Governments

Hinnebusch from St.Andrews university in Scotland has put together a consistent introductory volume to the understanding of Middle Eastern foreign policy descinoinmaking.

Since the volume is very concise, it doesn't go into greater depth, but its not supposed to.

This superb work edited by Hinnebusch and Ehteshami goes country by country through the Mideast to explain the foreign policy dilemmas of each state. This includes historical developments, domestic concerns, and both regional and global power structures. This is essential information for anyone trying to make sense of what is happening the Mideast, or to decide what kind of policies the US should have in the region. The book provides a way to overcome to the general ignorance too many Americans have about the specifics of the region and the unique challenges each individual Mideast state faces. Though written in a manner grounded in academic theory, it is understandable to any intelligent reader. Unlike some multi-author volumes, this has a common organization shared by each chapter (laid out in the introduction). The read is consistent and easy to follow, avoiding the unevenness of some edited volumes.

This book makes a significant contribution in offering real criteria for U.S. intervention on behalf of innocent victims in an ongoing human rights crisis. It shows many tools that can be used short of a military invasion, and sets forth rational arguments for when a military invasion is the appropriate response. It is unusual in that it is not a biased ideological (liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican) book, but rather a dispassionate study based on real experience in the government. A must-read for anyone interested in effective promotion of human rights.

John Shattuck was the top human rights official at the State Department in the 1990s when genocides occurred in Rwanda and Bosnia and the U.S. did nothing to stop them. This fascinating book explains how that happened. It discusses four human rights crises that occurred on Shattuck's watch in Rwanda, Bosnia, Haiti, and China. In each case, a robust U.S. response was blocked or watered down by weak White House leadership, partisan sniping from Republicans, opposition from the business community, or the military's aversion to getting sucked into "another Somalia." Shattuck doesn't engage in petty recriminations and admits that he was sometimes overwhelmed and ineffective. His book is thoughtful, well-written, and depressing. (I'm a foreign service officer who served under Shattuck in the mid-1990s. Although Shattuck was marginalized by the State Department's bureaucracy, he was regarded as an honorable and honest official. There's no reason to disbelieve anything he reports in this book.)

Forget those boring civics classes, forget those classes where American history's most important events were relegated to footnotes skipped over by the teacher. If Howard Zinn had not written "A People's History of the United States" Michael Linfield has written it for him.

Linfield's compelling revealations of the US government's record of civil liberties violations throughout our relatively short, bloody, aggressive and imperialistic history documents how every real and contrived wartime scenario has been used by the rulers to eliminate civil liberties and impose a true Pax Americana domestically.

Beginning with the American "Revolution" which appears to me to be less and less like a revolution and more and more like a contrived power and land grab by the greedy, not the needy. I believe that one could make a case for the fact that after their ascension to power, that American "revolutionaries" were as reactionary and oppressive as the power from whoom they had wrested control.

Each wartime scenario shattters any illusion of goodness or democracy with one holds certain rulers. As Jim Morrison wrote, "No One Here gets Out Alive." So, too, with the author. One comes swiftly to the conclusion that not one U.S. leader, either in declared wartime or between conflicts has really done anything to insure the civil liberties for which Americans fought and died on a myriad of foreign battlefields.

Linfield has written American history as it is, not as, Rush Limbaugh might ask, "The Way Things Ought to Be." This is indeed Mr. Wells' history, Howard Zin''s history, but not 10th grade American high schol history.

I highly recommend reading Linfield's book, checking out the footnotes and the primary source documents. Keep the book handy next time some...patriot resembling a beached whale drenches those around him with his version of American history. Linfield's book will rock their world.

Linfield's work provides a handy overview of extent to which Constitutional safeguards have been compromised over the years, particularly during wartime. Beginning with the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts of the Revolutionary war period, through the Civil War, W.W.I, and Vietnam eras, the author compiles a steady pattern of government assault on Constitutional restrictions whenever those restrictions become politically or militarily inconvenient. Of particular note in this regard, are the McCarran - Walter Act of the cold war era, aimed at resricting free flow of information and travel, and the notorious Palmer raids following W.W.I, aimed at curbing the rise of a socialist movement. Whether your politics are left, right or center, this historical record should be of interest. It shows pretty clearly how slender are these parchment-bound safeguards whenever established wealth and power feels threatened.

This is perhaps the finest work of many by a leading American Indian scholar-activist of his generation. Its superiority is partly because of its comprehensive length, incorporating many of his best essays. Churchill's forte, here and elsewhere, is the power of his denunciation of injustices and genocidal practices against the Native Americans both past and present---the crimes continue even today, as do indigenous peoples' courageous resistance. I assigned parts of this work for a class in American environmental history, and it genuinely shook up the students, who were seeing our history from a radically different perspective. Sadly, those who really need to read Churchill most likely never will.

Why 4 1/2 stars? Since many of Churchill's titles reprint essays published elsewhere, there is considerable overlap with the contents of other books. Thus someone who owns, say, 4 of his works (including this one) may actually possess only 3 full books of original material. Churchill's writings are thoroughly documented, but in contrast to Vine Deloria Jr., to whom he is often compared, Churchill's style is decidedly humorless. But Deloria's sensibility is exceptional under any circumstances, and ultimately, what Churchill discusses simply isn't amusing at all---it's tragic and outrageous.

Here is a book that everyone, Indian or non-Indian, should read by tomorrow at the very latest. Ward Churchill is an extraordinarily gifted Indian (a term he prefers over "Native American" or "Aboriginal") activist whose prose cuts like a curve-bladed scalpal. Churchill doesn't want to memorialize what American society likes to think of as ancient (and therefore, best forgotten) wrongs; he wants to talk about how white society destroyed and keeps on destroying the Original People of the New World. And he isn't going to do it with quaint tales and stories. He wants you to understand that his people are dying. Right now. This very second.

This book, a collection of essays collected over the years, isn't full of the latest spiritual word from Indian Country; don't read this if you want to learn how to construct a sweat lodge "like the real Indians did." Read this book in order to learn how to be a member of the Wannabe Tribe and you will experience deep spiritual anguish as Churchill's words tear you a new exhust pipe. He doesn't care about your spiritual development; he wants you to understand that genocide is being committed even as you read these words.

Get this book. It will hurt a lot to read it, but its better than shutting your eyes to over five centuries of genocide.

It makes you speachless

This is the best book ever written by Kalpana Misra! Buy it while it's in stock and before it sells out!

Unger and West are two dynamic intellectuals whose passion and commitment to democracy are manifest in the broad strokes with which they paint their vision of the future. They discuss the enduring power of hierarchies of race, class, and gender which keep us locked into our current patterns in society. Then provide seven recommendations for creating a progressive society. This book is an excellent supplement for nearly any ethics or poly sci course.

Unger and West carefully, methodically characterize current American socio-economic circumstances to build their case for a new era of American progressivism which is based on the "religion of possibility." It is an inspired attempt to encourage all Americans to begin thinking differently, imaginatively, about the situations that keep the nation from being truly democratic. Extremely thorough, this book is a challenge to us all to seek out alternatives to the status quo. It is a challenge to leaders to serve the best interests of the nation as opposed to the special interest groups who line their pockets. I only wish Cornel West would run for president. I don't know who else would stand up for what is morally, politically, and socially correct. I'd drop everything to campaign for him....

The social battle over same sex marriage has become part of the presidential debate, as George "amendment happy" Bush and John "wuss union not marriage" Kerry argue the so-called cons. Vice President Cheney cannot look himself in the eyes while shaving as he hides behind his boss. Amongst the known leaders only Senator Gephardt shows courage supporting his daughter's rights.

Author Jonathan Rauch provides a timely powerful argument that gender is not the key. Instead if a couple fall in love why can't they marry and care for each other as they grow old together. Mr. Rauch says whether the couple consists of a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, who cares. What should matter is the participants are willing adults wanting to form a permanent relationship that actually enhances the community.

Mr. Rauch logically defends GAY MARRIAGE as supporting family values and strengthening the meaning of marriage while making and extending the inclusiveness of basic rights. Easy to follow the critical thinking path laid out by the author in which he eloquently defends that if marriage is a sacred historical bond between a man and a woman, then why does so many break this "consecrated" act including social conservatives who scream for its sanctity. Those unsure of their stand will find Mr. Rauch makes quite a powerful pitch reversing the arguments of opponents by using the social conservative's logic to defend GAY MARRIAGE. For a well written historical similar venue involving interracial couples, see the well written TELL THE COURT I LOVE MY WIFE: RACE, MARRIAGE, AND LAW - AN AMERICAN HISTORY by Peter Wallenstein.

Harriet Klausner

Suddenly, there seems to be an avalanche of books about the gay-marriage issue appearing in America's bookstores. There is little doubt now that the controversy over granting legal marriages to gay persons is snowballing and has become the hot topic of the times. Jonathan Rauch's book is another contribution to the debate and, to his credit, he does provide a slightly different slant on the issue from what I've read in other books.

Rauch, a correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, columnist for National Journal, and a writer-in-residence at the Brookings Institution, tends to de-emphasize the all-too-common "equal rights" argument and suggests, instead, that gay marriage would be good for American society because it would increase respect for the institution of marriage itself. To be clear about this, he doesn't dismiss the matter of equal rights but says "I wouldn't support same-sex marriage as a matter of equal rights if I thought it would wreck opposite-sex marriage."

One of the very basic questions regarding the question of marriage is, What is marriage for? He spends an entire chapter discussing this question, which sets the stage for his argument that gay marriage would be good, not only for gays, but for straights and for marriage in general. So, what is marriage for? Well, whatever else it is, he says, "it is a commitment to be there." I interpret him to mean that in this special relationship called "marriage," both parties to the compact promise to help and comfort one another when times are tough, in sickness and in health, etc., etc., which is, of course, a common understanding of what is, in fact, involved in a marriage -- at least ideally. He uses the term "prime-caregiver" and maintains that this is an essential condition of the marriage relationship. I don't think anyone would disagree.

But then Rauch goes on to use this condition and some other benefits of the marital relationship to argue for gay-marriage as opposed to "same-sex unions" or "domestic partnerships," situations which he refers to as "marriage-lite." I'm not sure I buy his argument at this point. I don't think many would disagree that gay couples have a legitimate concern regarding caregiver status, legal and financial benefits, hospital visitation rights, and all the other rights and privileges that opposite-sex couples currently enjoy under the marriage umbrella. I don't see why these conditions cannot be realized within the "same-sex union" designation, without applying the term "marriage" to the relationship. In Chapter Two of his book, Rauch presents his case against my reservation. And, frankly, he presents a good case. It isn't compelling, in my opinion, but it comes close to persuasive. And I am sympathetic with most of the points he makes.

Now we come to a section of the book that one might consider the "trilogy of benefits." In Chapter Three, Rauch discusses the specific benefits that gays will enjoy if given the right to marry and they are fairly obvious, of course. In Chapter Four, on how the straights will benefit, he includes some very interesting material and states some points that I suspect most of us haven't done much thinking about. In Chapter Five, he discusses how marriage-in-general will benefit from gay marriage, and again he presents an interesting argument, one which should not be taken lightly by the opponents of gay marriage. I think I won't disclose any details about the latter two chapters, hopefully providing a teaser for the potential reader.

One of the major concerns that social conservatives seem to have with the gay-marriage issue surrounds the idea that gays, particularly of the male persuasion, are unduly promiscuous and that granting gays the right to marry would fail to change that behavior. Furthermore, bringing this alleged promiscuousness into marriage would harm the institution itself. Rauch addresses this concern and is upfront and honest about it and he should be commended for his forthrightness. He admits there are important problems here and offers some suggestions as to how they might be resolved.

In my opinion, one of the best chapters in Rauch's book deals with "The Debt to Tradition." Here he seems to be at his best. No where else, and I mean nowhere, have I read a discussion about the gay-marriage issue quite like he provides in this chapter. Suffice to say, he brings two of my favorite people into the debate, F.A. Hayek and Edmund Burke (excellent political theorists both), and then the topics of utopias, social engineering, church-state relations, secular culture, reactionary traditionalism, and so on are thrown into the mix, and finally some rational light is thrown on how to deal with, not only the legitimacy of gay marriage, but how to transition to it. (The reading of this short chapter is worth the price of the book.)

And, if gay marriage is to become a reality, how the transition to it takes place is vital. The position that Rauch takes is basically the same as the one I would take. I am already on record as opposing any constitutional amendment regarding the definition of marriage. Messing with the Constitution seems to get us into trouble. Furthermore, I don't think that Congress should be involved in the situation. Rauch suggests, and I concur, that the best approach is to leave the matter to the individual states. Let us "try it out" here and there, see what happens, make adjustments where necessary, and so on. Actually, Rauch's position is very "conservative" and he comes off like a good proponent of "states rights." His next-to-last chapter on "Getting It Right" outlines his proposals and I think one will find it difficult to argue against them.

This is a very readable book by someone who has a deep interest in his subject and has done his homework, that is, the thinking necessary to present a complex argument regarding a controversial change in our nation's social fabric. I recommend it to all those interested in the gay-marriage issue.

It's a shame that only one reviewer has preceded me. If Catholics were reading this book, there would probably be many trying to undermine it, as there are the excellent book by another Roman Catholic scholar, John Cornwell.

Cornwell's book may be making a bigger splash because of his controversial title, "Hitler's Pope, the secret history of Pius XII". Both authors are obviously pained, as Catholics themselves, by the facts which they uncovered, and are not happy to be exposing the shameful record of their church regarding the Holocaust. But loyalty to God does not allow them to hide or misrepresent the truth about their church. And for that they are to be praised - by God, if not by all of their fellow Catholics! -

The prior reviewer does a great job of summarizing Gordon Zahn's book. I urge Christians as well as Jews to read both of these books, (...)

This book exposes the powerful support for Hitler and his war on the part of the German Catholic hierarchy.

These men were, for the most part, anti-Nazi.

Their protests, however, were limited to complaints about harassment of Catholics, confiscation of religious property and the creation a new pagan cult.

For the most part they urged their flocks to support the Nazis, especially in World War Two.

Prohibitions against support of unjust wars had no affect on them and Zahn enumerates the reasons why.

First of all, Catholic teaching led them to support the secular government.

In this regard, the Pope's recognition of Hitler's regime as legitimate set a tragic example for all Catholics to follow.

Second, like most Germans, they were pained by their country's set-backs in World War One and yearned for Germany to attain the glorious role it deserved on the world stage.

Another contributing factor was, apparently, the important role that obedience to authority and duty to the fatherland played in German culture.

Finally, these men feared Communism. Communists had staged a number of unsuccessful coups in Germany in the years following World War One and Hitler was against Bolshevism.

Ironically, Zahn repeatedly refers to these men as heroes while portraying them as leaders gone astray.

Some had been active in the inter-war peace movement but Zahn quotes sermon after sermon in which they urge their congregations to serve loyally and lavish praise upon soldiers "defending" their country.

In a number of asides Zahn also calls into question the role of the bishops' opposite numbers in the Allied camp whom, he feels, betrayed their callings as well when they did not oppose the bombing of cities and demand for an unconditional surrender.

I may know the names of typical German dishes, but that doesn't help me decipher a menu when I'm visiting a restaurant in Germany. With a limited amount of time (and thus a finite opportunity to pig out on regional specialties), I wanted to make sure I was picking the best stuff to eat.

We took this slender tome with us on our last trip, and we were extremely glad we did. What's this dessert prepared with Muskatnuss? Ah, nutmeg! How do I ask for a hard-boiled egg at breakfast? (If you don't specify, I learned, you get it soft-boiled.) And so on.

We definitely had fewer surprises. And we able to order what we really wanted. The book also includes a section on regional specialties, so we knew enough to order Maultaschen when we had the opportunity to do so, not to mention an idea of what would arrive on the plate.

In addition to the Hungry Traveler Germany, I also have the Marling Menu-Master Germany (which appears to be out of print, alas). Both are very good, earning 5-stars unquestionably, though this book is a bit larger (and thus may be awkward to carry; it fits okay in a fanny pack). If I had to choose, I'd take the Marling book with me on a trip, because it's organized by restaurant menu sections, rather than alphabetically. It's also small enough to fit in a pocket.

This one, though, has little extras that make it worth reading all the way through. For example, it warns you not to try to bring back any meat products (which I should have read before trying to bring home Black Forest Ham), and suggests made-in-Germany food related specialties that won't bother Customs at all (ranging from Christmas gingerbread to cutlery and table linens).

It's a pleasure to browse through this guide.

It's just the thing to use to translate Deutsche Spezialitaten, the German-language version of Culinaria Germany, the lush, big food book that describes the delicious cuisine of Germany, region by region, or you can use it in a German supermarket to decipher labels. Plus, it's handy for translating German menus.

At 289 pages, it's a bit too thick to carry in a pocket, next to your body. Plus, it's a bit fragile, with its paper covers and perfect binding. So carry it in a purse, fanny pack, jacket- or cargo pocket.

In this book, Dr. McKelvey wrote a detailed and intimate account of the South Vietnamese military officers' fates after the end of the Vietnam War.

The message is troublesome but not surprising: the military personnel were rounded into re-education camps and suffered untold tragedies from humiliation, torture, mental degradation to physical impoverishment within a communist prison system. The majority of the officers were jailed from ten to fifteen years; one officer was detained for a total of 22 years.

While 70,000 former political inmates and their families were allowed to immigrate to the U.S. through the ODP (Orderly Departure Program), many more are still living on the fringes of the Vietnamese communist society. A former major drives a pedicab for a living. In this McKelvey's book, we heard the voices of a doctor, a tailor, a politician, an engineer, a spy, a pilot, and a teacher. They all endured "grueling and unforgiving ordeals that only the strongest would have survived." Family members were ostracized for being related to the political prisoners; their wives suffered uncounted financial, emotional, physical hardships, their children barred from a decent education.

The book is one of the few that deal with the long-term psychological effects of the incarceration on the inmates and the sufferings of their relatives.

The author concludes that: 1) War does not end when peace treaties are signed because the negative rippling effects of war and destruction affect many generations to come. 2) The U.S. should be very careful about intervening militarily in any part of the World. 3) The U.S., if it does go to war, cannot simply abandon friends and allies to the mercies of common enemies.

I am a student from Vietnam and now studying in the U.S. I chanced to read this book in our university library. Thanks the AUTHOR for an insightful book.

In fact, my family background was 'clean' in the eyes of our government because my parents were not involved in any military service for the former government. But I have friends whose family situations were exactly the same as those portrayed in the book. I must say those are incredible human sufferings, and not only for one generation. I am glad some of those stories are now heard, perhaps a bit late but still, better than never.

Here's a life-time lesson for me (and perhaps some others): no matter how and what communists tell you, don't hastily believe them. Just look at what and how they do, and you'll see it for yourself. For many of them, human dignity and lives are trivial and cheap.