Public Interest Books

The dominant model of political behavior - pluralism - assumes that people are self-interested and uses economic behavior as an analogy for political behavior. People organize themselves into groups to get their needs met, and these groups compete with one another to obtain rewards that are allocated through political processes. The role of government is to make sure that political competition is fair and open - possibly helping weaker groups organize themselves and helping them acquire the skills to compete effectively. The government will also provide public goods that cannot be provided through private market activity. In sum, the government, will try to make sure that people (at least those who are organized) get what they want, as efficiently as possible.

After introducing this dominant model, Robert Reich, the editor of The Power of Public Ideas, delineates the situations where it might best be applied:

"The prevailing philosophy comprises a useful set of precepts for guiding much of policy making, particularly where there is wide and enduring consensus about the nature of the problems to be solved, the range of possible solutions, and appropriate allocations of responsibility for solving them; and where solving the problems as understood is more useful than understanding them differently. The prevailing philosophy is less helpful - indeed, may forestall social learning - where these conditions are not met."

Reich champions a different model; one that assumes that people are motivated, in their political lives, by what they think is good for society. He cites some compelling evidence for this view: the civil rights movement, for example, can't be explained if politics is nothing more than self-interested competition among atomistic groups. Moreover, citizens must feel some concern and consideration for one another, or massive coercion would be required to keep order.

Because Reich thinks people are basically public-spirited, rather than selfish, he sees involvement in politics as a good thing, almost as a good thing in itself. For Reich, public deliberation strengthens public spirit in a type of virtuous spiral that makes society more durable. In his view, then, a primary function of government is to stimulate public debate and deliberation. New England-style town meetings would represent an ideal type of democratic government for him.

The objection to Reich's view, of course, is that people don't want to devote more time to politics. Most people are political bystanders because they are broadly satisfied. They can be aroused to action - to protest the Vietnam War, to demand civil rights for African Americans, to crack down on drunk drivers, and so on - when the government is unwilling or too slow to act on their concerns, or when their basic values or rights are infringed by the government.* But would this be a good thing? Those who are deeply dissatisfied with our society and seek transformational change would say yes. Those who are broadly satisfied with the status quo would likely say no.

I read four of the ten essays in this volume. Reich's introduction to the volume is covered above. Gary Orren's "Beyond Self Interest" provides quite a bit of evidence to show that people often behave in public spirited ways. It also critiques neoclassical economics and pluralism as models of behavior that allow government and leaders only a marginal role. In fact, of course, at policy "turning points" they may play central roles.

Reich's "Policy Making in a Democracy" examines two approaches to governmental policy making: interest group intermediation and net benefit maximization. In interest group intermediation, policymakers consider themselves successful if competing groups are placated. In net benefit maximization, policy makers identify a market failure and decide that there is an opportunity to increase efficiency. They typically use very sophisticated analytical techniques to propose a specific solution. Reich believes that the latter approach has contaminated the former, so that groups who cannot offer sophisticated argumentation are excluded from much governmental decision-making. As an alternative, he offers public deliberation. He examines three cases where public deliberation was used and concludes that they were at least qualified successes. Those who lack Reich's commitment to participatory politics will probably disagree.

"The Media and Public Deliberation," by Martin Linsky, finds that the news media, with its emphasis on reporting on events rather than ideas, is an obstacle to public deliberation. He makes some proposals for reform, some of which sound a bit silly. However, many of his proposed approaches have already been used to some degree by the political monthlies and by news shows like The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. For example, Linksy favors news coverage that presents contrasting opinions about an issue as this is likely to stimulate thought about alternative definitions of issues and approaches to solving them. He also wants news organizations to "make news" by sponsoring debates and similar events.

Based on my admittedly limited exploration of The Power of Public Ideas, I concluded that it is a competently researched and written volume of essays from a moderate leftist orientation.

* Carl Van Horn, Donald Baumer, and William Gormley, Jr., Politics and Public Policy, (Washington DC: CQ Press), 2001, 237, 238.

David Ferguson lives in Orkney and studies shipwrecks as a hobby. This is his third book on the subject and is of immense interest to anyone contemplating a dive off the coast of North East Scotland.

Commencing with an introduction in which he explains the size of vessel included within the book, we are then treated to a series of 5 maps which clearly delineate the various divisions of the overall, area scrutinised by the Author and the approximate location many shipwrecks. In short, the scene is well right at the beginning and we are well prepared for a brief insight into the historical events that served to shape this book. Commencing with what little is known of a very vague shipwreck in 1444, the author gets down to specifics with the loss of the Edward Bonaventure in 1556. Combining quotes from the day very successfully with his own narrative, Ferguson makes this a most readable account of shipwrecks in general and it is pleasing to see this continued throughout.

"Shipwrecks of North East Scotland 1444-1990" is a paperback book measuring 8½ in x 5½ in contain 19 illustrations of historic shipwrecks and over 130 pages. The Author talks us through the years - pausing to concentrate on such events as the great storms of 1800, 1875, 1876 and 1942 and, in so doing, gives the reader a very good insight into the background and history of the region covered - from a shipwreck perspective.

Concluding with Appendixes which list vessels lost in those various storms and another listing all vessels known to have been wrecked (including those that were later re-floated), this book is an excellent starting point for any serious project involving shipwreck research.

NM

Prefer "How to Develop Self-Confidence And Influence People By Public Speaking" book much much better. Sound more Dale Carnegie Way. Hope there can be an Audiobook version of it just like "How To Win Friends and Influence People". This "Stand and Deliver" Audiobook is not outstanding. It does not preach enough Dale Carnegie way in public speaking. Far from it. Too common sensical and not insightful enough. The narrator's voice is stiff and unnatural. There are nothing wow or exciting new from this Audiobook. Many theories and practices were well told in other public speaking literature or audiobooks. Try "You Are the Message", "10 Days ..Confidence in Public Speaking" and "Articulate Executive". Far better and stimulating. A bit disappointed, and this Audiobook claims itself to be the best "Science of Public Speaking", the most comprehensive audio program. An overstatement, especially to veteran public speaking masters and audiobooks listeners.

Emerson Schmidt first had this book published in 1973 by Nash Publishing in Los Angeles, California as a publication of The Principles of Freedom Committee - an early "think tank" devoted to blurring the distinction between market entitites and state-created corporations with the hidden aim to provide free market camouflage to anti-free market corporations. The problem is government AND their offspring - the corporation. But freedom remains in jeopardy because unwitting wordpushers such as Schmidt present a misleading false dichotomy betwee the State and corporations - both are the same statist stuff and both are positioned against the true free marketeer - the sole proprietor and partnerships.

This book, then, is no more than a classic example of camouflage for state corporatism.

While individuals suffer under corporate statism, they're only avenue to achieve voice is by coming together because there is strength in numbers. Unions have afforded the working classes the voice in negotiations with the State and their corporations that has resulted in improved working conditions and wages to sustain a family.

But books like this one hide the fact that since Junior Bush took office, the minimum wage has stayed the same while CEO compensation has risen 175%! In 2000, there were only 500 billionaries globally, 300 of which lived here in America. Today there are 800 - an increase of 300 billionaires. Where did that money come from? From the working classes whose union wages are evaporating along with their unions.

Schmidt would have us believe that "We are all made poorer by the power of labor unions". Balderdash! It is the corporation and the State that is making us poorer - especially they're partnering with Communist China in order to rent slave labor from them. Jobs once performed by free workers in American are now done by slaves in China.

So how does Schmidt organize his camouflage for corporatism and attack on labor unions? He does so through 14 chapters: Chapter 1) What is the Labor Problem?; Chapter 2) Union Aim: Take Labor Out of Competition; Chapter 3) Importance of Labor Cost; Chapter 4) The Wage-Lag Myth; Chapter 5) Annual Wage Increases versus Other Incomes; Chapter 6) Union Powers Created by Great Depression Legislation; Chapter 7) Union Power: The 1971 Record; Chapter 8) Monetary and Fiscal Policies versus The Wage Push; Chapter 9) The Role of Violence in Collectivce Bargaining; Chapter 10) Government Aid to Strikers; Chapter 11) Minimum Wage Rigidities; Chapter 12) Can Collective Bargaining Advance Justice and Equity?; Chapter 13) Theory X versus Theory Y; and Chapter 14) Toward a New Policy on Union Monopoly and Wage Settlements. This is followed by an index but no bibliography. However, sources are cited at the bottom of the page on which they are used. Mostly these sources are conservative such as Clarence Carson, John Van Sickle, Lemeul Boulware, and Joseph Schumpeter.

These conservative writers have yet to realize that in a free market, there are no corporations. Corporations are creations of the State. They do free enterprise a disservice by camouflaging the anti-capitialist corporation with the rhetoric of free enterprise. Until they figure out the difference, working class individuals should continue to organize through union membership and negotiate with the anti-capitalist corporation through union negotiations. Our government-generated competitive business cycle is doing corporate statism, not free enterprise. But don't take my word for it - read conservative economist's Paul H. Weaver's shocking participant observation of corporate statism - "The Suicidal Corporation" (1988) available here at Amazon.

I am new to GA (.5 hrs logged) and find this book quite an eye opener. The whole "true stories" part is kind of misleading because the author writes about what certain pilots did while flying who actually ended up dead. How would he know what happened in the cockpit to the detail at which he provides if all aboard were killed? Anyway, the bird shooting story seemed too strange to be true and so I researched it on the NTSB web site. Sure enough there was an entry for it. I found it overall a good read.

Unlike so many of the reviews, I both enjoyed the read and found the stories educational - whether fictionalized or not. Private pilots - especially VFR pilots - DO make stupid mistakes like flying into bad weather, like many of the people in this book. They DO fail to communicate with help that is available. I Just spent a weekend at an AOPA conference in Palm Springs and the folks speaking quoted some amazing statistics about fatalities in IMC and a LARGE number.. I don't recall whether it was 40$ or more - but this large number were VFR pilots flying in IMC - just like many of the stories in this book.

Why are other pilots afraid to learn from anything they read, whether they are 100% true or fictionalized? Anyone not find old Richard Bach books valuable - like "just because it's legal doesn't mean it's safe". Take learning where you can; enjoy a good read; and be a safe pilot.

I loved this book to start with, especially getting a kick out of the way in which the NASA representative managed to find an excuse to blame everything on hypoxia. Some things worried me, though, like the already-mentioned error of calling the artificial horizon an HSI. Then, I found the line in the introduction about the book being a work of fiction, and I started to get worried that perhaps I'd been cheated all along, and that these accounts were in fact figments of the author's imagination. I almost feel like writing to him and asking him straight out how much he made up, especially since I've retold some of these stories to my flying buddies, and now feel like I've told them a bunch of bull! Oh, and on the subject of the author's flying experience, there is a Robert L Cohn listed in the FAA database with a commercial certificate with an instrument rating, but how could someone like that make that error re the HSI?

(...) Most of this book is about hypoxia contributing to accidents. The sequence runs something like this: Pilot flies high for a long time, without adequate oxygen, doesn't notice the onset of hypoxia, then makes a series of judgement errors that, coupled with some terribly bad luck, results in a serious accident. (...)

On the night oxygen issue -- I was confused at first too, because the book doesn't really explain this point. Why would we want to use oxygen at a lower altitude at night? My most recent Jeppesen private pilot textbook indicates that oxygen should be used over 5,000 MSL at night and 12,500 during the day, but doesn't say why. A little research reveals the probable answer:

The very first organ to be affected by hypoxia is the eye. It can be affected as low as 5,000 MSL. Your night vision deteriorates under hypoxia. During the day, the effect is not so noticable because there is so much light entering your eye. At night your eye is dark-adapted and must be much more efficient with the light that enters it. Hypoxia inhibits the light-gathering efficiency of your eyes, particularly in low-light conditions.

So there are multiple effects of Hypoxia. There are judgement-altering effects, vision effects, and others. They combine to produce a pretty bad situation.

The fictional accounts certain put the fear of god into you, as they should. Flying is as safe as you make it.

In future books of this type I'd like to see considerably more statistical detail. It's a bit too anecdotal for my taste. Because of the book's focus on hypoxia, extended medical information on the condition should absolutely be present, and is missing. Editing errors abound (including simple grammatical errors - ouch), but I'd say that, overall, it's a page-turner and a make-you-thinker.

I was lounging in the FBO killing time when I started thumbing through this book. I was patiently waiting for several level 3-4 cells to pass over the airport so I could be on my way. I'm an instrument-rated, multi-engine pilot. Like most safety-conscious pilots, I regularly read NTSB accident synopses, not out of morbid curiosity but in the hopes of learning something new from the mistakes of others. Cohn's book had an interesting title and it didn't take long to get drawn into one rather vivid account of a Cardinal picking up ice on an approach into Charleston. I bought the book and tucked it away in my bag with the intention of reading more later.

Wish I hadn't wasted the $20! This book has several key problems. First, it is a work of fiction. The author claims that the accounts of pilot error are 'based on fact' and are 'carefully' researched, but since no real names, locations, (or facts?) are given, it is impossible to determine how much of the book is really fiction. The author also claims to have 6,400 hours under his belt, but his aviation terminology and basic aeronautical knowledge are so deficient that I have serious doubts as to the veracity of that claim. Furthermore, to the best of my knowlege, the author never really provides his credentials; is he a commercial pilot? CFI? Pilots are skeptical people by nature; our lives depend on it. I have my doubts about the legitimacy of Robert S. Cohn, master pilot.

Cohn thinks that "oxygen concentration levels" (?) are lower at night, and that this contributes to hypoxia. Clearly, Cohn is not familiar with the Aeronautical Information Manual, which is a basic bible for every pilot -- ranging from student to a commercial, instrument-rated pilot. Ironically, Cohn attacks the FAA for not requiring pilot applicants to more thoroughly demonstrate a knowledge of day/night oxygen requirements/recommendations and how to combat hypoxia on their checkrides. Cohn consistently refers to the attitude indicator (artificial horizon) as the "HSI" in one amusing passage. No aviation editor could have missed these glaringly erroneous references, which leads me to believe that Cohn wrote and edited his own book. That is suspicious in and of itself. Cohn also likens stall entries to 'intentionally slamming the brakes on in your car,' as though it were a dangerous and useless exercise; yet, later in the book, in a fictionalized tale wherein a private pilot stalls his ice-laden aircraft, his 'automatic response to release back pressure on the yoke' probably saved his (imaginary) life. Is this guy really a pilot? I have a hard time believing it.

This book is a platform for some of the author's ill-conceived notions that the FAA should allow ATC to supercede the Pilot-In-Command's authority in the aircraft. Both ATC and pilots are well aware of their responsibilities, and the system produces millions of safe flights per year. Perfect? No, but the real problems are not where the author is pointing his fingers - the problems are technology and congestion, not bumbling pilots running amok in the skies.

A student pilot could poke this book full of so many holes that it would never be airworthy. As a work of pure fiction it is mildly entertaining; as a soapbox for anti-general aviation propaganda, it is a) poorly researched, b) embarassingly inaccurate on basic facts, and c) unconvincing at best.

As with the companion book on Shipwrecks (Eastlake), this is not the place to go for extensive factual information. Each disaster is described in a page at most, and no effort is made to explain the causes or after effects of the accidents. The book's value lies in its artistic layout. Every calamity is well illustrated, either with paintings or photos, and the chapters are organized by cause (weather, collision, etc.) Readers might look at this book as a supplement to others in their collection. Not a great read, but worth having on the shelf.

I must be a rubber necker to the highest degree because I always enjoy these type of books. It has the standard fair, nothing really new on the format. The author does give us a good amount of detail, which he is known for. I would always like more photos, but there is enough to tell the story. If you like this type of book then you will enjoy this one.

It's clear to me that the sole purpose of this book is give a brief general introduction to 50 significant air disasters. In doing so, the author aborded only the surface of the problems, without entering into detaisl. THe book, of course, can't be compared to MacArthur Job's books, that goes deeply into the accidents with diagrams, sketches, deep aviation knowledge, etc. Mind you, guys: they are books written with different purposes.

Relating briefly 50 air crashes is not the best way to write a book about this relevant subject. Some of the accidentes described contains only ten or so lines in total !!!. Anyway, it gives a good general introduction to the naive person in this fascinating, dramatic and morbid subject. If you wanna really know about air crashes, then stick to MacArthur Job's series ( three volumes ) AIR DISASTER.

Definately not the best aviation disaster book I have read. The authors seem to lack alot of aeronautical knowledge and for some reason they do not refrence all of the places they received information.

It is not the worst book I have ever read, However, I would recommend "The Black Box" by Malcom MacPherson. For a couple more bucks you will get 10 times the book.

For decades, many male professors have made the same excuses for sexual exploitation of their students--to the fury of feminists. To read a feminist using the same rationalizations is both nauseating and infuriating.

This is a fascinating, jolting, unsettling book. Gallop makes a disturbingly persuasive (and entertaining) case for the essential harmlessness of sexual relationships between professors and students. Ultimately, I disagree with her thesis for reasons similar to those cited by the other reviewers -- despite her feminist credentials (which are first-rate), Gallop fails to see how the erotic nature of the power differential is a destructive one. It's not that she doesn't acknowledge the power imbalance between teachers and students -- she does -- but she suggests that the imbalance can be easily overcome by entering into consensual amorous relations. (As if once a student and a professor sleep together, all the elements of power are suddenly, uh, "stripped" away!) I am a young male college professor, and I see all too well the temptations in such relationships. But I believe sexual relationships with my students to be fundamentally unethical because if I do sleep with my students (as Gallop slept with hers), I am "trading on" my power, and viscerally reinforcing the notion that for young women sexuality is an appropriate means of getting what you want.

I am glad that most professors are not like Jane Gallop. I am grateful, however, that we HAVE Jane Gallop -- and I sense, whatever her ethics, that she truly must be a marvelous teacher. I reject her thesis, but I applaud her daring and recommend this book enthusiastically, especially to graduate students and younger faculty!

I could not agree more that this is "shrill, unconvincing screed." I might also add that for a Professor who teaches psychoanalytic theory, Ms. Gallop doesn't seem to have a clue about the mechanisms of DENIAL, RATIONALIZATION and NEGATION. The unconscious is speaking very clearly through all this nonsense, if anyone cares to find it where it is, all on the surface. My condolences go out to her poor students, past and present, who have to put up with this psychotic pretentiousness.

In this shrill, unconvincing screed Jane Gallop, a noted feminist scholar, seeks to establish a constellation of questionable ideas about what she calls the eroticism of teaching and learning. Her reminiscences about being a young scholar in the emerging field of feminism are occasionally moving. At the same time, her claims that the charged relationship between teacher and student should have no boundaries raise far many more questions than she is disposed to answer.

Even if, in the field of feminism, issues of women's sexuality and sexual power *are* key to the scholarly enterprise, Gallop nowhere concedes that a teacher is more powerful than a student or that, because of that disparity in power, boundaries are needed to protect both teacher and student from the temptation to misuse that power. Rather, Gallop giddily celebrates as imperative the erasing of any and all boundaries. That two of her students then charged her with sexual harassment seems, to this reader at least, a sad and predictable case of reaping what one sows. That the university committee rendered an inconclusive verdict in the case seems more an instance of a committee seeking to push a distasteful matter over the side into oblivion than any miscarriage of justice -- let alone the betrayal of the teaching process that Gallop claims it to be.

Unlike Tibor Machan (whose review appears immediately above), I do not think that it matters what sex or gender Gallop is; the book would be a mostly silly, embarrassing exercise in self-justification no matter who wrote it.

-- R. B. Bernstein, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York Law School

Jane Gallop's 1997 tract, "Feminist Accused of Sexual Harrassment," is not meant to be an apology for her run in with academic and legal bureaucracies. The tract is not criticism nor critical theory as such. Instead, Gallop gives us an intensely personal overview and examination of her involvement in feminism, culturally and scholastically, since her exposure to the movement in the early 1970s. Gallop's writing is casual, even colloquial, and addresses the various socio-sexual facets of the student-professor relationship, and how they have changed between the early 70s and to-day.

In 1992, Gallop was served notice that she had been accused by two former students of hers of sexually harrassing them. As a feminist, Gallop discusses the initial strangeness in perception that this may generally cause: the fact that most harrassment cases are normally male to female, not female to male, or female to female. She looks at the history of the feminist movement and sexual harrassment as its legacy from the late 1980s and early 1990s. Gallop talks about her explicitly sexual relationships with her own professors as a student, and with students as a professor herself. Making clear that since she began dating her eventual husband, she has completely stopped having these explicit relationships with students, Gallop details the important ways that relationships between students and professors can yet be erotically-charged.

Gallop's defiance of the academic and professional establishment may come off looking like willing ignorance or wistful naivete, but an undercurrent of anger and disappointment runs throughout the tract. Gallop laments the apparent cold distance and rigid formality being fostered in the current environment of academia. She asks if it should be the province of decor and propriety to decide how professors influence students and how students (especially graduate students) select and respond to the professors who guide their development.

While there is in the tract some longing for the days of yore and this is, above all, the personal and intimate reflections of one person, it is important to remember that Gallop does not ask every reader to agree with her assessments or abide by her conclusions. Gallop makes quite clear at the outset that her goal in placing this work before the public is simply to encourage its readers to reexamine the erotics of education - for feminists to reconsider the initial projects of feminism - and for each reader to decide if and how they will allow their every move to be overdetermined by needlessly oversensitive bureaucratic and legal manipulations. "Feminist Accused of Sexual Harrassment" is meant to provoke thought and discussion - those who would levy judgments against Gallop without pondering her arguments or talking about them in some kind of community risk missing the point entirely.

I have been using this book as a sermon resource for several years now and have used quite a few of the anecdotes throughout the book. I especially appreciate the in-depth index which guides me to the topics I need. It made me purchase Hodgin's other two compilations.

I found this book very disappointing. Its title is 1001 more humorous Illustrations for Public Speaking.

I found a lot of the content is not suitable for public speaking unless you are a preacher. A lot is in preaching. But I doubt whether many preachers would want to use it.

I wanted to use it in my public speaking club. Much is not appropriate for that setting.

I found it bemusing that quite a bit of the book is not appropriate for a preacher to use either.

Although the book was only published in 1998, it had an old feel.

I would not recommend this for public speaking.

I read almost half of the book. Excellent points and good read. Tells you what to say and what to avoid saying in most situation. Mostly we are looking for magic potions for overcoming shyness. But this book gives you not a potion but a method. It takes a lot of discipline to follow through the advices. But after thinking throught some of the advices and trying to follow them I can say that the tips are real useful. Most of the techniqes like preparing topics for conversation and drafting proper responses to your interview question require additional hardwork. But the returns are worth the effort. Once you do start preparing you topics and answers you will find that it becomes progressively easier to continue on that path. After a while you start seing patterns in things that initially appeared very confusing. Also then you will an archive of stories and talks that you can mix and create new ones. Continue on that path and you will be soon a good communicator.

The book has a few tips for what to say in various situations. Maybe they would be useful (or at least good for a laugh) for a person who doesn't have shyness problems. But the book doesn't address anything at all about overcoming the problem of shyness. Shy people experience pain and sometimes even panic in social situations. Simply telling them to "have a positive attitude" doesn't solve the problem - we need to know how!

So I'm still looking for a good book on the subject.

I was eagerly looking forward to this book, but am very disappointed by it. I just received it today, and though admittedly I haven't had time to read it fully, I have skimmed the topics and several dozen pages, and I'm not even going to bother reading it. This book would seem to be useless to anyone but a yuppie business executive holding million-dollar meetings and having power lunches. And obtaining such a position would seem to me to require a reasonably outgoing, aggressive personality, not the painfully shy person to which this book is allegedly directed. Oh, there's also sections on how to meet with difficult clients, and how to become a master salesman. All topics of great interest to a painfully shy person (I'm being sarcastic, of course). If you want a book by this author, buy his other book, How to Start a Conversation and Make Friends. It's much better, and has lots of halfway amusing cartoons. Gabor has completely missed the mark with Talking With Confidence For the Painfully Shy. Avoid it.

I think this book is mis-named. It should be called, "Talking with Confidence for those who are just a little bit shy." The author doesn't seem to have any idea what it is like to be "painfully shy". This book is NOT going to help someone who is truly "painfully shy". Maybe it would help someone who just has a tiny bit of social awkwardness but certainly not the "painfully shy", as it claims in the title. I was extremely dissapointed

This audiobook was definitely a waste of time to listen to. Everything is commonsense, and not inspiring at all. Personally, I like books and tapes that pump you up, but in an intelligent way. This has none of that, and the ideas contained in this tape aren't worth spending your time on (ie. everybody already knows them, and it doesn't take a person with a university degree or PHD to explain them to you).

As a Marine Officer i feel disgusted to read such a lot of nonsense, misunderstandings and a totally wrong idea on the practical navigation and life at sea.The idea of a substitution of Titanic by Olympic is absurd,those ships were not nice and small toys,but huge stuff,and with a lot of people on board.
It is also insulting the description of the figure of Master,who did all his best according His experience,the Company policy and sea tradition.I talked with many mariners all over the world,none of them would have acted differently from Smith.Furthermore my copy was plagued by a ludicrous italian translation,according which ,for instance,Olympic became a "oil tanker" after the conversion to "oil firing".Forget this book.

This book is the worst and most stupid kind of conspiracy writing. The idea of the "Titanic" being swapped for the "Olympic" is patent nonsense, and quite impossible for a number of reasons.

One of the authors, Dan van der Vat, also wrote a book about Albert Speer, trying to show he was guilty in the holocaust, and ended up convincing me of his innocence.

Investigative journalism already has a bad enough name. Books like these make it worse.

I bought this book at an airport thinking it would be a light read, not so, there is simply so much information to take in - which really works against the book, I might add.

In essence it pieces together various eyewitness accounts of the tragedy, and looks at the two enquiries launched on both sides of the Atlantic.

There are two authors to this book, one whom advocates a conspiracy theory that the Titanic was swapped with her sister ship the Olympic for the purpose of insurance fraud, the other certainly believes none of it.

Whatever the truth is, it seems likely that there was some measfeasance on the part of the White Star Line and it makes very interesting reading peering into it's ultra complicated ownership structure which veiled the true owner, JP Morgan.

What works against the book is its difficulty to read, it just does not flow properly and I found myself skipping pages which seemed to repeat the same information over and over again.

Half Baked Theories, shocking mistakes and the authors own admitted statement that most the book is bad facts and myths. As an enthusiast since 6 and a being mentored to be a Titanic Historian - I only recommend this book if you have absoulotley NOTHING else to do. A majority of the first half is some bad evidence on the Titanic/Olympic switch - if you want the truth looki at the A deck promenade, Titanics was enclosed and the Olympics open at the time of the sinking. This and Marc Shapiro " Total Titanic" are the worst of Titanic books

In the preface of this remarkable book, the two joint authors agree to disagree about an astonishing hypothesis - that the "Titanic" which sank in 1912 was in fact the sister ship "Olympic", switched for sinister reasons. A far fetched notion, but certainly worth considering in the light of recent evidence. The book also contains a thorough analysis of the two Boards of Inquiry, and reconsiders the case against Captain Lord in great detail. A provisional passenger list is imcluded, and copious footnotes and references make this an essential book for those who thought that James Cameron's film told the full story