error Books

Several years in the past, "Squirrel" Gandolph was convicted of a nasty triple murder. Now, he is on death row awaiting execution. His conviction, it appears, was based on circumstantial evidence and a signed confession. Squirrel, however, is mentally challenged. Is his confession legitimate or was he coerced? He now says he is innocent, and Arthur Raven, a lawyer more adept and experienced at corporate law than criminal defense, is handed the pro bono case.

A number of other readers have panned REVERSIBLE ERRORS on the basis of not caring about any of the characters. I can sympathize. All of the major characters are flawed. All have major issues in their lives. For starters, Gandolph is a petty thief who probably belongs in jail. For me, though, it is the flaws in all the characters here that makes them human and gives them their appeal. I didn't want Gandolph excuted if he wasn't the killer. I rooted for the others to get past their personal issues. "Reversible errors" is the underlying theme for all of the main people in this book. Some I hoped would find what they're looking for, others I hoped would get what they deserved, but I wasn't indifferent to any of them.

REVERSIBLE ERRORS isn't Turow's best book. That honor still resides with PRESUMED INNOCENT, but REVERSIBLE ERRORS isn't bad. Turow has a strong writing style, and his knowledge of the legal system and portrayal of his characters is good. These strengths are all present in REVERSIBLE ERRORS. The plot is perhaps not as gripping as it could be, and the story is a little slow at times, but I enjoyed the book and recommend it to those who like books in the "legal thriller" genre.

I'm going to swim against the negative tide on this one and say I found the plot interesting and the character development quite good. It reminded me of much of John Grisham's work. The book provides some pointed insights about how the criminal justice system works.

I had to force my self to finish this book. i kept hoping it would pick up, it would add some suspense. I kept hoping it would go somewhere I had not expected. It didnt do any of those things. The ending was predictable, the twists were predictable.
The only reaosn i am giving it 3 stars, is because he does have a nice style of prose and does a good job with character development. But it drags, and drags, and drags. Its a slow story. I would never recommend this to anybody.

Sometimes you read an author because you haven't read him (or her) in a long while and you liked their previous work. Such was the case with this book. I really liked Personal Injuries; the writing was strong and the characters multidimensional and intersteng. But I should have known that I was in trouble with this one because right on the cover it said they'd made it into a CBS Movie-of-the-Week. And that's exactly how it reads, pulpy and soap opera-y. In the first part of the book Turrow goes back and forth in time from present to 10 years ago, contrasting the same characters over that time period, after a brutal murder and confession have put the guilty on death row. Unfortunately, that device is dropped and we're left with a staid court procedural where not much is riding on the outcome. Oh sure, lives are in the balance, loves are at risk, careers could tank, but you just never feel all that involved in any of it. Turrow's a terrific writer, but I'd pass on this one.

This is the third Turow novel I have read, with the other two being Presumed Innocent and The Burden of Proof. Overall I'd stay it was a step down from the other two, it just did not grab me at any point during the story.

In the first section of the book, the story flip-flops between present and past. For the second and third sections, everything takes place in the present. Since you are constantly looking at things from a different character's viewpoint, sometimes it was hard for me to remember what one character knew and another did not.

The main problem I had with the book, that others have already mentioned, is that I just did not care about the main characters. They were developed well enough, but I was never really rooting for anybody. There was really nobody to get behind so in the end, you're just stuck with a decent story from a bunch of different viewpoints.

I give it three stars because I think some people will really like the story and the writing style of this book, but it just wasn't for me.

This book is nothing but 300 pages of two angry Christians ranting about how upset they are Dan Brown wrote a book about Jesus. Anyone who shows interest in Brown's opinion or agrees with him is portrayed as fool hearty and idiotic and those that agree with them are level headed respectable people. The Da Vinci Code is not meant to ruin Christianity and was not a way for Dan Brown to fight the Christian faith but you would never get that impression by reading this piece of lethargic whining. I could probably write a book on the problems with THIS book!

One of the reviewers here asked the question whether Dan Brown actually believed all the nonsense he put into "The Da Vinci Code?" and concludes "If he did, he was a fool. If he didn't, he was a charlatan." I think the matter is more insidious than that. Mr. Brown did write his book - pretty slipshod, if you ask me - with a tram ticket to the bank in his pocket. His line of defence will always be: "It's fiction people, just fiction! Poetic license, so don't get yourself worked up!" Nothing wrong with the fiction part, of course, but getting worked up is what keeps the cash-register ringing.

This man didn't just tell a story, in which case it would be only a matter of telling whether it is a good or a bad story. (The story is lousy; some two hundred years ago a critic stated, that there is in all the gospels not even enough space to squeeze in a knife to find something in it that could yield a good visual for a story. Whatever is good in Mr. Brown's book, he had to make it up himself.) No, what we have here is a cold-blooded speculation on the wallets of a certain type of reader. The type of reader who discusses a piece of fiction as a statement of fact. I am not saying this is the reader's fault. What I am saying is, the reader who fits the profile is the credulous New Ager's type and the believer disappointed by his faith.

The operative word is "profile." Dan Brown, or his agent, or the publisher, had a clear understanding what kind of reader was about to lap up his book. And they obviously got it right.

I've read The DaVinci Code. I've always considered the book to be a finely written piece of fiction. I enjoyed reading it. Even while I read it, I thought, "This is a brilliant idea! Take all these crazy consipiracy theories and come up with a fictional who-done-it. Costner did the same thing with the Kennedy assasination."

I didn't take any of the claims in the book to be truthful at all. I'm skeptical of conspiracy theories. It's easy to claim a conspiracy because, as you well know, the evidence is either suppressed or destroyed. If you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it's a conspiracy, then it's a conspiracy.

The DaVinci Hoax is well-written and researched. The background provided on pagan religions, the Council of Nicea, and Constantine are concise and helpful to anyone looking for a nice overview of these topics. I have a better understanding of the early history of Christianity after reading this book.

The fact that this book is written by two Catholics is important to note. I agree that The DaVinci Code is anti-Catholic, so it's important to read what Catholics have to say. It's a very important work of Catholic apologetics.

For the record, I'm a Methodist with Emergent leanings.

This book is a prime example of properly done research. Every fact substantiated, every statement followed up by a reference, and every aspect of "DaVinci Code" examined in minute detail. This is what true research should look like. To all the conspiracy buffs out there this work should be a mandatory reading. Highly recommended even despite the fact that the chapters on Priory of Sion and the Templars are somewhat dragging.

The tremendous exposure given to Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code (no doubt to reach a frenzied pitch with the soon release of the film based on Brown's novel), its claim to present a truer accout of Christian history than that given by the Church, and the confusion it has caused among many Christians has necessitated a Christian response. Indeed there has been many such responses but the sheer volume of falsehoods passed off as known facts in Brown's writing makes even the cataloguing of the mistakes a herculean task. Thus the books written in response tend either to be point-by-point lists of Brown's claims with refutations (these are useful as supplementary material but tend to be disjointed and as exciting to read as stereo instructions) or more methodical works that limit their scope and seek to cut off Brown at the foundational level.

A notable exception to this is The Da Vinci Hoax by Catholic authors Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel. In an exhaustive survey of Brown's "research", they do a masterful job of examining every facet of The Da Vinci Code's often self-contradictory claims and exposes each historical inaccuracy, unwarranted assumption, and logical fallacy to the light and leaves Brown's much discussed theories in tatters. It is quite clear that the errors in the book are so egregious and the evidence to the contrary so overwhelming that one strains to see how any reasonably intelligent person could come up with such nonsense. The clear implication is that the book is not so much the result of an honest historical investigation presented in novel form as a blatant attack upon the credibility of Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. Indeed, the after effects of the controversy as measured in doubts engendered in many Christians may be with us long after Brown's work has been relegated to the trash heap occupied by other sensationalistic pop conspiracy theories.

Olson and Miesel leave virtually no stone unturned in their thorough exposure of Brown's thesis. After an initial introduction outlining the scope of the phenomnon and the importance of the Church to vigorously defend the faith against it, they, in successive chapters, investigate the facts concerning gnosticism, Mary Magdalene, early Christians beliefs concerning Jesus, and the facts concerning Constantine and the events surrounding the Council of Nicea. Once the facts on these matters is given, there is little room for belief in any of the crackpot conspiracy theories Brown tries to peddle off as representative of contemporary scholarly research.

Where does Dan Brown stand once it is known that the gnostic writings he cites were written centuries after the New Testament books? Where is the conspiracy against Mary Magdalene when she was held in high esteem by those whom Brown contends slandered her? What is the role of Constantine once it is established that all sides at Nicea believed Christ was somehow divine but the argument was over the nature of His divinity? How is it that the silencing of the "sacred feminine" took place during and after Nicea when the popularity of gnosticism had collapsed long before of its own inherent weaknesses? By the end of the fourth chapter the edifice which Brown constructed has been shown to have been built upon sand and the authors have unleashed a mammoth earthquake to leave it in ruins.

Just to leave no doubt in the matter, Olson and Meisel then turn to the whole medieval fantasy of the Knights Templar and the Priory of Sion. At this point, Brown's foundation has already have crumbled and now the authors begin to crush the debris. The coup de grace is when Brown's alleged evidence for the Priory of Sion contention is shown to be an admitted hoax concocted by a French con artist named Pierre Plantard. This is not controversial news - it was exposed in a BBC documentary years ago and was widely known among those who had investigated the matter. That Brown would not have come across this information if he had done any level of serious research is simply unthinkable and underscores the disingenious elements behind the entire project. The authors then close by examining the remaining claims that do not fit into any of the previously discussed categories.

The overall effect is a total destruction of any credibility in Dan Brown's work. Given the great amount of unjustified attention given to The Da Vinci Code and the importance of the matter for the Church, a comprehensive refutation was a necessity. Olsen and Miesel have done the entire Church a great service and may have written the final word on the matter. Certainly this is essential reading for all concerned with the frenzy surrounding this latest cultural phenomenon.

This book identifies and describes phenomena that most would assume to be foreseable and evident when observed as historical event.
However such manic human behavior keeps occuring over and over again, which inevitably (as history observes) have destructive consequences.

As many others have noted, this book is hard to read and it could certainly be written using much simpler vocabulary and probably in a fraction of its length.
However one must keep in mind that this book was initially written almost 200 years ago!

Personally, I value this book for the insights it offers into the history of crowd's delusions.
Consequently, the reader will hopefully be able to identify such manias in the future and act accordingly - assuming that he can remain detached enough from the mania itself.

The most boring book ever. No theory, no ideas, just page after page of stuff you already know. There is almost 200 pages on Alchemist. Nuff said.

This book was delayed, and by the time I was notified of the delay, it was too late to cancel the order and reorder somewhere else. It was also the abridged edition. I would have preferred the unabridged edition.

I first discovered this book 40 years ago, and especially loved its description of the witchcraft hysteria. This is a lovely little edition, but it is only a small subset of the entire work, dealing specifically in three economic bubbles. It would have been good reading in 2000.

Years ago, in one of my MBA courses the Prof. mentioned this book and alluded to sections within the text how events which occured years ago are still applicable and effective today. My curiosity was picked so I searched for a copy and was able to obtain one at a local library. The reading was engrossing to say the least. The book deal with mass hysteria and mass public manipulation for political and financial gains. The events described are of massive proportions with world wide application and implication. After reading the book a big question mark floats over society where it allows itself over and over to fall on mass to charlatans, liars and deceivers who manage to lure the public to believe and trust their sordid tales and flim-flam to the point of selling their souls for a piece of the allusive dream. I recently found an old copy of the term paper I wrote on the book and decided to add a copy to my personal library. Rereading the book brought back the memories of class discussions and the interesting events mentioned. The books givs the reader a better understanding of how major world events take shape from rumors and minor incidents. A very easy read with a great and event filled story line. Should be read by all.

I bought this book thinking it would be a good read about exploring the mind, emotions, and reasoning (hence the title). The first chapter starts out interesting but it goes downhill after that. I don't mind the author's ideas but I found his writing very obtuse and hard to follow at times. He could have made this book more interesting to the average reader.

I enjoyed reading this book. It sheds light to a layperson about some of the inner workings of the human mind and how it functions in our every day decision-making and "background" feeling state. It also presents a compelling case for emotions and body-states being intimately tied to rationality.
Damasio clearly cares for his lay-public and I do not get the sense that he is talking down to anyone. However, the book is a slow read if you want to comprehend everything and I believe this is not because of the subject matter but because of the unclear writing style. Also, Damasio makes frequent references to other authors and researchers without elaboration. While this may be fine for readers who are well-versed in this field, a layperson is not very likely to go and seek out all of the references that pop up throughout the text; some brief summaries would be helpful.
I also got the sense that Damasio was repeating things and that the text could have been reduced significantly. If that was combined with clearer writing, this could have been a fantastic book.
Overall, it was a decent and thought-provoking, if sometimes frustrating, read.

We have heard a lot about railway worker Phineas P. Gage
by in recent years. His misfortune apparently the gain of science.

In the summer of 1848 Gage was blasting away rock in Vermont,
in order for the railway to have straigther and more level path.
Unfortunately, one days he lits the explosive powder
by accident, and an iron bar blows upward in his face.
The iron enters Gages left cheek and traverses the front of his
brain.
However, Miraculously he doesn't die. And even weirder, he can
still function, sort of.
But, as it turns out, he is not the same man anymore.
With his frontal lobes damaged, he could no longer make good
choices. His decisions were not reserved or slight
decisions of someone who whose mind is diminished and who is
afraid to act. No, his decisions were very poor, actively
disadvantageous.

And of the story goes. The mind is situated in the brain.
Brain damage is mind damage.

Surely, Damasio makes it clear that his account of the working
of the mind is a limited one: "I am skeptical of sciences
presumption of objectivity and definitiveness.
I have a difficult time seeing scientific results,
especially in neurobiology, as anything but provisional
approximations, to be enjoyed for a while,
and descarded as better accounts become available."
- But then of course he sets sail for what appears
to be a pretty impressive definitive account of
what a mind in a brain in body - really means.

Based on Gages case (and the damage to his frontal lobes)
decision making is explored.
His somatic-marker hypothesis is explained.
I.e. you need feelings for decision making, and
if none is present (as in the robot or in
a frontal lobe damage patient) you only have infinite
decisions trees that doesn't help you much actually
coming up with a decision.
The body turns out to take part in this. Emotions are send
out to the body. And the body then performs some complex
calculations, which your mind then read back as a feeling.
(you walk along at night and is followed, your brain
set your heart racing, and your mind then read your
heart racing away, which introduces feelings of terror and so on).

Descartes error was that he imagined thinking
as an activity quite separate from the body.
The thinking thing away from the nonthinking body.
According to descartes: You think - you are.
But not so according to Damasio.
Here we go back to the dawn of humanity, where
beings were beings. In the beginning there was
being, only later came elementary consciousness
and later still thinking.
Descartes error was the separation between body and mind,
between the mechanically operated body stuff on
one hand and the mind stuff on the other.
According to Damasio physical pain,
emotional upheavel etc. cannot exist separately from the body.
So, if you really think you can simulate a mind,
you can only do so, by simulating a body also.

Sounds reasonable to me! A brilliant book.
Now some years old, but still a thought provoking
read.

-Simon

I read --I studied, I should say-- Damasio's book because of my interest in the "no self" (no soul, no ego) characteristic of the Buddha's Teachings. It paid out. Damasio's scientific perspective agrees with Buddhism; we human beings are the result of physical, chemical and biological phenomena. I often quote Damasio in my writings on the subject. See Hacia el Buda desde el occidente: Sus Ensenanzas sin mitos ni misterios

This book is already a classic of its kind. Yes, the hypotheses are not new, and yes, there is some speculation. So what?!

Damasio takes the abstruse and technically demanding field of neuroscience and turns it into a novel. The book is not dumbed down, nor is it patronizing.

Damasio's main contention is that logic and reason are impossible without emotion. That is why intuitions are called gut feelings. He goes over many case studies, experiments, and introspection, to drive this point home.

Our body is where the action takes place. Only after (or sometimes concurrent with) the body makes up its mind, does the mind follow. For a quick example, suppose you are sitting down in a college classroom. There is an open seat next to you. Suddenly, you spot a voluptuously delightful young lady walking toward you. What happens to you? Your heart starts to beat faster, your palms sweat a little, your body tenses up; and neurotransmitters release a cascade of chemicals into your blood stream which modulate your body's internal viscera. You focus your attention on this women. Do you invite her to sit next to you? Or, are you to nervous to do so? If you are too nervous, think about what is going on. Is it because your brain is telling you that you are? No. Your body is sending signals to your brain and vice versa in a feedback loop. Your brain then 'reads' the signals comming from your body as nervousness. Without a body, you could 'feel' nothing. There would be no emotion.
Thus, to a large degree, your decision was made prior to conscious awareness, and you could not control it.

This way of thinking seems anathema to Westerners who love to believe that rationality means pure logic without emotion. You know what happens to decision making when your emotions become blunted due to brain damage? It goes completely out the window.

As Damasio says: "No body, never mind."

I think the take home message of this book is that we are biological organisms through and through. There is no Cartesian soul: Nothing that makes humans unique machines of deduction. We are at the mercy of our passions.

This should not be surprising. Great thinkers from Augustine to Hume have suspected as much. Now we have the science to confirm such insights.

N.B. some of the material in this book is dated. Consult Damasio's later books and Journal articles by Ledoux, Damasio et al. For the latest progress in neuroscience.

I couldn't wait to read this book. I thoroughly enjoyed Mr. Humes' earlier work, "No Matter How Loud I Shout." I found NMHLIS to be balanced and thoughtful. Interested in reading more from this engaging author, and as a Southern California transplant originally from Bakersfield, I was immediately drawn to this book. Unfortunately, in "Mean Justice" Mr. Humes appears to have lost the reasoned approach that provided NMHLIS a ring of credibility.

"Mean Justice" presents an overtly biased perspective of the Kern County Sheriff's Dept/D.A.'s office. The tendency of the author to portray evidence indicative of Dunn's guilt as "unfortunate setbacks" to the defense case is hypocritical; especially since any minor inconsistency between prosecution witnesses' accounts are depicted as some blatant attempt to railroad an innocent man.

What a disappointment this book proved to be! There was a great deal of repetition as Humes attempts to bully the reader into accepting his flawed perspective of things. I think the truth is probably somewhere between the two extremes represented in "Mean Justice," but we will never know the truth from this book. Humes zealously advocates for his version of the "truth" in this biased presentation of "evidence".

Mr. Humes is a gifted storyteller, and I found the book engaging as pure entertainment; however, Mr. Humes' trustworthiness as a reporter of the facts was delivered a fatal blow by "Mean Justice."

Enjoy the story, but read this book with a critical eye for its inherent bias.

I've been interested in issues of criminal justice, particularly those of the witch hunts of the last several years. You know, there was the McMartin trial, a joke of astronomical proportions. Then there were "recovered memory" cases, and those of the alleged Satanic conspiracies. It seems the Prince of Darkness has emissaries here on earth abducting our kids, eating those he's forced us to abort, and on and on and on. Trouble is, as even senior FBI investigators have admitted, there's no evidence to suggest that these atrocities ever took place. No bodies, no dark rooms, no blood. Hmm. Makes a guy wonder.

Then I talked with an acquaintance who's interested in some of the same subject matter. After our discussion, I looked at Amazon.com and found this volume.

First, allow me to confess that I nearly gave the book four stars. I did so only because there is so much detail as to be almost overwhelming. But then I had to give it five (or more, if it were possible!) The detail is more than necessary for reasons which follow.

The text is ostensibly about the trial of Pat Dunn. He was a former high school principal whose wife died under mysterious circumstances. The prosecutors in Kern County, California, were so zealous that they performed what was the TRUE subject of the book: prosecutorial misconduct. That is, indeed, where the subject digressed from merely Pat Dunn. It seems the law enforcement apparatus of that county has a reputation for being "tough on crime." So tough, alas, that there were countless people going to jail. First that was the massive--yes, Satanic Conspiracy trial. Hundreds were sent to jail for a long, long time. The prosecution used dubious questioning tactics of children, social workers who should have been in the local home for the bewildered--again, on and on. Then a young black athlete was convicted under equally dubious circumstances. Then others. I could get tired of putting, "on and on" here so assume it's a phrase I'd use more if I even had to.

By the way, most of those convictions had been overturned; all, so far, except Pat Dunn's, despite the lack of any evidence to convince a sane court of his guilt.

Then there's the issue(s) of the convicted criminals whom the prosecutors made deals with to convict the accused--while the prosecutors kept details of such deals out of views of the defense and the juries. (I add something the book barely mentioned: if there are obviously innocent people in prison because of prosecutors more intent on winning then on finding the truth, then there are the guilty who are still among us! That alone is a criminal offense for which the prosecutors should be prosecuted!)

Among the conclusions of the book is that such misconduct seems to be happening all over the US. Indeed, the accused are losing their right to appeal; in G.W. Bush's Texas, the state with the greatest number of executions, exculpatory evidence was not permitted after a limited time so that evidence enough to free a convicted murderer could no longer be presented as evidence. So an obviously innocent men was put to death.

There's so much in the book I'm not even sure where to go with it. The text certainly affirms my acquaintance's observation that probably 15 percent in prison haven't done anything. (That proportion is suggested by the book too to apply to the death penalty. Many on death row have been freed over the last few years due to the misconduct of the prosecutors and the courts. And that doesn't even include the many whom the state has put to death who were not guilty.)

Who is criminal given those stats?

The second of the book's appendices consists of several pages of convictions obtained through the prosecutorial misconduct that is the real subject of the book. That itself is an eye-opener. (The first appendix, incidentally, is a list of the convictions and how many are still in prison after retrials or the cases having been thrown out in Kern County itself--many after the accused have spent incredible times in prison after bogus convictions. That information alone should cause the impeachment or resignation, and conviction of those parties to the courts of that county!)

The author concludes that the system is rigged to sustain itself. Try to find courts who've overturned convictions even when the prosecutor was exposed as a fraud who should have been jailed for his/her performance in the trial. They exist but they're few and far between.

To me the point of the book is that there MUST be a price to pay for the prosecutors and even judges for the sort of misconduct the book so amply demonstrates. I mean, these people are supposed to be public servants. Instead, they're public menaces, making a sham out of anything remotely "just." (Ironically, the Kern County DA, who claims to be a Republican, is more akin to a Soviet bureaucrat than most in positions such as his!) I think, in fact, that the most severe punishments should be reserved for those who abuse their authority like those described by the book.

Read this important book and make your own decisions as to how to punish these criminals, who are more a "lead" in the book than Pat Dunn. But be prepared to have your assumptions of American criminal "justice" challenged.

There are early parts of this book that can seem comically one-sided. By the end, the reader is persuaded by the overwhelming evidence that Dunn cannot possibly be guilty. But in the opening pages, Dunn's behavior is so bizarre, so eccentric, so plain weird, that it seems perfectly understandable that the police consider him a suspect. And when Humes tries to explain away Dunn's behavior as ordinary and natural, it diminishes his credibility throughout the rest of the book.
However, I'm a great admirer of Humes. His writing is amazing and his books are smart and readable. Like 'Mississippi Mud,' this one cries for an update. Check his Web site if you want to read more.
This is also a good jumping-off point for reading further about some of the shameful Bakersfield scandals of the '80s and '90s.

It's been a while since I've read the book, but I wanted to share some of the general impressions that I had of this book when I read it. By showing the example of inadequate police work in one community, the author is able to raise many questions about the legal system in America. Plenty of evidence is given in this book which shows that a person was convicted for murder and likely sits in prison unjustly. Anyone who believes that justice is always served in our court systems should read this book to learn how various factors can come together to work against possibly innocent persons. This book is important, intriguing, and difficult to put down.

Ed Jagels is a crooked person. It is about time someone told what he is like.

I loved this book almost as much as I loved the movie. For me it was one more step to tracking down the man, the legend. This is a wonderful book for anyone to read, from juveniles through senior citizens. The justice that eventually prevailed is of the feel good sort. It was such an incredible coming together of so many elements. I think that it should be included on recommended booklists in middle and elementary schools.

I have read both this and Rubin Carter's own The 16th Round. There are some things that I believe on both sides of the story. I do believe that Rubin did have a violent juvenile past, and was an angry man. Yet, if a person who is facing oppression on a daily basis i'm sure you would tend to have violent tendancies as well; it's easy to make statements about a man's life when we are in a prosperous 21st century and not in the 1940 - 1950's. I do agree that the film does cut out the large part of Rubin's transformation from a violent individual to a more spiritual one.

I am a young Australian who is not of the age to be around when Rubin Carter was set free. This case was so badly stuck together it provides a good look at the judicial system considering it kept an innocent man in jail for 19 years.

And one of the most insulting facts of the case was that when Rubin was set free from jail in 1985, he was set free because of the biased and racial case that was built before him. NOT because he didn't do the crime. Makes me aggrovated.

If you want a book that will open your mind and make you think independently, then buy this and the 16th Round straight away.

I read this book and then saw the movie. This is a familiar formula for disappointment. The book is much better and richer than the movie. The movie portrays Carter as some kind of saint, deeply-principled, who is railroaded by the justice system. As the book reveals, Carter was a deeply troubled individual during the 1960's. Carter was a very angry person who seemed to antagonize authority. He was also an alcoholic and had selfish, chauvanistic attitudes towards women. These traits are overlooked in the film. In fact, the movie shows Carter a suave, kind person. The filmmakers probably skipped these aspects of Carter because they wanted the viewers to like Carter and root for him. In reality, Carter didn't seem a likeable person.
HOWEVER, the fact that Carter was a troubled, angry person doesn't mean he's guilty of murder. Some people seem to invest their dislike of "hollywood justice" and the "cause celeb" aura surrounding this case, into convicting Carter for the murders. Don't confuse the issues. Carter was not a saint but he's still entitled to justice. Part of this book is the story of the unraveling of the prosecutor's case. As a federal district court found, the prosecutors withheld vital evidence from the defense - evidence which the defense was legally entitled to. The prosecutors also resorted to prejudice during the trial to persuade the jury of Carter's guilt. This is the so-called racial revenge theory advanced by the prosecution.
The other important and most fascinating part of the book is the transformation of the man. During his prison sentence, Carter transforms himself, with the help of others, from an angry, troubled individual to a much kinder and complete human being. The movie, by overlooking Carter's bad traits, robs the viewer of this incredible growth of one person.
My advice is to skip the movie and read this excellent book.

The life of Rubin Carter is certainly worth reading about regardless of what side of the debate you are on. Many people feel passionate about both his innocence and guilt. This book may help the reader decide for himself or herself, but it obviously has an innocent slant to it which the author makes known and makes no apologies.

The story as many of you know involved the conviction of Rubin Carter and John Artis for a triple murder that took place at a bar in Patterson, NJ. The men always maintained their innocence much to the chagrin of prosecutors. Whether Rubin did this crime or not is besides the question considering he got released from a Federal Court over a writ of habeas corpus issue. The court did not rule on whether he was guilty or innocent even though he had been convicted twice before for the triple murders. The Supreme Court judge that decided to overturn the convictions cited a "racial revenge" motive and prosecutorial withhlding of information as reasons to overturn the case. Therefore, after many intense struggles with personal demons and many years in prison Rubin Carter was released a free man. The book recounts his troubled life as a juvenile, his violent temper, his prize-fighting boxing days, and his many years spent in different prison institutions. Apparently while in prison Carter transformed these former attributes by personal study and reflection. He found some people from a Canadian commune to help go to battle for him and eventually won his freedom. It's a powerful story with a few problem areas. One problem area is that there are so many legal meanderings throughout the book that you begin to feel as if you are undertaking a tedious chore sorting through all of it. You lose the zest and earnest interest you first had when you started the book. The other problem area is it's obviously a very opinionated book meant to portray Carter as an innocent man wronged by the system. However, after reading about Carter's past, his media provoking of local authorities, and his temper, I came away feeling very ambivalent. Whereas, I expected to become totally convinced of his innocence I began to feel I wasn't for sure. Nevertheless, it's a compelling story if you can get past the legal "John Grisham" feel of the book.

Rubin Carter continues to fight to this day to overcome the hardness and emotional devastation he had thrust upon him while in prison. We learn that while he is thankful to be out he still has a long way to go to live the life he yearns for. To put to rest the demons bothering him (such as alcohol) and to be able to trust people is one of the great challenges he faces. One can only hope that justice was served in this instance and that he picks up what he has left of his life and makes the most of it.

Before I read this bio my only knowledge of the Hurricane case was from what other's had told me. Based on that I always felt the guy was probably framed. After reading this bio, I feel he was probably guilty.

By the first third of this book I found myself not liking Carter. It seemed obvious to me that this was a very angry and violent man who was also very dishonest. This book attempts to make a martyr of a man who seemed like trouble even before he was convicted of the alleged murder. It also attempts to explain away every bad thing this man did (and there were many) by trying to make him look like the victim.

The author nor Carter never once admit to any wrong doing on Carter's part regardless of what it may be. If just ONCE Carter had taken responsibility for some of his nasty behavior and poor dealings with other folk, I may have had a more open mind. But this is a blatant attempt at reaching for excuses for every thing that went wrong in his life. Carter and the author want everybody to believe that Carter was the victim of frame-ups, conspiracies, and racism at every turn in his life. I was not convinced.

The pattern that I found apparent in Carter's personality is that he only opened up to folks who could give him something he wanted and once he got it, he changed his personable and trusting come-on and threw them on the scrap heap. Often rationalizing his using of those who helped him by twisting it into some delusional offense against him. The best I can say for Carter is that he struck me as a very cunning con-man who ultimatley beat the system by using people for his own needs until he was portrayed in the main stream media as a martyr and a victim. I no longer buy into that portyrayel after reading this book.

Steven Achelis does a pretty decent job of showing what the stock market really is: just a big jumble of numbers completely determined by human emotion. And because pretty much anything involving human emotion is cyclical, it also becomes somewhat predictable.

This book presents an excellent selection of technical indicators that do a number of different things. It also presents formulas for most of the indicators.

... but also a well written understanding of the mathematical models that make them work. If you trade with indicators, you need this book along with "Pring".

If you are looking for a technical tool reference book for your investing/trading library this is the one. This book covers (in alphabetical order) every trading tool I am aware of including the O' Neal CAN SLIM method, trend lines, volume, stochastics, Williams %R, every kind of moving average, candlestick charting, decline/advance, oscillators and just about everything else you will run across in trading stocks. The author gives an overview of the indicator, the interpretation, an example, then shows how to calculate it with the mathematical formulas used and a table for reference. I read this book from cover to cover and learned a great deal. I believe it is a must have for beginners if you are serious about using technical tools to time your trades correctly at proper buy points.

As the title says, this covers technical analysis (the analysis of securities based on price patterns) from A to Z, that is to say all the various approaches are covered alphabetically. Everything is covered but not in extensive detail. Each approach is covered in terms of an overview of the approach, an interpretation of the approach, and an example (generally with suitable graphs). No attempt is made to inject the author's preferences or any statistical analysis of the effectiveness of the approach. As such, this is more of a dictionary than a book on investment advice. This is not to say that dictionaries are useless, they are very useful, but they are not the same as a book on how to write. This book will tell you what the particular system is, not whether it is any good. Also, there are many variations of most of the systems and many different values for the parameters used by the systems, so other references will be required if you actually want to apply any of these approaches. The reader should be forewarned, however, that Technical Analysis is only one approach to the market. Many believe that this approach is little more than tealeaf reading and they rely on the analysis of the fundamentals of the balance sheet of the company and its prospects for future growth.

Extremely pleased with the purchase and reading experience. The book covers everything I know about and much more that I didn't. I was able to make oscillators, from the explanations given, on excel and was able to make the charts. The Chande Momentum Oscillator is an added, and needed, tool for my analysis for investment. I bought this book because it was the one called out in the Yahoo charts trying to explain the Stoch Oscillator; which, I wanted to understand, and now do.

I greatly enjoyed this book. While there have been complaints about a lack of example calculations and discussion of details of how it was done, there is enough in here for someone familiar with this type of work to figure it out. And if you don't know this material, you may not want to be faced with the math (believe me)!

The discussion on the repeating 'theodolite' was great, as were the trials and tribulations of triangulation. If you've ever measured angles on a mountain top, you'll know just what the author is getting at. A great achievement for an historian, who, we presume, may not have done this kind of work.

There are two other really good parts of this book. The first is the discussion on the search for a 'universal' system of measurement. It places the metric system in a context, not as the be-all and end-all, but as a serious effort to solve a serious set of problems. The discussion of the 'error' is fascinating. This part hasn't changed in nature, just the current details.

The second is the analysis of the personalities of the two central characters. Alder does bring them to life. Having worked in Antarctica for a year and seen people dealing with the stress of isolation, the story was very real to me: I almost knew those guys, albeit in different times and guises. And the stress was real: these guys ran the risks of close encounters with Madame Guillotine, wars, disease, politics, the works. This was quite apart from the normal risks of the job, such as falling off cliffs and towers, exposure, unhappy locals, etc. Thank heavens for GPS, a technology that is possible only because of the foundation work of geodesists like Mechain and Delambre.

Enjoy this book, as a history of measurement and geodesy, a history of a major surveying achievement, and a vivid study of personalities under real stress.

"The historian owes the dead nothing but the truth." Quoting Delambre in this instance, Ken Alder makes it known that he is conscious of the ethical responsibility that historians are required to uphold. As a historian himself, I have little doubt that he has intentionally wavered from this oath, nor do I believe that he ever attempted to suppress information. He is bound by his profession to seek and give truth. However, anyone who as gifted as he is, is certainly capable of persuading his audience, especially an audience who has no intent to seek out inconsistencies. In this book, I believe that Alder may be over-dramatizing the importance of some of the information presented. I also think that the context, organization and generalization that Alder expresses can also mislead the common day reader or the critical reader for that matter. In this historical account I find myself confused by many of the messages that he is sending forth. Here I feel it is necessary to quote the following paragraph, taken from the prologue, to express several of my viewpoints:

"Together, these documents reveal a remarkable story. They reveal that Mechain-despite his extreme caution and exactitude-committed an error in the early years of the expedition, and worse, upon discovering his mistake, covered it up. Mechain was so tormented by the secret knowledge of his error that he was driven to the brink of madness. In the end, he died in an attempt to correct himself. The meter, it turns out, is in error, an error which has been perpetuated in every subsequent redefinition of its length, including our current definition of the meter in terms of the distance traveled by light in a fraction of a second."

Starting from the beginning, we first see Alder use his words to imply that his error was a mistake and by covering it up was something even worse. I would argue that Mechain did not commit an error at all. In fact, it was his keen attention to detail that produced observational inconsistencies. If he had subscribed to Delambre's methodology, he would have checked his measurements according to two stars, which would have agreed, and he would have been on his way. In fact, the first three stars were in agreement, it was a fourth star, Mizar, an obscure star located on the horizon, that put him in disagreement. If simple statistical theory existed during this time, it would deduce Mizar's observation as an outlier. Covering up this so-called error is another shadow that Alder casts at this early juncture at Mechain's expense. We know from Delambre and Mechain's dialog that Mechain consistently told his colleague of this error. We are also made aware that Delambre said the following in regards to Mechain, "if he dissimulated a few anomalous results which he feared would be blamed on his lack of care or skill, if he succumbed to the temptation to alter several series of observations...., at least he did so in such a way that the altered data never entered into the calculation of the meridian." Finally, Alder chooses to lead into a statement explicitly stating that the meter, as we know it today, is in error. If this were true and Mechain did botch the survey, how would this error get translated or `perpetuate' to the distance traveled by light in a fraction of a second?

The next paragraph continues to make shocking revelations. When Alder stated, "the meter calculated by Delambre and Mechain falls roughly .2 millimeters short", I passed over it with some caution. However, by the time I finished the book I was thoroughly perplexed by this conclusive statement. Is Alder suggesting that Delambre and Mechain are the ones who calculated the meter? As I recall in Alder's own words, "the single factor that made the greatest difference to the final determination of the meter was based on the very data they had been sent to supercede." Moreover, what is Alder implying by falling short? Do we now know the correct distance from the equator to the pole and it is an unchanging fixed measure? What is Alder's source or foundation in making a statement like this or any of these haphazard remarks?

My reaction to the prologue, as I am sure most readers might be, is that the meter being in error is a very significant discovery, and without equivocation - Mechain is to blame for this discrepancy. I can only hope that it is not written by Alder himself. Even if it is not, he is responsible for the fabric of this ballyhoo. If I had not read this portion of the book, I may have not had anything critical to say about it. I think it is an accurate historical account of what took place and I enjoyed seeing some of the incipient stages of globalization come into view. I was also intrigued by the world's perception in this time period and how the revolution marked the demise of some predominant theocentric misconceptions, which, in my mind, precipitated the end of the `savant' and gave rise to the scientist.

All things considered, I was disappointed that the book did not fulfill its promise. I think it is degrading to promote a book about science in such a way as to trick readers into thinking it's something that it's not. Some who read this book may gather that it is about a "hidden error that transformed the world", for me it was a book that did not live up to its billing, and kept me second guessing myself and the author's intent throughout.

I have no hesitation in recommending this book to just about any interest or level of scientific knowledge or background. There is a wealth of information that is generally little known. How many of us knew that metrication was a unifying factor beyond simply the impaired meter measurement? How many of us knew that the most advanced nation in the world, the USA, is one of few hold-outs in the world (along with N. Korea, for instance) that have not accepted metrication -- and screwed up a very expensive Mars landing expedition as a consequence?

Why only three stars? I'm sorry Mr. Alder, but I bought your book primarily because I wanted to know how the two guys did it -- but you didn't tell me in any detail! OK, so this was not intended as a text book and if it had been packed with all the geometry it would not have sold as well. But even so, surely we should have been provided with some access. An appendix with some example calculations would have been welcome. How about a web site reference to the detailed mathematics? It is a great wonder to me how these guys managed to do all these detailed calculations when all they had was stylus and paper. And the precision to which they worked was very great, requiring either reams of trigonometric tables or very tedious calculations for every trig function they used.

It took me a long time to read this book, because I spent a lot of time on the Internet trying to find references to how they performed their calculations. Surprisingly I found nothing significant. So Mr. Alder, having researched all the original papers, missed an oportunity to enlighten us. I think how they did the calculations to the precision they were able would have been at least as interesting a story.

Perhaps you can add this as a sequel, Mr. Alder...

Since the book 'Longitude', by D. Sobel, was published and became a best seller, there have been a number of books that have tried to follow the same lines. Some of these efforts have been successful. Unfortunately, I didn't feel that this book lived up to the task.

This story involves the quest for an accurate all encompassing unit of measure that can be agreed upon. During this period of time, the world does not have a standard unit of measure. Each town of province would have it's own standard for a unit of length, weight, and volume. Trade in that area would be based on this standard. This concept worked well until you left the area and tried to trade goods with a aneighboring town.

The neighboring town would have a different set of standards, which caused problems with setting unitary costs for goods. What a trader would pay per bushel of goods wouldn't mean very much when the size of the bushel changed from town to town.

The book goes into detail of the events regarding the determination of the standard meter. I enjoyed the race between the differnet countries, including the French trying to get the United States involved. Another interesting point was how the French Revolution played into the process. It was such a turbulent time and anyone hwo was part of the 'official' King's business were the enemy to the citizens.

The book gets a little long and drawn out regarding the measurements taken. It gets a little dry and, at times, difficult to keep ones interest. Not a bad book, but when compared to some of the better books, this one falls a little short.

This book follows a recent trend, which has produced some very good books, to take a relevant but poorly known scientific development and telling its story and the story of its main protagonists. Alder has chosen the story of how, in the late XVIII Century, the Royal Academy of Sciences in France was trying hard to reach the definitive measurement of the meter, and hence of all the metric system, the one which today dominates weights and measures around the world. The meter was supposed to be a ten millionth of the distance from one of the poles to the equator. The French proposed taking a sample of one meridian, the segment running from Dunkirk down to Barcelona, measuring it to perfection and then inferring the rest of the distance of the meridian. One ten millionth of that would be the meter. Two outstanding astronomers are chosen for the job, which was supposed to last no more than a year. But alas, the French Revolution comes to full gear at the beginning of the labors, and our scientists suffer all kinds of setbacks, prolonging the task for seven long and hard years.

Who were these gentlemen? Well, here is where the story gets all its fascinating features, illuminating the reader about how much the personalities involved in research can affect the scientific outcome of it. The first man is Jean Baptiste Joseph Delambre. He is a man of humble origins, a Classicist who has become tutor to a noble and rich family. A late bloomer, Delambre has become a remarkable astronomer almost all by himself, as a disciple of renowned (a magnificent and eccentric character) Jerome Lalande. The other man is a professional astronomer, also a disicple of Lalande's. His name is Pierre Francois Andre Mechain, who lives in the Royal Observatory in Paris.

Delambre goes north of Paris to Dunkirk while Mechain goes south to Barcelona. In the early days of their quest, political events (the execution of King Louis XVI and the instauration of the Terror) impose severe setbacks to both scientists. So severe, that the original year of labor will stretch to seven years. This is where the book reaches high altitudes, when it describes the differences in personalities between Delambre and Mechain. Granted, Mechain suffers much more, including a terrible accident and exile in Italy. But while Delambre is patient, practical and business-going, Mechain starts developing a severe anguish, emotional imbalance and paranoia. All this is aggravated by a mysterious situation, which really becomes the axis of the story: while measuring up the latitude at Montjuich, south of Barcelona, Mechain seems to make a mistake which will torment him for the rest of his life. One of the meditions (each one related to a different star) simply doesn't fit with the rest. Delambre or any other practical astronomer would simply have dismissed the incongrous data as a mysterious distortion, but Mechain, a man obsessed with an accuracy impossible for his age, decides not to disclose the mistake, fearing it might destroy his reputation. And so, year after year, he carries along his guilt and his paranoia.

Somehow, the book has a happy ending I will not spoil here. Suffice it to say this a very interesting and well written story about a true and relevant scientific quest. Don't get bogged down in scientific detail if you don't get everyting right. The adventure and the human story are more than satisfactory enough.

You have NO idea what you are talking about, WE who DO have children DO NOT WANT them sitting still for 6 hours a day. you have missed the picture.you are a complete moron, who obviously have no children . before you spout off get your facts straight.
you can't judge if you haven't experienced it.You have no idea the heart break parents go through with their children who need spiecial help.and im not saying we do or do not use the drugs, You just dont know sh$#.and about the book, who the hell really knows the truth???????

I read this book after my son started having trouble in first grade and was sent to the principal so many times he had earned his way up to 3 days of in-school suspension. His infractions, although inappropriate, didn't seem incredibly bad to me (humming in the bathroom, putting a spider on his private area during show and tell, batting a girl with the long sleeves of his teacher's shirt, saying "middle finger", spitting out water over another child's desk and backpack), and in-school suspension didn't seem to be changing his behavior either.

However, my son has always been active and moving, and definitely does not respond well to pure authority. I suspected ADHD and took him to a doctor. I grew up with a chiropractor as a father and didn't want to put him on drugs, but thought maybe it would be necessary.

I also have a Ph.D. and checked out armfuls of books about ADHD and began reading. I picked up whatever was newest and available in the library, with no regard to ideology. I read lots of the books and identified with many things my son was doing. I took my son to a psychologist who said he probably had a bit of ADHD and maybe some sensory integration issues. But she pointed out that the trouble was at school. "You wouldn't be here except for school, right?" she asked. That's right. Our son is challenging but we manage him just fine at home and have a very happy home life. The psychologist gave me pause about just where the problem lay.

Then I read Talking Back to Ritalin. And I got mad. You mean, there is absolutely no evidence for these claims in all these other books I read that there is anything wrong with the brains of kids diagnosed ADHD? You mean that these stimulant drugs don't really 'attach' to the deficient receptors and 'correct' the imbalance, like all the other books were claiming? They claimed this, but where was their proof? They had no citations, no hard evidence behind these claims, nothing! Dr. Breggin, on the other hand, was reporting the available scientific evidence. The real stuff, that the doctors publish in journals, not what they say in books for the public. Now I haven't read those articles, but when he quotes Barkley who admitted that there is no way technologically to tell the difference between brains of 'normal' kids and 'ADHD' kids, it's pretty convincing that nothing has really been found.

And he makes sense. My latent unease over drugs became horror that I might have possibly done this to my son. Breggin quotes one study (p. 29) where 122 kids were put on stimulants for 1-23 weeks, and 9% of the children developed tics, including one who developed an irreversible Tourette's syndrome! Is this the kind of probability of a drug CAUSING a problem that I want to subject my kid to?

I saw school administrators and doctors talking about medication, for my son with his problems, as if it were harmless. Doesn't sound harmless to me. Stunts growth? Causes loss of appetite? Is as addictive as cocaine? Causes a rebound effect after they come off it, that could make them behave worse? Flatlines kids so they don't feel emotions? This is a drug that should not even be talked about with kids like mine, who just like to move and explore!

Read this book. You owe it to yourself to hear the other side of the story, because there is a LOT out there about the medication side. Maybe you won't be convinced, but for me, this guy has the scientific evidence on his side, and it all makes sense too.

Oh, and by the way, I watched my son's teacher, and was dismayed to find a very negative attitude. A voice inside me said, "Get him out of this classroom." I did, and he is now with another teacher who is calm, kind and loving, and he is doing great. I'm shaking with fear from what I might have done to my son because of this great big drug-company-pushed engine.

I think this book is one of the best researched in the alternative view about drugs. It gives well reasoned arguments that aught to give pause for the knee jerk phenemoma that is going on with Stimulant drugs and our youth.

Yes Dr. Breggin is thoroughly biased, but that is a given for all human beings. Being biased in itself is not a bad thing, because it often is simply the expression of passion and certainty. Bias is a problem when there are no clear arguments or good reason to support the bias. Dr. Breggin is always quite thorough in supporting his point of view.

To be fair, he gives almost no credibility to the opposite view. Since I happen to mostly share his bias, it is not something I have a problem with.

While it is apparent that for many children, stimulant medications have effects and do help, the question is really about the cost of that help for the long term. Should we be using these drugs as the first and often only solution? If we can help these kids without resorting to drugs, wouldn't that be best? Once that diagnosis is surrendered to along with a lifetime of stimulant medications, is that the best option? That is what Breggin is getting at here, are we really looking at this thoroughly or simply swallowing what we are told?

I'm biased against the drugs because I've been successfully treating adults and children with ADD, ADHD, OCD, etc with homeopathic medicine for several years now. Many of my collegues in homeoapthy report similar success.

There is a good book out called "Ritalin Free Kids" By the Ullman's that goes into some depth about homeopathy - one of the best solutions for ADD, ADHD, etc. The book, "Impossible Cure" (Amy Lansky), is also a wonderful primer for those interested in researching homeopathy.

The only dissappointment I have for Breggins' books in general, is he is simply not thorough enough for my tastes in talking about solutions. There are many kids who have VERY disturbing problems in this spectrum, and some of his solutions are too simplistic and not realistic. It is with some of these extreme cases that we see homeopathy really shine, in a way that drugs can't match. There must be other alternative methods as well that really work. So that is my only concern with this book, lack of research into alternative solutions.

Any book that can be a warning against stimulants is a very good thing. I know from personal experience what Adderall can do and other stimulants. It is not a problem for everyone but I know one thing I would never give stimulant medication to my child. Never. Life depending on any stimulants is no life. This book is just trying to give people some knowledge before it's too late.

I am a licensed clinical social worker with seven years' experience working with troubled children, and am now director of a large therapeutic foster care program. From my practical experience, and from my reading, the negative reviews of this book, calling Breggin unscientific, ranting, etc. have got it exactly wrong. The "literature" supporting Ritalin and other stimulants is biased and only intermittently scientific - more like ad copy than fact.

It is easy to see why stimulants dominate the treatment of ADHD. Drug companies spend over $20 billion a year on promotion - more than they spend on research.What does this money buy them? David Healy, internationally known psychiatric researcher and writer, claims about 50 percent of all psychiatric journal articles are ghost written by employees of drug companies, and that 30% of The American Psychiatric Association's income comes from drug company subsidies, grants and advertising. Around 70 percent of all drug research is funded by the drug companies themselves, and most of the rest, funded by the government, is heavily influenced by drug companies' extensive lobbying machinery.

Major journals (including The New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet) have lamented the control of research and publishing by drug company money: The New England Journal of Medicine editorialized, stating they could hardly find reviewers for their psychiatric drug articles who did not have conflicts of interest due to financial ties with drug companies. Studies funded by drug companies, that don't support the companies' drugs, are rarely published.

The bottom line: professionals and the public are bombarded with a stream of "research" and "information" financed and spun by the people who make and sell these drugs. The conflict of interest is palpable.

Many people lack access to effective non-drug ways to deal with "ADHD." But this is no proof that the drugs are especially effective and safe - it just shows the advantage of having billions of dollars to finance and promote the drugs.

I have a challenge for readers who dismiss Breggin's book: Read half a dozen responsible critiques of biopsychiatry and psychiatric drugs. Try David Healy's The Creation of Psychopharmacology, also Healy's Let Them Eat Prozac (soon to come out in the U.S.), Robert Whitaker's Mad in America, Glenmullen's Prozac Backlash, Fisher and Greenberg's From Placebo to Panacea - Putting Psychiatric Drugs to the Test, and Elliott Valenstein's Blaming the Brain - The Truth About Drugs and Mental Health.

These are not works by new agers who think crystals heal schizophrenia. They are by respected academics, researchers and clinicians (and not all of them, especially Healy and Glenmullen, are against psychiatric drugs).

But read these books, and note the claims and evidence they cite about the drugs. Now, here's the challenge: look in mainstream psychiatric literature for any serious attempt to address these claims. I've read over forty books, pro and con, on psychiatric drugs - and I've yet to find pro-drug literature that addresses 98% of these arguments, not in general, and not point by point.

This is a matter of informed consent. See if Peter Breggin's words in Toxic Psychiatry are not at least very plausible: "In the world of modern psychiatry claims can become truth, hopes can become achievements and propaganda is taken as science".

Yes, Breggin is angry. He pulls no punches and gives no quarter. But he deserves serious consideration - he has been qualified as an expert witness in numerous product liability cases against drug companies around the country. Try to find, anywhere, point by point refutations of the specific claims he makes in this book. Except for a few points, biopsychiatry's silence on Breggin's claims is deafening. Ask an "authority" on ADHD whether, as Breggin claims, the pannel of experts at the NIH Consensus Conference on ADHD DID or DID NOT conclude in their final report, "..there are no data to indicate that ADHD is due to a brain malfunction," and ask the "authority" who it was that later took it upon himself to edit that statement to muddle the wording, but without changing its bottom line. And ask if it is true that the conference organizer, Peter Jensen, later admitted in a 2000 article that the experts at this conference found NO proof that "ADHD reflects a disordered state."(See Breggin, page 16).

If, after looking into the issue, you decide to give your child Ritalin, so be it. But each parent, child and professional deserves to know the whole story - something you will not get reading standard psychiatric literature.

A few of the chapters were quite interesting however several of them were as interesting as watching an ice cube melt on a chilly day. The author is undoubtedly to the far right on the political spectrum. His slur of Doris Kearns Goodwin was one of great exaggeration.

Thomas Woods has became one of the foremost defenders of the Catholic Church and Austrian economics. As a person with a great deal of interest in the way cultures work and personality psychology, I can strongly see the sympathy the two have for each other in their strong emphasis on "natural law" and, in psychological typology, a "feeling" oriented means of judging the world.

"33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask" follows from his excessively selective Politically Incorrect Guide to American History but follows a question-and-answer format whereby Woods, in a manner more direct yet rather calmer than in the PIG, explains how each myth propagated in American public schools is wrong and offers a correction. The way in which Woods isolates the questions to explain why the explanation popular in US public schools is completely wrong actually makes him more convincing. This is especially true regarding the Civil War, which stands out very clearly in comparison to what Woods wrote earlier, whilst his rather milder tone helps especially to make the question about unions much clearer. On the other hand, his calmer tone seems to inhibit Woods from looking at issues I know from reading the far-left - for instance the activity of strikebreakers in the period before mass unionisation during the 1930s. (There is a difference most on the Right miss between what is taught in schools and even universities versus what the extremities of the Left think.)

There are a number of interesting points in "33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask". For instance, George Washington Carver and Samuel B. Fuller are two people whom most people in my Australian homeland would never mention, and even reading a little about them from Woods' perspective is quite interesting though neither worked in subjects I have any real interest in. His viewpoint on the "Wild West" is also well-argued and contradicts popular views of it even in Australia.

On the other hand, there are a large number of questions in "33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask" that detract from the book because they are simply so derivative. Examples include his viewpoint about the causes of the Great Depression and the failure of the New Deal to restore prosperity (which could have come from any time since) and even more about how Native Americans actually did a great deal of damage to the environment (anybody with the slighted knowledge of human ecology should know that perfectly). Had Woods included something more original instead of these "popular" questions he would have done himself credit.

All in all, "33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask" is a mixed bag. There are some interesting point, and it is better-written and cited than the Politically Incorrect Guides, but parts are very derivative and one hopes could be replaced with much more original questions.

As a scholar, I approached this book interested in obscure and less understood historical topics. I was appalled to find the partisan bias, in constructing questions as well as answers, which permeates this book. Unless you have been brainwashed by far right-wing political views and are looking for confirmation of your biases, you will find this book a waste of time. It lacks depth, accuracy, and objectivity.

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble," Mark Twain observed, "it's what you know for sure that ain't so." Contemporary public education is rife with assertions about American history that just "ain't so" - FDR rescued America from the Depression, labor unions helped American workers, "state's rights" are nothing but code words for racism, American Indians were heroic stewards of the environment, the Constitution was meant to be a "living" document that changes with the times, to name a few.

In this provocative book, historian Thomas Woods patiently corrects the historical record. The book is particularly strong when focusing on the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, as expressed by the founders. State's rights, he shows, were central to Jefferson's thinking, and not concocted as a justification for white racism. The federal government's powers were intended to be restricted to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, he shows. The "commerce" and "enabling" clauses were not meant to be all inclusive grants of power to Washington.

The book also does a good job of skewering the politically correct myths that permeate public education: e.g., the Iroquois Indians had a substantial role in influencing the Constitution, discrimination explains all racial disparities in income, labor unions and government programs are responsible for the rise in wages.

The book is an easy read and would make a great gift for a high school or college student as an antidote to standard histories. My only criticism (and it is slight) concerns the way the book is organized. It is separated into 33 separate questions on different topics. However, related topics are often not grouped together. Thus, for instance, the "biggest unknown scandal of the Clinton years" (that he aided and abetted Islamic radicalism in the Balkans) is Question 5, while a related question on Clinton's handling of Kosovo is Question 33. They should have been grouped together.

I quite enjoyed this book and am looking forward to other books by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. It explodes various myths about American History that we were all taught in school, such as the "beneficial" effects of Marshall Plan. If you are a fan of history, and have an open mind, this book is for you.