Events Books

I'll admit that any book with the work heresies in the title has an automatic advantage in peaking my interest, but this volume does so much more than merely entice. MacCoun and Reuter have done an amazing job of looking that drug prohibition from a new point of view. Frankly, despite the passage of a few years, I believe that this book is absolute essential if one hopes to really understand the controversy over the War on Drugs.

Rather than attempt a summary of the contents, let me simply point to three specifics as representative of the wealth of insight the reader will encounter. First, MacCoun and Reuter have expanded the typical dichotomous legalization v criminalization perspectives to include depenalization and commercialization. Counter the arguments of drug prohibitionists, depenalization does not seem to be inextricably intertwined with massive increases in the prevalence of drug use as is anticipated with legalization. Also, legalization may have less negative increases in prevalence without the accompaniment of commercialization. By adding these two considerations, MacCoun and Reuter enable expansion of the debate into potentially fertile areas for improving the consequences of prohibition.

Secondly, the careful analysis of the 48 negative consequences of prohibition and the related causal linkage to enforcement, illegal status, and use should be the focus of careful reflection by every reader. In many respects, the damage caused by the War on Drugs is a kind of collateral damage - unintentionally caused by the implementation of US prohibition efforts.

Thirdly, MacCoun & Reuter reconceptualize the total harmfulness of illicit drugs as the interaction of three factors: prevalence, intensity, and micro harm (i.e., user self-damage). Much of the criticism of drug prohibition deals with the extensive micro harm without equal weight being given to the total harmfulness to our society. The negative correlation between prevalence and micro harm is among the more interesting possibilities to consider.

In summary, it is quite difficult to imagine a more sensitive evaluation of drug prohibition that so carefully considers the US case in light of the European context and the historical experience with legal addictive substances (alcohol and tobacco). I cannot recommend this book more highly.

Drug War Heresies may be the best book ever written about modern U.S. drug policy. Written by a psychologist and an economist, the authors draw on attempts to control other substances (such as alcohol prohibition in the U.S.) and exhaustively examine the alternative and experimental European drug policies that most American readers will find particularly useful. The authors are careful to not impose their values and beliefs into their work, instead focusing on the consequences of alternative drug policies. The result is a persuasive case for policy reform in America that is not doctrinaire. Required reading for all who are interested in illicit drug policy in America.

The 'War on Drugs' in the United States grew from a million dollar acorn absentmindedly planted by President Nixon to a thriving 18 billion dollar oak three decades on.

The outcome of the 'war' is not satisfactory. The prevalence of illicit drug use is down but the substances are still readily available for people who really want to use them. The collateral damage is alarming, including one of the highest per capita rates for imprisonment in the world and regular reports of ghastly mistakes by law enforcement officers.

This book presents a massively researched and dispassionate cost/benefit analysis of the likely effects of various forms of legalisation for the major categories of illicit drugs. The subtitle of the book signals that the conceptual framework is enriched by a survey the international experience in the control of prostitution, gambling, alcohol and tobacco as well as the illicit drugs.

Drug War Heresies is a really excellent source for a wide range of literature and for the standard arguments that are likely to be bandied backwards and forwards for some time to come. It is clearly written and it provides a model of policy analysis in a deeply controversial field where the authors articulate a position of their own without apparently biasing the analysis.


The centrepiece of their analysis is the estimation of the Total Harm from a drug as the product of Prevalence (number of users) x Intensity (average number of doses) x Harmfulness (harm caused by each dose). This is a complex equation because the intensity is not uniform in the drug-using population and the harms arising from particular levels of drug use depend on the public health provisions and other policies (such as policing) that are in place.

The highly nuance stance that they adopt calls for modest law reforms that would result in increased prevalence (more users) in conjunction with other policies which would moderate both the intensity of use and the harms that result from drug use. The harms include the cost of crimes to support expensive habits, and other costs that result from policing zero-tolerance prohibition policies.

The analysis is far from complete, partly because the financial costs and benefits cannot be calculated accurately, also because the attractiveness and the political feasibility of the options depends on highly subjective (and widely divergent) appraisals that different people apply to drug use and its consequences.

The authors concluded that there is very little likelihood in the near future for reform, even for cannabis. All the problems in the analysis favour the status quo. So far only one major political figure, the Republican Governor of New Mexico, was prepared to put the ball of reform into play in the political arena and he was rebuffed by the Democratic majority in his legislature. This was a most unfortunate outcome from a scientific point of view because some of the imponderables that dog the cost/benefit analysis might have been illuminated in the light of experience in one state.

After the authors put down their pens both terrorism and Iraq became major issues, hence the prospects for change in drug policy are even more dismal, partly due to the diversion of attention to other areas and partly on account of the deterioration in the civility of public debate in general. This does not detract from the value of this excellent book, merely from the impact that it is likely to have in the short term.

This is one of the most comprehensive, objective or "bi-partisan," and current studies available to the general public. Although it is indeed an academic study and is written to influence policymakers, the educated public can easily follow most of the arguments posited by MacCoun and Reuter. Both thinkers have extensive experience in the area of drug policy, both are senior consultants with RAND (Drug Policy Research Center) and have published a considerable amount of literature on the nature of drugs and drug laws. This dynamic text attempts a comparative analysis of vices, such as gambling and prostitution, with that of recreational drug use, including alcohol and tobacco. The purpose of this study is to research whether or not there are any correlations between vices and, if so - can they assist in our understanding of how to regulate drugs and the desires of individuals for drugs. For example, of the kind of comparisons made, is that of prostitution and gambling. Both are legal in Las Vegas, NV - both are thought to be harmful vices, nevertheless, the law has provided a place for them in a legal context - can the same be done for drugs? The text also evaluates extensively, the European models of drug law enforcement and treatment and compares them to America's own models of law and treatment. The authors do not offer any solutions to the drug problem, but what they have done is contribute a comprehensive study with an extensive and diverse amount of data on the subject, something of which has not been achieved as thoroughly as it has been done in this study. The authors also analyze many of the drug reformer's arguments and parse them for consistencies and/or inconsistencies; in the conclusion, they offer a sympathetic gesture to the reformer's contentions because the authors admit to realizing the inanity and harm current drug laws are causing society, but they do so cautiously. They realize that something "must change," but what? and the future can only hold speculations. This book is highly recommended.

Another interesting companion study is the Consumer Reports study that was released in 1972. It is comprehensive and treats the many aspects of the "drug problem" in America. See:

Breacher, Edward M. et al., Licit and Illicit Drugs: the Consumers Union report on narcotics, stimulants, depressants, inhalants, hallucinogens, and marijuana - including caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol. (Boston: Little Brown, 1972).

"In Drug War Heresies, Robert J. MacCoun and Peter Reuter ask whether drug prohibition makes sense and whether legalization might achieve a better balancing of the costs and benefits associated with drugs and drug policy. They draw on a broad range of social science literature, and they emphasize the lessons provided both by drug prohibition in other places and by prohibitions of other goods, such as alcohol and prostitution. In discussing this evidence, they raise most of the key issues that should be considered in evaluating drug policy. Their book is an excellent starting point for anyone who wishes to understand the debates about prohibition versus legalization.

MacCoun and Reuter make a compelling case that many evils typically attributed to drugs result instead from drug prohibition and its enforcement. According to their analysis, prohibition causes increases in property crime because users face elevated prices; increases in violent crime because traffickers cannot resolve disputes using the courts; diminishments of civil liberties owing to the difficulty of detecting crimes without natural complainants; increases in corruption of police and politicians; disruption of countries that produce coca and opium; diminishments of users' health because of poor quality control; increases in the spread of HIV because of prohibition-induced restrictions on clean needles; excessive restrictions on medical uses of drugs; and reductions in respect for the law bred by widespread violation of prohibition-among other consequences.

And yet the authors do not endorse legalization. They find great fault with the heavy emphasis on criminal sanctions in current U.S. prohibition, and they believe substantial deescalation to, say, the level of enforcement in western Europe, Canada, or Australia would diminish many of the harms of prohibition while causing only small increases in drug use. Still, they do not endorse legalization. Why not?

Their position rests on four arguments: that moving from weak, European-style prohibition to legalization would produce a substantial increase in drug use; that this increase would be a bad thing; that most of the benefits from legalization are achieved simply by deescalating prohibition; and that the effects of legalization are uncertain."

"The authors' basic points move in the right direction. They have done a great service in carefully, honestly, and scientifically considering both theory and evidence on the effects of alternative drug policies. Room remains for reasonable persons to disagree about certain pieces of evidence, but if more persons were to analyze drug policy as dispassionately as MacCoun and Reuter, both drug policy and the country would be in far better shape."

What a country! Only once in our history, did one president, (the 2nd one), decide to co-opt the US Constitution; and forcing the Sedition Act, down journalists' throats. Thank goodness John Adams didn't get a second term; and his "act" vanished in 1801. Thomas Jefferson then entered the White House.

And, pretty much the RULE that journalists can investigate things on their own; they don't have to swallow PR at all; shows ya that Franklin Foer kept fighting for this principle, above others. Sure, the army tried to get Foer to "surrender" ... the building? In New York City! That's what our army does these days?

Pretty much explains the silence; where the army can't get anything happening in Iraq covered. Or else, you'd know for sure that Maliki hates Bush's guts. And, "diplomatically speaking" all we have for our trillions; and years of toil, is a re-emergence of Putin.

Reagan's victory against the soviets didn't last long. The Bush's went ahead, promising the moon to the Saud's. Which is a whole other story.

If we're lucky? Someday, it will get told. (But not from PR machinery!)

The outstanding journalistic integrity of Mr. Foer and TNR will make this book a hot commodity. I can't wait to not get it.

I expect that at least a couple dozen will fly off the shelves just in time for Christmas.

I smell Pulitzer! Oh wait, that's something else................

In this revealing, behind the scenes look at the 2008 presidential campaign, the peerless journalists of TNR uncover - via unsubstantiated, anonymous sources of course - Republican presidential candidates committing multiple atrocities and war crimes while in the field. In Iowa, Fred Thomson and his good ol' boy colleagues mock disfigured WAC WWII vetrans while visiting a VA hospital; Rudolph Giuliani - with the aid of 9/11 rescue workers - excavates a cemetery of undocumented alien victims of the Minutemen and cavorts through New Hampshire will wearing a skull fragment over his bald spot. Finally, Mitt Romney in his fervent search for the golden plates, careens through South Carolina in a Bradley fighting vehicle clad only in his sacred underwear, recklessly luring Log Cabin Republicans within range of the Brad's tracks, and with a deftness not to be found in tracked fighting vehicles, severs them in half and leaves their writhing parts twitching in the waist-deep sewage.

The sections on Giuliani, Thompson and Romney are sure to generate the most press, but the genuinely interesting material is on the second tier candidates. For example, I didn't know that McCain's "Straight Talk Express" bus has small silhouettes below the driver's window, keeping tally of the conservatives he's thrown under the wheels. Or that Mike Huckabee once killed 930 people by baptizing them in poisoned grape Kool Aid. Or that Ron Paul was a German concentration camp guard in WW2.

This amazing, deeply researched book will tell you everything you need to know about voting in the 2008 Presidential election - but really, all you have to do is read the title of the chapter on Our Next President -

"We Love Hillary Clinton."

I am reviewing those two books together because they cover the same topic. And, I find a review comparing them more relevant and timely than reviewing them on a stand alone basis. I read them simultaneously on the coverage of the same candidates to observe if I would get different information. I actually got very similar info as I could not detect any political bias. But, the way these books impart the information is different. Thus, there is no difference in substance but there is a huge difference in style.

Within `A Voter's guide,' the coverage of each candidate is written by a different writer. After a short curriculum on the candidate, these writers write out a long narrative essay that could qualify as an article in the New Yorker. Those essays also come across as a book summary on the candidates. For a checklist of the candidate's specific position you have to refer to the Appendix.

The Undecided Voter's Guide to the Next President: Who the Candidates Are, Where They Come from, and How You Can Choose is structurally very different. The entire book is written by a single author. The coverage of each candidate is thoroughly structured as a user friendly manual or almost a college (Presidential) application package. It starts as the Voter's Guide with a curriculum on the candidate. Next, it moves on to a very detailed description of the candidate's position on all major issues. Then it goes on to a narrative section that is less sophisticated than the one in `A Voter's Guide.' Then it systematically covers the following headings: a) Areas of Potential Controversy; b) Why this specific candidate can win the General Election; c) Why this specific candidate can't win the General Election; d) The best case for candidate X presidency; e) The worst case for candidate X presidency; f) What to expect if candidate X is President; g) What supporters say; h) What detractors say; i) Facts and stories; j) Quirks, habits, and hobbies; k) The Undecided Voter's Guide Questionnaire.

Another area where the books differ is on setting up the political context. `A Voter's Guide' has an excellent historical analysis of the evolutionary changes within the parties and how they shaped Presidential elections since the late 1800s. This is one of the last chapters in the book, and I recommend you read it first. `The Undecided Voter's Guide' has no counterpart to this thorough historical analysis. Instead, it briefly touches on similar themes within the introduction. But, the latter is not even as thorough as A Voter's Guide's own short introduction.

These two books cater to different audiences. `The Undecided Voter's Guide' is excellent to extract a maximum amount of information really quickly. It is an excellent tool for the political novice. `A Voter's Guide,' although better written, does not deliver the information quite so readily and is catered to the more sophisticated reader. I am not talking about intelligence here; I am talking about political engagement. An MIT engineer who is fairly apolitical in between elections will prefer `The Undecided Voter's Guide' to acquire efficiently the knowledge he needs to vote. A lawyer who follows politics closely would probably prefer `A Voter's Guide.'

In the end, I think both books are excellent. Within both, the profiles of the candidates are very interesting and informative. If you read at least one of the two, you are bound to be a more informed voter than otherwise. But, you don't need to read both as their coverage overlaps. And, they both cover the topic objectively.

Our current administration is fond of dismissing its critics by labeling THEM as extremists. The Whitewater investigators are part of a "right-wing conspiracy." Those who criticize the under-the-desk-activities at the Oval Office are simply venting their wrath against people from Arkansas, and those who oppose the failed War on Drugs are "fringe groups."

With each passing day, this tactic becomes harder to get away with, as "fringe" types such as George Schultz, Walter Cronkite and Perez de Cuellar weigh in against the Drug War. The latest of these "fringe" elements to come out against our idiotic drug policy is Dirk Chase Eldredge, a founding bank director, "successful entrepreneur," and former co-chairman of Ronald Reagan's campaign for governor of California.

This conservative Republican has examined our drug policies in considerable detail. He details the failures of the Justice Department, FBI, US Customs Service, and others in their futile quest for a "drug-free America."

He clearly points out the horrendous effects of these policies on our country: the overcrowded prisons, police corruption, violence, spread of AIDS, unjust sentencing, judicial overload, and the tyranny of asset forfeiture.

Some months ago, I was having a drink with Judge Jim Gray, an Orange County, California, Republican running for Congress, and I asked him how he broaches the subject of the Drug War to his conservative constituents. "Easy," he replied. "I just say, `let me tell you about an $18 billion federal program that doesn't work,' and they're all ears." That is just what Eldredge does in "Ending the War on Drugs." He gives us just the facts, Ma'am. Those facts are the key to effective policy, and Eldredge has plenty of them.

There is, however, a human note to his opus, too. Eldredge points out that his father's life was ruined by his addiction to alcohol, and that what he needed was help from medical people, not law enforcement. Eldredge is also quick to point out that the vast majority of drinkers, unlike his dad, do not have a problem with alcohol. Likewise, he says, "Ninety-six percent of people use drugs today, use them recreationally, without harming anyone."

Eldredge also gives lie to the "Try and Die" is another myth promoted by Prohibitionists. In the preface, Eldredge says, "America's War on Drugs is reminiscent of the Russian princess who sat weeping profusely at the death of the hero in a performance at the opera, while, at the curb, her waiting carriage driver froze to death in a Moscow ice storm." He understands the inherently dishonest nature of the Drug War and makes an excellent case for ending it.

If I have a quarrel with anything in this book, it is with his solution, or at least part of it. There are three possible administrators of the multi-billion-dollar drug market in the US - the free-market, the government, and the underworld. Currently, our policy-makers obviously favor giving control to the underworld. Ending the Drug War would leave us two choices; the free-market or the government. Eldredge favors the latter, in the form of state-run stores akin to the alcohol sales system in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other states. While this is an obvious improvement over turning the market over to the Mob, as we do today, I'm surprised that a self-proclaimed conservative Republican would opt for this Socialistic solution. A more effective system of state-regulated but privately owned "drug stores" would seem to be a better way to go. We are still a long way from either of these solutions, and have ample time to debate which one will prevail. Hopefully this book will hasten the time when that decision will have to be made.

Mr. Eldridge presents us with a very well writen critiqe of our nations stance against drugs. The book is full of insight into ways that the war on drugs can be put to better use. anyone interested in drug public policy should read this book.

The most knowledge packed 200 pages on Drug War circumstance I have ever read. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in politics and especially on the War on Drugs. The author is incitive and extraordinarly objective in his discussion. I read the book in one sitting and immediately searched to find more books by Eldredge. Though an ex Reagan man (campaign for CA governor) his views show a fairly liberal view on the topic, far away from any Reagan stereotypes. Too much good to discuss here, just read it!

Dirk Chase Eldredge's "Ending the War on Drugs" is a powerful and persuasive book that argues that America's war on drugs has been an abysmal failure and should be ended as soon as possible. The author's message has a certain edginess in that he is one of a small but albeit growing number of Republicans who are weighing in against the drug war. Of particular note, Eldredge was co-chairman for the California Gubernatorial campaign of Ronald Reagan, who was perhaps the nation's most vocal drug warrior. Yet there wasn't a single word in this book that I could disagree with.

Eldredge is encouraging us to act like grown-ups and provide the caring and compassion that drug abusers need. Through the use of numerous statistics that are supplemented by some interesting anecdotes, the author overwhelmingly shows that interdiction has failed. The bottom line is that illegal drugs remain readilly available to those who seek them. But their illegal status has proven to be a boon to the drug lords, street gangs and other undesirable elements -- including Afghan terrorists, as we have recently learned -- who are attracted to the promise of quick and (usually) easy profits.

Edlredge contends that de-criminalization will swiftly take away the profit motive and bust up the drug gangs, both here at home and in places like Columbia and Mexico. Safer streets will enhance the quality of life for our citizens and no doubt help stablize the governments of countries where drug lords are nearly as powerful as the state. And for the user, government distribution will ensure a safer supply of drugs and, importantly, provide the drug user with a point of contact who could arrange treatment, should it ever be requested.

Eldredge's discussion of the nuances of how the anti-drug laws should be changed and the types of programs that need to be implemented show that he has spent a fair amount of time carefully considering the issue. But Eldredge takes care to critique the drug war in terms familiar to most Conservatives: as an example of wasteful government spending. If criminalizing drugs is not working as a deterrent to behavior patterns, and if it does not suppress the supply, then the government should logically search for alternative solutions where it may be able to get a better return on its investments.

One hopes that the mature message found in this book will be heeded by a growing number of policy makers. I encourage you to read it and to join the growing number of Americans who think that sanity and clarity of purpose should rightly replace the current state of insanity and corruption that unfortunately characterizes our country's current drug war strategy.

In Ending the War on Drugs, Dirk Eldredge provides an insightful and convincing look at the full gambit of issues surrounding our perceptions of drugs in this society. He succeeds masterfully in proving that we must reexamine our "War on Drugs." I believe anyone wishing to make an informed and educated opinion about our public policy toward illicit drugs should read this book. It is my hope that this book will help spark a fresh debate on what we might do to stem the tide of horrors our drug prohibition has brought not only to our society, but also to the global economic and political landscape. While many may disagree about his proposed solution, namely the federally controlled distribution of what would be newly legalized drugs, few could argue his conclusion that our attempted "War on Drugs", has been a absolute failure.

I am a law student in the university of Plymouth and i would like you to send me some information that this book contains, concerning the subject of the separation of powers. Your advice will be of great help. Thank you.

First, to the reviewer looking for the doctrine of separation of powers: you'll find it in Montequieu's "Spirit of the Laws". Also check out "The Federalist", number 51.

Now then, Bagehot, like Madison, describes the operation of a modern liberal regime. The trick for founders of liberal government is to produce a government that permits the people civil liberties, but does not permit the people to abuse those liberties, or in the words of Madison, to create a government that is "democratic yet decent". Madison and the American Founders accomplish this end by so constructing the institutions of government that mens' selfish natures will be turned against each other ("ambition is made to check ambition"), rather than united in tyrannical concert.

Bagehot too describes the operation of a system of government that rules by the consent of the governed, yet which does so by restraining the vices of those who ought not to rule. Bagehot argues that the English government is moderate and decent because of a division of government into the "dignified" and the "efficient" parts, and a "noble lie" about the relationship between the two. It is this noble lie that permits the government to operate without the interference of those who would turn it away from the public good. But to discover the noble lie, you'll have to read Bagehot.

Warner Winborne

Professor of Political Science

Hampden-Sydney College

Hampden-Sydney, VA

This book stimulates the little gray cells. Every time I watch Prime Minister's Questions, the superiority of the Cabinet system over the Presidential system is painfully obvious. If Bush were subjected to the kind of scrutiny, in Congress, that Blair is subjected to every week in Parliament, he would have been exposed as an impostor long before supreme executive authority was placed in his hands. Refering to our Civil War, Bagehot wrote: "The notion of employing a man of unknown smallness at a crisis of unknown greatness is to our minds simply ludicrous. Mr. Lincoln, it is true, happened to be a man of... eminent justness... But success in a lottery is no argument for lotteries."

Well, we used up all of our good fortune in the 1860s. We've come up craps in this millenium.

If this is the unaltered version of the book of the same name and same author that I read about 30 years ago, it is a classic. It describes how the classic English Constitution worked, before Britain joined the European Union. Especially it explained how it worked without being written down, largely by constitutional convention which was morally binding but (quite often) not legally binding.

Walter Bagehot was a journalist and a social and political thinker of the middle Victorian period (1850s and 1860s). His classical work "The English Constitution" comes as a collection of polemical assays upon the structure of the British political system. Cabinet, monarchy, Houses of Commons and Lords, execution of political power, and the foundation of the systems of checks and balances are explored in the book.

Throughout the book a comparison and contrast of Cabinet system and the Presidential system (a.k.a USA) is a constant theme. Bagehot does not hide it preference for the Cabinet system, which in his view is a both more dynamic and more effective. One of his main points is that direct popular election is a myth, since most of the electorate are ignorant of the nature of the political power (and moreover are forced to this ignorance by the effective uselessness of the legislative debate in the USA as opposed to the UK). Moreover, a result of the direct election is a static Presidential term of 4 years, which allows the executive branch to execute almost unchecked control of the political process. According to Bagehot, the indirect electoral system of the Commons, where people vote for the MPs and they then select the PM amongst themselves produces a more effective government, which is more responsive to the popular will since it can fall at any time due to policy disputes. A hidden secret of British success according to Bagehot is a fusion of legislative and executive powers in the Cabinet system. In the latter chapters, Bagehot exposures two forms of power - the dignified power (in the person of the monarch and the lords) and the effective power as exemplified by the Cabinet. Dignified power serves as a façade of legitimacy under which the dynamic and opportunist real effective power can subsist. He follows through to explain how each of the minister of the government exercises its power for the common goal, what are the legal powers of the monarchy and how it is exercised indirectly via control of the composition of the peerage and the power to dissolve the Commons.

Bagehot's style is clear, flavorful, his knowledge of political process is profound (with a qualification of more so of British then American), his research is well done, and he is a master of dramatic tricks to keep the reader interested. I would recommend the book as both a scholarly reference, and a well presented popular case.

I have used this book as a supplementary text for my environmental aesthetics course offered to undergraduate architecture and planning students. I assign pgs 1-78 as required reading. The material is clear and convincing. Even at this level, students can replicate the studies and/use the results in their own projects.

This book is a major contribution to the fields of environmental aesthetics and urban design. Urban designers and architects often assume that they understand how people perceive their environment. Nasar has discovered how they really view their environment and evaluate it through effective practical research methods. Thus, the book gives us all clues to what is important to the user helping us to make design decisions that are meaningful.

Nasar also makes a case for effective empirical research in urban design, a subject that is often ignored by urban designers. He provides designers with a useful set of tools to evaluate perceptions of specific environments and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each giving hints to developing appropriate design research strategies.

The book blends theory, empirical methods with practical advice. Any architect, landscape architect or urban designer interested in creating environments sensitive to the user will find this book useful

The Evaluative Image of the City, what a great book! This is a very informative and useful book and I would encourage anyone interested in the visual quality of our cities to read it. I haven't seen any other book that so clearly answers the questions posed by Kevin Lynch in The Image of the City - What does the city's form actually mean to the people living there? What can the city planners do to make the city's image more vivid and memorable to the city dwellers?

This book is one that will appeal to a broad spectrum of people - e.g., informed citizenry, city councils, city planners, urban designers, urban geographers, landscape architects, architects, as well as other academics/researchers. In fact, anyone interested in the visual form of our cities should read this book. It will give you a new perspective on how the visual form of the city impacts our enjoyment of cities. It also provides some clearly delineated methods for both assessing the image and modifying it. These techniques can be easily utilized by governmental or non-governmental agencies as well as interested citizens groups to better understand the evaluative image of their city, town, village or neighborhood and do something about it.

The author - Jack Nasar - has built upon the seminal work by Kevin Lynch in The Image of the City. However, whereas Lynch placed the emphasis of his study on two key aspects of the image - identity and structure - Nasar has taken on the more difficult task of assessing the meaning (or evaluative aspect) of the image. Nasar has been able to go beyond identity and structure to present a very convincing argument that people have a shared evaluative image (which is equated with the likability of the city's visual form) and has made clear the importance of that image for city design.

Through the analysis of the shared evaluative images of two cities - Knoxville and Chattanooga - the author has been able to identify many of the key elements of urban likability - i.e., naturalness, upkeep/civilities, openness, historical significance, and order. But he doesn't merely leave this an academic exercise, he attempts to show how we can shape the evaluative image. He presents possible guidelines for desired outcomes, such as creating a(n) pleasant appearance, exciting appearance, relaxing appearance, or high-status appearance. Furthermore, he suggests how the methods and guidelines can be easily linked into local planning processes and policy.

What a contribution this readable and well-researched book is to the field of urban studies. Nasar has not only answered the questions posed by Lynch, but has also shown us how important our shared evaluative image is to the quality of our everyday life and how we can, not only, take responsibility for the visual quality of our cities, but, more importantly, take action.

The book describes a rigorous approach to the analysis of city appearance. It shows how behavioral science research is relevant to urban design-to identify concerns, clarify purposes, generate ideas, and shape public policy. Theory, case studies, research findings, and methodology are interwoven in a useful way. Future directions for both design and research are suggested. Nasar's book will be required reading in my urban design class.

This is an eminently useful book for the many professionals embarked on civic improvement who also want to consult the larger comuinity. Readers might range from urban design teachers and professionals to public policy groups and planning commissions to downtown chambers of commerce, tourist commissions, and real estate groups. The book not only shows how to solicit information about citizen views and bring this together to form an "evaluative image," but it suggest basic strategies for presentation and effectiveness . . . Nasar brings a rich store of empirical research from the visual assessment field to this work, particularly as it tests the relationship between environmental processes and human spatial behavior . . . Overall, the book is extremely helpful, not only in providing thoughtful interpretaitons of prevailing tastes and brends, but in its wealth of suggestions for new research techniques and new methods of visual presentiation, both derived from his own work and the work of associates. I was informed by Nasar's suggestions for ways to refine and diversify evaluation methods, to make fruitful comparisons between cities, to identify successful city traits for emulation elsewhere, to predicte neighborhood needs from census data, and to research wihtin a low budget. The ultimate usefulness of this book lies in the application of planning strategies to engage the support of public groups for improving the city appearance.

I think I picked this book out of a close-out bin for two bucks and am sure glad I did. Garvin writes in a straight-forward manner and while it is clear his sympathies are with the Contras, he certainly calls them out when necessary.

It is a fascinating story with fascinating people. Some of the events are so bizarre and even funny that it proves fact is often stranger than fiction. In fact, I would love to see this made into a movie.

Last I checked, Garvin worked for the Miami Herald. I wanted to let him know how, for some odd reason, reading this book makes me want to write, but I had to register with the Herald before getting access to his email. Too bad.

Glenn Garvin's now classic work is by far the best book ever written on the phenomenon of the Nicaraguan Contras (Chris Dickey's book would be second, in my opinion) - cleared-eyed, cynical, yet sympathetic to this violent, colorful and (yes) idealistic highland peasant army and full of his mordant wit at the folly of often contradictory and confused American policies which, as well intentioned as they can be, can have disastrous and unintended consequences. The irony is that - compared to a debacle like Iraq - the Contra War seems like a masterpiece of politics and war to achieve specific ends. I'll take Mike Lima over Ahmed Chalabi any day.

Garvin's greatest success in "Everybody had his own Gringo" is that he addresses the contra army neither as a puppet creation of the United States nor as Robin Hood-esque freedom fighters glavanting around in the jungle. Written with mordant wit, dead-on in focus and scope, this is an excellent text on the contras. Those looking for a complete history of the Nicaraguan civil war, however, will probably want to look elsewhere.

Glenn Garvin's book is a wonderful and highly readable account of the peasant army which made up the Contras. The author is sympathetic but clear-eyed, and he provides a fascinating account of the motivations of the Contra soldiers and leaders, as well as describing U.S. involvement with the Contras. "Everybody Had His Own Gringo" (a great title!) is a "must-read" for anyone interested in the history of the Nicaraguan civil war and the Contras.

one of the very few books that don't blindly praise the sandinistas. this book and shirley christian's 'nicaragua: revolution in the family' are essential to understanding the civil war in nicaragua.

In two words: Read This

I enjoyed reading this provocative heart warming book...The Exile of the Author is a result of what Israel did to hundereds of thousands of innocent Palestinians in 1948...The author is honest and criticizes the Palestinians and their leadership as much as he critices Israel and it's leadership.

Fawaz Turki describes his exile from Palestine, growing up in Beirut, his families unthinking chains to tradition, and his journey to establish peace within himself. Not only does this book educate all of us on the immigrant experience, it is a book that should be read by every Arab-American. It helps the reader to gain understanding of identity politics. This book urges an examination of Arab cultural traditions and makes the point that change with purpose serves for individual and collective enlightenment

I loved this book that I read it three times. It is timeless, enjoyable, and should be read by everyone. It tells the Palestinian story in the most detailed manner. It speaks to all of us and challenges us to shake off our stereotypes and hatred. I learned so much about myself reading this book. It will make you laugh and cry.

In the third iteration of his memoirs, Turki concentrates on two aspects of his life: changing from Arab into American and alienation from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In Turki's case, becoming an American is a funny, quite degenerate, and certainly ribald process. It makes for a moving transformation, especially when contrasted with his earlier dislike of the United States. As for the PLO, Turki denounces its "corruption and incompetence" as well as its "tired cant and lame banalities." But don't think he only has harsh words; in Turki's hands, even turning away from the PLO has a humorous edge (indeed, his game on the Arab League's pompous ambassador in Washington is sidesplitting). Turki also condemns what he sees as the terrible traditionalness of Palestinian society and calls for nothing less than a revolution: "the liberation of Palestinian society will only come about when the Palestinians themselves recognize their neobackwardness and begin an Intifada against it." It wasn't many years ago that every Palestinian proclaimed himself a PLO supporter. Hamas and Islamic Jihad first broke the monopoly on the fundamentalist side. Now more liberal elements are ready to tell the world just how awful the organization is, providing details detractors could hitherto only have imagined. In contrast to grudging Americans like Edward Said, Turki eagerly embraces the United States and rejects PLO brutalities; this is a major development. Indeed, his candor and thoughtfulness marks a significant breakthrough.

Middle East Quarterly, December 1994

I just bought a copy of this book because I saw the lecture Dr. Maguire gave on CSPAN and was riveted. The book is unbelievably important in these times when the United States claims to be doing things for international justice. But when you read this and see how Pol Pot got away with so much and what's going on in Asia you won't be able to understand why we were so consumed with a man like Saddam Hussein (oil). Everyone should read this book.

Peter Maguire's mix of personal travelogue and historical study works well, with the author lingering on the question of impunity and the ineffectual international community, whilst interviewing victims and perpetrators of Khmer Rouge crimes on many visits following his first trip to Cambodia in 1994. That first exciting yet unnerving visit in 1994 is something the author and myself have in common, as we do the loss of a close Cambodian friend in recent years. His loss was Sok Sin, well known as every journalist's 'fixer' and Maguire's tale of his demise is poignant. His interviews with the suvivors of Tuol Sleng such as Bou Meng, Vann Nath and Im Chan contrast sharply with the soul-less KR photographer Nhem En and guard Him Huy, whilst DC-Cam and Youk Chhang rightly emerge as a beacon of light in the chaos that is Cambodia. He also tracked down Mai Lam, the Vietnamese colonel who'd turned Tuol Sleng into a Genocide Museum though ultimately their discussions were stymied. I found the book stimulating, frustrating, insightful and vexing in equal measures, with Maguire admitting up front that he ultimately failed to come to any clear-cut conclusions. However, the journey to get to nowhere is an interesting one.

This remarkable book takes the reader deep inside the minds of a culture so hard to penetrate that I am returning this year to Cambodia just to attempt to understand the obvious - here is a country in a state of denial. "Facing Death in Cambodia" very effectively analyses Cambodia's culture of compliance, a nation meek to authority, and seemingly paralyzed by a recent past so convulsive that to even think about it is an invitation to "bad karma" - even among survivors and the unindicted killers of their children who sometimes share the same street. Mr Maguire excells at the job of rendering the 75-79 story in human terms. His portraits of the familiar figures like the photographer of those shattering Tuol Slong ID pictures are very important to our understanding of what sort of mental gymnastics many at the heart of the genocide are capable of. The heroic Vann Nath, whose miraculous survival is powerfully and touchingly explained in the book, emerges as a beacon of clear sightedness.Yet even here there is paradox - the survivor is eager to greet the photographer almost as an old friend. The author's tenacious search for the mind set and value system of the killers, and how D.K.'s perverted ideology can be effortlessly justified in Cambodia's "culture of impunity", make for provocative reading. I was particularly impressed by the author's descriptions of lurking violence. The weserner's stereotypes of the smiling Khmer do not long survive exposure to present reality. When Mr. Maguire takes you through the marketplaces and cafes of Phnom Penh, don't expect a comfortable ride. In one shattering passage,we are told how quickly peasant vengeance in the street over seeming trifles turns to horror in a blink. Overall, this book is one of the most important documents of Cambodia's modern history. Mr Maguire has no illusions that this beautiful, tormented country's battle to start over is going to be over soon. Here is a writer of compassion and power, and his book is an excellent one.

This is a clear and concise book about the horrendous regime of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge (1975-1979)and the aftermath. The author asks the question: why haven't leaders of the Khmer Rouge been prosecuted for the mass murder they perpetrated on their own people. He finds a partial answer by looking at international politics and the machinations of Cambodian leaders, the UN, and the US and everyone's lack of priority in seeking justice in Cambodia.

The author, along the way, adds his personal experiences and interesting observations about Phnom Penh and Cambodia in the 1990s and up until 2003. He interviews a large number of Cambodians, including guards and survivors, about the goings on at the notorious S-21 prison. As many as twenty thousand entered the prison; fewer than a dozen survived. There are photos of some of the murdered and the survivors and several historic photos of Khmer Rouge soldiers. The author delves into the mentality of the mass murderers and present day Cambodians who still suffer the trauma of that horrific era.

Chapter two in this book is one of the best brief descriptions of the Khmer Rouge takeover of Cambodia and its consequences that I have read. All in all the book is a readable introduction to the sordid history of the Khmer Rouge and the half-hearted international efforts to cope with mass murder and its perpetrators.

Smallchief

I've often wondered about the genocide in Cambodia. The amount of material available on the Holocaust is emmense. We basically went to war to stop the "Ethnic Clensing" in the Balkans. But in Cambodia, almost noting, even while it was going on it seemed to be largely ignored. The famous pictures of the piles of skulls seemed to have no effect.

When this was happening we had just ended our participation in the Viet Nam war. I asked a Viet Nam protester why they weren't protesting what was happening there, why are we building a Holocaust museum when something of almost horror was happening in Cambodia. There was no answer.

For a time I thought that it might be an issue of race/color. The Jews were white, the Cambodian brown. Then the happenings in Rawanda got a fair amount of press coverage. And I can only conclude that it was just a matter of time. Viet Nam took all the energy the protestors had, perhaps combined with such a contempt/hatred for our own government that they couldn't see the evil in the Khmer Rouge. Maybe it was the left's "love" for communism that made them blind.

Peter Maguire's book puts a personal and human face on this genocide. He has talked to the people all over Cambodia, he has analyzed the international response and concluded that "international law, human rights, and international criminal courts are little more than sonorous fictions without political will."

There is no political will to even think much about Cambodia, not while it was happening, not now.

I am not surprised that this book has unanimous 5 star reviews. John Treadway is a legendary figure in Balkan studies, and is quite rightly regarded as the world authority on the Montenegrin history of this period. He is uniquely able to make the study of Montenegro in the run up to World War One both scholarly and accessible, an all too rare feat in historical writing these days. Buy 10 copies of this book and give them to any historians you know to teach them how to write history properly. Christopher Catherwood, author of THE BALKANS IN WORLD WAR TWO (Palgrave, 2003)

John Treadway has been the most authoratative, brilliant and generally outstanding scholar of Balkan history in recent years, and this is the wonderful book that made his well deserved reputation. You simply cannot understand the Balkans without reading this magnificent book.

Brilliant study about Montenegro and its relationship with Austria-Hungary but also with Russia and Balkan countries, especially Serbia. This excelent book is based on critically confirmed facts and scientific knowledge. Professor Treadway stresses eternal wish of Montenegrins and their king Nicholas I Petrovic Njegos to restore medieval Serb Empire of Dusan Nemanjic: "Ambitious for his dynasty as well as his country and incited by the nationalism of his people, Nicholas dreamed of uniting all Serbs under his aegis and sitting upon Dusan's throne in Prizren" [page 201] I recommend this book to everybody who cares for knowledge.

Treadway has been extremely succesful in writing the dramatic history of Montenegro, its smart king and its brave people. After reading this fine historybook on the "black mountains" the reader will better understand the current trouble on the Balkans. Treadway describes in a detailed way why the two Balkan wars have taken place and what has been the political and geographical outcome of it. The Austrian-Hungarian influence on the European continent at that time as well as the Russian influence makes one see how history repeats itself today. For the current student on Balkan history, for the student on politics in the Balkan and for people who are interested in Montenegrin history this book is an absolute must! Highly recommended

I was lucky enough to have been a student of Dr. Treadway at the University of Richmond. This book was on the reading list for his class European Diplomacy from Bismarck to Hitler. Treadway's intense teaching style as well as his insightful sense of humor are seen in this work. The events leading up to World War I were both complicated, and filled with lots of "what if's..." Treadway concerns himself with the "Powder Keg" of Europe, the Balkans, and presents a unique and facinating overview of the events surrounding the Annexation Crisis, the Scutari Crisis, the two Balkan Wars, as well as the history of Montenegrin relations with Austria-Hungary, Russia, Turkey, and other Great Powers. How did this small country with virtually no resources come to play such a large role in European diplomacy and politics? Treadway answers this question, making his way to June 28th, 1914 and the assassination of Francis Ferdinand in Sarajevo at the hand of Mlada Bosnia. Anyone interested in the causes of World War I would be interested in this book, moreso because it is written from the perspective of "the mouse that roared," the small country of Montenegro.

Juan Gonzalez was the first journalist to grasp the impact of the environmental disaster of 9/11. His article on October 26, 2001 said what some of us already sensed: Contrary to the 'good news' being sold like sugarcoated poison by government officials who wanted Wall Street back up and running, the air was dense with astronomical levels of asbestos, lead, dioxin, mercury and hundreds of unpronouncable contaminants including some that had never previously existed.

Fallout is in this tradition of groundbreaking journalism.

Unfortunately Gonzalez is so ahead of the pack that when I showed his article to my son and exhusband, whom I was trying to convince that our son should not remain at Stuyvesant High School, four blocks north of the World Trade Center, they dismissed it as a red herring.

Fallout is a compelling account of this environmental disaster which may ultimately claim more lives than the attacks themselves.

Jenna Orkin
World Trade Center Environmental Organization

Finally someone has the guts to print the truth about the toxic air at Ground Zero. For those of us who were there and who are experiencing the medical consequences of having been exposed to these toxic chemicals, Gonzalez's book explains in understandable language why we are sick and what we are likely to experience in the future. Americans need to know the truth, especially the thousands of men and women from around the country who volunteered their time at Ground Zero and are likely to suffer the medical consequences of having done so, either now or in the future. Fallout is a must read for all Americans.

This is an extremely disturbing book. Perhaps because along with the well-documented facts concerning the unprecedented toxic environmental fallout from 9/11, it is the shocking realization that it's not just the NYC and federal goverment cover-up of this story -- it is the citizens themselves collectively turning away from the horrible reality of this disaster.

The national media has not pursued the obvious leads -- the common sense questions -- but Mr. Gonzales has. And the logical conclusion of this story, in the not-too-distant future, is a public health nightmare that will have the media self-righteously condeming Giuliani and Whitman in hindsight as bearing responsibility for perhaps thousands more deaths.

The story from 9/11 that the media immediately created was of the heroes and victims. We remember them, and try to forget the horror of the collapsing towers. But if we are a truely a courageous nation, we will look clearly and not turn away from the terrible reality that ground zero represents. That is what I think this book is really about -- there are facts and consequences of 9/11 that have not yet been dealt with. And closing our eyes and wishing them away simply won't work.

Americans are being deceived. In this stunning piece of investigative reporting which should be awarded a Pulitzer Prize, Juan Gonzalez reveals the horrible truths about the environmental impacts of the 9-11 disaster. Asbestos abounded. The many heroes who helped to clean and console may face excruciating deaths thanks to suppressed and inaccurate information.

Our sacred institutions are rotten. Every American citizen should read this brief but incendiary work which speaks truth to power unflinchingly. If we do not quickly institute major changes which make our leaders and representatives truly responsible for telling the truth to the American public, however unpleasant, we may be facing the end of American democracy as we have known it and believed in it.

Where are the Thomas Paines and Thomas Jeffersons of the twenty-first century? We desperately need your voices and leadership!

I live 5 blocks north of Ground Zero and have attended hearings and forums and read hundreds of articles, studies memos and reports about the post 9/11 environmental issues in Lower Manhattan. But my jaw dropped when I read Juan Gonzalez' book - here are the missing pieces, the things I'd heard but was never able to find in print - and lots of insider information that only someone as dedicated to this story as he was could have. It is a clear, readable summary of the case against the EPA, OSHA, NYC DEP - and, de facto, an indictment of all those newspapers whose reportage consistently minimized the issue. Not since the Vietnam War has there been so much media "disinformation."

If you live or work in lower Manhattan and/or have any interest in the true story of how our government knowingly and intentionally jepordized the lives and health of the rescue workers, residents and workers downtown after 9/11 while ensuring that their own health was well protected, this book is a "must read."

Juan Gonzalez is to be commended for his courage in bucking his editors to continue to cover this story.