe the US should remain its ally but reconsider the relationship.

Robbins’ criticism of The Israel Lobby is twofold. First, in his view the authors completely ignore the massive pro-Arab lobby, “funded in significant measure by foreign oil money”, while at the same time “taking American Jews to task for participating in the American political process”, as is their democratic right. Second, Robbins criticizes Mearsheimer and Walt for trying to inculcate themselves against charges of anti-Jewish bias by preemptively predicting that the Jewish lobby “will accuse them of it.”
I couldn't find a good source on the Arab Lobby quickly, but here is one (http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/95931.htm) from James Zogby (who I am weary toward). Even from this source, we can tell development of stances towards Middle East issues is recent. Previously, these lobbies were more concerned about domestic discrimination. Only recently has the "Arab" Lobby started to shape itself. This lobby has been scatterbrained for decades while the Israel Lobby has only grown in size and efficiency during this time. To hold up the Arab Lobby in equality with the Israel Lobby is ridiculous, although, I believe it has the ability to develop and outgrow the Israel Lobby over the next few decades.

Tim Rutten’s review in the September 11, 2007 Los Angeles Times focuses precisely on that complex reality, "Anyone familiar with the tortuous history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will have a hard time recognizing the history Mearsheimer and Walt rehearse. Every hoary old Israeli atrocity tale is trotted out, and the long story of Palestinian terrorism is rendered entirely as a reaction to Israeli oppression." Rutten is on target, despite the fact that, to most newspaper readers, the intricacies of the history boil down to an inconclusive “he said/she said” kind of argument.

I'd have to grab my book back at my apartment to look at these accusations. As far as I can remember, Walt and Mearshimer place heavy emphasis on Israeli policy, but they don't excuse terrorists. Come on. There are instances when Israel is at fault and at times when the Palestinians are at fault, any honest person entrenched in this argument knows this and Walt and Mearshimer (again, as I recall) recognize this. For example, rocket attacks by Hamas are unjustified but what about the intifadas?

That is less likely to be the case, however, with Mearsheimer and Walt’s central contention: that the Israel lobby, acting as the Likud Party’s proxy, drove the United States into attacking Saddam Hussein.

This is a theory and one chapter of the book, and they admit that the Lobby had no factor to play in the decision despite heavy pressure from a few key figures; the decision to go to Iraq would have been made without them. I don't understand why people only focus on this aspect, especially since Walt and Mearshimer don't press on it with confidence. It would've have been best for them to leave it out since they decided not to defend it well.

Left unmentioned is the fact that the figure most responsible for pushing the attack on Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney, is neither Jewish nor ideologically neoconservative. He is a card-carrying member of the petroleum-industry elite, yet names like Halliburton and ExxonMobil never make their way onto these pages.

This argument is laughable. War causes instability and loss of profit in oil markets. Either Cheney was (is) mad if it was about oil or was ideologically (by self or others) driven.

The United States attacked Iraq because key Administration figures, panicked and disconsolate over the September 11 atrocities and anthrax scare, were misled by some still-unsettled combination of bad and manipulated intelligence into thinking that another attack, probably one using weapons of mass destruction (Cheney most feared bioweapons) was imminent. Misread snippets of intelligence suggested that Iraq might be involved, and the American people, as rattled as their leaders, were prepared to give the Administration the benefit of the doubt under the circumstances.
Wow.

The Economist, too, in its customary succinct and understated fashion, determined (on September 29, 2007) that the book’s main thesis “that the Israel lobby was critical in persuading George Bush to invade Iraq doesn’t quite stand up.” The argument, it added, “feels like an attempt to absolve America of responsibility for a decision it took by and for itself.”
It is not the book's main thesis, as I mentioned above. And if it isn't apparent, Rabinovich relies too much on others' opinions for all of this response. I understand it makes it easier and shorter, but he can't give any original input--especially given his position?

Goldberg then proceeds to criticize Mearsheimer and Walt for poor methodology and for distorting the full length of Israel’s history in order to deny it any moral value.

I don't recall this book being a moral argument.

Lastly, Goldberg examines the third basic criticism leveled by most reviewers: that Mearsheimer and Walt seem to have no idea how U.S. foreign policy is actually made.
This is the gem right here. Maybe we should be told how it is made then?

The main source of anti-Americanism and anti-American terrorism is America’s deep ties with highly unpopular regimes in countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. . . . America’s central strategic problem in the region . . . is that we need our corrupt, inept and unpopular Arab allies because the likely alternative to them is far worse.
This is one of the few things I can respect in this article, but it is still off. American support of brutal regimes is one aspect of a large problem. It runs right alongside the I-P Conflict in addition to the countless domestic problems these countries face that are placed on the West. The importance of these problems fluctuates among the Arab (as well as broader Middle East) states, there is no overall trend. The problem isn't just American support for these regimes but American foreign policy in general. How do you explain Jordan's population's overwhelming (I've seen 99%, but I would put it lower than that obviously) unfavorability towards the US, especially when the regime and its Western ties are not unpopular and Jordan--although still authoritarian--is one of the most democratic in the Middle East? If it wasn't apparent this guy has his head up his ass, I hope this makes it clear.

Mearsheimer and Walt, Gelb points out, say nothing of this, just as they overlook the role of other important, hardly less powerful actors on the American political scene: Saudi Arabia and the oil companies. How else to explain how the Israel lobby failed repeatedly to [1] prevent the sale of sophisticated U.S. arms to Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, and [2] failed to prevent every U.S. administration since Nixon’s from essentially taking the Arab/Palestinian view about the ultimate disposition of the West Bank and Gaza? But as Gelb points out, Mearsheimer and Walt do not have to explain these facts for the simple reason that they never mention them.
Point 1: Iran. Iran. Iran.

Point 2: Because it has usually been a cat and mouse game conducted by the US. By keeping the sides even during the Cold War the US could get the most of what it wanted from Israel and Arab leaders by making them dependent on superpower support. If the US let Israel run rampant its interests would be compromised and upset balances of power. My theory is that this "even-handedness" attitude became the status quo which can be debated.

It fails to define the “lobby” clearly, writes Mead, and its use of evidence is, in what has to be taken as a generous comment, “uneven.”

There is a whole chapter that defines the Lobby. The reason that it may be hard to define it is because of its amazing size and intricacy, but I believe they do a very good job of describing what it is, the basis of which is the large interest groups.

On substantive issues Mead believes that Mearsheimer and Walt underestimate Israel’s enduring strategic value to the United States and, more important to the matter at hand, overestimate the importance of Jewish political power and money.

LOL. Way to turn the discussion into one of "canard" anti-Semitic beliefs. This is unbelievable.

As an historian of Arab-Israeli relations, I am left breathless by the manner in which Mearsheimer and Walt have ransacked the “revisionist school” of Israel’s history, and done so in a way that suggests to those not knowledgeable in the field that it is now the accepted, majority view in the academy. Revisionist Israeli history judges most decisions taken by most Israeli governments in the harshest possible way. It is not even remotely a majority view in Israel, or anywhere else serious historians work. To present this view and no other as the correct one is roughly comparable to presuming that Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore represent mainstream American views on U.S. politics and history.

Revisionist history deserves a debate in and of itself, bu the ugly aspects of it are fact and cannot be ignored.

Rather than Uncle Tom’s Cabin it [The Israel Lobby] should be compared to Edward Said’s Orientalism, and even then it does not come out so well. For all its flaws, Orientalism was full of power and had a major impact academically, intellectually and politically.

...and I'm done. The Israel Lobby hasn't made an impact albeit to a less grand extent?

Merry Christmas. I hope someone got you the book so you can read it.

[born to expire]

Dude, I'm Jewish, and I even I don't have the time to sort through that entire argument today. Enjoy your Christmas.

I said above that I just read the original essay. I have no interest in reading the actual book, especially because I thought the essay was bogus. And for your one comment about him not giving his opinion-- the article is called "Testing the Israel Lobby Thesis," I believe... it wasn't meant to be all his opinion. Do you want me to say "you win"? I just don't have the time or the interest to respond to what you posted above. Agree to disagree.

At least we agree on Wilson in the other thread.

[boykosaurus]

Oh, well, Happy Hanukkah. I remember having lots of fun with my Jewish friends during Hanukkah over the years, and fortunately the food was good.

I don't want you to concede to me in any way. I just think that this topic deserves intense debate on both sides of the argument and the essay didn't meet that. There are too many "experts" these days that don't take up the responsibility of truly researching and discussing something, especially when it comes to Israel-Palestine.

You and I may be the few who look positively on Wilson, more power to us.

[r_r_repeat]

I got a 25$ gift card to Borders. What book should I get? I was looking into something more modern economic or foriegn policy based rather than history but anything works.

"The End of America" by Naomi Wolf

[xshady121]

"The End of America" by Naomi Wolf

Hah, Naomi Wolf. That's hilarious.

[Tony Pascarella]

I was watching a Daily Show rerun the other day and he highlighted a book by Matthew Alexander called How to Break a Terrorist.

Basically how they didn't use physical torture to track down Zarqawi and apparently Alexander (it's a pseudonym) had to sue the Defense Department to get the book published.

Anyone read it? It looks interesting.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Break-Terrorist-Interrogators-Brutality/dp/1416573151/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230246652&sr=8-1

[r_r_repeat]

Hah, Naomi Wolf. That's hilarious.

Lol @ your avatar.

Reaganomics were a fucking joke.

[r_r_repeat]

I was watching a Daily Show rerun the other day and he highlighted a book by Matthew Alexander called How to Break a Terrorist.

Basically how they didn't use physical torture to track down Zarqawi and apparently Alexander (it's a pseudonym) had to sue the Defense Department to get the book published.

Anyone read it? It looks interesting.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Break-Terrorist-Interrogators-Brutality/dp/1416573151/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230246652&sr=8-1

I've been wanting to read that.. Maybe I'll pick it up tomorrow when all the stores open back up.

[boykosaurus]

I was watching a Daily Show rerun the other day and he highlighted a book by Matthew Alexander called How to Break a Terrorist.

Basically how they didn't use physical torture to track down Zarqawi and apparently Alexander (it's a pseudonym) had to sue the Defense Department to get the book published.

Anyone read it? It looks interesting.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Break-Terrorist-Interrogators-Brutality/dp/1416573151/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230246652&sr=8-1

I haven't researched into it, but I've been following this group of officials who interview and say that the new way that the U.S. interrogates--with torture--not only produces little or no results but also increases the threats we face. I wish I knew more, but they essentially argue that the old methods of interrogation (patient, slow, not beating the crap out of the person) are what have worked and will work if we use them.

Does the book touch on this?

[boykosaurus]

Ha, nevermind. I just clicked on the link.

[xshady121]

Lol @ your avatar.

Reaganomics were a fucking joke.

Original.

[open mind]

i don't think they're political in the traditional sense but the ishmael books by daniel quinn definately have a strong political message contained in them.

[anamericangod]

I was watching a Daily Show rerun the other day and he highlighted a book by Matthew Alexander called How to Break a Terrorist.

Basically how they didn't use physical torture to track down Zarqawi and apparently Alexander (it's a pseudonym) had to sue the Defense Department to get the book published.

Anyone read it? It looks interesting.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Break-Terrorist-Interrogators-Brutality/dp/1416573151/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230246652&sr=8-1

I actually had this in my hand the other day, but I didn't get it because I didn't think it would be anything like you described. I thought it was gonna be some gung ho hoorah kill the terrorists kinda book. I might check it out now.

[born to expire]

Just picked up How to Break a Terrorist and All The Shah's Men. Way psyched to start both. This Brzezinski book is kinda slow but I don't want to give up on it.

[born to expire]

WOW. I just read How to Break a Terrorist in about 4 hours. Could not put it down. Really interesting read.

[Tony Pascarella]

I gotta give Jon Stewart props; they book some really awesome authors on his show. There have been quite a few shows where once they get talking about the book, I'm interested enough to consider picking it up.

[8:17am]

There is no doubt that in the history of politics, polarization has never been as bad as it has been in the past 15 years or so. So no, I am not "misinformed". Also, polarization is solely to blame on both parties purging itself of the liberal-republicans and conservative democrats.

There are still more moderates in the Democratic party now than there are moderate Republicans, and that's a condition that began during the Clinton administration, when the DLC began the "new Democrat" movement. And can we really say there's a lot of polarization when in 2004 Kerry and Bush were barely distinguishable? Everybody moves to the middle in our elections, and yet they all claim there is increased polarization. I don't think the right and the left have grown further apart, and I don't hate the right any more than I did five years ago. I don't think there is more polarization now, I think there is more politicking. And after gaining a second term, Regan became a very divisive figure in national politics. You'll probably want to point to the election of his Vice President four years later a sign of his lasting popularity but I have two words to counter that: Mike Dukakis.

[xshady121]

I want to get "End the Fed" by Ron Paul. It's always interesting ready what he has to say.

[GeeBee]

I want to get "End the Fed" by Ron Paul. It's always interesting ready what he has to say.

Yeah. Pie in the sky, utopian, idealistic gas with no logical conclusion is usually rather interesting.

[Praetor]

I want to get "End the Fed" by Ron Paul. It's always interesting ready what he has to say.
Same. I respect him a lot.

[jsteil]

End the fed was a good and easy read. Made me want to find the bonus reading listedoin the back of the book.

So far this year I've read

End The Fed - good easy read took about 2 days to finish it.
The Boy who harnessed the wind - Good and somewhat funny.
Blowback - Interesting read
lies my teacher taught me - very good book

Then I have a pile of books I've been wanting to get too, but haven't had the time. If you have read any of them let me know your opinion on them.

Crash Proof 2.0 - Peter Schiff
First American Revolution - Raphael
Capitalism ; the unkown Ideal - Ayn Rand
Common Sense - Thomas Paine
The sarrows of Empire - Chalmers Johnson
Longitudes and attitudes - thomas Friedman
Creatures of Jekyll Island ( on order)

[xshady121]

I picked up "Speech-less: Tales of a white house survivor" today. Looking forward to reading it over break.

http://www.amazon.com/Speech-less-Tales-White-House-Survivor/dp/0307463729

[Mitch]

Should I give A People's History of the United States a shot? I've never read anything by Zinn.

[knash9]

Might start reading What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America after Master of the Senate.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Might start reading What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America after Master of the Senate.

I know I mentioned it elsewhere in this forum, but I took an American poli sci class as an undergrad and half the class had to read "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and the other half read "God's Politics (http://harpercollins.com/books/Gods-Politics-Jim-Wallis/?isbn=9780060558284)". I read the latter and very much agreed with most of it, considering it was written by a progressive pastor. Haven't read "What's the Matter with Kansas" but I recommend "God's Politics", even though it might seem dated as it was written around the 2004 presidential election.

[knash9]

Shit, I forgot you mentioned that book before. Now that adds to the book list that I have ongoing. It sounds pretty good. Even though it's dated, I'd imagine the main idea/concepts are still relevant as they were then.

[dretti]

Should I give A People's History of the United States a shot? I've never read anything by Zinn.

I think it's pretty good and I'm not even that big of a fan of Zinn. Even though he is obviously pretty biased, and it's not hard to question him at some points, it is really interesting to read American history from a completely different perspective. Just get ready to read about how basically every major white political actor in American history dabbled in some form of exploitation

[knash9]

I have to read some chapters of Zinn for school this year. It's pretty good for the most part. I'm probably going to keep the book, and reread/read the other chapters in a few years and probably view it in a different light.

[3eb23]

Bout to start reading Trickle Down Tyranny by Michael Savage

[open mind]

read The Rich and the Rest of Us recently.

not the best book ever, but certainly worth a read.

[Simulcast]

Bout to start reading Trickle Down Tyranny by Michael Savage

Just got this. I love Savage.

[3eb23]

Just got this. I love Savage.

Me too. Hands down my favorite radio show. I think I'll start reading it tonight.

[Love As Arson]

Just got this. I love Savage.
In an ironic way? I am actually curious because you seem far more rational than he.

Anyway:

http://www.goodreads.com/review/list/4481301?shelf=favorites

[Simulcast]

In an ironic way? I am actually curious because you seem far more rational than he.

Anyway:

http://www.goodreads.com/review/list/4481301?shelf=favorites

I appreciate the compliment.

Well, my father and I listened to him a lot when I was younger, so there's a sort of nostalgia attached to his show for me. Also, he spends a decent amount of time on topics outside of politics, like on food, his dog, cars and boats, and growing up in the 50's and 60's, and that's the stuff I really enjoy listening to. He's refreshing when it comes to conservative talk radio.

[Mitch]

Finished The Nine last night. Highly recommended--it's certainly not a politically neutral book, though, so if the Scalia's and Thomas's of the world are your thing, I wouldn't read it.

Just started Don't Ask What Good We Do by Robert Draper, and then it'll be the new Caro book.

[jawstheme]

Finished The Nine last night. Highly recommended--it's certainly not a politically neutral book, though, so if the Scalia's and Thomas's of the world are your thing, I wouldn't read it.

Just started Don't Ask What Good We Do by Robert Draper, and then it'll be the new Caro book.

That's disappointing. I would love to read an objective and neutral book on the same subject.

[3eb23]

I appreciate the compliment.

Well, my father and I listened to him a lot when I was younger, so there's a sort of nostalgia attached to his show for me. Also, he spends a decent amount of time on topics outside of politics, like on food, his dog, cars and boats, and growing up in the 50's and 60's, and that's the stuff I really enjoy listening to. He's refreshing when it comes to conservative talk radio.

Definitely. It's not your average political show. I've actually learned a lot from him on topics outside of politics. His show has a lot to offer.

[MyBestFiend]

Anybody have any recs for books on global warming/climate change/whatever? I just finished a project on the Kyoto Protocol and it piques my interest.