Need book advise (non-fictional, politics mostly)...!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by JohnT
Using words like "only" does not express generalities, Boris. If he would've said "most" or "all except JohnT's family and a few others I don't know about", he might've gotten away with it. Big deal: it doesn't change the intrinsic worth of the book, which we both rate as very high.

The chart is already adjusted for inflation and COLA increases (see where it says "2001 dollars"?). Doing so again is unnecessary.

General histories like HoW deal with generalities. Words are precious in such a tome, so he has to be as concise as possible. If you look at those numbers, the bottom group's income increased 7% in 10 years, compared to the top group's 43% increase. That's widening the wealth gap quite a bit. Did the purchasing power of the poor increase? Not substantially.

I find your clinging to this one phrase, out of the entire scope of the work, as indicative more of your political bias than Roberts'. Heaven forbid someone say something not entirely positive about Reagan!

[JohnT]

No, the point is that the book is a general work: names and effects of individuals are rarely discussed, other than their place in larger historical trends.

[JohnT]

"I find your clinging to this one phrase, out of the entire scope of the work, as indicative more of your political bias than Roberts'. Heaven forbid someone say something not entirely positive about Reagan!"

No doubt that my reaction shows my biases. It's called being human.

Did you not read my post in the How did the area of Europe advance so quickly? thread, where I quoted Roberts extensively? Likely not, or else you wouldn't have made such a silly assertion as the above in regards to what I remember out of the book. tsk-tsk.

[Boris Godunov]

Yes I had read that, but what does that have to do with your claiming Roberts is a leftist based on one turn of phrase? I didn't say you didn't like Roberts or didn't appreciate his work or didn't think he was a great historian. I just pointed out that the evidence he is politically leftist is thin, so branding him such is unwarranted.

Nice strawman, though!

[JohnT]

Thanks!

I was inspired by all the strawmen thrown at me by Kidicious in the various Capitalism/Communism threads.

[Ecthy]

strawmen?

[Ecthy]

History of the World is the only advice anyone can give?

Do you guys really want to keep me uneducated?

[Panda]

What exactly are you trying to learn about? Do you want to learn about constitutional matters? If so, look at the standard A-level textbooks. Do you want international relations? Media studies? Politics and society? Political histories? General, or country-specific?

A good rule of thumb is to ignore any edition written before 1990 as completely outdated.

[Ecthy]

I'm trying to learn different points of view than the lefty crap you get to hear in Europe.

Therefore, Americans less critical than Michael Moore and more conservative would be good sources.

[lord of the mark]

im not sure id call Paul kennedy a rightwinger. Hes a realist, and i believe studied with Kissinger, but i didnt see anything that id call a right wing slant in Rise and Fall of the Great powers, it would fit liberal realist politics as well. It was good, though i think some of its views are arguable, and he didnt do a great job of prediciting the future. Definitely worth reading.

[lord of the mark]

i havent read any Kagan other than magazine articles, but he seems to perhaps the most reasonable and insightful of the neo-cons, so if youre looking for that perspective (somewhat different than realists like Brezinski, Kissinger, and Kennedy) that would be a good place to start.

I take it youre mainly interested in US foreign policy generally, with an emphasis on geopolitics? If youre particularly interested in the WOT, one book ive glanced at that looks very good is Paul Bermans "Liberalism and Terror" looked like a more thoughtful, less angry, more sober equivalent of Christopher Hitchens on terror.

[lord of the mark]

you might be well served by getting a clearer view of "right winger" You have included 3 realists (kissinger, Brez, and Kennedy) and 1 (relatively moderate) neo-con. Brez and kennedy would not be considered right wing by most in the States, i think, and Kissinger was widely despised by the Reaganite right, though i suppose hes thought better of lately. Kagan is a neo-con, and a good one, but there are more "right wing neo-cons" about (michael Ledeen?) and there is opinion to the right of neo-con. You might browse the weekly standard and the National review (both available free online) for a sense of what "right wing" american opinion makers are thinking about, and which authors they tend to cite. You could try the same with the New Republic, although thats considered centrist to moderately liberal over here ( though it is probably rightwing to the eurolefties)

[Ecthy]

I don't know what WOT stands for but "US foreign policy with an emphasis on geopolitics is just it"

thanks man, finally some opinion on the ones I had in mind

[Ecthy]

as I have said, American realists would, due to their tendency to real politics, quite often be considered right wingers in Europe, the land of pacifist daydreaming and lefty-influenced welfare states.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
I don't know what WOT stands for but "US foreign policy with an emphasis on geopolitics is just it"

thanks man, finally some opinion on the ones I had in mind

wot=war on terrorism