"The Quotable Conservative" is a collection of quotations from 200 conservative stars arising from many traditions, from ancient philosophers to modern talk show hosts. Many sources are well known, others less so, but all have something worthwhile to say.

Most of the quotations consist of only one paragraph, but many are longer and delve into their subjects more deeply.

Whether you are looking for a witty retort to leaven your speech, or a thoughtful discourse to challenge your mind, you can find it in "The Quotable Conservative." It is a stimulating book for the thinking conservative.

There are two books entitled "The Quotable Conservative."

The other one, compiled by Bill Adler, includes many lightweight one-liners and clever quips of conservatives in its 150 pages. It is weighted towards the quotations of politicians and other political practicioners.

This book is richer and deeper. While it includes some of the quotations found in Adler's book, its 260 pages reach beyond politics, and often include whole paragraphs of thoughtful prose from their source. Here, the thinking conservative will find important ideas from philosophers and fine commentators ranging from Aristotle and Acton to Tyrell and Sowell, from Adams and Bastiat to Will and Williams.

Both books are nicely-sized 6" X 6" formats, and both are worthwhile acquisitions. However if the fiscally conservative reader wishes to buy only one book of conservative quotations, this is the one.

I've had this book for a couple of years and find myself going back to it freqently. It includes great treasures of wit, wisdom, and inspiration. Too often today we forget the thoughtfulness of our forefathers. Too bad tlv106@aol.com from Tampa, Florida thinks this wisdom is "corporate America propaganda."

Stewart O'Nan, a young white man, sets for himself a most ambitious task in his 2001 novel Everyday People: a contemporary story set in the inner city, with mostly or entirely black characters, and dialogue in black dialect. As for setting, characters, and language, he succeeds. Where O'Nan came up a bit short was with plot. In large measure, O'Nan follows Chris ("Crest") Tolbert and his family during one week before the opening of a new expressway which will effectively cut the Tolbert's neighborhood from the rest of the city. Before the novel began, Crest was rendered a paraplegic when he fell of the half-completed parkway in an accident which also killed his best friend. How Crest, his family, his girlfriend (and now mother of his son), and others deal with this tragedy is a very promising beginning. O'Nan's failure, I believe, was in attempting to make his story too true to life, with several minor plot lines or stories that get started and remain unresolved - and unaddressed - by the book's final pages. Although this is how life often works, as a reader I found myself at the end asking "what about this?," and "what happened to him?" O'Nan overall seems a very gifted writer, and his characters are outstandingly drawn. Everyday People is certainly well worth reading for these reasons. However, in my judgment, it could have been better.

I can understand why this book may be compelling to those who are not: a)from Pittsburgh, b)looking for a intricately crafted story line, and most importantly c)African American. As the author notes near the end, maybe for a split second he can see what I see, but unfortunately, he fails to communicate the rich texture of the Black experience even in as wholly depressing environment as he attempts to create.

This book turned out to be a group of short stories centered on the daily stresses and encumbrances encountered by the Tolbert family and other community denizens in what he perceives to be life in Black urban America. I commend him on his ability to convey emotional structure but he fails to provide adequate imagery to give the reader a sense of the physical. I have a better mental picture of Tony's ice cream truck than any of the so-called African-American members of this community.

Within the Black community, descriptives that distinguish one person from another by complexion or physical features are commonplace. We only know the ethnicity of his characters by the authors' avowals and his inconsistent attempts to capture the vernacular which, by the way is not enhanced by any inclusions of "Pittsburghese." His patois of the street strikes me like someone without language skills attempting to emulate an upper crust British accent.

I was also disappointed in his failure to address the impact of ethnicity in relation Harold's homosexuality. Acceptance of that lifestyle has implications in the community - across the board and most particularly in the Black church- that Mr. O'Nan avoids entirely.

In essence, Mr. O'Nan writes of a sense of frustration, powerlessness and to an extent, resignation that is not predominant in East Liberty. It appears to be he who is incapable of seeing beyond the walls of the busway.

This is a competent effort, one that merits attention as a study of the human condition, however the emphasis on the African American community is a misguided one for this writer. I would suggest "Drop" by Matt Johnson or "White Boy Shuffle" by Paul Beatty, as two efforts more successfully conveying the subleties of the urban experience.

With his latest novel, ''Everyday People,'' Stewart O' Nan invents and enters the deprived African-American Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania) neighborhood of East Liberty in the fall of 1998. At this time the neighborhood is about to be cut off from the rest of the city by the opening of a new expressway for buses. The town has always been victim to poverty and gang violence; during this one week, their patience will be tested more than usual.
At the center of the novel is the Tolbert family. Chris, also known as Crest, a seventeen-year-old boy who is the youngest in the Tolbert family, has just returned from the hospital in a wheelchair, coming out of a tragic accident that occurred on that very expressway which left him paralyzed from the waist down. That accident happened to take the life of his best friend, Bean. His older brother, Eugene, has just returned from jail and found Jesus as a born-again Christian. Harold, the boys' kind and loving father, is in love with a younger man (Andre) but leaves him, rationalizing that his boys need him more. Harold's wife, Jackie, senses that something is not right (though she believes his lover to be a younger woman), and is furious because the man she has always trusted has become the kind of man she had sworn she would never tolerate. Vanessa, the teenage mother of Crest's son, Rashaan, is trying to make more of her life by trying to balance her responsibility as a mother with the stress of waiting tables, and takes an adult education class in African-American literature at night school and realizes that she wants to learn more, which hopefully, will motivate her to obtain a college degree. Miss Fisk, is an elderly woman who looks after Rashaan, the way she used to look after Bean. Besides this one family, there are people dying, children involved with gangs, and many others being robbed all around.
Stewart O' Nan may be doubted because he is a white author who writes about an underprivileged African-American community and may not fully understand the experiences of those who actually live there. He captures the readers' attention with his vivid descriptions and interesting story plot. He incorporates the everyday lives that continue to go on in urban America. Many people are blind to see the reality of our world but this novel helps them listen to the voices of these characters, and let them know that they are everyday people, rather than gangsters, thieves, prostitutes or even drug addicts. Clearly the author wants the reader to realize how one crime can affect a whole community over a period of time. Honestly, I was a little disappointed because I'd rather of spent more time inside the head of Crest. He seemed like a good levelheaded boy who was influenced a lot by his surroundings. I would have loved to know all of his thoughts about what was going on in his community for that week, especially what he went through that will now change his life forever. It seemed like the underlying message of the story was to try and do good in life by staying on track and especially in school with an education because that is the key to a successful future, like Vanessa is trying to achieve.

"Terrorism & the Constitution" was a huge disappointment because it was saturated with personal (author's) opinions and it gave very little legal insight. What I expected was a legal brief. Instead, this book took great effort to slam the F.B.I. Yes, the F.B.I. has a history of mistakes and errors. But by and large it is a very respected arm of our government. The authors failed to mention the media (the liberal press) is guiltier of censoring and manipulating facts than is the FBI. Where's that story? Third, the F.B.I. of today is not the F.B.I. of J. Edgar Hoover. The author made statements supported only by footnotes and seldom elaborated on legal argument. Although I concurred with some of what was written, overall I viewed the book as a vicious attack made against agents who love this country and our Constitution as much as the rest of us do. (No, I am not a FBI agent!) Life has taught me that there are always two sides to every story. I returned the book for a full refund because its pages started coming unglued within the first five minutes of my reading it. I also disliked the author's style of attacks on our D.O.J. I viewed this book being very weak in true legal research and very strong on propaganda. A well-researched and written undergraduate legal paper will complete with this book in a heartbeat. By the way, this critic is a blood relative to ancestors who fought for the American Revolution. I'm a military veteran. I delight in sound criticism. I dislike this style of writing.

I first read this book about a year ago, but have just revisited it in light of recent horrific events in New York and Washington.

Let me say straight off, that I'm no supporter of increased governmental powers. I'm one of the breed that feels that the less government influence there is in our lives, the better. Having said that, if one of my loved ones had been victim of these monstrous events, I would want to give my government ANY reasonable powers they asked for in order to bring the perpetrators to justice and to prevent repeat attacks. Personally, if they strayed into questionable territory, I would be glad to turn a blind eye and say a quiet thank you that other people's family, friends and colleagues were safe.

Maybe the Constitution is wrong. Maybe Americans should give more power to their government agencies to fight this new terror. For sure the 'opposition' (Taliban, Ghaddafi, Saddam etc.) don't give a monkey's cuss about human rights. I'm not suggesting that the free world - the democratically elected governments - sink to those levels, but sometimes you've got to fight fire with fire. To try to outwit these murderous vermin without the full approval of the Constitution is like trying to outbox a championship fighter with one hand tied behind your back.

Terrorism & The Constitution raise some interesting questions that are considerably more pertinent now, that when the book was written. I strongly urge you to read it and consider how you should change the Constitution to bring it in line with the new reality.

I bought this book a couple of years ago and it's still the authoritative reference on the history of the interplay between civil rights and national security. Good reading for journalists, activists, lawyers, and others who just want to learn more about this intriguing subject. One of the obvious lessons from the book is how history repeats itself but every time we as a nation do take notes from past experiences and do try to avoid past mistakes. Congratulations to Cole and Dempsey on a fine piece of intellectual work.

I think this book is good but it lacks being able to keep my attention and I have read huge books. If it kept my attention for a little bit longer than the first page I would keep reading it.

As a mystery author with my first book in initial release, I have found that reading a wide variety of works helps my writing. Locke's TWO TREASTISES is one of my favorite books of all time. Here is the book that subverted absolutism following a glorious revolution. I read it first as an undergraduate at Claremont McKenna College, and I teach it annually. Great book.

Those of us living in liberal democracies owe tremendous intellectual debt to John Locke. His "Second Treatise" in particular helped lay the foundation for a political system that emphasized "life, liberty, and property." The First Treatise is interesting to skim through, though it is in the second where the Locke is most substantive. His Theory of Private Property, which could also be construed as a theory of value, is an unmistakable revolution in political thought. It is, as Locke contends, when man applies his labor to nature that he is entitled to it. Questions about environmental ethics or indegenous rights aside, this observation, made in a still heavily ecclesiastical society, is a brilliant one. Furthermore, Locke's understanding of the formation of government is based on a hypothetical "state of nature" account. Locke's arguments are intellectually pleasing, and his social-scientific models make intuitive sense. Given that, perhaps the only weakness of the work is its failure to adequately analyze such concepts as the social contract or his theory of labor-property relations. For example, Locke fails to seriously consider what we should do with states that are clearly formed by mere force. Indeed, he doesn't adequately address the possibility that such a state could justify its existence on the grounds that "better tyranny than nothing." While Locke believes that a state that doesn't respect private property cannot last for very long, history says otherwise. Of course, in retrospect it is easier to criticize Locke in these regards, but with Machiavelli before him it was not as though these ideas were not known. There are admittedly other inconsistencies, such as his view on taxation later in the book and on who "owns" the grass his serf cuts. Interestingly enough, Locke is unwilling to expound on the distinction between property garnered for the sake of personal enjoyment (possessions) and property garnered for the sake of profit. Nevertheless, the work is a passionate defense of a liberal government, and the points are persuasively argued. As long as the reader, as Locke himself urges, keeps a skeptical attitude, this work has much to offer.

Purdy is best at describing the complexities of ancient/old/nearly new nations and cultures that have come together in an age of media and marketing. Sometimes the threads are a little hard to follow, but it's clear that is because there are so many stories to tell. The two best things about this book are: (1) it is refreshing in the "fer us er agin' us" attitude in our leadership to see a young scholar be so adept at describing the nuances of the real world - I hope he sent a copy to the President; and (2) referring to Madison's Federalist No. 10 again points us to the messy, frustrating business of democracy with a backdrop of good old human nature, and the zealots of our day are not likely to succeed in their vision of the perfect world they think they can have if they just get us all to agree to their agenda. Purdy does mostly a good job of not identifying with the right nor the left nor any prevailing point of view - while giving if not credence at least plausible explanations as to why people adhere to various competing ideologies, philosophies, or theories. Given that he had the good fortune to land an opportunity where he could devote many months to such a study, it makes one wonder, if everyone could go on some sort of sabbatical and contemplate the world we live in, might we all be the wiser for it. So many people are wrapped up in the demands of their daily lives, they barely have time for TV news, let alone truly educating themselves in history and cultures. If they could read one book, Being America would be a great start to understanding current events and why it's not likely to be smooth sailing any time soon. The latter part of the book seems to bog down some, overall less satisfactory than the first half which is almost a page-turner. Overall a great read, though - worth sticking to through to the end.

For those who may have found Purdy's "Common Sense" entirely too earnest, and too impressed with his own high moral seriousness, "Being America" may come as something of a welcome surprise. Purdy's earnestness is still there, but it has apparently been tempered by its more complex and confounding subject: the American Empire.

Taking Edmund Burke as his philosophical muse, believing Burke's positions on the American colonies and India are appropriate for today (pro-independence for the American colonies, and against the British exploitation of India), he uses Burke as a compass to help guide him through the confusing and sometimes dangerous waters created by American foreign policy over the past generation. Giving voice both to those who have been bounced around and/or sunk in the wake of America's exercise in gunboat and cultural diplomacy, as well as those who have been manning the bridge, Purdy does achieve useful insights.

He clearly hopes his readers will find this view unusual, an antidote to the noisome cheerleading of the pro-globalization crowd who, he says, believe that all nations and cultures, for their own eventual good, should stop throwing up sandbags against the flood tide of the liberal economic system and instead, welcome its flows of capital and the disciplinary virtues of the commerce that come along with it. Or their opposites who maintain that cultural and political diversity are being ravaged by the imposition of the liberal economic ethos through agency of the WTO and its powerful sponsors, who see globalization as just the latest version of colonialism as practiced by a new public relations conscious class of blood-sucking imperialists.

Purdy does steer a steady course between these extremes, partly because he has a searching, almost novelistic perspective that attempts to see the essential humanity of those who are not American and who are attempting to come to terms with the new "American" world they inhabit. In one instance, for example, he talks a member of an environmentalist group in Indonesia which has taken up the strategies of Green Peace to expose logging firms' illegal harvesting in the rain forest, who admits that he likes Osama Bin Laden because he is "confident" -- the kind of personal quality that a pundit here in the States might use to describe a presidential candidate. More and more, Purdy seems to be suggesting, image politics, born in the U.S.A., has become the politics of the world.

Another riveting interview is with Beka Economopoulos, who works for the Rainforest Action Network (RAN), and who thinks of herself in the same way a McKinsey consultant might think about corporate branding, except of course, that she and her associates wish to turn the power of the brand against itself. By using the media to spread the word about Home Depot's purchase of timber from old growth forests, RAN forced Home Depot to swear off such purchases and institute new policies. These kinds of guerilla attacks, Purdy notes, have been very effective in the new brand-driven economy. But as Purdy also points out, it has also served to make the corporation more covert and cagier. Further, groups like RAN are forced to use the strategies and tactics of the public relations firms to get heard. Without putting people on the street as the left once did, such groups remain captive to a media system that may or may not cover their latest publicity stunt.

Purdy also discusses the fickle sovereignty of the media and the post-modern interpenetration of commerce and image politics in his re-telling of the tale of the Zapatista insurrection. So effective was this made for TV guerilla "army" that they forced the Mexican government -- with the media eyes of the world upon them in the wake of NAFTA -- to parley with them on substantive landholding issues whereas in a former era they would have been rounded up and shot. Purdy notes with irony that when the Zapatistas marched to Mexico City for the meeting with the president (guarded by Mexican troops) they were met with crowds of people wearing their movement's signature black masks -- which were being sold as souvenirs by street vendors. Purdy points out that another South American revolutionary group took up the Zapatistas PR strategies (such as mailing gifts to reporters with snappy revolutionary sayings enclosed), only to find the media would only cover one PR savvy revolutionary group at a time.

Purdy, turning his eye on America, suggests that America should try to stop being both so "universalistic" and "parochial," and rather, adopt more humane, more cosmopolitan views. America, which took its mission to be the exemplar Enlightenment's project of liberty and equality, which thinks of itself as occupying and exporting the "realm of revelation," can be blind to the way it imposes these views on peoples who have no wish to be enfolded in its embrace. Another difficulty Purdy notes is that American foreign policy has become so captive to the free market ideology that it has substituted for its banner of civil freedom the banner of consumer freedom. He believes we have done, and can do better.

At the end of "Being America" Purdy places himself on the political map as a "democratic nationalist" in acknowledging his debt to Michael Lind as an initial critic of his manuscript. Lind, the former associate of Wm. F. Buckley, abandoned what he felt was a morally compromised movement interested only in power, to expound a position of "democratic nationalism," a worldview exemplified by such antecedents as Alexander Hamilton, Teddy Roosevelt, and Truman. Like Lind Purdy believes American power must be used, and Purdy's counsel of moderation, of America acknowledging past mistakes in foreign policy while setting a future course which more truly reflects America's older civil religion of liberty and equality, is a welcome one. Conservative, yes, but in the tradition of Burke, not those radical interventionists who would falsely sail under those colors today.

I was hesitant to purchase this book because a) Purdy is often lambasted as the pseudo-intellectual soundbite guy of Gen X/Y, and b) savage reviews of his first book (which I have not read) implied that it was irredeemably awful.

After reading some of his articles in The Atlantic and other publications, I was convinced that Mr. Purdy wasn't an idiot, but I still wasn't completely sold. In shorter articles, I found his prose to be somewhat stilted.

Purdy's voice is much more suited to the longer format of a book. One adapts to his idiosyncratic syntax fairly quickly, and afterward the book flows quite well.

Purdy discusses liberalism in this book in a fairly broad and classical sense. While he is interested in exploring ideas, the book never becomes too dry or theoretical because the more philosophical musings are interspersed with descriptions of his encounters with people in various parts of the world.

While it would be specious to draw too many conclusions from such a limited sample, Purdy amply illustrates the dangers of oversimplification; the views of those he encounters are more nuanced and conflicted that one might expect, especially as they pertain to U.S. power.

"One belief, more than any other, is responsible for the slaughter of individuals on the altars of the great ideas....This is the belief, that somewhere in the past or in the future, in divine revelation or in the mind of an individual thinker...there is a final solution."

Isaiah Berlin has been somewhat wrongly looked at simply as a historian of ideas. While he is that, this book is fertile with ideas, old, new, original and daring. What start out as four essays on liberty, turn out to reveal an astute world view. The one quoted above is taken from the third essay, his famous "Two Concepts of Liberty." In it he argues that the division between 'freedom from' and 'freedom to' is a subtle intertwine, more delicate than we often suppose. In the end, we must err on the side of 'freedom from' for one important reason; while the abscence of coercion might leave loose ends, by trying to tighten all loose ends, the rope loses all slack. Without the metaphor, by coercing others, we assume that our viewpoint is the only correct one and force others to live uniform to our ideas.

This is the theme that runs through all four essays. The first, "Political Ideas in the Twentieth Century" examines the failure of all the isms then en vogue; communism, fascism, socialism. Same idea. They preached of a graspable absolute truth that in the end, proved not so handleable. The second essay, "Historical Inevitability" tackles the problem at the root; the belief that our actions are determined and that free will is an illusion. Berlin, while not trying to disprove it (try, you can't do it!), exposes it as untenable. Every thought, action, word and concept we evoke is dependant upon belief in human autonomy. This essay is quite long and began to repeat itself a bit. Fight off the urge to skip through it. Very meaty!!

The last essay, "John Stuart Mill and the Ends of Life" is something of a recap of the ideas presented in the book. It is Berlins tribute and critique (Mill would've approved) of Mill, his philosophy and his life which unlike most philosophers, was lived in complete accordance with his views.

Great book. The only problems I had were the length of the second essay and Berlin's annoying habit of turning every sentence into a twenty-one lined, 12 comma, infinitive after split infinitive beast. Although his language is beautiful (a la Barzun), this was hard to get used to. HIs thoughts, though, are classic.

I won't review the four essays, except to state the obvious: They concern liberty, and what liberty entails. But that much one could ascertain from the title.

What the title does not reveal is how penetrating Berlin's analyses of the myriad subjects he comments on. His prose is exemplary, and his style endearing. Many learned people think Lionel Trilling, Erich Auerbach, Jacques Barzun, etc., are the men of letters for the 20th century reader. As enjoyable as many of these and other authors of the 20th century have been, I am amazed at how infrequently Berlin is listed among them. Yet, his mind is keener, his prose more mellifluous, and his ideas more interesting than almost anyone else of his Age.

Berlin is not a difficult read, but he is a challenging one. His weave of ideas and his elaborate critiques will require attention, but give him your attention, and he'll reward you plenteously. He is a genuine philosopher who deals with issues of the common man, not the nuances of linguistics; he is concerned with freedom, the life well-lived, and ideas that are important (not just fasionable). This collection of four essays is as good a place as any to introduce yourself to one of the 20th century's true giants of belle letters.

Agreed. Berlin's book is not the easiest in the world to read. But, then again, neither is Plato, or John Locke, or even Mill for that matter. He writes in a 19th century style, but one which, I think is beautiful and elegant. This is not a book to be devoured, but to be savored. Each word is carefully crafted. To me, Berlin is like diving into a pool of the english language, and just floating in ideas and language. And the ideas are wonderful. More than any other political philosopher, Berlin has diagnosed the problems, and the dangers, of modern social and political thinking. When he argues that those who advocate limits on liberty, in the name of justice, or equality, or another ideal, are in fact diminishing the amount of liberty in society as a whole it is hard not to agree with him. His analysis of the problems of modern philosophy and political thought is as acute. These are the ideas that I now find most compelling in this book. The essay of the two types of liberty is wonderful, as is the one on Historical Inevitability. But it is the essay on Political Ideas in the 20th Century that has become my favorite over the year, for the simple reason that he was incredibly prophetic. In the 19th century, Berlin argues, conservatives and liberal, even socialists, despite their differences agreed on the fundamental questions of politics; who should rule? What is the basis of authority? Why should I obey? What are the obligations and responsibilities of citizenship? In the 20th century, we no longer even consider the questions to be important, or relevant. All political problems have been reduced to either technical matters, of social or economic engineering, or are treated as psychological disorders, that need theraputic treatment. We accept the lost of liberty because we no longer think of it as important, as a question that needs solving. Problems like poverty, or equality, or a cleaner environment, which are suseptible of technical solutions. Anyone who worried about liberty in the face of all of these problems was, ipso facto, crazy, and a refusal to face reality. Hence, prozac or lithium is the prescribed course of treatment, to remove the source, or at least the feeling, of discontent. It is time to take another look at Berlin, not merely as a defender of liberty, but as an analyst of modern political and social thinking, and the dead ends to which it is leading us.

"The Triumph of Liberty" is best purchased with the notion that you will chew on one or two short nuggets at a time to capture the essence of each "freedom fighter" profiled. Like Brokaw's "The Greatest Generation", it's a compilation of vignettes that illuminate and sometimes inspire, and which can be read in short bursts.

"Liberty" is short on historical analysis and long on basic biographical formula, which made my own read feel somewhat monotonous. Still, it's a worthwhile contribution to the bookshelf of anyone who cares about the rights of the individual, and who knows how precarious those rights have been throughout man's history.

Powell deserves great credit for surveying the last two millenia of Western history to find liberty's "greatest champions". I found myself at the end begging for more analytic input from the author to "put it all together". But I am grateful for his compiling this list of the good guys in the struggle to attain the freedom which we all say we want, and are too often willing to sacrifice by pieces to other ends. The book would benefit greatly from better editorial attention to correct obvious syntactical errors and repetitions. Overall, an admirable addition to the literature of classical liberalism.

In this book Jim Powell attempts to tell us the story of liberty by illuminating the lives of it's greatest champions.Mr. Powell is a great storyteller and for the most part he succeeds in his mission of telling us the story of freedom's champions from Cicero to Ronald Reagan.The book might have been better if Powell had started out by giving us a definition of liberty. In the biblical sense liberty implies the ability to be morally self-governed.This was certainly how Locke, Jefferson and Franklin among other libertarians understood the term.If the concept of self-government is understood as it relates to liberty the author would have to eliminate the chapters on H.L. Mencken,and Albert Jay Nock among others.I agree with a previous reviewer that the book's inclusion of Martin Luther King Jr. is highly questionable.Dr. King was certainly a great man who achieved great things.But He was not a libertarian, He was a socialist.But beyond these criticisms this is an excellent book.My favorite chapter is the one about William E. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone's life was the personification of liberty.Like John Locke and Hugo Grotius Gladstone was a devout christian who practiced moral self-government in his personal life and attempted to impose that same sense of self-discipline upon government. Once again this is a great book, which ought to be required reading in all of our schools. God bless you Jim Powell.

Generally speaking, these "four views" book are a very good resource the Christian struggling over controversial issues. However, this book falls short of truly presenting the possible options.

The problem is, the person presenting the Calvinism view is writing from a "high-Calvinism" or "supralapsarian" viewpoint. This was the viewpoint of John Calvin. And the main idea in this view is that before ("supra") the Fall ("lapse"), to glorify Himself, God decided to create humanity so that He could save some of them while damning others. The saved would then glorify God for their salvation when seeing the plight of the damned.

However, this viewpoint is NOT the viewpoint that most Calvinists subscribe to, nor is it the position of the Westminster Confession. The view of most Calvinists and the Confession is "low-Calvinism" or "sublapsarianism."

In this view, to glorify Himself and to extend His love, God created humanity. Then, AFTER ("sub") the Fall, God looked down the corridors of time and decided that out of the mass of sinful humanity He would, by His grace, save some while rightly damning the others for their sin. So this view does not have God creating people in order to damn them as the high-Calvinist view does. There are also other important differences between these two views.

Now in this book most of the arguments the non-Calvinists present against the Calvinist are actually directed towards the areas of Calvinism in which high-Calvinists and low-Calvinists disagree. IOW, the anti-Calvinists arguments would not apply to the version of Calvinism that most Calvinists subscribe to.

So when reading this book, one would not learn what the majority Calvinist viewpoint entails or proposed arguments against it. But my book "Scripture Workbook: For Personal Bible Study and Teaching the Bible" does present this majority view in three chapters on God's Sovereignty and the five points of Calvinism. And these chapters include hundreds of Scripture verses upholding the low-Calvinist viewpoint while refuting proposed arguments against it.

Given this omission of the predominate Calvinist view, I wouldn't particularly recommend "Predestination and Free Will." But if one does get it, then also get a book like mine that presents the low-Calvinist position.

Though I would tend to agree with Dr. Feinberg's view of divine sovereignty and human responsibility, the overall volume was written in too much of a philosophical fashion. The book reads like a university or college philosophy text, rather than a theological treatise. The authors write like philosophers and not like theologians (though Feinberg, Geisler, and Pinnock are theologians). Feinberg advocates the "mild" Calvinist perspective; Geisler advocates the traditional Arminian perspective; Reichenbach advocates a view where God limits His power for the allowance of human freedom; and Pinnock advocates the position where God does not know the future. All but Pinnock's essay are fairly well-written. Pinnock tends to get too emotional and basis his beliefs on human sentimentalities. Overall, though, a good place to start in understanding four views of divine sovereignty and human freedom in Christianity.

This book is one of the first attempts to commingle opposing views on one of the most acute issues in theology : how an Almighty God can control events and yet leave people 'free' enough to be responsible. Putting full weight on the sovereignity of God is John Feinberg, who proposes that God controls everything with nothing having been left out of His will. In this view, all of Man's actions have been ordained since eternity and nothing escapes His determining.

At the extreme opposite is Clark Pinnock coming in with his now very popular (and strong) thesis that God's project of creation involves bestowing humans with the power of agency and genuine creativity; the future is 'open' and God can be genuinely surprised and disappointed by His creatures. In between Feinberg and Pinnock, we have Norman Geisler proposing a model in which God's desires still cannot be disappointed in spite of the genuinely free - the technical word used throughout is 'contra-causal' - actions of people (in the sense that everything that ever happened and will happen falls within the plan of God) and Bruce Reichenbach defending probably the most popular view around: that God does not get everything He desired because His mode of governance does not consist of controlling every iota in existence, but rather involves delegation. Both uphold exhaustive foreknowledge.

I was impressed with Feinberg's introduction to the various possibilities involved with the word 'can'. Still I felt it wasn't necessary since the whole issue revolves around the fact that whatever we do has been 'fed into' and 'determined' for us since eternity and done so in an unconditional way. We can define freedom whatever way we care to, but the fact that God's determining hand has an UNCONDITIONAL role completely rules out whatever defense Feinberg's theology can have for our accountability towards evil.

The best portion in Geisler's writings was his exposition of self-determinism (with which I'm sure Pinnock and Reichenback would agree). I think he hit the hammer on the head by his assertion that it is meaningless to ask what 'caused' the actor to choose his actions. This is like asking how God created the world ex nihilo. And I think this adds damage to Feinberg's case, because he (Feinberg) fails to consider that there is an irreducible element of 'self' in any meaningful talk of personal choices - and that this element simply cannot be 'pointed to'. Feinberg's constant requests for what caused a choice shows some kind of 'metaphysical Newtonianism', IMO. Almost like asking, "What CAUSED him to fall in love with his wife?". However, Geisler seems to be reveling in the contradiction of taking the strong points of determinism and indeterminism, juxtaposing them together and leaving it at that (as Reichenbach carefully points out). Nevertheless he has a wonderful habit of first stating on what points he agreed with the author he's criticising. That's quite a gracious move, I must say.

Reichenbach presents a rather 'heavy-going' but clearly argued essay on how God has opted not for meticulous control but broad governance of His universe (something like the mayor of a city who delegates responsibility to his subordinates). Only the staunchest determinist would find problems with Reichenback's argument that God grants us freedom within limits to fulful our given role as stewards of the created order. Overall, I think many Arminian Christians would hold to Reichenbach's view which, except for his view on foreknowledge, could be easily added to Pinnock's essay without contradiction. Unfortunately, I felt his criticism of Pinnock's theory that God cannot 'know' free future actions, to have missed the point. Pinnock wasn't so much saying that God can't predict future actions, just that some future actions cannot be infallibly known (God's repentance documented so many times in Scripture should make this clear).

As for Pinnock, what can I say? He writes like a music-lover simultaneously enjoying and explaining a symphony to a friend. I think most open theists (like me) would've preferred a presentation more solidly grounded in Scripture but as a beautiful description of the creative project God has decided to embark on and of the 'flower of human freedom' He has blessed His people with, Pinnock's essay is quite second to none. He may not convince anyone not willing to let go of God's total foreknowledge but his work does have an emotional, and almost surreal, appeal to our hearts.

For the Calvinist, this book will be a good challenge to (and, hopefully, a source for modification of) your ideas. I think many will agree that Feinberg seems almost 'lost for words' throughout. Determinism is really a dead-end; the power of God may be upheld but it is a great cost to His love and our understanding of evil. For the Arminian, Reichenbach's work add sufficient intellectual support to your beliefs. Ironically, Geisler's explanation of 'self-determinism' can be fully integrated into your understanding of humanity without accepting his odes to determinism (just read what Reichenbach has to say). For the open theist, there are probably better places to look if you want more support for the non-actual ontological status of the future in the present. But Geisler and Reichenbach still provide necessary criticisms of the theory and implications that God may not know all the future, and it's always good to know the possible problems with our position. For the 'general reader', do get this book for a solid introduction to the issues involves and the arguments and assumptions employed by the various theological camps.

And no, we're not 'ordained from eternity' to read this book but let's put some of our human agency to good use and self-determine to dig in and think through the kind of world (and life) God has created for us.

While Miss Becker clearly has a passion for college basketball, this book lacked a clear audience and a clear mission. I purchased the book for my daughter under the assumption that it was a recruiting guide, but I think all the great stories Miss Becker gathered on her travels around the country got the better of her and rather than write a recruiting book, she turned it into something else. There is some basic information on NCAA guidelines, rules and regulations that was helpful as well as detail on D1, D2, D3 and Junior college options, but as another reviewer said, its like "walking around at a cocktail party." The information is not really presented in any real detailed format and reads more like a novel would than a "how to" should. I was particularly disinterested in the page that discusses one coach meeting a recruit at her house only to discover the recruit has a pet monkey. While this information may appear interesting, it doesn't really help me help my daughter in her recruiting process. There is another section that describes one coach who gives recruits a list of questions to ask, but she never once mentions any of the questions. I would rather have been presented with a list of questions to ask a coach, rather than learning that some coach gives out a list of questions.

There is also a chapter on scouting services that rank players and sell their lists to college coaches, while this was interesting to me, it appears that either I or my daughter have no control over these services and I didn't really need to read 10 pages about who runs these companies and all the money they make. I assumed that information was for college coaches, which again, makes me wonder who the real audience for the book was. I did enjoy the section on club coaches and the conflict that often occurs with high school coaches in the recruiting process and that is something I am starting to see.

If you are looking for an interesting book on women's college basketball that has information from many different players & coaches, you will probably enjoy this book as it is kind of a "what's going on in girls basketball". If you are looking for a complete guide for the college recruiting process, I think you will be slightly dissapointed and it certainly did not walk me through the recruiting process from start to finish as it claims. I suspect that some parents will think its a good recruiting resource due to the fact that its the first piece of information they have probably read on the subject. Now that I have had time to gather more info from other sources on recruiting, it's clear to me that the book lacks many key pieces of information on the college recruiting process..

I enjoyed reading this book -- but it wasn't directed to me. Becker wants to help high school seniors and their parents as they make choices that could impact them for a lifetime. She ably explains the differences among Divisions I, II and III, as well as other leagues. She explains the process and gives us an idea of the complex, arcane and (some would say) outdated NCAA rules.

The best part of this book: Anecdotes about players I recognized. For instance, Ruth Bolton's sister played for Auburn, so the Assistant Coaches felt obliged to go through the motions with Ruth. Trouble was, Ruth ignored their hints ("Wouldn't you be happier at a lesser school?") and insisted on coming to Auburn. She led the Auburn team to many victories, became a 2-time Olympian and now plays for the WNBA!

Young women grow up fast when faced with these decisions. Many non-athletic high schoolers are not called on to demonstrate this degree of maturity -- to visit a place and say, "I belong here," or, "This is not for me." Playing basketball, the book seems to say, contributes to maturity, and ultimately to success.

You have to be a pretty dedicated fan to read this book - and since there's a dearth of books about women's hoops, I was glad to get it. Good writing and some choice anecdotes -- more detail
than the average fan needs or wants, but worth skipping over to get to the juicier parts.

As an occasional-but-not-fanatic college hoops fan, I found this book gave great insight into a little-seen aspect of the game, and was pretty engaging. I expected to have only a passing interest in the book, but found myself drawn in by the way the author personalizes (and humanizes) the recruiting process. I guess the greatest endorsement I can give it is that I passed it on to friends and family, and ordered a copy for a friend who plays high school ball. It's a surprisingly general-interest-appealing book despite its seemingly limited focus; a good read.

This book is a refreshing reminder that salvation/justification is by faith alone. Though I disagree with many of Eaton's exegeses and conclusions, I have to say that he has done a good job pointing out the dangers of a law-centred soteriology. With so many "evangelical distortions" hovering around in Christian academic circles, Eaton's book is a reminder to all that we must not let go of our evangelical Reformational heritage received from Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the Reformers. Many in today's "Protestant" academic circles are trying to bridge the gap between Protestantism and Romanism--or even worse: remake the Gospel so that Luther and Calvin are looked upon as incompetent exegetes. Eaton's soteriology is what you would call a "free grace" perspective along the lines of Zane Hodges, Joseph Dillow, Robert Wilkin, Earl Radmacher, Robert Lightner, Lewis Chafer, and Charles Ryrie. Though Eaton's exegesis is questionable at times, he makes a good case that not all warning passages deal with heaven or hell (some passages deal with temporal chastisement [cf. Rom 14:15; 1 Cor 8:11; 11:30] and loss of rewards [cf. 1 Cor 3:15; 9:27; 2 Peter 1:11; 2 John 8]). Though his liberal view of Scripture may not settle well with hardcore conservatives (like me), his book examines and analyzes the destructive consequences of any soteriological system that puts emphasis on the law (or "soteriological nomism") over or alongside faith. Though I consider myself thoroughly Reformed and Calvinistic (hence, I would consider myself a "developed" Calvinist according to Eaton's vocabulary), I understand the concerns brought up by Eaton and sympathize with him. With the rise of "covenantal nomistic" understandings of justification in the past few decades among professing evangelical scholars (e.g., Daniel Fuller, Scott Hafemann, Kent Yinger, Norman Shepherd, N. T. Wright, James Dunn, etc.) this book is a good reminder that our Reformational heritage stands on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Apparently, many professing evangelical scholars aren't taking serious what Luther said in the 16th Century regarding the doctrine of justification by faith alone ("the article with and by which the church stands, without which it falls"). Though many will disagree with many of Eaton's conclusions regarding certain warning passages, I would recommend this book for anyone who wants to understand that salvation by faith alone CANNOT mix with salvation by obedience to the law (whether meritorious or non-meritorious).

This book gives an interesting view of the law as seen in the writings of Paul. I like how the author rejects both Calvinist and Arminian systems and plows a furrow down the middle of them both while remaining faithful to the Bible. His point about the necessity of a general atonement for assurance is very interesting, and convincing. I also appreciate his insights on introspection; it is indeed very destructive to the doctrine of assurance. I also recommend Zane Hodges' book "Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation".

This book was an answer to prayer for me! For many years I have been frustrated by apparent contradictions in the bible concerning security and perserverance. I've grown weary of reading quotes such as "Eternal life is a free gift for those who forsake everything and follow Christ." This has really threatened my faith in the integrity of the Bible.Michael Eaton does a wonderful job in shedding the light on many confusing interpretations. He is a brilliant theologian with a passion for the truth, even when it goes against the grain of traditional views. If you're one othe few seeking the truth' this book is a must! Other related authors include R.T.Kendall, Zane Hodges, & Bob Wiilkin.