It is rare when an author is able to sustain an argument that successfully challenges the work to which I have devoted my recent energies.

Yet that is exactly what Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago Law Professor, does in Republic.com. With an improving ability to filter everything we wish to see, read and hear Sunstein asks if this is healthy for a democratic based society. The successful practice of Democracy, he argues, requires an informed citizenry.

In the pre-cyberworld, newspapers, magazines and other media outlets performed this function by exposing readers to a varied diet of opinions and ideas. They created an environment where citizens should share their common values and experiences. As the traditional media's role as purveyor diminishes and the reader's power to filter unwanted messages improves, society is in danger of fragmenting, shared communities in danger of dissolving. Shrill and extreme versions of our own thoughts and opinions will be sucked into this vacuum, Sunstein argues.

While I buy author's argument, I reject his conclusions. He argues for increased regulation of The Internet. I respond that more regulation is self-defeating, if the end is a democratic free-society. Filtering is the inevitable response to the growth of information. Readers do not have enough time to assimilate all they are asked. Responsible editors, human in the past, mechanical in the future, will be asked to do what they have always done: prepare and present a balanced view of the reader's world.

The Internet will prove to be effective means for preserving and promoting our cherished Democratic Principles. Citizens, I believe, once aware of filtering potential hazards will take deliberate steps to assure that it does not undermine the institutions and ideas they cherish.

Sunstein excels at calming people down. His writing style tries to chill some of the excitement over the Net, and try to return us to thinking about basic questions of democracy. His argument has several facets and certainly couldn't be adequately represented here (or else there'd be no need to buy the book), but one major point goes like this: so-called ``general interest intermediaries" in the mass media -- for instance, newspapers and television -- serve a vital role in a democracy: they get us to see points of view that we might not have chosen to see if we could totally control the content coming at us. Sunstein sees a great danger that the Internet will (in MIT Media Lab chief Nicholas Negroponte's words) allow us to create a ``daily me": content that we choose to the exclusion of all others. He presents some good arguments about how this content restriction is exactly what democracy *doesn't* need, then proposes some policies -- private if possible, public if necessary -- that will help keep discussion wide-ranging and open on the Net.

I claim that he doesn't go far enough, though. It's possible for people who just read newspapers and magazines -- to say nothing of the Internet -- to see only the narrow opinions that they choose to see (e.g., imagine someone reading only _The National Review_). If Sunstein stuck to the point that democracy require general-interest intermediaries -- on the Net or not -- he'd have a much stronger case. The point is: how do we defend democracy? The Net is incidental to this point. I emailed Sunstein to ask about this, and he replied that he agrees; he says that ``I'll try to fix this, to the extent that I can, in the paperback."

I'm a huge Net advocate and a believer in the possibilities of the Net promoting democracy. But Sunstein has written an important book, even if it is one many people online will consider heretic. He's challenging the tech world -- a sometimes narcissistic and elitist culture which often talks a lot about the masses and democracy, even though most people aren't online or tech savvy -- to consider that the explosion in collaborative filtering and other software (like that used here on this site) is causing us to only deal with ideas we know we're going to like. He reminds us that we are also citizens as well as free and empowered netizens, and that citizens need a public place to get together and be exposed to unanticipated and other ideas they might not agree with. The explosion on moderation and filtering is making it easier than every for people to screen out products, books, opinions they think they don't want to hear. In a civic sense, that leads to a sort of cultural Serbia. Sunstein is quite careful in this book not to be knee-jerk. He isn't anti-technology. He is challenging people to consider the implications of this powerful software. In the tech world, stuff is often judged by how cool it is, rather than by its consequences. My one strong disagreement is Sunstein's call for mandatory links to sites that offer opposing points of view. People shouldn't be forced to consider idea they don't like, they should be encouraged to get to places where they are exposed to them. But I think this is a very significant work, and I highly recommend it to people who love the Net and are interested in its impact on democracy.

Whilst I concede the Mr Leckie's prose style is easily-paced and therefore Hannibal is the kind of book you could probably read in a single afternoon, all this book really achieves is to prove you cannot write a fictional biography of one of history's most captivating figures in a mere 241 pages. I had high hopes because a full third of those pages dealt with Hannibal's boyhood where the author is at full license to use his imagination given the lack of historical detail for Hannibal. But it almost as though Mr Leckie gets bored and rushes through the end in order to begin writing Scipio. Historical inaccuracies aside, the life of Hannibal deserves a better account than the author has attempted and I think it is safe to say that the definitive fictional biography of Hannibal has yet to be written. If you like historical fiction set in the Roman period buy it, if not, don't.

I was instantly attracted to this book, especially because I didn't know much about Hannibal, Carthage or the Punic wars. I thought reading this book was a pleasure and I sure learned a few things that I will carry with me for a long time.

I personally liked the style of Mr. Ross Leckie and I think he has conducted his tale very well. The story is very interesting in itself, especially because it is about such a legend and it is passed in a very famous historical period. The character Hannibal is immensely interesting, with his hate for Rome and his courage to challenge and actually scare the most powerful nation of his time. His tactics, the times, the different races and ancient nations certainly add to the beauty of this story.

There are some bad reviews, but I think most of them are from people who have very solid historical backgrounds or a deep admiration for Hannibal. Surely this book is not the most accurate or perfect book written about Hannibal, but I don't believe this was the intention of the author, anyway. This book is a novel, and as novel it performs its role very well.

If you generally like the historical fiction genre, I have a strong feeling that you will enjoy this book very much. If you want to learn something about Hannibal and the Punic Wars and Carthage, in a pleasant package, I also think you will like this book. If you have a deep interest for history or demands total fidelity to historical records, you'd be happier with a biography or something similar.

Ross Lecke does a fantastic job of bringing to life the ancient warrior Hannibal. His first person account of Hannibal's exploits gives a unique perspective. You see through his eyes. You feel his joy and pain. You understand him. I don't know about the historical accuracy (I am not a historian) but, this was certainly interesting to read.

Hannibal, the brilliant son of a great warrior king, was trained, from his youth into adulthood, in the art of war and to hate Romans. His great leadership abilities brought many cultures and peoples of many different tongues together to fight against Romans. His inventive tactics revolutionized how war was fought. The Romans suffered great losses for many years before they, led by Scipio, figured out how to outwit Hannibal.

Hannibal's life was all about violence. At age six, he watched his father cut off the nose and cut out the tongue of a Roman envoy. His culture dictates that a man isn't really a man until he has killed another man. He did that when he was 15. He fought battles with his father in which prisoners were disemboweled and made to die slow, painful deaths. Fighting filled his life until the end where he, a fugitive, kills himself rather than be arrested and taken to Rome.

Blood rituals abound in this novel. Hannibal drinks blood from a human skull when he vows to defeat Rome. He bathes in his father's blood after his father's death from saving him in battle. He does the same when his wife hemorrhaged from being violated by Roman soldiers. There were other blood rituals and animal sacrifices for boats, ships, etc ... So much blood flowed in battle and otherwise.

I was surprised that Hannibal was able to fall in love. At first sight, he became completely enamored with a dancer: Similce. She was one hell of a woman. She gave practical advice on how to get the troops through the Alps. She used her stews and herbs to heal the wounded. The soldiers would have died for her. Hannibal used her to motivate the troops to go up through the Alps. He said that if she, a very pregnant woman, wanted to go, they were not real men if they didn't want to go. In the midst of the cold, dank and rough terrain, she created a healing herbal bath so that the troops could be de-loused. She said it would enable them to fight instead of scratch. Her loss and the loss of their infant son were devastating. It fueled his desire to kill more Romans.

I read this book because it is being made into a movie which will star Vin Diesel as Hannibal. It will be painful to see him old, haggard and defeated. I have learned from reading this novel. The issue of unity through mutli-culturism will be exposed by the movie. Thank you Mr. Diesel for getting the movie made. Thank you Mr. Lecke for writing a novel that the average non-historian can enjoy.

Many of the newly-released Osprey titles are delightful to read or expand our knowledge of less well-known subjects. This entry is neither. Its text is undistinguished, its color illustrations poor, and its technical content execrable! The latter is particularly annoying in light of claims that the author is a "curator at the Royal Armories at Fort Nelson." Obvious errors abound. Some are typographical -- "7.62mm" mortars, "60-pounder" cannon, 1910 transmuted to 1901 in the same paragraph, and the "Write" airplane engine (invented by the Right brothers)-- but this begs the question, doesn't Osprey have any editors? Weapons/equipment data are awful: one photo shows a Model 93 Mauser rifle "in 7.65 mm, the standard" (caliber). In point of fact, all 93's were made in 7x57mm which was the standard; another shows a (1937) "Lanchester submachine-gun copy." This would be a remarkable feat, since the Lanchester was invented in 1941! (The gun is a copy of a German Bergmann). Some weapons are pure fantasy: the "Czech 7.62mm Mannlicher," for example. Likewise, aircraft and tank data differ from that found in easily accessible references. Since the numbers/types of aircraft used are at variance with other sources, this makes his Order of Battle (strengths and organization) information highly suspect. If the author has a real understanding of the strategic significance of this battle, he does not make it clear to the reader. His battle analysis is awkward, and its accuracy is highly suspect. Overall, the book has no credibility and should owe several stars!

The book is well writen and documented. The Ebro is possibly the most famous battle of the Spanish Civil War, and some of its images are classical icons of that period of history as the Pablo Picasso's "Guernica" or the Robert Cappa's picture of the fallen militia men. Its very clear in its explanations of the strategies and the development of the actions from both parts. At the same time, it had a lot of pictures from the places were the fight took place, so the reader can grasp a very good idea of the battles.

Nevertheless it has some flaws. The most important in my opinion is the low detail of the campaing main map in page 30. Some villages, mountain ridges and roads that are later named in the text, are missing in this map. Even for a spaniard is difficult to locate those places without the help of a map. The explanation of the objetifs of the Republican side is confussed due to this lack of detail. Another is the few pictures of the leaders from both sides. In other Osprey books the leader section usually depicts a lot of pictures of the leaders, but here you can see only three and in one of them only the back of a nationalist leader instead of his face. Finally, if has the typical english mistakes with the spanish names (Is so hard to check an spanish atlas?). The most funny is the name of the source from some pictures. You can read "Partido Comunista Española" instead of "Partido Comunista Español". Well, in spanish language as opposed to english language, some things and its adjetifs have gender. For example "a red table" is in spanish a "female" thing (una mesa roja). A political party is a "male" thing. So it was delightful to check that a posible translation for the PCE is the Comunist Party of Spanish Woman.

Despite those things I recomend its lecture even for those not interested in pure military history but only in the spanish modern history.

I thought this book dealt pretty well with an unknown battle from the Spanish Civil War. Up to now there are few books on the military campaigns and this one plugs the gap.
There are a few errors in the text but judging by the bibliography the author has attempted to look at a wide range of sources.

Unfortunately, Fodor's chooses to flatter sites/hotels/restaurants that are not even worthwhile in this adjective-laced and over-priced guide. Many of the "magnificent," "remarkable," and/or "extraordinary" sites mentioned in this guide were far from it. It lacks any candor or frank descriptions. That's not all, it gives no directions to hotels or restaurants and once again describes substandard food as "wonderful." I am also curious to know where these rocket scientists came up with their definitions of nice, clean and exciting. The book is a bust, go with another guide, it was a waste of my money. If it could get 0 stars -- it would.

I found this book difficult to use. The descriptions of city sites are sorted alphabetically. Therefore, you have to know the name of a specific site in the correct language to find a description. If you don't speak Polish, Hungarian, etc, it's difficult to find what you're looking for. There are only a few maps of major cities in the guide and therefore it's difficult to find any locations outside of the major cities. This book does provide some decent descriptions of restaurants. The upside to the book is that it is the only one that I've found that covers such a diverse group of countries. I just wish that it was organized better and that it had more maps.

The chapter authors are obviously well-acquainted with the areas they cover. They have done a very good job supplying tips for the traveler. The writing is lucid, and the compilation reader-friendly, evincing a masterful job by the editor(s) in revising and coalescing the material.

Roth's worst book by a mile. Incredibly poorly written. Spare yourself this one , read Portnoy, The Ghost Writer or American Pastoral instead.

This is good reading when preceded by the first three Zuckerman books. If you can find Zuckerman Bound, buy that, and get this baby included in the collection. That work, with 3 novels and this novella, is one of the best books Ive read.

This is a true gem--a concise, ribald, hilarious and ingenious novella. Equal parts Kafka and copulation, this East-European tale will leave you satisfied.

One has to question the opinion of a reviewer who cannot even state the proper name of the focus of the biography and seems more interested in detailing his genealogy instead. The proper name of the General is Albert Sidney Johnston, NOT Sidney Albert Johnston, for those passersby who may be interested in the book. Also, I doubt the reviewer's assumption that possessing the name "Sidney" can be directly correlated to ignorant racist Southerners, or any Southerner, as he seems to assume.

Haven't read this book, but want laypersons to be familiar with the correct name of the General. Don't use "stars" as a way to rate books, either.

I was pleasantly surprised to stumble across this book last night in my local bookstore. I was perusing the Civil War section for the comprehensive anthologies looking for anything I could find on Sidney Albert Johnston but found only brief blurbs at best. I had no idea such a focused work existed on an obscure individual that I had always thought of as being historically insignificant and mostly forgotten. I am glad to see that Mr. Roland is attempting to set the record straight.

My interest in Sidney Albert Johnston is that indirectly he is my namesake but till now, I had no idea of who he really was and why my great-grandfather would be so moved to attempt to memorialize him through his progeny.

My grandfather born in 1870 in Southern Mississippi and was given Albert Sidney Johnston as a first name. I don't know why the order was reversed but I can only assume his father (my great-grandfather) served under him in the war. I do know from my father that the original intention though was that my grandfather be named after the Civil War General.

Roland's book helped me with this as I learned that Johnston raised the Armies of Mississippi and Tennesee, the former which would have included my great-grandfather.

My father passed on his father's middle name (Sidney) to me as my middle name but I have never used it as to me it has always been a stigma of ignorant Southern racism rather than anything honorable that I should be proud of. This stigma is lessened somewhat now after Roland has illumined Johnston's life to me and some of his other redeeming qualities besides making the mistake of choosing the side of the political issue of his day that history has proven to be wrong.

Ironically though, I also learned that even though Johnston distanced himself from his family's New England puritanical heritage, he himself was named after an English Whig martyr Sidney Algernon, and his brother was given the biblical name Josiah.

Johnston was the grand-son of a New England industrialist and the son of a Medical Doctor who trained in Connecticut before heading south to Northern Kentucky. Johnston initially pursued his father's medical training before changing his mind and pursuing a military career. Interestingly enough, two of Johnston's brothers, including Josiah Stoddard Johnston re-settled down in Northern Louisiana near Alexandria and although both became lawyer's and achieved prominenence in their community, Stoddard became a U.S. rep and then a U.S. Senator from Louisiana, and sponsored Sidney Albert into West Point.

Although I haven't tracked this down yet, I suspect that Roland has answered even another riddle for me in that I think I now understand the relation of the surname Johnston in the Civil War to the modern day political dynasty of the family of J. Bennett Johnston, former U.S. Senator of Louisiana. I suspect that J. Bennett Johnston is descended from these brothers in Alexandria and would therefore be a great nephew of Sidney Albert.

Johnston was a contemporary of both future Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee and P.T. Beauregard at Westpoint and although neither regarded his qualifications as a General, they both spoke highly of his character. Since Johnston died in the first battle of the war at Shiloh, history will never know of his military abilities but perhaps due to his character, providence prevented him from being responsible for more bloodshed fighting for the wrong cause if he had lived.

Through this book, I have to come to recognize now some of the qualities of Johnston's character so I can understand how an uneducated Southern farmer would be so impressed with him, and can somewhat forgive my great-grandfather's perpetuating his unvanquished rebellion through his posterity and finally to me.

In summation, I found Roland's book to be very informative and diligently researched and a an enthralling read and would heartily recommend it to anyone interesting in more illumination of this obscure individual and time in history.

John Sidney Walley
Atlanta, GA

For those who have worked with or in Russia know better than this book. There is little reason to be optimistic about Russia. This book was published two years before anyone who invested in Russia basically lost their shirt. All the people who were to move Russia forward ended up being little more than con-artists and thieves. You can do the math yourself. What would an investiment in the Russian stock market in 1996 have returned? What would an investment in the US market have returned? You want some advice about Russia? Everyone is out to take your money. Period. Stay away from Russia at all costs.

The Coming Russian Boom is a warning to those who sit idle thinking that they have figured out the great mystery that is Russia. It gives us solid understanding of the economic health of Russia and why there should be optimism about its future.

The book was somewhat dry, yet it was informative. Although on the surface the author tried to remain unbiased, it was evident that he was pro-khomeini. There was no mention of the 1000's of people murdered under his authority, especially that of the Bahai's who lived in Iran. Yet the Shah was portrayed as an oppressive ruler who had no regard for his people. Without knowing the actual history of Iran and that of the revolution, this book would be hard to follow.

I had Dr Milani two semesters ago for an International Politics class. I found him to be a rather open minded professor, but in this book he presents a rather one sided argument. Still, for those not familiar with the Islamic Revolution this book may be helpful. I would recommend reading other sources for further information and formulating your own opinions.

I read the book and must say that the author did not do her/his research. First the title would lead you to believe that there is a "Federative Republic of Skopje", that is totally incorrect.
The author is referring to Greece's northern neighbor the Republic of Macedonia.
What I thought was a language text eventually turned out to be a biased history text on the Macedonian people.I must say that I was not impressed.

The most important thing to remember about the "Macedonian conflict" is that the Greek position has changed dramatically over the past decade. Official Greek government policy was that Macedonia did not exist. When Greece took over Aegean Macedonia in 1913, they killed, tortured and ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Macedonians. They changed the names of people, villages, and landmarks from Macedonian to Greek in their attempts to eradicate the Macedonian name. Two things to remember:

1. It is ironic that Greeks now "love Macedonia" when they tried to eradicate its very existence.

2. If Macedonia has always been Greek, why did the Greek government deny its existence until the 1980's?

A nice book, detailed and accurate, yet as previous reviewers said, I guess, none of the possible customers will be able to understand that the "Federative Republic of Skopje" is actually the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (the UN designation), the area known as "Vardarska Banovina" up to 1945 and as the "Kingdom of Paeonia" in ancient times.
It probably has to do with the Greek reactions to the use of the ancient greek name "Macedonia" by the Slavic populations in the newly founded states on the north of Greece. The author, probably of greek descent, refuses to link the glorius ancient macedonian history with today's genocides in ex-yugoslavia, or to allow anyone to use it as a weapon against the Albanian minorities (as the Slavic modern-macedonia state that refuses the use of the 'macedonian' designation to it's albanian citizens!).
From this point of view I think that this is a very good approach that promotes historic accuracy and a international stability.
Those that have already read the book, like myself, found it much easier to separate "modern-macedonia" (slavic, ex-yugoslavian) from "ancient-macedonia" (greek, hellenistic empire). I was looking for a book about the "macedonian" language - also called greek "koine" ("common") -, that was spread almost to the entire ancient world by the conquests of Alexander the Great, and I actually bought a book of bulgarian, the language of the modern-macedonian nation. :(

I recommend this book to anyone who wants to know details for modern-macedonia ("republic of skopje") and understand the reasons that lead Slavs and Albanians to the last civil-war in Europe, through the eyes of an independent and objective observer.

this book left me with quite a muddled picture of the armenians.

the book can be broadly divided into three parts, chronologically speaking: 1. beginnings-1071, 2. 1071-1915, and 3. 1915-present. the latter two parts are rendered in quite a summary fashion in my opinion, and a topic as central as the genocide has been accorded barely half a page.

throughout the book one finds it hard to understand when armenians were independent and when not, what elements of their culture they got from whom and what contributions they made to other cultures. one major contribution of armenians is their distinctive architecture, and that could have been explored with far more pictures than are included in the book.

the exceptionally summary treatment of the centuries under turkish rule and especially of the genocide leaves one startled, as these are the centuries and events that must have had a most profound effect on the armenian identity. an establishment turkish historian writing about armenian history could not have paid less attention to the genocide issue (for other purposes, of course, but that's another matter). the recently independent armenian republic is also equally summarily treated. the lack of a single armenian name in the acknowledgements page is also very curious.

i had bought it to get an unbiased introduction to the subject, instead i got a muddled one. in sum, i would not recommend this book as an introduction to the subject.

While the book has been written by a professional, I have a feeling that it has been written somewhat hastily, and the topics covered have been arbitrarily chosen. It is frequently hard to trace the underlying logic of the arguments or to come up with specific conclusions intended. One almost gets an impression of the author claiming something like, "If we make this and this assumption, we would arrive to this and this conclusion, if we make the other assumption, we would arrive to the other conclusion. We can arrive to any conclusion, thus the subject should not be seriously studied." This characterization is especially transparent in the case of the topic of the "Origin of Armenians." It looks as if "I have been asked to write about it and I have done it. I can spend my time on better things, however."

For example, it is noteworthy that the author pays minimal attention to the era and the contribution of the Paulicians, who have had tremendous impact on the evolution of European theological thought starting in the 9th century, laying down the foundations of Protestant thought.

On the other hand, this book obviously is not meant for bedtime reading, and has to be read with a sharp pencil in one's hands. However, in this case, I suspect there is a high likelihood of emerging with a much more negative reaction towards it.

Overall, I think this is a book to at least glance through and to know about, and is a positive contribution when looked at from the perspective of bringing Armenian History to the International spotlight. It is a welcome addition to the library of anyone who has serious interest in Armenian History, but would not necessarily be appropriate for novices or those with only a passing interest.

Despite the weaknesses--some fair, some very unfair--pointed at by the other reviewers, this book is the best work published in English on Armenia and the Armenians from their early origins to the Turkish invasion in the eleventh century.