A bit dry, this book is used to teach intermediate level officers at the USAF Air Command and Staff College the "big picture" regarding U.S. National Security. It is informative, timely, and gives a very good picture of how U.S. National Security is developed and applied.

Thisw book fails on a few levels. First, the quotes picked are often short, unrelated, or contradictory, including a couple which are simply theistic. Second,Williams iserts his own little exclamatory remarks throughout the book (things like "Oh Aristotle, how lucky we were to know you!). The format has the quote from the famous luminary on the right page, and Williams words, thoughts or praise on the left. With all due respect, William's words could have been kept to an introduction, rather then half the book. Especially considering he just acts as an MC for those quoted, he doesn't add any thoughts of substance.

Were this book ($$$), I wouldn't be so harsh on it. But ($$$) for a book that's a not particularly well produced, undersized hardcover, it's ridiculous. Take the money and by the works of the contributors instead.

Very factual and a good concept overall. BUT the problem to me was that it was too factual, and not a good read. It was like reading a text book. On the other hand, if you are wanting to do a research paper on how the Nazis came to power, it has great information.

This book elaborates on author (and self-publisher)William Keisling's theory of the events leading up to the murder of Lillie Belle Allen, a young black woman (and mother)who was killed by white racists during the 1969 Riots in York, Pennsylvania. Essentially, Mr. Keisling's theory is that York Police, fueled by anger over the shooting (and subsequent death) of a young white police officer, secretly aided white thugs in their attempt to ambush a car which they believed carried rival black gang members--but instead the car, which appeared identical to their alleged target--carried a black minister and his family who were vacationing from South Carolina. (The ambush of this innocent family by white thugs actually happened--the theory Mr. Keisling presents is that York Police helped to stage the ambush). It's an incredible theory. But because Mr. Keisling did not sufficiently "do his homework" before rushing to publish this book, his information regarding my family is wrong. First, he implies that my father, who was a York City Detective during the 1969 riots, was involved with the ambush. After traveling back to York to conduct my own investigation, I have obtained statements from over a dozen former police officers, witnesses, and gang-members that my father was not involved in any regard of this atrocity. The most convincing documented statement comes from a former city councilman (and attorney) who was riding in my father's cruiser car the night of this murder. What upsets me most about Keisling's implication of my father, is that being "a racist bigot" is the absolute last thing on earth my father would ever be. Next, Mr. Keisling states that "a man who was allowed to (smuggle) a shotgun out of the murder scene that night was probably the brother of York City Police Detective Wayne Ruppert." The problem here is that my father's brother had been dead for nearly 3 years when the riots occurred. Finally, he implies that I, Wayne Ruppert Jr, was involved in the ambush. The problem with this theory is I had just celebrated my 9th birthday when the murder occurred--need I say more? [...]. Overall, I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Keisling's obvious contempt for racists and bigots, and I agree that justice for the murder of this young woman has been long overdue--and has yet to be fully served. I just wish he would have done his research thoroughly regarding my family. If he had bothered to do so, he would have discovered the truth about my father's well-established track record for being kind-hearted and treating ALL people fairly, and would have gained an ally (in me) in his crusade for justice. As it stands now, since I personally know how flawed his information is about my father, my uncle, and myself, I now question the accuracy of the rest of his book. Overall, it's an interesting read, and Mr. Keisling is a charismatic author--I just don't know how accurate he is.

Anyone who is familiar with the original Autobiography of William Allen White will immediately recognize that this new book is a crippled skeleton of the original. Almost all the lyrical, descriptive, humorous, and self-effacing passages that made the original a great work of literature have been slashed out. White won the Pulitzer Prize for his literature, not for his name-dropping and political glad-handing. It is amazing that the family would authorize this badly damaged version of an American classic. Why would you want to read this version, when the original is so readily available? I suppose some would say that Sally Lindsay White might have had a major hand in the posthumously published original, and might try to find W.A.White's own hand in the work, but if so, that would only mean that she should have shared in the Pulitzer. Besides, the parts that are cut out are the most truly autobiographical sections. Unless you just enjoy loading your bookshelf, leave this one off.

This book was written during the "restraint" era in British Columbia (the early 1980s), when the provincial government was forced to cut back in public expenditures because of a weak economy. Thus it is very much a period piece.

Garr's diatribe against Bennett is a very partisan rant that is highly representative of those forces who were against what the Socreds were doing to restrain spending. The movement fancied itself as "Solidarity", a slightly pretentious take on what happened a few years earlier in Poland to what was going on in BC. The book was obviuously a rush job as it is no more than 190 pages, printed in a bold type and shows little to no research and comes with a bibliography that consists of about eight books and a few articles.

If I am not mistaken, Garr was a columnist for the Vancouver Sun at the time which helps to explainn the journalistic flavour to the book. Apart from that, it is also a very spiteful book , which caused this reader to lose a little respect for the author. The constant jabs at Bill Bennett not being his own man (his father governed the province for 20 years and was believed by those - such as Garr - to exert a high degree of control over his son until his death in '79), becomes a little tiring.

Anyway, I am hard pressed to recomend this book if anybody is seriously thinking about reading it. You won't be getting much use out of this one!