this volume does indeed provide an excellent source for those new to the landscape of restoration drama. that said, the drama of the restoration period itself can be fairly tedious in subject matter; anything beyond the material presented here could be considered excessive for even the boldest reader. however, this is as fine a volume as any - i'd imagine - to sum up the period. aside from some notable absences (dryden's "amphitryon", behn's "oroonoko"), the everyman collection may give all you ever wanted to see of the time.

Fans of Robert Frost's poetry will appreciate the insight into his life at the Derry Farm in New Hampshire. Lawrence Thompson provides his readers with the details of Frost's daily life which so influenced his poetry. Through Thompson's careful chronicling of Frost's activites, we see the poet as husband, father, neighbor, friend, and farmer. Frost's struggles and triumphs at the Derry Farm shaped all the poetry that followed this time in his life. In this book, Lawrence Thompson does justice to this great poet.

"Whose Right to Bear Arms Did the Second Amendment Protect?" edited by Saul Cornell and Robert E. Shalhope is a collection of essays and journal articles debating the interpretations of the Second Amendment by top notch historians on the subject. The book encourage debate and therefore has a well balanced assortment of articles covering the full spectrum of debate concerning the Second Amendment.

Books from the "Historians at Work Series" are designed to encourage debate and deeper thinking on a particular historiographic issue in American history. Books from the "Historians at Work Series" are designed for upper-level undergraduate and graduate level American history courses. This being said, its not an introductory text. The authors of the articles go directly into their subjects, with little significant background information. Therefore, you need to have an historical base-level to work from. Nonetheless, it is an excellent tool for students, scholars and general readers of American history.

Editions in the "Historians at Work" publish the entire article or essay, introduce the author and most importantly: it includes all endnotes--a rarity for books that are collections of articles/essays on a related topic.

Overall, an excellent representation on early American historical scholarship.

ADDED NOTE: The final chapter in this book, writen by Michael Bellesiles and his book were later found to be full of misrepresentation and misconduct in research. He has since lost his award and has resigned from his position @ Emory University.

Have you ever wondered how to pronounce all those French (Italian, German, etc.) wines? Out of interest, I have read several complete texts on wines, but have never confident my expertise was evident because I stumbled over the more difficult pronounciations. This audio cassette set has helped a great deal. You will especially enjoy the vast knowledge of Robert Balzer (who must live & breathe wines!) Highly recommended!

I'm giving this book three stars because it is very good at one thing, even though it is bad at most everything else. Intended as a primer for a civil libertarian view of certain troubling legal trends, The Tyranny of Good Intentions fails on that level because it wears its bias on its sleeve in some staggeringly conclusory statements (for instance, blaming publicity-hungry feds for genocidal butchery against David Koresh) while failing to back them up. No one who reads it and is not already convinced of the book's thesis could be converted by this supposed entry-level book.

And for those already committed to the cause espoused by the authors, this book contains little in the way of useful reasoning. Its avowed purpose is to contrast Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian version of law, which it states is in force today, with Blackstone's absolutist version of civil liberties -- but instead of defeating Bentham's arguments, the authors call him names and say Blackstone's version of law is more traditional (i.e., older). There are good arguments to be made against weighing peoples' civil rights against a general societal benefit. For instance, whenever it's done and individual rights are made to yield to the public good, it seems that the public doesn't benefit. But the authors do not discuss the contrast they claim they are making between absolute rights and utilitarianism; they just say utilitarianism loses, make fun of it, and move on.

Considering the two levels on which The Tyranny of Good Intentions is supposed to work are two on which it fails utterly, I find myself surprised to be giving in three stars. But there is a level on which it is extremely useful. The authors' research for emotional arguments to replace the logical ones they do not make has revealed a large number of concrete examples of injustice done to real, named people under the present system of proescutorial overenthusiasm. While these are reported in the conclusory style I so deplore, they are useful beginnings to my own researches, and they make for splendid talking points.

There are people out there to whom the potential for abuse of governmental power is purely theoretical because they have never heard of anyone who actually suffered. Properly used, the examples in this book can raise awareness that not only can government get out of hand, but it has. No one who learns of the Depression-scarred doctor who kept cash in his shoeboxes, and had it seized when he tried to give it to charity, will look at drug forfeiture the same way again. No one who hears of the pizza restaurant forced to clean toxic waste out of a landfill because some of its boxes were found in it will be an unequivocal supporter of the Superfund.

For all its many faults, The Tyranny of Good Intentions will raise the level of skepticism about government power, and for this alone it is worth the three stars I give it. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and this book is an inspiration to pay this price.

This rather unassuming book is one of great import. When the same book is endorsed by Milton Friedman and Alan Dershowitz on the same page, it is one not to be taken lightly.

The book started off with the cornerstone pieces of the Anglo-Saxon law - mens rea (criminal intent), non-retroactiveness of new laws, presumption of innocence until proven guilty, sanctity of attorney-client privilege, property rights, and went on to cite laws and legal cases, some of the very high-profile, that helped chip away the these cornerstone pieces and made the law no longer a guarantor of constitutional rights. This dangerous practice of eroding the "Right of the Englishman" is, according to the authors, a result of well-intended, but poorly thought-out legislation and over zealous government prosecutors, who were driven by political ambition, pressure of revenue and even personal enrichment.

It is frightening development. It is hard to believe that this country has allowed its cherished legal system to deteriorate to one that, in essence, is no different than that of a police state - one that prosecutors could at will use the full force of the government to break any individual, sometimes by threats, lies and confiscations. Most people will dismiss this notion as alarmist, until they read what this book has explained and chronicled. After 9/11, the Ashcroft regime seeks to greatly enlarge federal powers to fight terrorism, but that inevitably be at the expense of our cherished civil liberty. We should all be vigilant about what is being done. History has taught us that some really bad things that are done with good intentions are very, very hard to undo.

Reading this book forces me to revise my opinion on those who had been vilified by the prosecutors and the media, like Charles Keating, Jr. Leona Hemsley and Michael Milken; as well it dims the much-heralded Rudolph Giuliani legacy. It also reconfirms that damages done by FDR's New Deal - the emergence of the administrative state, and his Court-packing initiative, not to speak of the unleashing of the welfare state.

The presentation of the book, unfortunately, seems to lack clarity and force, and the organization is somewhat loose. There are anecdotes abound, but they are not backed by statistics, and the reader has no idea if the outrageous prosecutorial excesses are 10% of the cases, 1%, or less. The book is otherwise very readable. I will recommend this book if only for the seriousness of the subject matter.

Excerpts from a book review by Nikos A. Leverenz in The Independent Review (Fall 2001)

The Tyranny of Good Intentions should make those who participate in our political and legal systems uncomfortable, if not self-loathing. Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M Stratton's principal argument is that what passes for "law" in the current civil climate is far removed from the "long struggle to establish the people's sovereignity" that dates back to pre-Norman England. Simply put, the law has been transformed from a shield that protects the people from the encroachments of government power into a sword that enables the government to lord over people. Those who are weary of the ongoing government assault on Microsoft and the tobacco industry or of the continued evisceration of civil liberties under the tutelary banner of the drug war should immediately recognize this transformation.

The Tyranny of Good Intentions highlights two broad areas in which the content and enforcement of the law now serve as a sword against what is loosely termed "the Rights of Englishmen": namely, "prohibitions against crimes without intent, retroactive law, and self-incrimination." First, the authors consider how government prosecutors, manifesting a win-at-all-costs mentality, sacrifice the quest for truth in order to advance their careers. Second, the adbication of legislative power to administrative agencies has eroded the Anglo-Saxon legal maxim "a delegated power cannot itself be delegated."

Those who are actively engaged in policymaking and law enforcement would do well to read The Tyranny of Good Intentions, even if it gives them only momentary pause in their assorted "public interest" crusades to leave hoof prints on the people's constitutional liberties.

...The part that I found interesting that I didn't get in the other books was the Story of E.O.Lawerence. In most of the other books I have read on the subject you just hear about Lawerence as the great man and hear about his Calutrons at Oak Ridge. This book told more of his story and the type of person he was.

Although that was interesting to me over all I found this book lacking in a lot of areas. One was the fact that he didn't talk more about the tests at Livermore and Los Alamos. It seemed to be several stories that where not tied together well because it would jump from espionage to bomb building to jealousy between the three.

I believe the book talked about the problems but not really the reasons. If Lawrence and Oppenheimer were such good friends at first why did Lawrence band his brother Frank from Berkley because he told a lie it just didn't seem to make sense and I thought there should have been more of an explanation.

The book played Teller off in a more kinder light than I have seen in other books. It also seem to show that Oppenheimer was not an agent but someone who thought that nuclear energy had to be controlled and band because he thought the general public couldn't handle it. This showed especially when it talks about him crumpling the model of Rickover's sub.

Another thing with this book is that you should keep a dictionary with you while reading this book unless you know the meaning of words like antithetical, proselytize and anathema. I don't mind this because I like to increase my vocabulary I just thought you should know.

The book, to use one of the author's favorite words is an imbroglio, a confused mass.

I got out of it what I wanted that some of the other books on the subject did not have. If you want to know about Lawerence this one tells more than other books. It was interesting to find out that all the people who died from cancer from the Rad lab because they didn't know about raditation early on.

Gregg Herken's BROTHERHOOD OF THE BOMB is subtitled: "The
Tangled Lives And Loyalties Of Robert Oppenheimer, Ernest
Lawrence, And Edward Teller". This statement implies that
this book is something of a three-way biography of three
important nuclear scientists, but it actually has a broader
focus, discussing not merely the lives of these three men but
traces through the story of the US nuclear weapons program in
World War II; the American Communist Party; the Red spy
network in the US; McCarthyism and the Red witch hunts of the
Cold War; and the rise of the nuclear arms race.

In a sense, this relatively broad focus makes this book, if
not exactly frustrating because it's an okay read, at
least a little unsatisfying, since it gives enough of these
stories to be intriguing but not enough to give a clear
picture -- while distracting enough from the story of Lawrence,
Oppenheimer, and Teller so that they never seem to really
come alive.

This is a pity, since at least Oppenheimer and Teller are
fascinating individuals -- Oppenheimer was brilliant and
arrogant, impatient with lesser intellects, but still
much admired; and Teller is brilliant as well, with the odd
unintentional humor of the single-minded. (In an interview
a few years ago he told the reporter up front: "If you
mention Strangelove ONE TIME, I will THROW YOU OUT!")

In the end I get the feeling like I would have been happier
with something with much more scope, detail, and length;
or, with the scope it has, less detail and length. The
story of Oppenheimer's political persecution is laid out
blow-by-blow, but for myself I think a more concise
description would have let me see the forest for the trees
much better.

I must admit that the description of AEC Chairman Lewis
Strauss, who orchestrated the charge on Oppenheimer, was
vivid enough to be creepy, since Strauss was the sort of
fellow whose faith in his own convictions so strong that
he could burn any number of witches at the stake without
a second thought. It's good to be reminded that there are
people like that out there!

OK, I don't want to go too far. This isn't a bad book.
It's well-researched and provides worthwhile information.
There are fascinating bits in it, for example how
Oppenheimer was not merely given a clean bill of health
by the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, but even
praised as something of a national hero by the prominent
HUAC member, Congressman Richard M. Nixon of California.
(There always was a "Good Dick Nixon" and a "Bad Dick
Nixon".)

It just left me wanting much more -- which, I suppose, is
a good thing as well.

This book was very fascinating and fun to read. The book is very informative and interesting about the development of "the Bomb", and beyond. The book goes into vast detail about Ernest Lawrence, Robert Oppenheimer, and Edward Teller; especially Ernest Lawrence. The book starts in about 1939 with Ernest's invention of the cyclotron, and ends in the early 1960's with the Limited Test-Ban treaty. Besides talking about the relationships between the three physicists, which is very interesting, the book also talks about a lot of the small people involved in the production of the first fission weapon. What I think is cool, is the information given on Robert Oppenheimer from the FBI. The book also sends a lot of time discussing Edward Teller's interest and development of the Hydrogen Bomb. Although it does give some information about the nuclear testing we have done, it would be better if the Author discussed this more. Overall, I enjoyed this book and definitely recommend it to anyone who is interested in the history and development of nuclear weapons.

I've read this guide while living here in Costa Rica and find it paints an unrealistic picture about how easy it is to start a business. Furthermore I recently found out the author has not lived in Costa Rica for years and is somewhat out of touch with what is going on.

My wife and I have lived in Escazu, Costa Rica for years. We found this "reference" guide book to have just about all the important information newcomers need when making the move. We read this book when we first moved here and continue to recommend it to friends who are thinking about moving here. We appreciate the easy-to-read reference style of this book.

I strongly disagree with John Akins review. The over 40 pages of "starting a small business" gives an excellent overview of what a newcomer needs to know to get a small or medium business started. I didn't read one sentence that conveyed a "rosy picture" It does say how to start, what you should know, business ideas, and even gives photo's and stories of people who came and started a business. It was my favorite section.

Prolific Stuart Woods is back with his 8th Stone Barrington novel, of his 24 fictional works to date. If he had accidentally called Stone "James Bond" it would have been just as believable, as Barrington sleuths in espionage and intrigue during the day, and drinks and bed hops during the night. Traveling to London via the Concorde on an unlimited expense account, much of this book seems devoted to the lifestyles of the rich (even if not famous). Two of Stone's old girlfriends dominate much of the proceedings, even Arrington Calder herself -- the running gag being that she and Stone will never marry (they came close once before) 'cause she won't go through life as Arrington Barrington!

There was quite a degree of suspense in the 300+ pages, although to me it was as much caused by "what's going on here" than the story per se. Even when it ended, ..., we weren't sure what they did or why it mattered, despite a couple of murders, almost unconnected, along the way. In fact, it was like leaving a movie you thought was pretty entertaining but you never did figure out the fundamental plot. Even Stone didn't know whom he was working for half the time. We'd no doubt fail the quiz at the end on who did what to whom. Moreover, an appearance by Stone's old police partner Dino (still on active duty, but apparently able to travel at will to bail this guy out time after time) did little to advance the story line and thus seemed somehow irrelevant.

Thinking it might be time to let Stone "die off", we note from the author's web site two more Barrington books are in the works, as well as another featuring his newer female lead, Holly Barker. Woods claims he's writing two books per year for the foreseeable future; while still fans, we would like to see a little more substance, a little less sex, and a more cohesive plot. Woods has all the skills to pull that off and more. We're just not sure they are on display that well in the Short Forever.

"The Short Forever" is the eighth book in the Stone Barrington series by Stuart Woods. I found this novel to be the most complex of the Barrington books to date. Stone is hired by a client of Woodman & Weld, the law firm for whom Stone does certain miscellaneous jobs. The client's name is John Bartholomew who wants Stone to go to London to break up the relationship of his neice, Erica Burroughs, and her boyfriend, Lance Cabot who Bartholomew says is a cocaine smuggler. He asks Stone to bring Erica back to New York with him, and make sure Lance Cabot is sent to prison. When Stone gets to London, he learns that Erica Burroughs is not Bartholomew's neice. Lance Cabot is not a cocaine smuggler. He also learns that Bartholomew isn't whom he says he is, but is in fact a CIA operative working in London. No Stone Barrington novel would be complete without Stone's bedding a beautiful woman. This time he sleeps with former flame, Sarah Buckminster, who has moved back to England. He also meets with his true love, Arrington Calder, but once again their wires get crossed and she returns to the States before anything can happen. I found "The Short Forever" fast-paced and entertaining.

Stuart Woods has been writing suspense novels for about 25 years now, and has been writing Stone Barrington stories, I would guess, for about 10. Stone is a former NYPD homicide detective who had to retire after he got shot, and turned himself into a lawyer. He works for a prestigious law firm, in a sort of non-conventional fashion, basically taking all of the work the firm's regular lawyers don't want to handle.

In this book, one of the partners sends Stone a client. The guy is apparently rich, and he wants a niece in London protected from her boyfriend, a shady character who's smuggling drugs. Stone's assignment is to go to London, and get the boyfriend arrested for something legitimate, thereby getting him out of the picture as far as the girl is concerned.

Only nothing is what it seems, of course. The guy isn't the girl's uncle, the boyfriend isn't smuggling drugs, and basically everything turns out to be a lot more dangerous than Stone had planned. Of course the romantic entanglements get a bit complicated, and of course Stone has various problems with the local constabulary (who think he killed an ex-cop), and of course there are various spies and other individuals tripping through the story all over the place.

This is the most complicated novel Stuart Woods has ever written, I think. It shows. There are several plot threads that aren't taken to any conclusion at the climax of the book, and the conclusion, while generally satisfying, is a bit mundane and unsuspenseful. There are several interesting characters you want to see again (including a British girl spy named Carpenter), but there are also developments in Stone's life (Arrington's back, and his girlfriend left him).

This is, to be frank, an average Stuart Woods novel...not as suspenseful as some, but more complex than most. I would recommend it.

Basically, this book is intended to push a Politically Correct point of view. It does so relentlessly, to the point that the so-called "plot" (I am charitably assuming that there is one) is submerged between various "PC" diatribes. Essentially, Truscott is out to trash anyone who opposes gays in the military, women in the front lines of infantry units, etc. Everyone who holds traditional or conservative views as regards the foregoing is a mindless ogre, and that is what the book is about.

Essentially, the book is dishonest. The real Army is nothing like the way Truscott portrays it, and Truscott knows it. I didn't attend West Point, but we may safely assume that Truscott's portrayal of West Point is equally dishonest.

Don't get me wrong. I could have handled the "PC" point of view of the author if there were an interesting story buried in here. There is not. Truscott has no time to tell a story about anything. He is only interested in pushing his Leftist politics at you.

Truscott's book "Dress Grey" to which this is a sequel was a decent if not brilliant read. All of Truscott's books since then are ghastly and militant diatribes pushing Truscott's PC agenda at the expense of plot, realism, or truth. Avoid this novel and this author.

I bought this book while stationed in Korea. I enjoyed reading "Dress Gray" while I was a cadet and I was excited to see that Truscott had written a sequel. I read the entire book, but ended up being so disappointed that I took it back to the bookstore and got my money back. I am tired of books that insinuate that women at a mostly male school equals a scandal. See also, "A General's Daughter." Hey guess what--I was a female cadet in my opinion and West Point isn't some mysterious old boy network where crimes get shoved under the rug--it goes completely against the principles that the academy stands for.

Don't waste your time on this one!

As soon as he was introduced, I recognized the arch villain in this novel. How? Truscott describes him as 'conservative,' talking about 'valor' and 'honor' and 'the warrior culture.' A Southerner, he once drove a car with a Confederate Battle Flag license plate and, horror upon horrors, had relatives who attended VMI and even ... The Citadel!

In Lucian Truscott's world, women are heroic and men are weak and flawed (except our hero Ry Slaight and, interestingly, non-combat arms Army types like pathologists and lawyers). Men who oppose political correctness or question placing women in combat are, ipso facto, sexist/racist/homophobic hypocrites, and probably rapists and murderers too. No doubt it makes life easier to see things this way, but it doesn't leave room for a well-crafted novel. (For example, feel free to skip over Chapter 21 entirely. It's an anti-Republican screed that adds almost nothing to the storyline.)

Truscott's background and experience allow him to create a vivid atmospheric portrait of the West Point setting. But the statues on the Plain are more three-dimensional than the characters in this novel. For a responsible (non-fiction) balance to Truscott's political agenda, I recommend 'The Kinder, Gentler Military' by Stephanie Gutmann (Scribner, 2000).