Events Books

This book is a perfect summary of the dark side of humanitarian work. Unequipped, unprepared contract workers who are unprotected and essentially thrown to the wolves.

The author answers an fax looking for boat drivers and the only preparation he's given is a night at a bar and told to watch out for displaced wildlife. From the moment he steps off the plane it goes downhill. Even a good deed ends in tragedy because he doesn't understand the population he's trying to help.

Mostly though this is an indictment of the conditions the relief workers have to deal with because different UN agencies and Non governmental organizations all want to show how much they are "helping". The individuals may do good things but the organizations use it to play politics.

Burnett provides a vivid picture of the logistics and politics surrounding relief work as well as the dangers and difficulties of doing this work in a war zone. What I liked best about this book is he didn't enter into this job with any particular altruistic or political agenda. As a result Burnett is able to paint a rather honest and impartial picture of NGOs, the UN, the people of Somalia and his fellow aid workers. The book is written in a way that lets you experience what he experienced. It is a personal account that keeps you turning the pages.

This is a well-written, fast-paced book that sheds an important light on relief work, its benefits and its risks. I knew very little about the floods in Somalia, and this was a great lesson as to what I missed.
Great read. You won't be disappointed.

This book reads like a bullet train from New York to Mogadishu, from heaven to hell, a pageturner if ever there was one. You get a privileged insight into the life of a reliefworker, a first hand account of the absurd madness of a godforsaken place where anarchy rules and where lives have no value.

Speedboats donated by western governments to distribute relief supplies quickly turn into perfect terror tools for local warlords, who find them to be ideal to impose their will on the population, specially when mounted with a machine gun...

John Burnett completely repaints the picture that I had in my mind of a relief worker. Only guts, ingenuity and a whole lotta luck will help you to get out alive of a place like this.

From the comfort of your home to the nightmare of Somalia is just a book away...

Superbly written and very hard to put down, this book throws quite a few surprises. Burnett provides first-hand insight into the adventurous and dangerous world of those on the field who distribute humanitarian aid.

Relief workers, like those they are trying to help, survive crocodiles, snakes and hippos, feuding warlords, and child soldiers. At the same time they are dealing with competing aid organisations and governments' political and military agendas. Through tears, anger and frustration, he reveals what it is like trying to save lives in a war zone.

this book smashes the Warren report into a million peices in an unbiased way based upon facts logic and evidence.Mrs.Meagher proves that Oswald was innocent and that the warren report was a sham!she examines and dismantles every so called evidence the report had on oswald!!Oswald was innocent we the people are his defense counsel!this book has to be reprinted get it out there!!highly recommended!

Ms. Meagher's book is well documented, insightful and detailed. She skillfully takes the reader through discrepancies in the Warren Commission report and lays it all out for the reader. Her conclusions are based on facts that are very clearly presented, and on common sense. At no time did I get the impression that this book was attempting to influence my views on the work of the Warren Commission. Ms. Meagher spells it out for the reader step by step.

Reading this book makes you wonder how many police departments and courts actually did what they were supposed to back in the 1960s, and how they're doing today. Ms Meagher does an excellent job breaking down the Warren Commission's report and demonstrating that their synopsis of events is based on multiple errors, misstatements, and wishful thinking. Having come out before most of the "conspiracy theory" genere that surrounds JFK assassinations tories today, Ms. Meaghers book stands above all of them. She refuses to let her book wander into sensationalism, does not implicate UFO's or any such things, nor does she mix in photos which claim to show the truth but are often blurry, grainy or totally unrevealing to the lay reader. Instead, she stays on target, picking apart the Warren Commission's flawed analysis with nimble wit and skill.

Of all the books about the JFK assassination, why is ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT out of print? If you want to read books on how the Norweigian mob hired hitmen from the Planet Glixorg and had the assassination covered up by their media insider, Soupy Sales, there are dozens of books. But the one book to take a serious look at the Warren Commission's Report, to pick apart its inaccuracies, and to analyze its contradictions, is becoming harder and harder to find. Even Gerald Posner, in his tantrum, CASE CLOSED, could not lay a finger on the late Sylvia Meagher's masterwork. Why? Because it is a precise, unimpassioned, and brilliant piece of exploratory surgery on a very sick Warren Report. This book proves the Commission had a single purpose, and finding the truth was not that purpose. The lack of access to Sylvia Meagher's ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT is, to me, a tragic mistake and possible proof of a continuing cover-up.

Back in the early 70s I worked on Capitol Hill as a legislative aide on a Senate Commitee trying to reopen the Kennedy assassination or generate support for a House investigation. This was in the post-Garrison era and the credibility of anyone challenging the Warren Commission was suspect. (We now know that many of Garrison's failings were due to sabotage, but back then he was still radioactive to Senators, Representatives, and their staffs.)

Anyway, after all the backlash following the Clay Shaw acquittal it was still a tough sell, and the typical Congressman would give you no more than 5-10 minutes time to make your case, so we needed a one or two page list of powerful bullet points demonstrating that Oswald could not have acted alone, if he acted at all, and showing that the Warren investigation was compromised by the FBI and the CIA. These were serious allegations, so each
point had to be backed up by solid proof.

At the time, there were 5-6 serious books damning the Warren Commision Report: Inquest, by Edward J Epstein; Rush to Judgment by Mark Lane; Six Seconds in Dallas by Josiah Thompson; Whitewash by Harold Weisberg; and They've Killed the President by Robert Sam Anson.

In creating that fact sheet, no book was more carefully documented than Accessories after the Fact, and no book was more comprehensive and meticulous.

When we had to source each bullet point Meagher's book did the best job in directing us to the proof.

I left the Hill in 76--before the HSCA was created, and it has always bitter disappointment to me how its own work appears to ha ve been sabotaged, not unlike what happend to Garrison.

In the years since I have retained a keen interest in this topic, and at last count have read over 40 books. Meagher's book still remains one of the two or three best books written about JFK's death. In fact I consider it one of the best forensic investigation reports I have ever read in 25 years of practicing civil rights litigation.

This book was used as the underlying basis to understanding the policy process in my graduate level class that I took recently.

Overall I would give this book 5 stars because it is relatively thorough and it encompasses a great deal in a concise model that is easy to understand.

Kingdon discusses that his model is set within three streams, problem, policy and political. Each of these streams have their own unique characteristics that work to help merge with the others. When these streams, ideally all three, a policy window opens where action on policy can occur by a decision-making body such as Congress. With the help of policy entrepreneuers, national mood, policy communities, and much more as agents amongst these streams, each work to produce change on the agenda.

As this class was titled the policy process that I took, it explained how it began but this book does not cover how the process moves once something has been acted upon on the agenda.

If you are looking for understanding more about activity leading up to action, this is a great book. If you are looking to understand the process afterwards, this may not be the right book, but it will help you understand the forces leading up to a process of change.

Definitely, I would recommend this for any political science class at the undergraduate level. I am glad that I was fortunate enough to have it assigned in my grad level policy process class.

Kingdon has produced an innovative and useful theory of the policy process. This book is clearly not intended for the lay reader, but for political scientists and policy specialists interested in theorizing about policy formation.

Kingdon's writing style is somewhat formal, and at times stiff, but the book is easy to get through. Kingdon provides many concrete examples of the ideas he discusses, making the abstract principles easier to understand.

Recommended for classes on the policy process, especially in conjunction with Baumgarter and Jones' Agendas and Instability in American Politics.

I am in the graduate program at American University's School of Public Affairs. This book was required for one of the core classes. The theory--the dynamic, fluid model that Kingdon builds in this book has been practically adopted as THE mantra within policy formation/agenda setting research.
The book is well organized and easy to follow. It is not a challenging read but I found sections of the book to be a bit dry. Also, be ready to contend with literally hundreds of fluid metaphors that Kingdon employs throughout the book.

John Kingdon attempts to answer very difficult questions in his work "Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies." What makes an idea's time come? What makes people in and around government attend to some subjects and not to others? In short, Kingdon explores how ideas become policy in his 1994 award-winning book.

The book makes many interesting conclusions, as Kingdon uses scientific research methods to discuss how ideas become policy. It is amazing that Kingdon is able to quantify how influential certain groups are to policy formulation and implementation. In doing this, he looks at the influence of groups in and outside of government. Kingdon then goes onto his major two concepts of the policy primeval soup and the political stream. Both of these are wonderful illustrations of how policymaking happens.

In the end, this is a great book for public policy students. My only complaint is that Kingdon is oftentimes too wordy. It seems that he could have written a much more effective piece by summing it up in a 40-page journal article. In any event, the book is worth the read, even if some chapters are only skimmed.

Agenda setting, in the world of politics, is when a problem becomes identified as an issue that calls for government attention, discussion, and--possibly--decision making. This book is one of the most important works on agenda-setting.

John Kingdon has stated that:

Political events flow along according to their own dynamics and their own rules. Participants perceive swings in national mood, elections bring new administrations to power and new partisan or ideological distributions to Congress, and interest groups of various descriptions press (or fail to press) their demands on government.

The author sees three streams that must come together for an issue to be placed on the agenda--a political stream (just noted above), a policy stream (in which some policy proposal emerges as "best"), and a problem stream (a problem develops that people label as important). If they come together and if the window of opportunity for success is there, then the issue can become an agenda item. If the streams do not come together, agenda placement is unsuccessful--as with President Clinton's health care plan. That plan had two of three requirements in place. One, the political stream was supportive. A new President had been elected with his party having a majority in both houses of Congress; furthermore, Clinton outlined as a campaign issue support for a more ambitious health care program for Americans. The confluence of these two factors produced something like a "mandate" for change. Two, the problem stream saw health care bubbling up toward the top. That is, increasingly, people seemed to define health care as a serious problem about which something had to be done.

Nonetheless, no major initiative emerged to be fully considered. Clinton's plan was very nearly DOA (dead on arrival) once serious discussion began. Why? No single policy proposal garnered enough support. Democrats supported several different plans--such as a single payer system (in which government becomes the insurer), "pay or play" (in which businesses would largely fund health care insurance), and the Clinton plan itself (which focused on managed care). Thus, the policy stream never did "come together" around any single proposal. As a result, the initiative died and no substantial changes were forthcoming in the health care system.

What emerges in each stream is, to a large extent, "contingent," depending upon many factors--including chance. The result is unpredictability.

It may be that this work overemphasizes chance and contingency and underplays the role of human agency (for instance, the role of policy entrepreneurs who labot to get issues placed on the agenda and acted upon). Nonetheless, this is an exemplary work and well worth attending to if one is interested in setting the political agenda.

Many times I listened and have many of
the taped conversations of the late, great
Sherman H. Skolnick, a dedicated toiler
for America's cause, on the Tom Valentine
Radio Free America show (not the show of the
same name now by Carto crony, Masonic nitwit
Rick Adams, a scam artist from Rhode Island!).

Anyone wanting to contact me at richsalzerat
yahooodotcom, I will provide my cassettes
tape list of all the Sherman Skolnick / Tom
Valentine tapes. Mr. Valentine met the para-
plegic Mr Skolnick in Chicago back in the '60's
when Tom was Sports Editor of the Chicago Sun
Times and later Tribune. The writings of Mr.
Skolnick belong in the library of all Ameri-
cans right next to those of the late Col. L.
Fletcher Prouty! And Tom's own great literary
writings!

Why have you, Amazon.com, not printed an explanation as to the doubled pricing of this book? Your silence pertaining to this previously asked question, makes many, with good reason, wonder exactly what type of "business" you run. You owe us all, your paying customers, a response for this blatant price gauge!

Great book, unfortunately, Amazon for some bizarre reason has doubled the list price. You can order the book directly from the publisher for around $20. Who are you beholdened to Amazon?

Why is this book priced so above the cost? Amazon?

Unarguable facts. Amazon sell this at twice the price, and they sell Harry Potter at half the price. You see my friends, keeping people in ignorance is big business.

This is a nice read. The only minor downfall, Jim should have written more about the massive challenges surrounding health care and education. I also would have liked to see him talk more about the split between conservatives and liberals in the USA and how it is dividing the country.

I like Jim's straightforward and honest approach, in his first book and on his talk show "America in the Morning"

The book expressed some excellent ideas and other ideas that weren't so good. It was, however, straight to the point when dealing with the issues. Bohannon never stayed too long on any one topic, which is both good and bad. I hoped he would've written more on Poverty, Education, and Politics. Those chapters were good in and of themselves, but I was left wanting to read more on those topics. The book's bibliography in the back did provide more help. Its a superb book that deals with a variety of topics and goes into some detail. In the future, I hope Bohannon comes out another book containing more details about the issues.

I do not like convoluted political rhetoric or confusing sociological observations. Bohannon's writing is practical, knowledgeable, and simple. That's what made his book so enjoyable. You will not need a Phd. to read Bohannon's examinations of what America needs to do to improve. "Jimbo" is a great communicator. It is no wonder that he is the top radio talk show host for millions of Americans! If you like his program, you'll want to buy this book.

Jim's a friend and colleague, so I was prepared to be gracious. Instead, I'm REAL impressed. His plainspoken take on what-the-heck's-wrong-around-here-and-what-we-CAN-do-about-it is thoughtful and affirming. I'm recommending that all my client stations which carry his show buy a stack of copies of this book, and give them to clients and listeners.

Going to a seasoned expert in the media for perspectives and opinions can mean that the "media mouth" is a devout right or left winger. A good, hard driving, well-centered moderate man is hard to find! Take heart! Bohannon's book is the moderate voice who loves his country and wants it to achieve its promise and embrace the ideals that truly did and can once again revive our "moral center." Bohannon's breadth and depth of history is evident. If a reader is interested in a moderate's sensible perspectives, then Jim Bohannon's America in Crisis is worth the "dime" and time spent on this book. Jim has a large national following for his week night program. His callers appreciate his wit, incisive thinking, and his professional standards in taking the "spins" off of the current topics and really getting to the truth. Just as with his listening audience, Jim Bohannon's readers will be invigorated with his insight and solutions to America's problems in his "Twelve Step Program for America" chapter. Bohannon's book certainly has no "obfuscations." You will understand, know, and actually remember what you have read in his book when you finish this fast but very full "read." He communicates in a clean, no-nonsense style and with rich humor. I was impressed with his down-to-earth, conversational prose--available prose. There is so much right thinking in this book that I found my head moving in agreement and interspersing a few "amens" and "That's exactly how I think, too." I purchased four copies to give as gifts. That should be enough of a testimony as to my enthusiastic recommendation of America in Crisis--readable, enjoyable, believable.

America's Conscience
Bernadette T. Vadurro

Whether you support or oppose the so-called Neo-Conservatives in American government, this is a book well worth reading, guaranteed to be eye-opening, cage-rattling, and pointedly informative from page to page. This is not the angst-driven opinionated rant we see so often in books about the American scene. Moving coolly and rapidly through some very complex and turbulent subject matter, America's Conscience is a stimulating analysis of the rise of the political movement which has swept the halls of power in Washington DC, and has committed our future to extreme peril in pursuit of a world American hegemony.

Though this analysis is focused to reveal the movement clearly, and to show the author's viewpoint, it is not biased, or burdened with personal views. It is researched, documented, and footnoted like a Masters thesis (or so I would presume, as I don't hold the degree). As a literary work, it is trimmed and sleek, and with its many tight sidebars, it enables the reader to absorb a lot of information in a very fast read.

Those who agree with the fundamental axioms and objectives of the Neo-Conservative movement, in both domestic and foreign matters, will likely be pleased to see so well documented how deliberately, and for how long a relatively small association of colleagues have been working to bring about events which have forever changed our world. They will be pleased to know those patriots do not hesitate to use whatever means, methods, or misinformations are necessary to accomplish what they have begun.

Those who disagree will likely find reason in these pages to consider the Neo-Cons to be a gluttonous cabal of military-industrialists who have wrapped themselves in the Flag and seduced both Christians and Jews into getting into bed with them, who have lied to the Congress, the press, and the people to enable their agenda, and who have committed the lives and fortunes of all of us to that militant global marketing campaign. They will be astonished to see how openly this fraternity of political extremists and industrialists has been declaring its ideology and systematically acting to bring about a world objective, of which the war in Iraq is only one step, and control of the American mind by market manipulation through a symbiotic media monopoly is only one tool.

In America's Conscience, Bernadette Vadurro focuses the spotlight on the motivation and actions of this small but powerful group of leaders, like Toto drawing back the curtain to reveal who has been pulling the strings and giving the orders. Even so, it is neither an indictment nor a call for opposition. It is an invitation, an exhortation to examine certain things closely and realistically, and then to decide for yourself how to best respond to what they reveal, in the most positive and productive manner you can. As an exhortation to those who, like myself, I confess, have felt politically disenfranchised and socially disconnected, her message is refreshingly optimistic.

James Nathan Post
Postscript Publishing Company www.postpubco.com

Bernadette Vadurro's, "America's Conscience" is a remarkable book. Ms. Vadurro was brought up in a family where political discussion at the dinner table was the "blue plate special." Moreover, she was encouraged to question what she had seen, heard, and was being told by the media. This is how one becomes an informed citizen able to separate the truth from the spin and then make a cogent critique of the propaganda that is spoon fed by the media as "news."

"America's Conscience" is a remarkable book becasue predicated on this process that combines objectivity with critical analysis Ms. Vadurro, like Nietzsche and Kierkegaard found in their day, has discovered that when one strips the veneer of deceit and lies from social institutions, particularly political ones, all that is left is rot. It is not surprising that when Ms. Vadurro applies this process to neoconservativism and the Bush Administration the stench of rot is unbearable.

In a clear, concise, and cogent manner Ms. Vadurro creates a framework and then builds upon it an argument that exposes neoconservativism and the Bush Administration for what it is: a myopic, truncated, self-aggrandizing movement that has hijacked both America and what it means to be an American. She then clearly illustrates specifically how this happened and the disastrous result for not only America and Americans but for the entire world.

"America's Conscience" is the voice of Ms. Vadurro calling each of us back to the vision of the Founding Fathers as expressed in the Constitution of the United States of America. As such, she echoes the voice of Thomas Paine who understood that freedom, true freedom, requires more than "Summertime soldiers and Sometime patriots." True freedom exacts, in Pain's words, "a dear price."

In Chapter 20 of "American's Conscience" Ms. Vadurro challenges us to become full time soldiers and full time patriots. She challenges us to pay the "dear price" and return America to the vision of the Founding Fathers.

I most highly recommend "America's Conscience" as a book that in the words of Sir Frances Bacon everyone, "read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest."

Bernadette Vadurro has provided a wealth of detailed information and its my hope that this excellent book will be read all over America. America's Conscience, provides the information essential for an informed electorate. An informed electorate is critical, for without it democracy cannot possibly fulfill its potential.

As Lincoln said, "Democracy is government of the people by the people." That means citizens comprise the government and it is political leaders who are elected to be servants of the people.

There can be no excuse for ignorance. It is ignorance that has allowed power to defer to a sophisticated, arrogant, dishonest and exceptionally dangerous administration. It is time people woke up before its too late. American Conscience is the place to start.

The Bush administration, the entire neocon cabel, and sadly, the response of the American people themselves--has had a profoundly negative impact across the planet. The tired and hungry of the world have looked to America with its promise of justice and freedom for all, and found it wanting.

I'm deeply concerned for it seems, barring some drastic changes, the world is headed into a profoundly unsafe state, where extremism becomes the norm and violence a way of life.

Bernadette, provides an unflinching examination of what is transpiring in her country and calls upon her fellow citizens to reclaim the promise of their nation, to hold political leaders to account and thereby bring about the required course correction--not just for the United States, but for the impact it has on the rest of the world as well.

Colin D. Mallard.

Jam packed into this 20 chapter gem of a book are maps, charts, pie graphs and detailed source references to enable the average lay person to coherently challenge the faux news on Fox and the entertainment posing as "info"-tainment news on every other Main Stream Media television outlet.

This fact-filled first edition will forcefully arm your brain to Fight Against "Spin". Stash a copy into your daily backpack arsenal or heavy-hitting handbag, then go out to "Preach the Truth"! (Want PROOF: check out Chapter *9*, Spin, Baby, Spin.)

A MUST HAVE book ... purchase, read, share, keep in your library at home, and DEMAND a copy at the library in your hometown or your school.

I just sent "America's Conscience" to a young lady in California as a special occasion gift upon her "party promotion" in a State political organization!

As author Bernadette Vadurro writes in Chapter *20*, World Redemption: "Where do we begin to redeem the good name and honor of our nation?" I say let's start RIGHT HERE. Let us begin by reading and sharing both the knowledge and the ideas outlined in, "America's Conscience: Facing Threats to Democracy, the Middle Class and Our World."

Bernadette T. Vadurro's "America's Conscience" is a great place to start reading for anyone who is just becoming aware that the neoconservative power structure that has orchestrated George Bush's presidency serves neither Americans nor the rest of the world well. And it's a valuable resource for readers who, already aware, would benefit from having facts, figures, sources, and resources at their fingertips in a single volume.

The author has organized and assembled a dizzying volume of information, documented each of the twenty chapters with notes, and provided the reader with wide-angle views of everything from endless war to those elusive WMDs; from spinning stories to outright lies; from quieting dissent to an often lazy media; from who gives money to whom to the impact of the contributions. And more.

Transcending the extremists on the political left and right who don't let research or fact interfere with their respective agendas, Vadurro constructs her argument with reason, backs it with documentation, and, in my reading, essentially asks Americans, "Is this what you want?"

"America's Conscience" provides intelligent, concerned and open-minded American citizens, regardless of political affiliation or lack thereof, with verifiable evidence to back up the cliched, but nevertheless accurate slogan, "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."

The author has paid and is paying attention. Her book calls on the rest of us to do the same.

American Power and the New Mandarins, first published in 1967, is a collection of essays by Noam Chomsky about the Vietnam War and related subjects. Originally famous for his contributions to linguistics, Chomsky began writing extensively about U.S. foreign policy during the Vietnam War, and this collection is the first of his many political books. While the subject matter is a bit dated, those who are interested in either the intellectual climate during the Vietnam era or the origins of Chomsky's career as a critic of U.S. policy will find plenty to interest them in this book.

Chomsky's primary goal in American Power and the New Mandarins is not to convince the reader that the Vietnam War was wrong. On this issue, he says that "Anyone who puts a fraction of his mind to the task can construct a case [against the war] that is overwhelming" (9). Rather, his goal is to illustrate the degree to which American intellectuals supported the war, or at least the assumptions behind it. Many people remember the Vietnam War as a time of widespread protest against U.S. policy, with intellectuals and the youth leading the way. Chomsky argues that the war's "opponents" were often not concerned with the moral issues related to the war, but rather with the fact that the war seemed to be unwinnable and was costing too many American lives. The implication is that these intellectuals would not be protesting if the U.S. had crushed the Vietnamese resistance without significant loss of American life (Vietnamese life being irrelevant).

The book is made up of eight essays of varying length, and an introduction and an epilogue.

- In "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship," Chomsky introduces the concept of the "new mandarins"--those who claim the authority to determine policy based on their allegedly "scientific" understanding of human nature and technology. These "new mandarins" believe that their knowledge gives them the right to restructure society in Vietnam and elsewhere, regardless of the wishes of the local population. In addition, Chomsky argues that many intellectuals tend to accept the status quo and support the basic assumptions of U.S. policy--that Western nations always know best, and force is justified to keep Third World countries from going down the "wrong" path. This essay is not very concise or organized; Chomsky has plenty of evidence to present but it flows out in no particular order. Chomsky devotes nearly 50 pages to criticizing a single historian's book about the Spanish Civil War--an excellent example, in Chomsky's opinion, of "the deep-seated bias of liberal historians," (93) but a cumbersome way to make his point. Still, whatever its organizational shortcomings, this essay presents plenty of evidence to illustrate the biases of liberal intellectuals in favor of American power.

- In "The Revolutionary Pacifism of A. J. Muste: On the Backgrounds of the Pacific War," Chomsky explains the parallels between the Vietnam War and Japanese expansion in China in the 1930's. In both cases, defenders of government policy appealed to "the high moral character of the intervention, the benefits it would bring to the suffering masses" (183). Both America and Japan tried to set up puppet governments to serve their interests, and responded to doubts about their actions by emphasizing the "Communist" threat (196).

- "The Logic of Withdrawal" discusses the political strength of the NLF (Vietcong) and the continuing resistance of the United States to any political settlement that might allow the Vietnamese a fair choice between the NLF and other alternatives. Chomsky ridicules the idea that an NLF political victory could pose any threat to America's survival, comparing this to the Nazis' claim that "a Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy was threatening the survival of Germany" (249).

- "The Bitter Heritage" is Chomsky's review of Arthur Schlesinger's book of the same name. Schlesinger expresses the "liberal" view that the United States had made a tactical error by fighting a costly war, but that American motives were pure. Chomsky argues that this view represents the extreme limit of mainstream opposition to the war in the United States. The view that "the United States has no unilateral right to determine by force the course of development of the nations of the Third World" (297) is not considered to be "responsible criticism" (296).

- In "Some Thoughts on Intellectuals and the Schools" and "The Responsibility of Intellectuals," Chomsky continues his criticism of intellectuals who endorse the irresponsible use of American power.

- "On Resistance" and "Supplement to 'On Resistance'" are Chomsky's statements about how to protest the war. Chomsky argues that resistance should remain nonviolent, not only because of moral considerations, but also because violence "will surely fail, will simply frighten and alienate some who can be reached, and will further encourage the ideologists and administrators of repression" (374-5). Chomsky endorses the refusal to be drafted as an ideal means of resistance, since it directly impedes the government's ability to carry out its policies and can be used to make a visible statement as well.

If you are a Chomsky fan, you will probably enjoy this book; his writing style and basic outlook have remained consistent over the decades. He has written plenty of books and essays about more recent events, however, so if you are interested in American power in general rather than Vietnam in particular, you might want to check the newer ones out first.

Noam Chomsky's first political work is a first-rate collection of essays critiquing the U.S. war of aggression in Vietnam. Chomsky is more concerned here with the ideological defenses for the war than with the moral implications of the war itself, which are totally transparent at this late date. There are a wide variety of topics discussed in this broad volume, from the origins of the Pacific War to Arthur Schlesinger's liberal apologetics for U.S. imperialism. Chomsky's famous essay 'Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship' is a meandering account of the liberal intelligentsia's understanding of the Spanish Civil War. In it, Chomsky falls into the pitfalls of ultra-leftism, with low quality critiques of Bolshevism and Leninism. He relies on Rosa Luxemburg's fine criticisms of Lenin without examining Luxemburg's own political context in the German SDP, or her own explicit support for forming a revolutionary 'vanguard.' However, there are some fine passages in 'American Power and the New Mandarins,' such as 'The Logic of Withdrawal' or Chomsky's own personal reflections on the demonstrations at the Pentagon. This book will surely remain one of the better examinations of the criminal war in Vietnam for years to come.

During the Vietnam war the United States used its enormous military power to try to install in South Vietnam a minority government of U.S. choice, with its military operations based on the knowledge that the people there were the enemy. This country killed millions and left Vietnam (and the rest of Indochina) devastated. A Wall Street Journal report in 1997 estimated that perhaps 500,000 children in Vietnam suffer from serious birth defects resulting from the U.S. use of chemical weapons there. Seems fairly reasonable to protest against this, surely?... This was and is a groundbreaking book, and ....

Chomsky's first political book, _American Power_ is a devastating critique for the U.S. foray into Southeast Asia, which Chomsky considers to be little more than modified imperialism. The book starts somewhat slowly, first with an extended essay focusing largely on the Spanish Civil War, which though interesting, seems like a strange place to begin the discussion. The second essay focuses on the decision of drop nuclear weapons during World War II, and the absence of "war guilt" in the U.S. over that action. The second essay, like the first, is interesting, though not seemingly directly related to Chomsky's Vietnam critique. The remainder of work focuses quite squarely on Vietnam, and offers the sort of moral outrage that Chomsky contends was conspicuously lacking from the liberal academics of the time. The entire underpinning of Chomsky's premise has to do with the morality of U.S. action, rather than the pragmatism that he chides others for basing their positions on.

The book is quite powerful in many of its conclusions. A few criticisms: there is extensive use of irony throughout the work, occasionally to the point of excess; while Chomsky eviscerates a half dozen of the "liberal intelligensia", it's difficult for me, as someone who was not alive to witness the war, to know if these voices typify the liberal objections to the war, or if Chomsky has cherry-picked these individuals (obviously Schlesinger was a major voice, but I'm not familiar with the others); if you don't have some conception of the forces behind the Spanish Civil War, the first essay will be somewhat confusing. It was for me, anyway.

Altogether though, particularly in light the U.S. invasion of Iraq, many of Chomsky's ideas have taken on a new urgency. The comparision between Vietnam and Iraq will come very naturally as you read _American Power_. It is well worth our time to make this comparison. Chomsky's thesis is as valid now as it was in 1969.

I recently reread Chomsky's classic. It's very enlightening to see the parallels as well as the differences between the role America's "intelligencia" played during the Vietnam War and the role they are playing now with just another war "won".

What I love about this book is that it's not a 'genre' book-- it's about so many different kinds of people that you can hardly hold it all in your head-- whoa, I'm reading about two old Jewish ladies one minute, and somehow it's vitally connected to hot anonymous sex in Central Park, and also to opera singers spending their whole lives on an off-chance dream, and vicious successful writers (the more successful, the more vicious, it seems....), and oh yes, romantic types just as hopelesly optimistic --- what dreams are worth pursuing, I guess is the question. And isn't that what everyone wonders, always?
It's innovative and witty, too, by the way. My heart is full, and I'm inspired to go out and live my life more courageously and with more love. If that's a dopey thing to say, I'm sorry, but that's what the book makes me feel.

I forgot to eat and drink and maybe breathe while I was reading this book-- it's the book I've been writing in my head all these years, as my own life has unfolded. It's always so strange to see in somebody else's words your own life described, but that's what it was like to read this novel by a really wonderful writer I just discovered. How did he know THAT about me! Finally someone has described THAT impossible-to-describe moment, when the sun is setting, and your whole life seems to make sense for a moment, and then it's gone and life's a big confusion again....
I'm so moved by this book. It seems so full of love, is the thing, despite the fact that it's so clear-sighted and unafraid to say that even those we love, even ourselves (especially ourselves) are flawed, flawed, flawed-- and yet always, always deserving of love. I'm so sick of the smooth, cynical, heartless styles, that are so superior to everyone and everything. This universe is eloquent, beautiful, and yet always human and humble.
The other thing I love about AURA is that it's--imaginative! It's funny! It makes you smile and laugh, with its inventive plot and struggling characters. I teach, and I'm definitely going to teach this in my contemporary lit class.

Without reiterating the plot I have four things to say about this book.

1. For me, this book was not a page-turner but one that I wanted to read slowly and savor each moment, marvel at the unfolding of every character, and reflect on those times when some epiphany in the book crossed over to call forth or merge with similar times in my own life.

2. The non-linear plot is a wonderful literary devise, even though it sometimes makes it difficult to know exactly where you are in the unfolding of the story-which makes it feel even more true to life.

3. The characters are uniquely and relentlessly consistent in their development, which is what makes them so believable and engaging.

4. There is a subtle underlying darkness to the novel, because it is so honest in dealing with the failed hopes and imperfections that exist in each of the characters, reminding the reader that we are also imperfect creatures. The good news is that we do not have to be perfect to appreciate and even enjoy each day that is given to us.

I think Gary Glickman is a literary genius just waiting to be discovered. His writing is beautiful, simple, but deep, and allows us to see the depths of every character beneath their carefully constructed façades. There are many levels to this book, and a great deal of subtle social commentary. I was in New York in the 70's and this book so totally captures that time. It's like a painting, beautifully crafted, sometimes disturbing, but always fascinating... Definitely a great read.

I read the other review here and thought I just had to respond. I never heard of Gary Glickman before I read "Aura"-- I was just looking for a vacation book that would grab my attention and keep it. But I loved this novel. I always wondered what it would have been like to live in New York, and risk everything to "make it", and take the risk of hanging out with ruthless, talented people.....now it feels like I know.
But there's more going on in this novel than just what "happens"-- that's why I loved it so much. Every moment-- a thousand private moments people have that you just think, "I could never describe this, all these connections, all this gorgeous life happening all around me"-- that's what this novel describes, over and over again. It's hard to imagine how the writer remembered so much, so vividly, or even how he managed to create so many of those private, mystical moments. Like just looking across a courtyard, and seeing your sister's kitchen window, when you're an old woman. Or falling in love, or succeeding in your dreams and realizing that -- woops!-- love and connection and heart are worth more than any of the gold.
If I have any quibble with the book it's that ambition and privilege do seem to win in the end. If you're lucky in the beginning, you win: the privileged kids become the privileged and powerful adults. ... just like life, I guess. Darn!
Anyway, this book (I'll say it) changed my life. I'm buying it for my friends, all of us just out of school, and big with our own dreams.

This book is written with such energy and near-paranoid conviction that I'm convinced the author must have been shooting up while writing it. And I mean that as a compliment. Really. Tackling a subject as taboo (and as neglected) as the drug war takes chutzpah, and, I must say, the author does it with the fire of a crack-crazed prophet.

What surprised me most about the book, though, is its sardonic tone. It's got a wry sense of humor that really compliments the seedy subject matter. A great mix of comedy, tragedy, and ouright absurdity. It's refreshing to read a topical book with strong writing as well as research.

I must admit, I approached this book with extreme caution. And though I'm not sure I'm ready to have drugs completely legalized (I'm definitely a child of the "Just Say No" generation), Miller's case against the drug war is powerful and hard to dispute.

Highly recommended. Surprisingly entertaining as well as informative. All around, a very good trip (and I'm not just saying that because I want to smoke dope without fear of repercussions).

To put it succinctly, the war on drugs is a war against the American people. Over two-thirds of American adults born since 1955 have used illegal drugs at some point in their lives, most without any trace of subsequent harm. However, our gov't, through its Gestapo-like enforcement arm, the DEA (which has a vested interest in prosecuting the war to its maximum extent and keeping the war going as long as possible) continue to circumscribe the rights of the American people. Since the inception of the DEA the civil rights of Americans in regards to drugs have been increasingly ignored, and it's a rare politician who doesn't use the drug war as an opportunity to appear tough on crime. The DEA and many police forces actually rely on asset forfeiture to provide a substantial portion of their budgets, even though fewer than 5% of asset forfeiture cases involve any prosecution, let alone conviction. The DEA is then free to spend this confiscated wealth as it pleases. Orwell was prophetic.

Let's face facts: this is not a problem of supply, it's a problem of demand. But it need not be a problem at all. University sponsored and AMA and BMA endorsed research has consistently shown most "classic" drugs, such as weed, hash, heroin and morphine to be non-toxic. Coke is rarely dangerous, and then primarily to those with heart conditions. The prohibition of these drugs has caused the gov't to entirely surrender their ability to regulate a drug's content, which is far more detrimental to the health of any user of classic drugs in their unadulturated form. Medical studies have shown without fail that Alcohol is the most poisonous and detrimental of mood-altering substances.

Additionally, America's drug war has resulted in the wholesale destablization of producer and transshipment nations. The lawlessness seen in Colombia and along the Mexican border is entirely a result of America's campaign of zero tolerance-an unobtainable goal. Senator John Kerry perpetrated the prevaricative canard that criminal cartels were behind the drive for legalization. Nothing could be further from the truth: cartels always step into a vacuum, and they benefit from our draconian laws. One has to wonder where Senator Kerry gets his marching orders. Cartels would disappear if drugs were legalized, just as they did when alcohol prohibition was repealed in 1933.

Prohibition also leads to police corruption: studies show that 30% of police have been unlawfully involved with illegal drugs. The supreme court recently overturned a previous 9-0 ruling regarding the knock-and-announce rule, stating that the cops need merely identify themselves before entering a residence-usually violently.

Enforcement of drug laws are also racially biased (I'm a white male). Most drug users are white and casual users of weed, coke or heroin. Yet most of those doing time for drug offenses are disproportionately black and hispanic. It's a case of a predatory DEA wolfpack picking off the most vulnerable members of a herd, rather than facing down a banker who can afford something better than a court-appointed defence. It's so unfair it pangs the conscience.

America has among the most restrictive drug laws in the world, and they have only made the situation worse. Canada recently considered a Senate recommendation to legalize pot. Holland has legalized pot without any negative consequences: the Dutch have the longest life-span in the world and a violent crime rate less than 1 sixth of the US. Injection programs for the most hard-core heroin addicts in Switzerland have caused aids to disappear among this vulnerable group, and employment among them stands at 70%. Other countries have come to grips with this problem through rationality and compassion. America has not-and it has utterly failed. Studies of American conditions and behavior prior to 1914, when these subsances were legal, show no correlation to poorer health or crime-Alcohol is the sole exception to this.

President McKinley used cocaine for 27 years until his death by an assasin's bullet. Grant used morphine to ease his discomfort after his presidency. 250,000 Civil War vets were morphine addicts.

The police chiefs of Kansas City, MO, San Jose and San Diego, CA, Seattle, WA and many smaller departments have called for the legalization of drugs. Former drug czar Barry McCaffrey has called the Federal prison system "America's drug Gulag" and has stated "We cannot incarcerate our way out of this problem." Former Secy of State George Schultz has called for an end to prohibition and consideration of decriminalization and legalization.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."-William Pitt.

If there's one cliche that has been blatantly overused in the past few years, it's that our government is fighting a "war on drugs." Sure, the government is pretending to wage it, but we all know the war on drugs has been over for years, if it even ever existed in the first place. How exactly can we have a war on something so many people seem to want? Next thing you know, the government will start telling people they can't gamble, or pay for sex, or smoke in a privately-owned bar (whoops). Anyway, Joel Miller adds plenty of fuel to the raging debate over the drug war with Bad Trip. This short, direct, and intelligent volume should convince anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated up to their eyeballs in governmental propaganda that the war on drugs (like most wars) isn't worth fighting.

In one rather entertaining early segment, Miller takes the reader on a glimpse of the drug war's early days, illustrating the roots of the current mess in the first half of the 20th century. There's plenty of unintentional comedy to be found when Miller discusses some of the attitudes regarding drugs (including alcohol) that were commonly held back in the twenties and thirties. In one especially uproarious moment, in 1938 the Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics actually wrote, "an overdose of marijuana generates savage and sadistic traits likely to reach a climax in axe and ice-pick murders." And then of course, there was Reefer Madness, the classic 1936 movie where a little toking resulted in PERMANENT INSANITY. Now, having been around some pot smokers myself, I can say for sure that while marijuana use may result in giddiness, the telling of off-color jokes, and the consumption of junk food, it does not lead to violence or insanity. Sadly, though, the ridiculous beliefs outlined above continue to inform the drug laws even in these more "enlightened" times, and Miller does us all a favor by casting light upon them.

Of course, it's not drugs themselves that cause so much crime, it's the illegality of drugs. If people can't obtain drugs through legal means, they'll just get them elsewhere, very likely from violent gangs. Every halfway-informed person knows the same thing happened when alcohol was prohibited and gangsters took over the market, but apparently our politicians are slow learners (duh). Essentially, Miller writes, the drug war is bound to fail due in large part to simple economics. Drug dealers, he writes, are profiteers, while drug warriors are mere bureaucrats. Since the sale and use of drugs are prohibited, the government creates a black market in which any willing person with some brains can turn an easy profit. Therefore, the dealer trying to make a buck will always be ahead of the DEA agent who's getting paid anyway. As Miller details in the chapter on drug smuggling, the tighter the noose of prohibition gets, the more inventive dealers get in the quest for money.

Most tragically, though, since the drug trade is entirely voluntary and there are no victims to file complaints, governments have to resort to ever more proactive and draconian measures in order to catch dealers and users. Warrantless searches, no-knock military-style raids, blanket traffic stops, and utterly unjustified confiscations have made a mockery of everybody's Constitutional rights while doing little or nothing to stem the flow of drugs. Miller provides us with a laundry list of innocent people who have been robbed, terrorized, and even killed at the hands of overzealous (or outright corrupt) drug warriors. In many cases, governments have established a giant network of informants to fink on friends, customers, and even classmates, often going so far as to entrap people into breaking the law. Not to mention, the travesty of mandatory-sentencing laws has filled our jails with non-violent "criminals" who take up space that could be used for slightly more dangerous folks, like, say, muggers, burglars, and rapists.

Ultimately, Miller writes, the war on drugs amounts to nothing more than a war on freedom. There are plenty of other institutions in society, such as the family and the church, that can help prevent people from abusing drugs, but government prohibition merely creates a whole slew of new problems for all of us. Accepting the fact that other people are going to do things you don't like is a necessary part of living in a free society, one that mature people are going to have to get used to. After all, I don't think people should watch reality TV or listen to Celine Dion, but I manage to get over it. Miller finishes with a quote from Thomas Sowell that sums up the issue better than I ever could: "What do people get out of using drugs? I don't know...but there is all the difference in the world between deciding that you don't want to do something and trying to force other people to live your way." Amen.

This should scare the hell out of a lot of dirty law enforcement agencies! The War on drugs is OVER,and the drugs won. Illegal drugs cannot be stopped. It has created more dirty cops,and turned them into Nazi style storm troopers that bust into homes of the innocent in the wee hours of the morning. This book should be required reading for every American. Like the book? Please visit www.leap.cc/.
Leagalize the drugs and then you control them. President Bush, wake up and read this book.

Miller does a superb job of marshalling a number of philosophical, economic, legal and practical arguments against the war drugs. Although he states that he believes drug use is a bad choice, he also believes that life in a free society necessarily encumbers the fact that others will make choices that we personally oppose.

I wonder how Miller's argument would apply to the abortion debate?

In any event, I am a conservative Christian who happens to believe that the war on drugs is a misguided, miserable failure implemented by self-serving politicians who sought more votes in the 1970s.

The principle of states' rigths should apply to this question. Prohibition at the federal level is a failed policy that ought to be abandoned, and Miller gives us the ammuntion needed in this battle.

"Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency" is great reading for people who want to move beyond books about the mechanics of the Kennedy assassination. The book helps explain why the "Eastern establishment" and a lot of other influential people, might want to get rid of President Kennedy. Another book, "History Will Not Absolve Us : Orwellian Control, Public Denial, & the Murder of President Kennedy" provides additional pieces of the puzzle by explaining how the American establishment, including leading establishment liberals like Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn, have worked to sell the Warren Commision's 'lone gunman' cover-up. The amazing thing about the Kennedy assassination is that, despite a lot of nonsense coming from the mainstream media, the American people know it wasn't a lone gunman and the killers didn't do us a favor.

In reviewing the thoughts of most researchers of the JFK assassination, one sees that most of them invariably bring up the Cuba issue, and occasionally Lee Harvey Oswald's possible involvement with this issue.
Now, however, in this book, Professor Donald Gibson may have uncovered the real issues behind the death of President Kennedy. He reveals so many issues, in fact, that one has to begin to decide which one is the crucial one, the one that provoked the conspirators to decide to kill him.

The death of Kennedy seems to this observer of the American scene a resolution of the struggle of the two forces to decide who really rules America. Since people who run the government colluded with the murderers of the president, it's pretty obvious who really runs the show.
Readers of this book may want to try Gibson's second book, "The Kennedy Assassination Cover-Up". After forty years, Americans should want a reasonable answer to the question of who killed Kennedy. Gibson may provide the answer.

In 1989 a book was published called "Crossfire", in which Texas-based journalist Jim Marrs reviewed most of the information he thought was then available concerning the JFK assassination. A large part of the book dealt with those people and groups whom he thought were the most likely to have killed Kennedy. Allen Dulles and his CIA were included in his list.
Donald Gibson has added one more suspect to this list in this book, and it would appear to this reader that someone has finally made sense of the events of November 22, 1963.
From this one book alone, one could seriously accept the idea that the eastern establishment, the Wall Street crowd, the corporate elite and all their connections had the most to lose with Kennedy as president. They had the motive and means to kill the president and then to cover it up. Gibson flatly states the establishment and the CIA's interests were intertwined. In fact, the CIA was merely the enforcer for the Council on Foreign Relations global agenda. Both Allen Dulles and John J McCloy were extremely important members of the Council, who managed to land on the Warren Commission and lead the cover-up. In fact, a case could be built that they organized the plot. All they needed was the green light from someone in the inner circle of the Rockefeller-dominated Council, like one of the Rockefellers.

this book helped give me a whole new meaningful perspective on the kennedy assasination..it sifts through all the misinformation, and the same tired trashy expose type books on the kennedy presidency that don't give any meaningful information, i am much more interested in a president's policies economic and otherwise as opposed to his sex life...i highly reccommend that anyone interested in politics, economics, or the kennedy assasination read this book twice and very slowly. gibson lays everything out clearly in an easy to understand way, i highly reccomend this book.

This book is a great read. The subject matter is interesting and thought provoking. I had the privilage of having Prof. Gibson in class. His knowledge is vast and inspiring. His passion has motivated me not only in the college realm but in life itself.