Muzaffer İzgü Öykü Seti-Ökkeş Serisi (10 Kitap) - Muzaffer İzgü EPub e-kitap Bir kitabı indir

Martina Teodoli mteodolibf5f — Really clever and cute-great for kids for a quick read.

Alfredo Betancur _treet_tyle — ** spoiler alert ** R4 book at bedtime. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/... Blurb - Heat and dust and South American passion take the listeners somewhere intense in this compelling story from Nobel prize-winner Garcia Marquez. This is a classic 'why dunnit': a gripping narrative of motive which enables the narrator to directly involve the listener as the chronicle examines the apparent facts. Reader: Robert Powell Producer: Jill Waters A parable about the parable of the passion of Christ, with beautifully crafted prose.

Allen Greer miadigital — This book is OK. Definitely NOT Chamberlain's best...but it's okay.

Anna Wong _nna_ong_au_uk — A fascinating re-examination of one of history's most despised and misunderstood political/military leaders. It's well written and sheds loads of light on the rise of the Mongols, popular representations of the Mongol military campaigns and Mongolo political prowess and commercial participation that created the first world wars hundreds of years before WWI. How many of us truly understand the legacy of the Mongols whose empire stretched from East to West bringing together disparate cultures and ideas that harnessed the collective power of humanity while wreaking mass havoc on the grandest empires and societies of the age? You'll get a better picture after reading this clearly constructed account.

Nicholas Hendrickson _ick_endrickson — Although intellectual liberals largely like to think that Reagan was stupid because he did not know policy details, I think he was intuitively smart and great communicator. Reading some of his speeches that he largely crafted on his own, no one can credibly say that Reagan was an idiot. Maybe he was not a genius but he certainly had an above average intelligence and was communicating virtuoso. I generally agree with his tendency to believe he had a divine purpose in his life as well as America having a divine purpose to spread liberal democracy to the world. After he was spared from death in an attempted assassination, Reagan's resolve in winning the war against communism turned to steal due to his mystical belief that his life was spared in order to win the cold war. Reagan was the rare democratic leader who has both the ability to stick to his principles and the political astuteness that allowed him to convince the public that he was right. He also combined the simple man's persona with Hollywood panache beautifully which made him a formidable leader. Not everyone can pull off what he did. For example, W tried to be like Reagan in his policies and his persona but W lacked the awesome communication skills that was Reagan'; so although W also stuck to his principles, the end result was a divided America. I think the closest President to come into power that has both Reagan's principles and communicating skills is Barack Obama. Although he is left-of-center instead of right wing president, he definitely has Reagan's oratory gift and principles to pursue his policies. What remains to be seen is does he have the political deftness that seems to be Reagan's trade mark that combined laudable principles with political instincts to convince people to do things his way? For such a brilliant campaigner, Obama seemingly political deafness is astounding. For example, the Tea Party Republicans largely campaigned on repealing the health care reform but if Obama highlighted the fact that the health care law has a loop hole that if states had a better way of doing things then they could opt-out of the Obamacare. If he politically highlighted the fact that the states are in control of health care reform, then I doubt that the Tea Party would be as successful as they were in midterm elections. Obama also seems to be able to compromise the details of his policies for the larger picture goal in this way he might differ with Reagan. The great thing about Obama is he uses the Rights policy prescriptions to push the Lefts agenda. Although in his domestic policy, Reagan was also able to compromise the Social Security question with then-Speaker of the House democrat Tip O'neal. What shocks and intrigues me about Reagan, is that he absolutely loved and relished foreign policy especially as it relates to American competitiveness towards other countries, more specifically the Soviets. I also like that he was open-minded enough to allow his children to have different view points from his own. I think this more than anything strengthens his claim that individual thoughts and ideas in a democratic society matter. Although Schweizer tries to give all the credit to Reagan for the fall of communism, his book actually points to American policy from Truman to Reagan that eventually led to the Soviet demise. Schweizer tries to discredit Nixon's use of detente as capitulating to communism but I disagree. Nixon's economic detente gave the USSR the inflated self-confidence that they did not need to reform their economic system and government to compete with the US. Since the US was subsidizing USSR economy, then they had to think twice in attacking us with nuclear missiles despite their rhetoric; also, our subsidizing their economy led them to spend more and more of their money on defense in the false sense that they were winning their war against the US. In other words, Nixon's detente system made the Soviet have false sense of confidence in their system that made them overreach and try to defend an empire that they could not afford to defend and thus led to their fall when Reagan turned on the heat in terms of real arms race. Even though I think that pre-Reagan American foreign policies contributed to the decline of communism, I do think that his aggressive stance against the Soviets served as a the catalyst and "tipping point" that led to the fall of communism as the enemy of the West. Nixon's economic detente system also has led to increasing economic interdependence so that a war between nations is very remote (think China vs. US) possibility now a days without overt provocation. The genius that was the Reagan Doctrine was not as so many detractors pointed out pointless wars and meddling in third world countries but by funding proxies against an over-expanded Soviet state that had an inherently weak economic system, it forced the Soviets to spend more and more resources toward its military in order to keep their empire that they got during the detente system. Since Reagan was right in thinking the Soviet economic system was inherently weak, then it follows that forcing them to spend more and more of their resources toward the military in order to counter the US would eventually cause their demise intrinsictly. So when Reagan finally came into power and increased military spending to "catch up" to the Soviets and I assume stopped Nixon's economic detente system with the Soviets, they could not keep up with us at that point. Thus, Gorbachev was forced to do glastnost and peristrokia in order to reform communism which attempt to force the Soviet last ditch effort to save their crumbling system. Incidentally, Reagan's economic warfare and military build up served as a catalyst for a reformer to take the reigns in the form of Gorbachev. In trying to save the Soviet system, Gorbachev was trying to make the Soviet's into an economically capitalist system a la China. This book has given me a greater appreciation of the capitalist economy as the life blood not only for its citizens but also for its government. I think this underscores the importance of a healthy capitalist economic system with a robust middle class as national security priority. Because with a robust economy, we will have the flexibility to ramp up defense spending during a time for war. I reject the notion that America has to keep defense spending always high in order to have its security; because time and time again America has proven when our national security interests are truly in jeopardy, we can respond quickly because our flexible capitalist system allows us to respond quickly (ie: think WWI & WWII prior to those two wars, we really did not have a big standing army, yet within a year or two we were able to ramp up defense spending and production to win those two world wars). I now believe that America future as well as a strategic national defense really relies on a flexible robust capitalistic economy. Policy wise, I think this means stimulating the economy to grow, decreasing the deficit, and making sure we will always have the technological advancement by investing in eduction of its citizens as well as ensuring innovation by the private sector (government can help in this endeavor by funding basic science research that capitalistic companies do not have an interest in yet). I also read somewhere that America economy will heavily rely on innovation and increase technological efficiencies for the future. I think this is the reason despite our drive to cut spending, I think Obama's central thrust of investment for the future is a must. Which in my view includes, continuous investments for R&D, education, and increase broad band penetration to all areas of the US, and perhaps rebuilding a crumbling infrastructure if absolutely needed. So if this is the case where can we see budget cuts that will decrease the deficit? I really believe this can be done via reforming the areas that are the real drag in government spending which is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid in a responsible way that is honoring those who are already retiring while increasing taxes when the economy has recovered. As long as we have striking capacity against other nation states/countries and our R&D is strong, I think the main threat to our nation now is deficit spending and growing a robust innovative middle class that can fund future conflicts. This means, decreasing the bureaucracy and government in general via entitlement programs/military raising taxes when it is needed and placing government funds toward investment for the future (education, healthcare especially for children, and R&D). Although I initially thought that the "star wars" idea was a stupid idea, I now think otherwise. Even though technologically it was a failure and it was really just a pipe dream, it not only caused the Soviets to worry about it and thus caused them to ramp up their spending which further destabilized their political system but the research from star wars led to so many innovations that has allowed America to create technologies that has led to creation for more capital in the US. The main threat to America's security comes through our economic predominance as well as diffuse subversive cells such as radical Islamic fundamentalist rather than nation states. The nation states that are danger to the anti-war peaceful cohesiveness of globalization are states that are not well integrated into the world economy that is the middle east and Africa. This means a shift in defense spending from large bulky troops toward special ops, intelligence gathering, R&D as well as using American corporations (Google and the topple of Mumbarack regime) and non-profits to try to integrate these areas of the world into the global economy while allowing them to keep their national uniqueness, thus decreasing the recruiting tool for destabilizing forces. In terms of foreign policy, I agree with the Reagan Doctrine of trying to influence global outcome through overt trade agreements and targeted covert action especially against radical Islamic fundamentalist, or generally all cells that seek the destruction of the US democracy capitalist system. The reason I favor covert action in destroying Islamic fundamentalism is due to the unpopularity of US foreign policy in Islamic countries. In todays terms, I think it is in the US interest that Egypt develops into a friendly stable democracy in the middle east. Since Egypt gave intellectual birth of radical Islamic fundamentalism, if it can be turned into a stable democracy with moderate Islamic elements a la Turkey then it will take the steam out Al-Quaeda. I like covert action in funding friendly people who want a secular liberal democracy but also responsive to the Islamic culture over overt interference by the US because it will give the secularist legitimacy in their people's eyes. I think Reagan strategic policy of changing the hearts and minds of the people in the communist countries was the right strategy because that is the only way one can achieve lasting change by fostering homegrown ideas that are aligned with American objectives. From all his plans to bring down communism, I most enthusiastically support his policy in Poland because it was a homegrown movement and thus marries American foreign policy interest with the countries innate interests. Now I understand why Reagan was so fond of John Paul II because they shared the same cause in trying to help the Polish Solidarity movement off the ground. Whereas Reagan was concerned with placing a big dent in the Soviet regime, John Paul was concerned with the forced atheism of the Soviet system so the church charities with US funds helped in subversive action toward the Soviet system. In todays terms, I think turning Egypt into a liberal democracy with appropriate capitalism a la Turkey is the today's version of the Poland's solidarity movement that caused significant cracks in the Soviet system. I say this because Egypt is the intellectual heart of radical Islamic movement (Al-Quaeda's #2 is Egyptian and the intellectual fore runner of Osama Bin Laden). If somehow Egypt becomes a moderate capitalistic democracy while at the same time keeping its Islamic identity a la Turkey, then it will destroy the intellectual claim of Al-Quaeda that democracy/capitalism is somehow antithetical to Islam in Arab countries. This is the reason, I support operations that is similar to what Reagan did in Poland that ensures that Egypt, North Africa, and perhaps Arab countries in general become a thriving liberal democracy/capitalist with an Islamic Arab identity. I also agree with Reagan's strategy in funding non-profits that align with US strategic objectives. What gives this strategy a greater credibility is if the politicians and non-profits are homegrown. Despite having Reagan as his hero, I think Bush's and the neo-cons mistake was to assume that the military action is all it takes to change the world into a democracy. Democracy inherently needs a socio-politic-economic change for it to occur and cannot simply be enforced by military force. It seems W. took Reagan's policy to the extreme in his sole reliance on the military to change regimes. American's can certainly easily change regimes but as we saw in Iraq just because we topple a dictator does not mean that liberal democracy will spring up over night. Unlike W, Reagan really used a comprehensive strategy to take on the Soviet empire and more than anything use the threat of American action effectively as well as funding homegrown movements that were align with the US. W and the advent of the neo-conservative movement which is an extreme outgrowth of Reagan's policy of a strong national defense thought that the military alone can foster democracy abroad which again as Iraq and Afghanistan has proven is a false assumption. When the US wants to supplant an authoritarian government with a liberal democracy, nation building is a must!!! But as the Soviets painfully figured out, it is cheaper to fund insurgencies rather than governments. So, even though Bush wanted to be out of Iraq ASAP, he should have known in order for democracy to take route we needed nation-building but it would cost as money that he did not want to spend. Thus, if we really want to spread democracy throughout the world and since long-lasting stable democracy inherently needs indigenous population to believe in it, it is better to fund such groups in that country who believe in democracy rather than force democracy on them via military might; in the end, it is cheaper for the US and far more effective long term. Reagan's policies did win the cold war and did allow the economies to thrive. But as with anything, policies in the past can have unintended consequences that can translate into problems for today. For example, by having the largest covert CIA funding of Afghanistan, we unwittingly provided the fertile grounds for Islamic fundamentalism and Al-Quaeda. Along with the creation of Al-Quaeda, dealing with the Saudi royal family in an effort to jump start our economy by lowering oil prices while at the same time denying the Soviet their main funding for their military build up, we created an image of America supporting repressive regimes in the middle east. At the same time, Saudi royal family continued to fund radical Islamic ideology in an effort to legitimize their hold on power. Furthermore, Regan's economic policy of cutting taxes and substantial increase in defense spending has led to today's deficit increase that the US government has to grapple with. Also, the demise of the geopolitical bipolar world has led to nationalistic ethnic tendencies and diffuseness of enemy into cells that are only united by a common ideology but not an organization or even an economy. This certainly presents challenges and opportunities. The challenge of fighting pure ideology without a body politic is that the striking ability of our enemies is unknown. The opportunity is that more and more the war of the future is really a psychological war of ideas and the hearts and minds of the people. The best way to prevent a chaotic terrorist attack is if these people will feel the first hand effects of is good about globalization, thus integrating their economies with ours. In the information age, America is the best country that will be able to withstand the change because its political and economic system is inherently flexible. The places where regimes will fall fast are regimes that are dictatorial because their rigidity is antithetical to the free flow of information which characterizes todays economy. So if these countries want to participate in the fruits of globalization in order to keep their citizens happy, then they have to participate in the information age which in the end spells the death of their dictatorial or limited-democracy. Governmental policies, whether it comes from the right or the left have unintended consequences whatever you enact from Social Security, to Medicare, to Medicaid, to Reagan's support of Afghan fighters and US support of dictatorial middle east powers for oil production that stimulated the US economy but later gave rise to jihadist like Al-Quaeda, to Reagan's tax cut in order to stimulate the economy but has been the driving ideology for the Republican party that contributes to the deficit of today, to Clinton/Graham initiative in deregulating the banking industry and Greenspan cutting interest rates that contributed to the sub-prime mess and the near collapse of capitalism. Having said all this, do I think government should stop doing policies because of a fear of unintended consequences? No! I think governments role is to respond to problems that arises in the here and now while being mindful of what exactly it is trying to achieve and at the same time looking to history as a guide to policies that worked in the past. Whenever policies that worked in the past stop working and creates problem, government must have the flexibility to respond. Thus despite Tea-Party Republicans concern the comprehensive health care bill, I totally support the bill because it addresses a need right now of fixing a broken system. Whatever unintended consequences that arises in the future, the government of the future should have the flexibility to change it at that time. But the fear of the unintended consequences of the future should never dictate policies for the present. Even though this is not part of the book, I want to comment on Reaganomics and the current insistence of Republican tax policy. Reaganonmics deals with the idea that if one cuts taxes low enough America will forever be superior economically. Although this worked with Reagan especially since the top marginal tax rate was at the ridiculous 75%, thus spurring economic growth. Subsequent Republican presidencies most notably under W. has proved providing tax cuts indefinitely does not provide continuous financial growth (the great recession of 2008-11). I think that tax cuts are best when as a financial pick-me up during recessions but not when the economy is running at full speed. Basically, I am challenging the sacrosanct assumption that cutting taxes is always good for the economy. I think during times of prosperity tax rates should increase to allow government to refill its coffers especially in an era where paying off our debt becomes a priority but at the same time I do not think an increase in government coffers should result in a corresponding increase in government spending with the exception of investment for the future. Why can't the American government do what China does and sink government funds into stable investments for their future?

Remster Bautista remzter_ — This review id for both Mrs. Bridge and Mr. Bridge. The following quotation is from Mr. Bridge: "He wondered...if this is how they would end their lives, accompanying each other so closely, loving each other, touching one another with affection and sympathy, yet singularly alone." To me this pretty much summed up both novels. A sad yet poignant look at the lives of a couple spanning from the 1920's to the 1940's.