Top drawer yet again, 08 Nov 2008
After reading Dominique Enwright's excellent biography on Winston Churchill I had high hopes for this.I was not disappointed because this is fantastic addition to that book.
The thing that I like about her books on Chuchill is the fact that they aren't overblown at all.They stick to the basic facts and hold your interest throughout.This fine effort showcases the wit of the great man in an easy to follow way and I have no hesitation in giving this a full five stars to go alongside Ms. Enwright's first book.
There are many books out there about Churchill but I doubt you will find two finer ones simply because they are so easy to digest.Very highly recommended.

flavor minus ingredients, 06 Mar 2008
a beautful cover and many mistakes in the text. no attribution for many quotes either.

Very enjoyable, 12 Feb 2008
This relatively small book is divided into several sections with slices from Churchill's life and quotations related to politics, speaches, friends, animals, family, etc.

Here are few excerpts:

While campaigning in 1900, it is said that the young Churchill was doing a spot of canvassing when one of those he approached exclaimed:

"Vote for you? Why, I'd rather vote for the Devil!"

"I understand", Churchill answered, "But in case your friend is not running, may I count on your support?"

* * *

When passed a very long but turgidly written memorandum on some worthy but uninspiring subject, the elderly Prime Minister weighed the thick wad of paper in his hands and commented, "This paper by its very length defends itself against the risk of being read."

* * *

Churchill liked animals; sometimes he found this difficult to reconcile with his fondness for rich food. Anthony Montague Brown recalled that 'One Christmas he was about to carve a goose. Learning it was one of his own, he put down the knife and fork and said, "I could not possibly eat a bird that I have known socially."

* * *

A BBC broadcaster described once sitting next to Churchill as he gave a speech, keeping his audience hanging on to his every word. The boradcaster noticed, howver, that what appeared to be notes in Churchill's hand was only a laundry slip, and he later remarked upon this to Churchill. "Yes", said Churchill. "It gave confidence to my audience."

WHEN PARLIAMENT SPARKLED, 10 Jan 2008
Anyone watching the televised proceedings from Parliament could be forgiven for nodding off, given the uninspiring nature of much of the proceedings, and the mundane characters who participate. If you want a glimpse of what we're missing this book is essential reading. Winston Churchill was one of the great characters of the House, at a time when there was no shortage of such people. He is quoted as saying, of the then Russian Foreign Minister, "I have never seen a human being who more perfectly represented the modern concept of a robot". I can't help feeling that, were he a sitting MP today, he'd find no shortage of candidates to fit that description. This book lives up to its title.

The Great British Patriot, 24 Jan 2005
This book sums up almost all the great qualities of a man who for so many was one of the greatest Englishman who ever lived. Full of quotes of indeed great wit and humour as well as thought and intelligence. Just a short read of this book will keep you in the best of spirits, and will surely put you in a most patriotic mood. A brilliant read and a must have book.

Top drawer yet again, 08 Nov 2008
After reading Dominique Enwright's excellent biography on Winston Churchill I had high hopes for this.I was not disappointed because this is fantastic addition to that book.
The thing that I like about her books on Chuchill is the fact that they aren't overblown at all.They stick to the basic facts and hold your interest throughout.This fine effort showcases the wit of the great man in an easy to follow way and I have no hesitation in giving this a full five stars to go alongside Ms. Enwright's first book.
There are many books out there about Churchill but I doubt you will find two finer ones simply because they are so easy to digest.Very highly recommended.

flavor minus ingredients, 06 Mar 2008
a beautful cover and many mistakes in the text. no attribution for many quotes either.

Very enjoyable, 12 Feb 2008
This relatively small book is divided into several sections with slices from Churchill's life and quotations related to politics, speaches, friends, animals, family, etc.

Here are few excerpts:

While campaigning in 1900, it is said that the young Churchill was doing a spot of canvassing when one of those he approached exclaimed:

"Vote for you? Why, I'd rather vote for the Devil!"

"I understand", Churchill answered, "But in case your friend is not running, may I count on your support?"

* * *

When passed a very long but turgidly written memorandum on some worthy but uninspiring subject, the elderly Prime Minister weighed the thick wad of paper in his hands and commented, "This paper by its very length defends itself against the risk of being read."

* * *

Churchill liked animals; sometimes he found this difficult to reconcile with his fondness for rich food. Anthony Montague Brown recalled that 'One Christmas he was about to carve a goose. Learning it was one of his own, he put down the knife and fork and said, "I could not possibly eat a bird that I have known socially."

* * *

A BBC broadcaster described once sitting next to Churchill as he gave a speech, keeping his audience hanging on to his every word. The boradcaster noticed, howver, that what appeared to be notes in Churchill's hand was only a laundry slip, and he later remarked upon this to Churchill. "Yes", said Churchill. "It gave confidence to my audience."

WHEN PARLIAMENT SPARKLED, 10 Jan 2008
Anyone watching the televised proceedings from Parliament could be forgiven for nodding off, given the uninspiring nature of much of the proceedings, and the mundane characters who participate. If you want a glimpse of what we're missing this book is essential reading. Winston Churchill was one of the great characters of the House, at a time when there was no shortage of such people. He is quoted as saying, of the then Russian Foreign Minister, "I have never seen a human being who more perfectly represented the modern concept of a robot". I can't help feeling that, were he a sitting MP today, he'd find no shortage of candidates to fit that description. This book lives up to its title.

The Great British Patriot, 24 Jan 2005
This book sums up almost all the great qualities of a man who for so many was one of the greatest Englishman who ever lived. Full of quotes of indeed great wit and humour as well as thought and intelligence. Just a short read of this book will keep you in the best of spirits, and will surely put you in a most patriotic mood. A brilliant read and a must have book.

What would you do if............?, 18 May 2008
What would you do if your government made a law that was completely immoral? It required you to act in an immoral way? This is not just a theoretical question, it has happened - consider Nazi Germany. So what would you do? Follow the law because it is what the law says and as citizens we are under a duty to follow the law? Refuse to follow the law because it is immoral (and risk prison/execution)? What if everybody refused to follow laws they didn't like? Wouldn't that result in anarchy? Would anarchy be so much better or maybe it would be even worse? Maybe if the law was immoral enough you would start a revoltion?
If you think about questions like this, Hobbes' Leviathan is the beginning of the modern consideration of this question. You may not like Hobbes answer (and personally I don't) but after reading Leviathan the reader is in a good position to consider the works of John Locke and S. von Pufendorf who wrote shortly after Hobbes, to a large extent in reply to the questions raised by Leviathan and came up with different answers.

A classic of its kind., 06 May 2007
Why is this book important?

Hobbes stands at the end of the intellectual life of the Middle Ages which means that for centuries philosophy, religion and science had been one unified structure under the stewardship of the Church, in a World that stood at the centre of the universe beneath a God in his heaven,who provided and blessed kings and governments.

Suddenly, all these ideas and structures and certainties were in question, or blown apart with gunpowder: Hobbes wrote this during the English Civil War which resulted in the execution of a king by his people, something that would have been unthinkable beforehand.

Hobbes is a modern man, a pioneer, in the sense that he is trying to find what are the bases of knowlege and truth, and power and statecraft-and religion, and-ultimately-what it is to be human, and what sort of institutions would best represent human beings. This book is supposed to be about everything, in one volume! Which shows great self-confidence if nothing else.

It is not an easy read. If you are not familiar with Seventeenth Century English, you may find it hard going. I would recommend you buying the Oxford Very Short Introduction to Hobbes, or something similar, and reading it first, so as to acquire the leading ideas. This might help. It might help at first to dip in, rather than plough through in some kind of tear-stained marathon!

There is something in this book to offend everyone really, notably the chapter on the Pope, referring to him as King of the Fairies.

There is an interesting short biography of Hobbes in Aubrey's 'Brief Lives' which describes him singing every day to keep fit, and travelling with a special walking stick with an ink well fitted in the top, so that he could make notes if an idea struck him when he was out walking. Aubrey knew Hobbes personally.

The idea that power can rest upon distortions of the truth seems to have contemporary resonance, weapons of mass destruction etc.

One of the most important texts., 29 May 2006
The context of this book, the time of its authorship, should not constrain the modern reader. So you might have to work at it a little. Oh, dear. How sad. Never mind. These are very very important ideas if you want to understand much of the reasoning behind what the west, the Transatlantic Anglo-Saxon alliance in particular, is doing, especially in the Middle East, NOW. You don't have to agree with Hobbes to see what he is getting at and yes the debate has shifted a lot (a wider, if more effete, literacy being a huge difference)but in order to be able to frame the right questions about soverignty in a democracy you have to have the basics. Read in tandem with Rousseau, the Wordsworth edition is far more palitable than this to the modern reader, you get some very interesting perspectives and a great start to framing those important questions.

Levelling the play field...., 23 Apr 2005
Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) was born in England, a country that endured great political turmoil during his life. Having lived through that, Hobbes' main aim was to inquire into the basis of order. The question he asked himself was "What kind of political authority will prevent the return of chaos?". And the answer to that question is in this book, "Leviathan" (1651).

The Levianthan is the personification of total power, an authority without limits, created by men who realise that absolute power given to a powerfull ruler (or to an assembly) is their only way out of the dangers of the state of nature. The name that the author chose for his monarch is quite telling: the Leviathan is a sea monster that appears in the Bible and symbolizes power. This kind of monarch seems like an extreme solution for the problem of anarchy, but it is the only one that Hobbes found. Without the Leviathan, life is 'solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.'

Of course, this book includes many more things than those I have already mentioned. For instance, it explains quite well Hobbes opinion regarding human nature (man is naturally a wolf to men), the state of nature (perpetual war of all against all), the origin of political institutions and the relationship between reason and force (pacts without swords are merely words), among other things.

On the whole, I think this book is a classic of Political Philosophy, and I recommend it as such. Despite that, I think a word of caution is in order, so you will be prepared for what you will find when you tackle "Leviathan". Truth to be told, sometimes Hobbes' prose is too dry, and in some chapters you will need to plod through some rather arid pages. Moreover, this book isn't written in modern English, what makes it more difficult to understand. Those are the reasons why I give this book four stars instead of five...

Notwithstanding that, I believe that "Leviathan" is well-worth the effort of reading it, simply because it has some interesting concepts that you should be aware of, even if you don't agree with them. The only way to discuss in a level play field with someone who has totally different ideas is to understand his arguments thoroughly, even if his position seems thoroughly strange to you. I invite you to do that with Hobbes, reading "Leviathan".

Belen Alcat

A classic, 21 Sep 2004
Don't be fooled by frivellous attacks on this book as boring and outdated. You aren't meant to read all of it for goodness sake.
The chapters on human drives, the laws of nature and the social contract, for example, are as relevant as ever, not to mention Hobbes polemic on Religion.

I found that this book contained far more excellent philosophy than I had expected.

Top drawer yet again, 08 Nov 2008
After reading Dominique Enwright's excellent biography on Winston Churchill I had high hopes for this.I was not disappointed because this is fantastic addition to that book.
The thing that I like about her books on Chuchill is the fact that they aren't overblown at all.They stick to the basic facts and hold your interest throughout.This fine effort showcases the wit of the great man in an easy to follow way and I have no hesitation in giving this a full five stars to go alongside Ms. Enwright's first book.
There are many books out there about Churchill but I doubt you will find two finer ones simply because they are so easy to digest.Very highly recommended.

flavor minus ingredients, 06 Mar 2008
a beautful cover and many mistakes in the text. no attribution for many quotes either.

Very enjoyable, 12 Feb 2008
This relatively small book is divided into several sections with slices from Churchill's life and quotations related to politics, speaches, friends, animals, family, etc.

Here are few excerpts:

While campaigning in 1900, it is said that the young Churchill was doing a spot of canvassing when one of those he approached exclaimed:

"Vote for you? Why, I'd rather vote for the Devil!"

"I understand", Churchill answered, "But in case your friend is not running, may I count on your support?"

* * *

When passed a very long but turgidly written memorandum on some worthy but uninspiring subject, the elderly Prime Minister weighed the thick wad of paper in his hands and commented, "This paper by its very length defends itself against the risk of being read."

* * *

Churchill liked animals; sometimes he found this difficult to reconcile with his fondness for rich food. Anthony Montague Brown recalled that 'One Christmas he was about to carve a goose. Learning it was one of his own, he put down the knife and fork and said, "I could not possibly eat a bird that I have known socially."

* * *

A BBC broadcaster described once sitting next to Churchill as he gave a speech, keeping his audience hanging on to his every word. The boradcaster noticed, howver, that what appeared to be notes in Churchill's hand was only a laundry slip, and he later remarked upon this to Churchill. "Yes", said Churchill. "It gave confidence to my audience."

WHEN PARLIAMENT SPARKLED, 10 Jan 2008
Anyone watching the televised proceedings from Parliament could be forgiven for nodding off, given the uninspiring nature of much of the proceedings, and the mundane characters who participate. If you want a glimpse of what we're missing this book is essential reading. Winston Churchill was one of the great characters of the House, at a time when there was no shortage of such people. He is quoted as saying, of the then Russian Foreign Minister, "I have never seen a human being who more perfectly represented the modern concept of a robot". I can't help feeling that, were he a sitting MP today, he'd find no shortage of candidates to fit that description. This book lives up to its title.

The Great British Patriot, 24 Jan 2005
This book sums up almost all the great qualities of a man who for so many was one of the greatest Englishman who ever lived. Full of quotes of indeed great wit and humour as well as thought and intelligence. Just a short read of this book will keep you in the best of spirits, and will surely put you in a most patriotic mood. A brilliant read and a must have book.

What would you do if............?, 18 May 2008
What would you do if your government made a law that was completely immoral? It required you to act in an immoral way? This is not just a theoretical question, it has happened - consider Nazi Germany. So what would you do? Follow the law because it is what the law says and as citizens we are under a duty to follow the law? Refuse to follow the law because it is immoral (and risk prison/execution)? What if everybody refused to follow laws they didn't like? Wouldn't that result in anarchy? Would anarchy be so much better or maybe it would be even worse? Maybe if the law was immoral enough you would start a revoltion?
If you think about questions like this, Hobbes' Leviathan is the beginning of the modern consideration of this question. You may not like Hobbes answer (and personally I don't) but after reading Leviathan the reader is in a good position to consider the works of John Locke and S. von Pufendorf who wrote shortly after Hobbes, to a large extent in reply to the questions raised by Leviathan and came up with different answers.

A classic of its kind., 06 May 2007
Why is this book important?

Hobbes stands at the end of the intellectual life of the Middle Ages which means that for centuries philosophy, religion and science had been one unified structure under the stewardship of the Church, in a World that stood at the centre of the universe beneath a God in his heaven,who provided and blessed kings and governments.

Suddenly, all these ideas and structures and certainties were in question, or blown apart with gunpowder: Hobbes wrote this during the English Civil War which resulted in the execution of a king by his people, something that would have been unthinkable beforehand.

Hobbes is a modern man, a pioneer, in the sense that he is trying to find what are the bases of knowlege and truth, and power and statecraft-and religion, and-ultimately-what it is to be human, and what sort of institutions would best represent human beings. This book is supposed to be about everything, in one volume! Which shows great self-confidence if nothing else.

It is not an easy read. If you are not familiar with Seventeenth Century English, you may find it hard going. I would recommend you buying the Oxford Very Short Introduction to Hobbes, or something similar, and reading it first, so as to acquire the leading ideas. This might help. It might help at first to dip in, rather than plough through in some kind of tear-stained marathon!

There is something in this book to offend everyone really, notably the chapter on the Pope, referring to him as King of the Fairies.

There is an interesting short biography of Hobbes in Aubrey's 'Brief Lives' which describes him singing every day to keep fit, and travelling with a special walking stick with an ink well fitted in the top, so that he could make notes if an idea struck him when he was out walking. Aubrey knew Hobbes personally.

The idea that power can rest upon distortions of the truth seems to have contemporary resonance, weapons of mass destruction etc.

One of the most important texts., 29 May 2006
The context of this book, the time of its authorship, should not constrain the modern reader. So you might have to work at it a little. Oh, dear. How sad. Never mind. These are very very important ideas if you want to understand much of the reasoning behind what the west, the Transatlantic Anglo-Saxon alliance in particular, is doing, especially in the Middle East, NOW. You don't have to agree with Hobbes to see what he is getting at and yes the debate has shifted a lot (a wider, if more effete, literacy being a huge difference)but in order to be able to frame the right questions about soverignty in a democracy you have to have the basics. Read in tandem with Rousseau, the Wordsworth edition is far more palitable than this to the modern reader, you get some very interesting perspectives and a great start to framing those important questions.

Levelling the play field...., 23 Apr 2005
Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) was born in England, a country that endured great political turmoil during his life. Having lived through that, Hobbes' main aim was to inquire into the basis of order. The question he asked himself was "What kind of political authority will prevent the return of chaos?". And the answer to that question is in this book, "Leviathan" (1651).

The Levianthan is the personification of total power, an authority without limits, created by men who realise that absolute power given to a powerfull ruler (or to an assembly) is their only way out of the dangers of the state of nature. The name that the author chose for his monarch is quite telling: the Leviathan is a sea monster that appears in the Bible and symbolizes power. This kind of monarch seems like an extreme solution for the problem of anarchy, but it is the only one that Hobbes found. Without the Leviathan, life is 'solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.'

Of course, this book includes many more things than those I have already mentioned. For instance, it explains quite well Hobbes opinion regarding human nature (man is naturally a wolf to men), the state of nature (perpetual war of all against all), the origin of political institutions and the relationship between reason and force (pacts without swords are merely words), among other things.

On the whole, I think this book is a classic of Political Philosophy, and I recommend it as such. Despite that, I think a word of caution is in order, so you will be prepared for what you will find when you tackle "Leviathan". Truth to be told, sometimes Hobbes' prose is too dry, and in some chapters you will need to plod through some rather arid pages. Moreover, this book isn't written in modern English, what makes it more difficult to understand. Those are the reasons why I give this book four stars instead of five...

Notwithstanding that, I believe that "Leviathan" is well-worth the effort of reading it, simply because it has some interesting concepts that you should be aware of, even if you don't agree with them. The only way to discuss in a level play field with someone who has totally different ideas is to understand his arguments thoroughly, even if his position seems thoroughly strange to you. I invite you to do that with Hobbes, reading "Leviathan".

Belen Alcat

A classic, 21 Sep 2004
Don't be fooled by frivellous attacks on this book as boring and outdated. You aren't meant to read all of it for goodness sake.
The chapters on human drives, the laws of nature and the social contract, for example, are as relevant as ever, not to mention Hobbes polemic on Religion.

I found that this book contained far more excellent philosophy than I had expected.

A somewhat flawed review of a flawed man, 17 Nov 2008
I have been intruiged about how George Bush was not only elected once, but re-elected as US president. So, in a bored moment, I bought this book. It promised much,and is worth a read, but cutting to the chase, it was fascinating but fairly distorted ... not by lack of trying, but by trying too hard. Everything was force fitted into a mould that had some truth in it, but was pushed too far. In a little more detail, the backstory was fascinating, the early years likewise, and you can certainly see how his thesis of a man who wants to emulate his father's course, but also draw sharp contrast and be thought of as his own man. Having done this groundwork, it felt like the period of the presidency was skated over, and through the lens of folks like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Even here it paints only a sketch of Condi Rice who feels an intruiging figure who, from the little I know, I thought should have been smart enough to provide a more guiding hand. The books written fairly well, but nothing like as well as one might interpret from the reviews.

So, one of the things I was left wondering was how it got the rave reviews it did on the cover - e.g the front cover has a quote from Malcolm Gladwell (he of 'The tipping point') - "Political drama, family history and psychological insight in dazzling combination. If you read one book about George W. Bush and his presidency, this should be it". That would be the same Malcolm Gladwell thanked in the Acknowledgements for his 'keen insights and editorial suggestions' would it? And, the one who dwelt on Jacob's mother Lois extensively within 'The Tipping Point'. So, hardly the disinterested observer that you might imagine.

But, he's in good company, since Jacob also thanks Joe Klein (Author of 'Primary Colors') for the benefits that have come from conversations with him (and others) ... and Joe turns up on the back cover saying 'Scorching, powerful and entirely plausible ... a beautifully written and erudite book, hilarious at times, a joy to read'. In terms of general reviews we have 'A serious, thought-provoking effort to penetrate what instinct tells us muct be an extraordinary family drama' from the Washington Post. Jacob is editor-in-chief of Slate Group, a division of The Washington Post Company in which I must presume the Washington Post is stabled. Maybe it's an innocent connection, but after two spun connections, I am a little skeptical.

But, for all the skepticism, still worth a read, and worth three stars

A Family Madness **, 16 Jun 2008
Drawing on some distorted form of Freudian analysis and dabbling in Shakespeare, Weisberg is at some pains to show how George W. Bush's family heritage formed the President's personality. The son is continually referencing his father in comments and actions, while at the same time trying to distance himself from the 41st President . This isn't the first effort along these lines, nor will it surely be the last. In this well-written, but terribly narrow assessment, the author carefully traces how W.'s actions are a reflection of his reactions to his President father.

The account opens with a summary history of the Bush and Walker families. Their rise, successes and especially their personalities lay the groundwork for what follows. Weisberg carefully follows W.'s life in Texas and his attempts at an education in the East. Yale was not a happy time for the young man, and his reaction to the alien world of "The Eastern Establishment" set patterns he would follow throughout his career. As he haltingly moves toward becoming the Republican nominee [although little is given of that process], Bush begins collecting the men - and a woman - who will become his "inner circle". Karl Rove is a sycophant with a dream, manipulating Bush while being subjected to W's banter. Rove is later joined by Dick Cheney, two men with a dream of remaking the Presidency and US society. It's a compelling, if highly disturbing picture.

The Iraq invasion is, of course, the pivot point for Weisberg's analysis, calling the crusade against Saddam Hussein a total blunder. Yet Weisberg, in his depiction, makes a major gaffe of his own. After making serious effort to show how Bush makes decisions with little consideration, then sticks to the choice against any contending opinions, tells us that the President had not chosen to invade until almost the final moment. This is an astounding reversal of what Weisberg has been presenting throughout the book. The author accepts that the Bush regime "honestly" felt Hussein was a threat and the war decision justified on those grounds. Weisberg lightly passes over those such as Richard Clark or Christopher Meyer who testified Bush had decided on "regime change" long before. He ignores Colin Powell's admission that he was fed a lot of "BS" to present to the UN. Indeed, the contrived WMDs the Bush regime touted so vehemently were declared missing by Hans Blix, who receives not a drop of ink here.

Nothing is offered for why US voters should have returned this misfit to the Presidency. It will be the greatest tragedy in US history if Bush leaves the Presidency without facing charges, but this eventuality never enters Weisberg's account. In fact, no real assessment of the long-term impact of the regime's many Constitutional violations is given. We are given the portrait of a vulnerable man, with the most superficial talents holding sway over government procedures and policies unfit for a democracy. Does Weisberg think any one or a generation of successive Presidents is going to be able to set right what the Bush regime has wrought? Any new President will not be able to purge the Supreme Court of the witless hacks Bush has placed there. Worse, the deep penetration of appointments vetted more for their sympathy to "Christian" evangelical views than for any abilities is not easily uprooted and dispensed with. Weisberg may have well fulfilled the mandate he set himself, but as far as the author's concerned, that will all pass into history's assessment when Bush leaves office. The effect on society will endure. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

** with thanks to Thomas Keneally

Top drawer yet again, 08 Nov 2008
After reading Dominique Enwright's excellent biography on Winston Churchill I had high hopes for this.I was not disappointed because this is fantastic addition to that book.
The thing that I like about her books on Chuchill is the fact that they aren't overblown at all.They stick to the basic facts and hold your interest throughout.This fine effort showcases the wit of the great man in an easy to follow way and I have no hesitation in giving this a full five stars to go alongside Ms. Enwright's first book.
There are many books out there about Churchill but I doubt you will find two finer ones simply because they are so easy to digest.Very highly recommended.

flavor minus ingredients, 06 Mar 2008
a beautful cover and many mistakes in the text. no attribution for many quotes either.

Very enjoyable, 12 Feb 2008
This relatively small book is divided into several sections with slices from Churchill's life and quotations related to politics, speaches, friends, animals, family, etc.

Here are few excerpts:

While campaigning in 1900, it is said that the young Churchill was doing a spot of canvassing when one of those he approached exclaimed:

"Vote for you? Why, I'd rather vote for the Devil!"

"I understand", Churchill answered, "But in case your friend is not running, may I count on your support?"

* * *

When passed a very long but turgidly written memorandum on some worthy but uninspiring subject, the elderly Prime Minister weighed the thick wad of paper in his hands and commented, "This paper by its very length defends itself against the risk of being read."

* * *

Churchill liked animals; sometimes he found this difficult to reconcile with his fondness for rich food. Anthony Montague Brown recalled that 'One Christmas he was about to carve a goose. Learning it was one of his own, he put down the knife and fork and said, "I could not possibly eat a bird that I have known socially."

* * *

A BBC broadcaster described once sitting next to Churchill as he gave a speech, keeping his audience hanging on to his every word. The boradcaster noticed, howver, that what appeared to be notes in Churchill's hand was only a laundry slip, and he later remarked upon this to Churchill. "Yes", said Churchill. "It gave confidence to my audience."

WHEN PARLIAMENT SPARKLED, 10 Jan 2008
Anyone watching the televised proceedings from Parliament could be forgiven for nodding off, given the uninspiring nature of much of the proceedings, and the mundane characters who participate. If you want a glimpse of what we're missing this book is essential reading. Winston Churchill was one of the great characters of the House, at a time when there was no shortage of such people. He is quoted as saying, of the then Russian Foreign Minister, "I have never seen a human being who more perfectly represented the modern concept of a robot". I can't help feeling that, were he a sitting MP today, he'd find no shortage of candidates to fit that description. This book lives up to its title.

The Great British Patriot, 24 Jan 2005
This book sums up almost all the great qualities of a man who for so many was one of the greatest Englishman who ever lived. Full of quotes of indeed great wit and humour as well as thought and intelligence. Just a short read of this book will keep you in the best of spirits, and will surely put you in a most patriotic mood. A brilliant read and a must have book.

What would you do if............?, 18 May 2008
What would you do if your government made a law that was completely immoral? It required you to act in an immoral way? This is not just a theoretical question, it has happened - consider Nazi Germany. So what would you do? Follow the law because it is what the law says and as citizens we are under a duty to follow the law? Refuse to follow the law because it is immoral (and risk prison/execution)? What if everybody refused to follow laws they didn't like? Wouldn't that result in anarchy? Would anarchy be so much better or maybe it would be even worse? Maybe if the law was immoral enough you would start a revoltion?
If you think about questions like this, Hobbes' Leviathan is the beginning of the modern consideration of this question. You may not like Hobbes answer (and personally I don't) but after reading Leviathan the reader is in a good position to consider the works of John Locke and S. von Pufendorf who wrote shortly after Hobbes, to a large extent in reply to the questions raised by Leviathan and came up with different answers.

A classic of its kind., 06 May 2007
Why is this book important?

Hobbes stands at the end of the intellectual life of the Middle Ages which means that for centuries philosophy, religion and science had been one unified structure under the stewardship of the Church, in a World that stood at the centre of the universe beneath a God in his heaven,who provided and blessed kings and governments.

Suddenly, all these ideas and structures and certainties were in question, or blown apart with gunpowder: Hobbes wrote this during the English Civil War which resulted in the execution of a king by his people, something that would have been unthinkable beforehand.

Hobbes is a modern man, a pioneer, in the sense that he is trying to find what are the bases of knowlege and truth, and power and statecraft-and religion, and-ultimately-what it is to be human, and what sort of institutions would best represent human beings. This book is supposed to be about everything, in one volume! Which shows great self-confidence if nothing else.

It is not an easy read. If you are not familiar with Seventeenth Century English, you may find it hard going. I would recommend you buying the Oxford Very Short Introduction to Hobbes, or something similar, and reading it first, so as to acquire the leading ideas. This might help. It might help at first to dip in, rather than plough through in some kind of tear-stained marathon!

There is something in this book to offend everyone really, notably the chapter on the Pope, referring to him as King of the Fairies.

There is an interesting short biography of Hobbes in Aubrey's 'Brief Lives' which describes him singing every day to keep fit, and travelling with a special walking stick with an ink well fitted in the top, so that he could make notes if an idea struck him when he was out walking. Aubrey knew Hobbes personally.

The idea that power can rest upon distortions of the truth seems to have contemporary resonance, weapons of mass destruction etc.

One of the most important texts., 29 May 2006
The context of this book, the time of its authorship, should not constrain the modern reader. So you might have to work at it a little. Oh, dear. How sad. Never mind. These are very very important ideas if you want to understand much of the reasoning behind what the west, the Transatlantic Anglo-Saxon alliance in particular, is doing, especially in the Middle East, NOW. You don't have to agree with Hobbes to see what he is getting at and yes the debate has shifted a lot (a wider, if more effete, literacy being a huge difference)but in order to be able to frame the right questions about soverignty in a democracy you have to have the basics. Read in tandem with Rousseau, the Wordsworth edition is far more palitable than this to the modern reader, you get some very interesting perspectives and a great start to framing those important questions.

Levelling the play field...., 23 Apr 2005
Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) was born in England, a country that endured great political turmoil during his life. Having lived through that, Hobbes' main aim was to inquire into the basis of order. The question he asked himself was "What kind of political authority will prevent the return of chaos?". And the answer to that question is in this book, "Leviathan" (1651).

The Levianthan is the personification of total power, an authority without limits, created by men who realise that absolute power given to a powerfull ruler (or to an assembly) is their only way out of the dangers of the state of nature. The name that the author chose for his monarch is quite telling: the Leviathan is a sea monster that appears in the Bible and symbolizes power. This kind of monarch seems like an extreme solution for the problem of anarchy, but it is the only one that Hobbes found. Without the Leviathan, life is 'solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.'

Of course, this book includes many more things than those I have already mentioned. For instance, it explains quite well Hobbes opinion regarding human nature (man is naturally a wolf to men), the state of nature (perpetual war of all against all), the origin of political institutions and the relationship between reason and force (pacts without swords are merely words), among other things.

On the whole, I think this book is a classic of Political Philosophy, and I recommend it as such. Despite that, I think a word of caution is in order, so you will be prepared for what you will find when you tackle "Leviathan". Truth to be told, sometimes Hobbes' prose is too dry, and in some chapters you will need to plod through some rather arid pages. Moreover, this book isn't written in modern English, what makes it more difficult to understand. Those are the reasons why I give this book four stars instead of five...

Notwithstanding that, I believe that "Leviathan" is well-worth the effort of reading it, simply because it has some interesting concepts that you should be aware of, even if you don't agree with them. The only way to discuss in a level play field with someone who has totally different ideas is to understand his arguments thoroughly, even if his position seems thoroughly strange to you. I invite you to do that with Hobbes, reading "Leviathan".

Belen Alcat

A classic, 21 Sep 2004
Don't be fooled by frivellous attacks on this book as boring and outdated. You aren't meant to read all of it for goodness sake.
The chapters on human drives, the laws of nature and the social contract, for example, are as relevant as ever, not to mention Hobbes polemic on Religion.

I found that this book contained far more excellent philosophy than I had expected.

A somewhat flawed review of a flawed man, 17 Nov 2008
I have been intruiged about how George Bush was not only elected once, but re-elected as US president. So, in a bored moment, I bought this book. It promised much,and is worth a read, but cutting to the chase, it was fascinating but fairly distorted ... not by lack of trying, but by trying too hard. Everything was force fitted into a mould that had some truth in it, but was pushed too far. In a little more detail, the backstory was fascinating, the early years likewise, and you can certainly see how his thesis of a man who wants to emulate his father's course, but also draw sharp contrast and be thought of as his own man. Having done this groundwork, it felt like the period of the presidency was skated over, and through the lens of folks like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Even here it paints only a sketch of Condi Rice who feels an intruiging figure who, from the little I know, I thought should have been smart enough to provide a more guiding hand. The books written fairly well, but nothing like as well as one might interpret from the reviews.

So, one of the things I was left wondering was how it got the rave reviews it did on the cover - e.g the front cover has a quote from Malcolm Gladwell (he of 'The tipping point') - "Political drama, family history and psychological insight in dazzling combination. If you read one book about George W. Bush and his presidency, this should be it". That would be the same Malcolm Gladwell thanked in the Acknowledgements for his 'keen insights and editorial suggestions' would it? And, the one who dwelt on Jacob's mother Lois extensively within 'The Tipping Point'. So, hardly the disinterested observer that you might imagine.

But, he's in good company, since Jacob also thanks Joe Klein (Author of 'Primary Colors') for the benefits that have come from conversations with him (and others) ... and Joe turns up on the back cover saying 'Scorching, powerful and entirely plausible ... a beautifully written and erudite book, hilarious at times, a joy to read'. In terms of general reviews we have 'A serious, thought-provoking effort to penetrate what instinct tells us muct be an extraordinary family drama' from the Washington Post. Jacob is editor-in-chief of Slate Group, a division of The Washington Post Company in which I must presume the Washington Post is stabled. Maybe it's an innocent connection, but after two spun connections, I am a little skeptical.

But, for all the skepticism, still worth a read, and worth three stars

A Family Madness **, 16 Jun 2008
Drawing on some distorted form of Freudian analysis and dabbling in Shakespeare, Weisberg is at some pains to show how George W. Bush's family heritage formed the President's personality. The son is continually referencing his father in comments and actions, while at the same time trying to distance himself from the 41st President . This isn't the first effort along these lines, nor will it surely be the last. In this well-written, but terribly narrow assessment, the author carefully traces how W.'s actions are a reflection of his reactions to his President father.

The account opens with a summary history of the Bush and Walker families. Their rise, successes and especially their personalities lay the groundwork for what follows. Weisberg carefully follows W.'s life in Texas and his attempts at an education in the East. Yale was not a happy time for the young man, and his reaction to the alien world of "The Eastern Establishment" set patterns he would follow throughout his career. As he haltingly moves toward becoming the Republican nominee [although little is given of that process], Bush begins collecting the men - and a woman - who will become his "inner circle". Karl Rove is a sycophant with a dream, manipulating Bush while being subjected to W's banter. Rove is later joined by Dick Cheney, two men with a dream of remaking the Presidency and US society. It's a compelling, if highly disturbing picture.

The Iraq invasion is, of course, the pivot point for Weisberg's analysis, calling the crusade against Saddam Hussein a total blunder. Yet Weisberg, in his depiction, makes a major gaffe of his own. After making serious effort to show how Bush makes decisions with little consideration, then sticks to the choice against any contending opinions, tells us that the President had not chosen to invade until almost the final moment. This is an astounding reversal of what Weisberg has been presenting throughout the book. The author accepts that the Bush regime "honestly" felt Hussein was a threat and the war decision justified on those grounds. Weisberg lightly passes over those such as Richard Clark or Christopher Meyer who testified Bush had decided on "regime change" long before. He ignores Colin Powell's admission that he was fed a lot of "BS" to present to the UN. Indeed, the contrived WMDs the Bush regime touted so vehemently were declared missing by Hans Blix, who receives not a drop of ink here.

Nothing is offered for why US voters should have returned this misfit to the Presidency. It will be the greatest tragedy in US history if Bush leaves the Presidency without facing charges, but this eventuality never enters Weisberg's account. In fact, no real assessment of the long-term impact of the regime's many Constitutional violations is given. We are given the portrait of a vulnerable man, with the most superficial talents holding sway over government procedures and policies unfit for a democracy. Does Weisberg think any one or a generation of successive Presidents is going to be able to set right what the Bush regime has wrought? Any new President will not be able to purge the Supreme Court of the witless hacks Bush has placed there. Worse, the deep penetration of appointments vetted more for their sympathy to "Christian" evangelical views than for any abilities is not easily uprooted and dispensed with. Weisberg may have well fulfilled the mandate he set himself, but as far as the author's concerned, that will all pass into history's assessment when Bush leaves office. The effect on society will endure. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

** with thanks to Thomas Keneally

Definitive Biography of a Great President, 01 Jan 2008
This book is a fantastic way to learn about John Adams and it's a great way to be introduced to excellent historical biographical writing.

McCullough is a brilliant and exciting writer. He truly makes Adams come alive, and when Adams inevitably dies at the end it is decidedly sad.

Adams is a hero of the Republic. First a great friend, then a great rival, then a great friend again of Thomas Jefferson. John Adams is undeservedly overlooked by many students of American History.

Adams the republican vs Jefferson the populist was the great debate in American history and still continues today. Adams saw the horror of the French Revolution for what it was and predicted that it would end in depravity and violence and likely cause a savage reaction which would bring about the end of the French Republic itself. He was right, Bonaparte quickly followed the French Revolution and war across europe was the result. Jefferson on the other hand embraced the French Revolution as an expression of the people's desire for liberty. How wrong he was.

Adams was a brilliant Statesman, and student of history. A wonderful family man and superb husband, Adams' correspondence with his wife Abigail is a classic in American literature.

As a child I spent many hours on the grounds of the Adams Mansion in Quincy, MA, soaking up all the history there as much as is possible. McCullough does so well what so many biographers do so poorly in that he captures the times of the subject and places the person in his rightful context. He brought me back to the grounds of "Peacefield" through his beautiful evocations of it as it hosted great people and great events.

History is best studied by understanding how historical figures lived and understood their own lives and times, as they lived them. Hindsight is an overrated tool in historiography.

Bringing the past to life in writing is a special gift and McCullough has it. Enjoy his talents and get to know the foundations of the American nation-- a story that is not fully known by so many. Adams' story deserves to be told. What a brilliant man, and McCullough does him superb justice in this highly readable biography.

So much can be said here about Adams, but it's not necessary as McCullough has written the definitive John Adams biography and says it better than I. Get to know John Adams through this superb book and you will be glad that you did. And your opinions on Jefferson will likely change, too! 10 STARS!!

biography at its best, 03 Nov 2007
McCullough isn't a historian, and this book (and his superb biography of Harry Truman) do suffer as a result. Fortunately, McCullough is one of the best biographers in the business, and his ability to bring his subjects to life more than compensates for the lack of depth of his historical knowledge. At times he is a little too uncritical of his subject; but this is a welcome antidote to the modern tendency to dwell on the faults of great men and women. Books like this should be required reading in our schools, if for no other reason that they show that great men are far more ordinary than you'd think, and that they usually suffer long periods of adversity before they succeed.

Perhaps even more importantly, our relativist age takes liberty for granted: the sanitised myths about America's founding fathers need to be replaced by honest accounts of how precarious and remarkable the revolution was. And whatever McCullough's shortcomings as a historian, he does understand that rare beast: the politician who passionately believes in limiting the power of the state.

Excellent, 07 Mar 2007

This novel was the first I'd read by David McCullough, I found the book to be both interesting and very enjoyable.

Whether you're interested in reading biographies or history, this is the novel for you.

David McCullough did an excellent job piecing together John Adam's life story. It was a compulsive read. :-)




A Biography Worthy Of Its Subject!, 04 Feb 2007
"John Adams" by David McCullough is talented rendition of a unique story. Despite being remembered as the pigmy sandwiched between two giants, Washington and Jefferson, McCullough portrays Adams as an immensely important and interesting character in his own right. Adams is shown as being at the heart of many crucial events of our revolutionary and early national history. It was Adams of the Continental Congress who was the prime promoter of Independence and the nominator of George Washington for the post of commander of the Continental Army. He then carried out a series of diplomatic assignments in Europe, in which he was the intimate collaborator with Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Among his unique diplomatic accomplishments were the negotiation of a Dutch loan at a crucial stage of the Revolution and participation in the negotiation of the peace treaty ending the Revolution. Upon his return to America he wrote the constitution of Massachusetts before serving eight years as Washington's loyal vice-president.

Adams was one of those rare figures whose greatest for whom the presidency was not the office in which he rendered his greatest service. His mistake of retaining Washington's cabinet compounded his misfortune of having his prime political rival as vice-president and a deadly enemy, Alexander Hamilton as a leader of his won party. This left him leading an administration rife with sabotage. These factors handicapped him as he confronted issues of peace or war abroad and subversion at home. Having to function more as a sole actor than a leader of men, his administration is generally regarded as a failure. His term was influential, largely in the maintenance of peace and appointment of John Marshall to the Supreme Court.

Through much of this book the reader is treated to an interwoven mini-biography of Thomas Jefferson. Through this dual biography the reader comes to understand the dichotomy of these two friends, but rivals, collaborators and opponents and, ultimately, correspondents. Their timely demises on the Fiftieth Independence Day are seen as nothing less than providential.

As the readers of my reviews are aware, I have read very many biographies. Few match "John Adams" for quality.


Excellent work, 06 Sep 2005
This book is an astounding piece of non-fiction that should be read by anyone with even a passing interest in revolutionary America.
The details included by the author are superb including the very close relationship with Jefferson and the subsequent falling out, the love of his small home town and the simple life of farming and reading and the brilliance of his wife, perhaps the most underrated First Lady of all time.
Besides this, you also get a front row seat from Adams' extensive correspondence for some of the most important moments in American history from the Declaration of Independence, through the War and the succession to the presidency after Washington.
I cannot recommend this book more highly.

Top drawer yet again, 08 Nov 2008
After reading Dominique Enwright's excellent biography on Winston Churchill I had high hopes for this.I was not disappointed because this is fantastic addition to that book.
The thing that I like about her books on Chuchill is the fact that they aren't overblown at all.They stick to the basic facts and hold your interest throughout.This fine effort showcases the wit of the great man in an easy to follow way and I have no hesitation in giving this a full five stars to go alongside Ms. Enwright's first book.
There are many books out there about Churchill but I doubt you will find two finer ones simply because they are so easy to digest.Very highly recommended.

flavor minus ingredients, 06 Mar 2008
a beautful cover and many mistakes in the text. no attribution for many quotes either.

Very enjoyable, 12 Feb 2008
This relatively small book is divided into several sections with slices from Churchill's life and quotations related to politics, speaches, friends, animals, family, etc.

Here are few excerpts:

While campaigning in 1900, it is said that the young Churchill was doing a spot of canvassing when one of those he approached exclaimed:

"Vote for you? Why, I'd rather vote for the Devil!"

"I understand", Churchill answered, "But in case your friend is not running, may I count on your support?"

* * *

When passed a very long but turgidly written memorandum on some worthy but uninspiring subject, the elderly Prime Minister weighed the thick wad of paper in his hands and commented, "This paper by its very length defends itself against the risk of being read."

* * *

Churchill liked animals; sometimes he found this difficult to reconcile with his fondness for rich food. Anthony Montague Brown recalled that 'One Christmas he was about to carve a goose. Learning it was one of his own, he put down the knife and fork and said, "I could not possibly eat a bird that I have known socially."

* * *

A BBC broadcaster described once sitting next to Churchill as he gave a speech, keeping his audience hanging on to his every word. The boradcaster noticed, howver, that what appeared to be notes in Churchill's hand was only a laundry slip, and he later remarked upon this to Churchill. "Yes", said Churchill. "It gave confidence to my audience."

WHEN PARLIAMENT SPARKLED, 10 Jan 2008
Anyone watching the televised proceedings from Parliament could be forgiven for nodding off, given the uninspiring nature of much of the proceedings, and the mundane characters who participate. If you want a glimpse of what we're missing this book is essential reading. Winston Churchill was one of the great characters of the House, at a time when there was no shortage of such people. He is quoted as saying, of the then Russian Foreign Minister, "I have never seen a human being who more perfectly represented the modern concept of a robot". I can't help feeling that, were he a sitting MP today, he'd find no shortage of candidates to fit that description. This book lives up to its title.

The Great British Patriot, 24 Jan 2005
This book sums up almost all the great qualities of a man who for so many was one of the greatest Englishman who ever lived. Full of quotes of indeed great wit and humour as well as thought and intelligence. Just a short read of this book will keep you in the best of spirits, and will surely put you in a most patriotic mood. A brilliant read and a must have book.

What would you do if............?, 18 May 2008
What would you do if your government made a law that was completely immoral? It required you to act in an immoral way? This is not just a theoretical question, it has happened - consider Nazi Germany. So what would you do? Follow the law because it is what the law says and as citizens we are under a duty to follow the law? Refuse to follow the law because it is immoral (and risk prison/execution)? What if everybody refused to follow laws they didn't like? Wouldn't that result in anarchy? Would anarchy be so much better or maybe it would be even worse? Maybe if the law was immoral enough you would start a revoltion?
If you think about questions like this, Hobbes' Leviathan is the beginning of the modern consideration of this question. You may not like Hobbes answer (and personally I don't) but after reading Leviathan the reader is in a good position to consider the works of John Locke and S. von Pufendorf who wrote shortly after Hobbes, to a large extent in reply to the questions raised by Leviathan and came up with different answers.

A classic of its kind., 06 May 2007
Why is this book important?

Hobbes stands at the end of the intellectual life of the Middle Ages which means that for centuries philosophy, religion and science had been one unified structure under the stewardship of the Church, in a World that stood at the centre of the universe beneath a God in his heaven,who provided and blessed kings and governments.

Suddenly, all these ideas and structures and certainties were in question, or blown apart with gunpowder: Hobbes wrote this during the English Civil War which resulted in the execution of a king by his people, something that would have been unthinkable beforehand.

Hobbes is a modern man, a pioneer, in the sense that he is trying to find what are the bases of knowlege and truth, and power and statecraft-and religion, and-ultimately-what it is to be human, and what sort of institutions would best represent human beings. This book is supposed to be about everything, in one volume! Which shows great self-confidence if nothing else.

It is not an easy read. If you are not familiar with Seventeenth Century English, you may find it hard going. I would recommend you buying the Oxford Very Short Introduction to Hobbes, or something similar, and reading it first, so as to acquire the leading ideas. This might help. It might help at first to dip in, rather than plough through in some kind of tear-stained marathon!

There is something in this book to offend everyone really, notably the chapter on the Pope, referring to him as King of the Fairies.

There is an interesting short biography of Hobbes in Aubrey's 'Brief Lives' which describes him singing every day to keep fit, and travelling with a special walking stick with an ink well fitted in the top, so that he could make notes if an idea struck him when he was out walking. Aubrey knew Hobbes personally.

The idea that power can rest upon distortions of the truth seems to have contemporary resonance, weapons of mass destruction etc.

One of the most important texts., 29 May 2006
The context of this book, the time of its authorship, should not constrain the modern reader. So you might have to work at it a little. Oh, dear. How sad. Never mind. These are very very important ideas if you want to understand much of the reasoning behind what the west, the Transatlantic Anglo-Saxon alliance in particular, is doing, especially in the Middle East, NOW. You don't have to agree with Hobbes to see what he is getting at and yes the debate has shifted a lot (a wider, if more effete, literacy being a huge difference)but in order to be able to frame the right questions about soverignty in a democracy you have to have the basics. Read in tandem with Rousseau, the Wordsworth edition is far more palitable than this to the modern reader, you get some very interesting perspectives and a great start to framing those important questions.

Levelling the play field...., 23 Apr 2005
Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) was born in England, a country that endured great political turmoil during his life. Having lived through that, Hobbes' main aim was to inquire into the basis of order. The question he asked himself was "What kind of political authority will prevent the return of chaos?". And the answer to that question is in this book, "Leviathan" (1651).

The Levianthan is the personification of total power, an authority without limits, created by men who realise that absolute power given to a powerfull ruler (or to an assembly) is their only way out of the dangers of the state of nature. The name that the author chose for his monarch is quite telling: the Leviathan is a sea monster that appears in the Bible and symbolizes power. This kind of monarch seems like an extreme solution for the problem of anarchy, but it is the only one that Hobbes found. Without the Leviathan, life is 'solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.'

Of course, this book includes many more things than those I have already mentioned. For instance, it explains quite well Hobbes opinion regarding human nature (man is naturally a wolf to men), the state of nature (perpetual war of all against all), the origin of political institutions and the relationship between reason and force (pacts without swords are merely words), among other things.

On the whole, I think this book is a classic of Political Philosophy, and I recommend it as such. Despite that, I think a word of caution is in order, so you will be prepared for what you will find when you tackle "Leviathan". Truth to be told, sometimes Hobbes' prose is too dry, and in some chapters you will need to plod through some rather arid pages. Moreover, this book isn't written in modern English, what makes it more difficult to understand. Those are the reasons why I give this book four stars instead of five...

Notwithstanding that, I believe that "Leviathan" is well-worth the effort of reading it, simply because it has some interesting concepts that you should be aware of, even if you don't agree with them. The only way to discuss in a level play field with someone who has totally different ideas is to understand his arguments thoroughly, even if his position seems thoroughly strange to you. I invite you to do that with Hobbes, reading "Leviathan".

Belen Alcat

A classic, 21 Sep 2004
Don't be fooled by frivellous attacks on this book as boring and outdated. You aren't meant to read all of it for goodness sake.
The chapters on human drives, the laws of nature and the social contract, for example, are as relevant as ever, not to mention Hobbes polemic on Religion.

I found that this book contained far more excellent philosophy than I had expected.

A somewhat flawed review of a flawed man, 17 Nov 2008
I have been intruiged about how George Bush was not only elected once, but re-elected as US president. So, in a bored moment, I bought this book. It promised much,and is worth a read, but cutting to the chase, it was fascinating but fairly distorted ... not by lack of trying, but by trying too hard. Everything was force fitted into a mould that had some truth in it, but was pushed too far. In a little more detail, the backstory was fascinating, the early years likewise, and you can certainly see how his thesis of a man who wants to emulate his father's course, but also draw sharp contrast and be thought of as his own man. Having done this groundwork, it felt like the period of the presidency was skated over, and through the lens of folks like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Even here it paints only a sketch of Condi Rice who feels an intruiging figure who, from the little I know, I thought should have been smart enough to provide a more guiding hand. The books written fairly well, but nothing like as well as one might interpret from the reviews.

So, one of the things I was left wondering was how it got the rave reviews it did on the cover - e.g the front cover has a quote from Malcolm Gladwell (he of 'The tipping point') - "Political drama, family history and psychological insight in dazzling combination. If you read one book about George W. Bush and his presidency, this should be it". That would be the same Malcolm Gladwell thanked in the Acknowledgements for his 'keen insights and editorial suggestions' would it? And, the one who dwelt on Jacob's mother Lois extensively within 'The Tipping Point'. So, hardly the disinterested observer that you might imagine.

But, he's in good company, since Jacob also thanks Joe Klein (Author of 'Primary Colors') for the benefits that have come from conversations with him (and others) ... and Joe turns up on the back cover saying 'Scorching, powerful and entirely plausible ... a beautifully written and erudite book, hilarious at times, a joy to read'. In terms of general reviews we have 'A serious, thought-provoking effort to penetrate what instinct tells us muct be an extraordinary family drama' from the Washington Post. Jacob is editor-in-chief of Slate Group, a division of The Washington Post Company in which I must presume the Washington Post is stabled. Maybe it's an innocent connection, but after two spun connections, I am a little skeptical.

But, for all the skepticism, still worth a read, and worth three stars

A Family Madness **, 16 Jun 2008
Drawing on some distorted form of Freudian analysis and dabbling in Shakespeare, Weisberg is at some pains to show how George W. Bush's family heritage formed the President's personality. The son is continually referencing his father in comments and actions, while at the same time trying to distance himself from the 41st President . This isn't the first effort along these lines, nor will it surely be the last. In this well-written, but terribly narrow assessment, the author carefully traces how W.'s actions are a reflection of his reactions to his President father.

The account opens with a summary history of the Bush and Walker families. Their rise, successes and especially their personalities lay the groundwork for what follows. Weisberg carefully follows W.'s life in Texas and his attempts at an education in the East. Yale was not a happy time for the young man, and his reaction to the alien world of "The Eastern Establishment" set patterns he would follow throughout his career. As he haltingly moves toward becoming the Republican nominee [although little is given of that process], Bush begins collecting the men - and a woman - who will become his "inner circle". Karl Rove is a sycophant with a dream, manipulating Bush while being subjected to W's banter. Rove is later joined by Dick Cheney, two men with a dream of remaking the Presidency and US society. It's a compelling, if highly disturbing picture.

The Iraq invasion is, of course, the pivot point for Weisberg's analysis, calling the crusade against Saddam Hussein a total blunder. Yet Weisberg, in his depiction, makes a major gaffe of his own. After making serious effort to show how Bush makes decisions with little consideration, then sticks to the choice against any contending opinions, tells us that the President had not chosen to invade until almost the final moment. This is an astounding reversal of what Weisberg has been presenting throughout the book. The author accepts that the Bush regime "honestly" felt Hussein was a threat and the war decision justified on those grounds. Weisberg lightly passes over those such as Richard Clark or Christopher Meyer who testified Bush had decided on "regime change" long before. He ignores Colin Powell's admission that he was fed a lot of "BS" to present to the UN. Indeed, the contrived WMDs the Bush regime touted so vehemently were declared missing by Hans Blix, who receives not a drop of ink here.

Nothing is offered for why US voters should have returned this misfit to the Presidency. It will be the greatest tragedy in US history if Bush leaves the Presidency without facing charges, but this eventuality never enters Weisberg's account. In fact, no real assessment of the long-term impact of the regime's many Constitutional violations is given. We are given the portrait of a vulnerable man, with the most superficial talents holding sway over government procedures and policies unfit for a democracy. Does Weisberg think any one or a generation of successive Presidents is going to be able to set right what the Bush regime has wrought? Any new President will not be able to purge the Supreme Court of the witless hacks Bush has placed there. Worse, the deep penetration of appointments vetted more for their sympathy to "Christian" evangelical views than for any abilities is not easily uprooted and dispensed with. Weisberg may have well fulfilled the mandate he set himself, but as far as the author's concerned, that will all pass into history's assessment when Bush leaves office. The effect on society will endure. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

** with thanks to Thomas Keneally

Definitive Biography of a Great President, 01 Jan 2008
This book is a fantastic way to learn about John Adams and it's a great way to be introduced to excellent historical biographical writing.

McCullough is a brilliant and exciting writer. He truly makes Adams come alive, and when Adams inevitably dies at the end it is decidedly sad.

Adams is a hero of the Republic. First a great friend, then a great rival, then a great friend again of Thomas Jefferson. John Adams is undeservedly overlooked by many students of American History.

Adams the republican vs Jefferson the populist was the great debate in American history and still continues today. Adams saw the horror of the French Revolution for what it was and predicted that it would end in depravity and violence and likely cause a savage reaction which would bring about the end of the French Republic itself. He was right, Bonaparte quickly followed the French Revolution and war across europe was the result. Jefferson on the other hand embraced the French Revolution as an expression of the people's desire for liberty. How wrong he was.

Adams was a brilliant Statesman, and student of history. A wonderful family man and superb husband, Adams' correspondence with his wife Abigail is a classic in American literature.

As a child I spent many hours on the grounds of the Adams Mansion in Quincy, MA, soaking up all the history there as much as is possible. McCullough does so well what so many biographers do so poorly in that he captures the times of the subject and places the person in his rightful context. He brought me back to the grounds of "Peacefield" through his beautiful evocations of it as it hosted great people and great events.

History is best studied by understanding how historical figures lived and understood their own lives and times, as they lived them. Hindsight is an overrated tool in historiography.

Bringing the past to life in writing is a special gift and McCullough has it. Enjoy his talents and get to know the foundations of the American nation-- a story that is not fully known by so many. Adams' story deserves to be told. What a brilliant man, and McCullough does him superb justice in this highly readable biography.

So much can be said here about Adams, but it's not necessary as McCullough has written the definitive John Adams biography and says it better than I. Get to know John Adams through this superb book and you will be glad that you did. And your opinions on Jefferson will likely change, too! 10 STARS!!

biography at its best, 03 Nov 2007
McCullough isn't a historian, and this book (and his superb biography of Harry Truman) do suffer as a result. Fortunately, McCullough is one of the best biographers in the business, and his ability to bring his subjects to life more than compensates for the lack of depth of his historical knowledge. At times he is a little too uncritical of his subject; but this is a welcome antidote to the modern tendency to dwell on the faults of great men and women. Books like this should be required reading in our schools, if for no other reason that they show that great men are far more ordinary than you'd think, and that they usually suffer long periods of adversity before they succeed.

Perhaps even more importantly, our relativist age takes liberty for granted: the sanitised myths about America's founding fathers need to be replaced by honest accounts of how precarious and remarkable the revolution was. And whatever McCullough's shortcomings as a historian, he does understand that rare beast: the politician who passionately believes in limiting the power of the state.

Excellent, 07 Mar 2007

This novel was the first I'd read by David McCullough, I found the book to be both interesting and very enjoyable.

Whether you're interested in reading biographies or history, this is the novel for you.

David McCullough did an excellent job piecing together John Adam's life story. It was a compulsive read. :-)




A Biography Worthy Of Its Subject!, 04 Feb 2007
"John Adams" by David McCullough is talented rendition of a unique story. Despite being remembered as the pigmy sandwiched between two giants, Washington and Jefferson, McCullough portrays Adams as an immensely important and interesting character in his own right. Adams is shown as being at the heart of many crucial events of our revolutionary and early national history. It was Adams of the Continental Congress who was the prime promoter of Independence and the nominator of George Washington for the post of commander of the Continental Army. He then carried out a series of diplomatic assignments in Europe, in which he was the intimate collaborator with Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Among his unique diplomatic accomplishments were the negotiation of a Dutch loan at a crucial stage of the Revolution and participation in the negotiation of the peace treaty ending the Revolution. Upon his return to America he wrote the constitution of Massachusetts before serving eight years as Washington's loyal vice-president.

Adams was one of those rare figures whose greatest for whom the presidency was not the office in which he rendered his greatest service. His mistake of retaining Washington's cabinet compounded his misfortune of having his prime political rival as vice-president and a deadly enemy, Alexander Hamilton as a leader of his won party. This left him leading an administration rife with sabotage. These factors handicapped him as he confronted issues of peace or war abroad and subversion at home. Having to function more as a sole actor than a leader of men, his administration is generally regarded as a failure. His term was influential, largely in the maintenance of peace and appointment of John Marshall to the Supreme Court.

Through much of this book the reader is treated to an interwoven mini-biography of Thomas Jefferson. Through this dual biography the reader comes to understand the dichotomy of these two friends, but rivals, collaborators and opponents and, ultimately, correspondents. Their timely demises on the Fiftieth Independence Day are seen as nothing less than providential.

As the readers of my reviews are aware, I have read very many biographies. Few match "John Adams" for quality.


Excellent work, 06 Sep 2005
This book is an astounding piece of non-fiction that should be read by anyone with even a passing interest in revolutionary America.
The details included by the author are superb including the very close relationship with Jefferson and the subsequent falling out, the love of his small home town and the simple life of farming and reading and the brilliance of his wife, perhaps the most underrated First Lady of all time.
Besides this, you also get a front row seat from Adams' extensive correspondence for some of the most important moments in American history from the Declaration of Independence, through the War and the succession to the presidency after Washington.
I cannot recommend this book more highly.

I was warned about my blood pressure when this was recommended to me..., 11 Oct 2008
... and I soon realised how apt that warning was !
I agree with most of the comments made by others - well, the 4- and 5-star commentators. Whilst reading the book, a number of thoughts passed through my mind, ranging from 'idiots running the asylum' to 'Emperor's New Clothes' .. many of which have appeared in others' comments here.
Yes, it should be compulsory reading for voters / MPs / Euro MPs / News Editors ( the Press, the BBC and other TV stations). Copies should be circulated to all schools..... in fact, anyplace where the 'balance' should be restored.
You see, I have paid for the errors referred to in this excellent book (indirectly, I know - but then so have we all!)
No, I haven't studied any particular 'history' in depth, what's the point if you are digging in the wrong place ? ( This is not a personal attack on a 2-star reviewer .. I'm trying to emphasise that well-placed propaganda is difficult to spot)
The Epilogue is a brilliant summary of a compelling book. I recommend it wholeheartedly.

Nullius in Verba, 26 Sep 2008
As someone who studied the history of BSE in great detail I can assure you that the public 'scare' was based not on journalistic sensationalism but very hard science. The scientific evidence of the transmissibility of prion diseases across species barriers had been uniquivocally established by that time. That fact was carefully kept from the public in order to safeguard the beef industry. By whom? Senior officials responsible for public safety. Disinformation was advocated among senior officials with respect to the scientific evidence. It is amply documented. I know an organic butcher who pioneered the sale of organic meat many years ago before the supermarkets stocked it. During the BSE crisis he was visited by men in suits who gently advised him not to talk to his customers about it. "They'll soon forget about it" they told him. That may sound hard to believe and one of those annoying conspiracy theories. The point is that you should not take anyone's word for or against such important things.

The motto of the Royal Society is 'Nullius in Verba' which means 'Don't take anyone's word for it'. I agree that we must not rely on journalists to tell us the truth. That is especially true today because journalists are often not allowed to tell the truth by their editors. No, we mustn't let journalists dictate the public debate. We must stop relying on journalists and do something quite extraordinary - we must find the truth out for ourselves. That sentiment lay in the hearts of those men who took their part in that revolution of thought in the seventeeth century that we today call the scientific revolution. It was the seed that culminated in the Enlightenment and its concept of the autonomously thinking common man who played his role in the political process. Without being armed with knowledge and exercising our reason (a skill that must be practised), it is not possible to fulfil one's duty as a citizen. At least any respectable concept of citizenship promoted since the eighteenth century. The history of BSE is a sordid affair where the lack of public accountability of those in government reached a grotesque level. But in order to know this or whether what a journalist says is true or not (or whether he/she is asking the right questions), the only way you can truly appease your anxiety is to go and look at the evidence yourself. With the internet you have that capability. If you take your worldview from the broadsheets and the BBC you will be tossed hither and thither by those forces (men of wealth and power) who are determining the limits of public discourse. You won't find the real truth in those sources because there is an agenda which those news agencies must conform to. You will find more intelligent and informed remarks from the man on the street. In the mass media you have this so-called 'elephant in the room' phenomenon. Glaring truths which are conveniently ignored.

The intelligent sector of the population are doing their own research with independent media. They are learning the truth for themselves. Unfortunately they are still in a minority with respect to critical mass. The worldview of most people is formed by the public relations industry and the so-called security agencies (actually they are the greatest threat to security) who create myths in the public mind which are uncritically transmitted by the 'liberal free press'. That is not good for democracy. It is not good for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan or indeed the many heroin addicts that have been created as a result of the revivial of opium production in Afghanistan when the Taliban had successfully eradicated all such production prior to the invasion of the coalition forces. Afghanistan is the world's leading producer of heroin now and you still read even in the left of centre newspapers that such and such an official in the Afghani administration is thinking of another way of 'tackling the problem' without mentioning that 'We', that is to say, the 'security agencies' (funded with taxpayers money) and large corporations of Britain and the United States are heavily involved in the production and trafficking of heroin. "What a load of twaddle!", you may say, because, I agree, it is simply too ridiculous to be true. But is it true? There you must find out for yourselves. And the point is that people don't bother to find out whether such things are true. That is the big problem in the final analysis.

We are susceptible to all sorts of manipulation by those who set the agenda - men of immense wealth and power who determine what the public shall and shall not hear and what they shall talk about at work and at home. Our protection against this is to not rely on journalistic hearsay or on the editorial comments of the broadsheets but on our own God-given powers of reason. The author's of this book stand somewhat precariously on this point. The institutionalisation of reason is science. Science has developed methods by which hypotheses are subjected to rigourous examination before assessments are made as to whether those hypotheses are true. With respect to BSE and global warming (to take two examples from this book) independent scientists all over the world have reached the same conclusions. On that basis we have knowledge about these matters.

So, I agree with the authors that we must think for ourselves but the authors' choices of examples are rather suspect. Global warming and the trasmissibility of prion diseases across species barriers are, according to the results of scientific investigation, now taken to be scientific facts. Naturally these things are a nuisance with respect to our investments but no amount of lobbying can alter what science knows to be true. We should not be susceptible to waves of hysteria but equally so we should not compromise with respect to the truth. Those whose wealth depends on their income from the oil industry do not want people to believe in global warming. They do not want the combustion engine to be phased out as is very much a necessity if we wish to avert catastrophe.

The public should take a far greater interest in what public servants are doing with their money. They should try to see beyond appearances and not take the assurances of politicians as satisfactory.

Always question the data and/or evidence, 08 Sep 2008
We are all familiar with recent media-driven hysteria such as foot-and-mouth disease, BSE/madcow disease, dioxin poisoning in Belgium, child-abuse in the UK etc. The question is, what is the anatomy and the psychosis of such scares? What drives scares in today's enlightened, Post-religious modern Western society?

In this riveting book, Christopher Booker and Richard North take a deeper look into recent scares and reveal an intriguing pattern:
- The scare is usually based on genuine concern that some chemical/bacteria or phenomenon has endangered human life
- Thereafter, the evidence for the scare is blown out of proportion
- The media get on board and without bothering to check the evidence drive a mass hysteria campaign
- Various interest groups get on board on one side of the argument or the other. (They authors call them 'resisters' and 'pushers')
- The pushers - usually scientists - do all in their power to frustrate the legitimate views of dissenters, including ad hominem attacks
- Politicians, who don't want to seem out of touch, respond disproportionately
- The result is overkill and ruined lives.

The authors do an excellent job of dissecting the evidence in past scares such as asbestos poisoning, salmonella and BSE in the UK to reveal a disturbing pattern of behaviour on the part of scientists, governments and the media.

However, Messrs North and Brooke are less exacting when they describe the HIV/AIDS epidemic and the Millennium Bug "scares". As an African, I beg to differ that HIV is a not a scare. What do you call disease that wipes out the productive class of a developing country? One can argue that it is precisely because the Millennium Bug and HIV received so much attention ( that they were resolved in the first place (at least in the West).

The book's epilogue, for my money, is perhaps the best part of the book. The authors attempt to explain why modern society has become susceptible to mass hysteria. They conclude that mass hysteria is only an expression of man's deeply-ingrained religous instinct. Since modern society has demystified religion, people need other righteous causes; they need to define the 'goodies' and the 'baddies' and need to stand up for a cause. Now, what cause is worthier than saving the planet from the greed of global capitalism or saving children from Satan-worshipping parents?

Fortunately, mass hysteria in our modern society, unlike religion's transcendental claims, is still amenable to scientific evidence. Therefore, the evidence will eventually undermine the basis for the hysteria. Alas, it may do so after countless lives have been ruined and billions of dollars wasted. The current global warming debate, therefore, is one to watch.

In conclusion, this book is an excellent reminder to always question the evidence. It deserves my 4 stars.


Are we following the herd on this one?, 21 Aug 2008
I had high hopes for this one, but having dug behind some of the statistics it seems that the authors are also guilty of pushing scare stories. For example, data on salmonella infections/deaths is presented on page 45. The authors make the point that the number of deaths at the time of the crisis is less than in 1982. What is not stated is that 1982 appears to be something of an aberration, the highpoint of some 30 years data (data available from Hansard - Written Answers).
In other places the narrative is overly dramatic. A Professor, criticised in the book, is said to have rushed to an outbreak. How can the urgency be proved? Were speeding tickets incurred? We are not told.
It's still an interesting subject, but read with some caution.

Fascinating, 23 Jul 2008
Really fascinating and persuasive book describing the real stories behind many scares such as BSE, salmonella, asbestos and now global warming... Cant recommend it enough for people who want a deeper understanding about the realities of the world.

Top drawer yet again, 08 Nov 2008
After reading Dominique Enwright's excellent biography on Winston Churchill I had high hopes for this.I was not disappointed because this is fantastic addition to that book.
The thing that I like about her books on Chuchill is the fact that they aren't overblown at all.They stick to the basic facts and hold your interest throughout.This fine effort showcases the wit of the great man in an easy to follow way and I have no hesitation in giving this a full five stars to go alongside Ms. Enwright's first book.
There are many books out there about Churchill but I doubt you will find two finer ones simply because they are so easy to digest.Very highly recommended.

flavor minus ingredients, 06 Mar 2008
a beautful cover and many mistakes in the text. no attribution for many quotes either.

Very enjoyable, 12 Feb 2008
This relatively small book is divided into several sections with slices from Churchill's life and quotations related to politics, speaches, friends, animals, family, etc.

Here are few excerpts:

While campaigning in 1900, it is said that the young Churchill was doing a spot of canvassing when one of those he approached exclaimed:

"Vote for you? Why, I'd rather vote for the Devil!"

"I understand", Churchill answered, "But in case your friend is not running, may I count on your support?"

* * *

When passed a very long but turgidly written memorandum on some worthy but uninspiring subject, the elderly Prime Minister weighed the thick wad of paper in his hands and commented, "This paper by its very length defends itself against the risk of being read."

* * *

Churchill liked animals; sometimes he found this difficult to reconcile with his fondness for rich food. Anthony Montague Brown recalled that 'One Christmas he was about to carve a goose. Learning it was one of his own, he put down the knife and fork and said, "I could not possibly eat a bird that I have known socially."

* * *

A BBC broadcaster described once sitting next to Churchill as he gave a speech, keeping his audience hanging on to his every word. The boradcaster noticed, howver, that what appeared to be notes in Churchill's hand was only a laundry slip, and he later remarked upon this to Churchill. "Yes", said Churchill. "It gave confidence to my audience."

WHEN PARLIAMENT SPARKLED, 10 Jan 2008
Anyone watching the televised proceedings from Parliament could be forgiven for nodding off, given the uninspiring nature of much of the proceedings, and the mundane characters who participate. If you want a glimpse of what we're missing this book is essential reading. Winston Churchill was one of the great characters of the House, at a time when there was no shortage of such people. He is quoted as saying, of the then Russian Foreign Minister, "I have never seen a human being who more perfectly represented the modern concept of a robot". I can't help feeling that, were he a sitting MP today, he'd find no shortage of candidates to fit that description. This book lives up to its title.

The Great British Patriot, 24 Jan 2005
This book sums up almost all the great qualities of a man who for so many was one of the greatest Englishman who ever lived. Full of quotes of indeed great wit and humour as well as thought and intelligence. Just a short read of this book will keep you in the best of spirits, and will surely put you in a most patriotic mood. A brilliant read and a must have book.

What would you do if............?, 18 May 2008
What would you do if your government made a law that was completely immoral? It required you to act in an immoral way? This is not just a theoretical question, it has happened - consider Nazi Germany. So what would you do? Follow the law because it is what the law says and as citizens we are under a duty to follow the law? Refuse to follow the law because it is immoral (and risk prison/execution)? What if everybody refused to follow laws they didn't like? Wouldn't that result in anarchy? Would anarchy be so much better or maybe it would be even worse? Maybe if the law was immoral enough you would start a revoltion?
If you think about questions like this, Hobbes' Leviathan is the beginning of the modern consideration of this question. You may not like Hobbes answer (and personally I don't) but after reading Leviathan the reader is in a good position to consider the works of John Locke and S. von Pufendorf who wrote shortly after Hobbes, to a large extent in reply to the questions raised by Leviathan and came up with different answers.

A classic of its kind., 06 May 2007
Why is this book important?

Hobbes stands at the end of the intellectual life of the Middle Ages which means that for centuries philosophy, religion and science had been one unified structure under the stewardship of the Church, in a World that stood at the centre of the universe beneath a God in his heaven,who provided and blessed kings and governments.

Suddenly, all these ideas and structures and certainties were in question, or blown apart with gunpowder: Hobbes wrote this during the English Civil War which resulted in the execution of a king by his people, something that would have been unthinkable beforehand.

Hobbes is a modern man, a pioneer, in the sense that he is trying to find what are the bases of knowlege and truth, and power and statecraft-and religion, and-ultimately-what it is to be human, and what sort of institutions would best represent human beings. This book is supposed to be about everything, in one volume! Which shows great self-confidence if nothing else.

It is not an easy read. If you are not familiar with Seventeenth Century English, you may find it hard going. I would recommend you buying the Oxford Very Short Introduction to Hobbes, or something similar, and reading it first, so as to acquire the leading ideas. This might help. It might help at first to dip in, rather than plough through in some kind of tear-stained marathon!

There is something in this book to offend everyone really, notably the chapter on the Pope, referring to him as King of the Fairies.

There is an interesting short biography of Hobbes in Aubrey's 'Brief Lives' which describes him singing every day to keep fit, and travelling with a special walking stick with an ink well fitted in the top, so that he could make notes if an idea struck him when he was out walking. Aubrey knew Hobbes personally.

The idea that power can rest upon distortions of the truth seems to have contemporary resonance, weapons of mass destruction etc.

One of the most important texts., 29 May 2006
The context of this book, the time of its authorship, should not constrain the modern reader. So you might have to work at it a little. Oh, dear. How sad. Never mind. These are very very important ideas if you want to understand much of the reasoning behind what the west, the Transatlantic Anglo-Saxon alliance in particular, is doing, especially in the Middle East, NOW. You don't have to agree with Hobbes to see what he is getting at and yes the debate has shifted a lot (a wider, if more effete, literacy being a huge difference)but in order to be able to frame the right questions about soverignty in a democracy you have to have the basics. Read in tandem with Rousseau, the Wordsworth edition is far more palitable than this to the modern reader, you get some very interesting perspectives and a great start to framing those important questions.

Levelling the play field...., 23 Apr 2005
Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) was born in England, a country that endured great political turmoil during his life. Having lived through that, Hobbes' main aim was to inquire into the basis of order. The question he asked himself was "What kind of political authority will prevent the return of chaos?". And the answer to that question is in this book, "Leviathan" (1651).

The Levianthan is the personification of total power, an authority without limits, created by men who realise that absolute power given to a powerfull ruler (or to an assembly) is their only way out of the dangers of the state of nature. The name that the author chose for his monarch is quite telling: the Leviathan is a sea monster that appears in the Bible and symbolizes power. This kind of monarch seems like an extreme solution for the problem of anarchy, but it is the only one that Hobbes found. Without the Leviathan, life is 'solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.'

Of course, this book includes many more things than those I have already mentioned. For instance, it explains quite well Hobbes opinion regarding human nature (man is naturally a wolf to men), the state of nature (perpetual war of all against all), the origin of political institutions and the relationship between reason and force (pacts without swords are merely words), among other things.

On the whole, I think this book is a classic of Political Philosophy, and I recommend it as such. Desp