As provacative and ground-breaking in its way as Alfred Russel Wallace's exposition of the theory of natural selection, Born to Rebel dares to suggest that our willingness to embrace controversial beliefs is a predictable consequence of our order of birth. The author's proof itself constitutes a facinating journey into the history of creative thought; the evocation of the childhoods of Darwin, Voltaire and Frederick the Great lend powerful support to the thesis. Sulloway's use of statistics is shockingly understandable even for someone who fled from Statistics 101. The prose flows like a wonderful after-dinner conversation; but after this feast the world is seen anew. If my allusion to Alfred Wallace escapes you, check this book out

I was prepared to dismiss this book and its premise because of prior experience with birth order theories. However, Mr. Sulloway's book is tightly reasoned and supported by a great deal of research. In the end, Sulloway avoids the reductionist trap by showing how birth order interacts with a variety of other environmental factors to produce personality. Sulloway has put the issue of our biological nature squarely on the table by showing the relationship of human history to natural selection and the life forces that drive all living things. This book won't do much for our egos, but may well explain a great deal of human behavior. My only concern is the mischief that the inevitable misuse of his ideas is likely to produce

This book by Frank Sulloway places birth order, and the "Darwinian" struggle for parental attention, at the center of personality formation. Sulloway has taken 26 years to write his book - Born to Rebel, and it is worth it. He bases his theories on meticulous research into the biographies of over 3000 scientists, from the days of Copernicus to the present. His theories began with, and are founded on, the observation he made back in 1972 that there are dramatic differences between the groups of scientists who promote the periodic revolutions in science, and the groups who oppose and support orthodox science. His observation is that these differences are related to differences in family position, and Sulloway demonstrates a degree of statistical significance in these relationships that is almost unheard of in the social sciences. The book is remarkable on a number of levels. First of all, the theoretical observations have a power that may put Sulloway up on a level with Freud and Piaget in unveiling the mechanisms of human development. Secondly, the topic of the book is a fascinating read: first of all, on the personal level, and Sulloway is not so much of an academic that he shuns this. There are sideline remarks throughout the book that encourage the reader to apply the insights to him- or herself. Thirdly, the book is very interesting on the level of biography, and fourthly in its insights into the history of science. Also, it is beautifully written: it survives with flying colors the test that I apply - reading it aloud. Also, Sulloway is a master of statistical exegesis - in his command of statistical theory and technique (there is an appendix on the use of descriptive statistics that stands on its own as a beautiful piece of education), in the clarity of his explanation of the significance of statistical results, and in his use of just the right diagram. I have a particular fetish about the intelligent use of statistics and the representation of quantitative data. I have two favorite books on these subjects. There is Cathy Marsh's book on descriptive statistics called Exploring Data, and a book by Edward Tufte called The Visual Display of Quantitative Data. These two books, however, are textbooks. They explain in the abstract how to use statistics effectively and truthfully, though both books abound with fascinating examples. Sulloway, though, is manipulating his numbers for real, so his achievement is doubly impressive and doubly fascinating.

This book is about Mark Edmundson's senior year at Medford High School, and the teacher who broke that year - and that life - apart. The personalities of fellow students, teachers, administrators, coaches - names changed to protect the innocent! - will be recognizeable to anyone who might have passed through senior year, circa 1970, anywhere, though the particular teacher was one we weren't all as fortunate to have had. This book chronicles that slow realizing when a student begins to understand that you can become your own teacher and you can reach beyond the expectations others may have determined for you. 'Teacher' would make an excellent all-school read, a even better all-faculty read. I loved it, and have passed it along to many friends.

If you are lucky, you had a teacher back in high school you can remember, one who demonstrated that learning could be more than memorization and scoring high on tests, one whose lessons you remembered long after your education was officially over because the lessons were about learning itself. Mark Edmundson is a professor of English at the University of Virginia, a contributing editor to _Harper's_, and has a bunch of other intellectual chops. It might have turned out differently for him if it weren't for one teacher; he had all the makings of a punk, a television addict, and a sports fan who longed for his days of high school football glory. That he turned out differently he credits to one teacher, and in _Teacher: The One Who Made the Difference_ (Random House), he introduces us to him. He also introduces us to a bunch of minor teachers and role models (not necessarily good ones), many goofy classmates, and, in a book full of openness and acceptance, his own unattractive adolescent self.

For Edmundson says, "When I encountered Franklin Lears, I was a high school thug. I was a football player, a brawler, who detested all things intellectual." Lears looked peculiar and he was. Unlike the other teachers, he did not have a set lesson plan full of facts that were to be installed into the heads of his students. He had a capacity to listen and to accept the students' ideas as interesting and worth considering, without imposing his own. He couldn't make immediate changes in their attitudes, and he couldn't change everyone, but some of them eventually got to accept that thinking was useful, was within the capacities of even football jocks, and above all, was fun. Lears abandoned the planned textbook, and settled on books that people were talking about at the time, _The Autobiography of Malcolm X_, _Siddhartha_, and _One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest_. Besides the booklist, Lears brought the influence of Socrates, and Edmundson makes plain that the analogy of Lears to Socrates and of Medford High students to listeners in the Athenian agora is not forced and not ridiculous. Socrates (ostensibly, at least), took nothing on faith, questioned everything including what everyone else accepted either unthinkingly or with solemn thought, accepted the thoughts of others as good points of departure for reasoning, and he knew how to laugh. Lears, too.

The book has memorable portraits of fellow students, and especially Edmundson's father. It is best at demonstrating that the old Socratic method still works, and can still inspire ambition. Simple questioning, and insistence on introspection and putting answers into words, created something Medford High had not seen before. "This was a class that people looked forward to going to, that we talked about all the time, nights and weekends." There is much about good teaching in this wise book, and much about living well. Lears only taught a year before going off to law school, and Edmundson has not attempted to keep up with him. It is nice to think, however, that he will pick up this volume and recognize how much effect he had, and how much erudition and clarity he has inspired in this particular student.

Mark Edmundson's chronicle
of a year in the life of Medford High is, first and foremost, a
compulsively good read, by turns moving and hilarious, unsentimental yet ultimately uplifting. Teacher is bracing from first page to last. Yet Edmundson manages not only to delight but also--deftly, brilliantly--to instruct. Teacher taught me more about education--its purposes, its practices, its rewards--that anything I've ever read on the subject. What
makes a great teacher? What are books for? How can reading change your life? By the end of this wonderful book, you know.

Grant Morrison's run on JLA has been very enjoyable, so it is only appropriate that DC publish a special story in the graphic novel format.

The story starts with Luthor arriving on Earth - but this is not the Luthor we know, this is a hero from the anti-matter universe, here seeking the assistance of the JLA to fight the chief group of super beings on his world - the Crime Syndicate of Amerika. This group consists of Ultraman, Superwoman, Owlman, Power Ring and Johnny Quick (the equivalents of Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman, Green Lantern and the Flash), but each with a twist that makes them a distorted reflection.

While in many respects a rehash of classic Justice League of America stories (the original version of the Crime Syndicate came from Earth 3 and featured in a JLA/JSA crossover), the talented Mr. Morrison takes things a bit further and a bit kinkier than what was done before.

Add to this the excellent art of Frank Quitely and you have a great celebration of what made the Morrison JLA years such a classic period.

(And by the way Grant, nice reference to Animal Man p.3-4...)

The concept of parallel worlds is in no ways new to speculative literature. Indeed, DC Comics introduced this idea in the famous "Flash of Two Worlds" story decades ago, but then came the equally renown (infamous?) "Crisis on Infinite Earths" in the mid-eighties and DC's parallel worlds mess was cleaned up, more or less. But now it's back; this time lightly veiled as an "anti-matter universe". This, the first hardcover JLA graphic novel, is an enjoyable tale for longtime DC fanboys and will cause little problem for those less familiar with the JLA and its also decades-long history. The villains here will look familiar, being the anti-matter universe (where everything is the opposite of the regular universe) counterparts of the JLA's "big guns": Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, and Green Lantern as reflected in Ultraman; Owlman, Superwoman, Johnny Quick, and Power Ring. Grant Morrison with his usual mastery portrays the antithetical characters with wit and a bit more maturity than would be expected in a monthly four-color comic. Superwoman, apparently more of a dominatrix, is supposedly involved with Ultraman, but has Owlman as well on the side. Johnny Quick seems to have some sort of drug addiction which evinces itself in truly bizarre ways as it passes through his Speed Force. Power Ring, depicted with a very spiffy costume and spiky haircut, seems a tad schizophrenic and somewhat controlled by, rather than controlling his magic ring. Alexander Luthor, a hero in the antimatter universe, is also portrayed superbly with essentially the same personality as his "Earth 2" (his phrase for the DC Universe best known and home to Superman and the JLA), but neatly converted from villainy to heroism. Amazon has a great price for this sure-to-be a collector's item. Again, a fun read for fanboys and first-timers alike.

Any JLA story by Grant Morrison is worth the money, so a graphic novel length story is enough to make fans salivate, although was it really necessary for DC to make a hardcover? It will be a shame if kids with a monthly budget of 20 dollars for comics cannot read this. Not much more can be said about Morrison's writing, but the artist was new to me. He has a style not unlike Frank Miller's pencils, in my opinion. The characterization by Grant is fabulous, and it's to his credit that the book flows even though the real JLA and the "bad" JLA never meet and fight. A great read for both JLA fans and newcomers alike, but hopefully DC will reprint it in paperback form and make it cheaper.

Mark Twain's, The Prince and the Pauper is a classic look back into sixteenth-century English society. Tom Canty is a young boy who is born into poverty and is forced to beg in the streets of London by his father. Edward Tudor is the Prince of Wales, heir to the throne. Both of these boys were born on the same day but grew up in opposite ways of life. One day Tom is dreaming about being a prince and starts walking towards the royal palace. When he reaches the palace the guards try to stop him but Prince Edward sees Tom's condition and invites him to his quarters to hear what Tom has to say. While they sit there they begin to realize what strong resemblance there is between them and decide to switch clothes to fulfill Tom's dream of looking Princely. All of a sudden Edward storms out of the room to denounce the guards who did harm to Tom, only to be mistaken as the poor pauper and locked out of the royal palace. From here on out the two boys experience what life is like in the other's shoes. Mark Twain does an outstanding job of developing each character and showing how each must learn new ideas to deal with their latest way of life. Unfortunately I did find myself losing my concentration while reading this book. This easily could have been due to the fact that the way Twain wrote The Prince and the Pauper was actually on a very easy reading level, which would lead me to recommend this book to readers of middle school age who enjoy adventurous tales like The Boxcar Children or The Hardy Boys.

This is the story of a prince and a pauper who switch places because of their uncanny outer resemblance. They obviously go through many trials and ordeals - the pauper trying to learn the ways of royalty, and the prince having to witness and undergo the results of some of the ridiculous laws and practices of the period.

Like many of Mark Twain's books, this is another satire that makes fun of the values that society holds to be important. In this story, Mark Twain points out how people place so much importance on outer appearance. A prince and a pauper, who, despite their outer resemblance are very different people, switch places, without anyone noticing. There is more to a person than their looks, and this is one point stressed throughout the novel.

The one complaint I have about this book is that there wasn't enough written about Tom Canty, the pauper who became a prince. I found his situations much more interesting than those of the true prince, but this was only a minor point.

I would recommend this book for ages 12 and older. Younger people could read the story, but miss the underlying meanings in certain situations. I wouldn't call this book a "Must Read" but it is a good introduction to classic literature.

The Prince and the Pauper written by Mark Twain is an adventurous, exciting book. The book takes place in London around the 1500's. Two boys were born on the same day, Tom Canty and Edward Tudor. Tom Canty was born unto a poor life, and as a boy growing up, "Tom's reading and dreaming about princely life wrought such a strong effect upon him that he began to act the prince." And just his luck, did he happen to some across the Prince of Wales, after suffering the hard blow of the soldier knocking him into the crowd. The Prince of Wales is Edward Tudor, the other boy born on the same day but born into a rich and wealthy family. As a result from the encounter, the two boys decide to switch places, as the Prince of Wales says to Tom Canty, "Doff thy rags and don these splendors."
The book describes the boys' adventures throughout the experience of living each other's lives. As the Prince of Wales lives as the pauper, he is introduced to and learns about many different people such as the Canty family, Miles Hendon, a troop of Vagabonds, Hugo, the peasants, the hermit, and others. And as Tom Canty acts as the Prince of Wales, he experiences living the higher life of royalty, being treated with respect and given so many opportunities and choices.
Through having the plot be that the characters switch places, the book is more exciting because the reader could act in the character's place and experience the lifestyles and adventures involved with each person's life. Other than being able to understand better each person's lifestyle with the type of writing, using dialogue in Old English adds a stronger effect to bringing everything back in time to understand the setting. Although at times, the Old English could get confusing.
Overall, I thought that this book was interesting because it explains the lifestyles of different people in London around the 1500's in a way that is fun and easy to understand. Although at times, I did feel as if it carried on too much about things that were insignificant. Other than that, the book was good and I would recommend that it be read, if you are interested in adventure.
Other adventure books written by Mark Twain, such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, were also interesting, but I enjoyed reading The Prince and the Pauper more because it contained more excitement for me.

Ok let me get this straight. Here is a guy that believes in the efficient market theory but was a salesman/trader. There are tons of conflicts in the book. Partnoy is obviously a professor now. He is practically begging for more regulation in investment banking and feels that financial reporters and professors are not only smarter but deserve more money compared to the investment bankers. He starts out at First Boston and is doing well financially. Then moves to Morgan Stanley and does complicated derivative deals and makes a ton of money. Now a professor and investment banking is pure evil (now that he made a ton of money). Another conflict is Partnoy said he quit Morgan Stanley but on page 277 he writes "...I am not referring what Morgan Stanley did to me." This is where he is talking about another Morgan Stanley employee being fired. I rate this book 2 stars because it was somewhat entertaining but think about this before you buy it. Do you really want to read a book by an author who believes in the efficient market theory but also worked as a salesman/trader? I only bought this book for $3.29 used on amazon.com. I definitely wouldn't recommend paying full price for it.

Now that there is a proven market for recent financial history/humor books, after the stunning success of Liars Poker, Predator's Ball and Den of Theives, this book FIASCO is another one of these books that tries to emulate the financial stories from the 1980's.

To my knowledge it is the first book to take on the derivatves trading industry, which is extremely volatile and can be the most risky sector of the financial markets, if you choose to speculate in it. More importantly, there will eventually be a derivatives disaster outside of the Long-term Capital one that occurred a couple of years ago.

This book, as I read it, is highly sensationalist. I have worked in the financial service industry with institutions and chose to leave the industry about a year ago. Here are my thoughts on this book as it relates to the derivatives markets.

1.Mr. Partnoy gives a high level description of some of the transactions that he was involved in

2.He seems to be indicting the market in derivatives, which I disagree on since he is dealing with institutions, which already should have a fiduciary responsibility to their clients. If they are dumb and allow an investment bank to "rips their face off" as Partnoy claims then they shouldn't be 1) in those financial products or (2) doing business with them. It is their choice!

3.From the reading it seemed as though Partnoy doesn't understand his role in the machine known as Wall Street. He is a salesmen, pure and simple. He gets paid to ring the register, nothing more. Other people construct the deals and he is the marketer to clients. If he makes clients money they should come back more and more. Often times, there are MANY other factors that cause business to vary from firm to firm. LOTS of different agendas/goals in mind.

4.Some of his anecdotes, particularly those in which he discusses the atmosphere in an investment bank around bonus time (pg.40 - 42, 202 - 205), are pretty amusing and dead on accurate.

5.The author's descriptions of some of his deals are clearly told from a junior banker's perspective, but they do a good job of putting forth what was being done, how it was being done, what everyone's perceived incentives for the transaction were, the work required to get the deal done, what kind of money, and importantly what kind of fees were involved.

In conclusion, like all books written by former investment bankers the book contains liberally sprinkled anecdotes regarding job interviews from hell, the ridiculous daily escapades that can occur on a trading floor, strip clubs, the lack of personal lives, gambling trips and other stories which could easily have been pulled from the pages of Mr. Lewis's book or "Monkey Business" by Rolfe and Troob. Folks, not all folks on Wall Street are like that but a HUGE percentage are. Nothing wrong with that lifestyle but it is a choice everyone is free to make. Hope this helps everyone.

A very good introduction to derivatives (and even some general finance for novices) and one of the better looks at how degenerate Wall Street culture can be. Though comparisons are frequently made to Liar's Poker, I found FIASCO to be a more useful read, even though it's not quite as funny as Liar's Poker was at its best. The usual tales of arrested development among Wall Street's community are here, but there's a much more gripping and sobering tale of how rapacious greed knows no bounds, and how a large number of actors, including large multinationals and even governments, ultimately pay the price.

Partnoy doesn't tell his story as smoothly as he could, and his narrative sometimes feels larded with anecdotes that don't add much color or relief. He also struggles at times to weigh his role in the big picture. Overall though, he describes his experiences and general Wall Street culture with enough insight that you can feel his disgust, and applaud when he eventually steps away from it all.

A great business book, flaws and all, and a perfect antidote to all the puffery surrounding coverage of financial markets and Wall Street these days. Now when will we see a book of investment banker/derivatives trader jokes, to add to all the great lawyer joke books?

This is about a small time hood, Frank G. Koehler, who got mad at a couple of guys and shot them both to death in cold blood while wounding a third party. That was in 1970. He escaped and was never brought to justice. Eventually the case was closed because somebody (Gourevitch doesn't tell us who) was of the "opinion" that Koehler had to be dead since (according to others) it was "virtually inconceivable that a man with such a violent disposition and criminal history could have remained alive and out of trouble" for so long. (p. 26) Then in 1997, 27 years after the crime, Andy Rosenzweig, chief investigator for Manhattan's district attorney, reopened the case.

But this really isn't about Rosenzweig's pursuit of Koehler. There wasn't much of a pursuit. They found him living in Benicia, California and picked him up when he arrived at Penn Station in New York on July 30, 1997, "a pathetic old man" 67-years-old. A photo taken that day makes him look like a rummy with a bad dye job.

So what's this book about, and why is it considered so good that Scott Turow and Elmore Leonard, among others, have touted it? Quite simply this is a textbook example of how to write a modest crime story with an underlying emphasis on our criminal justice system, how it works, and how it fails. Besides the two chief characters in the book, Koehler and Rosenzweig, there is a revealing portrait of defense attorney, "Don't Worry Murray" Murray Richman, a man who's made a nice living defending some of New York City's sleazier crooks. The aptly named Richman believes that there's a difference between the authorities and gangsters: "the gangsters are more compassionate." (p. 128) He adds (p. 132): "If I defended only innocent people, I'd go hungry." He says he believes in the system (which is one of the reasons he defends the accused), but his bottom line philosophy is "The truth is there is no truth." (p. 132).

There's a certain nostalgic gangster color to the characters in this book. Koehler is a particularly good study, a guy who first killed when he was fifteen years old, but a guy who somehow while on the lam for twenty-seven years, managed to become so beloved that he was thought of by some of the people in Benicia, California as "their unofficial mayor" and they supported him with t-shirts reading "free New York Frankie." (p. 161)

Rosenzweig is the hero, a guy who never gives up, an honest cop who works methodically, dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's until he gets his man, a born bloodhound, and the kind of guy we ought to have more of in law enforcement.

Much of this true crime story first appeared in The New Yorker where Gourevitch's crisp, clean prose was much ballyhooed. This book expands on what I read there. It's a attractive book and a quick read.

Frankie Koehler killed two men; Andy Rosenzweig, a New York City cop and friend of one of the dead men, re-opens the case 27-years after the murders and the disappearance of Koehler--the cold case. Writing concisely, with truth and compassion, but straight-forwardly about the characters, Mr. Gourevitch, a staff writer for The New Yorker magazine, tells the story of a small-time 'wise-guy', the arrow-straight conscientious cop and how time may and may not soften the edges of good and bad people. I enjoyed the integrity and clarity Mr. Gourevitch strenuously employs to tell this sad, hopeful and redemptive story of justice ultimately achieved. All the characters, including the ethically misguided defense attorney, Murray Richman, are presented as real and human: the good, the bad and the ugly. For an honest study of human psychology, police procedure and some life in our times read 'A Cold Case.'

I don't like to leave things hanging and I thought it might make it a little less hard to retire if I got this thing settled. -Andy Rosenzweig, A Cold Case In this short but surprisingly affecting book, Philip Gourevitch examines just one "cold case", a twenty seven year old double murder that has bothered Andy Rosenzweig since it occurred. In 1970, after an argument in a bar, Frank Koehler met the two men he'd been in the earlier confrontation with and left them, Richie Glennon and Pete McGinn, dead on the floor of McGinn's apartment. Koehler then disappeared. Rosenzweig was just a patrolman then, but Glennon had attended his wedding, so the failure of police to ever capture Koehler was galling. In 1997, with his retirement just around the corner, Rosenzweig was on his way to the doctor's office and passed by the restaurant where the original argument had occurred, recalling, for the first time in a while, that Koehler had still never been brought in, Rosenzweig, by now the chief investigator for the Manhattan District Attorney, determined to finally close this case in his waning days on the job. This is an unusual kind of crime story. There's no mystery : we know who the culprit is in the first few pages. All the violence and most of the action takes place early on too. There's a little bit of courtroom drama, but it's mostly kept off stage. Instead, the book is mostly a profile of a few fascinating characters. Rosenzweig dominates the book's first half, a nearly perfect cop--honest, hardworking, and dedicated to the ideal of justice. It is his personal obsession with seeing that Koehler pays for the murder of Glennon that drives the story. He's kind of the positive version of Javert in Les Miserables. In the second half, with Koehler at last arrested and facing trial, it is the criminal who dominates. Frank Koehler, who had already done time for a murder he committed as a teenager, comes across as a cold-blooded killer, who, even now, in his 70s, contemplated shooting it out with the officers who came to arrest him in Penn Station or, before that, killing a cop a day until they agreed to stop pursuing him. In what Gourevitch says law enforcement officials consider a textbook depiction of the criminal mind, Koehler gives a videotaped confession in which he expresses no contrition about the original crime and seems to think he deserves credit for the killings he contemplated but didn't commit. But then, once he's imprisoned, Koehler shows a surprisingly spiritual side to his nature. Though Gourevitch, thankfully, never lets him off the hook for his violent past, he does show Koehler to be a more complex man than we might wish to believe. One particular facet of his personality that should give us all pause is that he appears to have modeled his behavior on that of characters in old gangster movies, like James Cagney. It makes you wonder what kids who learn their values from today's pop culture will be like. This latter part of the book introduces another interesting character, defense attorney Murray Richman. Amusingly free of any scruples about the work he does, representing admitted criminals, Richman provides some comic relief to the story and serves as kind of a moral bridge between the two main characters, straddling the line between the Law and the bad guys. Much of this first appeared in The New Yorker, for which Gourevitch is a staff writer, and it has the feel of a stretched out magazine piece, even if a superior one. I wouldn't have minded hearing more about all three of these men, but I suppose it's better to leave us wanting more than overstuffed. GRADE : A-

Good work, Thomas Frank. This book is a revealing transcoding of the corporate mythology of the 90's, a rabidly hyped symbolic order cooked up by admen, marketers, and management gurus at the behest of the top 1%. It goes by the name market populism. If you've read Fredric Jameson, you will recognize the practical, real-world analyses of the 're-narratavized' cultural fragment. Capital takes cultural artifacts which may have opposed it previously, (e.g. revolution, class war, freedom, democracy), and re-appropriates it for use in its' own narrative, to justify its own ends (the inflation of securities and paper wealth). Thus historical data, or ideological conflict or even Marxist utopianism is re-narrativized by big money in the mass media. Plenty of explanation of how Capital effaces the differences between all those dialectical poles,like a home-grown Baudrillard with easy-to-follow examples. Where the book lacked was in it's not drumming home what exactly the costs were, especially in terms of the destructive effects of international finance capital, the dis-lodging of a billion people into shanty towns by Global Capital, and the environmental destruction rent by Trans-national Capital. You might take a look at one of David Korten's book for this, or George Soros' On Globalization. But most important about the book is the fact that it questions what has been so vigorously sold as 'inevitable' to the rest of us, it maintains the possibility of negating what seems so Universal on CNN or Fox News. It is a supreme act of historical transparency, pointing to a way we might go from a way we've already been.

While I disagree with Thomas Frank a lot, I am forced to admit that there is more than a grain of truth in his criticism. At times polemic, other times ranting, sometimes he just says something that blows away a lot of the "conventional wisdom" that we are fed and many times accept.

The largest strength of this book is not that it offers any sort of alternative (It really doesn't), it is that he is criticizing things that need to be criticized. Over the last 20 years or so, critical writing and commentary has lapsed, and offered little voice of reform or change. It is nice to see that someone offers dissent to many cultural values that have become solidified and crusty (even if it is at 90+dB).

In an age of blind faith in "The Market" there is a voice of skepticism in Thomas Frank's _One Market Under God_. If you are a God fearing, Capitalist-loving, Market Driven, person, this book may be especially valuable to read -- if for no other reason, to hear from someone who disagrees with you and has no fear in stating it clearly!

I disagree with a lot of his thesis, but I cannot give this book anything less than 5 stars!

In this extraordinary and brilliant book, the American journalist Thomas Frank exposes the shams and scams of the market and its barkers. Frank dissects the media, the political parties, the 'think tanks' like Demos, and the public relations and management theory 'industries', with their clowns like Tom Peters. He shows how the market, under the sign of democracy and choice, robs us of our basic freedoms, in the economic arena.
He shows us how the US economy 'works': 86% of Wall Street's gains go to the richest 10% of the US population. In 1999, Chief Executive Officers got on average 475 times what their blue-collar workers got; the ratio was 11/1 in Japan and 24/1 in Britain. 40% of Internet firm executives had criminal records; they were experienced fraudsters and swindlers. The other 60% haven't got caught yet! Yet US workers had less social mobility than European workers.
... Capitalism does not provide: stocks and shares do not secure jobs, incomes, pensions, education, or health care. Only the old-fashioned, despised, desperately-in-need-of-structural-reform welfare state could do that. Of course, the Stock Market that has so finally failed all its supporters did not need structural reform! We need politics, not politicians or politicos or ideologues. We cannot rely on the market; we need to stop the market before it stops us.
After the coal-based industrial revolution, we had the oil-fired economy; now we are supposed to be in the third revolution, the third way of 'the knowledge-based' economy. First, this implies that earlier industrial revolutions were powered by ignorance and the ignorant (workers), not clever like 'us' moderns. Second, it is pure idealism.
Blair's favourite guru, Charles Leadbeater, recently wrote a book entitled, Living on thin air. His vision of the future allows no production, no industry, no nation, no economy, no materiality - and this idealist rubbish passes as 'new' wisdom! Workers having to live on thin air - no thanks!

Alternately ludicrous, entertaining, informative and pretentious, Ben Watson's book on Zappa is nothing if not different. The clue is in the title: "Negative Dialectics", Theodore Adorno is mentioned almost as often as Zappa himself is (but could he play guitar like him?). The thing about Zappa is that he may be probably the most intelligent man ever to strap on a guitar in rock 'n' roll history but (like Beefheart), he ain't no intellectual. Mr Watson however is, and he has uncovered a whole barrel-load of entertaining, but frankly ludicrous, philosophical, literary, political and psychoanalyical allusion and meanings in various Zappa songs and albums. The thing that makes me most suspicious of Mr Watson is the way the lamer an album is the more time he spends expounding on it's "actual" meaning - thus Apostrophe is compared to King Lear, I could go on - no wonder Frank and his missus were in stitches.

The fact that Watson has to spend so much time and hard work on Zappa's oeuvre post-1970 perhaps tells it's own story - the fact is Zappa stopped saying anything very interesting in his songs throughout the entirety of the 1970's, only the intervention of the PMRC into his increasing smug and self-refential universe helped reignite the kind of indignation and passion Zappa had displayed in the 60's.

Watson goes thru all sorts of ingenious and amusing contortions trying to defend or explain away his hero's often rancid social and sexual politics. He does at least nail Zappa's hopelessly petit bourgeois hatred of unions but struggles to convince on such gems of Zappa's back catalogue as "The Illionis Enema Bandit" (a glorification of a convicted sex offender) and gives up altogether on the truly repulsive "Jumbo Go Away". Unfortunately, Watson, as with most Zappa fanatics seems incapable of noticing their hero's often quite considerable clay feet. IMO his sexual politics are not surprising for a guy who grew up in the 50's and then experienced the 60's counter-culture's knuckle-dragging sexism at first hand - ...Zappa was a middle-aged rock star by the 80's, and he sounded it.

Towards the end of the book it becomes little more than a track-by-track review of each album - a trifle wearying if truth be told. Plus Watson is annoyingly self-aggrandizing at times, for instance mentioning that Zappa had introduced him at a party as "some kind of genius"!

Still, worth a look

Clearly not your typical rock an roll book, which tend to fall into the categories of either poorly written self-aggrandizing "autobiographies", or breathless anecdotes from managers, groupies, hangers-on, etc. Ben Watson's book is a thoughtful examination of Frank Zappa's lyrics and the overall meaning of his career.

Sadly, the book does not devote as much attention to Zappa's music, which most people would consider far more significant than the lyrics. Although many reviewers point out Watson's farcically "deep" reading of Zappa's lyrics, it is his relative disinterest in the music which is the book's greatest stumbling block.

That being said, there is an awful lot for hardcore Zappa fanatics to chew on here. In the end it's certainly worth the effort.

I read this book for no reason that is very clear to me anymore, since when I bought it I was neither a left-wing academic nor a Zappa fan. I think the sheer obsessive folly of the whole thing got me hooked. And in fact, quite apart from it's virtues as a treatise on philosophy (which, among other things, it is) or a book about Zappa, it's one of the best books ever written about rock music. Watson's brilliant inspiration was to try to bring together his dedicated left-wing politics and his love for the vast and ungainly oeuvre of the decidedly non-left-wing Frank Zappa. It's a heroic attempt, and the amazing thing about it is that it's persuasive. Zappa's hatred of religious fundamentalism, his dedication to music, his humour, his indomitable determination to stick to his guns, his courage in opposing repressive government policies, are what get Watson really enthusiastic. It's true that there's not all that much here about the music qua music, although Watson considers Zappa to be an important composer and the finest rock guitarist since Hendrix (and he's not far wrong about either); but the minute attention to Zappa's lyrics produces some of the most unlikely and brilliant literary criticism since William Empson. The section when he goes to visit the ailing Zappa in LA is remarkable (Zappa seems to have generally approved of the book, and is a gracious interviewee even when he claims that he can't stand Shakespeare.) "Preposterousness is an underrated quality" claims the author in a letter to Zappa's wife, and this book bears him out. It also turned me into a Zappa fan. Now that has to be a good thing.

Mr. Frank's thesis is this: many of the consumer goods we buy are purchased not for the intrinsic pleasure they bring, but for the pleasure of keeping up with or surpassing the Joneses. By taxing consumption instead of earnings, people will buy cheaper luxury goods. This will keep all of the pleasure of the consumption race but raise extra tax dollars to spend on things that everyone truly wants for their intrinsic value - like cleaner air.

It will also have the effect of increasing savings (because income is not taxed until spent, the incentive to invest is boosted). This makes us all richer long-term as capital investments grow our standard of living.

The theory is well-explained -- perhaps too well-explained -- but the proposed solution is not. While Mr. Frank spends a couple of hundred pages explaining the problem, his solution - taxing consumption - is presented without question. But will it work? The goal of producing income is to spend it, and whether it's done now or later, the rich want to spend it all before they die. Doesn't it make sense that not taxing saving would simply defer consumption until later in life, and the rich would buy even *more* opulent goods later? The author never discusses this, or any other potential difficulties. Won't the rich just rent everything instead of buying? Won't people who might otherwise save, be instead persuaded to consume now, since they will be taxed more if they save to buy their dream good in a single future year? The point is not that these objections are unanswerable, but that they seem to never even occur to the author.

As for the disdain with which Mr. Frank treats the acquisition of luxury goods, the reader should be made more than a little uneasy. What he says about social pressure may have some merit, but is this the *only* reason someone buys a Ferrari? And what about those of us who do not feel the need to keep up, and buy goods purely because they will enrich our lives in other ways? Again, these shades of grey do not slow down Mr. Frank's thesis. And the reader who is told he is "polluting" by choosing to wear an expensive suit - the author uses the analogy without qualification or irony - would be justified in feeling that Mr. Frank would have done well to temper the observations in his book with an understanding that human motivations are not as black and white as he thinks.

As the review title indicates, students & professors of economics, politics, psychology and other social & behavioral sciences will benefit from perusing the pages of Bob Frank's commentary on contemporary American life. Regardless of whether you agree with Professor Frank's solution to our society's "arms race of consumerism", the book makes the reader think about the materialism evident in much of the U.S. Using amusing analogies to describe human behavior related to "buying excess," Frank explains these activities with theories of psychology and economics. His insight provokes thought and entertains the reader throughout the book. Whether explaining why many middle class couples spend $5,000 for the latest Viking model gas grill for their patio, or describing how two millionaires childishly built larger and more lavish yachts just to own the biggest and best cruiser in the world, Frank delivers interesting examples which help provide an understanding for why many people do the things they do.

Read this book if you are a student or teacher of the social or behavioral sciences. Whether you agree with Frank's prescription to correct societal consumerism or you don't believe America has a problem, this book entertains the reader and stimulates ideas for discussion. Well worth the read!

Economist Robert H. Frank has written a stimulating book that integrates research from psychology, evolutionary biology, and economics to address the raging "luxury fever" that is needlessly consuming precious resources in "overdeveloped" economies. Frank documents how luxury consumption in western industrialized countries has been rising at an astronomical rate, even though the latest psychological research shows that there is scant correlation between this consumption and levels of stated life satisfaction. Why, then, are wrist watches costing $20,000, huge houses of 10,000 sq. ft. and more, and myriad other forms of conspicuous individual consumption rapidly increasing, even as social spending on education, infrastructure, the environment, and other things that would raise the average level of life satisfaction in society decreasing? Frank describes how this perverse "luxury fever" occurs when individuals pursue their strong individual incentives to increase their relative position in society by consuming more than their peers. But when everyone does this, relative consumption (and perceived life satisfaction) remain constant, while absolute consumption (and related negative impacts on natural resource use, the environment, education spending, etc.) soars. Luxury fever is one of a class of phenomena known by various names in different disciplines, including: negative externalities, social traps, social dilemmas, the prisoner's dilemma, and the tragedy of the commons. Frank cleverly labels these phenomena as situations that are "smart for one, but dumb for all." Once one begins to look, there are clear examples of these situations everywhere, ranging from drug addiction to pesticide overuse to arms races to environmental pollution and even women's fashions. While economists have recognized these phenomena, they have largely been relegated to the status of interesting but relatively minor anomalies. But Frank clearly points out just how pervasive, important, and wasteful they are, and how eliminating them can save literally billions of dollars while actually improving welfare. The "invisible hand" of the market cannot be relied upon to solve these problems, because, as Frank notes: "Far from being a principle that applies in most circumstances, the invisible hand is valid only in the special case in which each individual's rewards are completely independent of the choices made by others. In the rivalrous world we live in, precious few examples spring to mind." (pp 271) Frank's solution to luxury fever is a strongly progressive consumption tax. This could be done in the US with a simple one-line amendment in the tax code to exempt all savings from income taxation. With this modification, the income tax would tax only consumption, without having to specify which consumption was "luxury consumption" and (because of its steep progressivity) without adversely affecting the poor. This consumption tax would have the effect of increasing the costs to individuals of conspicuous consumption (and thus reducing it), while freeing up significant resources to pursue increased "inconspicuous consumption" - things like education, infrastructure, environmental protection, and family time. Given the psychology of relative consumption and satisfaction noted above, this could occur with absolutely no decrease in welfare. In fact, average life satisfaction would increase because relative individual consumption would not change and the neglected forms of social consumption could be increased with the resources from the tax. Why has so obvious a "win-win" move not already occurred, and what are its chances in the future? Frank answers the first part of this question with the famous joke about the economist who sees a ten dollar bill lying in the street and concludes that it couldn't really be a ten dollar bill because if it were someone would have already picked it up. The first step is to clearly and convincingly lay out the problem and the solution as Frank has done - in effect to point out the existence of the $10 bill just lying on the ground. But the idea of a broad consumption tax (and the reasons for it) has been around for many years. It was first proposed by Thomas Hobbes in 1651 and has surfaced many times during the last 300 years. Frank concludes that it will just be a matter of time before the obvious benefits of such a tax are recognized and the plan is implemented - after all, most political changes have a significant gestation period. But there are also obvious impediments to implementing such a tax in the current political climate. In political systems run more and more by special interests it is difficult to implement any policy that might hurt even one of those interests - even if only in the short run. Overcoming the political impediments to any form of meaningful tax reform will require "government by discussion" rather than by interest groups and media manipulation. If social issues of the importance of those in Frank's book can be discussed rationally by the society at large then such obvious social "win-win" solutions as ecological tax reform and a progressive consumption tax can be appreciated and implemented. In a few countries this kind of social discussion occurs reasonably well, but in most it is a far cry from the current political reality. Just as it is very difficult for an animal caught in a trap to free itself, it is also very difficult for a society caught in a social trap to free itself, even when the nature of the trap and the way out has been clearly identified. Lets hope we don't have to bite off our social foot to escape the invisible hand.

There was no information in the summary information on Amazon (and there is no information on the cover of the book) to tell you that this is a Christian oriented program. I consider myself to be a Christian, but I like to separate my psychology and my spirituality. And I was looking for something to use with clients who may or may not be Christian. It has many biblical quotes and refers to our innate or inborn sinful nature as being the cause of anger. It says that anger management is linked to spiritual stability.

If you are a Christian, and you struggle with anger, this is the only book that I have read that does not make me feel guilty for having anger in the first place. If you are not a Christian and you struggle with anger, then you need it more than I do. 'With God all things are possible'

I am a Christian, and I found this book to be very helpful. It touches some personal areas that I wasn't aware of, and it has helped me enormously. I feel like I have a handle on my anger (with God help of course...)now. I recommend this to any Christian who needs it, and I'm sorry if this book offended those of you who aren't Christians. I think it has great basics covered, so even if you aren't a Christian I think it would help.