Book Description
Why have there been no terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11? It is ridiculously easy for a single person with a bomb-filled backpack, or a single explosives-laden automobile, to launch an attack. So why hasn't it happened? The answer is surely not the Department of Homeland Security, which cannot stop terrorists from entering the country, legally or otherwise. It is surely not the Iraq war, which has stoked the hatred of Muslim extremists around the world and wasted many thousands of lives. Terrorist attacks have been regular events for many years -- usually killing handfuls of people, occasionally more than that.
Is it possible that there is a simple explanation for the peaceful American homefront? Is it possible that there are no al-Qaeda terrorists here? Is it possible that the war on terror has been a radical overreaction to a rare event? Consider: 80,000 Arab and Muslim immigrants have been subjected to fingerprinting and registration, and more than 5,000 foreign nationals have been imprisoned -- yet there has not been a single conviction for a terrorist crime in America. A handful of plots -- some deadly, some intercepted -- have plagued Europe and elsewhere, and even so, the death toll has been modest.
We have gone to war in two countries and killed tens of thousands of people. We have launched a massive domestic wiretapping program and created vast databases of information once considered private. Politicians and pundits have berated us about national security and patriotic duty, while encroaching our freedoms and sending thousands of young men off to die.
It is time to consider the hypothesis that dare not speak its name: we have wildly overreacted. Terrorism has been used by murderous groups for many decades, yet even including 9/11, the odds of an American being killed by international terrorism are microscopic. In general, international terrorism doesn't do much damage when considered in almost any reasonable context.
The capacity of al-Qaeda or of any similar group to do damage in the United States pales in comparison to the capacity other dedicated enemies, particularly international Communism, have possessed in the past. Lashing out at the terrorist threat is frequently an exercise in self-flagellation because it is usually more expensive than the terrorist attack itself and because it gives the terrorists exactly what they are looking for. Much, probably most, of the money and effort expended on counterterrorism since 2001 (and before, for that matter) has been wasted.
The terrorism industry and its allies in the White House and Congress have preyed on our fears and caused enormous damage. It is time to rethink the entire enterprise and spend much smaller amounts on only those things that do matter: intelligence, law enforcement, and disruption of radical groups overseas. Above all, it is time to stop playing into the terrorists' hands, by fear-mongering and helping spread terror itself.
Customer Reviews:
Wacko 9/11 conspiracy theorists.......2007-08-17
You can easily understand what this author and his book are all about by observing his actions. Recently, he appeared at a panel on "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid by Jimmy Carter". For those of you who don't know, Carter basically advances the view that the problems in the middle east are all caused by the uncomfortable fact that jews exist in the region and that the way to solve these problems is to get rid of them. Since the only way this is going to happen is through genocide, that is what he supports. He also makes it quite clear that ANY behavior by the muslims in that region, no matter how heinously evil, is justified. This horror fest was cosponsored by a local group that promotes the view that 9/11 was not an act by muslim terrorists but rather a nefarious plot by our own government.
These are the types of people Mueller groups himself with.....dangerous lunatics who support national socialist style fascism. This says everything you need to know about his book. It also says everything you need to know about people who read books like this and find merit in them. You might as well shave your head and tattoo a swastika on it (or maybe a crescent). Because that is what YOU are all about.
Subtitle: Terrorism -- Not a big deal.......2007-04-08
Mueller's thesis, in brief, is that terrorist movements cannot succeed and have never succeeded in their political goals. The violence they employ is not widespread enough to overthrow governments or forcibly change societies to their liking. Thus, for Mueller, to react militarily to terrorism instead of treating it like organized criminal violence simply exacerbates the problem.
Some issues Mueller does not seem to consider or is outright incorrect about:
First, although it is true that terrorists have never won (i.e., overthrown a government, upset a society), Mueller seems completely unaware of the work done by Walter Laqueur and others that note the world is in a "new age" of terrorism. While terrorists can't win by employing truck bombs and pizza-parlor massacres, theoretically they now have the power to win by using weapons of mass destruction, the technology related to which is "open." Most terror academic and governmental experts -- neither of which Mueller is -- have esssentially concluded that it is just a matter of time before the world experiences this. What then? A few arrests and trials?
A second problem is the illogical claim that *the response to terrorism causes it*. Mueller again seems completely unaware of the mountainous work done by scholars such as Bernard Lewis that demonstrate the millenia-and-a-half effort by the Islamic world to extend its control throughout Asia, Africa, and Europe using both conventional and non-conventional war such as terrorism. For that matter, Mueller seems completely unaware of early 20th century terror movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood, movements that existed prior to the Iraq war, the Israel-Palestinian issue, the very creation of Israel itself, the US being a world power, and indeed, prior to the birth of anyone reading this. Mueller wants arrests but no military response -- it's as if he doesn't realize there's a war going on.
A third problem is his general dismissal of terrorism as much of a risk to innocent civilians. Mueller believes other risks, such as automobiles and cigarette smoking, cause far more death and injury than does terrorism. The obvious rebuttal: we *choose* these other risks. Perhaps not the consequences (no smoker really wants lung cancer), but we certainly choose the undertake the risky behavior. But who chooses to be a target of terrorism? All of the other risks Mueller discusses are preventable by making the choice not to engage in them -- lung cancer, for example, would end if people stopped smoking and DUI-related deaths would end if we didn't drink and drive. But terrorism-related deaths won't end until the terrorists are killed and their political motivations are defeated. But Mueller evidently hasn't noticed the difference between the chosen risk of smoking and the unchosen risk of being a terror victim.
A fourth problem is that Mueller seems unaware of domestic terror cells in America. In fact, he claims that there aren't any. Readers can find discussions of domestic terror cells on web sites such as Jihad Watch, that of Middle-East scholar Daniel Pipes, and elsewhere that offer lengthy discussion of domestic terror cases.
The core problem with Mueller's book is that he simply wasn't qualified to write it. He makes error of both scholarship and fact that no undergraduate students of terrorism would make. He might as well have written a book on 19th century French literature or on plate tectonics -- his discussion and his conclusions would have been equally thoughtful.
Required Reading for Chicken Licken.......2007-03-25
This is an interesting, valuable and important book, and I'm fairly sure almost no-one has or, for that matter will, read it. I will do what I can to change that.
John Mueller is from a venerable but sadly rare tradition of Academic commentators: the skeptics. It's that perspective he lends to our "troubled times" and over this course of this tidily executed, thoroughly sourced and entertaining book, Mueller systematically demolishes much of the public hype which holds us up in airport terminals, eats up our tax dollars and does its level best to prevent us sleeping soundly in our beds.
He makes, and repeats, a point which many otherwise perfectly sensible and well-informed commentators can't fathom: The biggest source of terror in our lives is not terrorists in Afghan caves, but our own politicians and media pundits constantly blathering about them. The terrorists themselves cause sporadic but, in fact, very limited mayhem.
The thousands of hungry mouths who comprise the "terrorism industry" on the other hand - the politicians, civil servants, defence contractors, security analysts and media commentators - each of whom is primarily interested in justifying his own existence or convincing us to open our wallets - each has a vested interest in persuading us we should be soiling rather than sleeping in our beds. Their statements, therefore, we should take with a pinch of salt.
But even though we all know we ought to, we don't. We acquiesce: we put up with speculative, unsourced, unattributed, and frequently credulous nonsense - we tolerate queues and being unneccesarily fondled at airports, hikes in tax rates and restrictions on our civil liberties. John Mueller's book sets out to provide us a reality check and ask, pointedly, why we are so easily prepared to do that.
By way of preface Mueller lists a series of items which ought to be - but aren't - conventional wisdom. They're all very big points, among them:
* Terrorism just doesn't do much damage considered in any reasonable context (nine times as many Americans are struck by lightning in the average year as are killed by terrorists)
* Even where Terrorism has horrendous results, it tends to be one-off events (despite six years of anxiety, there has not been another terrorist attack in the U.S. *at all*, let alone one on the scale of 9/11)
* Catastrophic events are by their nature are hard to repeat (never again will a plane full of unsuspecting passengers sit and allow unarmed men to fly them to their deaths without intervening, since the assumption "we'll be used as hostages so we're safe for now" no longer holds)
* Terrorist actions tend to be counterproductive on almost every level any way: far from throwing New York into chaos, panic and Hobbesian brutality, the direct and immediate result of 9/11 was the sudden blossoming of compassion, cooperation and cohesion in the city on a completely unprecedented scale - a place not usually known for its neighborliness or Samaritan spirit
* The cost (both human and economic terms) of the "War on Terror" has been far greater than the cost of Terrorist actions themselves (even taking into account the financial losses sustained in the capital markets)
* The "War on Terror", being as it is a war on an idea, is utterly unwinnable. There is no practical way of eradicating the possibility of individuals, for whatever reason, engaging in entirely destructive acts of violence. Like road fatalities (of which there are tens of thousands each year in the US) the risk of terrorist attacks are a fact of life in built up areas which we should take reasonable, dispassionate, measures to minimise bearing in mind the opportunity costs of doing so.
Mueller doesn't take an (overtly) political position - his arguments are not based on views about foreign policy nor the moral rights and wrongs of the situation, but an statistical analysis of the costs and risks of the terrorist threat, and acknowledgment of the personal agendas which inevitably inform those who shout loudest. "If it bleeds it leads" - people don't buy newspapers to read good news, so in a competitive market it is no surprise if newspapers tend to dwell on worst case scenarios. Yes, terrorism is dreadful, Mueller says, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep it in perspective.
In short, this book is a long overdue and much needed dose of common sense.
Olly Buxton
911 type attacks kill as many as toilet drownings.......2007-03-07
I listened to Michael Medved [right wing radio talk show host with whom I usually agree] interview John Mueller about this book.
Medved stronly disagreed when John said that terrorists are not a big deal.
I had to agree with Mueller.
It is the difference between perceived risk and calculated risk.
Mueller is calculating the risk.
Mueller is the man.
The emperor has no significant terrorist risk and is over reacting.
I Won't Read It -- But, Read "Beyond Fear" by Bruce Schneier.......2007-02-27
I'm honestly NOT fearmongering, bottom line I do NOT live in fear, and I work in Defense. Bottom line, really now, BOTTOM LINE, how many "one-time" events are we willing to tolerate? How many? So are you willing to risk the one-time event that annihilates 10,000, 1,000,000, 10,000,000, 100,000,000 or more Americans, or other freedom loving nations ... what is your limit?
As for me, I understand the risk and the comparisons to the fact I'm much more likely to be killed by me hitting a deer on my drive home than ever being annihilated by a terrorist shooting me in the head with a 9MM, nuclear weapon or biological attack, etc.
For me, I want to spend as much money as it takes to live in peace, less national bankruptcy, to save 1 American (or any fellow human being) from some terrorist scheme to kill 1, 10,000, 100,000 ...
You?
These books are thought-provoking and MUST be written to keep us all level-headed, but we can't give up on tracking down terrorist, improving security to stop terrorist attacks, and keep our politicians in-check.
Average customer rating:
- Stamps out Political Correctness
- Well done, clear message
- Very, very sad
- This book is terrible
- What the hell is wrong with Americans?
|
Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism
William J. Bennett
Manufacturer: Regnery Publishing, Inc.
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
 Ethics & Morality
| Philosophy
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Terrorism
| Current Events
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Military Science
| History
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 0895261340 |
Amazon.com
Bestselling author William J. Bennett says he was inspired by displays of patriotism after the September 11 terrorist attacks, but he was also struck by how "some were quick to find us to blame." He worries that this "countermovement of America-bashing" will make the United States lose its resolve: "What I fear is the erosion of moral clarity, and the spread of indifference and confusion, as a thousand voices discourse with energy and zeal on the questionable nature, if not the outright illegitimacy, of our methods or our cause." Bennett cites dozens of examples of professors who decry U.S. foreign policy and pundits who object to so much flag flying. While recognizing that these are minority views, he concludes that Osama bin Laden caught Americans with their defenses down--not just physical and military defenses, but also moral and intellectual ones. "Many of us have forgotten what we once knew about our freedoms and our decencies, and we have forgotten why, time and time again, we have had to rally ourselves to the point of ultimate sacrifice to defend them," writes Bennett, who also appraises Islam and defends Israel on these pages. Why We Fight is short and quickly read--and worthwhile for anybody who wants to be reminded of first principles during the war on terrorism. --John Miller
Book Description
Bill Bennett makes a case for our moral duty in the world and why the anti-war left, right and center are wrong.
Customer Reviews:
Stamps out Political Correctness.......2007-01-15
For too long we have allowed the PC view of the world to control our thoughts, making some of the most absurd positions the accepted "truth". William Bennett here lays it all out in a succinct and clear fashion, helping bring us back to reality, and showing us why we must maintain and promote moral clarity in the face of sworn enemies.
We cannot assume that all nations and peoples will act benevolently towards us when we do so towards them; that is the utopian wishful thinking of the 60's which history clearly debunks. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that Islam is not just a religion but also a political system whose major tenet is that of converting the world to its religion, and submitting it to its political control. That, above all else, has been behind Muslim agression for 1300 years, and the "excuse of the week" (Israel, our presence in the Gulf, etc.) is only used as a means of continuing the Jihad duty to which all Muslims are sworn and to convince ignorant Westerners of the justness of their "struggle".
Read this book and bring yourself back to reality.
Well done, clear message.......2006-09-09
The media dwells on American actions, with their armchair quarterbarck view. We face difficult decisions but the existential threat is real - and the need to face those threats is clear.
Very, very sad.......2006-06-01
Bennett's own logic undermines itself. He is in essence arguing that to be a truly patriotic American, one must check your brains in at the door and unquestioningly accept everything our government tells us. Welcome to the machine.
Our country was founded on the premise that individuals should have the capability to think for themselves and critique those in power. It's time that we rediscovered that to appropriately confront those in power is true American patriotism.
This book is terrible.......2006-05-09
I was reading a debate between Noam Chomsky and William Bennet on their new books, so I decided to buy them both. I won't review Mr. Chomsky's book here, but Mr. Bennet's book is terrible. I thought it was bad enough to actually write a review so other people do not buy this book. The message is basically, if you love your country, agree and support what your government does.
What the hell is wrong with Americans?.......2006-03-23
I am a British citizen. I have just read this book and it left me stunned. I can only conclude that the author is barking mad and the positive reviews of this book are written by people who were educated in DisneyLand.
If this book made you "feel good" for being a patriotic, right-wing, conservative American then all I can say is: Use the internet to LEARN stuff instead of looking at porn sites.
Average customer rating:
- Give Reason a Chance
- Mailer is pathalogically anti american
- Mailer's triple spaced liner says: the devil did it---ignore.
- Why Are We At War?
- DON'T read unless you want to feel depressed and hopeless
|
Why Are We at War?
Norman Mailer
Manufacturer: Random House Trade Paperbacks
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
General
| Middle East
| History
| Subjects
| Books
Civil Rights & Liberties
| Current Events
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
International
| Current Events
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Relations
| International
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
U.S.
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
International Security
| Freedom & Security
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Middle East
| History
| 4-for-3 Books Store
| Stores
| Books
Civil Rights & Liberties
| Current Events
| Nonfiction
| 4-for-3 Books Store
| Stores
| Books
Freedom & Security
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| 4-for-3 Books Store
| Stores
| Books
General
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| 4-for-3 Books Store
| Stores
| Books
International
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| 4-for-3 Books Store
| Stores
| Books
U.S.
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| 4-for-3 Books Store
| Stores
| Books
General
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| 4-for-3 Books Store
| Stores
| Books
All 4-for-3 Deals
| 4-for-3 Books Store
| Stores
| Books
Similar Items:
-
The Big Empty: Dialogues on Politics, Sex, God, Boxing, Morality, Myth, Poker and Bad Conscience in America
-
The Naked and the Dead: 50th Anniversary Edition, With a New Introduction by the Author
-
The Castle in the Forest: A Novel
-
Why Are We in Vietnam?: A Novel
-
The Spooky Art: Thoughts on Writing
ASIN: 0812971116
Release Date: 2003-04-08 |
Book Description
“Because democracy is noble, it is always endangered. Nobility, indeed, is always in danger. Democracy is perishable. I think the natural government for most people, given the uglier depths of human nature, is fascism. Fascism is more of a natural state than democracy. To assume blithely that we can export democracy into any country we choose can serve paradoxically to encourage more fascism at home and abroad.”—from
Why Are We at War?
Why Are We at War? is an explosive argument about George W. Bush and his quest for empire. Norman Mailer, one of the greatest authors of our time, lays bare the White House’s position on why war in Iraq is necessary and justified. By scrutinizing the administration’s words and actions leading up to the current crisis, Mailer carefully builds his case that Bush is pursuing war not in the name of security or anti-terrorism or human rights but in an undeclared yet fully realized ambition of global empire.
Mailer unleashes his trademark moral rigor on an administration he believes is recklessly endangering our very notion of freedom and democracy. For more than fifty years, in classic works of both fiction and nonfiction, Mailer has persistently exposed the folly of the powerful and the mighty. Beginning with his debut masterpiece,
The Naked and the Dead, Mailer has repeatedly told the truth about war and why men fight.
Why Are We at War? returns Mailer to the subject he knows better than any other writer in America today: the gravity of the battlefield and the grand hubris of the politicians who send soldiers there to die.
Customer Reviews:
Give Reason a Chance .......2007-09-28
Being a person who attempts to validate the merit of conservative positions as well as liberal, I decided to give this book a try for myself after reading several positive and negative reviews posted here. Among the negative reviews there are several that make Mailer out to be a bitter, ranting old fool, someone filled more with spite than insight. After reading the book for myself I can honestly say this could not be further from the truth. Critical assessment is anti-patriotic only to the truly blind, or dull minded. Mailer does not hate America anymore than Kierkegaard hated his fellow Dane's or Nietzsche the Germans (the subjects from whom they drew their often harsh observations of culture and values). Some of the negative reviews also allude to Mailers issues with his wife as if this some how invalidates the argument's he makes. Believe me, do a bit of digging and you will find there are plenty of vigorous flag waivers who are not to shy to throw a punch - We'd be wise to stick to the merits of the argument, not chase after the messenger!
Mailer makes the valid argument that although democracies are probably the best system, they are volatile and should not be taken for granted. A strong democracy should be receptive to self-assessment and scrutiny. This is the bread and butter of democracy; something sorely lacking in the days leading up to Iraq, which might have spared us a lot of pain.
Why are we at war, published before things in Iraq started to degenerate to the point of sectarian bloodletting, and civil war it is now at, offers insight and foresight that our leaders would have been wise to consider. Chief amongst these considerations is the notion that democracy can be exported and imposed anywhere, wholesale, with little consideration of local history. Both the Romans and the British believed, without reservation, that their superior systems could be imposed, but need the vast distinction between Rome, monarchies, and democracies be made?
If you can recall the Neo Con's also made frequent comparisons between Iraq and Post World War II. This book offers significant insight into to the flaws in such general, simplistic, thinking.
In recalling president George Bush standing on deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln -Mission accomplished - in a show of military might and bravado, basically declaring that Iraq was as good as done, Mailers view of Neo Con `dreams of empire' seem eerily prophetic.
Mailer is pathalogically anti american.......2007-05-19
Norman Mailer's great idol is Henry Miller. Miller, though a great writer, has a disgust for almost all things american and even of the american people. He was no Walt Whitman who loved America and the American people.
Unfortunantly, Norman Mailer from early on picked up some of the worst aspects (in my opinion) of henry miller's attitudes about America. I am convinced that a chinese immigrant fresh off the boat would be more "objective" and do better for america than Mailer and his ilk.
I don't much like Norman's idea of "allowing the terrorists" to terrorize america "a little bit". This is so against the very best ideals of america -- of some of its greatest thinkers like whitman and emerson -- a nation of robust free men who would rather fight and die than stand passively by while they are raped ... that I dismiss it totally. Nor do I care for his romanticization of the islamic terrorists. There is nothing romantic about the Islamic fundamentalist movements that were behind the terror attacks. Norman would do well to aquaint himself with just how fanatical these people really are. It is this kind of double standard which drives thoughtful liberals crazy and provides cannon fodder for the conservatives.
All this comes from a man who appears to have learned very little from the attacks he has taken from radical feminists... from the convict he supported for release who committed murder upon his release ... and even from the time he attacked his wife with a knife (universal brotherhood indeed). How many times do you have to be wrong about important things before you gain a little wisdom regarding important things ?
Mailer should have been less of a hostage to other men's ideas, and attempted to develop common sense, objectivity, and a voice of his own. As it is Mailer cannot be trusted with america's safety or future because he is without a doubt biased against america.
There are many things wrong in iraq ... but norman is not the man to lead us to the promised land. I for one, am not so quick to want to dismantle and evicerate the so called american empire.
Mailer's triple spaced liner says: the devil did it---ignore........2006-03-28
[Why War has lingered, unceasing, in many forms.]
The projection of technology once again has applied constant pressure to impose autocratic rule, the projection of its control to affirm its self identity in supremacy. It's very important for certain egos that they have that as a recourse to assuage the wounds of superficial defeats and rejection of history in the open, aboveboard world. And it is thought better to humor that arrogance by affording it some constructs of sovereignty, havening, or undeclared exclusivity because of how it may or may not stabilize and sate the appetites it has for Grand Gestures of Abject Brutality, such as the JFK Assassination, or any assaults on humanity taking genocidal tolls for suspicious causes given their media explanations. It is the only hobby a relic caste of ethnic self infatuation has left to pride itself in. The strategic wisdom has been, going on history for example, that is perhaps the only recourse there be something for everybody, and that otherwise `idle hands become the devil's workshop'. This has proven to only expand operations of that workshop into Iraq and other places where it manufactures bluffs , preempts and feints to focus discriminatory accusations, then overwhelming U.S. retaliations on populations it targets for `ethnic cleansing'. America has become, through all the Armed Forces, the Congress and the Executive, a permanently exiled warcrime industrialist's bitch: Janes All The World's Pleasurecraft; who also flubbed the V-22's schematics between 1989 and 2001, revealing suspicious proprotor blade rework.
That, Norman Mailer, is `Why We Are At War'. We are at war for something's persistent and unrepentant, begrudging racism; something that has foolishly taken comfort believing it has refuge under cover, hidden away in the corners of the earth, and something who's zealotry has misled it to believe it will fool all the people with its strategic subterranean nuclear violations every time, or any time; or how it still wants Iraq for a military industrial waste-dump to tinker with concoctions like the auto-immune virus bundled SARS race-WMD; then to weaponize and vector it via the clumsiness of its plaything, (the U.S.) blowing up its storage bunkers, a very lowbrow chicanery fooling no one, as it didn't before in the Gulf-I worldwide pandemics of micoplasma and fibromyalgia, or Gulf War Syndrome.
We are at war solely for the grudge match over who will dispense the primacy of holding weapons on others, and who will have those coercion rights. It is such a rare commodity to arrange for our recreation, that the pretext for military expeditions to go on exercises against the live human combatant targets they know will be there opposed to us, that the temptation is greater than premeditated acts of war highest treason was supposed to condemn and shield America by her own laws. The World Trade Center was blown up, they didn't burn down, it was the worlds largest engineered pyrotechnics demolition, and recruitment for that operation was wrangled in the United States for years in advance, allowing known terrorists to be trained in Florida to fly the cosmetic airliners to impact on the buildings (two of three that were detonated) shortly before the firing sequence daisy chains were blown.
We are at war because subversion has grown to become a covert insurgence in America, perpetrating bombings on major buildings, (anthrax letters that are left unsolved for a coercive media tool of ominous reminder supposed to cow the public into submission and curbing of its criticism) preempting a Civil War on America, in America in order to control our government through a totalitarian organizing called 'republican'. Your book has not offered the country factual analysis, it is shallow apologetic, and a trite boogeyman retreat to blame it on `the devil', in extremely poor taste. Why don't don't you call the 9-11 victim's lives suitable for trivia and stupid allusions?
We are at war from an owned and controlled mass media imposing the coverup, sheltering the aggressive faction's war crimes by upholding and maintaining its alibis. It is used to propagate misinformation to Americans about acts of war and treason on Americans, it is used to hold the news agenda in permanent suspended animation, to protect criminal syndicates by showcasing their patsies like Mc Veigh, who instead of being prosecuted by the U.S., was instead more useful for his trite poetic license of remorseless vainglory. Then the public is led down the garden path of suspecting the Waco massacre atrocity all had to do with the custom modifications on a single, unremarkable firearm, as the provocation for a virtual lined up machine gunning; then Mr. Mailer, how perfect a cause for crusade it instantly became for the Oklahoma Federal's prime suspect. That is too convenient, well within taking the precise shape `preemption', asymmetric war, dodging attributions leaving convenient dupes holding the bag to cover up the scale of insurrection. What better way to further attack the parting Clinton Administration, a big sendoff putting to shame the bimbo bowling from the Pentagon?
Exploring the scale of the insurrection some more, the stubborn false pride attacking the conscience of White power structure, what are the dimensions of the infiltration of America by clandestine civil war moves? They would be surreptitious, sneakily contrived and inveigled; could they perhaps be vectoring chemicals into water supplies? What would be the outcomes, is there evidence? If for no reason it's secondarily reported the CDC so happens to remove government records, statistics tracking longitudinal incidence of rising autism in North America, donating them to a private HMO where the public cannot have access for research; that looks suspicious. MSNBC's Meet the Press on August 7, 2005, David Kirby and Dr. Harvey Fineberg for The Institute of Medicine were interviewed reported findings of no scientific merit to the vaccine injury theory of autism.
The question Norman Mailer has failed to present in its fullest scope is why we have been at war, a civil war in this country since the end of the Second World War. Why has our system caved in to the preposterous canard of public drinking water fluoropoisoning under such frivolously and blatantly misrepresented medical fraud? Why is its installation going into full swing under the illegitimate regime and all its other impostures?
Why Are We At War?.......2004-10-25
Norman Mailer, although an extremely opinionated writer, did an excellent job with the subject of the war in Iraq. He explained how the reasons behind this war were illegitimate, it was all for Bush to gain an empire. Bush believes that America represents good and every other country is evil. He figures that we are the only ones to solve problems. He then gets the United States involved in other countries affairs which he has no business doing. Mailer mentions how the "American administration is now a bloodthirsty wild animal. Bombs are its only vocabulary." He says that Bush is a "flag conservative" and uses the word evil like a way to increase his power. I agree that Bush is power hungry and seems to think that America is the greatest nation in which we are allowed to do as we please. Norman says that the United States is a hyperpower in which our military expenses are going to equal the top fifteen most powerful states together. Bush is trying to force a democracy on another nation, that was actually never a true nation. It was put together by the British after WWI. Mailer says that "Democracy is never there in us to create in another country by the force of our will. Real democracy comes out of many subtle individual human battles that are fought over decades and finally centuries, battles that succeed in building traditions." For us to go over and show them how to run a democracy, like we have, shows how arrogant we are.
Basically the entire book is like this and shows just how George W. Bush is power hungry and does not know how to run our country. I agree with all Norman's views in here and am inspired by his work, since I am anti-Bush and believe our government is corrupt.
DON'T read unless you want to feel depressed and hopeless.......2004-07-20
I expected greater things from an author who is dubbed on the jacket as being "one of the greatest authors of our time." Unfortunately this book is one of the most negative pieces of garbage I?ve read in a long time. Norman Mailer conveys to us his bitterness toward patriotism and his feelings of hatred toward all things American. Instead of critiquing these problems with an open mind and saying "Ok, this is what we should do to fix the problem," Mailer resigns all Americans (except himself, of course) to being materialistic, money grubbing vultures who want to conquer the entire world and make it capitalist. Mailer praises the acts of terrorists. He claims that "most of us are wicked to a good degree." He embarrasses victims of 9/11 by saying "It?s not the ones who were good fathers and good mothers that I mourn the most. It?s the ones who came from families that were less happy" (as if any of the lives lost deserve less or more sympathy than the others.) He criticizes proud Americans who wave flags. "The fact that we?ve been a great democracy doesn?t mean we will automatically be one if we keep waving the flag. It?s ugly." What Mailer doesn?t comprehend is that so many people like President Bush because he gives our nation hope. This is all but lost on Mailer, who does nothing but pessimistically criticize instead of offer suggestions: "We in the west have this habit of looking for solutions? There may be no solutions at this time. This may be the beginning of an international cancer we cannot cure." According to Mailer, "patriotism becomes the handmaiden to totalitarianism." What Mailer does a good job of is making you feel a sense of dread. He claims that Bush is a "bloodthirsty warmonger" and spouts absurdities like "military presence in the middle east is a stepping stone to taking over the rest of the world." This absolute hogwash does nothing to answer the question he imposed: Why are we at war? Mailer thinks that a few quotes from obscure sources proves his conspiracy theory that Bush/America is on a quest for world domination. Mailer suggests that we sacrifice security for democracy: "Americans have to be willing to say at a certain point that we?re ready to take some terrorist hits without panicking; that freedom is more important to us than security" and that we should "learn to live with the anxiety" of terrorism. Hold up. WHAT?! Freedom may be more important to Mailer than security, but if one of my family members was killed in a terrorist attack, security would absolutely be my number one priority. Not only this, but I have a few qualms about taking political advice from an author who says that "fascism is of a more natural state than democracy." Mailer claims that there is a degeneration of the American society: "The kids are getting to the point where they can?t read, but they sure can screw." Nice, Mailer. Real nice. The lack of confidence Mailer espouses in the American people is astounding as he talks about our "monstrous arrogance." He says "we will never know just what we are fighting for" and "we never know where our prayers are likely to go." The only good (and I use that term loosely) thing about this book is that it is short, so you won?t be mired in hopelessness and negativity for too long. It?s only 100 pages of large, spaced out print, most of it dialogue.
Book Description
An important, massively researched and revelation-filled work of history that uncovers how decisions made by the first Bush White House preordained the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq.
“Is this a one-time thing, or should we foreshadow more to come?”
This was the prophetic question posed by National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft in a secret April 1991 memorandum about the postwar management of Iraq, two months after the United States had defeated Iraqi forces in Operation Desert Storm—but left Saddam Hussein securely in power. Circle in the Sand challenges the widely held notion that Saddam’s survival was the result of a spur-of-the-moment decision by the first President Bush and his inner circle (especially the “Reluctant Warrior” Colin Powell) to call off the Desert Storm campaign "one day too soon."
Through interviews with the Bush team’s principal decision makers—including President George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Brent Scowcroft, and Paul Wolfowitz—as well as hundreds of never-before-revealed White House documents, Christian Alfonsi shows how Saddam’s survival was the result of a calculated decision, albeit one with disastrous consequences, which had settled the issue of how the first Iraq war would end long before it even began. Circle in the Sand also provides the definitive account of the collapse of the first Bush administration’s Iraq policy after the war.
Unprecedented in its detail about the decision making inside the Bush White House during the first Gulf War, Circle in the Sand provides not only a dramatic
portrait of history in the making but also a compelling rationale for the United States’ mishandling of the current situation in Iraq. Did we invade Iraq in 2003 to ensure that George W. Bush would not suffer an electoral fate in 2004 similar to his father’s defeat in 1992? Circle in the Sand forces us to consider that disturbing scenario and its larger implications for the American war on terror.
Customer Reviews:
Why both Bush presidents waged war with Iraq.......2007-05-12
With deliberation, Christian Alfonsi traces events preceding and following the first Bush's 1991 war to force Iraq out of Kuwait and proceeds to analyze how his administration's policy weaknesses and "victory fatigue" led to the subsequent 2003 invasion of Iraq on George W. Bush's watch.
Alfonsi cites mainly public sources in his Notes, supplemented by some material from interviews he conducted, and with these he does a creditable job supporting his depiction of crucial developments. For example, he documents how the U.S. ended up keeping troops stationed in Saudia Arabia after cessation of Gulf War combat even though the kingdom had been promised all American military would depart. And, the author emphasizes that pressures on the Bush administration to do something about ethnic cleansing in the Balkans distracted American officials to a point that Saddam could take advantage. However, despite a fluent treatment of what actually happened, Alfonsi tends to stay on the surface. Apparently, he doesn't have evidence for a deeper dig into the reasons people such as Defense Secretary (later Vice President) Dick Cheney did opinion 180s: Cheney stated in April 1991 that "It makes no sense at all" to embroil American troops in "a civil war inside Iraq." He said it would "literally be a quagmire." Yet, Alfonsi relates that in 2000 just after Bush and Cheney were declared the official winners of the election, Cheney said at a celebration dinner that now something could finally be done about removing Saddam Hussein. Huh? True, Saddam had been a thorn in the side of American power since the Gulf War, but the rising conviction of neoconservatives and those they could persuade that Iraq must have a new leader seems disproportional to his provocations. Perhaps the neoconservatives presumed that U.S. military power was so overwhelmingly superior that any target could be permanently vanquished without much American bloodshed or lengthy engagements. But -- again, probably because evidence is not readily available -- Alfonsi documents the jumps in key officials' (such as Cheney's) thoughts without thoroughly dissecting how they evolved.
CIRCLE IN THE SAND is, therefore, not a complete study of "why we went back to Iraq." But it does shine a steady light on some vital causes. And Alfonsi does not shrink from pointing out that al-Qaeda was born at least partially due to American activity in Saudi Arabia during the Bush I years, and that after 9/11 the Bush II administration allowed the chance to corner Bin Laden and other top-level al-Qaeda members to slip through their fingers largely because they considered Saddam Hussein and an invasion of Iraq a higher priority even though Iraq could not be convincingly connected to the 9/11 attacks.
Recommended.
Good Background on the First Gulf War.......2007-04-15
Alfonsi was perhaps in a unique position to be researching the first Gulf War prior to and then during the planning of the second. In the 1992-2000 interim, the principals were accessible and open. Little did they know they would again be in a position to again affect policy in this region.
Alfonsi succeeds in his Woodward style reconstruction of Gulf I and its immediate aftermath. He informs, or reminds, of the time lines, April Glaspie's reports, the role of Joe Wilson, the build up, the acceptable range of Iraqi aggression, the support of the neighboring states, the diplomacy surrounding the Saudi bases, and the disastrous impact of Pres Bush 41's exhortation to the Iraqis to rise up against Hussein. The Gulf War I part of the book is 5 star and above for its documentation of history.
Also given good coverage is the impact of this war and the situation in Bosnia and how the two converged in the 1992 presidential campaign from the point of view of the Iraq War principals.
Alfonsi's segue into the 2003 Iraq invasion is disappointing. This last arc of the circle takes less than 50 pages. He says "it was in the DNA" of the Bush 43 administration. This does not explain why we went back.
While in the part of the first Gulf War Alfonsi clearly defines the role of oil, the discussion of oil is totally absent from the second. Neither does he explain how the then Secretary of Defense and cheerleader for leaving SH in place at the end of Gulf I, totally changes to hawk as Vice Pres. These are only a few of the missing pieces that subsequent researchers will undoubtedly explore.
Great book but key issues omited...........2007-04-01
Circle in the Sand is reader-friendly research that brings some light on how the same folks that held Saddam Hussein in power after Desert Storm ended up involved in a civil war and a nation building effort a decade later.
The need to contain "estable" the Persian gulf, the distraction of the U.S. foreing policy on the Balkans crisis, the Republican defeat in 1992, the change of guard on the GOP leadership, the asscent of neoconservatives to power, the events of 9/11 and the perverse skill of an iraqi dictator to take advantage of the U.S. internal political conflicts are all combined to explain the constrast between the outcome of both wars.
Although comprehensive and convincing, Alfonsi's work omits an important force driving American troops back to Iraq. The quest for reliable and profitable source of energy as well as the defense industry interest on the conflict are not remotely mentioned as a reason on Why we went back to Iraq. Despite the omision, the book is worth reading not once but twice.
Egomaniacs at Work.......2007-03-14
What a diturbing read. What has this country produced?
The story of single minded egomaniacs advising a simple minded human failure. A dictatorship in action and the palace guards at work.
If you still love W look and learn. Maybe this won't happen again.
Dynastic Obsessions.......2007-03-13
From Christian Alfonsi's lucid account of how Bush Jr. reprised and expanded Bush Sr.'s Iraq war, at least one horrifying lesson emerges: the dynastic obsessions of a family in power can throw the state into turmoil as easily today as in the days of the Caesars, Borgias and Hapsburgs. Conceived by a cabal of the father's consiglieri, whose self-serving and often self-deluding representations Alfonsi carefully recounts, this descent into the disaster belied all the safeguards of representative government as well as the inertial conservation of modern society's lumbering institutions. Historians in the 19th century wrote narratives of great men--heroes and villains alike. Although that type of history has gone out of fashion, it is still the right story in certain circumstances and this is one. Everyone should recall this book's story whenever families and their retainers seek power, regardless of their party affiliations.
Book Description
The Second Bill of Rights brings back from obscurity the greatest speech of the greatest president of the twentieth century, to issue a stirring call for much-needed rights that were never enacted.
In 1944, Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave a State of the Union Address that was arguably the greatest political speech of the twentieth century. The speech began what Cass R. Sunstein calls the Second American Revolution by giving form and specificity, for the first time, to the concept of human economic rights. Many of the great legislative achievements of the past sixty years stem from Roosevelt's proposal for a Second Bill of Rights. Yet these rights have never been written into the Constitution, and they remain the subject of passionate debate. In recent years they have even lost ground.
Using FDR's speech as a launching point, Sunstein examines the "legal realist" school of thought, which decisively refuted the idea of laissez-faire economics; describes how Roosevelt gradually developed the idea of a Second Bill of Rights; and asks why the Second Bill, which was almost enacted under the Warren Court, has never attained the constitutional status FDR sought for it. The reason, Sunstein maintains, is not anything unique to American culture or temperament but a particular historical accident: the election of Richard Nixon as President in 1968.
This is an ambitious, sweeping book that argues for a new vision of FDR, of constitutional history, and of our current political scene. The Second Bill of Rights is an integral part of the American tradition and the starting point for contemporary political reform.
Customer Reviews:
Socialism thwarted, American freedom preserved.......2005-03-19
Of all the stupefyingly idiotic ideas that, thankfully, never got passed into law, Franklin Roosevelt's "Second Bill of Rights" was one of the all-time worst. Cass R. Sunstein's billowy praise of "St. Franklin" borders on deification and is all at once laughable and nauseating. But underlying it all is the notion that this odious, detestable idea--that it's the government's job to provide people with work, housing, food, etc.--is actually something worth revisiting! That is utterly repugnant to me as it should be to every American. We are a nation of sturdy, self-reliant individuals. We are resourceful, resilient, and industrious. We look only to Almighty God for our daily bread--not almighty government! But unfortunately, history has provided us with enough Karl Marx's, Franklin Roosevelt's and Cass Sunstein's to keep these questions in continued doubt, and urge America Leftward into a European-style socialist gulag. Mercifully, FDR failed to get his attack on American freedom ratified. I can only hope CRS and his ridiculous book will meet with similar failure!
FDR's vision.......2005-02-19
The idea of the Second Bill of Rights appeared in the classic State of the Union address by Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, and is an underground current of American culture. It was also in part the inspiration for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That this speech, and the real FDR, is so little known tells us something of the times, but the birth of an idea foretells perhaps its future return. The powers that be don't wish that we realize the incomplete nature of our democracy, and the history of this speech mostly explains the apoplexy of the resurgent right wing. This book explores the history and legal background, and the way this second bill almost became a part of the American system in the 1960's. Everything was in place, and then the election of Nixon stopped the momentum as four new conservative judges were placed on the Supreme Court. The conservative tide after that is the story of our generation and the incoherence, reactionary destruction, and inequality it has spawned. An idea whose time has long since come, and whose second coming we can certainly hope and work for.
Let the Sunstien!.......2004-10-08
This was my fist Sunstein book but it won't be my last. Three chapters (2, 6 and 11) alone are worth the book's price. Sunstein's obvious constitutional experience and social acumen offers depth and insight into many social issues of the day. He caused me to critically understand the definition of "government" and "rights" better than ever. His analysis of Laissez-Faire economic philosophy is the most practical I've ever read.
Although I was interested in the conditions for and results of the "New Deal", I was unaware of FDR's 2nd BOR probably I think, because few ever really gave it its proper emphasis and analysis. Sunstein filled in the missing pieces. His writing is well constructed, logical without becoming oppressive, and flowed nicely. It is a quick read.
The book is more than a historical analysis. It challenged my understandings of the role today of government and the constitution. I've been studying these issues for several years now, so Sunstein accomplished what few others could. It was truly a fresh approach that makes me feel like I understand social issues and their complications better than ever.
His treatment of FDR's Second Bill of Rights was fair and reasoned illustrating both sides of the argument. He thankfully made the discussion relevant to the issues of today and provided tools for me to use in discussions with others.
I've added more of his titles to my wish list. You should too.
Social and Economic Rights.......2004-09-17
Franklin Roosevelt left this Earth with unfinished business. In the post-war era, he sought to acknowledge the need for social and economic rights. Although it is often referred to as the Second Bill of Rights, FDR did not intend to amend or change the Constitution. He sought to bring attention to basic human rights. Sunstein correctly asserts that progess was being made toward FDR's goals until Nixon was elected President. When Nixon appointed four conservative judges to the supreme court, the tide changed to rule against cases that sought greater social and economic rights.
Among the issues discussed in the Second Bill of Rights are a right to a job, food and clothing, health care, fair business, education, and a decent home. Some will suggest FDR's ideas reeked of socialism. I think such a phobia is childish. All people depend on the government a great deal. Something as simple as property could not exist without a government.
The wonders a correctly implemented government health care system would make life so much easier and of a greater quality. Why is the United States the richest country in the world, but also has the highest poverty rate of industrialized nations? This does not make sense! It is not a matter of redistributing resources as in communism. This would destroy a free market driven by profit, when FDR was a proponent of free market. The problem is the wealth concentrate in the rich coperations, monopolies, and other unfair business practices. FDR thought all Americans should live at a certain standard.
FDR did not seek to change the system. As Sunstein clearly points out, most modern constitutions provide the rights FDR sought in 1944. While we have made a lot of progress toward FDR's goals, we have a long way to go. Sunstein has written an excellent book that explains what most thinking men and women already know, America still has a long way to go in completely providing life, liberty, and freedom.
The Skinny on Sunstein's New Rights.......2004-07-05
In examining the "soft" new rights Sunstein champions, keep these hard issues in mind:
1. Black letter law: how should new rights read? The "affirmative rights" cases of the 1970s expressed rights (for example, the right to housing) as an affirmative duty, or at least the Courts so interpreted it. And they turned down such a right for the usual reason: it tended to bring the Court into the Executive branch, involving it in a supervisory role to determine if the right was being implemented properly. This overstepped the bounds of the separation of powers and the Court would have none of it. Solution: express new rights as negative prohibitions (this is not how the Four Freedoms or the Declaration of Human Rights are expressed, and Sunstein glosses over this vital issue). For two reasons: they tend to avoid fact questions and they tend to be self-enforcing. For example, housing: if two parties are quarreling over whether one should be removed from housing, there isn't any question as to what is housing. So this minimizes the necessity for the Court to step in and answer the question: what, in fact, is housing? Second, a negative prohibition tends to minimize the affirmative need for Government to make sure people aren't being forced out of housing. People tend to know when they're being forced out of housing. If they have an individually enforceable right, they'll squawk and take it to Court and get the threatened removal stopped.
Second area: what rights? This turns on a statement by James Madison constantly cited in the later dissents of Brennan and Marshall. Madison states, in The Federalist, that the Fourth Amendment prevents every assumption of power in the legislative and executive. This creates what I call the fatal anomaly of the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. Reasonableness suggests a balancing approach, which the Court has adopted. However, Madison does not say every unreasonable assumption; he says, EVERY assumption. It suggests that there are rights which are protected in EVERY case, somewhat along the lines of an establishment of religion where, if you find it, you ban it in EVERY case (no such thing as a reasonable establishment of religion). No one can properly address new individual rights without reaching a conclusion on this issue. Sunstein doesn't do this.
The history of English constitutional law suggests that the state makes long-term efforts to impose certain conditions, for example a state religion or violations of what today is regarded by the Court as protected speech. These efforts are made over thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of years, so there is a long history to look at. And the conclusion is that it is simply a history of failure. In the end, governments don't succeed in imposing state religion or in violating protected speech--they simply distort the facts and cause all kinds of grotesque situations. Which suggests that these facts--freedom from state religion and exercise of protected speech--are facts of the individual. That is, they inhere in the individual and are never violated.
Myself, I think there are five about which the logic has been made clear over the centuries, even though there is no political consensus: housing, education, maintenance, liberty and medical care. So, if you were going to formulate new black letter rights, they should read something like (on the model of the 13th amendment): no individual shall be involuntarily deprived of housing, and so on. It's a negative prohibition with respect to a fact to which parties would tend to stipulate, and neither the Government nor the Court would tend to be dragged into a fact-finding or supervisory role. Is that the test for an individual right? What about other ideas, say, transportation? Is that a right? The point is that the process is endless, of discovering facts of the individual.
The third problem area is, even if you know of new rights, how on earth do you get them enforced? Whatever the new facts, it is clear that we are living in a political reaction--and have been for 30 years--which makes it unlikely, barring a crisis, that we will see the promulgation of new rights. Say we sign off on libery and housing as rights. That means the end of incarceration. How can you have a ban on involuntarily deprivations of housing (and remember, Madison says it's in "every" case) and still put people in prison? Test case: the sheriff enforcing an arrest warrant by going up to the door of a building in which both the defendant and the sheriff concede, the defendant is housed. Here you have a flat-out political problem: Joe Sixpack will not currently allow an end to incarceration. Americans ADORE incarceration. For them, it's a sport. And how can you convince them otherwise, when only 10% of Americans ever come into contact with the criminal justice system?
What about eminent domain? No road which would benefit all humanity because Grandma won't take the buyout? And is now standing on her right to housing? I sense the bulldozers waiting, purring.... I can't see the powers that be (politicians, unions, construction companies, and on and on), putting up with such a right. The reason human rights have stalled is because we have indeed reached something like a logical consensus on new facts, which new facts are slamming up against very high institutional and political barriers. Nothing stops us, however, from clearing the doctrinal ground against the time those barriers fall.
Book Description
Behind headlines on the conflict in Iraq and global terrorism, a much deeper battle is raging over children and the values they should adopt. Political and religious leaders including Blair and Bush have been joined the popular press in Enlightenment-bashing and bitter attacks on "liberal parenting," calling for a return to authority and religious tradition.
How do we raise good children? How do we make good citizens? In defiant yet acute fashion, Stephen Law urges us to re-evaluate the liberal tradition of thinking about morality. Tackling authoritarian rhetoric head-on, he argues that children should learn about right and wrong and respect for others, but that their education should be grounded in the hard-won values of the Enlightenment. Taking on neo-conservatives and religious and media commentators, The War for Children's Minds is a candid and controversial call for a liberal, philosophically informed approach to raising children.
Rejecting accusations that liberal parenting is a Sixties hangover that entails an aimless "whatever" attitude to morality, Stephen Law exposes the weaknesses of arguments calling for a return to authoritarian styles of moral education. He clearly shows that thinking for oneself does not mean that all moral points of view are equally good, or that we must reject faith in order to think freely.
A staunch defence of the humane, liberal life The War for Children's Minds is a much-needed guide to an urgent moral conundrum.
Customer Reviews:
Preaching To The Choir.......2007-01-02
Stephen Law has written a very informative book on the importance of liberal education for children. He argues persuasively that liberalism does NOT entail absolute moral relativism or the education of children without behavioral standards.
Nevertheless, I did not find his book to be particularly enlightening. Being a liberal, I found that Law simply comfirmed what I already suspected or knew. I also doubt that many who adhere to a more "authoritarian" model of child rearing will be convinced otherwise by this book.
If you're looking for a book that provides justification for liberal education, this is a good place to start. If you're looking for a guide on how to provide a liberal education for your child, look elsewhere.
Excellent Book. Solid Arguments. Fun Read........2006-12-27
Stephen Law has produced a fun read on a very controversial and serious topic. His arguments are solid in defense of liberal education. He tells how authoritarian education, in both theistic and atheistic forms, is bad for children. He tells how critical thinking does not lead to moral relativism, and gives a convincing case for the defense of critical thinking in schools.
Law is a gem among philosophers in that he provides his lucid arguments in readable form, which can be followed throughout the book. He provides numerous anecdotes and witty writing to provide a good, fun, enlightening read.
A well-timed and excellent book. I highly recommend it to everyone, whether you are with or without kids or whether you are in or out of the educational system.
Average customer rating:
- Why We Will Never Win the War on Bad Science
- Does HIV causes AIDS? It may not be so simple.
|
Why we will never win the war on AIDS
Bryan J Ellison
Manufacturer: Inside Story Communications
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Unknown Binding
Internal Medicine
| Medicine
| Subjects
| Books
| Cardiology
| Critical Care
| Endocrinology & Metabolism
| Gastroenterology
| General
| Hematology
| Hepatology
| Infectious Disease
| Nephrology
| Neurology
| Oncology
| Pulmonary
| Rheumatology
| Urology
Similar Items:
-
Infectious AIDS : Have We Been Misled?
-
Inventing the AIDS Virus
ASIN: B0006F4ARI |
Customer Reviews:
Why We Will Never Win the War on Bad Science.......2006-08-26
This book achieved notoriety when in 1995 a New York Federal Court issued an order that all copies of it be destroyed. Then, on Jan 7th 1996, Judge Sprizzo ordered Bryan Ellison to destroy all copies of his book. For more on this court case and the revelations of this book, enter "judge sprizzo bryan ellison" into a search engine.
Although it was written in 1994, this book is still relevant in these times when only this year a woman was jailed in Britain for supposedly deliberately infecting men with HIV through intercourse.
The other review covers this book very well, so I won't bother repeating what that reviewer says. After I read this book I consulted the current edition of the British National Formulary, which is the drug reference guide for British doctors and I counted that there are now 20 antiviral drugs for HIV infection, which are to be prescribed in combinations, of which all are toxic and which are associated with side effects such as gastro-intestinal disturbances, muscle disorders, ulcers, congestive heart failure, alopecia, liver damage/failure, blood disorders, influenza-like symptoms, to mention just a few.
It baffles me how toxic drugs, prescribed to be taken over many years can somehow increase a person's life expectancy. Surely a more scientific approach if someone has "human immunodeficiency virus" would be to boost the immune system perhaps, e.g. through high doses of vitamins, as recommended by Nobel prize winning scientist Linus Pauling.
EXTRA- A few days after I read this book I came across a copy of Time magazine from last month which stated that traditional healers in Uganda recognise typical symptoms of AIDS as being diarrhoea and rashes. If that's the case then eating, for example, a dodgy curry at certain certain Asian restaurants in London causes typical symptoms of AIDS too! So much for scientists.
Does HIV causes AIDS? It may not be so simple........2006-03-02
Ellison and Duesberg present a compelling argument that modern medical health organizations have their own interests at heart when it comes to diagnosing and treating infectious diseases. At the end the of the 1960's most infectious diseases like Polio had been eradicated in the western world. This threatened the budgets of federal health agencies the like the CDC and NIH who thrive on public funding to combat transmittable diseases. Cancer seemed like a promising candidate for their research but turned out not to be caused by viruses or microbes.
When a new disease called AIDS appeared, it provided the promise of huge amounts of funding if it proved to be transmittable. Ellison and Duesberg argue that the health establishment manipulated public perception about the relationship between AIDS and HIV, to create the appearance of a direct linkage, so as to create a new research and health-care paradigm: one that put them at the center of the action. In reality, the vast majority of retroviruses are harmless and AIDS shows very different symptoms depending on which country it appears in. African AIDS is a different beast altogether from that which appears in Europe and the U.S.A.. This suggests AIDS isn't one disease but many immune system disorders that have been lumped together under one rubric for the sake of the organizations that specialize in their treatment. According to the authors, anytime someone tests positive for HIV and have any of over 100 symptoms, they are automatically classified as having "AIDS." And yet apparently, many people who test positive for HIV stay healthy for decades.
In essence, Ellison and Duesberg present a lifestyle explanation for what causes AIDS including drug-use, immune system stress, and sexual preference. This is a more sociological driven idea of what AIDS is than a biological explanation. And it challenges everything we've officially been told about the disease.
This book was an important event in my personal understanding of how scientific institutions actually work, what drives their research, and causes them to sometimes act like witch-hunting "knowledge monopolies." If you are at all interested in the collusion between science, government health policy, and the medical establishment you are bound to find this book provocative and challenging, though it is a bit rough in some sections. Is AIDS a "fake epidemic"? Honestly, I don't know for sure, but my mind is now open to new evidence that supports a different interpretation than the standard, official line touted by the media, the CDC, NIH, and other organizations.
(Dr. Simeon Hein is the author of OPENING MINDS and PLANETARY INTELLIGENCE, and composer of the CDs EARTH DREAMING and OPENING SKIES.)
Customer Reviews:
Ridgeway has his say on Korea.......2002-08-19
One of the finest books written on The Korean Conflict by a man who ought to know as much as anyone about combat and Korea. As a personal hero of mine in WWII he took over an army totally unfit to fight and win against the new enemy, the Chinese. How he turned this sorry situation around is spelled out in many other books. The General simply tells his story about how he helped to make the 8th Army combat effective again. As far as I'm concerned South Korea is the nation it is today partially because of him. This book pulls few punches and the truth rings clear to anyone who has worn our nation's uniform in battle.
Ridgway and Limited War.......2001-05-19
Matthew Ridgway is a fairly unknown general in US military history. This is unfortunate because he was incredibly insightful and capable. In fact, he was probably the United States' best general of the Cold War.
_The Korean War_ is an account of his experiences commanding first the Eighth US Army and then the entire United Nations Command against the Communists. He entered the war at a time of catastrophic defeat. The Chinese Communists had forced the Eighth Army into a disastrous retreat, the longest in US military history. Ridgway took command of the Eighth Army and forged it into a more capable weapon. By doing so, he was able to halt the Communist advance and retake much lost ground.
_The Korean War_ explains how Ridgway did this. Moreover, though, the book demonstrates his ability to grasp how the Cold War meant that the US needed to fight different kinds of wars. Total war was now very dangerous because it could result in a Third World War with the Soviet Union or a much larger war with China. Ridgway, therefore, endorsed the necessity of fighting limited wars. He developed this stategy as well as an operational approach of attrition. He wanted to wear down the Communists and force them to concede in negotiations. He focused on reducing the risk of escalation and minimizing his own losses in order to form a sustainable strategic and operational approach. As such, Ridgway played a formative role in the development of US strategy in the Cold War. This book explains how and why he did so. It is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand conventional military strategy during the Cold War.
Excellent book for a military perspective of the Korean War.......1999-11-10
General Matthew Ridgway commanded the U.S. Eight Army in Korea from December 1950 until April 1951 when he succeeded General Douglas MacArthur as Supreme Commander of the United Nations forces in Korea and Supreme Commander of the U.S. Far East Command. The Korean War is his personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and his view of the implications the Korean conflict would have on future U.S. foreign policy. Ridgway does a fine job of explaining the impetus for U.S. involvement in a war on the Korean peninsula, a war in which America was incredible unprepared and downright disinterested. Ridgway's analysis of the U.S. failure to anticipate the invasion is insightful. The U.S. believed the next war would be another global conflict similar to World War II in which Korea would play very little importance. Ridgway states that the U.S. was not concerned with Korea mainly because it was beyond the traditional U.S. defensive perimeter that would be protected against the next global conflagration. Furthermore, Ridgway points out that the U.S. had faith in the United Nations to forestall any serious aggression and, in the event of a failure, the U.S. felt confident in the power of its nuclear deterrence. Ridgway claims confidence in these factors left America believing in a psychological Maginot line in Korea. Little fault can be found with Ridgway's analysis of the North Korea's invasion of South Korea and subsequent unprepared U.S. entry into the Korean War. Ridgway states "diplomacy is only as strong as the military muscle willing to be put forth." The amount of military muscle put forth is driven by the resolve of the American populace and with Korea there was little. Had the U.S. demonstrated or even indicated a resolve to protect the South Korea, the invasion probably could have been averted. Ridgway dedicates much time to the civil-military dispute between General MacArthur and President Truman during which MacArthur was eventually relieved and replaced by Ridgway. Ridgway claims that the outcome of this dispute settled once and for all the debate over military versus civilian supremacy when determining the course of U.S. policy. From the beginning of the Korean War, MacArthur had his sights set on a victory that was not the limited to South Korean liberation but included to global destruction of Communism. President Truman on the other hand was mindful of the politics at home and abroad and did not support MacArthur's calls for the isolation and destruction of China and all of Communism. Truman knew what MacArthur refused to recognize -- that America would not rise to fight World War III as it did to fight World War II. Additionally, Truman was very aware that the new dynamics of the Cold War and of nuclear proliferation were changing the face of warfare and bringing to light a new concept of conflict, limited war. Ridgway does a superb job of analyzing the conflict between MacArthur and Truman as only someone who was intimately involved at that level could. MacArthur was a military officer trained to fight the wars of the nation, and he was perhaps unmatched in his prowess; however, Ridgway argues, in a democracy the politics of war should be left to the civilians. MacArthur believed that with the right resolve the U.S. could defeat China, but America did not posses the necessary resolve. Ridgway blames MacArthur for much of the confrontation and paints MacArthur as narcissistic. While this may be true, MacArthur's personal failings cannot be the sole cause for the abrupt end to his career. More importantly it may be the failings of the civilian leadership that did. MacArthur had to be relieved to protect the tenets of American democracy, but had the civilian leadership intervened earlier, as it is empowered to do so, perhaps MacArthur could have departed with the dignity he earned and deserved. One area where Ridgway does miss the mark is in his evaluation of the Korean War's final outcome. Ridgway sees the armistice in Korea as a U.S. victory, not a total victory, but as the first resounding defeat for Communism, and the "battle that began to turn back the tide." Korea may have been a military victory against Communism, but it was foreign policy failure. The U.S. created the Korean War by neglecting Korea as a nation and its strategic importance. Moreover, the U.S. failed to anticipate North Korean and Chinese intentions even with substantial intelligence, and it failed to convey to these countries U.S. resolve in the region. Written in 1967 near the height of the Vietnam War, Ridgway's book takes lessons learned from a superb historical account of the war and uses them as a basis for critical evaluation of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. In modern warfare, Ridgway sees no room for open-ended warfare. He states U.S. objectives of world policy should be defined with care, should lie within the range of (U.S.) vital national interests and that their accomplishment should be within (U.S.) capabilities. He believes U.S. objectives in Vietnam at the time were "not set within this frame." History eventually proved him correct. Most importantly Ridgway addresses the impact that nuclear weapons had on the Korean conflict and what they will have on future warfare. The U.S. had only two choices in Korea - truce or broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons could have brought the U.S. victory, but that would have forced America to cede the moral high ground. Ridgway questions this cost and uses this as the basis for accepting the concept of limited war and the fact that traditional victory may be a thing of the past. He states, "we had final come to realize that military victory was not what it had been in the past. It might even elude us forever if the means we used to achieve it brought wholesale devastation to the world or led us down the road of international immorality past the point of no return."
The commander tells how he saw the war in Korea.......1999-09-08
Matthew Ridgway was arguably the finest general officer to serve in United States forces in the 20th Century. Whether one agrees with this ranking or not, no one can dispute that he performed a feat of leadership unmatched by any senior general in American military history - he took an American army that had suffered the greatest defeat in its history and rebuilt it through the force of his personality and gifts of leadership and turned it around and had it successfully on the offensive in only one month. Had he done nothing else, his fame would be unmatched, yet he additionally kept the United States out of the Indochina morass that ten years later would be Vietnam - when there were no Ridgways to warn of the dangers of commitment there.
The author's intent was to display his error-free ego.......1999-07-11
Gen. Matthew Ridgeway is so full of himself that he cannot err. He is quick to point out his perfection by comparing himself to others of his calling, and although forced by history and fact to admit the other fine leaders of the 8th army did actually perform well in Korea, he is obviously reluctant to write of anything unless the sentence begins with "I". His book is garbage, and I'm ashamed to have served under him in that war.
Book Description
Why are satisfying relationships so elusive? And why do so many couples fall into patterns of repetitive conflict?
Psychologist Maureen Kirby Lassen approaches the problem in a radically new way by explaining how our mental models about the world, or schemas, can short-circuit our relationships-and how understanding and challenging your own schemas can become the essential step in a healing process. Lassen teaches you how to become your own "relationship expert" by recognizing the influence of early parent-child schemas, assessing the accuracy of your own models, analyzing how schemas influence your own and your partner's "bonding style," and developing strategies for effective long-term change.
Books:
- Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, Fifth Edition
- Political Philosophy: A Beginners' Guide for Students and Statesmen
- Politics and Policy in States and Communities (9th Edition)
- Politics in States and Communities (12th Edition)
- Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy
- Population: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues
- Prime Time: How Baby Boomers Will Revolutionize Retirement and Transform America
- Research Methods for Public Administration (4th Edition)
- Resurgence of the Warfare State: The Crisis Since 9/11
- Routledge Philosophy GuideBook to Plato and the Republic (Routledge Philosophy Guidebooks)
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- Ten Best Teaching Practices: How Brain Research, Learning Styles, and Standards Define Teaching Comp
- Make Your Own Electric Guitar
- Electronics Fundamentals: Circuits, Devices, and Applications, Sixth Edition
- Foliage
- History: Fiction or Science
- Proclus' Commentary on Plato's "Parmenides"
- Holy Nature: A Celebration of Naturism in Today's Russia
- Manual Completo De Costura / Complete Book of Sewing: Todas las Tecnicas Explicadas Paso a paso / A
- Diccionario de Terminos Contables
- The Associative Economy: Insights beyond the Welfare State and into Post-Capitalism
Trapped in the War on Terror
What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat
Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (American Empire Project)
Armed Humanitarians: U.S. Interventions from Northern Iraq to Kosovo
American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America
