The text of the book is a transcribed speech which Judith Martin gave to students at a certain Ivy League institution. It covers a short history of official American manners, such as when President Thomas Jefferson tried to apply his democratic ideals by calling all foreign envoys "Mr. Stuart" and the like, as opposed to using titles in official protocol. This idea did not last.

However, there really isn't that much substance in this book that has not been covered in one of Ms. Martin's many other books. Her main idea is that, as a democratic society, social manners should not depend on money or rank, but egalitarianism, where the fair way to decide precedence is by age -- simply for the reason that everyone eventually gets their chance to take precedence, should they live long enough. Still, reading this prompted me to write Ms. Martin to ask her to write a more complete book on the history of American etiquette. I still await that book.

I would recommend buying a different book by Ms. Martin; the wait I had to get this book wasn't worth it.

Why does this nation suffer from an epidemic of rudeness? How can we keep our professional lives from destroying our private lives? How can good manners be squared with the ideals of American life? The Kennedy School of Government at Harvard invited Judith Martin (i.e., Miss Manners) to come and deliver its John M. Olin Distinguished Lecture on these questions, and she responded with this marvelous little book, filled with the sort of good sense (and good humor) that always makes her work eminently readable. The only other scholar ever invited to talk at Harvard on the question of deportment, by the way, was Cotton Mather -- eminent company indeed!

If you think Miss Manners is only interested in which fork to use with the fish course, you obviously haven't been keeping up. She's actually a very skilled practical anthropologist and sociologist, with a lively interest in what sets our theoretically classless American culture apart from the rest of the world. And she has maintained for years that "proper" -- which is to say "common sense" -- etiquette is the very linchpin of a democratic, egalitarian society. A nicely written and very thought-provoking book.

"My mission, rather, is to call attention to the need for a philosophically acceptable and aesthetically pleasing standard of American etiquette."

Judith Sylvia Perlman was born in 1938 and spent part of her childhood in foreign capitals due to her father's work as a United Nations economist. She then worked at The Washington Post for 25 years, covering social events at the White House. Later she became a theater and drama critic. In 1978, she created the Miss Manners column.

This tiny book is a compilation of ideas from a lecture given at Harvard University. Judith Martin approached her field work in a different way from most social scientists. Instead of studying a segment of society for a limited period of time, she simply invited everyone in the country to write to her so she could analyze the problems and provide helpful solutions to perplexing questions about etiquette.

"The state of American etiquette is, however, now worse than ever. Miss Manners is forced to act. I shall attempt to show what went wrong, and to propose a modest solution."

Judith Martin then continues with humor, which I happily laughed along with (out loud) right through this book. I had no idea she was such a comedian.

She explains how America is a place where you do your own thing and guides us into the area of manners vs. morals. She can't believe how anyone would not be able to figure out which fork to use if she could go from using quill pen to using a personal computer in three days.

This book will make you think about how you speak to people when going to a party. I know for a fact, there are many people who don't like being asked: "What do you do?" As if that is more important than "who you are." Perhaps we should go up to people and say: "What is your dream? Who do you want to become?" I myself am more my hobbies than what I do to make money.

I grew up in a country where children were seen and not heard, where everyone seemed to mind their manners, but in America, I often feel very confused about what people expect, because often when I'm very polite, they become offended by my sense of trying to be nice. As if it is not real. Manners online is another story altogether. At forums, it often seems to be survival of the fittest, which is why I went back to my silent life of reviewing.

This tiny book has a huge helping of humor! Once you read this book, you will more than likely want to read Judith's "Guide to Rearing Perfect Children," "Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior" and "The Name on the White House Floor."

The major thesis of this book is that ethics should be deontological and casuistic. As an evangelical Protestant, the author tries to derive ethics from Scripture. But given the universal consensus among NT scholars that there is a dynamic tension between the "now" and the "not yet" in (varying) degrees in the NT, I'm not sure if Davis can really execute his basic program. In other words, if we only see through a glass darkly ("not yet"), does that not mean the task of ethical reflection means an ongoing coversation, where our conclusions are just provisional? Can Scripture alone really address every single ethical case in a normative fashion similar to the Puritan Richard Baxter's Christian Directory? While I (for one) would like to say that firm ethical stances must be made, I'm not sure if Davis asks whether his work is a conversation-starter or stopper. It seems more like the former than the latter. Moreover, on some ethical issues, he doesn't really come to any conclusion, despite his call that the church must have ethical direction.

He does dismiss agapism (i.e. agape is the central principle for ethics) as lacking in stating ethical rules (I would have to agree), but his argument seems to set up a straw man, where he quotes an agapist as being vague. A far better argument would have been to show that certain books of the NT are explicitly silent on using agape as a ground for ethical norms (e.g. Hebrews, Mark except for one pericope, James, etc.). To be sure agape is a dominant ethical theme in Paul and John (and given lots of primacy by folks like Augustine and Aquinas). But it's fairly obvious to me that the cross spans the spectrum of the NT writings, rather than agape per se. Hence, we derive agape as an ethical principle from the cross of Christ, but not vice versa. Agapism alone is lacking in that it fails to make clear what kind of love we are talking about. But because Davis is unclear about this, we're left wondering.

Given that major premise that ethical norms must be derived from Scripture, I must say the exegesis in this book relies more on proof-texting than on looking at the texts within their own contexts. The book is formatted so that he jumps immediately into ethical issues after a one chapter prolegomena. It might have been better for him to slow down and present his exegesis of Scripture (e.g. Pauline, Johannine, general epistles, the synoptics, etc.). Moreover, an attempt to use "Scripture to interpret Scripture" leads to some throughly unconvincing arguments. E.g. he dismisses a pacifist argument that the cross is the supreme example of nonviolent response to violence, b/c it overemphasizes Christ's work as exemplarist rather than falling under the penal substitution. First, it waters down the full rhetorical force of NT texts like 1 Pet 2:21-25. Second, it begs the question, since some pacifists (like Richard Hays and Stanley Hauerwas) clearly see that penal substitution implies exemplarism. Third, his discussion fails to show any clearly thought out method for how to interrelate Scripture, tradition, reason and experience. Here, it seems tradition and experience play an overriding factor over Scripture. I would have to agree with Hays that Scripture univocally witnesses to nonviolent resistance to injustice.

If you want to read a Christian ethics textbook, you are better off reading Richard Hays' _Moral Vision of the NT_ or Stanley Grenz' _The Moral Quest_. Those books show a FAR MORE conscious attempt to deal with the method behind their madness. If you are assigned this book, check it out from the library. Spend your money elsewhere.

This book is an excellent introduction to be basic topics relevant to a book on ethics, presenting data from Scripture, law, and science. The chapter on homosexuality is very important. The Bible teaches that no homosexual will be saved, but they will all be condemned to endless punishment in hell. This being so, it is essential for Christian to be clear on this matter, and affirm that homosexuality is absolutely unacceptable from the Christian perspective.

As for the one who gave the negative review, ignore him, he does not know what he is talking about. Just read the book.

An excellent introduction to ethics from a biblical perspective. The author includes a description of the issues involved, including the historical background and different viewpoints. He applies biblical principles to answer difficult questions on such subjects as abortion, contraception and euthanasia.

This book has a foreword by a William Murchison that refutes almost 100% of the message of the book. He claims this book is a support for a return to religious values (his) and it even has an endorsement by Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition. What hypocrisy. Buried deep in the book you will read that Jefferson did not believe in the superstitions of the bible and he did not believe Jesus was divine. He rather felt that this was made up by the Christian Heirarchy principally at Nicea. The writer of the foreword ignores everything that Thomas Jefferson has written and says that Jefferson never meant for there to be seperation of church and state in the literal sense. He writes that some religious beliefs are more valid than others and sarcastically comments (a quote!) "No responsible democratic government could give preference to one opinion over another could it?" He then attacks the educational system saying that the religous material he approves of should be taught in schools. I am INCREDULOUS! An endorsement by the Christian Coalition only says that no only are these people intolerant, THey JUST WILL NOT LOOK AT FACTS. Reason, Common Sense. A wonderful book the parts by Jefferson, but again SKIP this irritating addition and buy the one by Forrest Church. I just returned this edition and am having them send the HISTORICALLY CORRECT one. I guess the Christian Coalition will try to create "support" when they can't earn it. What's next? will the Christian Coalition (in reality a corporate funded fascist front) endorse Darwin's "Origin of Species" and claim that Darwin agreed with them about the biblical talking snake theory and that this is what should be in schools? Go figure.

I thought this book was real neat. Imagine, Thomas Jefferson being so interested in religion that he spent all this time to "talk" about the Bible. How many critics of him have ever read the Bible? Like the authors of "AMERICAN SPHINX" and "UNDERSTANDING JEFFERSON" use their proficient writing ability to mask their dirtbag opinions and, unfortunately, are able to sell them as fact. There is just too much dishonesty in historical authorship these days. Maybe it's just me, but one of the few books on Jefferson that I have found to be intellectually honest is a "sleeper" I just happened upon called "WEST POINT", by Norman Thomas Remick. It's the best keep secret. Why? I don't know. I recommend that everyone should read it. It is absolutely complimentary to "JEFFERSON"S BIBLE". As it objectively lays out Jefferson's secular philosophy, he ceases to be an "American Sphinx", and you can better "understand" why he would interpret the Bible the way he did in "JEFFERSON'S BIBLE". Mr. Patton did an excellent job on this book.

Don't allow the endorsements of conservatives like Ralph Reed discourage the compassionate, liberal Christian from reading this brilliant work. Jefferon's love for the teachings of Jesus resulted in this creative example of how inspirational the "word of God" is and how it may serve as a guide to life.

Before reading this work, I looked upon it as very promising. Read, in contrast the vast majority of other historians of the era, proposes to analyze and contrast the political philosophies of four major early Americans by examining their views on the relationship between power and liberty. Thus, the author is also in effect transcending the trite republicanism/liberalism dichotomy that has domincated scholarship for decades by returning to the methodology used by the great Bernard Bailyn. Unfortunately, the author ultimately fails to execute.

Madison is the first thinker that he discusses, and along with the chapter on Wilson, this is the highlight of the book. He effectively argues that Madison was a much more consistent thinker than past scholars have made him out to be. While Madison's transformation from an ally to Hamilton during the Constitutional Convention to a strong opponent several years later has long puzzled historians, Read demonstrates the consistenty that he maintained in both positions as related through his interpretation of the Constitution and the public's understanding and perception of it. In addition to this, he also undertakes the strangely neglected task of comparing Madison with Hamilton. This however, leads the first major downfall of the study, viz. his unsound analysis of Hamilton.

To begin with, even the subtitle of this chapter is enough to arouse one's suspicions. Hamilton is characterized as a "Libertarian and nationalist." The later appelation is certainly undisputable, but the former is clearly absurd to anyone who has any idea what libertarianism actually entails. Throughout the chaper, Hamilton's supposed commitment to liberty and other traditional Whig or republican principles is given far too much emphasis with far too little substantive evidence. Along with this, Hamilton's views on Constitional and economic policy are given a shallow, sympathetic treatment, while other aspects of his life and thought are either ignored or merely glossed over. This of course, largely serves to vitiate the very promising contrast of Hamilton with Madison that he conducts.

Nevertheless, the chapter on James Wilson is quite valuable, especially since he, unlike the other 3 figures dealt with, has been prodominantly ignored by modern scholars. He shows that while Wilson was as committed to the concept of popular sovreignty as Thomas Jefferson, he believed that the proper manner to systemize this was primarily through the Federal government. Hence, Wilson, like Hamilton, was a proponent of "energetic government," because he viewed it as the proper systemization of the "energy" of the sovereign people.

Although the chaper on Hamilton was bad, that dealing with Jefferson is worse. Read, quite correctly, recognizes throughout the work that Jefferson, (unlike Madison, Hamilton, and Wilson) viewed power and liberty as polar opposites, with every increase of power entailing a proportionate decrease in liberty. T Surprisingly , however, his actual analysis of his thought is among the worst that I have ever read. He seems to make a concerted effort to make his political philosophy as nebulous and contradictory as possible. Moreover, while he cites David N. Mayer's invaluable work on Jefferson's Constitutional thought, and even states that fellow scholar Michael Zuckert helped him with the work; he utilizes the flawed and inaccurate work of Lance Banning and Richard Matthews. As a result of this, he takes up the absurd contention that Jefferson was an agrarian who opposed capitalism, and thus Hamilton and his radical vision for a new economic order.

This view, in addition to being completely unfounded, also highlights the paucity of Read's sources. Such important works as Joyce Appleby's "Capitalism & A New Social Order" and Garret Sheldon's "The Political Philosophy of Thomas Jefferson" are completely ignored.

While the analysis of Jefferson's thought is dramatically poor, perhaps the worst aspect of the work is the author's translation of views of each thinker to the politcal landscape of the late 20th century. For the first three thinkers, he manages to claim that their theories may actually be able to fit modern day circumstances. Jefferson, however, is excluded from this, given his radical views on power. In each case, he uses the common statist platitude that convictions formulated two centuries ago cannot apply to issues out of their temporal context. In the case of all of these men, even Hamilton, this argument is patently absurd, as their adherence to the principals of natural rights and liberty certainly make clear. As Jefferson once said, Nothing...is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." Consideration of this, among other Founding principles, has led even as staunch a Hamiltonian as Forrest McDonald to conclude the Founding Fathers would look upon the current government as tyrannical. As should be obvious, I view this work as very deeply flawed. Nevertheless, given the proper author utilizing the same methodology, this could have been a truly fascinating and valuable piece of scholarship.

Recent scholarship has revealed a much more consistent 'Madison' than some historians have granted 'The Father of the Constitution'.Scholars Rosen, Banning, and Rakove have lead the way in this regard. Reads contribution although brief is as Rakove pointed out a deft work.By highlighting the concerns Madison held about the excresent powers of the Continental Congress, amidst the environment where the Congress was frustrated from performing the assigned tasks, revitalizes and reinforces the devotion Madison held for Constituional integrity reconciling the thoughts and actions of Madison in the 1780s, to the 1790s. It is only wished this essay could be expanded, and that the author could apply a more expanded study on Madison's contributions.

Dr. James Read was a recent guest on National Public Radio. His scholarship is evident, but what he has written here is a very "user-friendly" exploration of the early American debate on the role of government, which is as pertinent today as it was in 1776.
Dr. James Read has given us a highly readable, as well as well researched, look at a question which all Americans ponder: "Is big government antagonistic to individual rights and liberties?" The discussion is framed in the context of those early American thinkers who initially set up the American system of government with an especial emphasis on Jefferson and Hamilton.
This is a very readable book that is written in straightforward prose. It presents a nice, concise history of America's early philosophical public policy issues, its greatest thinkers, and the debate in the 18th century about what form the American government would take. It is fascinating to read about the debates taking place in the hammering out of the United States' Constitution.
The book is organized into:
Power and Liberty (James Madison);
Libertarianism and nationalism (Alexander Hamilton);
Popular Sovereighty (James Wilson);
Liberty and States Rights (Thomas Jefferson).

I suspect that the review by Amanda Kane hits the nail on the head. I have not read this book but just finished seeing a talk by this author about his book on C-Span.

I saw bits and parts of his talk, but it was not holding my interest as I was hearing mostly "the same old stuff" about Saddam. I saw mainly the question and answer period.

The book title shown on the screen was only the first half of the title, the more general "The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders."

I heard him mainly discussing Saddam Hussein in a world context.
Someone asked him whether he had done a profile on Bush and Sharon. I was struck by the abruptness of his reply, about Bush, that he restricts himself to foreign leaders, and about Sharon, bruskly, no he hasn't done him.

My alarm bells of "What is his political bent vs. objective scientific study" immediately went off.

This was compounded when the camera finally panned to the view of his book, the title in full and the picture of Bill Clinton.

Following this he was asked about a profile of Arafat, which he happily answered.

I came to the Amazon site interested in find out more. I did, enough to know that this is not a book on which I would waste my time.

Like the first reviewer, I too watched Post on C-Span describing his studies and answering questions. Unlike the first reviewer, I was struck by Post's professionalism, wisdom and mastery of his subject. He was also, quite righly, unwilling to be drawn into political debate, although some questioners attempted to goad him into it by making outrageous statements of political fiction disguised as questions.

I feel the first reviewer is biased and even admits to not having read the book.

This is a book that should be read be every thinking person who has an interest in world conflict and how the psychological make- up of leaders effects the conduct of their policies and administrations.

His description of Saddam Hussein, compiled after years of meticulous research and interviews, shows how a miserable childhood combined with a specific psychological make-up can produce a "malignant narcissist", who is a danger to everyone around him. It shows that trying to "give him a chance to reform", is a policy that is bound to fail, because it will only fan his delusions further. SH is not, according to Post a madman but a calculating planner with clear goals and objectives. SH is also, it seems, a murderous sociopath.

This book is like having the play-book on SH. It enables us to understand what he does, why he does it and how he is likely to react to events and to the pressure brought to bear on him by military action. It enables one to gain an insight into events beyond the polemic of political debate.

READ IT!

When you see what these men are really like you will be scared. It is more frightening to realize that one of them was actually elected, twice, by the people of a democracy.
A very readable book by a scholar who just tells us the facts.

World War II has interrupted Kate Fallon's life. While her fiancée and brother are fighting overseas, she's doing all she can to help the war cause from her small town in Pennsylvania. But when a high school friend is found dead in lover's lane, Kate must use her love of mystery novels to find out who is really behind the killing. Meanwhile, she must also adjust to her new job in the man's world of the steel plant.

This book really does a great job of setting time and place. I missed the 40's by a number of years, but I still felt like I was right there. And the main characters are well drawn. I really felt for Kate, wanting her family to come home from the war safe.

However, as a mystery, I was a disappointed. The book starts out well. But about half way through it gets sidetracked. There is too much time spent around Kate's first days working at her new job at the steel plant. While interesting, they slow down the pace of the story. When the book kicked into high gear for the climax, I felt something got glossed over in the hurry to finish the story within the correct number of pages. Still, the story did come to a satisfactory end, and I was interested enough to pick up the next book in the series.

Residents of quiet Robinsville, Pennsylvania are doing whatever they can to help America win World War II. Not too long after Pearl Harbor, the townsfolk hosts a victory rally and dance where supplies and money can be donated to support the war effort. Book Nook owner Ms. Beatrice Bradshaw and mystery enthusiast Kate Fallon are sponsoring the event.

A few days before the festivities occur, tragedy strikes. Kate's friend Nancy Edinger is found murdered one day after she informs Kate she is going to meet her two-timing boyfriend. The police suspect the boyfriend Freddy Johnson of murder. Kate knows he could never hurt anyone. When the town troublemaker is also killed, the police link Freddy to both crimes. A third murder occurs involving an author writing the true crime story of local burglary turned deadly. Kate believes all four killings are related with a diabolically clever person trying to pin the rap on Freddy.

THE VICTORY DANCE MURDER captures the atmosphere of small town America just after the Pearl harbor attack. Though the era comes alive, the book lacks tension and thus loses reader interest for periods of time. Conversely, Kate is a great character who will gain fan support, especially if M.T. Jefferson can turn up the heat with the promising "Homefront" mysteries.

Harriet Klausner

If you're of a certain age and remember the 40s and especially the beginning years of WWII, you should love this book! You'll find yourself nodding your head in agreement with casually-tossed out remarks like "Here's a dime, go buy yourself a toy at Woolworth's" or you might find yourself humming the tune to a popular song of the era --Don't Sit Under the Apple Tree With Anyone Else but Me-- as it is woven into the rich texture of this era that serves as a backdrop to this nostalgic, easy-going and gentle book.

It takes you back to a time when patriotism really meant something, not just the newest Olympics coming up, or the current one being plastered all over the TV, which of course, was only the merest figment of anyone's imagination at that time. This was a time of sacrifice and doing without, of sharing, and all over America, the inhabitants of small towns like Robinsville, Pennsylvania, banded together to 'beat the Axis'.

The heroine, Kate Fallon, is a working girl, waiting for her fiancé to return from the Army. An avid reader of mystery novels, she uses her native intelligence and puzzle-solving abilities to help the authorities bring a multiple killer to justice. A wonderful group of secondary characters are so real, you expect to hear them speak out loud at any moment.

Awesome is the only word that can describe the research exhibited here. The writing and the story should hold the interest of anyone who enjoys reading something other than fast-paced shoot-em-ups or car chases. With none of the ubiquitous four-letter words, either. Hooray!

This book was overly detailed for so few pages. The Author jumped from one plot to the next.. NOT to mention the ending ruined the entire book for me... And to top it off, I find out that the author is WHITE..... Oh hell no...

What a dissapointment...

THE SCHOOL ON 103RD STREET was slow in the beginning, but picked up quickly. It was scary in the effect that this is something that could actually take place, especially if the government is involved. Who could say that it couldn't? It's this type of fiction that makes you think, which is what a good novel is supposed to do. The end of the book and the killing involved didn't make much sense to me (I had to come to some type of conclusion to neatly wrap the book up in my mind), but still, It had a sense of purpose and need to be read by all african-amercians.

The paranoia displayed by the author and his characters may seem extreme to a white reader like myself. However, considering that this thriller is just as well written and tightly plotted as any bloated supermarket/airport paperback written by a white author (which isn't saying much) and is only now finally being reprinted by a mainstream trade paperback publisher, the author's suspicion and bitterness is understandable.

Well as far as a book of fiction goes..it was readable..but to say that it is a true story is beyond any wild belief.The "plot" to kidnap Jefferson Davis was at best a ill conceived "dream" of the French characters of this book. Indeed if they had a true intent to kidnap the Confederate President,they would have had several back-up plans in the event all the pieces of the original plan did not fall into place. It turns out to be little more than a story of what the Confederates believed to be neutral frenchmen, traveling from Washington City to Richmond, on a lark. The story is full of the Frenchmen's value of self-worth and the feeling that the Confederates were ignorant fools that had no place in the civilized world. This book was hardly worth the read...and I do not say that about many books.

This book is very interesting, and an easy book to read for those who do not know much about the Civil War. It tells the story that very few people know about three brave frenchmen and their plot to capture the president of the confederates, Jefferson Davis.. Including the adventures they have a few weeks before and after their plot. I would recommend this book for anyone, especially those interested in Civial War History. This book was hard to put down.

I am definately not "into" Civial War history, but I found this to be a great book. I would make the same decision in buying it again.

I was truly excited about reading this book. I was particularly fascinated by the author's use of the paradoxes of Jefferson's words and deeds.

This is a decent book, but hard to read due to the author's needlessly pretentious word choice. My appetence for consummating the reading of this tome, was stymied by a repetitious exigence to avail myself of a dictionary due to polysyllabic profundity. ;-)

Alf J. Mapp, Jr.'s biography of Thomas Jefferson, A Strange Case of Mistaken Identity, successfully conveys the unique personality qualities that resided in one of our most influential and least understood Founding Fathers.

Rereading this biography on the heels of the Clinton Presidency one is struck by the similarities and differences between these two politicians. While Jefferson's intellect and accomplishments will never be equalled by William Jefferson Clinton, the outgoing incumbent shares certain characteristics with his namesake which the Mapp biography lucidly described five years before Clinton ran for office. The major difference between these two men may be that Thomas Jefferson did not hunger after the public's love the way a modern politician must in order to succeed. It is also highly doubtful that the American Public today would ever vote for an intellectual of such obviously of artistic temperment and intellect as the 3rd President. The "Elvis Presley" folksy charm of Bill Clinton is probably why he succeeded in his quest while Al Gore fell short in the Electoral College. Mapp's book succeeds in bringing forth what eluded many biographers before him, and that is the intensity of the passion and animosity that Thomas Jefferson stimulated in his politican adversaries. In this he clearly brings our outgoing current President to mind.

There are other parallels between the Jefferson legacy and the Clinton White House, the commitment to internationalism for one, and an egalitarian commitment to popular access to higher education for another. But the times and the men are ultimately different, and understanding this basic fact is made most palbable by Mapp's major contribution to a considerable trove of already existing Jefferson literature.

This book is insulting to what Jefferson, and America stand for. It may be true that both wore great visionaries but, Jefferson's visions created the United States of America, while Ataturk's created the Republic of Turkey which does not allow religious freedom, which persecutes the Kurds, and has no concept of human rights. I think that this is a good book to read if you want to laugh, but if you want to learn about Ataturk and the republic of Turkey read a book that does not glorify them but gives the facts as they are, which this book does not.

Two Giants from two different eras and countries, July 30, 2001 Reviewer: Dr J.E.Botton from Lynchburg, VA United States
I have been looking forward to the publication of this interesting book by Prof.Garrett W.Sheldon. This concise work by a jeffersonian scholar (87 pages and an appendix outlining the American and Turkish Constitutions) had been inspired, according to the author, by an "uncanny resemblance between the ideals of republicanism, freedom of religion,liberty of conscience, public education,economic development and national independence found in Ataturk and Jefferson". Although I read it with great interest, I was somewhat dismayed by the the rather limited place given to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (only three references..) versus a man certainly very well known, particularly in the US, Thomas Jefferson (eighteen references). While the latter was a leader in the struggle for independence and foundation of a new State following a revolutionary war against England, Ataturk managed to establish a new Republic after a most difficult fight against the same England, as well as France, Italy, Russia, Greece,etc. during the First World War and, in the same time, getting the country rid of a much weakened Ottoman Sultanate and the Caliphate. In addition,and within only fifteen years, he managed a long lasting revolution in education by switching from an arabic to a latin alphabet, civil and political rights to men and women as well as minorities, complete separation of state and religion,etc. One can easily state that Ataturk had achieved the military successes of George Washington, the political savvy of John Adams along the qualities of a Renaissance man such as Jefferson, all of it within less than twentyfive years.
Nevertheless, this is an important work that, hopefully, may stimulate further evaluation of Ataturk, who, it may be useful to mention,had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by the then greek prime minister Elefterios Venizelos, once his foe..
Not withstanding his deprecators acting on misinformation and personal hatred, he deserves to be placed among the greatest achievers of the 20th century..

I havent read this book yet but have breifly glanced over it and was impressed at how the 2 men can and were compared. With regards to the ignoramus who states that Turks don't give any rights to Kurds obviously has been living in a cave for the past 20 years or has no brain to speak of. I am Turkish and we Turks have given Kurds autonomy and the right to practice their own religion and culture. So anyone who says that we havent is not only hateful but ignorant and stupid as well and needs to get over his/her insecurities. Finally as for human rights against Kurds why dont you Mr. Reader from London tell that to the thousands of families of the Turkish Soldiers that lost their sons to the murderous PKK. I also dont think its appropriate for an ignoramus to critique a book about a legendary Turkish Leader. Go get some facts first before you speak ignorantly. I rest my case.