Current Events Books

I lucked into this book when it came out in 1999; my editor asked me to review it. I was previously unfamilliar with Farrell's work; now I am thrilled to see this book is still in print.

Farrell is a writer's journalist. This is not the sensationalist, info-tainment, "if-it-bleeds-it-leads" garbage you see on Fox News. He goes deep beneath the surface of his story, looking for the larger truths as much as the simple truth. Many of these truths hurt as much as they enlighten. He covers topics ranging from kite-flying to the Hillside Strangler with insight and style. His pieces on serial killers and rape victims are sensitive, yet they pack a serious punch.

This book is much more than a collection of amazing snapshots of recent American history -- it's also literature. No matter what the subject matter, his passion for writing shines through; no matter how gruesome a scene he describes, his style leaves you jubilant.

Barry Farrell died too young, in 1984. This book will keep his memory alive for those who learned from his lapidary prose. I wish I could have been one of his students--but in a way, having read his work, I feel that in a way, I am.

I've been reading with enormous delight this collection of articles by Barry Farrell. It's a posthumous collection by a brilliant writer who died in 1984. What an unexpected thrill it was to discover this book's existence. It helps bring back to life an unfortunately neglected writer. I knew him briefly (too briefly) -- a fine guy. Barry Farrell's bracing journalistic style and humanity take the reader back to a better time in journalism when writers cared deeply about their subject matter.

Barry Farrell is a name I didn't know before two weeks ago. Barrey Farrell is now a name I won't forget. As a young journalist, I think this book is an essential read for anyone considering a career in the field. But anyone interested in reading great stories that take a smart, comprehensive view of a subject will find just that in this little green book. Farrell is an angel of a writer. But what I admire more is his hard-nosed reporting. After reading some of these stories, for instance "Stalking the Hillside Strangler," it awed me knowing how much footwork had to go into such exquisite work. This book is a clinic on how to report and write, and I will turn to it often for inspiration.

Certainly I'm not an objective reviewer. I attended Barry Farrell's classes at UC Santa Barbara in the 1970s -- and was, I believe, rather a disappointment to him -- but he nonetheless became one of my most important role models as a writer. What I've long regretted, however, was not having more of his writing on my bookshelf. Barry mostly published in magazines, and so it's been hard even for those of us who are devoted to his work to find and collect any significant fraction of his lifetime output. I own and cherish a few aging magazines featuring his writing, but these bits and pieces barely scratch the surface of his 30 fruitful years of shoe-leather journalism. This book, then, is a wonderful and long-overdue development. I had read perhaps a third of these pieces, and was delighted to discover them anew. The other two-thirds of the book was an absolute delight, each page a treasure of flowing language and unerring eye for detail. Of course, it also brought back to my ear Barry's voice, and images of him I'll always carry with me: coffe at the outdoor cafe in front of the library at UC Santa Barbara after class, or the time he cajoled Joan Dideon and John Gregory Dunne into visiting our small class of 12 or 15 students in the English Department's spartan conference room. So, take it from a blatantly partisan -- but completely sincere -- reviewer: buy this book! For heaven's sake, if you love great non-fiction writing -- if you are devoted to writers like Joan Dideon, John McPhee, the non-fiction of Wallance Stegner, and other master wordsmiths of our age -- you will not be disappointed.

Actually, theory was made from experience of real world. But, when we try to adjust it to real world, it isn't always available. Because during the book was wriitten, the real world was being changed. This book was wriiten by the authors who have experience of Intelligence community and they regreted not to protect attack of terrorists. (i.e. 9/11) I recommend this book them who have seek to the way to keep the security of nation.

Robert M. Clark's "Intelligence Analysis: A Target-Centric Approach" is an up-to-date, practical manual on the conduct of analysis in the context of the current global war on terrorism. This manual is well suited for classroom use for intelligence professionals, whether in the military, in civilian government agencies, or private industry.

Clark divides his topic into three principal sections. In the first, he provides a detailed break-down of the target-centric approach as the collaborative, interactive, information network-enabled analysis that has replaced the hierarchial stovepipe architecture of the Cold War.

In the second section, on modeling, Clark explains in clear and understandable language the process by which analysts synthesize available information into a conceptualization of the intelligence problem. This key step produces the basis to which analysts will apply predictive analysis.

The heart of the book is Clark's exploration of the techniques and potential pitfalls of predictive analysis. Clark discusses a variety of methods to approach analysis, along with their practical limits and familar challenges such as bias and customer interaction. His liberal use of examples from recent intelligence failures help make clear just what a challenging combination of art, science, and team effort good intelligence analysis should be.

This book is not without some faults. His definitions of Strategic, Operational, and Tactical intelligence are imprecise and not those commonly in use in, for example, the Department of Defense. Strategic intelligence is better defined by the level of the customer served and not by whether it is long range or short range. Similarly, his breakdown of the standard intelligence disciplines achieves simplicity at the expense of considerable accuracy. As an example, his explanation of TECHINT confuses the acquisition of foreign materials with their actual exploitation for intelligence value. It should be noted in Clark's defense that the U.S. Intelligence Community lacks standardization, which fault contributes to the challenges of collaboration.

This book is very highly recommended to intelligence professionals interested in a systematic and unclassified exploration of the techniques of good analysis.

This is a great book and necessary for anyone who wishes to really focus and direct thier thinking on a tactical and operational level. Although more of a government/ military oriented book, I can see some real world applications as well dealing with planning and organizing a plan of attack for any problem an organization is dealing with.

Most books about intelligence end up being boring discussions about the intelligence cycle or intelligence sources and never get to the heart of the process. Clark begins with a brief discussion about the intelligence process, but quickly focuses on why it is important to accurately define the problem that you are trying to assess. This step is often missed, even by seasoned intelligence analysts, who frequently leave many of their assumptions unclarified. Clark uses many references to actual historical case studies to make valid points about common failure tendencies. The real value of this book is in the area of predictions. Clark states rather emphatically that "(D)escribing a past event is not intelligence analysis; it is history. The highest form of intelligence analysis requires structured thinking that results in a prediction of what is likely to happen. True intelligence analysis is always predictive". He goes on to dedicate a sizeable share of remainder of the book to predictive techniques. Many who claim to be intelligence officers do not employ the predictive techniques describes in this book. Intelligence folks have a propensity to gravitate to current intelligence and retell what has already been told, while neglecting to take on the challenging task of predicting what is next. This is one of the best overview books on intelligence analysis. Highly recommended reading.

The book was very revealing into the structure and tactics the intelligence community has to go through in the new age of terrorism. Intelligence gathering methods of the past and of our fathers and grandfathers is no longer effective in this age of technology and political ideology.

This book was very good at pointing out the problems now facing the intelligence community and revealed some really good stratagies and techniques now being explored in the world of intelligence gathering.

I would recommend this book as a good read for any educational institution looking for a suppliment to their academic requirements.

Isaiah Berlin is one of the most important philosophers of liberty and freedom in the 20th century.

He is a liberal in the old sense of the word (the 19th century sense). His views on liberty and freedom have shaped many thinkers especially those that came out of the Chicago school. His writings were against "totalitarian" systems in which he had some experience with. He surveys the theoretical meanings of what "liberty" is and provides his own constructs.

He discusses positive and negative senses of liberty.

His views have been cited by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer in Breyer's most recent book, Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution. It is not clear whether Berlin would support Justice Breyer's extension of his views, but I believe Justice Breyer was seeking to define his own "Active Liberty" concept by using the positive aspect of liberty discussed by Berlin.

Isaiah Berlin is a very important 20th century philosopher (a political philosopher or political scientist as well) and this is a very important book consisting of his essays. I highly recommend it.

Liberty is a very precious and rare quality of a living condition.
As I. Berlin states, `The periods and societies in which civil liberties were respected, and variety of opinion and faith tolerated, have been very few and far between, oases in the desert of human uniformity, intolerance and oppression.'

I. Berlin explains clearly that liberty has two faces: a positive and a negative one.
Positive liberty is the answer to the question: who controls? Am I my own master?
Negative liberty circumscribes the area wherein a third person can prevent anybody to make a free choice.
On these bases, a free society can be organized, with 1) absolute rights (not absolute powers) and 2) frontiers, defined in terms of rules, within which men should be inviolable.
For the author, freedom is not an end, but a means to create `room for personal ends', for happiness. He rightly criticizes E. Fromm: freedom is the opportunity to act, not action itself.

Philosophically, freedom has been ferociously contested by the determinists, the defenders of `historical inevitability' (Hegel, Marx, Bacon, Fourier, Comte). The author remarks judiciously that if the world is ruled by determinism, nobody is responsible: there is no free will, no morality, and no justice. Individual choice is an illusion. Determinism represents the world as a prison.
A more brutal kind of determinism is presented by those who believe that there is a final answer, a unique goal, a central principle that governs our life. This principle and its executioners provoked barbarous consequences.

Isaiah Berlin's reflections on liberty are profound and still very actual.
Not to be missed.

Berlin's considerable reputation rests largely on his essays. In his chosen areas of political philosophy and intellectual history, he produced no major systematic works. His essays, particularly those in the history of ideas, are long, insightful, and informed by impressive breadth of knowledge and a humane temperament. He was a consistently excellent and sometimes elegant writer. Of all his essays, he felt his most substantial work was the writings on Liberty collected in this volume. The core of this book is the Four Essays on Liberty, which appeared originally as a book of that title about 40 years ago.
How good are these essays? They were written originally in the late 1940s through late 1950s and were directed, at least in part, at issues that preoccupied British intellectuals of that period. The backdrop was the Cold War, and debates about the justification of socialist ideals and the nature of socialism. Most of these essays have not worn well. I don't think there is much original or profound in either the first or last essays of the four; Political Ideas in the 20th Century, and John Stuart Mill and the Ends of Life. I suspect most critical readers will find the essay entitled Historical Inevitability to be fairly pedestrian. This leaves the most celebrated of these essays, Two Concepts of Liberty. It is on this essay and some of his best historical studies that Berlin's reputation rests.
In Two Concepts, Berlin developed his famous distinction between "negative" and "positive" concepts of liberty. He particularly focused on how a certain rationalist conception of "positive" liberty can become, though often via a tortuous route, a justification for attacks on "negative" liberty and assault basic human rights. Berlin argues that this conception of "positive" liberty leads to the great crimes of the 20th century. This leads to an eloquent plea for some form of pluralism in regard to ultimate human goals. Berlin develops this argument brilliantly and with a self-assured writing style that is a pleasure to read.
But how good is his argument? As he himself points out, there are circumstances underwhich the distinction between "negative" and "positive" liberty can be cloudy, casting doubt on the utility and reality of this distinction. He is incorrect in assigning blame for all the terrible crimes of the 20th century to the rationalist view of "positive" liberty. This is certainly a fair criticism with respect to Marxism and the great crimes of Marxist states. But does it apply to Fascism and violent nationalism? These movements were marked by wholesale rejection of rationalism and exaltation of emotion, quite different from what he describes as the rationalist wellspring of all the crimes of the 20th century.
Berlin is an interesting and thought provoking essayist but not a major figure in political thought or intellectual history.

I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy. Berlin in the book is talking about different understandings on liberty. How do liberals think about liberty? Not only liberals think about liberty, many isms do, there are many different ways to think about liberty. Berlin makes a few distinctions on liberty. In "Two Concepts of Liberty," he distinguishes between political liberty and individual Liberty. Political Liberty, democratic liberty having a vote and participating, like in Greek city-state. No limit on power of the government over any aspect of citizen's life, but a citizen has some control over government through his vote. Not all are citizens, women, slaves, etc. Liberals are interested in individual liberty; choose the activities they want to do. A tension between Political Liberty and Individual Liberty. Political Liberty implies that there is majority rule through the vote. Maybe a majority won't impose on people, but that can change through the majority vote. If you have a system that you set up to insure certain individual rights like the U.S. does you protect certain liberties like the 1st amendment to free speech. These rights are taken away from voting on by the majority and to change them you need a super majority. This takes away Political Liberty, so there is that antagonism between both liberties. Unless you are an anarchist, there are certain functions and liberties that must be given up to the government. The more individual freedoms you keep from government the less value Political Liberty has to citizens the fewer things we get to decide.

The famous concepts Berlin distinguishes between are Positive Liberty and Negative Liberty. 1. Positive Liberty means self-control over your own life. 2. Negative liberty means you are free from interference from other people. Other people can't force you to do something. Positive liberty is self-mastery, self-control. Negative liberty means you are free from interference from other people. Others can't compel you to act in a way you don't want to act. At first these sound like two sides of the same coin. What Berlin points out historically is that people who believe in Positive Liberty have taken it in a very different direction than those that believe in Negative Liberty. What they (Positive Liberty adherents) have done is to infer that from each person you can distinguish between what he or she thinks he or she wants, and what his or her better self or true self would want. Therefore, there is this idea that we all might have certain desires that we want but that they are not expressive of our real essence. An obvious case is an addict who has some part of them that really don't want the drug. Even though they put all their time and energy in getting the drug it might be tempting to think that they really don't want the drug. Once they got the distinction between ordinary desires that you are aware of and the desires that you truly want, then the Positive Liberty people are tempted to say that for someone to really have charge of their life to really have liberty than we have to make sure that they are doing what their true self wants to do, not the self that they are consciously aware of, not the self not the desires that seem to them to be strongest. But what the angels of their better nature want, that's real freedom. Even when the person is protesting that that isn't what they want, if you are making them do what their true self wants really then you are making them do good. Kant would be a supporter of this view.

We have two aspects of human nature. The numeral self and nominal self. The numeral self is our true self and is the basis of morality this is why we are morally obligated to do things because our true self accepts a certain kind of law and imposes it on us. We are obligated to obey it because it is a law our true self chooses even though we may not be consciously aware of it, we may have all kinds of desires pulling us in different directions. We are obligated to do it because it is what our true self chooses. Rousseau is very much in this tradition. He says people can be forced to be free. Historically, this is the direction that many people who believe in Positive Liberty go in.

The Negative liberty people tend to say that other people don't tell them what to do. They could have gone the same route thinking about two kinds of selves, and they could say negative liberty is when your lower self doesn't tell your higher self what to do, but that historically hasn't happened. That is not the kind of liberty they have been thinking about. Liberals generally belong to this kind of negative liberty position. The kind of liberty liberals tend to care about is freedom from other individuals or the government. Free to the extent no one tells you what to do, none of this true self-stuff. You are free if other people can't stop you from doing what you want to do. All the different liberals are going to believe that people should have a significant amount of this kind of (negative), liberty. All the critics of liberalism are not all going to want to take all this kind of liberty away, but they are going to definitely say that liberty is not as important as the liberals think it is and that it ought to be restricted in some significant ways.

Berlin says, once you see how the Positive Liberty idea was developed, it turns out not to have the same kind of tension with Political Liberty that Negative Liberty does. Since, you could always have the view what peoples true selves want can be discovered by a kind of democratic process, so that what the majority votes for is what everyone wants, even the minority, they just didn't really know what they wanted. We all really want what is best for our community, as Rousseau would say.

Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, and history.

Henry Hardy the devoted student and editor of the work of Isaiah Berlin has reedited and expanded Berlin's on Liberty. These essays are at the heart of Berlin's liberal political philsophy. And their most well- known conception is the distinction between 'negative and positive liberty'.
This is the way Wikipedia makes the distinction.

"He defined negative liberty as the absence of constraints on, or interference with, agents' possible action. I am more "negatively free" to the extent that fewer opportunities for possible action are foreclosed or interfered with. Positive liberty he associated with the idea of self-mastery, or the capacity to determine oneself, to be in control of one's destiny. While Berlin granted that both concepts of liberty represent valid human ideals, he believed that as a matter of history, the positive concept of liberty has proven more susceptible to political abuse. He argued that under the influence of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant and G.W.F. Hegel (all committed to the positive concept of liberty), European political thinkers were frequently tempted to equate liberty with forms of political discipline or constraint. This became politically dangerous when the relevant ideals of positive liberty were, in the course of the 19th century, used to defend ideals of national self-determination, imperatives of democratic self-government, and the communist notion of humanity collectively asserting rational control over its own destiny. In this way of thinking, Berlin contended, demands for freedom paradoxically become demands for forms of collective control and discipline - those deemed necessary for the "self-mastery" or self-determination of nations, classes, democratic communities, and perhaps of humanity as a whole. There is thus an elective affinity, for Berlin, between positive liberty and political totalitarianism."

Another of Berlin's major essays in this work deals with the conception of 'Historical Inevitability'. Here he is most fierce in his critique of Marxism with its posited inevitable stages of history. Something of a great man himself, Berlin was a strong champion of the idea that great individuals shape human events, and introduce novel transformations of reality.

A third center of Berlin's thought has to do with his 'pluralism' his sense of the differing ideals and values different societies have. His pluralism however is what he called an 'objective pluralism' as he thought that there are certain values such as 'individual liberty' which should prevail in all societies.

Ultimately though he claimed that both for the individual and for society 'ideal ends' often conflict, and that perfect realization in action, is therefore impossible. Life for Berlin moral decision for Berlin thus has a tragic element of incompleteness and contradiction.
In this sense of our limitation deriving from our own ideal ends and actions, Berlin 's thought ultimately corresponds to arguments concerning the limitations of Mind which have been made in modern thought regard to a wide variety of other areas of human inquiry, from theology to mathematics.

I came to "Life 102" a bit late in the game, I guess, and via an unorthodox trajectory. I knew of McWilliams not from his ahead-of-the-curve computer books in the 1980s (distinctly before my time), nor from his bestselling self-help books "co-authored" with MSIA guru John-Roger (essentially before my time), but instead from his "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do." That brilliant, rambling, flawed and insightful manifesto for the social libertarian movement contained in its original edition an attack on the Cult Awareness Network, an attack I thought meshed uncomfortably with the freethought positions otherwise advocated by the author. Thankfully, McWilliams clarified this discontinuity in the paperback edition of "Business," noting that he had been so emphatically anti-cult because...well, he was *in* one at the time. And for more information...

Most of my generation has, in all likelihood, never heard of the MSIA and its guru John-Roger, which are McWilliams's targets (and his targeters, given the unfortunate after-story of this book and its current copyright status) in this entertaining semi-narrative, semi-confession, semi-exposé. New Religious Movements have long since been absorbed into the catch-all of the "new age;" separate organizations like MSIA, TM, the Hare Krishnas, and so on almost seem anarchronistic in this light. The relative obscurity of MSIA actually works to McWilliams's advantage, as he can demonstrate in a "bias vacuum" (something not possible with flashpoint topics like the Unification Church of Scientology) how nobody-NOBODY-is immune to reprogramming.

I'm getting ahead of myself, however. As I mentioned before, "Life 102" is a combination of a confession, biography, narrative, and exposé. McWilliams writes at one point that it represents a catharsis, a way of organizing his thoughts as his legal battles with MSIA loomed. Unsurprisingly, then, "Life 102" is a very roaming narrative. McWilliams constructs a very loose historical framework--the book roughly chronicles the whys, hows, whats, whos, and whens--and feels free to digress when needed, whether to explain, pontificate, or delve further into the "sociopathic" personality of MSIA's founder.

And while McWilliams is clearly bitter, he never lets his bitterness overshadow his core principles. The spirit of "Ain't Nobody's Business" looms over this text. McWilliams claims that he isn't out to show that MSIA is a scam, its principles fraudulent, and its techniques worthless; he maintains to the end that people are free to believe whatever they want, no matter how absurd. Knowing that the testimony of an apostate, and especially an apostate engaged in a legal battle, does not represent the most trustworthy source of information, he ingeniously allows the MSIA and its founder to hang themselves, by liberally quoting MSIA scripture, personal correspondence, and other damning evidence. On one hand, this is likely what led to the withdrawal of "Life 102" from the marketplace; on the other, if even 75% of these transcripts are accurate...

To draw a parallel, it's one thing for opponents of Scientology to claim that L. Ron Hubbard was scientifically ignorant; it's another thing entirely to hear Hubbard's own voice extolling the benefits of cigarette smoking (it cures cancer).

At its core, though, "Life 102" is a cautionary confession, and as other reviewers have noted, it's in this capacity that the book truly shines. Anybody who's ever shaken his head at a bizarre belief system, or wondered how people could *fall* for something so transparent...well, here's your answer. McWilliams may be far from everyman, but he's still an intelligent, funny, perceptive guy who fell under the spell of a movement whose theology (when presented in a detached manner) seems reasonably below the giggle-test cut off. McWilliams maintains that abusive relationships with "cults" are really no different from abusive relationships with people, food, television, spouses, or anything else; reprogramming, he emphasizes, can happen to anybody, at anytime, anyplace, and indeed goes on all the time. He stresses that the stereotype of a "cult member" as a zombiefied, unrecognizable person couldn't be further from the truth. In MSIA, Peter McWilliams was still Peter McWilliams, but used his intelligence, cleverness, and perception to further his activities in the movement. MSIA became a framework, and inside of that framework everything was A-OK. McWilliams may not convince those who believe that they are above the reach of reprogramming, but he at the very least provides a compelling testimony.

The book itself is a delightful read; as one prior reviewer noted, Williams is hardly Tolstoy (except perhaps in volume!), yet his relaxed, conversational style perfectly meshes with the form and function of the book. McWilliams's approach isn't really in the scholarly tradition, yet he knows to present examples and cite evidence to lend weight to even the most bizarre anecdotes. Even the chapters of less universal consequence, like the oh-so-dishy (but still friendly) chapter on Arianna Huffington circa 1994, are fabulously entertaining, especially in hindsight (one aside about Arianna's unsuitability for "anonymous phone voices" is particularly giggle-worthy). The only real time bitterness and hurt come to the surface are in the chapters on John-Roger, and in between the self-deprecating "why was I so naïve?" lamentations, one senses the true source of McWilliams discord. He had done TM, been a Catholic, and so on, and while he no longer adhered to those doctrines, he had walked away with no more than cursory scars. His asides about the Maharishi, while not universally flattering, have no malice to them. John-Roger, though, is different: John-Roger actively sought to manipulate Peter's fears and insecurities for his own ends, and it is *that* regret that drives McWilliam's resentment.

Verdict: "Life 102," while no scholarly treatise, is one of the most informative books on manipulation and personally cults I've ever had the privilege of reading. Its tragic historical context-in the events that inspired the book, in its immediate aftermath, and in McWilliams's horrific and untimely death-lends it all the more power.

How do I know it's true? I used to be a member of this cult and I know most of the people he talks about. Even when he doesn't mention them by name, I know who he means because of their circumstances. So I wondered if it was my former involvement that made the book such an incredible page-turner for me. But I've since let others read it -- people who never heard of MSIA before -- and they felt the same way. It's non-fiction but reads like the most compelling of novels, all the while enlightening readers to the ways we are all prone to mental programming...from cults, religions, governments, advertisers... ..any person or institution that might seek to benefit from controlling the way we think. If you only read one book about mind control, READ THIS BOOK! It's worth every penny, no matter how much the used copies are selling for. You might be surprised to learn that your mind is not as free as you thought...

Life 102 is something of a specialist's text. The average reader in search of juicy scandal might be overloaded with the level of detail in Mc Williams' book.

Contrasted with Steven Pressman's expose of John Rosenberg who became Jack Frost who became Kurt Wilhelm Von Savage who became Werner Hans Erhard in the book _Outrageous Betrayal, The Dark Journey Of Werner Erhard From EST to Exile_, McWilliams' treatement of his subject is far more personal, nuanced, and interior.

Both Pressman, a reporter who sought to unravel an objective fact pattern that existed behind the "Werner" persona, and McWilliams, a self help author, describe on an identifiable psychological type, the Narcisstic Charismatic.

Sinclair Lewis' fictional creation, the preacher Elmer Gantry,
is in all probability the best extended meditation on the Narcisstic Charismatic. Life 102 often reads like a surreal retelling of Elmer Gantry with a dollop of Flannery O'Conner's _Wise Blood_, a goodly helping of Madame Blavatsky, some fringe science fiction, and a shot of daytime television game shows seen under the influence of mind altering substances.

A very useful and compact work, _Hypnotic Leadership_ by Micha Popper, will be necessary reading for those who wish to have a better psychodynamic grasp of this subject.

McWilliams appears to be in the last throes of ambivalence with Life 102, as he has neither Pressman's journalistic ability to tightly edit his thoughts, nor Popper's academic clarity, nor Sinclair Lewis' gifts as a storyteller.

He does, however, offer an exceptionally detailed study of the thought processes which animate the Leader figure as well as those of the Followers. McWilliams has found himself in the unique position of being able to look both ways, how does the Leader impose his will on his group, and how the group enables and empowers the Leader. One soon detects the outline of a dialectical process of the Leader and the Follower creating and shaping one another in a stable, hermetic "reality maintenance contract".

The major task before this field is that of shifting from the idea of the Leader as an alien force that captures unsuspecting souls in his tractor beams to that of appreciating that the Leader is more a creation of his Followers (who then willingly transfer their inner authority over to him) than the Followers are a creation of the Leader.

The Narcissistic Charismatic appears to be a disturbed personality type who might otherwise be marginalized or ridiculed, but under certain social circumstances discovers the perfect fertile soil for his "gift" to bear fruit.

Peter McWilliams has done an excellent (thorough to the point of tedium) job of capturing many salient details that other writers have glossed over as mere noise or simple too much effort to belabor. However, in paying close attention to these datails, much like examining a good specimen under a microscope, one can indeed fill out one's mental portrait of the Narcisstic Charismatic personality type, his tactics of "thought judo", his obsession with loyalty and betrayal, the gradual hardening of the personality, the wish to invent a parallel reality in which one is a deity or a superbeing, the gross discrepancies between the way the Followers perceive the Leader (his hygeine, his idiosyncracies, the meaning of his behavior and utterances) and a more objective, indifferent observer would.

For these reasons Life 102 is highly recommended for all students of the Narcisstic Charismatic personality, not as great literature, but as a highly detailed blueprint of this style and how it operates.

This book is a fantastic story about the "cult" personality, and the types of people and behavior that surround such people. It's a valuable story for everyone, as these kinds of people and groups can be anywhere. It isn't just one nutjob in Santa Monica.

It is also incredible to see the afterlife of this book, with Peter's tragic illness, and the subsequent sale of the copyright to said nutjob.

God bless you, Peter McWilliams.

This is a very entertaining, cautionary tale about a cult leader and his former devotee. Excellent reading, even if a bit too long. Poor McWilliams certainly got his share of bad Karma! This is the first book of his that I've read and it was worth every penny. Now I'm going to have to buy at least one more (must make sure it doesn't have J-R's name on it!).

If I had told friends I was reading about alleged disease in sheep they would have missed the true significance of this book. It's about big government intervention against the rights of citizens. It's about a Vermont family's creativity and dedication and how all of that was trampled by the USDA run amok. It's also about what happens when special interests and lobbyists overwhelm a government agency.

It really was a page turner.

This book is about a small family with a few imported sheep, who became embroiled in a whirlwind of government conspiracy regarding the big beef industry, international trade, manipulated scientific data, and the irresponsible panic of one powerful government agent regarding Mad Cow disease. The result was the terrorizing of a family, murder of healthy sheep, and the disillusionment of anyone interested in healthy eating or in the ability of their government to protect their right eat safely.

If you have any suspicions that the USDA is not monitoring agriculture and food safety the way they should, this book is a must-read. It tells the story of a family farm destroyed by the government agency designed to protect food safety. Mixed messages, lies, secrets, big business pressures, international trade, spies, good science and poor science--they're all in here, interspersed with the very personal details of a mother who watched her children's hearts broken as they were betrayed by their government.

I find it ironic that this book brought to mind the works of the "muckrakers" of the early 20th century. After Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" revealed the horrific conditions of the meat packing industry in the US, the government responded by creating the USDA. It is that very agency which is at the heart of Linda Faillace's fight with her government and with the USDA's highly questionable science and politics. Theodore Roosevelt gave a speech in 1906 about the "muckrakers" (who were really just the first investigative journalists.) In his speech he said:

"There are, in the body politic, economic and social, many and grave evils, and there is urgent necessity for the sternest war upon them. There should be relentless exposure of and attack upon every evil man whether politician or business man, every evil practice, whether in politics, in business, or in social life. I hail as a benefactor every writer or speaker, every man who, on the platform, or in book, magazine, or newspaper, with merciless severity makes such attack, provided always that he in his turn remembers that the attack is of use only if it is absolutely truthful."

Even if Linda Faillace's story is colored by righteous anger and bitterness, the truth is in the details. She and her husband are well educated scientists, and back up their side of the story very clearly and persuasively.

That seems to be the biggest question one has to ask by the end of this very sad story. It was sad on so many levels. It was sad because the Faillace's lost an opportunity to begin a new agricultural venture for a state that badly needs sustainable small agriculture. It was sad because they lost animals they dearly cared for. They had to send house raised bottle lambs on a trailer with sheep they weren't used to. To have perfectly healthy animals seized by a government for no good reason was devastating. It was sad because the Faillace's and their children were failed by the duly elected representatives, both Senator Leahy and Governor Dean waffled back and forth and never really did back them up to the degree they should have (and these were DEMOCRATS not corporate hugging Republicans). It was amazing that Howard Dean, a medical doctor, said the science was too complicated for him (I wonder how he ever got through medical school!). It was sad because once again it was demonstrated that our government cannot be trusted to do what is best for the little guy, that, in point of fact, the little guy is at the mercy of the wishes of bigger guys.

One question that occurred to me at the end of the book is this. After the tainted beef (BSE tainted that is) was sold and consumed did anyone think about putting an immediate freeze on organ donations from any person who might have eaten ground beef in the states that received the tainted beef? I seriously doubt it. Yet people who lived in England during the time of the BSE outbreak are not allowed to be organ donors. I know this because my sister died a couple of years ago from natural causes (not CJ disease), at the time of her death the hospital was informed that she spent 6 months in England during the BSE outbreak. Her corneas, etc. were declined because of that.

It's amazing how much energy went into making the Faillace's look like dangerous people in the mind of the public. It's amazing how quickly the actual exposure of consumers to BSE tainted meat was hushed up. It's not amazing, given the information in this book, that organic farmers of all types don't trust the government. It's amazing, given the information in this book, that consumers do.

In 2001 after months of surveillance and harassment armed federal agents seized a flock of some 100 organically-raised dairy sheep. One might think this an isolated incident, but MAD SHEEP: THE TRUE STORY BEHIND THE USDA'S WAR ON A FAMILY FARM holds implications for farming and food distribution channels as a whole. USDA chief Linda Detweiler claimed the imported sheep had been exposed to a disease, but the flock's owners - here, the authors - weren't about to let the judgement pass silently: they weren't just farmers but scientists, and demonstrated the impossibility of their sheep being infected. And then the fight really begins - documented here in eye-opening pages of detail.

Diane C. Donovan
California Bookwatch

We tend to forget that this country was founded on agricultural principles. With the industrialization of food, farmers have come under scrutiny by various agencies of the government because of the multi-national business arrangements they, particularly the USDA, have. Mad Sheep is a perfect example of what is happening on family farms in the United States. Driven by greed and fueled by fear of being condemned in the global market, USDA makes up a scenario that could absolutely not happen, that being BSE in sheep, and ruins the dreams of another law abiding family.

I read this book in just 24 hours. It has been a long time since a book just wouldn't let me put it down. Perhaps it is because I too am a homesteader and have sheep every year. When the USDA came to take the Falliace's sheep, my tears started to flow, hard.

Mr and Mrs Consumer who know nothing about farming, know nothing about where your food really comes from, know nothing about the encroachment of the government into our personal lives, you need to read this book to get a glimpse of what life will be like for you once an agency of the government decides they want something that you have.

In the dangerous post 9/11 world we live in today, Giandomenico Picco's "Man without a Gun" should be a primer for anyone wanting to understand the complex intricacies of Middle East politics. "Man without a Gun" is an unique firsthand account of Mr. Picco's diplomatic experiences at the UN during the 1980s and early 1990s. The setting of "Man without a Gun" takes place in some of the most volatile areas of the world: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Israel.

It is fascinating to read Mr. Picco's first hand account from someone who successfully negotiated some of the most intractable crisis of the late 20th century including: Afghanistan/ Soviet-Russia war, Iran/ Iraq war and the Lebanon hostage crisis. Very interesting for US readers is that Mr Picco as an Italian and a UN diplomat, provides an important outside the Beltway perspective that Americans need to hear. Too often the US views the world as black and white, this simplistic world view has been the cause of many misguided US policies, not the least was our myopic view of communism. Mr. Picco refers to this US narrow world view when he describes how the US continued to provide arms to the Afghanistan Mujahideen in violation of the peace treaty signed with Soviet Union in 1988. Ultimately, the US arms hasten the fall of the Afghanistan government in 1992 that led to more fighting and ultimately led to the notorious anti Western Taliban regime.

The highlight of the "Man without a Gun" is Mr. Picco's successful efforts to free the Western hostages based in Lebanon. Its a fascinating to learn about the behind the scenes intrigue and the Herculean efforts pursued by Mr Picco in the Middle East and beyond to free the hostages. At a great personal risk, Mr Picco describes how he made secret rendezvous with the hostage takers and gradually over time earned their trust that formed the basis of the successful negotiations to release the hostages.

Unlike so much of the disturbing news coming today from the Middle East tinderbox, during Mr. Picco's tenure at the UN there was a streak of successfully negotiations with this part of the world and there seemed to be genuine hope for deceleration of tension in the Mid East. "Man without a Gun" provides insightful lessons on how the West can co-exist with the Middle East regimes. It is a shame that Mr. Picco's book is currently out of print, "Man without a Gun" should be re-issued so that more readers can have access to Mr. Picco's vast experience and excellent analysis.

I recently happened on to this book and bought one used from Amazon. I found it to be an interesting and very personal account of dealing with Iran behind the scenes. I think it is helpful and very applicable to the current situation with Iran. I found it to also be a quick and easy read that kept my attention throughout. You will like it - enjoy!

Picco's vivid description of his courageous efforts to win the freedom of all persons (not just the Western hostages) who became involuntary pawns in the politics of Lebanon's civil war is fascinating indeed. The most remarkable aspect of Picco's work was his ability to gain and keep the trust of the kidnappers, despite the actions of the U.S. and Israeli governments which often undermined his efforts.

Picco is to be commended for risking his life on multiple occassions to save the lives of people whom he had never met. He did it because it was the right thing to do. Picco is a remarkable diplomat who simultaneously juggled the conflicting interests of the kidnappers, Iran, Israel, Syria and the United States.

This was definitely a story that needed to be told. I'd recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn more about the now largely forgotten hostage crisis in Lebanon.

Thanks for enriching and inspiring us again with your views on the true art of diplomacy. This book represents the materialization of something we were all waiting for after your unforgettable lessons in Gorizia. Credibility's once again is what will ultimately make us succeed in achieving results, a notion that may go, as it is masterfully explained in this great book, as far as saving human lives. Ancora grazie!

I found this book to be absolutely fascinating. I went into it with a limited memory of what I had heard through the news of the time of the hostages and the Iran-Iraq war, but came out with a much deeper understanding - not only of the times, but also of the people, the real players. I have come to appreciate the work of the brave Mr. Picco and those who worked along with him, and I am grateful for their service to those who could not serve themselves.

First, Kropotkin discusses mutual aid among animals. His first point is that Darwin had nothing to do with Social Darwinianism. In fact, he quotes Darwin as saying, "Those communities which included the greatest number of the sympathetic members would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring."

He gives numerous examples. One of his examples is about the crested screamer, a bird species which holds massive song recitals. Would Lorenz agree that those birds are chirping merrily? Or would he insist that they are marking their territory?

Next, he discusses mutual aid among savages. Note that he uses a word which is scientifically unacceptable today.

Since K. cannot travel back in time, he surmises how our earliest ancestors lived by observing how isolated tribes today live--which is in clans. Although such tribes are still called "primitive," there is some question of whether or not these tribes live like our prehistoric ancestors did.

Since isolated tribes tend to live in clans, Kropotkin claims that the marital bond is not as strong as in the nuclear family system. In the appendix, he debates Westermarck on this matter.

Next, he discusses mutual aid among barbarians--another taboo word. According to K., there was a wave of migrations in ancient Europe, in which "races were mixing with races." The social institutions seemed to be wrecked as a result, but K. assures us that they instead "underwent the modification which was required by the new conditions of life."

Next, he discusses mutual aid in the medieval city. Now we are up to the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries. Our next institution, then, is the professional guild.

Finally, he discusses mutual aid among ourselves. He sees a faint vestige of mutual aid today. K. sees the union as the successor of the clan, the village, and the guild, so he calls for more and better unions. K. also speaks highly of organizations with special interests, such as garden clubs and glee clubs.

However, K. cautions us against the "reckless individualism," or "the war of each against all," which he sees as prevailing today.

Kropotkin's discussion, persuasive as it is, can be counterbalanced with arguments in favor of individualism and competition. I wonder how Kropotkin would respond to the famous anecdote about the Jamestown colonists.

One can also question Kropotkin's claim that only the most sociable animal species prosper. The feline order is renowned for the aloofness of its members, and the lion has been dubbed "the king of the beasts."

I would like to close this report with an ad hominem attack against Kropotkin himself: If individualism is so reprehensible, what is he doing writing a book by himself and claiming credit for it by himself?

Anarchist classic, rooted in observation of natural phenomena and history. Challenges the conception that capitalism is a natural progression of Darwinism at work in the wild. The author cites numerous examples of compassion and innate goodness at work outside the bounds of a structured power-based society. The study covers cooperation among animals, instances of non-hierachical interactions from primitive tribes to mediaeval cities, and on to his contemporary labor unions. It has been some years since I read it and I plan to revisit this title soon.

This book, which appears to be about the only surviving scientific text from Kropotkin's work, is very interesting and insightful. The first two chapters which deal with animals I found most interesting, because they address the roots of the falsehood of social-darwinism. Kropotkin then proceeds to move through the different stages of human society and describes the mutual aid a compassion fetures therein. It is a fantastic book and I highly recommend it. It is a scientific text, but it has major political implications and is very accessible.

Este libro es uno de los pilares fundamentales de la teoria del anarco comunismo tan desvirtuada por el imperialismo, y nos da la esencia que el anarquismo, lejos de lo que se cree comunmente es una doctrina que se basa en el amor y la ayuda mutua, quitando las barreras de desigualdad entre las personas y haciendo un recuento de cómo la ayuda mutua es un factor de evolución hcia una sociedad más justa.

Peter Kropotkin is one of the most noteworthy anarchist thinkers over the last two centuries. As with other political thinkers, so, too, with Kropotkin--his analy¬sis of human nature is critical for understanding his overall philosophical position. For his view of human nature, "Mutual Aid" is a key for understanding his views. His work is a harbinger of more recent studies of sociobiology, many of which explore the roots of altruism--human and otherwise.

Much of his thinking on the nature of society was formed when he was observing the behavior of animals in Siberia. While assigned to a Siberian regiment of the Russian military, Kropotkin did innovative original work on geography and geology as well as the study of animal behavior. His observation of animals led him to respond to Huxley's assertion that natural selection was based on keen com¬petition among animals with the following statement: ". . .wherever I saw animal life in abundance, as, for instance, on the lakes where scores of species and millions of individuals came together to rear their progeny; in the colonies of rodents; in the migration of birds which took place at that time on a truly American scale along the Usuri; and especially in a migration of fallow-deer which I witnessed on the Amur, and during which scores of thousands of these animals came together from an immense territory, flying before the coming snow, in order to cross the Amur where it is narrowest--in all these scenes of animal life which passed before my eyes, I saw Mutual Aid and Mutual Support carried on to an extent which made me suspect in it a feature of the greatest importance for the maintenance of life, the preservation of each species, and its further evolution."

He synthesized his observations of animals within a species cooperating with one another and concluded that, in the struggle for life, cooperation was at least as important as competition. Kropotkin did not argue that competition was unimportant in the natural selection process. However, he did emphasize that mutual aid was a factor that many Darwinists (although, as Kropotkin made clear, not Darwin himself) ignored. The data that Kropotkin utilized came from many different animal species.

Kropotkin goes on to speculate about the survival value of cooperative behavior. He states that: "Life in societies enables the feeblest insects, the feeblest birds, and the feeblest mammals to resist, or to protect themselves from, the most terrible birds and beasts of prey; it permits longevity; in enables the species to rear its progeny with the least waste of energy and to maintain its progeny with the least waste of energy and to maintain its numbers albeit a very slow birth rate; it enables the gregarious animals to migrate in search of new abodes. Furthermore, cooperation facilitates the development of intelligence, since that quality is so important for social life among animals."

Kropotkin is not content to rest his case at this point. He subsequently indicates the likely course of human evolution and the role played by cooperation. He adopts the method of using existing societies at differing levels of socio-cultural complexity to speculate about the course of human socio-cultural evolution. Kropotkin argues that, at each stage, mutual aid is apparent and important for humans. Even in the period dominated by the great states, the present for Kropotkin, mutual aid institutions still flourished despite the state's intimidating presence.

Thus, Kropotkin's view of human nature is, ultimately, that it is inherently good, i.e. cooperative toward his or her fellow. What of this assertion? Is Kropotkin's view of human nature completely inaccurate and confounded by the available evidence? That is where each reader must evaluate his or her view of humanity's nature and render a judgment on "the anarchist prince."

A return to savings. A tax cut is designed too encourage the rich too save. The rich create jobs and invest in ideas. The savings of the rich increase innovation by infusing money that produces products and services, in the economy. However, excessive governmental debt is the thief in the night destroying all wealth.

Banks use these savings too fund new corporate projects. The innovations attract foreign investment as they seek to profit from the new ideas. The stock market booms and jobs increase. Economic growth reaches an impass as government spending increases beyond a safe amount of government debt. Debt to finance rebuilding of natural disasters ($61 billion) and the Iraq war (est $200 billion). Perpetual debt, debt that can never be paid off. In 1990s, a $5.6 trillion surplus existed and by 2002, $4 trillion had been spent, and by 2005, -2 trillion was spent or borrowed. Debt is suppose to decrease during economic booms and the neoconomist are predicting future boom and future debt reduction. Debt slows down growth, as money becomes more difficult to risk and acquire. At the same time the government becomes increasingly burdened with the interest it must pay on the money borrowed.

The Fed attempts to slow inflation by increasing interest rates soaking up liquidity and cooling the economy. The Fed raises interest rates is hoped to keep inflation in check. High fuel costs threaten too increase inflation. The responds by raising interest rates and the rising interest rates have the affect of stifling corporate earnings and dampering Research and Development thereby slowing down innovation. The rising interest rates makes debt vehicles look more attractive increasing purchases of U.S treasuries.

As long as innovation remains strong investors will not flee from stocks because this sector represents growth. A tax cut on earnings increases the amount of money moving into the commerical sector. As money becomes tighter, companies cut back workforce, insert technology to increase production, and delay product introduction. What is expected is more with less. More productivity from less employees.

Investors become uncertain about stocks and seek refuge in Bonds or Commodities. The Fed attempt to quell fears in the bond market about rising inflation. If an investor believes the Fed has contain inflation than the investor will be more optimistic that growth and continue investing into the market.

If the economy is perceived to be slowing down that current bond prices go up. Economic slow downs hold longer-term interest rates down making existing bonds yields more attractive.

In a recession, government is expected to increase debt, spending more, in order, too stimulate growth. So during a boom the new revenue accumulates from taxes. Cut social program whenever possible. The government social machine is a false ideal and will not produce a greater society by spending tax money as its fuel to build infrastructure. The only hope is growth and innovation produced by private machinery.

However, if economic growth does not increase than government revenues will not increase. Economic growth is the key to government revenue. Government spending can not remain constant and perpetual without dramatic impacts on the economy. With $5.4 in surplus, the government believed it could afford a tax cut and spent $2 billion on debt reduction and $1.4 trillion too the emergency reserve.

The author presents an interesting question, "What happens when a country can not pay its interest payment?" The author briefly explains how these countries experience hyper inflation and destablized currencies. At $500 billion a year in interest payments pressure not to increase debt seems prudent, yet more debt continues to accumulate. I think this is the heart of the issue raise about the new economy, "Can it make its interest payments"?

Tax cuts were expected to generate revenue, however, heavy debt and inflation inhibit tax revenue generation because companies don't produce as much. Inflation means higher interest rates and higher taxes.

The following correlations are not true: 1. Unemployment decreases shortly after a tax cut 2. The poor will immediately spend their tax refund money. Most of the poor were discovered to save their tax money. 3. Research and Development will produce immediate innovation cash flows.

The rich save over 50 percent. The savings can be used to invest in company projects that stimulate economic growth . However, if the economy is contracting, company put off new project because money is hard to get.

Research and Development offer a marginal return on the investment. The biggest problem with R&D is that the innovations do not alway equate to profits, increased consumer demand, and immediate introduction in the market place.

How does the government eliminate Taxes over a trillion dollars in taxes? Getting rid of the capital gains tax, dividend tax, interest tax, and estate tax. Taxes targeted at the working class. Interestingly the author does not talk about the consumption tax that congress wants so desparately to pass into law.

How does the government raise money for government spending? U.S Treasuries which are considered the most stable security in the world. Are there any limits to how much money can be produced? A policy of a strong dollar means foreign investment finds favorable investments in dollar denominated securities. A strong dollar means U.S manufacturing production and profits go up and higher profits means more tax revenue.

The author points out that the Laffeur curve did not gain strength. The Laffeur curve suggested the same amount of tax revenue could be gain at a low tax rate verses a higher tax rate. By lower the tax, the consumer had more disposal money, and spent more and the increasing in spending produced tax revenue.

Individualized Social Security accounts may not mean investment profits. The stock market may become bearish and return to a mean of 15 PE causing billions in reduced equity. Fees associated with the broker, transaction, and maintenance will cut into investment profits. The assumption of 7 percent growth perpetually may not hold up.

Imagine it is 2012, what will the new economy look like? By neoconomist standards the economy will be a pulsating capitalist machine with individuals incomes surge higher and money being stashed away. Economic growth will exceed 4 percent. Tax collections will be growing, debt decreasing, and interest payment reducing. The government will defray its debt and long term interest rates will be decreasing. There will be no taxes on wealth and savings. Foreigners will see the U.S stock market attractive for investing. Even China and India will not be able match the high returns of U.S companies. Innovation will create and insatible demand for American Labor. The Unemployment rate will fall. Individualize Social Security accounts will pump billions of dollars into private companies. Senior Citizens will have a new level of disposal cash available. A new era of American economic supremcy, if it can become a reality.

"Neoconomy', along with `What's the Matter with Kansas' are probably the two most influential books I've read in the last five years. Forget all you know about Supply-Side Economics and Trickle Down Theory, Daniel Altman has written an easy to understand book on what the heck the Bush Administration is attempting with all those tax cuts and why they target the wealthy.

In a nutshell the Neoconomy is about reducing taxes on unearned income and savings in order to increase the accumulation of capital. This capital could be used to modernize, increase productivity and raise the holy grail of economics, the GDP. The country would theoretically attain more wealth, higher standards of living and a happy future for all. It's not an insane plan and it has the support of many well respected economists. The first problem with the plan is that it seems rather self serving. George W. Bush assembled a cabinet with an almost unprecedented cache of wealth. The author estimates their combined assets at between 3 and 30 times the value of the second Clinton administration. These are exactly the people who will benefit most from tax cuts on unearned income. They are also people who can afford to take considerable risks with our economy and still come out fine if things go sour.

The other larger problem is in the very nature of the leadership of George W. Bush. He surrounds himself with like minded people and gathered an economics team consisting almost entirely of supply-side adherents creating an echo chamber of ideas. These are people who have taken economics beyond mere theory into the realm of religious dogma. Unfortunately when tax cuts and growth are the only path to salvation everything else tends to get shortchanged. It has occurred to business owners that some of the things holding back growth include employee benefits, high American wages, regulations and assistance for the poor. The obsession with growth sometimes seems to reach the level of pathological and government finds itself ripping away at society's foundation in order to raise the tower higher. The author also points out that capital accumulation on its own is useless. You also need an educated society in order to both develop and use new technologies. Meanwhile the administration has consistently under funded education programs, worked to cut college grants and shown disdain for the scientific process (Read `The Republican War on Science' by Chris Mooney to see how bad it has gotten).

The last problem is that the Neoconomy may just flat out fail. Like the weather, economics can be affected dramatically by small unexpected perturbations. It's difficult to predict what will happen in six months or next month much less decades in the future. The Bush administration is treating economics like a hard science when in reality it's based on difficult to predictable human psychology. Changing the tax codes may have exactly the opposite intended effect. By reducing taxes on dividends people may actually begin to save less rather than more if they have specific retirement goals. Unfortunately Bush's extreme tax cuts are intended to handcuff lawmakers and force us down one path. The Republican groupthink is also the likely cause of the wildly optimistic (bordering on obscene) predictions about job creation that rivaled anything made in the run up to the Iraqi war. People forget now but the numbers being offered by the administration weren't just wrong they were `we have no idea what we are talking about' wrong. The scary thing is that these same people who were as wrong as wrong could be on job creation numbers seem to have absolutely confidence that they can precisely predict the effect of Social Security privatization decades in the future.

`Neoconomy' is Daniel Altman's first effort and he smacked this one out of the ballpark. Economics can be a rather dry and confusing subject but Mr. Altman manages to write a book that is lucid, informative and engaging. I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the direction the United States is traveling.

Lets start out by saying this is book to bash president bush but rather it shows what the president and his economic advisors ideas and plans and what the effect and possible effects will be.
This should be another one of those books that should be red before the election because some of these ideas will be considered radical by some.

The main idea for the bush plan is to have the tax cuts and such to put more money out for companies to have pools to borrow from and this inturn will stimulate the ecomony. But this is an experiment could go wrong. This administration can afford to experiment because if it does go wrong bush and his cronies will probably lose some money but they will still have many millions to live on, it will really hurt the middle class on down.

It is no secret that most of the tax cuts have benefited the so called rich by cutting taxes on estates dividends and savings. All of these people get the most of their income from stocks and real estate. Yes these cuts are for everybody but how many people from the $40,000 level on down can save and invest to get these breaks. Would you not think that if the president really wanted to stimulate the economy he would gear cuts toward the majority. With the tax cuts bush signed into law in 2001 the book shows that for those making $50,000 or less the tax difference is less than a $1,000 compare that that make $500,000 or more they get breaks at least 10 times that amount don't you figure those on the lower end of the scale could use the money the most.

Another example is the estate tax cut while they figure if they cut the tax it will encourage more investment but in reality it has probably encouraged them to save more for there heirs because of course less tax.

Just like in the Reagen era alot of these cuts are based on future years where they figure the economy will be strong but what will the effect be if the economy is in a poor state as it is in now you do not have all the projected revenue and you have record debt that has to be paid sometime

This book is written so that it is pretty easy to understand on a subject that at times is dry and difficult.

We all know about the war on terrorism. And the war in Iraq. The debates about these things are fairly clear. Or at least ubiquitous.

And yet perhaps the Bush Administration's central and most groundbreaking effort has to do with none of these topics, but rather with the economy. The Administration is seeking to re-orient it from top to bottom. And there is little coverage of this in the news.

Daniel Altman explains it to me in crystal clear and easy prose. What I liked the most was the sort of intellectual history approach he takes, showing where the ideas for the "neoconomy" came from, as in what professors espoused them, who their students were, and how they came to positions of influence in Washington, and the responses over the years to their ideas. It's a fairly small group with a distinct lineage--think of the economists' equivalent to Wolfowitz and the Straussians.

One striking thing, if I read it right: the desired endpoint for the Neocons is a society in which only working people are taxed. A person who derived their income not from salaries, but entirely from stocks, bonds, and the like, would not be taxed at all.

The neoconomists' measures, supposedly undertaken for the bland and admirable goal of enhancing savings, inevitably end up being regressive.

Altman is quite rigorous and judicious, weighing the arguments on their own terms, following them to their logical conclusions, noting contradictions and inconsistencies in their own logic.

What's being touted is quite different from what's really going on, as the neoconomists themselves admit. It seems, apparently, that an attempted revolution is in the works, behind the scenes. This book peels back the veil and lets us know what is really going on.

I came away from this book with a better understanding of both basic economics and the real paradigm shift that is potentially underway in the largest economy on earth.

With presidential elections on our doorstep, Altman's 'Neoconomy' comes to bat with light to shed on future repercussions of the Bush Administration's economic plan. Altman's 'Neoconomy' is refreshingly un-biased allowing the reader, whether PH.D or undergrad, to determine what America's economic futrure holds in store.
Altman is charismatic, intelligent and makes his points fairly and concisely. I was thouroughly convinced of this after listening to him speak in San Francisco.

I was surprised at the largely positive reviews of this one, which is the reason I'm posting a review myself.

After reading the numerous glowing reviews here, I bought the book expecting a tightly woven, fast paced read, but found the book poorly organized, sprawling and fairly inconclusive on many points. The actual experience of reading the thing (which is quite short at less than 200 pages) was tedious for me, almost a chore. It really frustrated me, because the true telling of stolen law enforcement software, government lawsuits, CIA spook meddling and a murdered journalist should be anything but tedious.

And, I REALLY wanted to like it too! Unfortunately, important characters and events are given little in the way of introduction or explanation, the chapters (and content within) are muddled and disorganized, and the overall argument is dificult to decipher and supported only weakly.

The book could've benefited by better authors with a more competent grasp of structure and delivery (Yeah, there are typos), and a few hundred more pages of hard research and structured content. The case deserves better handling than this.

Still, I recommend it, as it's pretty much the only game in town. But treat it a primer or a guide, not as the thrilling read it fails to be.

5 stars for subject matter and noble aims, but 2 stars for execution. I give it a 3 on the whole.

...i've read numerous conspiracy books, but this one is certainly one of the better. very well written. ... good read.

Danny Casolaro was a relatively wealthy individual who decided he wanted to become a writer. He already had a few articles published in various magazines when he first learned about the PROMIS software. Basically, PROMIS is a database program with amazing flexibility and statistical abilities and can also be used to predict future trends, submarine locations, etc. This software was developed by private individuals with some help in funding by the U.S. Department of Justice. However, the government decided to [take] the program instead of paying for it and began to market it as their own. This information is widely known and well-accepted and much documentation of this exists (including a successful lawsuit by the software developers that was later overturned on the flimsiest of grounds through the interference of the powers that be). However, when Casolaro set out to write an article about the robbery of the PROMIS program by the government, potentially to sell it to a computer magazine, the deeper he dug, the more sinister things became.

First of all, he learned that the DOJ had a backdoor added into the program so that the U.S. could access the files of whoever they sold the PROMIS program to, including the governments of Israel and Canada. This led to further revelations and meetings with various informants that further revealed a complex web of deceit leading down some surprising avenues. Casolaro now changed his plans to writing a novel, perhaps even presenting it as fiction in order to avoid scaring off publishers. But before this happened, Casolaro was found dead from what was an obviously staged suicide and many of his notes disappeared.

This very well documented book (that also verifies and is verfied by information published elsewhere) chronicles Casolaro's story, citing many excellent sources, including court records and affidavits. It also attempts to recover and recount some of the information about the conspiracy Casolaro began to call "the Octopus" because of its many, long-reaching tendrils. While it is not always clear Casolaro was on the right track (Casolaro himself often took note of what information seemed manufactured to mislead and discredit him), it is clear he was onto something big given his subsequent murder and its sloppy coverup.

Casolaro might have led a comfortable life as a mediocre writer publishing the occassional article, but because of his sense of justice and the need he felt to uncover the truth, he was ruthlessly murdered. This book is a wonderful epitaph to two courageous men (including co-author Keith who mysteriously died from knee surgery).

...i've read numerous conspiracy books, watched the videos, et. cetera, but i dare say this is one of the better!!! certainly, a must read for any conspiracy bluff! go get 'em, tiger.

Kenn and Jim's magnum opus. (RIP, beloved friend to humankind.) This book is as scary as they come, and stranger than fiction. As a conspiracy writer, I found myself shaking while reading it. THEY are real, and THEY can do and have done horrifying things. The Octopus is the Matrix vivified.

This book is especially important for anyone who still naively believes "there are no conspiracies." The word "conspiracy" means "to breathe together." Only two people are needed to make a conspiracy, and this book will leave you breathless.

Danny Casolaro is a heroic figure who bravely and, perhaps, foolhardily attempted to foil the Octopus, whose tendons reach into the most intimate parts of all our lives. He should never be forgotten. Thank goodness for the valiant likes of Kenn Thomas and Jim Keith for telling his story. Movie studios should be clamoring for this highly untold story - but they are no doubt part of the Octopus. Danny, Kenn and Jim should be lauded for their audacity and courage in bringing forth this treacherous tale of murder and mayhem. Such valor is akin to that of Gary Webb in his expose of CIA drug-dealing.

Carry on, fellow warriors for truth.

Acharya S; Archaeologist, Historian, Mythologist, Linguist; Member, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece; Associate Director, Institute for Historical Accuracy; Director, Center of the Research and Study of Theology; Author, "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold"

As much as other reviewers were raving about this book, I thought I would like it just as much. I really thought it was a mediocre work of writing. It consisted of haphazardly organized observations about empire, presented with very little sense of coherence. The observations were often superficial and rarely put into context. It's like reading a collection of notes from a conference on globalization, mixed with a few writing exercises from a creative writing class.

This book would make good reading material for a coffee house. Read it where you don't care if you're interrupted. Read it where you'll get more insight out of the conversations it sparks with strangers and acquaintances.

I don't recommend reading this book unless you have at least a couple of semesters of Spanish on your high school or college transcript. The author writes a lot of the fictional (?) dialogue in a mixture of Spanish and English, and she doesn't always provide enough context clues to figure out the Spanish if you don't already have some education in the language. (Fortunately, I did.) The Spanish-English mixture really wasn't necessary for the book; it was more distracting than helpful, and at times it seemed to stereotype the speakers a little bit.

It would be difficult to add to the depth of insight other reviewers have already provided. Chellis' insight and passion are reinvigorating planetary healing on multiple levels. The best gage for this is the example of her own life. Read everything she writes. A modern visionary with a powerful and compelling voice.

What impact has three hundred years of Western imperialism had on the way we treat each other -- and the Earth -- today?

How is today's global economy simply our latest expression of colonization?

How can our personal woundings become doorways to self-healing and form the basis of a commitment to sustainable planetary culture?

In her new book, Off the Map (An Expedition Deep Into Imperialism, the Global Economy, and Other Earthly Whereabouts, Pulitzer-nominated author and psychologist Dr. Chellis Glendinning explores these themes with a directness, clarity and emotional intensity that awakens the reader to profound insight about the nature of today's world.

In a lyrical braiding of three stories, she weaves the threads of her personal story of sexual abuse in a European-American (and Anglophile) family in the 1950s, the history of the last three hundred years of Western imperialism and a present-day horseback ride through the recently colonized Chicano world of northern New Mexico, where she currently resides.

Glendinning sees Off the Map as a continuation of her past work. "My focus is always the relationship between the personal and the political," she notes. "This book is an effort to make clear that everyone on the Earth is still experiencing the legacies of the classical age of empire, that corporate globalization is just the latest expression of Western imperialism and that, ultimately, it cannot work."

Throughout the book, we follow Glendinning's story of sexual abuse at the hands of her father, through her healing to the reclamation of her essential self and her reconnection to the power of land and nature. We also follow the story of the land-based Chicano peoples of northern New Mexico, a story that goes to the heart of the unspoken wound of imperial systems: the relationship between the colonizer and the colonized.

Glendinning, a highly respected eco-psychologist, received a Pulitzer nomination for her book When Technology Wounds (William Morrow). Other earlier works include My Name is Chellis and I'm in Recovery From Western Civilization (Shambhala) and Waking Up in the Nuclear Age (William Morrow). Off the Map is a compelling look at the unexamined implications of our rapidly expanding global economy and, as such, should cause a great stir among economists, sociologists and all those concerned about the future of humanity -- and all of life -- on Earth.

To the thorough reviews below I'll just add:

It's nice to see someone in my field working for rather than against the social forces that oppose the conformity and imperialism that show up nowadays as well-marketed, hyperconvenient, quick-fix "psychotherapy" (or is that psycho therapy?). Listening to the soul of the world, Chellis Glendinning hears in it an anguish echoing her own--and acts bravely and actively on behalf of both.

There's an annoying idea at my school (Pacifica) that all such activism = acting out, a kind of puerile and heroic impulsiveness--whereas working the imaginal, perhaps from within a well-lighted office on convenient days, should be enough. The example of the author's way of being indicates otherwise. We certainly need to monitor our activism, lest it become just another kind of colonizing arrogance so characteristic of our empire-driven civilization; at the same time, to say and do nothing except in private is not enlightened or soulful, it is cowardly.

Good work, Dr. Glendinning!

Off The Maps: An Expedition Deep Into Empire And The Global Economy by psychologist, social activist, poet, and a pioneer in the field of ecopsychology Chellis Glendinning offers a unique look at globalization -- the modern-day alternative to the economic empires of European and Western history. Using maps as allegory, Off The Maps peers between the lines at the individual hopes and lives of workers and the working class at home and abroad as they struggle beneath the crushing spread of politically imperialistic, homogeneous mass-culture invasive, free-trade oriented, international corporation dominated, western-style consumerism. Off The Maps is a welcome and timely contribution which is very highly recommended for the non-specialist general reader with an interest in international politics and economics.