Events Books

I couldn't put this book down. Every page, every line tells the truth behind the Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian conflict. All wars are complex and difficult to comprehend but Mr. Cohen helps us understand what happened just a few years ago. An accurate and eye-opening account. Some of the atrocities committed are so heinous, so vile as to bring us right back to images of the Third Reich. This is a very important work by a man who knows what he is talking about.

this is the book to read. Its absolutely fantastic. Roger Cohen has a very sharp pen. For me its not just enough to read the book myself, I want to buy other copies and give to friends.

After a few hundred pages, when your ability to read about another Balkans family and their plight begins to wane, Cohen presents some new detail in an individual life that forces you to refocus on how the war crushed people so much like Americans and so very European that the "ancient hatreds" argument becomes sickening. To read about a 16-year-old girl's Tom Cruise poster and her death by shelling is to realize how much the West failed. Compelling, brutal, depressing, and vital reading.

The destruction of Yugoslavia is not the easiest of subjects to fully comprehend. Cohen's informative and excellently written narrative is the best place to start. Cohen does more than just describe the events, he attempts to get beneath the surface to understand the psychology behind the unspeakable atrocities committed during the various wars. The trajedy of Yugoslavia cannot be understood without a recounting of the atrocities committed there during World War II, atrocities that largely went unpunished. All of this and more are recounted by Cohen in his very readable account. It is must reading for anyone interested in recent European history.

A big, passionate book by the New York Times correspondent, who has tried to pack everything into it: the Bosnian experience of the war (told through several family histories), the Western response and UN policy, and the historical background. Cohen argues well against the `ethnic hatreds' doctrine, but tends to substitute World War II hatreds instead. However, his analysis of UN failure, including evidence drawn from minutes of a high-level meeting held before the fall of Srebrenica, will be of lasting importance

I loved this book. Fagone writes in a style that's as engaging and erudite as Malcolm Gladwell and David Foster Wallace, and he brings an excitement and awe to a subject that many might consider too gross to be examined. Now that I know all the players, it's more exciting to watch the Nathan's Famous Hot Dog competition.

HORSEMEN OF THE ESOPHAGUS: COMPETITIVE EATING AND THE BIG FAT AMERICAN DREAM follows the author's journey to twenty-seven eating contests on two continents, from the U.S. to Japan, as he interviews some of the world's top eating champions and surveys contests, subcultures, and oddities of the food world. Any food fan will relish these fun vignettes of promoters, events, and eaters alike, wrapped n chapters of mouth-watering - and sometimes horrifying - descriptions of food and gluttons alike.

Diane C. Donovan
California Bookwatch

Competitive eating has to be one of the signs of the collapse of American culture. Or, is it? For one year Jason Fagone explores the cesspool of commercial gluttony and comes back with a surprising, and fulfilling story.

Sure, this book is about eating, but it's also a satisfying quest, like a good road movie. Jason Fagone takes us around the world to see best and the worst of this offbeat activity -- the worst is truly, deeply upsetting -- and to search for meaning in all those HDBs (hot dogs and buns). Often funny, sometimes profane, never boring, this book is a thoughtful work of serious journalism and great storytelling.

Ok, up front, let me say that I think that competitive eating is fairly weird and gross. This book only marginally shifted my idea that the whole thing is a bit of a freak show. I didn't think I'd like this book. My sister gave me this book because she has an unnatural fixation with hot dogs and spends way too much time in bookstores cruising the new release aisle. I am unfamiliar with this writer, as I guess it's his first book. But he has a strong voice, and an engaging way of explaining the most incredulous situations as very matter of fact. I sort of thought it as a more entertaining variation on "Fast Food Nation."

Frankly, some of the details are just weird or hysterical (dunking hot dogs in liquid so that they go down easier - yuck) and yet it's all nicely detailed and believable. One thing that is not evident from the cover is that the story is not just of the business of competitive eating, which I knew nothing about and which he covers well, but of America's huge appetites for everything. I found this aspect of the book surprisingly thought provoking. I say surprisingly, because I really just thought it would be about obese guys eating hot dogs. But it actually made me really think about these people, and why they do this to themselves, and more importantly, why we as a country do it - we just consume, consume, consume.

It's one of the few books that I've read in a few years where I think the title doesn't explain the book well, and a different one might have lent itself better to the actual material inside.

A great book by a great attorney and even better human being. He tells it like it is but doesn't forget to make you laugh. You've got to read this book!

Mickey Sherman, a renowned defense attorney, defends his profession against the rash of stereotypes held by the general public, usually using a heavy does of his good -- and wacky -- sense of humor in the process.

And, it's not just defending his profession. He looks at the practice of criminal law in general. This isn't a nuts-and-bolts, or a tell-all, just a description of how defense lawyers, judges, prosecutors and cops are all people -- and how those who are best people are usually the best in their line of work.

Filled with great anecdotes from an attorney who truly doesn't take himself too seriously, Mickey Sherman explains not only how he can defend "those guys," but, how you should be glad people like him defend "those guys."

This book should be mandatory reading for criminal defense attorneys. It gets your head, your heart, and your ego in the right place. A light, quick and engaging read, it will crack you up again and again at the same time as imparting much insight. And then there's the chapter on the Roger Ligon case, the prep and trial of which is a model of unstinting hard work, commitment and brilliance by attorney Sherman. And it's cheap, you should buy a bunch of copies so you can hand them out the next time someone asks, "How can you defend those people?!"

I've often asked myself "how can that lawyer defend that person". I guess sometimes I still wonder, but in our wonderful country every person has the right to be represented/defended in court. Sort of reminds me of hate the sin but love the sinner . . Can't love the sinner, but can accept the fact that he has the right to good legal counsel.

Hysterically Entertaining

Enchanted by the quagmires, challenges, and events that surround the lives of attorneys, media commentators, and entertainers?

Interested in the inside scoop on high profile cases, courtroom dramas, actors, players, and the personal boundaries that attorney's often face?

Want to read something that will make you laugh out loud, get teary eyed, stir your nerves, rock your views, and motivate you to live each day as you see fit?

If your answers are yes - then "How Can You Defend Those People" is a MUST READ! It's rare to find a book where readers are so moved by one man's life experiences! Mickey Sherman's accounts are so vividly cast and frankly depicted that they leave you yearning for more and wondering how all these interesting events could possibly have happened to one person! From Michael Skakel, OJ Simpson, Scott Peterson, Martha Stewart, the Menedez brothers ... to the quite unknown yet poignant story of Roger Ligon ... this book is well-written, exciting, and hysterically entertaining!

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.

This book is short and sweet. Right to the point. If you want your children to know what's important in this world, buy each one of them this book.

This is a good read. Political satire, why is it in the family books?

Sack's book had me both thinking and laughing. A great book that provides readers with a roadmap for thinking about their own lives and what they may want to pass down to their children.

I'm a huge fan of Brian Sack's Banterist website so I pre-ordered this book. What a treat it is! Lots of laugh-out-loud moments, but also some very insightful obervations about today's society and our culture. This book would make a fabulous Baby Shower gift for new moms and dads. Better give it BEFORE the baby arrives while they have time to read it!

For the past few nights, I've annoyed my husband by busting out laughing while reading this book. Brian is a funny writer with a clever book that's more memoir than advice book, though I will save mine for my boys for when they're old enough to read about Irish pubs and French stalkers.

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.

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 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.

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!).

Learning to live past the death of a child is the hardest moment in ones life. This book helped us! Read it and let it help you! This book is good for ANY Crisis not just the death of a loved one. Any life crisis is covered. Read it and get better!

This book saved my life. If you are going through grief caused by a death, a divorce, a job change, a major move, the loss of a child, or the grief of losing someone or something you love, you will be GREATLY BLESSED by this book! It will validate your feelings and give you sense of normalcy in the midst of your pain. It will give you the hope to go on knowing that you are not alone, that everything is going to be ok, you will be ok.

When my mother faced a battle with cancer over 20 years ago, she sent me this book to comfort me when the inevitable time came. What wisdom. I've given away so many copies to grieving friends that I can't keep my own. I've been told by many of them that it helped them so much that they too gave copies to others. Just knowing you're not alone in your feelings of grief, and that there are ways to work through it, provide such comfort and hope. Buy it now for when you need it later.

This book is great for both people who are experiencing loss (it could be losing your house in a tornado) and for people who want to know how to be a friend to those who are grieving.

I keep giving my copy away and ordering more. This is not a "take a warm bubble bath and it'll be all better" book. The book makes several important points; you go through a whole range of emotions, it takes at a long time, you should take it easy on yourself, not expect too much of yourself, and you shouldn't make any life-changing decisions for at least a year.

But even more significant is that the book gives you permission to grieve in your own way and time -- there is no right or wrong way to grieve. This should also be required reading for well-meaning friends and family and co-workers and the book gives them permission to be tolerant and understanding of the person who is grieving.

It is a quick read, liberally sprinkled with case histories and examples.

I have a slightly older addition, which is why I'm not giving this book five stars. Some of the references are a little out of date.

Overall, this is a really useful book. Dr. Stearns clearly understands the grieving process. She provides a balanced exploration of what happens to to people during times of crisis, and helps readers to cope. I say balanced in that this isn't a typical 'self-help' book, lacking in depth, yet it isn't an overly technical, dry psychology book. The case histories and the overall writing style make the book very read friendly. Her arguments make sense and are backed up by good research. Readers who've read other work on the subject of grief, death, loss, crisis, etc., will find they may be familiar with some of the ideas already, but the presentation is fresh enough to keep this from being a big drawback. If you've gone through a major loss, or if you are personally or professionally trying to support someone who has, this is a great book to pick up.

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.