Stopped

This book is written in a style very reminiscent of the Jewish and Russian storytellers. The wonderful rhytmn and pacing of the words help paint a vivid picture of the characters: the poetic and learned, but unrealistic Mordecai ben Yahbahbai; the steady and handsome Yuri the woodcutter; beautiful Liebeh, Mordecai's daughter, yearning to learn to read; the lonely, but kindly Yossip the Baker; and the fierce, cruel Sergeant Major of the Czar's army. This simple tale also gives a little picture of peasant life under the Czar. When Liebeh asked why her little shouldn't go fishing to try out a new lure, Yuri replies, "Because the fish belong to the Czar... the brook belongs to the Czar... In this forest everthing -- and everyone -- belongs to the Czar... Taking anything from the Czar's forest is punishable by death."

I thought this was a very good book. I'd write more, but I am sick of reviewing at the moment

i thought this collection of stories was very interesting, though the stupidity of people who have just discovered that they cant move things with their mind leaves me a little P.O.-ed And some characters were just great!

When the Bulbul stopped singing is a short, but powerful read. It highlights the plight of the Palestinian people, giving them a human face; whilst also showing the cruelty of the Israeli army. It is written in a diary format, and the subject matter is such that you wish this book was fiction.
I would encourage people to read this book in order to understand the true situation that the Palestinians are in, and the absolute terror they endure. While western media portrays the Israeli army as people 'doing their job' and 'responding to suicide bombings' - this book details what that job and response actually entails. Disturbing, but compelling reading.

Whitney Lawford didn't like going to parties, but this was an really bad party, she let Toby Keston talk her into going and it was worse than anything she could image. Whitney got mauled by a drunk, and after having her dress torn she went upstairs to get away from the crowd, and she layed down.
She found herself in the bed with Slone Illingworth. His fiancee found them in the bed together, Slone made Whitney become his fiancee, because his Mother had been so happy to hear he was engaged he had to use Whitney to be his fiancee.
Slone's mom never met Gleda and Whitney was happy to help out, problem, Slone had broken his engagement to Glenda long before the party and long before catching Whitney and Slone together.
This is a good book but I also like Susan Fox, the late great Betty Neels, the late Essie Summers, Rebecca Winters, Helen Brooks, and Eva Rutland.

This is a sad but common story of an old and respected member of the American machine tool builders association that produced a quality machine. but eventually had to close its doors. Another victim of the ills that plagued that sector of American manufacturing. The original owner had a better idea, started a company, grew the company, carved out a market niche, built machines to order as the industry as a whole had done for years to survive the natural boom and bust cycles. The Burgmaster Company was ill equipped for the foreign invasion especially of the Japanese machine tool industry, building standard machines, promising fast installations, losing control of their patented technology even though it was licensed. Burgmaster was typical of the industry and experienced it all. The squeeze between developing new technology and keeping the bread and butter production machines moving., losing control of its operations and planning by joining a conglomerate. As a former employee for what was formerly the largest American machine tool maker and is now a downsized and dismantled holding company, this book gave a good overall historical summary of what was happening then, which you don't realize when you are experiencing global and national trends day by day on a local level. Optimistically one can also see just how far the industry survivors from the 60's, 70's and 80's have progressed.

Brogan's title is a very ambitious one for a book in which he fails to separate the Colombian case (decades of violent guerrilla and terrorism) from the drug wars,who fails to note that there are five and not four Central Asia former USSR replublics, who includes Mexico (situated in North America, a geographic area regardless of economic and cultural differences) in a broad and superfluous Central America chapter. The book can not be rated above a conventional tourist guide where you get a brief summary of the conutry's history and current situation. Waste of paper.

Although flawed, WC is informative, almost comprehensive, and quite handy--it's a 682pp paperback you can read at the pool, but don't expect to make friends; the cover looks downright anti-social. His analyses are rather slanted in the expected, standard Anglo-English mode, i.e., he spends 20pp. on Northern Ireland (cf., only 8pp on all of Korea, and 13pp on China). And although he does bash America where it needs obvious bashing (eg., United Fruit, the CIA, etc.) his unabashedly liberal stance forces his hand into rather superficial, yet standard, conclusions concerning the nature of nation building, modernization, and repressive and totalitarian regimes. While endorsing the democracy/free-market system is hardly a bad thing, it does seem small minded to think of it as a panacea. There are functional reasons for countries to 'choose' other systems, especially when confronted with internal chaos and external threats (eg., Islamic Fundamentalism, extreme nationalism, Communism, Fascism, centralized economic systems, and totalitarianism may not be stupid mistakes made by crazy and evil men, but unpleasant yet necessary means to an end). But all books have their bias, and PB's is probably the most palatable to the most people. Also, this book is basically a micro-encyclopedia. It is not a profound treatise on the clash of peoples with historical necessity, whatever that may be. In fact, it's not profound at all, but it is informative. The prose is text-bookish, and he has a thing for using the same 1-2 cliches throughout the book (one of which is, 'to the tune of', as in,'to the tune of 2 billion dollars'.) But this is beyond nit-picking. A more important flaw is the sporadic lack of explanation. Granted, he can't write everything, but it gets increasingly frustrating to read a series of 'whats' without any 'whys'. Eg., PB writes, correctly, that Thailand backed the Khmer Rouge and that Israel backed Somoza, but no reasons are given. This turns what should be interesting history into a confused and very boring shopping list of disjointed facts, free from both causation and meaning.

Admittedly, this is somewhat unfair. The book is over 600pp as it is, and one can't accuse PB for being prolix. If he included penetrating insights at every needed point, the book would be in volumes.

As the reviewer from Mexico discovered, the book is not perfect. If you know a lot about a particular area, PB's thumbnail sketch may upset you. But again, this is unfair. The world is a big place, if PB were to make all distinctions and treat all conflicts to, let's say, 25pp, then the book would be roughly 1500pp long. Also, one of the beauties of the book is its inclusion of conflicts (and even countries) which most people don't know about or remember. WC provides the starting point for deeper analysis. (You can't look it up on the web or in the library if you don't know that it exists.) In sum: it's a great learning tool. It may not be as good as I had hoped, but it's well used, I have no regrets. At best and worst, WC will show even the most informed how little they know about many contemporary conflicts. Even if one doesn't learn much from WC--all this fact stuff doesn't 'stick' well--exposure to one's ignorance is very enlightening. And if the book creates more questions than it answers, all the better. Until something better comes along, WC is indispensible, and there is little point in waiting for that to happen.

This is a truly excellent book. I picked it up in England, started reading it on the plane back to the States, and couldn't put it down. The author manages to describe almost every important armed conflict since the end of World War II in breathtaking clarity. Through this book I found about wars that I never knew existed. As a bonus, the author also throws in a chapter about all of the different terrorist groups-fascinating reading.

I can't help but think of this book as another example of right-wing hypocrisy. Conservative pundits like Limbaugh love to decry the ills of "political correctness," for the supposed reason that it places certain viewpoints off-limits for discussion. And that without reasoned discussion, how can we get to the bottom of things? They argue that there can't just be one prevailing world-view set forth without challenge.

Well then Lynne Cheney comes along, and proceeds to implicitly link instance after instance of shady logic, all culminating in the exact same thing. It must be grand to be able to label our entire American culture as decadent on the basis of a few morbid events. This is fallacious reasoning at best, ridiculous at most. And it would not be so foolish if she didn't turn around and attempt to parrot the exact same fascist ideology of the PC crowd, i.e. "What WE say is right, what YOU say is wrong, and not only do we disagree with you, but we reserve the right to not even consider your views, because we know that there can be only one truth."

It's hypocrisy to an alarming degree. If the PC legions are wrong for foisting their view of things upon you, then Lynne Cheney attempting to justify HER views with the exact same refusal to recognize shades of grey is just as tyrranical and false. Much of her superiority complex and incessant yammering about what is "right" and "wrong," and how we can't allow anything but "right" into our discussion exemplifies what so many Americans fear about right-wing social engineering.

I'll give her one star for attempting to help, and another for recognizing the foolishness of revisionist history, but I cannot go any further until she and right-wing America admit that, though they definitely corner the market on self-righteousness, they do not have a monopoly on truth.

The book begins with an explicit comparison between Mrs. Cheney and "Goldstein," the subject of the daily 'minute of hatred' in Orwell's 1984 (where citizens are required to hurl abuses and invectives at photos of a symbolic, anonymous enemy of the state). While on a partisan level such a comparison is blatant rhetorical martyrdom, it may also be a refreshingly honest glimpse into how Mrs. Cheney sees herself in relation to the 'educated elite' in the US -- innocent effigy incurring the wrath of a totalitarian regime.
In fact, Cheney has more or less co-opted Orwell, liberally sprinkling her chapters with quotes from his works. The quotes underlying intent seems to be to undermine a liberal social agenda and support compassionate conservatism -- a fact which Orwell, a staunch socialist and member of the Workers Party of Marxist Unification who fought for the party in Spain during their civil war, would probably abhor.
Her comparisons of the PC trend to the 'Thought Police,' (in which the most aburd of absurd, and unfortunately true, examples of PC militarism are drudged up), quickly devolve into sweeping condemnation of any intellectual endeavour that cannot be reconciled to her particular brand of political and social conservatism.

Cheney begins the book with a revealing quote. If you already agree with the quote (to follow), there's no need to read "Telling the Truth" unless you particularly enjoy hearing someone repeat what you already believe -- and if you disagree or haven't yet formed an opinion, no need to read "Telling the Truth" because all of her arguments already presuppose you agree on this fundamental level:

"Any attack on intellectual liberty, and on the concept of objective truth, threatens in the long run every department of thought."
George Orwell, "The Prevention of Literature"

Nowhere does Lynne explain how philosophical arguments against objective truth are simultaneously an attack on the freedom of intellectual liberty, but most people intuitively grasp that replacing the idea of Objective Truth and The Answer in the humanities with an absurdly extreme 'anything goes' relativism in which any and all ideas are equally valid just doesn't hack it. Mrs. Cheney tries to tap into fears of this extreme relativism, and at one point claims that children, somewhere in the United States, are being taught that Egyptians flew in gliders. Presuming all archeological and scientific evidence points to the exact opposite, the idea would indeed be absurd. As absurd as, say, Creationism, a subject Cheney does not address on her quest for absurd relativism in our schools. (It's a 'theory' like evolution is 'just a theory' only if the two ideas can't be judged by the same criteria, i.e. the scientific method).

The book is cleaved along partisan lines, and occasionally slips into political bickering involving current (well, 1980s-90s) events and people -- all negative and dastardly examples happen to be of liberal politicians, all forthright and righteous and right examples happen to be of conservative politicians. If you buy this book, be wary of Truths that are so intensely partisan -- and rhetoric that is so intensely political.

The problem with Cheney's book is that she does not practice what she preaches. She encourages a balanced education that offers various perspectives, and then she denounces multiculturalism in the classroom. How are we to recive a balanced perspective if we ignore the voices of marganilized cultures?? Furthermore she denounces the use of words like "holocaust" and "genocide" in teaching history. How is that fair? Ultimately while Cheney's message of balanced education is good it is not practiced in her literature. Futher more (for someone who perscribes a balanced education) she points to obscure factoids to prove her case while she fails to point out that most history books still sugarcoat the atrocities of the world. Ultimately Cheney has the right idea but she is very hypocritical in her execution. If you think opposite of her then you liberalize education if you agree absolutely then you hand education to the conservatives. Neither is right and neither is the universal solution.
To sum it all up, the true path to a great educational system is to respect all perspectives and thus exist in harmony rather than jump to the left or right.
Dont waste you time on this book.

Sometimes you read a book that clearly was written to make a quick buck. Give it a title that will hook people in and then a few hundred pages of padding. There is no doubt this book was written solely for this reason, a few quick bucks to the author and another title to add to his c.v.

It took some willpower to finish this sorry excuse of a book. The author has little understanding of the history of the event and constantly makes glaring errors in his analysis that are frankly unacceptable for a purported expert on the subject.

He theorises that contrary to the accepted account passed down from the classical period that the battle lasted three days, the three legions and support troops were pretty much destroyed in an hour. He has little to no evidence to back up his theory and is also more than happy to ignore some sources available to us altogether. Admittedly some (if not all) of the classical sources that have survived are based on hearsay and were written a considerable amount of time after the event, but this is no excuse to ignore any source that blows your theory out of the water. As for Wells' theory; it is evidently clear he has absolutely no idea on how a battle would be fought and the description of the site post conflict is lamentably poor and owes more to an old western he watched in his childhood than any research carried out in the area.

Wells has done a great disservice to his academic reputation with this book. Despite being a slim volume, there are very few pages devoted to the actual subject. Of the rest there is an infuriating amount of repetition, sometimes Wells does not even bother to disguise the fact he is trawling over the same information covered a chapter before.

Quite simply, this book offers nothing of note to the Varian disaster. His argument is incredibly flawed and is totally devoid of any supporting evidence. The structure of book and the repetitive nature of the text is so appalling you have to wonder why the publisher would go ahead.

Using the writings of ancient historians, as well as the results of recent archaeological excavations, the author reconstructs the legendary battle referred to in the book's title. But this book contains much more than a detailed educated reconstruction of that battle in all of its gory details; the author builds up to the battle by going back many years to show the evolution of the relationships between the Roman Empire and its neighboring peoples. The daily life of ancient Romans is discussed as well as that of the ancient Germans, in addition to their comparative ways of thinking, fighting, technology, etc. The pertinent highlights of the lives of Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Arminius and other key historical figures are also well presented. The immediate aftermath of the battle is discussed, as are the effects on subsequent Roman-German relationships. The author writes very clearly, authoritatively and in a very engaging style which makes the information presented most accessible to the general reader. The book does contain a certain amount of repetition, as pointed out by a prior reviewer; however, in my opinion, this does not take away from the book's qualities. This is a valuable addition to the popular literature on the ancient world. A real page-turner that is highly recommended!

The complete annihilation of three Roman Legions by Germanic tribesmen under Arminius in A.D. 9 is one of the most important military events in human history. The defeat caused the shocked Romans to give up any plans of further expansion beyond the Rhine, establishing the Rhine as a political and cultural boundary between Latin and Germanic Europe that has existed to this day. It also demonstrated to the world and to the Romans themselves that Rome was not invincible, instilling in them a fear of invasion from the north that became a paranoia, and it provided later German peoples with a source for legend and a national hero in Arminius, corrupted to Hermann.

Mr. Wells has retold the story of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in detail, using information gathered by the latest archaeological efforts as well as contemporary accounts written by the great historians of antiquity. Wells describes the relationships between the protagonists, relating how Arminius had served as an Auxillary Officer with the Roman Army and so had learned their tactics and gained their leaders' trust. Each of the major characters of the book are introduced to the reader, and their life's experiences are delved into, providing a means for understanding their various actions during the battle and it's aftermath. The political and social environment of this period in history is explained, from the regal glory of Imperial Rome to the simple day to day existence of a soldier on the frontier or a Germanic tribesman. Wells vividly recreates the battle itself, describing how the Roman Legions were drawn into the trap, with thick forest on one side and a treacherous bog on the other, denied of room to maneuver and unable to use the tactics they had drilled and trained in, their weapopns useless in such close quarters, and the sudden, terrifying attack of the Germans, completely overwhelming and slaughtering the trapped and helpless Romans. Finally, Wells summarizes the effects of the battle, such as halting Roman expansion, shattering the Roman ideology of superiority, and the cultural and economic growth of the Rhineland as the result of thousands of Roman soldiers being stationed along the new boundary.

"The Battle That Stopped Rome" is a well researched and well presented account of a battle in antiquity whose effects can still be seen today, and should be a welcome addition to the library of any interested in history or archaeology.

Pat Choate's comment above is very funny since it tries to minimize the foolishness of those who would want to construct trade barriers to save jobs in the short run, only to loose them in the long run. This book is out of print BECAUSE it was wrong then and it is wrong now!

The WALL STREET JOURNAL immediately reviewed this book in 1993 and wrote: "This book is vintage Ross Perot. Catchy phrases, damning quotes, simple charts and simplistic arguments are deployed brilliantly in a short, pithy frontal attach on [NAFTA]..."

Could someone tell these guys that their careers as international economic experts just didn't work out?

I re-read this book just to check the accuracy of the predictions. The corruption has been exposed. The economic problems and job losses have occured. The 'Giant Sucking Sound' has been felt all across our manufacturing industries. Ross and Pat were right again.

Rudenstine, a lawyer leaves out any consideration of international law. For example, he fails to even mention Professor Richard Falk of Princeton University who edited three thick volumes on international law and the Viet Nam War. Falk is the lawyer who is the leading authority on the Pentagon Papers. Rudenstine also gives short shrift to the trial that was the main reason for Nixon's fall (much moreso than the Watergate burglary): the Ellsberg- Russo Pentagon Papers Trial which came about as a result of my civil disobedience (refusing to testify before the Pentagon Papers grand jury and thus going to jail) in the summer of 1971. As a result of these omissions Rudenstine's book is seriously flawed.

What's the author's problem? Alxheimer's or "selective memory?" He fails to mention the "joint trial of Dan Ellsberg AND Tony Russo" -- and Russo went to jail for civil resistance over the Pentagon Papers! -- and the author fails to mention the participation of renowned international law scholar Richard Falk. Surely with all the books Falk has in his home library here in Princeton, he must have purchased this one. Where's his response? Or would he rather forget his participation in this world-history-changing event? Further, there's nothing that would give a readers even a clue that the leak of the Pentagon Papers begat the downfall of Richard Nixon -- not just Watergate! Shame on you, Rudenstine!

Rudenstine's book is a terrific read! The secret's in the pacing, because he steps through the events leading to the landmark Supreme Court ruling day-by-day, sometimes hour-by-hour. Because the Nixon administration sought preliminary injunctions against the Times and Post, the legal battle was fought over a few weeks, accelerating toward the end.

The author is unsparing in his criticism of the legal approaches used on all sides and points out errors and opportunities missed by judges, lawyers, defendants, and plaintiffs. The result is a less tidy view of what I had previously presumed was a cut-and-dried First Amendment case.

Forgive my low-brow tastes, fellow readers, but this book reminded me of Tom Clancy's first novel, The Hunt for Red October: It makes a thriller by tracing the technicalities swirling around a crisis. I wish there were a sequel.