This book should be in every school library in the world (in translation, where necessary). Stanford tells us how to make public schools really work.

I was at first a bit put out by his advocacy of "running schools like a business," having all too often heard that phrase as an excuse for placing cost reduction above all other goals. But Stanford clearly recognizes and strongly emphasizes that the correct BOTTOM LINE for a school is STUDENT ACADEMIC ACHIEVMENT! The proper test of a proposed expenditure is its anticipated effect on SAA (Student Academic Achievment) per dollar spent. Projects should be prioritized by decreasing improvement in SAA per dollar.

The most important qualification for a school administrator is not knowledge of teaching, but ability to be an effective LEADER. The successful school administrator must have the LEADERSHIP to get several constituencies enthusiastically involved in achieving a high level of SAA. These constituencies include not only teachers, school staff, and students; but also other government entities, parents, businesses, the media, and the general public.

The leader should practice management by support rather than management by intimidation. The intimidated will concentrate on keeping a low profile and covering their backsides. The leader can benefit little from such people, because no leader can provide all the needed creativity. (S)he must encourage and reward constructive suggestions from teachers, staff, students, parents, businesses, other government entities, and the general public.

In the three years before he lost his battle with leukemia, Stanford caused an enormous improvement in the Seattle Public Schools. His methods and practices could be employed in any school system, with great benefit not only to the students, but also to teachers, staff, businesses, and the public. But also read "Radical Equations," by Robert P. Moses. Moses' book complements Stanford's. If you are a parent of school-age children, or expect to be, and you want the best possible education for your children, you need the Algebra Project, which was started by Robert Moses, and is described in his book.

Both books should be required reading for every school administrator and everyone involved in the selection of a school administrator.

I found Stanford's book to be a blueprint for educational reform. He was not merely a theorist; he was an activist who took his vision from the black board to the the hearts and minds of the students. He didn't propose, he purposed. Read this book...you need to read this book if you are unclear about the means, if you need to know HOW to enact change in the bureaucratic jungle of miasmic, lackluster schools.

What I enjoyed reading about was how he emphasized having a heart for the students, caring for them with compassion and keeping their interests at the center of all educational activities. Next, I found that he wrote persuasively about running schools more like businesses than the anachronistic centers of regurgitation. Finally, I was energized by his results; although he only had three years in Seattle schools to enact many of his plans before his hard passing, the momentum has started.

This needs to be on the book shelves of administrative offices of schools across the country, but it needs to be read by anyone concerned about how to engage our students for higher achievement in learning, now.

Stanford's book is an easy read about reforming public education. He is no fan of charters or vouchers, which he thinks draws money away from public education. He also believes that increases in funding must be tied to student and system performance and not granted because the public "ought" to support educational levies.

This former director the the US Military Logistic Command knows how to marshal resources and arguments for reform. His strongest point is his systems perspective--that is, all the systems of the schools must be aimed at one fundamental objective. His was to develope a "world class student-focused learning system by 1999." He tied this statement to every plan made within a complex 47,000-student system. He does not provide the testing data to substantiate his plans, but he gives great examples of an achievment-oriented system development.

This is a wonderful book about a father and son leading revisions in southern traditions. The father's dreams and roots are within the son's reality and fruits. Al Gore Jr. has fully developed into the responsible man his father has molded. The subtle teachings from Gore's grandparents to parents to children actually helped transform the south and is evident throughout the book.

Although Al Gore Sr. voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act for political survival it did not deter his march to changes in character. Today, Affirmative Action, Unions and Abortion Rights are now accepted in Tennessee something that was Anathema in prior history and shows Gores real profile of courage.

The father's legacy can be carried on by the son's leadership by the abandonment of the "Politics Of Demagogues." Athens was a pure democracy where every citizen could vote on anything and the majority ruled. Leaders struggled for power by convincing the people they had the best plans for them. Overtime, the education of aristocrats produced many able men, but the poor who could not afford schooling fell victim to listening despots, agitators and demagogues.

Demagogues were candidates who promised anything to gain power and worried more about how they said something, rather what they were saying. These demagogues eliminated many good man from achieving office who would provide not just a life but a good life for the people. For example, Socrates was voted by the people to commit suicide, Themistocles was sent into exile. Eventually, Athens fell from plague within while fighting a Persian siege from abroad. The author reflects on such events of his own experiences.

Al Gore can change the Democratic Demagogues preaching class warfare like his father changed the segregationists. The pitting of "haves" against "have nots," seniors entitlements versus children's futures, and the uneducated hostile to the educated like the old south, has pass its time!

As in the book Democrats must change for the betterment of all. The day of tax and spend remedies that die under there own weight of too many taxes and too few revenues needs to change. Regulated private and semi-private solutions to public problems is a good alternative compromise. And where private solutions fail, government can step in for the benefit of the needy. Al Gore can lead the Democrats and Republicans to reach beyond history, toward a blazing more encompassing future of good ideas to eliminate class envy by letting people help people, not degrade each other.

"Let the Glory Out," has the solutions for new ideology within the courage of Al Gore's boyhood from father to son. The age of Democratic Demagogues promising free health care, free housing and free prescriptions' drugs when nothing comes free without burdens must end. At the same time, saying opponents will starve babies, cause dirty water and let the elderly die is pure demagoguery and must end too!

What I found refreshing in the book is Gore admissions that he often goes overboard in his zeal to serve the public. Whether it be mean personal attacks, over exaggerations or passionate pleads, he reflects after each one of them wondering if he has gone too far. More evidence of Gore being a man with a conscious and his concession speech was one of the finest ever given in history after a long bitter political fight.

The father's memoir shows the reader a quick look into a public servant who changed not himself but an entire state for the better. A simple story shared with a devoted son about his father in a way we learn more about the author's values too! I highly recommend it!

Albert Gore Sr. was an incredible politician and public servant, ahead of his time. It is shame, in a way, that we can't have him for President. But, in this meantime, it is valuable to read the how, where, and why Al Gore got the values he did, and strong values they are.

It is easy to see why Al Gore has grown up to be the man he is. In Al Gore Sr.'s political memoir, we see a rare figure in American politics--a man who is slow to reason, but quick to act; smart enough to understand the issues, but compassionate enough to think of the consequences of his policies. Senator Gore held firm to basic American values during the turbulent times of his political career, the values of fairness and concern for the little guy. Even if it weren't a good background study into what makes our VP (and possibly next president) tick, and regardless of one's political persuasion "Let the Glory Out"--with its great introduction and eulogy from junior to senior Gore--is a terrific testimony of the love between father and son.

This is the greatest book on information technology that I ever read.Al Gore is a genius. No wonder he invented the internet,he has such a brilliant mind on the subject.Even though I'm a Conservative,I'm voting this genius as our next president.

A great work in regards to politics...
A must read!

This book lays it all out and tells you what it all means. Where the cities have been, where there are now, where they are going, and, most importantly, what we should be doing about it. These essays make it clear that, as we enter the twenty-first century,cities and the regions around them can no longer afford to act as if they are discreet entities. Necessarilly and irreversibly, the fate of one will be more and more intimately tied to that of the other. The sooner that politicians at every level understand this, the better. This book is a major contribution. No one involved with urban policy can afford to be ignorant of the information and insights it contains.

Governor Bush and his campaign should read Vice-President Gore's introduction and then be afraid, be very afraid. It is clear that Gore has the "vision thing" -- a way of approaching the future that brings everyone into a regional "big tent."

I'm an avid Gore supporter and a conversationalist. It was for these reasons that I decided to read "Earth in the Balance" after hearing so much about it when it was published in 1992. Unfortunately, in 2003 this book is outdated. While some do not think that 1992 was that long ago, I will remind you that the World Wide Web was invented that year. The world has changed a LOT since then. Gore's telling of how the first Bush administration behaved is like deja  vu when listening to the current administration's policies on the environment. When the book was written, Gore hadn't won the Vice Presidency yet so he was speaking about what he would do if...well now, after the Clinton Administration most of what he was talking about was not accomplished. Realistically, his proposals never would happen in today's world or in the world of 1992. Not only were they too far-fetched but they are also very dated. He spent a lot of time talking about the ban on CFC's, which at the time were still in production. Presently, they have been banned from all industrialized nations and the ozone hole has faded from the news. It would be interesting to see what affect these changes have had since then. Additionally, there was much talk about meeting 1990 Clean Air standards by the year 2000, which has obviously past. Again, it would be interesting to see how and if these goals are playing out today. Oddly, the Hydrogen Economy which is getting much talk and fan-fare these days was absent from his analysis. I agree that the environment that we live in is trouble, but there have been many positive accomplishments over the years, before and after this book was written, that I feel need to get adequate attention.

If you are interested in reading this book just to get Gore's opinion, to see what environmentalism was like in 1992, or to just get some background I would recommend this book. If you are interested in more recent trends I would read "The Hydrogen Economy" by Jeremy Rifkin or "Natural Capitalism" by Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins.

I have read this book two and a half times - during the 1992 and 1996 elections and am reading it currently - and have found it fascinating each time. Al Gore seems to truly understand the environmental issue to a depth that is shocking to find in a politician. Common criticisms of the book include:

1. It is dully written - This is true to some extent. If I were not fascinated by the subject I may have found it rough going. This is the reason it gets 4 stars rather than 5 from me.

2. That the facts stated are unsupported - Balderdash. The book is not foot-noted like an academic monograph because it is not an academic monograph - it is a "popular science" book much like Carl Sagan's work or Isaac Asimov's nonfiction. Sources are frequently mentioned within the text and the figure captions. Add this to the copious chapter notes and bibliography and his sources are well credited.

3. Current Science doses not back up the text - Fully answering this would mean writing another book, but, for example, I have yet to see a reputable atmospheric scientist outside the pay of conservative think tanks deny the existence of the global warming phenomenon anymore. Gore simply researched this book to death and got the science right.

4. An excuse for more big government - Yes, some more environmental regulation would be necessary to forward the Vice-President's goals - current corporate structure is not at all conducive to putting the good of the world ahead of the bottom line no matter how small the sacrifice is. On the other hand, Al Gore was one of the first proponents of free-market solutions too, such as transferable carbon-emission credits.

All in all, a very good if not great book.

When I signed up for a required ecology class at my college, I never expected to have this book as the only textbook for the class. Textbooks are the main backup for the days you just can't get out of bed and attend class. When I went to buy my books, I quickly realized that I would be getting a lot less sleep. I even remember mentioning loudly, much to the amusement of the other students, that I had to read a book written by a man who doesn't move his head and can't dance. I sat down to read the first assigned reading and was pleasantly amazed. The book isn't boring at all. Al Gore has a beautiful, flowing writing style. I managed to read an entire required book without a sign of fatigue or distraction. It even had pictures to keep my thoughts from straying. I am not ashamed to say that I enjoyed this book. I really mean it. Even if you are not into the environment, at least read it to be shocked by a book that defied many of my preconcieved notions about the man. I ended up getting my required sleep for the quarter.

Before you even think of buying this book, do a little research about who Bill Kristol really is. Kristol is a flunky for rich right-wingers, whose career is underwritten by ultra-conservative, tax-exempt foundations.

Be a smart consumer and an educated reader. Know the bias of an author before you read their work. To review a full report on Kristol's background, go to:

http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/bill_kristol.htm

The only reason this book has any value is because of the opinions from the courts that take up the first half of the volume. The rest of the book is filled with op-ed pieces from various newspapers and magazines, liberal and conservative. They are all pretty much worthless. They are too short to offer any real insight, and instead simply seek to use very abrasive rhetoric to whip their respective troops into a frenzy. Reading the court cases however, is clearly an essential part of understanding what happened in the election of 2000. To me, it is fairly clear that what happened to Gore was blatently undemocratic and unfair, but also completely legal under Florida's statutory scheme. So the fundamental question that the book raises, though it never directly address it, is, should we be pursuing a basic sense of fairness, or strictly adhereing to laws, even when it is apparent that they are not functioning in a democratic way, or to the benefit of the citizenry whatsoever. If you think that op-ed columnists will adequately answer that, think again. But at least this book allows thoughtful readers who want to ponder the question for themselves the opportunity to see some source materials.

The Brookings Institution is a rabbit warren of liberals raised for food, who are, it seems, preserved so that the elite can think well of themselves; Nixon contemplated fire-bombing the joint, and ever since its denizens have been somewhat cautious. For some time, neoconservatism has been the real political philosophy of the elites of The Beltway and Manhattan, but for purposes of public relations the pretense is made that we would be liberal if we could, were it not for dose foreign terrorists and dem welfare queens who take advantage of us.

My experience from Eastern academia and elsewhere is that in actuality liberals in our society tread a narrow path and must avoid giving offense to what William Jennings Bryan called, and which remains, the dollar power.

One way in which they do this is by being "fair" and "balanced." Now to some diehard liberals, such as John Rawls, fairness is being just to the least well-off, and is constituted in such deeds as slipping the local wino the contents of the poor-box. However, fairness has been redefined in recent years by neoconservative pressure as "balance."

Thus Bush v Gore, rather than presenting ONLY E. J. Dionne's liberal, pro-Gore viewpoint, presents (1) the text of all relevant court cases and (2) a balanced selection of views from liberals and conservatives.

The problem is that there really is no common ground.

The case for Bush, it is obvious from this book, is incoherent, wrong, and based on force majeure and Gore won the election by the generally accepted standards of modern democracy, which are on record in the United Nations' founding documents and which the US has helped to enforce in Haiti and elsewhere...but not in Florida last year.

Scalia's majority opinion of Dec 12 is incoherent because it has to maintain, against the entire trend of American history, that we really are a Roman republic, in which the vast majority of people have a limited choice of top man every year by grace and favor of successful used-car salesmen; for Scalia leans heavily on his claim that we, the people, are dependent upon the grace and favor of the moneyed bozos in our STATE legislatures for our right to vote.

In this Animal House model the country is run as a toga party by George Bush's fraternity brothers; I mention the Belushi film advisedly because these films manufacture consent to the superior wisdom of dyslexic clowns.

But this model is not Rome, it is at best, Byzantine. In this model our elections become like the ability of the citizens of Byzantium to root for sports teams named after primary colors; a meaningless diversion. Indeed, and as Chomsky has suggested, the programs of the Democratic and Republican candidates are so close together that random numbers may determine how we vote, there being no strong arguments or differences presented, and this, to Chomsky would naturally bias the results toward close ties, with the result that Bush v. Gore was not a fluke; the problem may recur as long as candidates do not present clear alternatives.

The Roman republic was maintained by the collective ability of the Romans prior to Octavius Caesar to maintain, over and above personal appetite, a distinctly Roman legal culture. The Roman stance was that of a Brutus (not the one who killed Caesar but an earlier Brutus) who allowed his sons to be killed rather than violate the Roman Republic's law. The theme was sacrifice of personal advantage to the commons.

The early Brutus manifested republican integrity because he was willing to sacrifice his sons to abstract legal principles. It might seem that the later Brutus had the same integrity (and a superficial reading of the Shakespeare play would indicate that this is so): but Shakespeare ultimately makes Plutarch's point that murder had no place in republican Rome and that Brutus' form of integrity was actually a form of corruption. Brutus and Cassius, after all, violated their own laws by killing Caesar and their rebellion was morally and legally equivalent to that of Spartacus.

The last time republican integrity was celebrated in popular political culture in France and America was not a conservative time at all. It was instead the revolutionary climate of France in 1789, and, to a lesser extent, in America of 1776. The paintings of Jacques-Louis David and Benjamin West celebrated a political willingness to sacrifice bourgeois interest for the greater good. They state visually that if we want a res publica we need men like Marat, General Wolfe dying on the Plains of Abraham, and Brutus catching hell from his old lady for his sacrifice of his sons.

Now, nothing further from modern conservatism could be imagined, which demands that people NOT be made to sacrifice for the greater good of the Republic, or the Revolution. No, in modern conservatism, lesser folk only sacrifice for dear old Enron...not the republic. And the top men are never discommoded at all.

The game is so deeply cynical that many honest American voters are completely unaware of what's being done to them. Liberals who've run "focus groups" to study the opinions of voters have found that many voters are not aware of how far to the right the in-group Republicans have drifted and the minimalism of their commitment to representative government. The Brookings Institution has dropped the ball, for its "balance" and its retainer of Bill Kristol shows institutional cowardice in which the FACT that the election was a bloodless coup d'etat becomes a meaningless opinion.

The Cheerleader in Chief of Clinton is able to effectively transmit all of that exceptional charisma and excitement right into this book! All of what he wrote sounded so genuine and interesting that I could hardly put it down! I hope he writes another book because I'll be the first one to buy it!

This man should be impeached for his sheer banality. I'm not even sure that a real person wrote this book--it reads more like something written by a computer with one of those auto-writing programs. Come to think of it, is Al Gore even a real person? Has anyone ever seen him do something like eat or drink in public, or is he just some sort of incorporeal, babbling hologram?

This is a fascinating look at how Vice-President Gore has worked to reduce the size of the federal government. It is easy to read and is very substantive. This book is a must read for every American!

Anyone who can read would not be fooled by the pandering garbage in this book. Anyone who would be fooled by it probably can't read. Thus, who would possibly buy this book?

Although I voted for Bill Clinton twice for President, it was only recently that I happened to read this agenda-setting book from his 1992 campaign. It's astonishing at this late date to see how successful Mr. Clinton has been in turning his long-ago ideas into legislative reality. Yes, he has had some failures over his two terms (especially his failure to reform America's health care system on a large scale--he's had to make changes since in more piecemeal fashion). But the majority of the promises he made in 1992, he has since fulfilled. One of the most telling results of reading this book now, is to see how Mr. Clinton, like other politicians, has found that some of the things he thought of as black-and-white issues (such as civil rights problems in China) turn out to be much more complex once you approach them from inside the Oval Office. Despite hateful attacks on him from conservatives, President Clinton has turned out to be one of the most fair-minded and energetic presidents we've ever had. I guess I would have realized that from the first, if I'd only read this political roadmap back in '92.

Obviously Bill Clinton is always going to be a political joke from now until the end of time, but this book from the 1992 campaign was certainly an interesting idea. I found it in a box and thought giving it a quick look before I tossed it might be interesting. In "Putting People First," candidates Clinton and Gore address thirty issues from Agriculture to Women and also includes the announcements for office and convention speeches of both candidates. For those who want something more than sound bits and joint campaign appearances (a.k.a., debates), a book like this gives you something to sink your teeth into. Of course, there was no similar volume from the Clinton-Gore administration in 1996, which is certainly not surprising. But what is sad it that we might never again see candidates lay out this many specifics for voters to look over. In an ideal world where everything is wonderful all the time ALL candidates for the Presidency would give us something this detailed. We certainly did not get that from either Gush or Bore this last time around. As for going through and checking what they did and did not accomplish, I have spent enough time grading the work of students without trying to add this to my work pile.

Although I was assured by a friend that this book was democrat friendly, I picked up this book expecting a lot more depth than I received.

For a former FBI Agent, Hillin did not have much to say about his subject matter or political influences. If one did not pay attention, the style of prose made it sound like George W. Bush. Several times while reading this book, I felt cheated and realized that there was more good public information than Hillin was promoting.

This book has the thickness and breadth of selections in my mother's junior high school library, and considering it's adult intended target audience, is deeply disturbing. Hillin needs to go back and make substaintial additions to this book in order to do his subject justice.

That a one time house member, senate member, presidential candidate, vice presidential candidate and vice president elect or any ideology (let alone one allegedly shared by the author) could garner such shabby treatment is simply appaling and embarrassing. This book is not recomended for anybody.