Events Books

Much of the debate about climate change (global warming) has focused on short-term details about the structure of any international treaty and the near-term rate of change in emissions. Athanasiou and Baer perform a great service by bringing the larger questions of the long-term severity of the climate problem and the potential massively unequal consequences of climate change for people of different wealth levels.

Grounding their argument in the well-accepted science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the authors describe in clear language the imperative to dramatically reduce global greenhouse gas emissions over the next 50 years. Importantly, they endorse the current ideas about international emissions trading as a low-cost way to achieve these cuts, but they then lay out an ethically grounded argument for ensuring that this trading is structured in a fair and equitable way--both for people in poorer countries and for people in future generations. Moreover, they are careful to defend the political viability of their proposed solutions.

Written in direct and comprehensible language, Dead Heat is a forceful call for more serious action to address the social and environmental consequences of climate change and climate change policy.

For individuals wanting to learn more about the extremely important and dire problem of global warming but intimidated by books with lots of difficult scientific language, this short, comprehensible book is the perfect introduction for the lay person. Not only does it detail the frightening consequences of climate chaos like hurricanes, drought, and outbreaks of diseases like malaria, it more importantly outlines individual and institutional strategies for stabilizing the planet's temperature. And it does so in a global justice context. If you care about polar bears, coral reefs, poor folks in Bangledesh, Central America, and the Gulf Coast, then read this book. If you care about your future, the future of your children, and the future of this planet, then read this book (and then ride your bike, plant a tree, join a collective household, go solar, and eat organic, locally grown slow cuisine).

...but for those who already know some of the details on global warming and the Kyoto Protocol. I picked up this book for a term paper, hoping this would have all the information I needed. I was thoroughly confused with all the specific terms that were used but not explained. After I read through other resources which started from the beginning, I was able to enjoy this book more.

It's really a great book to read, and I enjoyed it.

This book explains both the science of global warming and the political reasons why governments have not acted to reverse it.

The book arrived in the estimated time and in the condition advertised by this seller.

This book has great facts about weapons of mass destruction throughout the world's countries. Great for research.

This is a comprehensive book in which the authors describe proliferation issues and nonproliferations issues. This is a great reference book to have on nuclear issues as well as biological and chemical threats.

The book is detailed to the extent that one would think that some of the material should be classified, because there is a chapter on Russian nuclear facilities which handle nuclear materials, waste mamnagement sites, Russian stategic submarine fleet sites and nuclear test sites are featured. Also China's aresnals are thorougly presented and many others. Iran N. Korea to name a few.

The authors describe many of the international network of treaties and agreements construted over the past 50 years. Also there's a chapter on nuclear, biological and chemical materials and weapon systems to deliver them.

Overall I enjoyed reading this book, it's a good refernece to have if you want to know about proliferation and non proliferation issues that affect the fragile world we live in.

The latest in the line of Carnegie proliferation surveys, Deadly Arsenals is an essential resource for all concerned with WMD proliferation issues. Students of nonproliferation will appreciate the up-to-date analysis of the regime and its hard cases, including timely information on North Korea, Iran, and the most recent "success" story, Libya. This is one of the few books I keep on my desk--my dog-eared 2002 edition is ready to be shelved.

This book reads like a John Grisham novel, except that all of it really happened. Coll is able to take the largest anti-trust litigation in history, against the largest corporation in the world, and make the subject not only interesting but edge-of-your-seat thrilling.

I first read this 13 years ago when I started in telecom, and am re-reading it now in light of recent events. The book is not only as good as I remembered it, it's better. And the repercussions of the Ma Bell breakup are still very much with us today.

This is the book AT&T never wanted to go to press and when it did AT&T seceretly bought up all the copies they could.Good luck finding someone who will lend you a copy because you can't buy it anywhere, at any price.Not even AMAZON. AT&T will cut their phone lines if they actually made this book available.THE TRUTH- AT&T doesn't want you to know about. FACTUAL ACCOUNT, GREAT READ!

As an MBA student interested in telecom, I found this book to be among the best sources of information about telecom regulation. It provides rich detail but is also very readable and only gets technical when necessary.

Prior to interviewing with a Baby Bell Company, I read The Dealof theCentury. It was not only informative but fascinating. I was able to get a flavor of the personalities involved and internal squabbles that shaped the "deal" involving AT&T. This book is required reading for anybody who wants to understand how we got where we are today in telecommunications. By the way, I got the job.

For a good book from the perspective of death row: "A Checkered Past" by William Van Poyck, on death row in Florida. The book is available at amazon.com.

Jerry Layne Rogers, Sr. -- wrongfully convicted and innocent. From 1989 - 1992, I was his investigator at CCR.

Mr. Rogers' case consisted in 1992 of at least 80 boxes of documents, from court files, prosecutor and law enforcement files, trial and evidentiary hearing transcripts, etc. Mr. Rogers's case was the largest and most complicated that CCR [The Office of Capital Collateral Representative -- a state agency in the judicial branch of Florida government] has ever represented that I am aware of.

The second largest and most complicated was that of Mr. Gerald Stano, whose lead attorney during most of the development of his case was Mark E. Olive.

In 1995, Mr. Rogers began receiving pro bono representation from the Washington, D.C. law firm Covington and Burling. The result was an unanimous Florida Supreme Court (FSC) 26 page opinion ordering a new trial in Mr. Rogers' case due primarily to prosecutorial misconduct, in particular Brady v. Maryland violations.

To read the opinion, go to the FSC website, then at "Public Information", to the recent opinions, to the year 2001, then toward the bottom at February 15, 2001, one will find the FSC opinion.

During the summer of 2002, Mr. Rogers was re-convicted, however sentenced to life upon the jury recommendation. Now twice Mr. Rogers has been wrongfully convicted.

In 2004, the Florida 5th District Court of Appeal denied relief. The FSC declined to accept jurisdiction and thus denied the petition for review.

Mr. Rogers' case is pending Federal review.




For those interested in reading the narrowly decided by four to three vote Florida Supreme Court opinions regarding two more death sentenced persons whose innocence is an authentic issue, please go to the FSC website, then go to the recent opinions, then chose the correct year and scroll down to the following two cases:

Roy Swafford: April 18, 2002

Peter Ventura: May 24, 2001


Additionally, the issue in the below cases is DNA testing that proves that Roy Swafford did not rape Brenda Rucker:

Roy Swafford: March 26, 2004 Case Nos. SC03.931 and SC03.1153

From 1986 - 1992 I was employed as an investigator at the Office of Capital Collateral Representative (CCR) in Tallahassee, Florida, where Scharlette Holdman worked as the supervisor of the investigators from October 1985 - March 1988. Scharlette Holdman is cited in approving comments by Mello in at least two of his books.

I have known Scharlette since the mid-1970s death penalty debates at Florida State University, including the debate between Professor Richard L. Rubenstein (author of "After Auschwitz", "My Brother Paul", "The Cunning of History: Mass Death and the American Future", "The Age of Triage", "Religion and Eros", and other books) vs. Baptist Minister and Philosopher Will Campbell (the debate was circa 1977).

Her office, the Clearinghouse on Criminal Justice, was in the same wing of the Petroleum Building as my office at Common Cause in Florida (where I was a full-time volunteer during the day and worked at the Brown Derby Restaurant at night from 1981 - 1986).

The Petroleum Building was next to the State Capital, the Florida Supreme Court and the State Archives and Library. When it was torn down, the space and the space for the first CCR office became the Mary Brogan Art and Science Museum storm water retaining pond. The Petroleum Building was called by those of us who worked or volunteered there the "Forces of Good" (FOG) Building -- as opposed to FOE -- Forces of Evil, such as Associated Industries, the Chamber and other big business interests in Florida. The FOG building also included (not an exhaustive list) the Clean Water Action Project, the ACLU, NOW, Florida Legal Services, Migrant Farmworker's Organization (directed by Cliff Thaell, who has more recently been a Leon County Commissioner for about ten years or more), Mike Vasilinda's television news service.

About every two years at CCR there was a Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist purge due to the pressures and dysfunctions of the work and the people. I survived two such purges. With the third, I was the first to go in the spring and summer of 1992.

When Scharlette had essentially declared war upon CCR in 1987 and thereafter, some of us decided to investigate her background given some things that we had heard. Low and behold, Scharlette's claim of a PhD in anthropology from the University of Hawaii and a Master's Degree from Memphis State (now University of Memphis) don't exist. A claimed undergraduate degree from Memphis State: I no longer recall if this was confirmed by the university.

We used Scharlette's Social Security number, her maiden name and her married name -- with all this information, both universities had no record of Scharlette having received any degrees from these institutions.

As I understand Scharlette, she needed the "degrees" to confer upon her "credentials" that she really never needed as she is indeed then and now a national expert on capital mitigation, litigation, etc. However Scharlette can be deceptive, as her lack of a PhD and Masters so demonstrates. Even today she claims to have the degrees as when she gives presentations regarding capital cases, she is identified as "Dr." A key word search of her name will bring up some of the presentations that she has made in the past several years with the title "Dr." preceding her name.

If she has received any honorary or other degrees since 1990, that would be new information for me. If anyone can assist in this matter, please contact me at paul_d_harvill@yahoo.com or my mailing address: P.O. Box 38458, Tallahassee, FL 32315-8458. Thank you.

Michael Mello, who used to represent death sentenced persons in Florida with the Office of Capital Collateral Representative (CCR) and the Palm Beach County Public Defender's Office in the early to mid-1980s, writes an excellent analysis of eleven Florida capital cases.

Both David Von Drehle and Michael Mello's books are excellent and very well describe what life is like for those on death row and those representing death sentenced persons, particularly at the old CCR [Office of Capital Collateral Representative]. However there is more:

After Mark E. Olive voluntarily resigned from CCR about March 1988, Billy H. Nolas became the next Chief Litigator. It is extremely odd that neither Mello nor Von Drehle even mention Nolas nor the next Chief Litigator Martin or Marty J. McClain. For important reasons they should have.

Billy H. Nolas is an excellent litigator like Olive. Nolas was the Chief Litigator for the last two years of the Gov. Martinez "regime", which was the most difficult time in CCR history [during my employment there] with Martinez signing death warrants as if he was at a Republican Party event signing autographs.

Nolas resigned at the end of 1990, after Martinez had been defeated by former U.S. Senator Lawton Chiles and former U.S. House of Representatives member Buddy MacKay.

Nolas was completely drained from the years he endured and litigated while at CCR, due to the huge case load and the internecine warfare within the agency. McClain and his faction within CCR did their best to cause Nolas to leave -- eventually they were successful -- and THAT is when clients' cases began to suffer.

Martin J. McClain is an excellent litigator, however his strategic decisions in various cases are questionable. When Mello writes on page 245 of the hardcover version of "Dead Wrong" regarding CCR, "Look beneath the surface of CCR's 'success rates', however, and you'll find an artifice typical of hack public defender officers. CCR has in the past farmed out the hardest cases to outside lawyers (by finding that it has a 'conflict of interest')". The period of time that Mello is referring to is when Martin J. McClain was the Chief Litigator and Michael Minerva was the executive director of CCR.

As the premier example of McClain alleging a "conflict of interest" [and I can only assume with the consent of the director of CCR at the time, Michael Minerva] is the client Jerry Layne Rogers, Sr. -- a wrongfully convicted and innocent man -- Mr. Rogers' case in 1992 consisted of at least 80 boxes of documents, from court files, prosecutor and law enforcement files, trial and evidentiary hearing transcripts, etc. Mr. Rogers' case was the largest and most complicated that CCR has ever represented [during my employment there].

The second largest and most complicated was that of Mr. Gerald Stano, whose lead attorney during most of the development of his case was Mark Olive.

McClain simply didn't want to have such a complicated case as a CCR case, so McClain, in my considered insider opinion as Mr. Roger's only investigator from 1989 until my involuntary departure in 1992, alleged in a misrepresentation to the Florida Supreme Court (FSC) that he had a "conflict of interest" with Mr. Rogers -- while Mr. Rogers' case was pending at the FSC.

As a result, Mr. Rogers had no counsel for an extended period of time until the Washington, D.C. law firm Covington and Burling became his pro bono counsel in 1995. The result was an unanimous FSC 26 page opinion ordering a new trial due primarily to prosecutorial misconduct, in particular Brady v. Maryland violations.

To read the opinion, go to the Florida Supreme Court website, to recent opinions, to the year 2001, scroll down to February 15, 2001.

During the summer of 2002, Mr. Rogers was re-convicted, however the jury recommended and Mr. Rogers received a life sentence. Thus for a second time Mr. Rogers has been wrongfully convicted.

Another wrongfully convicted Florida death row inmate, who is now a free man, Juan Melendez, testified about his neighbor on death row, Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers taught him how to speak, read and write in English as well as assisting him in coping skills while on death row.

In 2004, the Florida 5th District Court of Appeal denied relief. The FSC declined to accept jurisdiction and thus denied the petition for review.

Mr. Rogers' case is pending Federal review.

A truly great book! Maoz has shown that Israel, like other nations, has failed to take in the best interests of its people by failing to see the outcome of their actions. That's not to say they always tried to do the wrong thing, but unfortunately it comes across that way. The United States and its disastrous war in Iraq is another example. Read and learn!

I think even the detractors of this book will have to at least admit that this book is a very brave endeavor by the author. The analysis that Maoz gives us here is at times subjective which does leave the author open to criticism, but he takes such a scientific approach in analyzing the evidence that any critic will be hard pressed to find flaws in his methodology.

The book is not for the casual reader or those with just a passing interest in Israel or the Arab/Israeli conflict. The author uses almost fifty pages at the very beginning of the book to explain to readers his methodological approach to analysis of Israeli defense policy. I for one have never read such a detailed analysis of an approach to analysis before. Any potential reader should be prepared for a dense work that requires a lot from the reader.

If you decide to take on this book I think you will be rewarded with the best analysis of Israeli defense policy there is out there. The information is neutral and based on the best evidence available and presented in a rational and almost clinical fashion.

Maoz goes into great detail about how the IDF has had too much influence on policy making decisions within the government, and how civilian leadership has played a subservient role to defense needs. He goes on to explain how this lack of civilian leadership has created a process by which military solutions to conflicts take a priority role over political solutions. This has affected Israel's peace making efforts in the region. Israel has been all to willing to embark on some extremely risky military adventures to seek an end or at least an improvement vis-à-vis its neighbors, but at the same time Israel has been unwilling to try even moderately risky attempts at political solutions.

Maoz attributes some of this to the fact that Israel's founding elites instilled a siege mentality during the founding and early days of the Israeli state. Unfortunately this siege mentality has persisted even after the realities on the ground have taken on some fundamental changes. Israel now has a large conventional edge on all of its enemies, and Israel, for the foreseeable future, has no real existential threat from those states in the area. This does not mean that Israel is safe, but what it should mean is that Israel should have more political room to maneuver and seek political solutions that will further its security.

When Israel has taken some risk for political solutions it has benefited enormously, as when Israel finally accepted Sadat's overtures for negotiations which lead to the Israeli/Egyptian peace treaty. This peace, even though it has been a cold peace, has lifted an enormous burden from Israel. This should have been the template for Israeli peace policy towards its neighbors but unfortunately Israel seemed to take no lessons from this peace, but instead Israel insists on focusing on Arab rhetoric which is not grounded in reality nor are these states pursuing policies that could make their rhetoric a reality.

Israel is in a relatively safe position right now. They have an economic, social and military edge over every one of their potential enemies and Israel should try to capitalize on its improved position by bargaining for peace and establishing a WMD free zone in the Middle East. These types of policies could possibly go along way in bringing security to the Israeli state and it could lighten the defense burden which could free up money that is needed for infrastructure and social programs within Israel.

Maoz goes into all of this and more. His discussion of Israel's nuclear policy is fascinating, and his information on the economic aspects of Israel's defense policy and its economic situation as a whole was extremely elucidating. All in all I found this book to be an invaluable contribution to the discussion. This is one book that anyone who seriously studies this region and Israel cannot do without. I highly recommend this book.

This is a truly weird book. It is really big and thick, with all sorts of references. It's very scholarly. And it even discusses some interesting issues. But I still don't like it very much.

First of all, the topic is strange. Plenty of Arabs want to destroy Israel. Does it even make sense to ask what Israel ought to do? Israel is a small nation and it is at great risk no matter what it does. In any case, this book not only asks such a question but gives some answers.

Zeev Maoz appears to believe that most of Israel's wars were simply folly. After all, there are indications that with hindsight, Israel had other options! Well, maybe that's true. But most nations make plenty of errors when they have to make decisions about whether or not to fight a war. In my opinion, Israel has done an above average job here. And even Maoz points out that he is not trying to deny that other nations (especially the Arabs) have often made far worse decisions than has Israel; he just wants to point out where Israel could have done better in the past and where it could improve in the future.

I disagree most with the author when he characterizes various Israeli wars as optional. The Israelis might indeed have avoided war for a short time by doing something else. The Israelis might even have gotten a couple of pieces of paper in exchange for something of real value at various times. But such speculations are not only counterfactual (that's not what happened, so we can't be totally sure it could have), they also ignore much of what might have happened after that.

As an annoying aside, this characterization of Israel's wars makes it look a little like the Israeli people and their leaders simply did not want to survive. After all, when the easiest way to die is to get into a war, it's suicidal to choose war when peace is available! I don't believe that the Israelis or their leaders have been suicidal, and I doubt that Maoz believes it, so I am wary of a book that might imply such nonsense.

Time after time, Maoz criticizes Israel for doing something that seemed reasonable at the time. Israel's serious attempts to avoid or deter the 1973 war look as though they are dismissed out of hand. When we get to the Arab attacks on Israel in 2000, Maoz casually (and very dubiously) blames the start of the violence on Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount! I don't mind asking a lot of tough questions, but I think Maoz goes overboard when he implies that virtually everything Israel has done has been wrong. He should have done a better job of separating really clear errors from decisions which made far more sense (and may even have been ideal).

Still, there is good news about the book. Maoz does ask about various Israeli strategies for retaliation against attacks (including limited ones). And I think these are very good questions to ask, even though they may, quite unfairly, imply that everything would be just fine were Israel to do the right thing all the time. There is also an interesting section dealing with Israel's nuclear strategy. Here, Israel is encouraged to give up its nuclear weapons as part of a deal to make the region free of such weapons. If it were that simple to make such a deal and have it honored, I think there would already be peace in the Middle East, so I am not so sure how brilliant Maoz is being here.

With all due respect to the author, I think this book exaggerates Israel's ability to influence its own future. I suspect that Maoz would (possibly quite correctly) reply that I am underestimating Israel's ability to do just that.

Prof. Maoz analyzes the evidence underlying the basic beliefs about Israel's military policy and history, held by most Israelis and supporters of Israel. From a pro-Israel perspective, Maoz's work is a call for change within Israel to promote new institutions that would lead to non-military solutions. The chapter pointing out the flaws in Israel's nuclear policy is extremely important in view of the current nuclear build-up in Iran.

If you are in law enforcement this book should do more for you than kindle rage. It's background information shows that the war on drugs was based on loosely proven propaganda which has been far out dated now. This war that we spend so much of our money on, like other wars our current administration is involving us in, is shown to be basically useless. Desperado should do more for a person than piss them off, it's shows what's wrong with the system we have in place and is meant to motivate people to push for a change in our system. If only we hadn't already conformed to what society holds true certain drugs would be decriminalized today. Let's face it, the best way to put a dealer out of business is take over his business. Not only would it save money, but it would ensure a quality safeness to the drugs we have roaming the streets today. In short, let this be a guide for future change. All it takes is one person to see the light and stand up for a cause, no matter how comfortable they are with their lifestyle already.

As a current federal "narc" and former "border rat" (9 years on the US/Mexico border in California), I feel that Shannon did an excellent job portraying the past drug problems in Mexico. Guess what? We did not solve them then and the problem is worse now. Customs Commisioner Von Raab and DEA Administrator Lawn were very outspoken on the issue of the kidnapping of Enrique "Kiki" Camarena. Of course, that was before the days of "political correctness". America still refuses to decertify Mexico due to their unwillingness to truly combat drugs and continued reputation of graft and corruption. Having met and worked with many mentioned in DESPERADOS, I have utmost respect for those who indeed fought the drug war. Elaine Shannon's DESPERADOS is worth the time to read and is a must for the drug agent's home or office library.

This book should be read by all law enforcement oficers who enforce drug laws. Will enlighten and enrage at the same time, I would recomend it as reading for all law enforcement who work along the US/mex border or any city plagued by narcotics.

Events in this book revolve around the kidnapping and murder of DEA agent Enrique Camarena in Guadalajara, Mexico in 1985. It is not only the story of how this came to pass, but an examination of US drug policy in the '70s and '80s, and reveals the flimsiness of Reagan's "war on drugs." The reader will be outraged by the manner in which political considerations took precedence over the apprehension of the killers of an American agent. Despite my outrage at what I read, the book is gripping and an excellent piece of documentary work. An excellent case study of the investigation into the Sinaloa cartel.

This book is the keystone of any collection on the state of the art in modern thought on development assistance. It is easy to read, easy to understand, and presents a persuasive argument for change to the modern methods of so called "development." This books usefulness is not limited to the third world, as its lessons can apply just as easily to New Orleans as it can to the Congo.

I first checked this out from the library, but I'm now picking up a copy (or maybe two) so I can have it on my shelf to cite from and to loan to friends and family.

Highly reccomended.

Dr. Dichter gives a wide range of examples based on real experiences that expose many of the pitfalls of development assistance as we know it. Unfortunately, while his descriptions of the problems are quite comprehensive, his proposed solution (i.e. drastically cut development assistance in favor of private development) lacks much in the way of logical support. For instance, there is no contrasting presentation of examples of privately-funded projects that have succeeded where charity has failed, nor any mention of to what extent business relies on government-funded infrastructure improvements, etc. In addition, the topic is best addressed in two stages -- i.e., is it desirable to encourage development in other countries? and, if so, are our current tactics the most effective and efficient ways to achieve this goal? Dr. Dichter addresses only the second question, but seems to conclude that because the status quo is ineffective, the entire pursuit should be abandoned. But in general the book is still highly worth reading if you're the least bit interested in development assistance -- it is both deeply enlightening and generally accessible.

It's one of those (few) publications that would immediately make you sit up straight, cause you to squirm and shake your head in disbelief, heave a deep sigh, raise your eye brows at some point, and move you deeply to show appreciation to its material by graphically interacting with its content (in other words scribbling all over the pages of the book - line by line, margin to margin - with notes and personal reactions. That happened to my copy. That's how interesting the book is!). No, the book is not trashy and is far from cynical. On the other hand, it offers a very reflective, comprehensive and insightful analysis of the mistakes and failures of the development industry as a whole. The author, a "devbiz" insider, is not an anti-INGO humbug but one who calls on his development colleagues to re-examine their (and their organizations') ways and to genuinely consider the often ignored realities in the field. His analysis of the evolution of the development industry and its trends, patterns and pitfalls are based on actual case studies and historical facts. Full of relevant lessons and thought-provoking questions and issues that would challenge not just your notions of development work but even your own values, motives and goals for entering the "devbiz" industry. The book stimulates mentally but tugs at the heart.

Mr. Dichter has written an excellent book about the so called "development industry". He describes the evolution of the idea of helping the poor countries of the so called third world since 1950 until today. He discusses the problems that have arisen in the hundreds of governement development agencies, NGOs, and humanitarian organizations, mainly the excessive professionalization and bureaucratization of these organizaitons. The "industry" of development as he calls it, exists mainly to give emplyment opportunities for well paid (and well travelled)consultants than to really help the needy.
Interwoven in his analysis are 18 case stories. Just reading the case stories (which are based in the author's wide professional experience)gives you a better insight in the dilemma of development, than dozens of World Bank, IMF and "imperialism" bashing books that are in the market. The description of how the World Bank ticks is very interesting. You feel that here someone is writing that has gone through all this and has thought about it. THIS IS REALITY and not theory.
I myself have worked in Africa for 5 years as an economist for a Christian Mission Society. It is amazing to see that everywhere in the field the problems are the same: poorly conceived projects, neglect of the consequences of projects, and so on. If you are ever thinking of working in the area of international development, AND if you really want to help the poor, AND NOT MAKE A CAREER OUT OF IT, READ THIS BOOK!!!

Jerry Browns' loss of the presidential election seemed? "Believable." I trusted him then, and very much wanted him in office. Maybe he should have said less about what was real concern, "i think it frightend off voters, unable to cope."

The U.S. was just not ready for anything right or just. I watched J.Brown on book tv last night and thought of nothing but regret, "or shame" that his campaign did not win. However i am very much glad that he is now going to prove something about city government and probably leave a historical example for the future. "If we can ever trust another politician, i hope it would be Jerry Brown! He addresses all our most critical concerns, and this "american life" in which we take so much for granted will not be possible for much longer i think, unless we listen to people like Brown. This materialism is going absolutely NO-WHERE and we'd better straighten up. The unfortunate opinion i have is that he's right entirely, but that America will not learn without being delt a very disaterous lesson. "Jerry Brown" has sense, listen to what he says! Or are you too greedy? -C.Underwood

The book is vintage Jerry Brown. The various people with whom he holds discussions on a variety of issues builds a consistent humanistic position with regard to the current situation in the United States. These are views that come from "reading between the lines" with regard to what is happening in our country--and in the world. The discussions are truthful, impactful, revealing and very intellectual in nature. The dialogues will open up your mind to events and conditions, even if you disagree with the stated positions. And, the discussions should make everyone more aware of what is happening around them, particularly in the areas of the economy, the environment, politics, social agendas and military research.

This book was excellent in the contents and it is full of interesting thoughts and ideas, expressed by a selected assortment of 18 people that inspired Jerry Brown himself. In the book, he gets to interview each one of them in a sort of dialogue that engages these peoples ideas. Most of the topics deal with social and political criticism, well founded by the way, and it is very insightful into looking beyond the reality of everyday life, what are the larger mechanisms at work, what are our limitations, what are the problems, what are the underlying issues, etc. It tends to uncover many assumptions and should provoke in the reader much thinking on issues that affect us all in today's society, from religion to environmentalism to capitalism.

Jerry Brown is that rare thing - an ethical politician. Read this book to get some insight into the otherwise private nature of an influential figure. Read how Mayor Brown served with Mother Theresa in Calcutta and decided to save a city rather than "monitor" government at the state or national level. Courageous and noble man.

Jeff Taylor points out the mediocre record in the senate of Paul Wellstone, the senate's supposed leading raging liberal, and notes the rather surreal reaction of a Human Rights Campaign official after Wellstone voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Michael Donnely has a chapter on Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, the timber industry's biggest recipient of campaign cash besides President Bush, who helped push through destruction of thousands of acres of Old Growth forests (which are most resistant to forest fires) in Oregon with Clinton's so called Healthy Forest initiative. Josh Frank discusses Montana's Democratic Senator Max Baucus.

Jeffery St. Clair writes about the Democrats energy policy. Clinton opened the National Petroleum Reserve up in Alaska, an area much more significant than ANWAR. In 1996, he ordered that oil exploited on Alaska's North Slope could be exported. This reduction of supply for the U.S. helped drive up energy prices in the Midwest. Oil drilling was begun with Clinton's support all around the coast of Alaska. Under Secretary of Interior for Energy David Hayes bragged to Congress, about the vast increases Clinton supported in drilling for oil and gas on public lands. St. Clair notes that Bush's recently departed deputy Interior secretary Stephen Griles got into some trouble after he broke out in rage at an EPA report which stated that exploitation of Coal Methane deposits at the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Colorado, would greatly harm drinking water supplies.. The companies pushing for this project all formerly employed Griles as a lobbyist.

St. Clair notes that Ralph Cavanaugh of the National Resources Defense Council testified on behalf of Enron's effort to gain control of the public utility in Oregon, Portland GE. . Contrary to Cavanaugh's predictions, rates rose very high, the Enron execs bilked the ratepayers of tens of millions. Cavanaugh similarly lobbied for deregulation of utilities in California. In this new situation power grades deteriorated and of course, companies led by Enron, decided to turn off their readily available supply of electricity in order to gauge Californians. Ralph Cavanaugh was given an award by Teresa Heinz Kerry's foundation, on which Ken Lay sat, for his work in "free market environmentalism." Cheney used the resulting high energy prices to push for opening ANWAR to give his oil cronies even more short term profit but that would only have the effect of reducing gas prices by a few cents for a short period.


Cockburn and St. Clair note that at the height of the so-called Clinton boom, real wages were still ten percent below the level of the Nixon-Ford years. In 1996 the Congressional Budget office reported that there were three to five people needing work for each available job. Currently, in Bush's America, the ratio is about ten to one. In a University of Chicago study in 1998, at a McDonalds in Harlem, there was found an average of fourteen people applying for each available job. 73 percent of those seekers still had been unable to find even minimum wage work a year later. The official unemployment rate dosen't count people who have stopped looking for work, which makes the real rate at least twice as high. The minimum wage is well below the poverty level. The workforce is dominated by low paying temp and service jobs. The Democrats helped launch the deregulatory initiatives which led to such criminal activities as by Enron and stock speculators vastly over inflating the market. Cockburn quotes Robert Pollin that a way to dramatically reduce poverty would be to empower unions in this country and try to stop the U.S. from forcing neoliberalism on third world countries. The CEO to worker pay ratio rose from 113 to 1 in the early 90's to 449 to 1 in 2001.

Bruce Anderson writes about Mendocino County Northern California, long controlled by Democrats. The county is represented in Congress by Mike Thompson. The wine industry dominates the county and Thompson is a very reliable front for them. He has fought against efforts to ban the herbicide Ethyl Bromide. Many workers in the grape fields, mostly Chicano immigrants, in the county have died from the effects of such things. An effort by the county to ban aerial spraying at one point was overturned by Democrats in Sacramento

St. Clair has yet another essay, this one on Marc Racicot, who was governor of Montana and later chairman of the Bush re-election campaign and the RNC. As governor Racicot implemented electricity deregulation which caused Montana ratepayers to go from paying the lowest rates to the highest rates in the Nation. He privatized Montana's mental health system with 400 million dollars of the taxpayer's money but by two years later, many hospitals were failed and mentally ill people out on the streets. He gave out contracts to his corporate cronies including in the prison building industry in spite of Montana having a surplus of prison cells. He successfully pushed for an exemption for open pit mine operators to not have to clean up the toxic debris they let out. He sold off to his corporate cronies forest and parkland to build shopping centers.

Sean Donahue has an article about the aerial spraying program against cocoa plants in Colombia, which was overseen at the state department during the Clinton and most of the first Bush administration by Randy Beers. Beers left Bush to become a consultant to the Kerry campaign. The cocoa farmers are people who cannot making a living growing legal crops. They are taxed by the left wing guerillas, the FARC. These people don't make much money from producing cocoa but the processors and exporters do. The latter are supported by right wing death squads, supported by the U.S. funded Colombian military. These death squads play a useful role in driving peasants off the land so mining, ranching, oil exploration and other operations can take over, and killing peasant and union activists. The herbicide contains a chemical which kills all green plants, legal or illegal, that it touches and has wiped out the legal crops of many peasants. Peasants complain of many ailments like rashes, respiratory problems. and temporary problems Donohue quotes one woman who was living on a government subsidized Yucca growing co-op farm which was destroyed by the spraying.. This woman told Donahue that she had lost all her assets in the farm and only had the choice of going to the big city to beg, but death squads controlled the exit to the city and they had already killed her brothers.

Dime's Worth of Difference: Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils, edited Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn of CounterPunch, makes the case against the Anybody-But-Bush mania that dominated the 2004 election.

It deserves a place alongside Hal Draper's article "Who's Going to Be the Lesser Evil in 1968?" written almost 40 years ago, but a classic socialist statement about the politics of lesser evilism.

To consider alternative progressive directions its useful to read Independent Politics: The Green Party Strategy Debate, edited by Howie Hawkins, a collection of articles discussing the issue of how an independent alternative to the Democrats and Republicans needs to be built.

Like the Tories and the Labour Party in England or the Meretz and Likud parties in Israel, the Democrats and the Republicans represent two sides of the same coin. It's an old cliche, I know, but ever so true. For anyone needing to be convinced of this arguement, just pick up this small and informative book. From gay rights to the environment, from free trade to the military industrial complex, both parties pursue identical agendas. The only difference is that the Republican party is at least upfront about its pro-corporate, homophobic, racist objectives, whereas the Democratic party tries to decieve its constituents with lip service about human rights and other lofty goals. For example, while the Democratic party is often marketed as the party for peace and economic justice, what did eight years of the Clinton regime give the world? They gave us the WTO, Plan Colombia, war in the Balkans, economic sanctions against Iraq, etc., etc., etc. Instead of wasting our time, money and energy on the Democratic party, Cockburn and the other brilliant authors in this excellent anthology wisely argue that progressive activists should concentrate on building grassroots, egalitarian, participatory movements from below. Though written as a response to the 2004 presidential elections, this is still a vital and relevant book.

If you have a friend who thinks there's a vast gulf between Democrats and Republicans, you need to hand him or her a copy of this book.

I received this as part of the Friends of AK Press deal (something everyone should take part in), and I couldn't be happier. It confirmed everything I always thought about the two parties. That being: Beyond basic stances that don't really amount to much at all, there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both parties are money-hungry, status quo protectors who are as hypocritical as they are spoiled. The proof isn't in the pudding. It's on the page. Essay after essay of proof, actually.

So give your friend this book and then check back with him or her in a week or so. If they don't get it after reading it, they never will.

Although I second the other revierw here, I must add that this book could be some 100 pages shorter and still hit the mark. The way it is, Lambrecht uses too much words to deliver his message.
Also, because of the subject matter itself, the book is a bit outdated.
Other than that, good reading material.

I was a little wary when purchasing this book that the entire premise would be zealotish anti-GMO and anti-biotechnology. The quotes on the cover seemed to indicate that would also be the case. I was extremely pleased to find a very balanced reporting of both sides of the genetic engineering debate. The author has been a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for over 2 decades, and has been covering the debate and progress since its inception. His style is engaging and fast-paced, with humor and human interest sprinkled in to lighten a complex topic. He seems to lean toward the side of caution, but gives full reporting to the biotech companies' claims and biotech's proponents' enthusiasm. I personally am hopeful of the promise and potential of this technology, but this book helped me understand opponents' fears in a very sympathetic way. Particularly frightening was the disclosure of some of the big biotech firms' less-than-open trials and political influences. I would definitely recommend this book to anyone interested in learning more about the issues involved in genetically engineering our food.

If you are curious about what you are eating this is a necessary book for you. Bill Lambrecht provides an unbiased resource for those intrested in the history of GMO food. Lambrecht gives the opinions of scientists, politicians and the farmers that grow these crops. This provides a balenced collage of information that allows anyone to make up their own mind about what the future of food should be.

This book was very enlightening in the subject of GMO's, as they are a powerful new technology with frightening implications. Lambrecht uses entertaining anecdotes and accounts of his dealings with ordinarys farmer and head agricultural powerfigures. I recommend this book because it tried to show an objective perspective on the entire issue, and left no voice unheard.