Anarchism

It was probably a mistake getting an anarchist to write this very subjective book. It seems to be his idea of anarchism supported by a fairly obscure cast of references. This book dispells the notion that anarchism is a destructive force bent on continual disruption and upheaval. According to the author anarchism is not a anti-everything force but a sort of communalism between individuals who can combine to deal with larger problems then revert to the individual when needed. He suggests that the naion state is what is standing between Nirvana and us. This view may be historically correct but it is certainly not the commonly held view of anarchy. He cites the postal system community as a good example of a working multinational system without an organizing body, which is patently untrue as the UPU governs intersystem mail. The author is also very fond of citing the Swiss example as a Anarchistic system, small common groups with local issues held as the most important, however, recently this has not shown to be completely true. The last section deals with the greens and anarchy and implies that some urban farming communes will save our energy problem. All in all a wishy washy version of communal life governed in small anarcho-syndicalist communes (shades of the holy Grail)

American Political Parties and Elections

American Political Parties and Elections
This was an excellent introduction to what is, to many immigrants and outsiders, a very confusing system. There is a short historical introduction and a more complex analysis of the elections of the last 20 years. It covers elections at all levels and discusses (sometimes with multiple repetition) why there are no European style political parties in the US, managing to finally explain how a Reagan Democrat, a concept foreign to an Englishman, could exist. It does not pull punches on the failings of the system. The lack of voter interest, the lack of discussion of real issues and  the fairly strange system of picking candidates for the Presidential elections which is often over months before some of us get to vote in the primaries. If the book has a failing it is that it seems to have been written in separate chapters and there is a fair amount of repetition. Overall a great read and an excellent short introduction.

Agnosticism

A very challenging read. About half way through it became clear to me that this will need several readings, returning at intervals as I read other philosophical works in the series. It  does make a strong point for an Agnostic not merely being an Atheist who does not have the courage of his convictions. It uses scientific principle and does take some pains to explain the rational theory behind each philosophical test, I did learn something about the rational school, logical positivism, the cynics and various schools of philosophy. Along with Descartes, Hume and Richard Dawkins to name a few. I believe that I remain convinced that I am truly an agnostic and as such I also believe that it is possible to participate in organized religion as such.
Stimulating stuff with a great amount of mental effort needed by those of us unused to reading philosophical texts daily.