I'm not sure if other editions were the same, but this one was AWFUL. It is literally a 2nd or 3rd generation photocopy of the book. It's legible, but barely. I'd go for the hardcopy version.

This gospel can be read on many levels, Jesus explains the mysteries of Life to his disciples and his beloved Mary Magdeline. These discussions take place after his resurrection and describe his ascension into heaven and his return. Explaining the many levels (mysteries of the universe) also using Sophia (fallen angel and her redemption) as examples for greater understanding. Jesus was the alchemical blueprint for which humanity was to follow. We have greatly misunderstood his purpose and in reading this text you can only gather one level unless you understand that humanity's purpose is to make the ascension/resurrection and that we are all sons and daughters of the ONE I AM. ...

These writings of Jesus should be read by all christians. There was much said by Jesus regarding Sophia, and we never heard this in the church. It is understood in this book,and the Sophia of Jesus Christ, found in the Nag Hammadi Library, that Sophia is a real person, who came to earth in bodily form. The book "She Who Is" by Elizabeth Johnson, mentions that Sophia would come to earth to live with her children to make them friends with God. Also, states that Jesus was Sophia incarnate. So the Pistis Sophia describes by Jesus the trials Sophia faced while on earth. It is worth reading to see what Jesus had to say regarding Sophia

Mead's Special Providence is at its best in describing the four historical schools of American foreign policy. His framework is apt at explaining the motivations and actions of the major political figures and movements and applies in many cases to domestic policy debates as well. It also rings true with my gut feeling that binary classifications - isolationist/internationalist, hawk/dove, right/left, Democrat/Republican - do not really have a lot of explanatory or predictive power, at least since the end of the Cold War.

His conclusions are also thought provoking though not terribly well developed or convincing. Is the American foreign policy elite really much more out of touch with the American "folk" than it was fifty years ago? Have "Jeffersonian" - constitutionalist, small government - voices really been marginalized since the collapse of the Soviet Union? Does the US democratic system still provide a key advantage over Europe in formulating and executing successful policy? These are all really important questions, but I wish Mead had either left them as such or spent more time arguing his conclusions. The last two chapters are the only weak part of the book.

And, although he can't be faulted for it, I found myself wishing that the book were published later in the George W. Bush administration and, particularly, after September 11. He makes the conventional point that there are different voices in the Bush administration. But, is Bush himself a Hamiltonian (commercialist) in Jacksonian (populist) clothing or the opposite? Also, is our reaction to September 11 the key event that points the way forward for America's post-Cold War role in the world or simply a manifestation of the Jacksonian impulse to fight a total war once provoked?

Despite the weaknesses I noted, the fact that Mead has me thinking about these issues and caring what he would have to say about them shows what a really good bock Special Providence is. I highly recommend it.

Walter Mead's Special Providence belies the historical myth of American foreign policy. Mead challenges the idea that American foreign policy was non-existent or amateurish before World War II. Mead argues and capably supports that the United States has a unique and rich tradition in its dealings in International Relations. Mead asserts that this policy is a product of our American democracy; a form of government that many argue is inferior when dealing in foreign affairs. However as a product of American society, a number of voices and ideals have tempered a policy that has done exceptionally well, judging by our rise to power and status today.
"American foreign policy rests on a balance of contrasting, competing voices and values - it is a symphony - or tries to be, rather than a solo," asserts Mead. Escaping the typical and lacking descriptions of realist versus idealist, Mead illuminates four active voices within America. Each voice is complicated enough that any elaboration I give here will be lacking. However, the names of the schools should give you the idea. The Hamiltonians, Jacksonians, Jeffersonians, and Wilsonians make up the America's collection of competing schools of thought. Mead concedes that the names are not historically accurate. But he makes a strong case, leading the reader to re-evaluate American foreign policy history - providing historical antidotes of each school in action. Mead treats each school with respect and supplies a convincing intellectual argument for each. Special Providence is a delight to read. This paradigm of the four schools provides deeper insight and understanding of American politics in the international arena, and even to a lesser extent on the domestic side. Meads insights are lightly glazed with wit. I found myself laughing out loud numerous times. I recommend this book to anyone with the slighted predilection for international relations or American history.

This is an excellent read for someone who is new to foreign policy issues. The author doesn't tell the reader WHAT to think--rather, he provides a framework for HOW to think about U.S. direction in foreign policy. The book provides a structure for thinking about and discussing U.S. reaction to world issues that I've not seen elsewhere. While the author provides well-researched historical support for his ideas, he doesn't try to give in-depth history lessons.

In the end I only wished to have been able to read what his views were regarding events on September 11 and its affect on subsequent U.S. policies.