2 comments about Deng Xiaoping: Chronicle of an Empire.

1. This book, written by one of Hu Yaobang's staff, shows a very different picture of the players during this period of time than in books penned by western China Watchers. While Deng appears to have truly been interested in political as well as economic reforms, the hardliner coalition in the Chinese Communist Party was able to use his paranoia of personal attacks against him to veer him away from Hu Yaobang's progressive programs. Had he been able to see through the machinations of the hardliners, China might have been farther along in its modernization than it is.

   I think the most interest aspect of this book is how it portrays Hu's successor, Zhao Ziyang. Western authors portray Zhao as a reformer. However, Ruan Ming shows us a schemer that is more interested in pushing Deng to the wayside and garnering full authority for himself and his "new elite". In 1989, the West saw a tearful Zhao supposedly working in the interests of the student protestors, symapthizing with their demands for democracy and reform. However, Ruan Ming shows us that this was a merely a tactic in his ongoing struggle to build power for himself within the party.

   Overall, I think this book should be required reading for anyone interested in the inner workings of China's government. For once we have an account from a former member of China's government. I feel his account has painted a picture of China's key political players stripped of their masks. We are given an excellent example of how divided China's government is and how that relates to China's ability to develop into a "First World" Power in the future.




2. This book is far too dense to be read by anyone (like me) without a thorough background of recent Chinese history and politics. Even though I am comfortable with pinyin, no way could I keep straight the constant barrage of names zipping by. No explanation is ever given for various Chinese political terms, many of which were not familiar to me. And there is no historical narrative present to unite the material and keep it interesting.

   If you are just an average joe/joan like me who wants to know more about China, don't waste your 28 bucks on this book.

4 comments about Thaddeus Stevens: Nineteenth-Century Egalitarian.

1. Thaddeus Stevens casts a long shadow in American History; a shadow that continues to bedevil the likes of Robert Bork, Anton Scalia and the so-called "original intent" crowd.

   Stevens, the tactical leader of the "radical Republicans" through the Civil War and Reconstruction era stands probably second to only James Madison in Constitutional history.

   Considering his historical role a thorough biography has been long overdue. Trefousse has gone a long way toward supplying a fresh biography of the man. In its pages he has applied the extensive depth of modern scholarship now available on the reconstruction era.

   Only Fawne Brodie has attempted a biography in recent times and that book, Thaddeus Stevens: Scourge of the South has slid thankfully out of print.

   The Trefousse biography will likely be the standard source on the life of "the old Commoner" for some decades to come.




2. I want to thank Hans L Tredousse for a remarkable job on the unfolding of the character of one of the most complex individuals I have ever studied. Trefousse does a great job of showing us as much of what is humanly possible to know about Thaddeus Stevens.

   By far, Stevens comes alive in the preface of Trefousse'account. The reader is pulled gently into the life of this individal because of the hardships he experienced as a child and because of his determination to see justice prevailed.

   As I progressed into the book, I marvelled at both the strengths and weaknesses of this complex man called Thaddeus Stevens. Personally, I think he was a man before his times. It is unfortunate that he considered himself a failure. We have had many presidents in recent years who could not or would not acknowledge that they had achieved anything of "real tangible worth". Stevens comes to the end of life feeling that he had achieved very little of lasting value. It is truly worth lamenting! If Stevens could come back to this century, I think he would be astonished to see what legacy he left the United States and particular minorities who have benefitted much from his efforts to support emancipation and a true Reconstruction for those who had suffered because of slavery.

   I was first introduced to Thaddeus Stevens in Lerone Bennett's BEFORE THE MAYFLOWER. I found Stevens to be the underdog, but an all powerful hero for the rights of equality. I think the second best thing to having enjoyed Trefousse' outling the work of Stevens would be to see the book made into historical fiction. Somewhere out there in "fantasy land" is an actor who could bring more to "life" this complex man called Thaddeus Stevens




3. Hans Trefousse has done a magnificent job in portraying the "Great Commoner" and his effect on the United States. In fact, the book inspired myself and some other people in Gettysburg to start the Thaddeus Stevens Society to promote his memory. For information about the society, write The Thaddeus Stevens Society, 65 W. Middle Street, Gettysburg, PA 17325 or email me at rhetrick@gettysburg.edu.



4. Hans L. Trefousse wrote a definitive biography on this great Republican that helped initiated the Reconstruction period after the post-Civil War period. The sub-titled: 19th Century Egalitarian proves to be an aptly named since Stevens proves to be one of the foremost egalitarians of his century. The book clears up the myths and misconceptions that Stevens were often regarded in and set the records straight. Well written, nicely researched and with superbly insights, I can only wished that the book went even deeper into Stevens' life.
   
   The book also goes into Stevens' strengths, weaknesses and his troubles. I thought it was a honest effort on the part of the author to showed the reader the complete man and the account of Stevens' life proves to be balance and fair.
   
   One of the more interesting aspects of this book lies within the struggled between Stevens and Andrew Johnson. The fight between "reconstruction of the south" to the "restoration of the south". This struggle had far reaching consequences in our nation's politics as well as racial relationship. Although product of his time and era, Stevens proves to be far ahead of himself in terms of race relations. It was interesting to learned that his concerns lies not only with the blacks but also toward Indians and Orientals. The book reflects accurately in the end that Stevens was a true egalitarian in the truest form.

5 comments about An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal [Or How I Became the Most Hated Hispanic in America].

1. Ms. Chavez is a wonderful writer. She's been through alot and describes her journey in very realistic terms. For those of you who would like to form your own opinion, please read the book. It's great!



2. My wife read the book and told me I should do so. It was impressive to see this woman use the experiences of her past..good and bad..to grow into someone who is successful, respected, and most of all Brave and Courageous.

   I admire the way she learned to think for herself, use her talents and ideas and find a path that often eludes many. I doubt I would be so clear thinking as she and I doubt I would be brave enough to write about the adventures along the way.

   She represents all that is truly good about our Great Country and all that is available to those who really want to achieve a better life. She took her experiences, both happy and sad, and built upon them. Despite serious disadvantages in her early life, she worked hard to advance and used her intelligence to think cleary and create her own set of beliefs and ideals.

   She has certainly shown us that by working hard, overcoming barriers, and by facing challenges one can still grow and bravely face those who are lining up against you. When in the end you have the respect of your friends and the public..and you can look around at those who were not brave enough to strike out and think on their own and do for themselves, the very ones who attack her daily..those who are still stuck in their own quagmires, it makes one truly think. This amazing Lady is an example of What ONE COULD BE if one has only the Courage to ignore those who say your time has not come. More people need to read this inspiring book ...maybe those very people who are still in the same old place despite years of phony promises..perhaps it is time for them to strike out and stop thinking they cannot achieve what this Brave and Courageous Lady has!




3. This is an awesome book that covers many issues, but as an author of a book on California politics, I would not have been able to write about English language issues in K-12 without this incredible resource.
   
   Linda Chavez has written "the" book for all parents and all voters who want to understand, first-hand, how the Left tricks the rules in the battle over English-only instruction in schools, and those who use race-over-reason to defend bilingual classroom instruction.
   
   The state of California had gone from award-winning public education status 30 years ago, to a dreadful 48th out of 50 in scholastic aptitude today. Much of this condition can be attributed to leftist Democrats, and teacher's unions, who savor power over what is best for children.
   
   California in 1998 overwhelmingly passed Proposition 227 (English-only) into law. Funny how this works. A millionaire businessman, Ron Unz, saw a need and responded to the FACT that poor working-class Latino parents were appalled by the lack of opportunity for their children who speak only Spanish in the world's richest English-speaking country.
   
   Linda brilliantly lays out how the Left worked to demonize Unz, and anyone else who opposed bilingual education. Linda also demonstrates in this book, how California Democrats, instead of looking out for parents, millions of immigrant children who want to learn English (the "keys to the kingdom), and frustrated educators - ignored the will of the people.
   
   The book is timeless as the battle over English literacy in schools continues.
   
   I highly recommend this book as well as the articulate and well-researched content brought forth by a dedicated soldier who, for all the false criticism, continues to place her passion for fact over fiction in her writing.
   
   The truth doesn't make the loudmouths on the Left happy. Nothing new there.
   
   Nice job Linda! Keep up the good work.
   
   Patrick Mallon
   Political columnist and author



4. This lady cannot resist savaging people she feels did her wrong. And like many people on the far right, there is a very dysfunctional home life. I swear to you, the Rush Limbaughs, the Newt Gingriches, the Tom DeLays all have had super unhappy childhoods. Maybe this is why their politics are so sour and anti-people.
   
   I don't like this lady - she took advantage of affirmative action whenever she could in her youth, now she has some problems with it and would like to throw the whole program out the door SO NO ONE ELSE CAN BENEFIT FROM IT. She makes me ill.



5. Linda Chavez has led an interesting life and has a great story to tell. Unfortunately, I found the writing style of this book to be completely flat. There seemed to be no highs or lows, everything was weighted equally. Rather a chronological bullet-pointed life rather than a real storytelling. I kept with it because of interest in her rather than being gripped by any powerful writing.

5 comments about Leo Strauss and the American Right.

1. The chief insight offered by Shadia Drury in LEO STRAUSS AND THE AMERICAN RIGHT is that Leo Strauss's political philosophy is a radical variant of conservatism whose assumptions and strategies are at odds with traditional conservatism. While both Straussian and Burkean philosophy appear similar in that they both make the assumption that the only choice is between a beneficent plutocracy and anarchy, the Straussians are unsentimental about the past, rejecting the older conservative view that naturalizes pre-modern hierarchy and the inequalities preserved therein as intrinsic to and representative of mankind. Straussians are instead post-modern activists, who use the past as repository from which to cull whatever elements are necessary to build whatever institutional machine is necessary to regulate lesser mortals. They imagine themselves as an intellectual pastorate who must defend society against the depredations of liberalism -- that socially disruptive idea which insists on equality of opportunity and justice.

   According to Drury, Strauss's philosophy accepts the death of God, (unlike traditional conservatism) and then moves positivistically (unlike traditional conservatism) to fill the vacuum with elite group of self-elected philosopher kings. This elite, alive to the nihilism of the liberal ethos and its potentially anarchic consequences, believes it must act forcefully to paper over the hole left by His demise. Their esoteric/exoteric readings of philosophy tell them they must forge from the ashes a seamless, monocultural machine to encourage obedience and staunch chaos. This nationalistic machine must be equipped with a religion (any religion) and a mythic culture based on flag-reverence and knee-jerk patriotism. This is necessary because pluralistic, liberal societies cannot meet the challenge posed by well-organized, culturally cohesive states. Because the mass of men are primitive, credulous, prone to error and evil, the state with the best machine necessarily will win. Straussians, unlike traditional conservatives who see the state as malevolent, justify their activism by insisting that as philosophers they are immune to temptations of power.

   According to Drury, a particularly striking strategy of Straussian conservatives is their struggle to identify and mythologize American traditions. She points out that while Burke had the last remnants of feudalism to extol as a naturally just system, American conservatives have been forced to create a ?traditional? America out of whole cloth. To do so, according the Drury, Strauss's followers have invaded history departments across the US where they have been working hard to uncover "tradition" in the beginnings of America ? a difficult task given that America was the first truly modernist state. Nevertheless, these historians, depending upon which ax they are grinding, rewrite American history either to prove that colonial America was feudal, or to prove the Founding Fathers were not Deists and creatures of the (Liberal) Enlightenment, but rather Platonists. Drury notes that like postmodernists on the left, Straussians believe there is no ultimate truth, but that instead there are only discourses of power and that whoever controls the discourse wins. She notes that this is what makes American politics so narrow and so tedious -- the right and the left both operate from the same morally bankrupt premise.

   This goes a long way toward explaining the bizarre combination of libertarianism and fundamentalism in neo-conservative thought. Like other dogmas which have been used to support those in power -- Social Darwinism and eugenics come to mind -- neoconservatism is just the latest apologia for the up-to-date reactionary. Notably, its adherents are generally unaware of the contradiction. This does not deter them from defending this instrumental hodgepodge of Ayn Rand "objectivism" and millenarian "revivalism" however. Such a philosophy is, of course, its own best self-satirization.

   Well-written, its conclusions careful and amply defended, LEO STRAUSS AND THE AMERICAN RIGHT, is not the ravings of conspiracy theorist. It does not imagine that Straussians have come to run the United States, nor that they form a secret cult which pulls the strings behind the scene. It exposes rather the infiltration of post-modern intellectual cynicism into the once decent, and even honorable, Republican Party.




2. I have a somewhat different take on this book than the other reviewers. I am struck by the idea that the Straussians neoconservatives, who have seized strategic positions in the U.S. Government and the Republican Party, fundamentally agree with the Secular Humanists about the nature of religion (i.e., that there's no god out there to rapture us away, much less lecture us about right and wrong). They just disagree with the Humanists about the advisability of telling ordinary people the truth, pretending instead that increasingly absurd and delusional christian beliefs like the ones promoted by the Left Behind novels are worthy of respect, as long as christians who hold such fantasies vote Republican. (By contrast, UFO cultists who promote similar scenarios about mass alien abductions are ridiculed.) In other words, Neocons view religion as a useful tool for keeping the rabble in line, including the unsophisticated religious politicians who support their agenda.
   
   I find this crypto-Atheism contemptible, though also complimentary in a back-handed way. Intelligent people in many times and places have arrived at Atheism by following their own inquiries into the nature of reality. Strauss and his followers just add further support to the legitimacy of the Atheist discovery, though their systematic dishonesty about it has led to harmful consequences in the real world. The increasingly Atheistic populations of Western Europe, where even American christians readily visit for vacation, show that advanced societies can function well without religion, empirically falsifying the Straussian prejudice that the sheep need superstitions while their shepherds can handle Atheism.



3. The tendentious nature of this book, the fact that it is a politically charged polemic as opposed to a philosophic critique of a thinker, relegates this book to the myriad of yearly right and left wing fodder that we see on the book shelves. Strauss's thought, is first extremely learned, and secondly complex and subtle. If only this author had approached Strauss's texts with the humility and dedication that Strauss himself had brought to the likes of Plato, Machiavelli, and Locke, we might begin to tease out a very different portrait of the man that is found in this book. While Struass's thought my have been possible to interpret as synonymous with the agend of the likes of Newt Gingrich, it does not stand to reason that Strauss would have accented to their interpretation of his teaching. To claim that Strauss had, " no use for liberalism and little use for democracy" appears to be nothing short of academic dishonesty. Strauss if he is to be read for what he said very well understood the historical and natural implications of liberal democracy as the most just regime of mankind. And after leaving what was Hitler's Germany, a Jew and intellectual, Strauss knew very precisely the oppostunities afforded to him in the American landscape.



4. A readable and scary review of Strauss' philosophy and how it influences neo-conservative thoughts and actions. I could not put it down.
   It is hard to believe this was written in 1999. It is consistent with everything we have seen and suspected since the 2000 election. What we see today in the missing John Roberts documents. Yesterday in the Downing Street memos. And tomorrow in ...
   Do you wonder why Jewish and Catholic neo-cons support a born-again President? Why born-again evangelicals support Israel? Because the philosopy of Strauss is for only a few chosen individuals to be educated and know what is going on, to lie to the rest of us, and to use religion (any religion will do) as a vehicle to rally the masses.



5. Since I haven't read the book yet I can't submit a review of it (since the average rating is 3 stars that is what I've assigned it so as to upset the balance as little as possible). However I feel compelled to respond to the review by "Advanced Atheist" (the phrase itself an oxymoron). He cites the "increasingly Atheistic populations of Western Europe" as evidence that "advanced societies can function well without religion". I don't know where he gets his information but he is not even remotely aware of what is occuring across the Atlantic in the 21st century. Western Europe my friend is a dying civilization experiencing a birth dearth. The increasingly aging population is not producing enough children to support its society and therefore is relying more and more on immigration (from primarily Muslim lands) to run the country when the the workers retire. As the Muslims vote in ever increasing numbers it is only a matter of time before government favors their ideas on how a society should function. The reason the "advanced societies" of Europe are not having any children can be boiled down to the wide use of contraception, abortion, and radical individualism. The Muslims on the other hand are not decadent and are very familty oriented, having many children. Experts give Europe roughly another 50 - 100 years before its civilization is changed beyond recognition. In short my "advanced" friend Europe, as we know it, is doomed. In America the situation is better but not by much. Only time will tell whether we join Europe in the dustbin of history.
   "The fool says in his heart there is no God". Proverbs.

3 comments about My Years As Prime Minister (Ron Graham Books).

1. As he always seemed to be, this is an honest and humorous account of his years as the prime minister. He is probably one the best Canada has seen in recent history. And the book is not only his memoirs, but also is full of lessons for those interested in politics, policy makings, and respect. Every Canadian should read this book, whether you like him or now (I know of very few people who don't praise his work and leadership abilities).



2. Sheds a lot of light on the accomplishments of the Chretien government and the media-driven scandals that ultimately caused the downfall in 2003 under Paul Martin. Great book for readers from Canada as it shows the true side of Chretien, something that was often muddled in the press. Readers from other countries will see the impact Canada had on world affairs under this leader, and come to understand how the Canadian political scene and "state of mind" differs very much from other countries, especially the United States.



3. I read this book primarily to find out whether Jean Chretien knew that 9/11 was an inside job and if he knew why Canada went along placidly in support of the war on terrorism . Although he does not answer the questions directly, he deals with them. He writes Putin told him that he believed the US military and the corporations involved in profiting from war were behind 9/11. They needed a new playground for testing their new war toys. In a totally different context in the book Jean Chretien writes that Canada could be invaded by the US at any time. Putting the two statements together I had my answers. He knew but he had no choice.
   Well written book, easy to read and packed with insightful information.

2 comments about Popular Autocracy in Greece, 1936-1941: A Political Biography of General Ioannis Metaxas.

1. There are few men of whom one can truthfully say that Greece would have been a different place without them. Ioannis Metaxas was one of those few. His was the most important influence in creating and driving events in Greece and we can dare to say influencing them even today. Time is the test that most public figures flunk, but Metaxas passes it with flying colors. It is not an accident that just mentioning his name stirs a pandemonium in Greek parliament and the number of books about him, most of them biased and misleading proves the importance of his personality. He (Ioannis Metaxas) deserved a biography that should be more than a personal tribute and he has got it. Professor Vatikiotis has written a book, which is a serious contribution to Greek political history, and, what is more difficult presents Metaxas without fear and favor. Professor Vatikiotis treats him fairly with a detachment which Metaxas himself would have wished. The biographer, however, should have avoided the use of the politically correct oxymoron concerning Ion Dragoumis death. Ion Dragoumis was not "executed in cold blood." He (Dragoumis) was dragged out of his car, while driving to down town Athens, by Venizelos' thugs and murdered in cold blood. Furthermore, the preparation of Greece for war is a dear issue for Metaxas detractors. The all knowing so called progressive "history" writers do keep saying that the country was left unprepared to face the coming conflict, disregarding the fact that the Greek Republic in order to put down the venizelist putsch of 1935 borrowed ammunition from Serbia and that on the other hand during the entire Albanian Epic not even one cartridge was imported. The "Metaxas Line," the line of fortifications along the Greco-Bulgarian borders, which was judged by the attacking Germans as a formidable work of military engineering, is absent from the pages of progressive historian. And, what is not emphasized enough is the consistence of Metaxas' beliefs. He never changed a comma on his writings, he never made a u-turn in order to accommodate, and compromise and so facilitate his political career. He (Metaxas) exposed the Greek political elites to the emptiness of their ideologies. Contrary to his political foes who were nothing but a troop of hypertrophied babbits washed up by the flood of the times, Metaxas was an elite man of action and subjectivist rather than a politician as demagogue who plays on the masses as on a piano. Indeed Metaxas deserved a better biography and professor Vatikiotis has given Metaxas his due. This splendid book tells the story of a troubled soul who surmounted his troubles rose to greatness, great as a noble character and greater still as the man who raised high the flag of Greek freedom and unity.



2. Ioannis Metaxas is a frustrating figure because he was so big a so transformative a leader (to pin Mac Gregor Burn's taxonomy of leadership onto him) that every other biography I have read has become reduced to simply the author's bias and idiosyncratic interpretation of him
   Vatikiotis Book is one of the best books ever written about a legendary (as much denigrated) Greek Statesman. Unlike Kofas hatchet job, "Authoritarianism in Greece," which basically could be called "historical fiction' or books such Plevris "Metaxas," which idealizes Metaxas and ignores his flaws and failures, Vatikiotis' book maintains an admirably objectivity. This is an excellent book about the life and career of Metaxas still portrayed by some historians as a cruel and heartless tyrant. The book is a wonderfully intellectual biography which sheds finally some light on this enigmatic, incorruptible, virtuous and complex personality

2 comments about Destruction and Reconstruction: Personal Experiences of the Late War (Southern Classics Series).

1. Genl Richard Taylor offers his insights of the "late unpleasantness". Unlike too many other popular civil war personalities who wrote first-hand accounts, Taylor usually avoids the name-calling and back-stabbing others seem to readily participate in. His immediate supervisor, Genl Edmund Kirby Smith,however, doesn't fare too well by Taylor's standards. Taylor holds Smith responsible for failing to allow him the necessary reinforcements needed to route Banks in the Red River Campaign (North Louisiana). Taylor indeed offers a unique perspective, as the son of Zachary Taylor, as well as having served in the Eastern and Western Theaters. A well-bred, highly educated man, Taylor's writing is filled with allusions to Classic Literature and military folk-lore, which is often muddlesome. Also annoying is the lack of ANY maps -a real problem when discussion of the various bayous, rivers and small towns fill page after page. Definately recommended for those of Confederate ilk - especially his remarks on post-war happenings.



2. This is a must read for anyone who desires a true understanding of the war and aftermath before our historical perspectives are forever changed with the new history being written by liberal professors. It clearly accounts for the crimes of the reconstruction which is a topic that is definitely being rewritten by those that desire to protray the US as some type of force for good.

2 comments about The New Oxford Book of Children's Verse.

1. What am I missing here? Philip includes contemporary American male poets such as J. Patrick Lewis, Douglas Florian and Paul Fleischman but excludes award-winning female poets such as Lilian Moore, Alice Schertle, Constance Levy, Deborah Chandra and Barbara Juster Esbensen to name only a few. Take a look--this anthology is tipped heavily toward male poets to the detriment of the book's value to a serious reader.



2. As a devout liberal and a feminist, I strongly disagree with the reviewer, who complained about the absence of female poets in this book. This is almost certainly my favorite anthology of poems, and I own over 100. The collection seems to me very thoughtfully selected, and I consider it an excellent read.
   
   I encourage readers to skim through it for themselves, as almost every poem is a gem.

No comments about With the Guards Across the Pyrenees: the Experiences of a British Officer of Wellington's Army During the Battles for the Fall of Napoleonic France, 1813.

No comments about I Am Not a Man, I Am Dynamite! Friedrich Nietzsche and the Anarchist Tradition.