Price-Jones seems less interested in telling the history of the demise of the USSR than he is in attacking the left. He spends the first chunk of the book talking about how evil communism was, which is not debatable. However, Price-Jones' target is not the Soviets; it's Western liberals who did not share his views on confrontation with them. The author attacks those who tried to promote coexistence as unwitting stooges or active collaborators with the Soviet regime. That's not the kind of book I expected from the title. I kept reading, waiting for the history to start, but I gave up after more than 80 pages of Price-Jones' ranting.

Without sentiment or any sense of loss, David Pryce-Jones chronicles the fall of European communism through a journalist's eye and the eyewitness accounts of the rulers, dissidents and apparatchiks who were there.

This is a powerful book, for it harbors no illusions that the Soviet Union was any kind of "workers' state" or that communism, as an ideal or a practicality, had any legitimacy as a form of government.

In Pryce-Jones' analysis, if anything caused communism's downfall, it was the misplaced reasoning that a regime built on fear, terror and corruption could stand up to glasnost and perestroika. By their own admission in the book, most of the nomenklatura in Russia and its Eastern European satellites understood this. Mikhail Gorbachev, in an attempt to reform the system, exposed its basic illegitimacy and brought it crashing down.

With the former Communist bloc now open to greater investigation into its history, Pryce-Jones' book provides a great deal of illumination into Kremlin and Warsaw Pact politics during the late 1980s. For instance, while Gorbachev was being courted by the West, he was being reviled as a traitor by his own cabinet and allies. One of the more tantalizing questions Pryce-Jones leaves unresolved is whether Gorbachev indeed knew the consequences of perestroika would be the break-up of the USSR and the end of its occupation of Eastern Europe. The author interviews participants in the failed August 1991 coup, which essentially ended Communist Party rule in Russia, who openly wonder if Gorbachev instigated it as a calculated risk to flush out any remaining hard-line opposition.

Parts of the book read like a political thriller. As the gradual revolution in Eastern Europe and the Baltics takes hold, Pryce-Jones' sources take us into Round Table meetings and back room conferences where, quite literally, the fates of nations were being decided. The author compares the way popular resistance grew in the wake of Gorbachev's reforms and-in telling detail-shows! that Gorbachev essentially disallowed the use of Soviet forces to sustain control in any of the satellites. Only in Romania did the tanks roll, and that proved disasterous in the end as Ceaucescu became the only Communist ruler to be executed.

More pointedly, we get the inside stories of how leaders aging leaders like Poland's General Jaruzelski and East Germany's Honecker. in the end, lacked the will to enforce their rule through armed repression. Some of the most exciting material concerns the last days before the Berlin Wall fell, where we see Honecker fuming over Gorbachev's refusal to order Hungary to close its border-through which thousands of East Germans were escaping, and the growing tension over the Leipzig "prayer meetings," which had become weekly mass demonstrations against the government.

Throughout his reporting, Pryce-Jones is not afraid to make judgments. One of his sharpest is against the American and Western European Intellectual Left, which he views as doing much to perpetuate the belief that Communism was as legitimate a political system as democracy and that the Cold War was little more than a face-off between two superpowers that, at the bottom line, were essentially the same. His heroes, on the other hand, are Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, the dissidents in Russia, the Baltics and all of Eastern Europe, and the long line of West German chancellors who resisted domestic and international pressure to withdraw from NATO, a long-term strategic objective of the Kremlin.

It is too bad that right now, "The Strange Death of the Soviet Union" is out of print. One would hope that it is still available from the U.K. It is an invaluable contribution to history and deserves reading by anyone interested in learning the kitchen details about how communism fell.

I bought the book from the Uzbek embassy abroad.I have read most of our president's books and take a very serious interest in issues facing Uzbekistan. Unfortunately,I found the book to be rather unrealistic and more politicaly motivated for supporting his candidicy.The hopes and intentions have all only appeared on his many diffirent books which only strenghtens his foregin understanding and does not reflect the state of the republic.

This is an interesting book that provides an overview of the development strategy for Uzbekistan by the leadership of the country. Worth reading if you want to know what is really going in the political and economic spheres of life in Uzbekistan

Urban collected and processed a lot of data for this book, and I have to give him credit for that, for sure. His objective is to create a rigid, mathematically based methodology for studying the movements in the Soviet bureaucracy, which by no means acted as a conventional bureaucracy, despite many scholars' attempts to analyze it as such. Looking at Belorussia, he gathered data for office vacancies and mobility for twenty years, and plugged them into his "algebra" to calculate probabilities of office-holders coming from particular areas of the bureaucracy, looking for patterns. In this, he is quite thorough, and one really cannot doubt the extent and factuality of his research (although it doesn't make for easy reading).

His analysis, on the other hand, does not come out as solidly as his data collection. Not that what he says did not hold true for the Belorussian republic, but he resists making generalizations from it, extending it to the soviet system as a whole. He also, in considering factionalism in Belorussia (actually one of the strongest sections of the book) does tend to drop back into the subjective mode of analysis that he decries in the book's introduction.

This is not an easy book to read. A strong backing in statistics, some higher math, and a good working knowledge of Russia between Brezhnev and Gorbachev is almost necessary. But with all its faults aside, Urban has created a useful methodology for study of the movements of power in the late soviet period.

Bay of Arrows interweaves the imagined parallel lives of two ambitious men named Christopher: the infamous Captain Columbus, celebrated discover and brutal conqueror of the New World, and Christoper "Geno" Genovese, an allegedly brilliant and frustrated 20th Century English professor. The good professor, obsessed with his namesake, however can't finish his epic poem or forget a sexual encounter with a student. Despite some poignant historical vignettes illuminating the fanatic intensity of Columbus' search for gold, Jay Parini's cinematic technique of quick cuts traveling back and forth across five centuries becomes increasingly tiresome - and sometimes very confusing. The novel's bizarre climax, where the two Christophers' lives merge, reveals the limits of Parini's awkward imitation of magical realism. The post script and final chapter, a symposium on Columbus' life and legacy moderated by St. Peter, features Noam Chomsky, Samuel Elliot Morrison, and God. This second ending - in both its disconnection from the preceding 370 pages and its breezy style - ironically shows why Bay of Arrows could have been a classic short story. Unfortunately, Parini's "whimisical parody" - cursed with a vocabulary worthy of a German metaphysician - becomes a boring, unfocused rant. It's a shame. I would have loved to read the 30 page version.

For those interested in a major philosopher's take on some major social and political issues this would appear to be a good book to start with. Drawing from essays, interviews and letters written in 1993 and 1994, Habermas presents his views about current hot topics in Germany. He touches upon quotas, immigration and the role of both the GDR and the Third Reich in current German national identity; he also continues to critize the way in which Germany was unified in 1990. The interviews - originally in Le Monde, Die Zeit and others - are easy to read, especially in comparison to Habermas's other writings. Furthermore, his belief in a radical democracy formed through a public sphere in opposition to the state is a truly great and courageous idea.

However, in many ways Habermas is idealistic and even naive when it comes to his views on national identity. On one hand he recognizes the importance of nationhood and its components of 'a common origin, language and history'; he nevertheless puts too much emphasis on his concept of 'constitutional patriotism', or the patriotic feelings towards the members of a republic no matter their racial/cultural/religious membership. He seems to think that the U.S. is a great example of constitutional patriotism in action, claiming that 'there, everyone can live with two identities, simultaneously belonging to the country and being a foreigner in it'. What he bases this statement on is unknown to me: not only does this statement show how ignorant Habermas is of the U.S. but also how idealistic constitutional patriotism really is. He does not really attempt to delve into the serious question of how a political community just based on patriotism and not nationalism would hang together.

In the end I guess I would only really recommend this book to diehard Habermas fans.

Another adventure with the Newbys find Eric and Wanda hurtling through Brezhnev's Russia on the famous Trans-Siberian railway. From collective farms to asylums, the Newby's take you along with them on their tour.

Part endurance challenge, part history lesson the book does suffer in part by capturing Russia at its worst: food shortages, restricted travel, stern officials and windows that won't open! But the Newby's accept it all with relatively good humour and like all their adventures, they manage to find lots of interesting characters along the route. I've always been able to think of lots of reasons NOT to visit Siberia, the trans-siberian train ride might have just given me one!

Cambridge has a wonderful reputation. It has the advantage of putting into one book some of the greatest scholars. In this volume E. Rawson, A. Lintott and Crook have themselves along with other scholars written about the last period of the Roman Republic. I feel that a scholar, Eric S. Gruen, has not been given his due in this volume. Gruen in his ground breaking book the Last Generation of the Roman Repubic asserts that the Republic, contrary to common thought, was not showing signs of decay, neglect or sloth. Quite the contrary. He shows a Republic meeting problems with skill and determination. I do not mean to imply that Gruen feels that all was well. He simply annihilates the view that corruption ruled, ignorance prevailed and rot was running riot. He is a very thorough scholar. One may disagree with him. However after his book I do not see how his thesis can be simply ignored. Ignore is what CAH (Last Age...) does. I do not feel that the scholarship in this volume reflects full and fair grappling with the views set forth by Gruen. However, I have found the last chapters on Law, plebs urbana, intellectual growth and religion very helpful and interesting. This book is very much worth reading, if one keeps in mind that certain ideas, for whatever reasons, have not been given their due.

This is a solid collection of regional analyses. It covers a number of areas including ethnicity, post-Soviet politics, the spread of Islamic fundamentalism in the area, the role of modernization, and the like. It is a comprehensive work, but would be a valuable place to start any deeper investigation.

Before reading this book, you may want to look into the controversy that surrounds it. When the book was first published there were numerous academic debates concerning it's content. It is something to look into.

The "Constitution of Atlantis" is an effort to apply libertarian principles to the formation of a national constitution, the primary aim of which is protecting the rights of the nation's citizens. This is a laudable goal, for, as so eruditely examined by Kenneth W. Royce in his book "Hologram of Liberty," our extant Constitution is not what it seems to be. It's details (e.g., treaty clause, interstate commerce clause) belie it's seeming libertarian thrust and are responsible for the evolution of our society from one of limited government to one now dominated by a political leviathan.

Gulbraa is explicit about his effort being a simplifying one to examine fundamental principles, so readers should expect that approach. Despite the simplification, the manuscript is fairly wide-ranging, dealing with the moral purpose, functions, and limitations of government; the sovereignty of individuals; the nature and scope of law; and specific recommendations for constitutional content. Many of the specific recommendations are arguable such as the nature of citizenry, handling legislation, and retaining a Supreme Court with lifetime justices and the power of constitutional judicial review (the nemesis of our own government).

Of most importance about "Atlantis" are the libertarian principles that are expressed in the manuscript. These include (1) the notion that humans are rational, logical beings who survive best in accordance with those characteristics; (2) a society must have as a fundamental thesis that human interactions are voluntary and devoid of force or fraud; (3) each individual is a sovereign being whose life cannot be arbitrarily taken ("right to life"); and (4) laws are instituted and implemented by governments to codify in logical ways the rules of behavior of citizens so that disputes can be resolved by law rather than by whim and arbitrariness.

Unfortunately, such principles are not consistently applied by Gulbraa, a quirk in the manuscript that indicates how easy it is to unwittingly propose policies that are the antithesis of the fundamental principles being espoused, and to be seduced by "political correctness." This inconsistency is notable primarily with respect to the issue of abortion. The author states on page 8 that "the government of Atlantis does not recognize the fetus of a pregnant woman as possessing rights." First, governments have no role whatsoever in establishing or recognizing rights. Governments are established, in the libertarian view, to protect human rights, which exist, or are declared, prior to the establishment of government-for example, the Founders of our society proclaimed the rights of man in their Declaration of Independence prior to establishing our current government. Our Bill of Rights did not establish the rights enumerated but proscribe the involvement of government in such affairs. In line with most libertarians Gulbraa promotes the concept of an individual's right to life. That this right is denied a new human is anomalous.

It is a truism that an embryo conceived of human beings is itself a human being. No rational entity can argue otherwise. That truth is logically irrefutable, and the stricture against violating the "right to life" of a human being is as applicable to a person who is a day old as to one who is a hundred years old. If it is ok to kill a developing human being, who just happens to still be in a womb, why is it against libertarian principles to kill any inconvenient human at any time for any reason if its acceptable for a woman to kill the life within her on any whimsy. Equally irrational is the statement that "women own their own bodies and retain the right to abort their own pregnancies if they so wish to." Women might own their own bodies, but they don't own the new life they carry. Babies are generally conceived through a voluntary act, the consequences of which are the responsibility of parents to accept and endure-is not taking responsibility for one's actions another fundamental tenet of libertarianism and the sine qua non of a sovereign individual? Also, women are rarely the sole agents of conception and the father of the child, by any criterion of rationality and logic, has an equal say in the fate of the child. The sole authority of a woman to have an abortion has no foundation in reason and logic.

Libertarians assert the principle of nonviolence in various ways and often propose that human interactions should be voluntary and peaceable. An embryo is not able to be party to any voluntary agreement regarding it's fate, so adults who claim to embrace nonviolence must assume the mantle of maturity, responsibility, honesty, and consistency in applying the principle. Killing an unborn child is a gross violation of nonviolence; especially heinous because it is a unilateral decision perpetrated on an innocent. The principles of nonviolence, sovereignty, and right to life are all violated by abortion.

That Gulbraa's constitution provides no consideration of law with respect to abortion, no conditions, restrictions, input from the father, or counseling means that a woman retarded nor not, sane or not, mature or not, sober or not may, at her whim, kill her and her mate's developing child. The libertarian ideal of the Rule of Law is entirely abandoned here.

There is only one condition, aside from war, under which it is legitimate for a libertarian to use force against another human-that is in self defense at a moment when one's life, family and property are endangered through the harmful intent of another person. Does such a threat have to be willful? For the State to extract the ultimate penalty, probably yes, since there is, through the process of examining the nature of the crime and guilt the ability to determine the degree of responsibility of the perpetrator (e.g., sane or not). At the moment of terror, however, there is no time for deliberations about intent or sanity and self-defense must be served. Can a pregnancy threaten a woman's life? Of course, but what is the proper response to that situation? If the child is healthy and can be delivered whole it should be-it is innocent. The woman chose the path to pregnancy and all the risks that path entailed. There can be no willful intent by an unborn child, and there is no "moment of terror" in a pregnancy since the possibility of danger is foreseeable and is inherent to the voluntary sexual act. The argument of self-defense against a healthy unborn child carries no weight. However, were the severe illness of the child to be the compromising element threatening the mother and child, medical/legal/ethical arbitration would be in order. In any case, the decision about abortion is not appropriately left entirely in the hands of the mother.

If the sanctity of life is not the sunnum bonum of libertarianism then how meaningful are lamentations about arbitrary kings and bureaucrats, socialist impediments to production, violation of rights, or an overweening government? If killing a baby is acceptable to some people who call themselves libertarians, they reveal no true understanding of the principles to which they claim allegiance. They are in the camp of the arbitrary. Gulbraa and other "pro-choice" "libertarians" need to rethink the issue of abortion.

Readers of Gulbraa's "Atlantis" would find Royce's book a wonderful adjunct to Gulbraa's work. It is a source of insight on how Gulbraa's constitution might evolve into a prescription for a libertarian society with a governmental structure that avoids the mistakes made in the development of our own Constitution (the anti-federalists were right).