This is one of the best books in the hundreds I read for possible inclusion in the bibiography of Learning A Living; A Guide to Planning Your Career and Finding A Job for People with Learning Disabilities, Attention Deficit Disorder and Dyslexia by Dale S. Brown.

Jews and Mormons is an example of two religious paradigms based on distinctly different presuppositions, using "same words with different meanings," and George Orwell's "doublethink" (which he defines as "the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them") while attempting to initiate Jewish-Mormon dialogue.

The book is a none confrontational cursory introduction of the [modern] Jewish and Mormon faiths. Rabbi William J. Leffler and the Mormon High Priest Frank J. Johnson have provided a general overview of their respective faiths. The authors' treatment of the subject refrains the book from being an apologetic treatise. It is a simple overview of the Jewish and Mormon faiths without discussing in-depth particulars involving theological defenses.

The reader is left questioning the age-old paradox of inclusiveness or exclusiveness and faith correctness. That is, is it possible for two faith paradigms that allege to be true, based on distinctly different presuppositions, be true? If one were to apply the principles of logic to decide the likelihood of a faith being true, one might think: if two religious traditions professing to be teaching the truth hold contradicting positions about the particulars, either one religious tradition is true and the other is false or both may be false. However, two contradicting positions professing to be true cannot be true. If nothing else, reading this book reminds the reader to differentiate between "engineered" communities of faith and true faith.

Some people would say that the relationship between Mr. Johnson and Mr. Leffler could not be classified as friendship. Some might even consider them to be opponents, like two tennis players on the opposite sides of a court. But I would call them friends because deep down inside they are very much alike, even though they might never admit it. And this relationship between them is what makes this book so interesting.

They write a good deal about what Reiki is, in fact, including procedures and practices not easily found elsewhere. They thoughtfully include pictures, diagrams, and careful descriptions that assist those who are unfamiliar with these forms of Reiki.

This would have rated five stars, had they sought out a better editor and included an index. These three authors deserve a better treatment of their work: the errors were distracting. An index is almost a must-have for a book like this--I will have to settle for sticky-note bookmarks for important passages or subjects.

Buy it anyway. It's one of the best Reiki resources I've seen, and it should be on the bookshelf of every teacher and practitioner.

The two-party system presupposes an adversary relationship between the two parties. That there is
no such relationship in New York Mr. Lindsay makes especially clear when he proposes as running
mates members of the Liberal and Democratic Parties. Mr. Lindsay's Republican Party is a sort of
personal accessory, unbound to the national party's candidates, unconcerned with the views of the
Republican leadership in Congress, indifferent to the historic role of the Republican Party as
standing in opposition to those trends of our time that are championed by the collectivist elements
of the Democratic Party. Mr. Lindsay, described by The New York Times as being "as liberal as a
man can be," qualifies for the support of the Liberal Party and the Republican Party only if one
supposes that there are no substantial differences between the Republican Party and the Liberal
Party. That there should be is my contention.

It was clearly understood by all concerned that he would basically play the role of a gadfly in the
race. Indeed, any doubts that he reckoned how little chance he had of being elected were cleared up at
his first press conference, when to the consternation of staff and Party officials he gave the following
answers to questions:

Q: Do you think you have any chance of winning?

WFB: No

Q: How many votes do you expect to get, conservatively speaking?

WFB: Conservatively speaking, one.

In the campaign that followed, Buckley, freed from the restraints that bind a politician who thinks he
may win, proceeded to run one of the most ideological, honest and entertaining campaigns that anyone
had ever seen. He quickly became a media phenomenon, although they were almost uniformly hostile
to him and his views, they loved covering him. And when the cities newspapers went on strike the
race came to center around television and Buckley was able to totally outclass his opponents, Lindsay
and Abe Beam.

Besides his natural facility with the fairly new medium, Buckley's political platform turned out to be
more popular than anyone expected. Indeed, his proposals were twenty or thirty years ahead of their
time, including Education reform, Welfare reform, beefed up law enforcement, tax cuts, balanced
budgets, an end to school bussing, abolition of rent control, and so on. as a result, when the first polls
came out, not only was Beame beating Lindsay, Buckley was polling over 20% and doing particularly
well with Blue Collar Democrats. Suddenly everyone, including he, had to take his candidacy
seriously.

From that point on Lindsay and Beame and their cohorts trotted out all the trusty anti-conservative
canards--tarring him as a racist, an anti-Semite, anti-Protestant and, somehow, even an anti-Catholic.
Buckley ended up spending so much time defending himself that he lost the momentum he had gained
by being a purveyor of brash new ideas. He acknowledges that his political inexperience was a major
handicap as he allowed himself to drift off message and into a defensive posture.

When the votes were finally counted, Lindsay won, but with just 45%, Beame tallied 41% and
Buckley polled an impressive 13%. In the process, he had carved up Lindsay to the point where no
one seriously considered him to have a future in Republican politics and indeed Lindsay eventually left
the party for his natural home with the Democrats. But more importantly, Buckley demonstrated that
there was a significant segment of the democratic Party that was just waiting to be wooed by a
conservative Republican message. These folks--largely middle or working class, White, ethnic and
Catholic--would later form the backbone of Nixon's "Silent Majority" and would come to be called
Reagan Democrats, but it was the 1965 New York mayoral race that really showed that conservatism
had an inherent appeal to this population. For this, as for so much else, the Republican Party is
indebted to William F. Buckley.

This book, his account of these events, is one of the funniest political stories ever written. He looks
back not in anger but in bewilderment at the neophyte mistakes he made, at the shoddy media coverage
he received, at the character assassination he was subjected to and at the entire chaotic process of
running for office, especially in New York City. It's a real shame that the book is out of print (though
easy to find used, see the link above); it is almost frightening how much of the story remains topical
and pertinent today. In particular, and somewhat ironically, I couldn't help thinking how badly the
Democratic Party today needs someone like Bill Buckley--someone with wit, grace, style, and actual
core convictions who will remind them that they are supposed to represent something more than
conservatism with an Oprahesque tone. As Buckley said in his announcement, the American system
presupposes two adversary parties. Men like Goldwater and Buckley made sure that the republican
Party offered "a choice, not an echo"; where is the Democrat who will do the same for his party, who
will undertake a similarly quixotic quest, though it prove his own unmaking? We're waiting.

GRADE: A+

Republicans in New York had been dormant ever since Al Smith's glory days of the 1920's, and they were unsure of how to operate. In 1933, however, the party's nominee won a commanding victory in the general election, definitely something curious for a city where, amongst registered voters, Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 3-to-1. Buckley explains that a certain political faction backed the 1933 GOP nominee, Fiorello LaGuardia, and these were not your usual Republicans. Rather, a centrist coalition of good-government seekers (or "goo-goos") choose to stand by LaGuardia rather than his Democratic opponent, a top lieutenant of the notorious incumbent Jimmy Walker.

After Walker's resignation in 1932, the normally victorious Democratic Party had a tarnished image and a corrupt machine, and subsequently the GOP was almost guaranteed the Mayor's Office if it choose the right man. By the end of LaGuardia's reign, the Democrats were ready to take over once more. Thus, Buckley asserts, the only way for the Republican Party to win a city-wide office in the Big Apple was by nominating a non-traditional Republican at a time when the Democratic Party was under intense scrutiny.

Such was the case again in 1965, when this story takes place. Mayor Robert Wagner had chosen not to run for re-election, and voters were extremely flabbergasted at the ethical shortcomings of his tenure at City Hall. Thus, voters were carefully watching the Democratic Primary to see if the victor was a crony of Wagner or a political independent.

Republicans had already nominated U.S. Representative John V. Lindsay as their mayoral candidate, much to the chagrin of conservative Republicans. In1964, Lindsay publicly denounced Republican Presidential nominee Barry Goldwater, a staunch conservative. Additionally, he had accumulated the notorious distinction of being the most liberal Republican, voting with President Lyndon Johnson's position over 80% of the time. Thus, he was seen as a Republican in name only by conservatives, but he was perfectly suited for the Mayoral "nomination" of the goo-goo crowd.

Subsequently, many prominent Democrats supported Lindsay. Though a few die-hards waited for the Democratic Primary, it was clear that a bipartisan coalition of left-of-center politicians had practically elected Lindsay long before the election. Furthermore, the New York State Liberal Party gave Lindsay its nomination, and this was the culmination of conservative unrest and disdain towards Republican politics in New York.

In 1962, Kieran O'Doherty and Dan Mahoney, two young lawyers disgusted with Governor Nelson Rockefeller's nominal Republicanism, founded the New York State Conservative Party in order to elect conservatives to the many local, state, and national offices that were of concern. By fall of 1964, they had no formal Conservative candidate for Mayor, and so begins this story.

William F. Buckley, Jr. was editor of National Review, an accomplished writer, a weekly columnist, and a staunch conservative when he decided to run for mayor. He was concerned that the Republican party was swinging away from its classic platform, and therefore decided to run for Mayor to carry the Conservative backing and its ideological accruements.

So in April of 1965 he began his campaign, with his brother and future Senator James Buckley serving as campaign manager and confidant Neal Freeman acting as press secretary. Buckley immediately deemed that it was impossible to win the November 1965 election, and so he decided against having many rallies or appearances. Thus, his campaign was half Quixotic, half symbolic.

After his declaration, the press was indifferent, but many associated his candidacy with the far right wing John Birch Society. The growing sentiment in the New York circles was that Buckley was a rightist henchman trying to kill the "moderate" influence that Gov. Rockefeller, Rep. Lindsay, and Senator Jacob Javits (R-NY) had on the party. Of course, Buckley pointed out, his goal was not to destroy moderation but to make sure that the left wing of the GOP did not destroy the party.

The Democrats nominated Comptroller Abraham Beame for Mayor, and many were disappointed. Beame was part of the Wagner regime, and his two "running mates," the candidates for Comptroller and City Council President were Wagner associates. Though Beame stressed his independence, the opinion polls indicated that Lindsay was still running ahead.

Immediately, the campaign turned nastily racial. Buckley, a Catholic, made an off-hand remark about Lindsay's Protestantism, and wildfire began. Beame, a Jewish man, tried to take the high ground, but his numbers did not change. From this point, it was clear that Buckley's vote would make the difference in the campaign.

Since Buckley hurt Lindsay more than Beame, he received a worse assault from the pro-Lindsay camp. He was derided as racist, elite, anti-progress, anti-Protestant, anti-Semitic, etc. Beame finally assailed Buckley, but it seemed that his campaign was not improving. It was, however, apparent to both Beame and Lindsay that the more they criticized Buckley the more votes would be returned to their campaigns.

Beame, a moderate-liberal with a low-key personality and generally boring speeches, had an ineffective campaign from the start. On the other hand, though he was oratorically mundane, John Lindsay had a Kennedyesque charm that led many journalists to speculation on his Presidential aspirations. Buckley was perhaps the most interesting of the three, because he was unfettered in rhetoric because he had no intention of winning. He had colorful speeches and fresh ideas, but the press treated him as if he was Adolf Hitler.

Eventually, the assault on Buckley, his campaign workers, and his speeches diminished his support. On Election Day, Lindsay won the race with 45.3% of the vote. Beame came in behind with only 41.3%. William F. Buckley ended up with 13.4% of the vote, which was significantly lower than projected.

Though it seems as though Lindsay's victory was Buckley's loss of purpose, it must be noted that Buckley's candidacy did more to help the fledgling Conservative Party. The total percent of votes cast for the Conservative ticket, 13.4%, was much higher than the 11.1% cast for Lindsay as a Liberal. Thus, for the first time, the three-year-old Conservative Party outpolled the older Liberal Party in a major election.

This was a great book, because it was written from a dynamic first-person point of view. Buckley more than adequately gave the reader background on New York Mayoral politics, and he then went on to analyze the events leading up to the 1965 race. He described the three candidates, including himself, very much in detail and he never lost sight of his subject matter. Additionally, in the end of the story he compiled many excerpts from various news articles pertaining to his campaign, giving the reader an impartial collection that shows one the hostility most reporters showed towards Buckley's candidacy.

This book was written not for the mere entertainment value that such a firsthand account of politics espouses, but for the cause of conservatism. Buckly is trying to show us that the Republican Party is still not the vehicle for true conservativity, and that third parties can literally grow overnight. His point may be that conservatives ought to form a viable third party. Hopefully, though, the Republican Party will not be detained from pure conservatism for much longer.

Much of what passes today for the Luke story was published between the 1920s and 1940s, and for the most part this body of work is fraught with error. Luke has always been a romantic figure, and a great deal of his legend is simply that. Legend. The authors of September Rampage not only did a good job of developing new information about their subject, but they also do an overly exhaustive job of trying to put Luke in his proper historical context.

My notes from my pre-publication review copy of the book indicate some areas of conflict with my own research, but they also point out well-documented facts that I missed in my studies.

September Rampage is not the definitive work on the 27th Pursuit or Frank Luke, but it is the best history available. Not only is it recommended reading for those interested in Luke (along with Hartney's "Up and At 'Em" and Hall's "The Balloon Buster"), it is the first book one should read on this topic. September Rampage is to be applauded as the first significant advance in this field in the past 50 years. I sure wish they had published this one years ago - it would have saved me a LOT of time.

Henri Tod is a German Jew who survives the Death Camps and becomes Germany's leading Freedom fighter. His sister survives in the Soviet Union and becomes a pawn in an East Block effort to secure Tod's capture. Thrown into this mix is a curious East German duo that stow away in a relic German railcar and play crucial roles in the tableau. And, of course there's Blackford Oakes. Oakes's mission is to infiltrate the Bruderschaft (Tod's organization) in an effort to learn of its intentions. All this occurs, of course, during the days leading up to the building of the Berlin Wall.

As with most Oakes installments, the action is scarce and the wit is everywhere. The story unfolds at a pedestrian pace...and that's OK. Buckley's authority on the period is unquestionable. Most of the subplots are attended to nicely. And the author does a fine job of placing his protagonist in a position where his choices would have significant consequences for world events.

Delicious fare, highly recommended.

I must admit that I really like WFB's fiction, and I'm delighted that his publisher challenged him to try it.

The Blackford Oakes series relies on Buckley's own experience with the CIA, I'm sure. But the stories are more than depictions of black craftsmanship. Buckley has a fine ability to weave an interesting plot, and his characterizations are detailed and marvelous. He has spent time and effort bringing his characters to life, and giving them motivation and hstory.

There is, of course, a cycnical side to international espionage, and he has also portrayed that convincingly.

In this story, for example, the Soviets and the Americans actually cut cards to see which side will murder a heroic German character whose greatest desire it is to reunify his country.

I think it is amazing how well he has interwoven history and historical characters with fiction and his invented characters, and made it all hang together so convincingly.

Bill Buckley, sir, you are an amazing man and one to admire.

Joseph Pierre

The pictures were cool, but maybe some pictures of the actual things they talk about...eg. like how to take cuttings. Showing what a growing shoot is. This book is written on assumptions that people already know what they are doing...In my opinion if you already know what you are doing you dont need a book, this book especially. Maybe a book that could make you learn everything in lamemans terms would be better if you are just starting.