This book will change how you've viewed the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. We've been lulled into the belief that it ended the war and "saved lives." But have our history books been truly honest in that simplistic regard to the act? This book urges you to look deeper into the issue, if you are serious about TRULY understanding the decision to use the bombs.

Lifton gives an incredibly thorough profile of the events and characters involved in the decision to start nuclear war. From political to psychological reasons, the characters are dealt with on a human level. It's a frightening tale, much more complex than the propoganda that was issued prior and following the nuke's use. Many will not like what is documented, because it reaches beyond the simplistic explanations, but sometimes truth is painful, especiallly when it may challenge what we believed are our true values.

This is a must read for all who believe nukes are a legitimate choice in war. Lifton will surprise you, and make you very intimate with Harry Truman and his thought processes going into the final months of the war, the pressures he was under, both from his own cabinet, the military, and the public.

We can only make choices based on the information made available to us. This book is unique in its presentation, and deserves full attention in our history courses and for those who seriously study the impact of our World Wars. It's not a literary guilt trip for the nation. It presents and profiles the hard truths, and no doubt took serious guts to publish.

Not many books can change your beliefs, but this one can, or at least legitimately challenged what you thought were established views.

Using sources made available only recently, Lifton and Mitchell examine the US government's efforts to mold public opinion following the detonation of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs.

These included squelching reports of radiation injuries, preventing release of ground-level damage reports, discouraging discussion of alternatives to the bombing, playing up the "military necessity" of what was (at best) only partially a military decision, and placing all of the scientists and their papers under a shroud of "Top Secrecy" to prevent non-military viewpoints from being discussed or published.

Like Gar Alperovitz (and drawing heavily on his work), Lifton and Mitchell present revealing portraits of the main characters involved in this turning point in history, and make a compelling case that their motives were not always as pure as we've been led to believe.

A cautionary tale of the seduction of power.

HIROSHIMA IN AMERICA: FIFTY YEARS OF DENIAL is required reading for a class I am presently taking on Hiroshima, but it should be required reading for everyone in America. I found the book to be both interesting and intriguing. The authors, Lifton and Mitchell, give a very detailed account of how the Americans treated and responded to the dropping of the A-bomb and its effects on the Japanese people living there. HIROSHIMA also offers insight into the political action and reaction of the bombing with unbelievable documentation and research from the War Department and the White House. For those in America who may wonder about the events surrounding the bomb, HIROSHIMA IN AMERICA offers one of the best sources of information by far!

For anyone who has played little league, watched little league or can spell little league, this book will entertain and inform. Mitchell weaves a sweet tale mixing a year in the life of his son's pint-sized team with little league history and other baseball tid bits ranging from Bruce Springsteen's perspective on coaching to life as a 60's radical. But the majority is on his lovable A's as they battle their way to the playoffs and encounter angry coaches, overbearing parents, and an alien mascot along the way. It's all Apple Pie and mom's cookies, but it works. Batter up!

Joy in Mudville is a terrific, terrific read! It is laugh-out-loud, you'll-read-parts-aloud-to-your-wife-or-friends funny. And a tender story about fathers and sons, and battling against the longest odds. To top it all off, Greg Mitchell really knows his baseball.

This book is not only a great read, it would make a great movie. In sum, "Joy in Mudville" has replaced my previous favorite,"Ball Four", as the best baseball book I've ever read.

Greg Mitchell's "Joy In Mudville" is a fantastic book. I think that anyone who picks it up will quickly become engaged in this John Feinsteinesque memoir about a season spent by a father coaching his son's little league team. But for anyone who has ever been involved with any type of city-league baseball, this book is a must because throughout the whole book, you will be laughing about how close to home it hits. This is true for coaches/parents of little leaguers, former players (like myself), and parents (the spectating variety) of the players. With each person that Mitchell desribed, I found myself realizing that there was the exact same person in one of the leagues in which I had played over the years. I am still trying to figure out if that is comforting or worrisome. Actually, if all parents were like Mr. Mitchell, little league would be a better environment for enjoyment, learning, and competition. (I guess there would also be many more great books in stores to read). Anyway, I guess that if parents and coaches were all normal, supportive, and appropriate, this book would not be nearly as enjoyable. So, read the other reviews if you want more details about the book. But trust me, if you have ever been involved in any way in little league baseball, pick up this book. Like me, you'll find yourself doing atypical things like writing glowing reviews and sending congratulatory e-mails to the author. It's that good.

If you needed more proof that Richard Nixon was a crook and a crumb, this books lays it out. Mitchell spins a great tale of campaign anecdotes and informative history about California politics that tells it like it is, and keeps you turning pages. Also some great background on how the anti-communist paranoids destroyed lives in Hollywood and elsewhere. If this had been published before 1968, Nixon would have never been elected.

Two weeks before election day in 1950, the Republican Senatorial candidate in California--Richard M. Nixon--accused the Democratic Senatorial candidate in California--Helen Gahagan Douglas--of being the conduit through which the decisions made by Josef Stalin in the Kremlin flowed to the United States Congress:

"This action by Mrs. Douglas," Nixon explained, "... came just two weeks after [U.S. Communist Party leader] William Z. Foster transmitted his instructions from the Kremlin to the Communist national committee.... [Thus] this [Communist] demand found its way into the Congress" (Mitchell (1998), p. 209).

Later on Nixon campaign manager Murray Chotiner would try to erase--or perhaps forget his role in?--history, claiming that the Nixon campaign of 1950 "had never accused Douglas of 'sympathizing' or 'being in league with' the Communists." Nixon himself claimed that he "never questioned her patriotism" and that he had been smeared by her. Nixon biographers like Jonathan Aitken would refer to Nixon's relatively clean hands in the 1950 Senate campaign.

But the most important thing was that Nixon won the 1950 California Senate race. Because he won the 1950 California Senate race he went on to become Vice President in 1953, and President in 1969. But perhaps more important, the way he won the 1950 Senate race--the fact that his tactics then worked--warped American politics for nearly half a century.

How was it warped? Into a pattern of "lie whenever you can" and "demonize your political opponents." Thus later on Nixon speechwriter William Safire would paint a picture of a President Nixon threatened by:

...a lynch mob, no cause or ideology involved, only an orgy of generalized hate.... The hall [where Nixon was speaking] was actually, not figuratively, besieged.... The Secret Servicemen, who always had seemed too numerous and too officious before, now seemed to us like a too-small band of too-mortal men... (William Safire, Before the Fall).

But Nixon's chief of staff would have a different view of the same situation. As H.R. Haldeman expressed it in his diary:

...we wanted some confrontation and there were no hecklers in the hall, so we stalled departure a little so they could zero in.... Before getting in car, P[resident Nixon] stood up and gave the V signs, which made them mad. They threw rocks, flags, candles, etc. as we drove out.... Bus windows smashed, etc. Made a huge incident and we worked hard to crank it up, should make really major story and might be effective. (H.R. Haldeman)

And Nixon would demand that his top aides--H.R. Haldeman, Henry Kissinger--"use any means" to defeat the "enemy... conspiracy" of his domestic political adversaries. What did Nixon think of as "any means"? We know from his immediate subsequent demand:

Was the Brookings Institute raided last night? No? Get it done. I want the Brookings Institute's safe cleaned out and have it cleaned out in a way that makes somebody else responsible... (Stanley Kutler)

that in 1971 the "any means" included burglary, theft, the planting of false evidence, conspiracy to frame innocent parties. We don't know how much further "any means" went, or would have gone.

Thus there is a sense in which the Nixon-Douglas campaign of 1950 was key to shaping America not just because of the character of the politician (Nixon) whom it elevated to prominence, but because, as Greg Mitchell writes in his preface:

[The race] set a divisive and rigid agenda for forty years of election campaigns. Until 1950, candidates [who]... campaigned primarily on an anti-Communist platform... usually lost.... [Republican presidential candidate] in 1948 Thomas E. Dewey... criticized fellow Republicans who called for repressive new measures to control subversives.... Republican and Democratic leaders alike interpreted the outcome [of the 1950 election] as a victory for McCarthyisam and a call for a dramatic surge in military spending.... Red-baiting would haunt America for years, the so-called national security state would evolve and endure, and candidates would run and win on anti-Sovietism for decades..." (p. xix).

Now Greg Mitchell has done an excellent job of taking us back to the campaign of 1950--legitimate fears, the backdrop of American apparent defeat in the Korean War, blacklists, loyalty oaths, and the general belief that a woman's place was in the kitchen, not in the Senate. It is a very, very readable book, and very much worth reading--for what happened in the 1950 Senate race played a remarkably large part in determining what America was to be in the second half of the twentieth century.

I enjoyed this book enormously, extremely well-researched, clear and well-written, entertaining, scrupulous in detail and true to the mark. There's a lot of new "dirt" on Nixon but what is perhaps most valuable is the portrait of Helen Douglas as one of the most remarkable (though flawed) women of the century. Also a powerful depiction of the Red Scare in Hollywood....Really, a must read!

I was a bit disappointed in this book because the dust jacket states the authors attempted to write a unbiased book covering the people that are part of the capital punishment process in America. Maybe it is that the authors stance on the death penalty is so strong that it is all they could do to be as objective as they were, but I was still looking for an unbiased account. With that said I did learn a lot from the book, I also agree with the author's position on the death penalty so their position was not that hard to take. I just wanted more of the other side represented so that I could learn more about that point of view.

The most eye opening part of the book is just the raw data on how many people are currently on death row and how many people have been taken off death row after being proven innocent. The authors also take the reader through all the people associated with the death penalty for interviews. From Judges and juries to the prison guards and executioners, all get a say in the book. What was interesting is that the authors did not present any really gun ho, hang them high types, all the people seamed down to earth and a little uneasy about the whole process. I think there is such a primitive law and order feeling associated with the states power to end a life that I do not think the authors are correct that the death penalty is coming to an end in America - it just appeals to too much of the population.

Overall this is an interesting and eye-opening book. If you are interested in the personal side of the death penalty then this is a good place to start. It did slow down at the end and again I would have liked a little more unbiased writing if only to hold the book out as an example of an unbiased report pushing for the end to the death penalty.

I found this book a good read and would recommend it.

One major objective of this book is to show capitol punishment from all angles. They talk about he prosecutors, the jurors, the judge, the executioners, the governors, and all other cogs in the system. By the time they are done, they make a convincing argument that this process is so fractionalized that nobody feels ultimate responsibility for this grave action (which helps keep it alive).

It also explores people's "support" for capitol punishment. You come to realize that the *objective* of a lot of supporters is keeping the criminal off the street, not vengeance. Thus, when given the option of life without parole, the support for capitol punishment drops below 50%.

I feel that there was a lot of "On one hand... then on the other hand... but you have to remember... and it is important not to discount...".

Although they referenced many polls and facts, I would have preferred this to be a little more 'scientific' and less philosophical. Also in their effort to explor all sides of this issue, many of their statements are pretty obvious -- for example, victim families what vengence and 'closure'. Duh.

I found the style to be a little odd. One of the writers is a journalist and the book is written accordingly. One one hand, they try to be even-handed showing all sides, while on the other, they write with the base assumption that capitol punishment is wrong. I did not find this confusing, but it was a little odd.

I don't wish these comments to discourage people -- it is a worthwhile read, but it does have a few shortcommings.

I read this book for a class and I really liked the book! I thought it was one of the best books that I've read on the issue of capital punishment.

In 1934, veteran muckraker and socialist Upton Sinclair managed to win the Democratic nomination to run for Governor of California. Running on a blatantly Marxist platform, Sinclair through a scare into the rich and powerful of America who, in the view of this book's author, united together to unfairly slander Sinclair and rob him of victory. Campaign of the Century provides a heavily detailed, anecdote-filled accounts of the campaign and manages to weave in a fascinating social history featuring the most revered figures of recent American history. Over the course of the campaign we get fascinating portraits of Will Rogers, Aimee Semple MacPhearson, Louis B. Mayer, and Franklin D. Roosevelt amongst others.

The book's main flaw is the idealization of Sinclair. While Marshall is honest enough to admit that the man could be a flake, his platform is never really examined in any great detail. Nor does Marshall give any real evidence as to why Sinclair would have been a better governor than his opponent or even why he seems so convinced Sinclair would have won if not for the convenient boogeyman of Big Business. Instead, Marshall seems to simply assume that all readers will naturally agree that Sinclair was an angel and anyone opposed to him was the devil.

This being said, this is still a wonderful social and political history of the not-so-distant past. It should definitely be read by anyone who considers himself to be a political junkie or is just interested in history. Just remember to keep an open mind and not always automatically believe everything you read.

The author's obvious sympathy for Sinclair interferes with his telling of the monumental 1934 governor's race in California. Given the depths of the country's turmoil in 1934, it is doubtful is so wacky a candidate (although a brilliant and sincere one) ever was taken so seriously for such a major office.

The book is not so much about the campaign for Governor as it is about the negative campaign run against him -- 90% of the book focuses on people who opposed Sinclair and their tactics. In addition to employers bullying their workers to kick back contributions to the anti-Sinclair effort and scurrilous attempts to intimidate Sinclair supporters from turning out to vote, the author lavishes attention on the fact that mailings were sent out against Sinclair in huge quantities; that newspapers and other foes used his long record of incendiary quotes, outside of the mainstream by virtually any standard, against him. One presumes the author believes we'll be shocked that the Merriam campaign is campaigning.

Sinclair's opponent, the incumbent Governor Merriam, is portrayed as an imbecile, a non-entity who the author labels early on as "reactionary" (and re-labels him with the derogitory term dozens and dozens of times, as though it were informative rather than namecalling.) Merriam's support of the Townsend Plan and other "progressive" measures is dismissed out-of-hand as laughably and obviously insincere -- so insincere the author feels no need to burden himself with supporting his accusations. While it may be news to the author, it's a widely accepted historical fact that after Merriam trounced Sinclair, he endured the scorn of anti-New Dealers for pushing for the progressive policies he campaigned on, a fact which compromised his re-election effort in 1938.

Just as can be expected of a book that focuses so exclusively on the negative side one campaign ran against the other, that campaign comes across as morally flawed while the other is virtuous. The author acknowledges Sinclair's demagogery (he claims "208" New York mobsters have been sent by capitalists to undo his campaign, just as Joe McCarthy said, "I hold in my hand a list of 205 communists...") shameless pandering (claiming belief in God in the closing weeks in the face of decades of loud, principled agnosticism) and smear campaigning of his own (Sinclair's orgainization runs an "expose" on Merriam's KKK background, a complete falsehood) yet these instances cover several sentences while the anti-Sinclair excesses are covered in several hundred pages.

Nonetheless, this was a largely enjoyable read, despite being somewhat tedious in detail at times. The story is riveting, it is eloquently (although not objectively) told, and performs it's greatest service in reminding fat, happy modern day America where prosperity is considered a fact of life that this country was a far different place not so long ago.

Greg Mitchell provides an absorbing account of one of America's most fascinating gubernatorial campaigns, the titantic 1934 California struggle between famed novelist and muckraker Upton Sinclair, who exposed the Chicago meatpacking business in his epic work, "The Jungle," and Lieutenant Governor Frank Merriam, hand-picked candidate of the powerful monied interests who kept their candidate carefully under wraps in a manner reminiscent of the later candidaces of Californian Ronald Reagan and Texan George Bush the Younger.

The race is fascinating in a current context for being the first instance where the ferocious impact of corporate public relations spin control dominated. A smear was launched against Sinclair based on his socialist roots. What was termed socialist in those days, as evidenced later by perennial Socialist presidential candidate Norman Thomas, was a strong desire for regulation, better working conditions, and greater security for the citizenry in the retirement and medical care areas. While Sinclair, due to his Socialist background and controversy over his End Poverty in California program, failed to receive the endorsement as Democratic Party nominee from an apprehensive Franklin Delano Roosevelt, he obtained financial assistance from wealthy Los Angeles socialist property magnate Gaylord Wilshire and many grassroots volunteers seeking security and justice during the ravages of the Great Depression.

Louis B. Mayer, William Randolph Hearst and other powerful monied interests fought hard to prevent Sinclair from winning, or having his platform properly debated. Mayer had MGM make and release so-called documentaries which were shown in his studio's movie houses revealing scores of impoverished people coming to California to get in on Sinclair's largesse and take advantage of his promise to end poverty in the state. One controversial segment showed a man with a thick Russian accent exclaiming soothly, "Well, Sinclair's ideas worked in Russia. I don't see why they won't work here."

These were blatant propaganda films purported to reveal spontaneous behavior which were actually rehearsed efforts with actors performing their intended roles. They worked all the same. The fact that Sinclair's socialism was rooted in humanism and not Marxism was deliberately overlooked as distortion and fearmongering prevailed.

Despite these efforts, and being hopelessly outspent, Sinclair ran a spirited campaign based on ideas and ran a strong if unsuccessful race. After it was all over he took it all philosophically, exclaiming that, "If I'd been elected governor I wouldn't be able to continue sleeping with my bedroom window open."

Novelist Greg Rucka came aboard the Batman books during the groundbreaking "No Man's Land" epic. I loved that story arc, but since then, I've found Rucka's work, both on Batman and other comics (Whiteout, Batman/Huntress, etc.) to be either hit or miss. He is capable of great work, as the Two-Face story in this book shows, but when he's off his game.....oh boy.

The biggest problem here is Editorial; When DC rebooted Detective Comics, post NML, they made a few awful decisions- Artist Shawn Martinbrough's work is boring and nondescript, and it's made even worse by the "Limited" Colors used. The book looks like someone spilled a mug of Hot Chocolate on it. Just awful. Why bother to color it at all? It would be much more palatable in black and white.

An Editor should also have stepped in to stop Rucka from using a ridiculous designer drug as his plot device; The drug doesn't just addict, it turns it's users into animals. Literally. Snakes, Wolves, etc. After years spent trying to keep The Batman books (Semi)believable, the sight of addicts turning into snakes had me howling with laughter. Is this the best the great Ra's Al Ghul could do? Pathetic! Ra's Al Ghul is not my favorite Batman villain, but I think that's why he never used to turn up much: It took a really talented writer to do something with him. Rucka was not that writer. After all of that buildup, the story doesn't end, so much as stop. It's almost like Rucka ran out of writing paper....

With the great array of Batman books out there, you can't really be in bad enough shape that you'll want to waste your cash on this....

Great read. Not so great art work but you can't blame that on rucka can you. Rucka did a great job with the villans i think. i purchased this along with batman broken bat. Broken Bat was a little better cause of the art work. BUY THIS BOOK!

Frank Miller, Jeph Loeb, Ed Brubaker & Greg Rucka. What do all of these guys have in common? Apart from being absolute masters of the comic book medium, and also being able to tell cracking good mystery tales, they have the distinction of being able to give us the BEST Batman tales. Greg Rucka's take on Batman/Bruce Wayne is at once both believable and fantastic! Do yourself a favour and check this book out. The story flows along at a brisk pace and the art is done in a psuedo film nior style. Very groovy.

I really enjoy the Using Series, and look for them whenever I want to learn more about a certain topic. However, this book is deplorable. It is not made for anyone looking to write their own code, or anyone who actually wants to program. All this book tries to do is show you how to use someone else's code. I do not mean another module, such as the infamous CGI.pm moudle, but rather using another script and "tweaking" it for your needs. It also does not seek to explain the theory behind the code. I was also quite disappointed in how it was organized. The Using Seies are good books, but this one doesn't belong in the family. There are much better books out there that will serve your needs.

I found this book to be hard to read and poorly written. The examples are very difficult to follow because most are only code segments not the full code. This makes it very diffcult to follow. As any experienced programmer will tell you "Nothing helps more than a good example.". This book is highly lacking of good examples. I have several years of experience with programming in several languages, which allowed me to fill the gaps in the examples, how ever a beginning programmer would be lost. In conclusion I do not recommend this book to a programmer of any level.

I found this book to be hard to read and poorly written. The examples are very difficult to follow because most are only code segments not the full code. This makes it very diffcult to follow. As any experienced programmer will tell you "Nothing helps more than a good example.". This book is highly lacking of good examples. I have several years of experience with programming in several languages, which allowed me to fill the gaps in the examples, how ever a beginning programmer would be lost. In conclusion I do not recommend this book to a programmer of any level.