....This book is solid shop talk for those interested in defense policy, broaching many issues while consistently focusing on ways to limit (but not necessarily reduce) defense spending. O'Hanlon argues that aggregate defense spending must increase modestly to preserve US interests at home and abroad, but that sensible cuts can be made elsewhere to offset the increase. Some expenditures should be considered essential, such as replacing aging equipment which was acquired during the Reagan administration. However, these costs can be tempered by limiting, though not eliminating, acquisitions of cutting edge technology while replenishing fleets with existing, effective, and less costly technology. O'Hanlon makes a compelling argument (financial and otherwise) in favor of moving away from a two-war defense framework to one which enables the US to simultaneously tackle three engagements of varying intensities, something on the level of Desert Storm plus Desert Shield plus Bosnia / IFOR. Many of O'Hanlon's arguments on homeland defense, while valid, have been discussed in more detail elsewhere (e.g. "America's Achille's Heel"). His arguments for a limited missile defense (focusing primarily on boost-phase missile intercepts and the need for additional research) are solidly stated, and probably more so in his book "Defending America". A very thorough discussion of the China-Taiwan issue is provided, exploring potential military threats from both sides in detail. O'Hanlon argues that China's current military threat to Taiwan is almost negligible and that only a Chinese blockade of the island would be likely to require outside military intervention. The military and tactical strengths and weaknesses of both countries are discussed in turn, while exploring the delicate line the US must walk between antagonism and pacification in the region.

Every citizen needs to read and think about the future of national defense. This book is one of the core readings.

Among the recommendations in this book that make it essential reading for anyone concerned with streamlining and revitalizing national security, I consider the following to be sensible:

1) cost savings should not be achieved through the wholesale abandonment of overseas commitments (13);

2) achieve additional cost savings as well as increased operational utility by sharply limiting spending on the most advanced weapons and mobility systems, applying the savings to maintaining readiness and buying larger numbers of "good enough" weaponry (83);

3) citing Stephen Rosen-he could also have cited Colin Gray-he urges a slowdown in the so-called Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) while emphasizing that true RMA's are less about technology and more about the very best mix of people, time, and information to produce innovation (88);

4) in this vein, he noted the continued excessive focus on mobility platforms rather than C4I or joint service experimentation (90);

5) homeland defense needs several billion more dollars per year (129), a recapitalization of the U.S. Coast Guard by with at least a $750 million a year increase (135), and a sharply increased focus on setting C4I security standards for unclassified communications and computing networks across the nation, with roughly $100 million a year additional;

6) politely put, National Missile Defense is best conceptualized as theater missile defense (TMD, 143); and

7) Taiwan would be a nightmare for all sides.

Among the assertions in this book that give me pause are

1) defense down-sizing in the past ten years has been successful, trimming a third of the budget and manpower while retaining quality and cohesion (p. 1);

2) that 3% of the Gross Domestic Product is adequate for defense spending and we do not need to go to the less-than-traditional 4% (3-4);

3) that the Marine Corps should be employed to relieve Army troops in the Balkans (57) or Korea (80);

4) that North Korean armored forces would have great difficulty breaking through Allied lines to Seoul (71);

5) that rogue nations like North Korea would attempt to provide their infantry with chemical protective gear when using chemical weapons (73);

6) that US airpower is both a rapid-response solution for distant threats as well as an overwhelming response for sustained threats (76, passim);

7) that arsenal ships are survivable in off-shore loiter mode (111); and

8) that an overseas deployment rate of 8% of the total force is too high (227).

Having said that, and with all my reservations about a book, no matter how talented the author, that does not preface its discussion of force structure with a review of the recommended strategy, and a discussion of the recommended strategy with a review of the real-world right-now threat, I have to rate this book a solid four in terms of seriousness of purpose and utility of content.

It would be twice as valuable if it included a thorough discussion of what kind of Global Coverage intelligence investment is needed in order to make defense forces relevant and capable in the future; and if it included a discussion of how defense forces are but the most expensive instrument of national power, and must be designed and funded in consonance with the other instruments, and especially the severely underfunded diplomatic, economic, and cultural instruments.

The author, easily one of the top three citizen-reviewers of the national security spending program, ultimately recommends less expensive weaponry, a different two-war capability ("1+A+i"), selective reductions in overseas deployments, more defense and less nuclear offense, selective increases in homeland defense including the U.S. Coast Guard and joint experimentation, and a modest increase (roughly $25 billion) of the defense budget that would combine with his recommended savings to yield the $60 billion or so transformation delta that others have recommended.

I like and recommend this book. Out of context, however, it is a dangerous book, for it will lead an inexperienced President and a Cold War team to the conclusion that only a transformation of the traditional military (Program 50) is necessary. O'Hanlon has done it again-he has provided the baseline from within which a reasonable public debate about defense transformation might ensue. The military issues he addresses comprise both the foundation and one of the four corners of our future national security-my concern about this book is that it is completely isolated and makes no mention of the other three corners without which we cannot maintain a proper roof over our heads: intelligence (threat understanding), strategy, and Program 150 soft power-power that today is both silent and emaciated.

This could have been called the tail of two authors / Presidents. The book covers the Presidency of George Bush Sr. and similar to the Administration, the book has two faces. To me it seams that the foreign affaires sections of the book held the better writing style and most of the excitement or accomplishments. The domestic affaires section writing was just a bit less interesting; it lacked a certain spark that a good political book has. Given these two slightly different styles I would assume that the authors spilt up the duties and one wrote the domestic section, the other the foreign affaires section. One could also draw an interesting parallel with the actual Bush administration as they did a good job on everything outside the U.S. With this said, the authors take a critical look at the Bush years and they do not give it high marks outside of the Gulf War. The book is actually quite negative toward the Bush Administration, but in line with the current historical view of his presidency.

I also found it interesting, reading the book, on how many similarities there seem to be with Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. I can only assume that as time goes on a few books with come out with a detailed analysis of the father son team to compare and contrast the two administrations. If you are interested in that kind of thing this book would give you a good look at the job the father did. Overall, I found the book for the most part far and accurate in my opinion. If you are a big fan of Bush Sr. then this book will leave you a bit upset as the authors take a very critical look. It did drag at times and was not the exciting insider's tail that tends to make for the most interesting of political administration overviews. It did offer a very good record of what took place during the administration.

Strange Foods is a fascinating investigation of foods that are unpalatable to westerners. It'd be a real treasure, but it is beset by both factual and writing errors.

One caveat: this is NOT a book for the squeamish - not only does Hopkins discuss, in great detail, the consumption of things like gorillas, insects, and endangered species, but Michael Freeman provides full-color, often full-page photos of nearly every food item in the book. If the text doesn't turn your stomach, at least a few of the pictures will.

The errors will also turn some stomachs, mostly those belonging to writers and scientists. The book is full of non-sentences and in some places seems entirely unedited; I found an average of four errors on each page, and I wasn't reading for mistakes. Hopkins' convoluted sentence construction and affinity for fragments makes for truly eye-watering reading at times. Although the factual errors were less prevalent, they were present, and in some ways they were even worse than the writing.

Also, there are areas where Hopkins carefully skirts the issues behind his culinary experiments; he's determinedly neutral on environmental and species-preservation issues. I imagine his stances would really irritate a committed environmentalist - the section on whales, for example, might raise a few WWF eyebrows, as would the section on bush meat (primates).

Still, the book is worth a read, even for people (like me) who are unlikely ever to try any of the foods mentioned. It's always good to see how the other half lives, and eating is a huge part of that. For world travelers, too, it is handy to know beforehand what to expect; those who read this book will be fully prepared for strange dietary preferences, no matter where in the world they go. I don't consider this book useful as a reference source (because of the errors), but it is entertaining. On the whole, Strange Foods isn't worth the cover price - check it out of the library or buy it used - but it is worth the time it takes to read it.

Jerry Hopkins offers a glimpse into the wonderful world (universe really) of truly exotic foods, ranging the stinky fruit durian, which he refers to at one point as being like eating ice cream in an outhouse, to rats (not consumed often enough as far as I'm concerned) to even his son's placenta, which the author warns you to de-vein if you are to serve to party guests.
My only complaint, and it is a slight one, is that the book seems to be a little too concentrated on the cuisine and customs of Southeast Asia, which is somewhat understandable give the fact that Hopkins resides in Bangkok. However, I would have liked to seen some more information on Gamle Ole or the maggot cheese which is consumed in Sardinia, or hakarl (Greenlandic Shark).

This book is written for the travelers of life, not the tourists. I found it to be full of fascinating information on the culinary habits of other cultures.

Although "multi-culturalism" is such a buzzword in America these days, few actually mean it. They actually want everyone to behave like spoiled, "politically correct" urban dwellers. This book is a refreshing change from that numbingly dull mindset.

The author seems like someone who truly respects other cultures...even if that means eating whales, dogs and other politically incorrect critters. He is sensitive about the environment, but will put your own cultural prejudices to the test.

I would have rated it higher but the biological misinformation that popped up throughout the book could be distracting. Calling "dirt" inorganic is just sloppy writing.

But, all in all, this is a fine book. I would suggest it to travelers, food lovers, hunters, biophiliacs and anyone else looking for a walk on the wild side.

First, to be honest, I did not vote for George W. Bush. Probably like many people I viewed him as a well-meaning, under-informed and recently reformed "goofball", an underachiever in school who was handed the reins of power through pure luck and powerful connections. I was sure, with the help of his father and the elders in the Republican Party, he would surround himself with competent advisors and ultimately pursue a course of moderation and good sense in both domestic and foreign affairs. Therefore, when some of the early initiatives out of the White House seemed counter to earlier expectations (abrogation of important treaties, anti-environmental positions, unilateralist and militaristic approaches to complex world problems, a dangerous and unbalanced approach to the Middle Eastern crisis) my visceral discomfort with this man has evolved into alarm. This book by Michael Lind confirms my worst fears. It is a scholarly and objective survey of the culture from which our president arose. As Lind points out, we have had southerner presidents who were liberals and northerner presidents who were conservatives, but never since Andrew Jackson have we had a southern conservative holding the most powerful office in the land. Lind does a thorough job of analyzing the state of Texas from the demographic standpoint, pointing out that the majority of the population reside in East Texas which is intrinsically part of the deep south. These people largely originated in Scotland and Northern Ireland (Scots-Irish) and brought with them to this country a 17th and 18th century British outlook on class and empire, typified by the attitudes of a land-holding aristocracy. In an economic sense their ancestral model is Thomas Jefferson. In a chapter entitled "Southernomics" he describes how this region evolved on the plantation model of extraction of raw materials (oil, cotton, minerals, etc) and the exploitation first of slaves and more recently of low wage and undereducated menial workers (modern day "serfs"). This model favors "free trade" and opposes tariffs in order to maximize profit in the exportation of commodities. It places low value on preservation of natural resources while promoting their extraction and utilization. Lind contends that this model has shaped our 43rd president's thinking about economics. He contrasts an "old boy network" style of management and connections peculiar to the deep South with the traditional culture that shaped most of the rest of the country, one that is based on an economic model of meritocracy, emphasis on the creation of ideas, the valuing of higher education as the key to economic development. Lind is careful to avoid over-generalization as he points out that Texas is a diverse state, and that these two economic models both exist in the state and are in fundamental conflict. For example, he points to many Texas leaders who typify modern liberal enlightenment attitudes, people like Lyndon Johnson, Sam Rayburn, Wright Patmon, and Ross Perot.

The most disturbing aspect of this book for me begins with a chapter entitled "That Old Time Religion" which exposes the influence of the southern Protestant fundamentalist religious culture on George W. Bush, and how this in turn has become a driving force in the almost messianic identification of this president with the right wing in Israel and Mr. Sharon. This plays into fundamentalist dispensationalist dogma about the End-times, Armageddon, and The Second Coming. It further sheds light on the peculiar alliance of these mostly southern Protestant militaristic and fundamentalist masses (who provide the electoral clout) with a powerful intellectual neoconservative elite (who provide the brains) and who now control our defense department. These people hold a radical and fundamentally new view of American foreign policy, one that promotes a doctrine of preemption and the aggressive exercise of American military power. They are tightly allied with the Zionist movement both here and in Israel.

This is a powerful and very disturbing book. Michael Lind has tried not to over-emotionalize this information but he obviously feels passionately about these issues. He has given us a well-researched and thoughtful expose' of the real forces that are driving this president. Everybody should read it!

Author Michael Lind, a 5th generation Texan, provides a dual biography of a President and the state of Texas. This is what makes it so interesting. Many authors have recently published books regarding Bush 43's personality and policies, specifically, in response to September, 2001. In this book however, Lind analyses and examines George W. Bush's policies and links them to the influential continuum of the cultural and political forces of Texas: the Deep South, Southern Protestants, and the Neo-conservative foundations that were solidified by his father's, administration. In short, what he's doing today according to Lind is not solely or even significantly as a result of September '01. Obviously as for any policy-maker, Bush 43's current policy-making in general is derived from himself, and his convictions are the result of his primary influences, past and present. Therefore the question is, what is this spectrum that influences him the most?

Texas
Lind expands more on his home-state of Texas. The state of Texas is often seen misappropriately, as culturally Western, but in fact it's clearly Southern, and Deeply Southern. This has always been apparent to those who've lived in and/or studied the South and Texas.

There are two camps in Texas: One is the "Texas modernists," of which Bush 43 is not. Lind categorizes Bush 43 as one of the "Texas traditionalists." These are proponents of militarism and an economic base focusing on commodity exports and oil exploration. This southern economic model which George W. advocates, Lind claims, will continue to push for free-trade agreements which send U.S. jobs oversees, and entice out-of-state companies to move to southern states because of lower wages.

These are but a few examples and insights Lind provides. He's not a fan of George W. but this isn't over-bearing in the book. If one wants to understand the rational and philosophy behind Bush's domestic and foreign economic, military, and diplomatic policies this book provides a wealth of information. It also explains the interests, cultural, sociological, and political forces of Texas, and its' major components. Those interested in national electoral politics such as the next Presidential election for example, can take much of this information and ask them self: who in 2004 can appeal to the southern block, which still is obviously instrumental in winning a Presidential election.

First, to be honest, I did not vote for George W. Bush. Probably like many people I viewed him as well-meaning but under-informed, an underachiever in life who was handed the reins of power through pure luck and powerful connections. I was sure, with the help of his father and the elders in the Republican Party, he would surround himself with competent advisors and ultimately pursue a course of moderation and good sense in both domestic and foreign affairs. Therefore, when some of the early initiatives out of the White House seemed counter to earlier expectations (abrogation of important treaties, anti-environmental positions, unilateralist and militaristic approaches to complex world problems, a dangerous and unbalanced approach to the Middle Eastern crisis) my visceral discomfort with this man has evolved into alarm. This book by Michael Lind confirms my worst fears. It is a scholarly and objective survey of the culture from which our president arose. As Lind points out, we have had southerner presidents who were liberals and northerner presidents who were conservatives, but never since Andrew Jackson have we had a southern conservative holding the most powerful office in the land. Lind does a thorough job of analyzing the state of Texas from the demographic standpoint, pointing out that the majority of the population reside in East Texas which is intrinsically part of the deep south. These people largely originated in Scotland and Northern Ireland (Scots-Irish) and brought with them to this country a 17th and 18th century British outlook on class and empire, typified by the attitudes of a land-holding aristocracy. In an economic sense their ancestral model is Thomas Jefferson. In a chapter entitled "Southernomics" he describes how this region evolved on the plantation model of extraction of raw materials (oil, cotton, minerals, etc) and the exploitation first of slaves and more recently of low wage and undereducated menial workers (modern day "serfs"). This model favors "free trade" and opposes tariffs in order to maximize profit in the exportation of commodities. It places low value on preservation of natural resources while promoting their extraction and utilization. Lind contends that this model has shaped our 43rd president's thinking about economics. He contrasts an "old boy network" style of management and connections peculiar to the deep South with the traditional culture that shaped most of the rest of the country, one that is based on an economic model of meritocracy, emphasis on the creation of ideas, the valuing of higher education as the key to economic development. Lind is careful to avoid over-generalization as he points out that Texas is a diverse state, and that these two economic models both exist in the state and are in fundamental conflict. For example, he points to many Texas leaders who typify modern liberal enlightenment attitudes, people like Lyndon Johnson, Sam Rayburn, Wright Patman, and Ross Perot.

The most disturbing aspect of this book for me begins with a chapter entitled "That Old Time Religion" which exposes the influence of the southern Protestant fundamentalist religious culture on George W. Bush, and how this in turn has become a driving force in the almost messianic identification of this president with the right wing in Israel and Mr. Sharon. This plays into fundamentalist dispensationalist dogma about the End-times, Armageddon, and The Second Coming. It further sheds light on the peculiar alliance of these mostly southern Protestant militaristic and fundamentalist masses (who provide the electoral clout) with a powerful intellectual neoconservative elite (who provide the brains) and who now control our defense department. These people hold a radical and fundamentally new view of American foreign policy, one that promotes a doctrine of preemption and the aggressive exercise of American military power. They are tightly allied with the Zionist movement both here and in Israel.

This is a powerful and very disturbing book. Michael Lind has tried not to over-emotionalize this information but he obviously feels passionately about these issues. He has given us a well-researched and thoughtful expose' of the real forces that are driving this president. Everybody should read it!

Simplistic and without real scholarship, one wonders why this is the book that people chose for any kind of language enhancment of the joys of that most subtle and lovely of langauges.

"America ganef!" my Grandma would exclaim upon encountering a pleasant surprise. (See JOY page 115.) That's my reaction seeing this old friend renewed, broader, more current and more liberal in its Jewish scope, and more lively and attractive because of the illustrations and layout. Yet it is still the warm, friendly, funny book I remember from nearly 30 years ago.

Somehow the New Joys of Yiddish has more meaning for me now that nearly all those family members I remember using Yiddish often - some relying on it almost entirely, others just when they used a forceful, colorful, close-to-the heart expression (which was very often) - are gone. The book evokes memories of those good people to whom we owe so much - if only for having had the wisdom to select this country for us and our children.

The book is like a warm and witty friend whose conversation brightens your home and is rarely pedantic. (At a couple of places, such as his seven page exposition on the messiah, he does go on too long.)

Two types of people will find this book enjoyable: those who read the original edition and those who didn't.

So to the Rosten family and Larry Bush - mazal tov!