This book discussed the inter-relation of the private and public life of our elected officials. Of course, this could have a broader application (business, religion, etc). I was impressed with the honesty that Olasky exhibited by not sugar coating the short-comings of some of our greatest American heroes. He also discussed their strengths, victories and missed opportunities. Anyone aspiring to public office, or any leadership position, owes it to themself to get this book and devour it. You will be better for having read it.

This excellent book clearly demonstrates, through historical documents and events, that poor public policy results when Presidents attempt to separate their private lives from their public lives. Compartmentalization of poor moral and ethical behavior and the development of good public policy do not mix.

Even the most conservative authors who critique the public school system leave off with "reform" of the current system. In this book, Wilson shows that the societal ills which are so prevalent in the school system are merely the symptoms of a disease. The system does not need reform; the system needs abolition. Very thoughtful, and the answers to common objections toward the end are extremely good.

The Olasky's heart towards motivating people to find compasisonate ways to support women experiencing pregnancy-related challenges is refreshing. This book takes the politics out of the abortion issue, replacing it with a picture of real women, needing real help. Not a book of judgement or condemnation, but rather a book of direction and wisdom for each of us...an equipping book that will go far to refocus this issue, providing real solutions and practical support for the difficulties many pregnant women face.

Olasky used his courage and wisdom to do the research it took to write this book. He has shown us how the print press in particular has changed in its coverage of events and society. The New York Times and Boston Globe with christian-based news reports? Yes. God fearing editorials? Yes. Its all there and more! A great read if you are into subjects ranging from Christian Press to History. Geron L - a reader

Olasky's "Press and Abortion" needs an update. There's good stuff here, as Olasky presents a remarkably balanced view of how the press presented the issue and practice of abortion from 1838-1988.

Unfortunately, it stops at 1988. However, the quality of what is here is amazing, and is a great starting point for any media or historian hoping to understand what has been published on abortion.

Detractors might brand Olasky as a conservative not doing an honest job to a topic requiring more than a slanted viewpoint to research the book. Those detractors would've missed this gem. Olasky worked with the abortion backers such as the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood of NYC who provided access to much necessary documents. Similarly, he was able to find help from groups fighting abortion, like the Pro-Life Action League and Christian Action Council (founded by Billy Graham/C Everett Koop/OJ Brown). This support from both sides of the issue is unusual, and increases the value of "Press and Abortion."

Olasky begins with an assessment of things as they were in the early-mid 1800s. The now liberal Anglican, Presbyterian and Congregationalist churches were decisively against abortion. He cites from emphatic antiabortion statements by Wadworth (who became president at Harvard) and John Calvin to set the tone that America began, or at least was at that point in time, antiabortion.

He generaly avoids consideration of the issue as a religious or moral matter, but merely shows how the press--largely the newspapers, but also some magazines--handled abortion as a news and editorial issue.

Abortion began, he explains, in part, as a business decision by a couple placing ads in a major NY paper. They offered abortive services through a midwifery business, pretending to be physicians.

Olasky slowly develops the chronology to indicate how the popular press was reconformed, as a whole, into a new ideology of campaigning for abortion, how physicians sold abortive services for $5. The NY Times went from pro-life to pro-choice, and he cites the massive percentage of articles they published for abortion (90%).

He presents the public relation machine behind pro-choice organization, and the response of the "Detroit Free Press," "Washington Post" and others.

He highlights 1962 as a key year in pro-choice ideology, as the press seemed to make a large jump in writing stories about abortion clinic raids by the police, defining abortion as murder, and then decrying those who would deny abortions, claiming women needed liberating. Olasky discusses several important public events and editorials supporting this.

Later, he talks about Dr. Bernard Nathanson, once the founder of the Nat'l Abortion Rights Action League, but who became so pro-life that he developed a film portraying the pain the fetus feels mid-abortion, and how various press reviewers dismissed the short documentary as not scientific. NARAL, feeling no doubt quite slighted, panned the film.

Olasky finishes with some discussion of the fetal tissue transplant issue.

It is documented very well, with over 40 pp in an annotated works cited list.

Needed in an update are a timeline, explanation of what the stem cell issue is all about, and how the press has covered it.

I fully recommend "Press and Abortion" by Marvin N. Olasky for both conservatives and liberals, but both sides are likely to find concerns that their views were not covered well. Only for the open-minded, and thick skinned.

Anthony Trendl

I've described myself as a compassionate conservative, because I am convinced a conservative philosophy is a compassionate philosophy that frees individuals to achieve their highest potential. It is conservative to cut taxes and compassionate to give people more money to spend. It is conservative to insist upon local control of schools and high standards and results; it is compassionate to make sure every child learns to read and no one is left behind. It is conservative to reform the welfare system by insisting on work; it's compassionate to free people from dependency on government. It is conservative to reform the juvenile justice code to insist on consequences for bad behavior; it is compassionate to recognize that discipline and love go hand in hand. -George W. Bush

We conservatives are admittedly cranky; after all, we spend most of our days worrying that the rest of you slovenly lot are driving the country, if not the World, towards Hell just as fast as you can go. But even for folks as dour as us, the reaction to George W. Bush's use of the label "compassionate conservative" was fairly crusty. For many on the Right, it was a particularly objectionable formulation because of its implicit suggestion that normal, garden variety, conservatism lacks compassion. Meanwhile, Democrats, the Press, and the rest of the Left reacted angrily because they think the two terms are mutually exclusive. It's an article of their faith that compassion can only be demonstrated by slathering money on a problem and by absolving the downtrodden of any blame for their predicament. Conservatism, with its emphasis on limited government and personal responsibility, just doesn't fit their view of compassion.

So it's helpful to refer to the man who more than anyone else was responsible for generating the focus on compassion as a conservative issue, Marvin Olasky. A professor at the University of Texas, a senior fellow at The Progress and Freedom Foundation, the editor of World Magazine, and an informal advisor to the Bush campaign, Olasky has a very specific definition in mind when he speaks of compassion, one that is very different from how modern liberalism defines it, but which also contains an important challenge to conservatives.

The Democrats' definition of choice for the term would be something along the lines of the first entry at Dictionary.com :

com·pas·sion (km-pshn) n. Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it.

This is the sort of wholly impersonal, but theoretically well-intentioned, caring and empathy that Bill Clinton was so good at faking. Under this definition, proper emotional response and a willingness to spend money are sufficient to demonstrate compassion.

Olasky is asking for a return to an older definition, one that demands more :

compassion \Com*pas"sion\, n. [F., fr. L. compassio, fr. compati to have compassion; com- + pati to bear, suffer. See Patient.] Literally, suffering with another; a sensation of sorrow excited by the distress or misfortunes of another; pity; commiseration.

It is the notion of suffering with someone that he's after here. In this sense, government action is bad not just because it turns those it is intended to help into dependents, but also because it creates a distance between the intended beneficiaries and the rest of us, who should actually be required to participate in their suffering. It is this element of compassionate conservatism which necessarily leads to Faith Based Initiatives. The kind of participatory compassion he's referring to, requires the kind of volunteer social services which are really only delivered effectively by our churches, temples and mosques.

In turn, the reliance on our great moral institutions leads into the other retrograde element of the definition that Olasky wants to bring back, this is the idea that the need for the compassion of others imposes an obligation on the recipient. It is not enough to accept largesse from taxpayers, you have to work for and warrant the charity you receive.

Throughout the book, Olasky cites example after example of organizations and congregations which are providing this sort of charity. He demonstrates that their success depends both on the involvement of caring private individuals to provide the services and the commitment to traditional values like morality, self sufficiency and self respect on the part of those they serve. These examples present a challenge to both the Left and the Right, requiring that the Left accept the idea that recipients of social assistance will meet certain moral standards and requiring of both the Left and the Right a commitment to fund and staff private and religious charities. It is difficult to judge how successfully these challenges might be met, because right now the government takes such a huge portion of our wealth, provides these programs (however inadequately), and places practically no burdens on recipients. With the Social Welfare State having proved an ignominious failure, Welfare Reform in place, and the Faith Based Initiative approaching reality, we're well on the way to testing Olasky's ideas. For the sake of our own souls, the poor's livelihoods, and the civic health, let's hope we're all up to the challenge.

GRADE : B-

Turning Point is the initial book in a series on developing a Biblical worldview. Marvin Olasky, Editor-in-Chief of World Magazine, and Herbert Schlossberg, author of Idols for Destruction, here set forth the fundamentals of this Christian worldview. After addressing the problems of rationalism and pietism, they offer a true balance of reason and piety, a harmony that reveals itself in Christian action.

The first problem is the error of rationalism, which places man's reason above all else, and ends up throwing out Scripture and much truth out of a desire to be reasonable. When reason is elevated so high, sins such as abortion and sexual immorality suddenly seem milder than they really are, and ideas such as evolution begin to take prominence over against Christian truth.

They also cover the problems of pietism, which is devotion to God to the exclusion of involvement in the world. Many Christians see problems in our culture and instead of grappling with these matters, confident in Christ's instruction in all matters, they instead retreat into their personal lives of prayer, Bible reading, and "love." When such pietism is embraced, both culture and the church are allowed to be harmed by the world.

Olasky and Schlossberg expose the ditches of rationalism and pietism on both sides of the road, and then they guide readers onto the straight path. A Christian worldview recognizes the importance of both reason and piety, and they blend these two together in submission to God's Word. Christians are to love God, but prayer and study of Scripture are to be manifested in discipline of the nations. Reason is necessary to apply the Bible to assorted areas in culture, but wisdom is lost when reason replaces Scripture.

Use reason wisely, and be a truly pious Christian. But don't serve either out of proportion; blend them together into a glorious view of the world and subsequent reform of culture.

Olasky is a nutcase. Unfortunately, I've had him for a college professor. He has some good ideas, and is one of the few people in journalism with a strong sense of ideals, but they are misguided. He seems to think that the only responsible media can be a "Christian" media. This book is good if you think that The 700 Club does a fair job of presenting world news, otherwise stay away from it except for comic relief

Professor Olasky packs a lot of information into 300 pages, and he does it with obvious affection for his subject. He does not take the typical Christian stance against modern journalism, which is to fall down and cry foul.

Olasky marches through a brief history of journalism and demonstrates how the most precious truths modern journalists believe -- the independence of the press, the value of truth, the focus on uncovering evildoers -- all owe their existence to Reformers such as Martin Luther and Puritans such as Cotton Mather.

But most of the book unwraps the core beliefs and virtues of journalism and points out the nuts and bolts that hold them together. A great introduction to journalistic writing for biblical Christians who want to change the world and how it thinks.

In PRODIGAL PRESS, Dr.Olasky described the descent of secular journalism from objective "truth telling" to mere public relations and propaganda. In this book, he turns to journalists who claim to write from a Christian perspective. Such writers, of all people, are "called to excellence," yet many of them write shallow, second rate material. The author calls for a "revitalization" of Christian journalism. He quotes theologian J. I. Packer who says this is a fundamentall need in our post-Christian culture. The book is aimed primarily at Christian journalists, or would-be journalists, yet there is much of general interest here. If nothing else, it shows why WORLD magazine (for whom Olasky is editor-at-large) is such a "good read."

Marvin Olasky's basic perscription for dealing with poverty in America is right-on and should be practiced by all Christians - instead of waiting for the government, we should get out there and help the poor ourselves. If we did, the world would be a better place. Our old government welfare system created a ponderous machine that punished families for staying together and made dependence a way of life.

That said, here's why Olasky's book failed to totally impress me.

For starters, Olasky doesn't seem to want to reform government programs for the poor, he wants to eliminate them entirely. It is a radically dangerous idea to absolve society's institutions of any responsibility for the well-being of its weakest members. For all of Olasky's professed "Christianity," this sounds more like dyed-in-the-wool secular humanism to me. Get rid of the external pressure limiting man's innate goodness, and man will naturally do what is good. Anyone thinking in line with the Bible will see that this is not true. People are fallen, and will not naturally do the right thing if left to themselves. That's why the Old Testament had numerous social welfare provisions in the Hebrew law directed at widows and orphans. The Bible also expresses concern for the just treatment of workers (Mal. 3:5, James 5:1-5, etc. A verse in Sirach, I forget the citation, says "To destroy a man's livelihood is to shed blood.") Olasky, like all "Christian Right" thinkers (James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Richard Land, et. al.), completely ignores the reality of the "working poor" and the surging profits of those at the top while those in the middle and the bottom were subject to massive lay-offs and downsizing aimed solely at making rich stockholders richer. Throughout the 1990s, people working one or more jobs routinely could not meet their bills and relied on beseiged food banks and other charities. The economy - booming under President Clinton - may have given some relief to these families, but we are foolish to think this economic boom has benefited everyone equally and that it will last forever. Relying on Olasky's voluntary charity is not the best - or the Biblical - way to deal with these problems. It is disturbing that Olasky seems to blame all poor people for their problems. Granted, there are many homeless people who started out as recreational drug users. But many are mentally ill. A mother working two blue collar jobs to pay for a family that her husband abandoned is not in her situation as a result of her own sin.

It should be noted that Olasky is the editor of World magazine, a Bush campaign advisor, and has been associated with groups like the Council for Biblical Man and Womanhood and other organizations that blame society's predicament on feminists, homosexuals, the media, college professors, etc. I'm not saying that these criticisms are wrong - on the contrary, "the cultural left" is very real. But it's hard to sympathize with Olasky and his Christian Right cohorts who see deconstructionists in Ivy League English departments as a larger threat to families than both parents having to work two jobs each to keep a roof over their heads. It's incredulous that these groups berate women for working - the majority of women work to pay the bills, not to attain feminist glory (Olasky may not know this, since his biography makes it clear he was raised by well-to-do Jewish parents and attended top schools). Of course, with all the money folks like Olasky and Dobson get from groups like the Council for National Policy and the Unification Church, we can be sure that evangelical Christians aren't going to get to hear any opinions other than those that fit neatly into the Republican party platform any time soon. I'd like the Coors Foundation or Rev. Moon to drop me a few million so I could set up a radio show or a magazine and suddenly become an evangelical "leader," but I guess I'll have to content myself with the web.

Just as it is easier for any of us to practice our compassion by voting for more government programs and occasionally tossing some checks at charities, it probably would have been easier for Mr. Olasky to hold the fire that is this remarkable book. While others (including some of the 20+ friends and colleagues I've favored with copies of this book) complain a bit about Olasky's somewhat comprehensive treatment of the history of charity in America, I found those portions of his book particularly illuminating. How edifying indeed to learn that over 200 years of truly compassionate reformers had warned us against the mockery of compassion that is the welfare state, that it would deprive the needy of essential personal contact with benefactors and volunteers, that it would lend "assistance" breeding dependence and personal ruin, and that it would fail to make the great demands on givers and recipients alike necessary to render compassion either true or effective. If you have ever found yourself frustrated that an attempt to help a needy person, family, or neighborhood failed, this book can likely show what was missing, just as it shows what is missing on a staggering scale in our country's misguided effort to use government to help the needy. A book destined to be unpopular among those with a stake in relieving private citizens of their personal responsibilities to their fellow man, those receiving benefits without efforts at achieving independence, and those with an agenda to expand the authority of government on the false promise of a great society. No responsible commentator on present-day American can afford not to read this book. Bravo, Mr. Olasky.

I rarely give out five-star reviews, but boy, if any book deserves five stars it's this one. Each page is an eye-opener, what Olasky brings to light is the severest and most truthful indictment yet of the government-sponsored poverty industry in America. Readers of William Bennett, Ann Coulter, Bernie Goldberg...and the can use this to show liberals exactly why the welfare state doesn't work, instead of simply claiming it does not work.

I started to read the Forward and knew I was in for it. Olasky compares the book to JFK's Profile of Courage and asserts that it should win a Pulitzer Prize. This in no JFK. Olasky states that the book will not receive the PPrize because it is biased in favor of the House Managers. This is not the real reason - the book is simply bad and a failed effort.

I did appreciate that Snyder stated up front, in his Introduction, that he will be writing about the book from his "Christian" standpoint. Therefore, the reader should know what to expect. Unfortunately, this warning is insufficient. Contrary to one of the other reviews, I felt that the book was highly partisan.

Snyder's underlying premise is that the Republicans sought to save the country from ruin and that the Democrats were partisan with no real basis to oppose impeachment. This is based on deciding that the President's actions were an impeachable offense, i.e., a high crime or misdemeanor. This approach is far too simple and allows Snyder to take cheap-shot after cheap-shot. Unfortunately Snyder fails to report the facts in an objective manner.

Snyder acts unaware of legalese and its role in the judicial system. Stating that it depends on what the meaning of is is is something that occurs in courts throughout the country everyday. Perjury occurs everyday. The fact that so few people are in prison for perjury does not mean that it does not occur. Inestead, it shows how difficult it is to determine intent and how rarely prosecutors will bring actions relating to perjury.

You can say to yourself, that this review was written by a crazy and bitter Democrat, but if you buy this book, you'll be sorry. There must be a library nearby that has a copy if you are curious.

There is no Pulitzer Prize ahead and there should not be. To assert otherwise is simple partisan raving.

K. Alan Snyder, the author of Mission: Impeachable, sets forth in the preface a clearly defined goal in writing this book. He wanted to focus on the House Managers of the Clinton Impeachment Trial - all thirteen House Managers - their legal, moral & political backgrounds, their motivations and their reflections on only the second Presidential Impeachment trial in our nation's history. This disciplined approach is both a strength and a weakness.

This is definitely a pro-impeachment, pro-House Manager book, but it's written in a measured and restrained way so it never sounds particularly partisan. In fact the author goes out of his way to show that these men were not "out to get the President" - a popular refrain amongst Clinton defenders (including those in the media) at the time. Snyder focuses on the legal arguments for why they did what they did, arguments which often were obscured at the time by the sensationalism of the scandalous subject matter but arguments which will ultimately withstand the test of time.

For history's sake, all thirteen managers are given equal treatment. In between a few introductory chapters and a couple of concluding chapters, each House Manager gets a chapter. The author interviewed all thirteen and weaves their comments to the author in with biographical sketches and statements each made at key stages while impeachment wound its way through the House Judiciary Committee, the full House and ultimately, the United States Senate. He also allows for each to briefly reflect on what happened, approximately one year removed from Senate acquittal (his interviews took place in early 2000).

The strength of this approach is that we get to learn about several of the more obscure House Managers who may not be given this kind of forum in other books about impeachment. The weakness of this approach is that, despite cooperation from all thirteen, the author's discipline in keeping to his structured format prevents him from making the book more interesting and ultimately more readable.

In my opinion, Mission: Impeachable would have been a lot more interesting and more fun to read if the author had spent more time writing about the three stars of the Senate Impeachment trial to emerge from amongst the baker's dozen: Lindsey Graham, Asa Hutchinson and James Rogan. It seemed like the chapters on all three were way too brief and in the end I felt like I learned as much if not more about all three from Peter Baker's excellent book on the impeachment, "The Breach", than I did from Mission: Impeachable, despite the author's access to all. It was as if someone wrote a book about the 1978 World Series Yankees team and spent as much time writing about some bench-warming third-string catcher as they did about Reggie Jackson or Bucky Dent. Although it is a fair approach, in terms of history, it just seemed as though there was a lost opportunity here.

In the end, Mr. Snyder accomplished exactly what he intended to do and this book is good because it does provide a forum for the House Managers, in their own words, to describe where they were coming from when they all got caught in the whirlwind that accompanied all those boxes dropped off from the Independent Counsel's office in early September of 1998. My only criticism is that a good (although sometimes dry) book could have been great, if only the author had been a little less disciplined and a little more generous to the reader, given his access to all the Managers.

With those words, lead House Manager Henry Hyde urged the U.S. Senate to convict and remove from office President William Jefferson Clinton, impeached by the U.S House of Representatives for perjury and obstruction of justice in February 1999. In this book, coming over a year after the first impeachment trial in American history of an elected U.S. President, the author reviews the heroic efforts of the 13 House Managers to do their constitutional duty and present their case against the President to the Senate for final judgment.

Each manager was interviewed about their personal and political careers prior to impeachment and how that influenced their approach to it. Then the author followed with what role each manager played in the impeachment inquiry in the House Judiciary Committee as well as before the full House, quoting liberally from their statements in the Congressional Record. Each manager then reflected on their participation in this historic event and its effect on the current and future political scene of our country and the rule of law.

All in all, the book flowed nicely, sprinkled with quotes from Clinton supporters as well. I highly recommend this book to those interested in the Clinton impeachment from the personal perspective of those who were most familiar with the evidence and prosecuted what some have referred to as the trial of the 20th century.