Events Books

The book is an eye opener for sure. It really puts the war on drugs (the people) in the real world. It's a got to read kind of book, do your self a favor and read it!

Ibogaine, the illegal, boycotted and most effective treatment for addiction known to man. The ibogaine story reveals the behind the scene story of ibogaine and the bogus war on drugs. Ibogaine is a broad spectrum anti-addictive natural substance that has been used for thousands of years by native people. The attempt by the US government and pharmacutical companies to keep it off the market (and information about it from the public) is cruel and criminal. Being safer than asprin and not subject to any abuse potential it does not qualify as a schedule 1 controlled substance with the likes of heroin and cocaine, yet it is so scheduled. Why? Could the government actually want drugs on our streets? Could it be a threat to many billion dollar medications? Read the book for the answers.

The in-depth information on the theoretical/pharmacological actions of addiction (and Ibogaine's role on resetting the mind's regulatory systems) alone should be enough of a motivation to buy this book. OK, the story line gets a bit muddled here and there - as the authors weave many independent threads into this contemporary account of growing public awareness of the importance of Ibogaine - but don't let this stop you from reading this book. The research covered by this presentation is about as exciting as REAL science gets. After all, scientific discovery is truly a human drama.

Since the overt suppression of research on "psychedelic" (mind-manifesting) drugs, few animal studies - and far fewer human studies (almost none) - have been authorized by the FDA. This book clearly emphasizes the importance of on-going research based in these important chemicals.

Anyone truly interested in the mechanisms of human consciousness and behavior should absolutely read this seminal work. Our potential as individuals (and by extension as a race) is eternally tied to our ability to understand (and ultimately control) the mechanisms governing individual consciousness. As this book clearly illustrates, addiction is a malfunction of the biomechanics of consciousness - as well as the result of bad decisions. Yet, it appears that it may take more than self-help programs to permanently reverse the damage done. When it comes to curing individuals - and by extension society - of addictive behavior, Ibogaine appears to be just the tool we need to tackle this problem at the source.

I might append "The Ibogaine Story" with this epilogue. The maintenance of our own bodies is an individual responsibility. Learning to do so intelligently is nothing less than a primordial right. Put another way, "big brother" has no authority inside the soul's temple. When it comes to the eternal "war on tyranny," if information is power, than THIS BOOK IS A WEAPON OF MASS ENLIGHTENMENT.

The topics of ibogaine and the drug war in America are covered nicely in this book, with an emphasis on historical perspective and cultural insights. This is an important book, but it is also somewhat confused in its overall presentation. By that statement, I mean that it goes so deeply into the topic that it begins to confuse the average reader. This book is a must have however, for anyone interested in the current politics and background of ibogaine.

This is one book where you must read the introduction. and then when you read the book you find out thatthe book can be interpreted in at least one other way. i think everybody would take out something different but that would always be refreshing. i could not stop myself from saying 'aha' at many places. still, i think he sometimes is contradicting himself. he thinks that socialism and liberalism can go together. maybe he is right. i dont think so.

Written by a very advanced thinker, this book represents a shattering statement against the Christian petit-burgois morality of work, a true revolution and evolution in man's thinking.

Russell became famous as a mathematician and philosopher.

But when he won the Nobel Prize, it was for Literature. When you read this book of essays, you will see why.

It is beautifully written and has all of Russell's virtues: clarity, wit, humor, forcefulness, simplicity.

Even better, it is a brief education in itself. Most of the essays were written just as the Great Depression was beginning, and Russell gets right to the heart of a problem Capitalists and Socialists do not usually address: How much work is needed, and what is the ultimate point? He constantly stresses that we do too much work, and most of it is unneeded, and makes life grim. He never ceases to remind us that we should work to live, not live to work.

He addresses this point in many ways--through economics, through architecture, through the then-raging problems of Fascism and Communism. And though he treats serious problems seriously, he always has time for the breathtaking perspective and the ligtht touch--as with the essay, "Man Versus Insects."

A wonderful, even life-changing book.

+++++

Controversial philosopher and Nobel Prize winner Lord Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) has written fifteen scintillating essays on which to whet our intellectual appetites. These short essays were written between 1925 and 1935.

Russell writes in an elegant, readable, and understandable style. His arguments are well thought out.

These essays consider social questions not discussed in politics. The general theme that ties these essays together is that the world suffers from dogmatism and narrowness; what is needed is the willingness to question dogma.

These essays are a blend of philosophy with other disciplines such as psychology, economics, science, and history. All the essays are brutally honest and forthright. Each is packed with loads of wisdom. What's amazing is that these essays are as current today as when they were first written and their messages will probably remain relevant in the future.

My five favorite essays in this collection include the following:

(1) "In Praise of Idleness." Discusses work and the importance of leisure. In order to get an idea of Russell's insight that permeates this book, here's a sample sentence from this essay: "The morality of work is the morality of slaves, and the modern world has no need of slavery."

(2) "'Useless' Knowledge." Points out that all knowledge is useful not only that which has a practical value.

(3) "The Case for Socialism." Russell gives many arguments in favor of socialism, most notably the need for preventing war.

(4) "Western Civilization." Discusses its characteristics. Sample sentence: "I cannot escape from the conclusion that the great ages of progress have depended upon a small number of individuals of transcendent utility."

(5) "Education and Discipline." Sample sentence: "Education...must be something more positive than mere opportunity for growth...it must...also provide a mental and moral equipment [for] children."

In conclusion, this book is Bertrand Russell at his best. Enjoy!

+++++

I think most people's reaction to a 500 page book would be one of caution, myself included. It has nothing to do with the content, I just know it will take a while for me to get through that many pages.

That being said, this collection of Nader essays is a 500 page book, but it's been a joy reading it because of the organization of the book. Broken down into smaller chapters, the book is full of very short, but well-written essays usually no longer than two pages. It's very easy to read a few at a time, and then come back to the book later. I actually find myself reading this book faster than I would other books of the same length. Each piece is so short I usually end up telling myself, "I'll just read a few more." In the end, it makes the book easier to read.

As far as content goes, the book is great. I think if you're a genuinelly progressive person, you'll still like Nader even though the Democrats have tried to scapegoat him rather than admit their own problems as a party. This country needs people like Nader to remind us that we don't have to settle for what we have, that things can and should be better. This book sends that message loud and clear.

Deeply intelligent, in breadth and depth, these articles by Mr. Nader, who has given everything for just causes over nearly half a century, make eloquent, and plain, what so many others believe and either can't, or won't, say.

The October 23rd "review" pretty much sums up why John Kerry and his hysterical Anybody-But-Bush supporters were shellacked this week, while everything Ralph Nader said during the campaign was proved correct. Ignore the subject at hand, be hysterical and irrational, and wave empty slogans ("A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" -- what does that mean? In Wyoming, where Kerry lost by over 20 points? In D.C., where Bush lost by over EIGHTY points? My vote would never have gone to Kerry under any circumstances....how was my vote for Nader a vote for Bush?)

Meanwhile, Ralph Nader continues on without a break and will now focus on the ridiculous ballot access laws in this country, as well as the subjects touched on in this book. What he "has done for us lately" is to start one new organization after another from 2000 to 2004, advocate on behalf of the District of Columbia's pathetic public library system - left to rot by the D.C. Democratic Party, which has done nothing for anybody in decades - and highlight solutions to other issues that are working right now in localities around the country. Read what he has to say in this book and climb on board. Roll up your sleeves and put up or shut up, Democrats.

A must read for anyone interested in how our government operates. There is a bit of repetition but a lot of good information and contacts for further research.

Excellent series of interviews with still pertinent movers and shakers in the realm of spiritual activism. Incredibly inspiring. Very very relevant for today, though written in the late 80's.

This book will inspire you to begin making the changes in the world that you desire to see. It includes inspirational and down to earth interviews with some of the greatest activists that ever lived. Always remember change is possible if we take action and pursue it with love. Highly recommended.

Now in a newly revised edition enhanced with a new foreword by Arun Gandhi, and featuring interviews with Mubarak Awad, Ram Dass, Thich Nhat Hanh, Cesar Chavez, H.H. The Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu, Joan Baez, and others, In The Footsteps Of Gandhi: Conversations With Spiritual Social Activists is a collection of deeply contemplative and insightful essays written by a diverse roster of contemporary spiritual and social activists. Touching on an impressive array of modern social issues ranging from AIDS, to apartheid, to the Israel/Palestine conflict, and more, this seminal tribute to the power of (and desperate need for) nonviolence is emotionally moving, morally relevant, and enthusiastically recommended reading for anyone concerned with how best to address the rampant social issues of our time.

Catherine Ingram's beautifully constructed book presents interviews of spiritual social activists that serve both as a historical record and, in our current world climate, an inspiring reminder that it is important to take action in line with our beliefs and principles, and that the word "spiritual" can include engaging oneself in crucial social and political issues that affect us all.

In 1947, Hanson Baldwin, the military correspondent for The New York Times asked whether the United States could "prepare for the next, truly total war...without becoming a `garrison state.'" According to Princeton Professor Aaron Friedberg, by the middle of the 20th, "the imminent threat of war produced pressures for the permanent construction of a powerful central state." Friedberg argues, however, that the size and scope of the federal government was held in check during the Cold War by a tradition and ideology of anti-statism. Although this book merely synthesizes previously- published works, it effectively argues that the apparatus of the American state grew less during the Cold War than might have been have been expected.

Friedberg examines "five main mechanisms of power creation: those intended to extract money and manpower and those designed to direct national resources toward arms production, military research, and defense-supporting industries." Friedberg explains: "In the span of only two decades the United States was engulfed in three waves of crisis as depression, world war, and cold war followed each other in rapid succession. The onset of each emergency produced a powerful impetus toward state-building." The early-Cold War debate about defense spending demonstrates Friedberg's point. He writes that "the American people wanted a state that was strong enough to defend them against their foreign enemies but not strong enough to threaten their domestic liberties," defending the country was expensive. In 1949, when President Truman wanted to hold defense spending for the next fiscal year, to $14.4 billion, the Secretary of Defense instructed the service chiefs to base their estimates "on military considerations alone," which resulted in a "wish list with a staggering $30 billion price tag." Truman's final budget message estimated the annual cost of sustaining his planned long-term force posture to be $35 to $40 billion. According to Friedberg, President Eisenhower's "commitment to holding down defense spending was a logical outgrowth of his essentially anti-statist philosophy of political economy," and, in June 1954, he warned that a massive new buildup would involving transformation of the United States into "a garrison state." In 1960, John Kennedy asserted that Eisenhower's "excessive attention to the budget" had "resulted in a serious weakening of the nation's defenses." Compulsory military service also generated intense debate. Senator Robert Taft warned that the adoption of universal military training would transform the United States into a "militaristic and totalitarian country." According to Friedberg, "the strongest and most consistent congressional opposition to came from the Republican party, and in particular from its conservative midwestern wing. It was in this part of the country that principled anticompulsion arguments struck their most responsive chord." According to Friedberg: "The widespread animosity to statism that characterized the early post-war period...played a critical role in blocking the creation of new, powerful governmental industrial planning institutions." Friedberg explains: "Even in the face of an enemy, and to a remarkable degree even in wartime, the American system has proven itself to be highly resistant to centralized industrial planning." Friedberg writes: "[T]he push for privatization, and the ideological language in which it was couched, also raised troubling questions about the legitimacy of the military's large-scale industrial activities, even those with long traditions. In the context of a worldwide contest with communism, private ownership of the means of production came to be regarded...as morally superior to any alternative form of economic organization." According to Friedberg: "The postwar privatization of American arms production was the end result of a protracted process of debate and political struggle...At the most general ideological level the burgeoning anti-statist sentiments in the 1940s and 1950s tended to strengthen the hands of the privatizers and to discredit those who advocated anything that savored of socialism." In discussing the structure of the U.S. research and development system and its performance during the Cold War, Friedberg asserts that the "large, open, and loose-limbed American system was well suited for promoting innovation, and it tended over time to outperform its more rigid, closed, and hierarchical Soviet counterpart." According to Friedberg: "[F]or nearly a half century, the pursuit of qualitative superiority [in military technology] was a central, persistent feature of the entire American defense effort." Friedberg explains: "Before the Second World War had ended and the Cold war began, senior American scientists and top military planners were already agreed that the preservation of a `preeminent position' in weapons technology must be a central goal of peacetime defense policy." "The clear emergence of the Soviet Union as the most likely enemy in any future war added urgency and a clear focus to the discussion of the role of technology in American strategy." Friedberg reports: "`Atomic weapons used tactically are the natural armaments of numerically inferior but technologically superior nations,' declared one congressional enthusiast in 1951." He explains: "The Eisenhower administration elevated the substitution of firepower for manpower to the position of key organizing principle of national strategy. Atomic and thermonuclear weapons of every conceivable yield were...at the heart of Western defenses;" and "For the West, by the mid-1950s, preserving technological supremacy had become even more essential and urgent than it had appeared only a few years before." According to Friedberg: "Critics and enthusiasts alike agree that the American research and development system was highly productive of technological advances, that it tended over time to outpace its Soviet counterpart, and that the superior performance of the American system was connected in some way to its structure."

Was there ever a real likelihood that Cold War America would turn into a "garrison state?" The clear answer is: No. References to the garrison state were rhetorical devices used most often by congressional opponents of the concentration of power in the executive branch in Washington, D.C. But Friedberg is absolutely correct that anti- statist rhetoric had powerful antecedents in American history and, therefore, resonated deeply with the public. The specter of creating a garrison state was ominous, even when it was intentionally exaggerated.

Friedberg has written the best book on international relations since John Gaddis' "Strategies of Containment". Like Gaddis, Friedberg is one of a handful of authors who possess a sophisticated knowledge of both American diplomatic history and modern theories of international relations.

With the aid of his groundbreaking archival research, Friedberg shatters existing paradigms by showing that American culture played a leading, perhaps dominant role in the forging of the United States' Cold War grand strategy.

Friedberg's book is indispensable reading for every scholar and student of international relations. It is a classic that will be read and reread for generations.

Harold Lasswell developed the idea of the garrison state in the late 1930s and early 1940s. He proposed that "under conditions of continual crisis and perpetual preparedness for total war, every aspect of life would eventually come under state control." In 1947, Hanson Baldwin, the military correspondent for The New York Times asked whether the United States could "prepare for the next, truly total war...without becoming a garrison state." George Orwell popularized the notion with his 1949 release of 1984, a harrowing view of totalitarian control by the garrison state. To a large extent, these arguments fuel Aaron Friedberger's premise that "war and the threat of war required the creation of military power, and, over time, the creation of military power led to the construction of strong, modern states." (3)

From this premise Friedberg contends that the growth of the American state was held in check during the Cold War by a tradition and ideology of anti-statism. The Cold War produced pressures for the permanent construction of a powerful central state. "In the American case," Friedberg argues, "these pressures came comparatively late in the process of political development... they were met and, to a degree, counterbalanced, by the strong anti-statist influences that were deeply rooted in the circumstances of the nation's founding. (3-4) Friedberg identifies the mechanisms for state growth between 1945 and 1960 as "the product of a collision between these two sets of conflicting forces." (4) He effectively demonstrates that the apparatus of the American state grew less during the early years of the Cold War than might have been have been expected.

Friedberg examines "five main mechanisms of power creation: those intended to extract money and manpower and those designed to direct national resources toward arms production, military research, and defense-supporting industries." (5) In each of these areas he finds anti-statist influences holding state-building in check. "Mounting popular and congressional resistance to taxes and controls compelled the Truman administration to lower its sights and to accept the necessity of a slower and, in the end, smaller military buildup." (121) Friedberg concludes "Eisenhower's commitment to holding down defense spending was a logical outgrowth of his essentially anti-statist philosophy of political economy." (127) Friedberg finds that "in the absence of sustained public opposition, the pressures for universal military training would probably have proved overwhelming," except that it raised doubts over legitimacy. (167) Like the rejection of universal military training, Friedberg also identifies the demise of centralized defense industrialization policy as "at least as much a product of domestic anti-statist influences" as a "logical, inevitable response to the advent of nuclear weapons." (199) Anti-statist influence not only resisted centralized planning and industrial dispersal, but it also strengthened the hand of privatizers, discrediting "those who advocated anything that savored of socialism." (247) Finally, Friedberg maintains that "each of the essential structural characteristics of the American Cold War research and development system was strongly influenced by ideological considerations and by the workings of American domestic political institutions [both identified as anti-statist forces]." (296) Friedberg identifies the strengthening of civilian rule in the Department of Defense, resistance to centralization, heavy reliance on private contracting and government sponsorship of domestic vice purely military technology as anti-statist influences that reduced the size, scope and effect of America's garrison state. With remarkable clarity Friedberg is able to conclude that domestic constraints on state expansion--including those stemming from mean self-interest as well as those guided by a principled belief in the virtues of limiting federal power--protected economic vitality, technological superiority, and public support for Cold War activities. He identifies the strategic synthesis that emerged by the early 1960s from this collision between anti-statist ideology and security imperative as functional and stable; it enabled the United States to deter, contain, and ultimately outlive the Soviet Union precisely because the American state did not limit political, personal, and economic freedom.

Friedberg is not a historian, and at times his lack of attention to culture, race, gender and class make this abundantly clear. Several broad assertions, while supported in the text, lack specificity. For example, Friedberg describes American business's post-war ideology in their own simplistic terms, "Free enterprise was good; too much government was not only bad for the economy, it was a profound threat to traditional American liberties," (50) without putting those statements in an anti-New Deal context.

In Friedberg's well documented 351-page text synthesis, one sees Samuel Huntington's influence (The Soldier and the State, 1957). Friedberg provides a nice tonic for Huntington's pessimism and places the entire civil-military, liberal-statist conflict in perspective. He takes a much more positive view of American liberalism's retardation of military professionalism and other state influences. Essentially agreeing with Huntington, Friedberg comes to a different conclusion: that this was not a bad thing. Of course, Friedberg has the luxury of viewing the Cold War from its successful conclusion whereas Huntington contemplated its ominous beginnings. Because it gives us insight into our current reaction to September 11, 2001, and hope that militaristic trends as expressed in the current war in Iraq will not leave permanent scars on the American state, In the Shadow of the Garrison State deserves attention at all levels in the collegiate setting.

For those interested in the dynamics and interplay of domestic and national security issues, this book is fantastic. Friedberg frames and then details key power transforming institutions and elements such arms, technology, supporting industrial complex, money and manpower, and how they formed the basis of both a powerful deterrence and a relative stable, non-garrison state that excelled economically.

Not a book for all readers, but for those pundits and novices of national security or Cold War history, this is a must have book. Sure to become required reading for top notice public policy and political science departments in leading universities.

This is an interesting read that makes astute observations about the effect of American marketing. Statistics and studies are cited, though some observations are more empirical in nature. The book becomes even more engaging when the author adds some personal stories.

It's a short book and a quick read. The content is suitable for laymen who want a new perspective of how America approaches marketing versus other countries in the world.

This book captures the sentiment of non-Americans worldwide. It's great that Johansson discusses both sides (that of American Companies, George W. Bush, Ad agencies, AND that of consumers around the world). It's time to discover better marketing techniques, methods that are not as In Your Face.

An old MBA buddy of mine Fedexed me a copy of this book (he and I were disgruntled grad students, disappointed in the way American firms seemed to have culturally insensitive ways of marketing). After our MBA several years ago, we were indoctrinated with the mantra "shareholder wealth!". We sadly cling to this idealogy to this day (food on the table anyone?). He's now in marketing, while I am in Finance/Public Policy.

I opened the FedexPak and lauged at the cover of the book (very in your face indeed). I was happy that it didn't read like a textbook, it reads like a long conversation with the author. Johansson has strong (sometimes biased) solid opinions about the state of marketing around the world, linking what was never obviously linkable: Marketing, Anti-Americanism, and Globalization. He makes you realize that we (as individual consumers) are forever surrounded by marketing media (and it's true!) and we take for granted our ability to "control" the marketing that we receive. After telling us that Marketing is no longer the friendly innocent shopping helper that we believe it to be, he shows us why American-style Marketing indirectly fuels other countries' hatred of Americans. It's not just about oil, or weapons, or Christianity. It's about Marketing. Sad but true again.

This is a very timely book. Be careful though, once you read this you'll develop a healthy level of paranoia everytime you see an advertisement, hear a jingle, or watch a commercial. You'll ask yourself, what are they really selling?

J. Johansson's introspective look at the state of marketing and the cultural sprawl it is causing throughout the world is a worthwhile read. The arrogance of American marketers, illustrated by the Bush administration, has caused havoc for humans throughout the world. Marketers such as Nike and McDonald's have taken advantage of globalization and free trade with standardizations they perceive as efficient while the of the world perceives them as imperialistic. Their assumptions on the desires and wants are falsely measured - leading to increasing resentment towards the nation which harbors and promotes capitalism.

My favorite sections of the book are Johnansson's own personal experiences growing up in the States - how he has seen the country change from what it was in the sixties, how his MBA students really don't leave understanding global marketing, how marketing practices lead to greater social inequalities and homogenized, stale thoughts. The lowest common denominator has been created by brand strategists. He provides an interesting comparison of the practices in Europe and Japan vs. American and relates it back to much of the recent WTO protests.

This is the perfect follow-up to Naomi Klein's No Logo. Towards the end of the book, Johansson provides a way out and shows us that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. I suppose the results of this November's election is tied to whether we reach that point.

A great insight into undercover narcotics investigations and patroling. I could not put this book down, a great read! Thank you for writing this exciting book!

From beginning to end INCONCEIVABLE DANGER had me hooked. I'm usually not one to read police stories but, this one is most definately the exception. Easily a one day read; INCONCEIVABLE DANGER leaves you breathless, wanting more and hardly able to wait for the next book by this outstanding author. BRAVO!!!!

...THANK YOU, OFFICER FORD, FOR YOUR OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO YOUR COUNTRY AND YOUR COMMUNITY.

This is an action packed book that kept me in suspense. Just when I thought I was figuring out what was going to happen next, a surprise to me would occur. This book is truly suspenseful, exciting and keeps you on the edge of your seat all the time you are reading this book. It is a fine book of literature written here. I really enjoyed it. Jim

Inconceivable Danger takes you into the world of an undercover police officer who pursues a kingpin drug dealer known as Skyscraper; the most dangerous and ruthless criminal Dale and his partner had ever tried to arrest.

One mistake with this criminal meant certain death for any officer.

This book is action packed and a great thriller for all readers who like crime stories.
The sacrifices made by Dale and his partner are what legends and heroes are made of.

This story takes you into the mountains of southeast Oklahoma where contact with the suspect reveals the most vicious monster ever conceived by the two officers.

Inconceivable Danger promises to be a satisfying read for even the most discerning crime story readers. The author makes no apologies for the death and violence contained within it's pages; it is not for the faint of heart.
Dale Ford spent twenty years as an active police officer working undercover for five of those years as a narcotics investigator. He also served five years as an Officer and Chief of Southern Corrections Prisons and Asst. Chief of New Directions all women's Prisons.

Officer Ford continues to serve his community in 'off-duty' police assignments.

This original book draws into historical studies to illustrate the evolution of economics institutions. The application of economics, history and game theory is very creative and a definitely achievement of the book, in the tradition of North's "Understanding the Process of Economic Change" or other recent followers like Acemoglou's "Economic Origins of Dictatorship and democracy".

The book is divided in four main sections and 14 chapters. First, the author explains institutions as systems in equilibria, applying history and game theory. Then, he enlightens institutional dynamics as historical process (focusing on endogenous change or how history affects institutions and cultural beliefs) only to conclude with a method to apply in sociological and historical studies.

This is a seminal work and Greif's is able to clarify how market institutions work and evolve, how control and oversight institutions are created and how this questions relate to economic history and theory. Moreover, he illustrates them with real examples, like the evolution of medieval trade. It is a careful, readable and historical approach to economic development, applying economic and game theory to explain institutional patterns and change. Interesting!

This is a very good book of historic institutionism, It deserves possession.

This is one of the best examples of the analytical study of institutions in history. Highly recommended for courses in political economy and institutional analysis.

No question that this book that sums up 10 years worth of articles by one of the most remarkable scholars of his times is a must-read for anybody interested by economics and economic history. That being said the book has its defaults. Some are linked to the difficulty to gather good sources from the medieval Muslim world, but the readers will regret that no statistical approach was attempted even for the European side of the research.

Furthermore, the book is particularly poorly written and often enough it seems as if Greif was just making his sentences complicated to make his work sound smarter than it really was. It is unfortunate and many students will hate him for that. Still the conclusions are often brilliant and the book is well worth buying.

Egil "Bud" Krogh gives a detailed and fascinating look into the Nixon White House and how basically honest, but naive staffers (and one in particular) were misled or failed to question their orders and proceeded to break the law to stop perceived security leaks. Mr. Krogh writes a very compelling explanation of his reasoning for breaking the law, then describes events and his own logic that led him to admit his guilt and start the long road to redemption beyond a prison sentence and disbarment. It made me realize that it could happen to me or anyone who doesn't look carefully into the long term consequences of their decisions, and thus made it easy to identify with his predicament. For people like me who followed the Watergate proceedings with great interest, it is a book that you can't put down.

He was a Navy officer serving on the USS Yorktown by the age of 22, in law school at 26, a staff assistant to the counsel to the president at 29, and Undersecretary of Transportation at 33. At 34, he was in jail. How could this happen to a man raised in a highly moral family, with an excellent education, with Christian Middle American values and a strong sense of patriotism? Yet here was Egil "Bud" Krogh at 33, starting a prison sentence for violating the civil rights of Dr. Lewis Fielding, a California psychiatrist. Bud says the principal cause was the collapse of integrity of those members of the White House's Special Investigative Unit (SIU) who conspired, ordered and carried the break-in of the doctor who had been consulted by Dr. Daniel Ellsburg, the "leaker" of the Pentagon Papers" to the New York Times in early 1971.

In this short book on integrity and decision-making, Bud Krogh tells his story as an advisor in the White House during the Nixon administration and his role as co-director of the SIU. The reason for the book is quite clearly stated in the Dedication: "To those who deserve better, this book is offered as an apology, an explanation, and a way to keep integrity in the forefront of decision-making".

After leaving the Navy in June of 1965, Bud was assisted in his career by John Ehrlichman, a close family friend and father figure to whom he admits he owed complete personal loyalty. Bud was working for Ehrlichman's law firm in Washington State when Ehrlichman was named counsel to the president upon Richard Nixon's election in 1968, and jumped at the chance to move to Washington to assist in the transition, eventually acting as assistant counsel and deputy counsel to the president.

In June of 1971, the "Pentagon Papers", revealing that the United States government was deliberately expanding its role in the war while President Johnson was promising not to do so, were leaked to the New York Times by Dr. Daniel Ellsberg. Subsequent attempts by the Nixon Administration to prevent disclosure failed, including a ruling by the Supreme Court halting Administration attempts to prevent publication. Together with a article in the Times revealing the fall- back position of the U.S. in the first SALT talks, these disclosures created a "crisis of major proportions" in the Nixon White House. Bud was selected to co-direct the White House's Special Investigations Unit (better known as the "Plumbers"), and tasked with stopping leaks of top secret information related to the Vietnamese War, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and other foreign policy operations. The SIU included such now famous names as G. Gordon Liddy, David Young and E. Howard Hunt, and according to Bud the group felt that it "had been given a critical responsibility by the president, and we were embarking on a quest that held great import for the security of the nation."

Bud's SIU decided to go forward with its own investigation. During deliberations, no one in the SIU questioned the necessity, legitimacy, legality, or morality of the proposed covert action. Relying on the president's declaration of a national security crisis, the unit never asked whether their actions were "right". Instead, the unit focused on questions such as who had the skills, who could be trusted, and who would pay for it? They assumed it was "right" because the president was pressing for action and because they believed that information from Dr. Fielding's office would help prevent further leaks from undermining Nixon's plan for ending the Vietnam war. Their loyalties were to their principals and to the president personally.Staff members had been hired on the basis of loyalty to the president and to the senior presidential aide who had recruited him or her. To suggest that national security was being improperly invoked would have been to invite a confrontation with both patriotism and loyalty, well beyond what he was capable of at that time. (In the Foreword, Daniel Ellsberg relates although he had taken an oath of office a number of times, he first noticed the Code of Ethics for Government Service hanging on a wall while he was a visitor at a New Mexico correction facility. He was particularly struck by the first principle: "Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department." Ellsberg admits that he didn't recall that it ever occurred to him that he was taking on obligations to the Constitution that might contradict the demands of a cabinet secretary or the president.)

And so the members of the SIU conspired to break into the psychiatrist's office because national security mandated an assessment of Ellsberg's mental state to determine if he was likely to release other classified information. It was seven weeks from the "crisis" declaration to the break-in. Bud sums it up: "In those seven weeks, the SIU had undergone a journey from suspicion to certainty to covert action to frustration to zealotry: hardened by their first action, the Plumbers knew that the rules of engagement had been changed and the conventional respect for laws set aside. A botched break-in, evidence by a few Polaroids, didn't seem to represent much. In practice, however, it was the first irreversible step by which a presidency ran out of control."

The efforts of the SIU didn't end with the break-in of Dr. Fielding's office. Failing to garner any information on Dr. Ellsberg, it was suggested that a break-in be conducted at Dr. Fielding's home. After Bud rejected this idea, his involvement with covert action ended, but his troubles had just begun.

In February of 1973 Bud was confirmed as undersecretary of Transportation. In May he reisgend his position. In August, he was indicted for making a false declaration to the DOJ regarding the travel to California by the Plumbers. Then, in November of 1973, while on a vacation in Williamsburg, VA with his family, he admitted to himself that he felt uncomfortable with the soundness of using national security as a defense: "The more I tried to align my thought with a higher sense of right, the more problematic it became." He recognized that here he was under federal and state indictment, but still free to travel wherever he wanted, speak to the press, worship freely, etc. , but had nonetheless violated another man's civil rights in order to protect the country. If he continued to justify violating rights he continued to enjoy, he felt he would not only be a hypocrite, but a traitor to the fundamental American idea of the right of an individual to be free from unwarranted government intrusion in his life. He decided to plead guilty: "While there may have been some damaging impacts upon national security from Ellsberg's release of the Pentagon Papers, those impacts simply could not justify the invasion of Fielding's rights that this operation involved."

Four days after making his decision, Bud walked into the office of Leon Jaworski, the special prosecutor for Watergate and related crimes and offered to plead guilty to the more serious charge of the deprivation of civil rights in exchange for a dismissal of lesser federal and state charges. His one other stipulation - to avoid any suggestion that he was seeking leniency through testifying, and in the belief that it would be wrong to benefit directly from sharing a truth that would damage others, Bud made it clear that his guilty plea was conditional on the prosecutor's agreement that he would not talk with them or the grand jury until after he'd been sentenced: "It was critically important to me that Judge Gerhard Gesell sentence me solely on the basis of what I did, not for what I might say that would implicate others." Bud pled guilty on November 30th and was eventually sentenced to a term of two to six years of which he was to serve six months, with two years of unsupervised probation.

Bud spices up the book with a few tales that have only a tertiary relationship to the issue of integrity. He tells one story of working in the Nixon transition office as one of those screening the backgrounds of the president's nominees. He also discusses his experiences in Vietnam in December of 1967 studying land reform as a method of defeating the Viet Cong insurgency; the famous May, describes the 1970 Nixon "wee hours" of the morning meeting with war protestors at the Lincoln memorial; and challenges the decisions of the current Bush Administration regarding interrogation techniques and wiretapping.

Reflecting back upon his actions, Bud concludes that his absolute loyalty to President Nixon personally and to his view of the national security threat had skewed his perspective. This kind of absolute loyalty lacked integrity, he came to understand, because it was unbalanced and too exclusive. Loyalty to the president was obviously important up to a point. However, loyalty to the Constitution, to the rule of law, and to moral and ethical requirements should have been key factors in his decisions as well: "The key point I had not internalized was that the integrity in which the president was reposing special trust was my own. Not his integrity, not the integrity of someone else on the staff, but my own. In short, no one can check their personal integrity at the door when they walk into work at the West Wing or anywhere else".

This is an excellent book addressing the competing pressures of individual integrity and personal loyalty and is recommended reading for all, both private and public sector.

I would primarily like to "second" the previous review (A Needed History Lesson for Our Times). The reviewer says what I would have said, and says it well, particularly in regard to how this valuable book relates to current issues. I would add that I thought I knew the history of the Vietnam era, but I learned so much from this book, and not only concerning the Nixon White House. A very interesting thing to me was the concept of "land reform" and how that issue related to Vietnam, and still is of importance in the world today, when considering how to raise people out of poverty. Bud writes about his time spent in Vietnam, when he was a law student, doing research on land reform issues. He speaks about traveling in the country with reporters who were seeking out members of the Viet Cong to interview. This is just an example of the firsthand and unexpected material that draws a reader in and is so much more involving than one might expect from a book on ethics and integrity. I highly recommend this book, as history, as an explanation of an ethical journey, and, as the previous reviewer said, as a lesson for our time.

At a time when we are governed by an administration that whole-heartedly believes "the ends justify the means", it is crucial to step back and look at history; to see where that motto has failed again and again. Bud Krogh writes an insightful and extremely timely account of his time in the White House under Nixon and his direction of the "Plumbers"--created to seal up real (or perceived) leaks that were threatening our national security.

After the 2000 elections, Krogh wrote an open memo, published in the Christian Science Monitor, to Bush's new staff--VP Cheney, Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld--all of whom Krogh had worked with under Nixon in the 1970s. He said as he watched them raise their right hands and swear to uphold the Constitution, it brought back a flood of memories for him when he stood before Nixon and swore to the same oath.

"As I pondered what the new Bush staff would encounter, I realized that I might be able to help by writing a memo to them about one of the central ideas that I had not understood as well as I should have when I was on the White House staff...the absolute imperative to maintain one's sense of integrity in the face of enormous pressures to get results at any cost."

Krogh explains how a good person, raised in the right way, given all the advantages of a young American male, could end up pleading guilty to depriving another of his civil rights and going to prison. Loyalty to his superiors, including Nixon, overshadowed his oath to uphold the Constitution and that lead him to orchestrate the illegal break-in of Dr. Louis Fielding's Psychiatric office in California for the express purpose of stealing Daniel Ellsberg's personal file to try to discredit him. Ellsberg had leaked the "Pentagon Papers" to the press and Nixon believed this to be a serious national security threat.

History has remembered Watergate as the downfall of Nixon's administration, but through Krogh's easy-to-read narrative of the events leading up to Watergate, we find that the break-in and burglary of Dr. Fielding's office was the "seminal event in the chain of events that led to Nixon's resignation".

Obviously, Krogh's letter to the Bush staff has gone largely unheeded as we learn almost daily about unwarranted wiretapping; holding prisoners without cause; torture at Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay; Rove; Libby; the list goes on and on.

Who was it that said "those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."?

At the end of his book, Krogh has created a model called the "integrity zone"; steps that each individual in public or private life can take to ascertain whether the path they have chosen is one of integrity or convenience. With three questions: Is it whole and complete? Is it Right? Is it good? one can quickly figure out if they're standing on solid ground or standing at the edge of a slippery slope. After the events of 9/11, if the Bush administration had stopped to ask those questions, we may well be living in a vastly different world than the one we live in today.

For anyone who is concerned about today's political environment and interested in where we've come from and how we got here, this is a must read. I think Krogh is an appropriate person to get this message across. It speaks volumes about who Bud Krogh is as a man of integrity that Daniel Ellsberg wrote the forward and calls him a friend today.

This book predicts the future in a way that no other does. I think 20 years from now, the world will look back at this book as one of the great works of the 21st Century.

The Internet Candidate came from out of nowhere, blindsiding everyone with its revolutionary ideas and Childress' clear understanding of the world we live in today. To read this book is to read a masterpiece, carefully crafted to be understood easily by everyone, but with deeper subtexts that forecast a great change in our political climate here in the United States. This book puts ideas into play that would help every single person living in America today. These ideas are easily implementable with the help of tools such as the Internet along with the support of people everywhere.

Other authors have written books that may hint at some of the ideas that The Internet Candidate contains, but these authors only hint at them, afraid to be bold and let their opinions be known. Albert Childress is a man of action, unafraid of writing ideas that others would just be too afraid to even go near. These ideas are the ideas that the politicians up in Washington D.C. don't want the public to understand. These ideas would improve the quality of life for everyone, and take the power away from those elite few that just don't understand the needs of the people.

If you only read one book in the next twenty years, make this one it. The Internet candidate will profoundly change your political views, and with enough support the ideas presented here have the potential to create a more effective government chosen directly by the people, that works directly for the people.

This story is a short, thought-provoking read. Childress' clear, informative writing style adds to the grace and professional elegance of The Internet Candidate. Anyone who reads this book will be amazed at the exciting ideas Childress has for the future of politics and our nation. This book can inspire anyone to have hope for what the future holds and it certainly inspired me.

Good Book! Short and easy to read. Very novel concepts. The internet for grassroots politics, very appealing!
One author speaking his mind.