Joe Martin
This book caught my eye because I knew very little about Tony Blair. I knew he was the Prime Minister in Britain. I knew he was the leader of the Labour Party and a big government, big spending progressive. I knew he was President Bush's staunchest ally in the war on terror. And, that's about it. I really didn't know anything about what he actually tried to accomplish in Britain or why. I didn't know anything about who he was or what he made him tick. And, after reading Decision Points, I was interested in his perspective on the events of the past decade.
Although long, this book was an enjoyable read. Blair writes with a light, conversational style that I really enjoyed reading. It could be a little distracting at times, as he would occasionally take a rabbit trail into the past. It was usually apparent when he did so, but I got confused about the timing of events a few times. That was a minor complaint as the style generally contributed greatly to the tone of the book.
As I read, I discovered that Tony Blair has a wonderful sense of humour. That's matched with a very contemplative approach to life. For example, he recounted several times how stressed out he would get before a big speech, spending his time constantly writing and rewriting his text. He compared this to President Bush who was amazingly laconic before most speeches and never seemed to worry about the message or the delivery. (Some might say that those contrasting approaches showed up in the quality of speeches that each man gave.)
This book is exactly what it says on the cover: a story about the journey Blair took during his political life. It's partly a history of the events of the past 30 years and partly a recounting of the decisions and actions that formed Blair's own evolving outlook on life and politics. After reading the book, I came away thoroughly convinced that I would like Tony Blair as a person, even if I felt compelled to oppose many of his policies.
As to policies, I won't spend a whole lot of time critiquing them. Blair and I are on different ends of the political spectrum, when it comes to the question of how involved and active government should be. It's not really worth belabouring the point of all of the different ways in which we do disagree.
I was greatly impressed by Blair's perception of the ways in which traditional big government liberalism and socialism is highly unsuited to our modern economic system and dynamic society. Blair clearly saw what was wrong with the Labour Party and with the government's highly centralised approach to decision making. He saw that people were used to choice and used to firing incompetent providers in the private section. And he saw that the government's provision of services wasn't coming close to what people now expected. As a result, he spent his entire political career trying to reform the delivery and provision of government services. While I don't agree with his solutions, I was very happy with his overall critiques of government services.
This comes across clearly in his definition of what it means to be a progressive.
First, what makes you a progressive? I would say: belief in social justice, i.e. using the power of society as a whole to bring opportunity, prosperity and hope to those without it; to do so not just within our national boundaries but outside of them; to judge our societies by the condition of the weak as much as the strong; to stand up at all times for the principle that all human beings are of equal worth, irrespective of race, religion, gender (I would add of sexuality) or ability; and never to forget and always to strive for those at the bottom, the poorest, the most disadvantaged, the ones others forget. Notice these are all values, not policies. They may beget policies.
... Third, there is a new divide in politics which transcends traditional left and right. It is what I call “open vs. closed.” Some right-wingers are free-traders, others aren't. Likewise with the left. On both sides, some are pro-immigration, others anti-. Some favour an interventionist foreign policy; others don't. Some see globalisation and the emergence of China, India and others as a threat; some as an opportunity. There is a common link to the free trade, pro-immigration (controlled, of course) interventionist and pro-globalisation political positions, but it is “open vs. closed,” not “left vs. right.” I believe progressives should be the champions of the open position, which is not only correct but also a winning position, as Bill Clinton showed conclusively. However, it is a huge and important dividing line in modern politics.
When I read political memoirs, I'm typically looking for one of two things: a much better understanding of the politician or a much better understanding of the decisions that were made and the day-to-day, nitty-gritty detail of events that led into the decisions. Sadly, with this book from “43”, I got neither.
President Bush had an active presidency and was often juggling many simultaneous crises. I was hoping for a look at what life was like in his White House. How crazy does a typical day look when you're juggling a Social Security reform bill, a war in Iraq, and a belligerent North Korean state all at once? Sadly, I never found out. By organizing the point around different topics and focusing on one decision point at a time, he stripped events from their context, rendering them sterile and unmoored from the emotions of each year of his presidency.
I was also greatly disappointed by the lack of detail surrounding each decision point. Many of the descriptions boiled down to a very simple formula. “An event happened. I had a gut feeling but knew I needed to consult with some trusted advisors. My advisors confirmed my gut instinct and I implemented the plan. Ultimately, I was disappointed in the outcome and I know realize that I should have changed my tactics (but not the overall plan). Today, America is better off and I'm glad I made the attempt, even if it didn't turn out quite the way I'd hoped it would.”
I wish I could say that I exaggerate and that there is a higher level of detail in the book. I can't. The Harriet Miers debacle, for instance, only takes about a page to relate. I've watched the West Wing. I know that a huge amount of work goes into the selection of a Supreme Court Justice. Going into the book, I wanted to know a lot more about the process that led to picking Ms. Miers as a nominee. This book did nothing to satisfy my curiosity.
People who already love President George W. Bush will probably love this book. Those of us who read it hoping to find a reason to reevaluate his presidency will have to go away disappointed.
I loved it when Stephen Lawhead reinterpreted the King Arthur legends in his Pendragon Cycle. I was intrigued when I was he was tackling the Robin Hood mythos. After reading the first book, I'm not sure what I think about the attempt.
It's a good story. Bran, the “Raven King” is living in the primeval forests of Wales, leading a guerilla struggle against the Norman French invaders. The historical detail seems top notch and the story is interesting. The characters felt real and not 1-dimensional.
Still, I couldn't entirely get into it. I think it's because I've loved the traditional Robin Hood stories so much. This story, as good as it was, didn't feel like Robin Hood. I kept expecting it to and it kept disappointing me. I think I'd like it a lot more if I could convince myself that this wasn't really a Robin Hood story.
I give the book 4 stars for content and message but only 2.5 stars for style. Sections felt redundant and many themes were endlessly repeated. I think it would have been twice as good with 1/3 less verbiage.
Still, Gene Healy is saying something that few others are. The President is not — and should not be — our national savior and chief guide. I long for the return of modest Presidents like Coolidge, Harding, and Harrison. Maybe after reading this, you will too.
I constantly feel like I should like Larry Niven's books more than I do. The science is top-notch and the technology he envisions is consistently fascinating. But the actual storytelling itself always fails to interests me.
This books fits right in. I love the descriptions of the Ringworld itself and all of the associated tech (Slaver stasis fields, General Products hulls, etc). But the actual story came close to boring me. I just couldn't get that interested in it.
Maybe it just needed to be co-written with Jerry Pournelle.
I didn't much care for this book. It didn't feel like it really got going until almost 3/4 of the way in. I only finished it out of sheer stubbornness. Before the 3/4 point, it felt like the story kept jerking between characters and locales completely capriciously. New characters and places were introduced and I had a hard time understanding what relevance they had to the overall plot until much later. The book and concept weren't bad but I didn't really enjoy the read.
It was a quick read and the action moved fast. Unfortunately, the plot was fairly predictable and the prose tended towards purple. The central plot element was a fairly standard one of unscrupulous investment bankers willing to manage the money of the world's rich who – of course – run everything behind the scenes. Boring.
