In "A Good Round," Paul Zingg introduces us to Scotland, its favorite game, golf, and play of some of its splendidly varied courses. He and I share experience of St. Andrews, Old and New Courses, Muirfield, and North Berwick--West Course. His accounts of the two Open Championship links ring true, but I appreciated especially much his treatment of Berwick, one of my five favorites anywhere, because it's old, unusual, even idiosyncratic, challenging, and fun. His account of Cruden Bay, including its physical and historic setting, proved equally appealing, especially when combined in one chapter with Carnoustie, the 1999 Open venue. Throughout the book, Zingg discusses the golf course architects who laid out in good Scots' fashion the courses described. He also lays down powerful strokes in support of golf's heritage and traditions, including the virtues of walking while playing. This made me cheer. Sadly, he also indicates at several points that we golfers are losing many of the old ways and standards, suffering changes that truly diminish the nature and quality of our sporting endeavor. His last chapter, which carries the masterful Ben Hogan from victory at Carnoustie to victory at Pennsylvania's Merion, Zingg's own membership course, applies a masterful stroke in bringing together a great champion and two great courses, one on each side of the Atlantic. As Zingg acknowledges, "A Good Round" was inspired partly by Michael Murphy's classic "Golf in the Kingdom." This proved a perfect vision to emulate, convincing me that Murphy's golf idyllic deserved another reading too.

I came upon this book while searching for soemthing to read for the period at school. I found my slef entranced in teh book and checked it and finsihed it that nite. This is truly a great book which opened my eyes up to a side of war I never really thought about. Pst war after all is said and doen the different thigns which men go through. I reccomend this book for anyone Intrested in the grunt life of a Marine in Vietnam and also the psychological effects of The Vietnam War. Excuse my typing. Mike Norman Thank You for writing a great book. Tim

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.

I realize that Morand is considered one of the most brilliant French writers during the high modern period, but this is really pretty thin stuff. I don't know if Gide will ever be taken so seriously again (as he was a couple of decades ago), but his reputation will come to no harm when read alongside Morand. Oh well, there's still some Genet I haven't looked at yet

Other reviewers have accurately described this: it's a relatively slight, though densely written, series of vignettes, each dedicated to a different idealized woman. It's tough, however, from the English translation to tell how much of this is the work of Morand. Ezra Pound took incredible liberties with his translation, sometimes to quite interesting and idiosyncratic effects, and Proust's introduction is a valuable essay on its own. This isn't the sort of book that will keep you wildly captivated; but it is an excellent piece for any library.

the brief stories in this work, translated by ezra pound, are lovely and tender descriptions of individuals and nights of activities. i'm not sure if it's morand's work, or pound's translation, but they are exquisitely beautiful.

I was attracted to this book by its provacative title. Unfortunately it reads like a book by an English professor which, in fact, it is. It is also an attempt to analyze the nature of moral, as oppossed to natural, evil. Personally, I found it tedious and pedantic.

For a better grasp of the origin and expression of moral evil I would recommend a little book of less than a hundred pages called _Blue Rose_ by Peter Straub (ISBN 0-14-600107-9, Penguin 60s, 1995). William March's classic _The Bad Seed_ (0-88001-540-3, 1954) is also illuminating in this area. Be advised that the movie based on this book changed the ending to appeal to a wider audience. Books by Bret Easton Ellis will help one to see the world through the eyes of a psychopath -- the psychopath being a fashionable model of evil incarnate. _The Silence of the Lambs_ by Thomas Harris is also to be recommended. Other sources of insight into the origin and experience of moral evil include works by and about Adolf Hitler.

I'm sorry I can't recomment Mr.Oppenheimer's book...it had such a great title!

To begin with, I'd like to say I for one am not an English professor, although I see nothing inherently bad (or in fact evil) in being one. The previous reviewer unfortunately mistook Oppenheimer's blatant genius for tedious pedantry (two words I'm sure he learnt from some professor to whom these terms applied much more closely than to the author at hand), which is a shame because it shows he must've read the book with something else on his (or her?) mind - supper on the stove, an unsolved mystery in his neighbor's life, or ....??? Oppenheimer's book for those who have read it (and I know quite a few, since I keep recommending it and sharing it with people) is a revelatory experience which provides a deep insight not only into the author's intellectual and linguistic abilities (which are both exceedingly stunning to say the least) but also into the nature of (yes, moral) evil. In expounding his theories, the author draws on a mind-boggling array of cinematographic, literary and political sources, which make the book one of the two most convincing books I have ever read. It is written in quite an entertaining style and is a great read even for those who may not be quite so familiar with academic discourse about evil (although it might be better if you first removed the supper from your stove). So, forget other books on evil. If you're only going to read one book this year (or next), get this one. It's worth it!

This book tries, and for that alone, I'll give it an extra star. The author obviously has the best of intentions, but unfortunately, the effort doesn't translate into a novel that's readable. The characters are not recognizable human beings- they make June Cleaver seem like a complex, multi-faceted character. What's worse, there's no real theology that goes any deeper than, "God is good, you should worship Him." That's great, but when I read a book like this, I'm hoping to gain some new insight about both myself and my relationship to God. At the very least, I'm looking for a good story. There's none of that to be found here. Anyone looking for a novel about the Endtimes that succeeds where Meier's novel fails should check out We All Fall Down, by Brian Caldwell. It's insightful, enthraling, and will stick with you for months. Meier tries hard in this series, and doubtlessly has the best of intentions, but in all four of these books, his good intentions simply pave the way to a literary hell.

This is not a great book but I've got to give Paul Meier A LOT of credit for the attempt. I read just about every novel on biblical prophecy that comes out, and this is the only one I know of that takes that little bit of prophecy that exists about the time of the Millennial Kingdom of Christ and expands it into a full novel. So even though, like I said, it's not a great book, I recommend it. As for the period leading up to the Millennial Kingdom, I recommend THE CHRIST CLONE TRILOGY by James BeauSeigneur.

This book, I think, is excellent! To my knowledge, there is no other piece of Christian fiction that deals with the events taking place at the end of the Millennial Reign. Most authors, when writing in the field of Revelation, stop at Armageddon and the Second Coming. Paul Meier and Robert Wise, now my two favorite authors, are giving us a peek at what it might be like. Simply, it is, I suppose, just a cool book. Worshippers of the ancient "omnipotent" god Marduk tap into demonic power, an invasion of Jerusalem is planned, and at the end, Satan and his fallen angels are cast into the Abyss! "The Fourth Millennium" is a must-read!

Although some of the philosophical writings are a bit dense, this is a worthy book for anyone fascinated by Czech society and literature, and by the pre-1989 samizdat era. The content is uneven, but it is a great insight into what these writers were doing before they were free to write. Don't go looking for a Prague-centric collection, though -- it is all over the map.

It isn't often that I here a fact or a story about Paul Molitor that I don't already know. He was my hero when I first saw him play on my 7th birthday, and as I graduate with a Master's degree 20 years later, he is still every bit the hero I remember. That is why it was such a nice surprise to find several tidbits brought to light by Broomer that I had never been aware of. There is no question that Molitor is the last of a dying breed of players who play the game the way it is meant to be played, and a review of his career from American Legion to his World Series MVP performance would be interesting for any baseball fan. Broomer's writing however, lacks imagination. The text of the book reads like a laundry list of where Molitor played ball during his life, and is all too briefly interupted by short quotes from the people who knew Molitor at various times during his life. I believer Broomer expended very little energy writing this book. However, any baseball fan would be excited to review the evidence of Molly's dedication to baseball, and his class on and off of the field. For the true Molitor fan, there are several outstanding photos of Molitor in his Golden Gophers uniform and throughout his professional career.

I'm all in favour of re-interpreting Catholicism, but Wilkes' presentation is stultifying and tired. He obviously thinks he's offering radical new insights, but I much prefer the treatment of these subjects by Catholics like Andrew Greeley who appeal, not only to sentiment, but to theology and church history as well. Having enjoyed "And They Shall Be Your People," his profile of a rabbi and his congregation, I know Wilkes can do better.

In this book, he focuses on individual Catholics' experiences (including his own), rather than on formal theologies, with highly unprofessional results. Wilkes' own experiences and beliefs slant the book immensely, and the quotations almost all support his own opinions of what Catholicism should be. Those opinions are rarely supported, and there is little opportunity to hear dissenting voices.

Wilkes' conclusion -- rather dully reiterated in each chapter -- seems to be that almost anything is "good enough," as long as the individual's conscience isn't troubled. I have a hard time believing that any religion -- particularly one with a solid core of religious *law* -- can be distilled to that essence.

Wilkes has picked up on the necessity of guiding the perplexed, but, in this book, he has done too little guiding, and perhaps too much perplexing, shedding murkiness and confusion rather than clarity.

Paul Wilkes' "The Good Enough Catholic" is like taking the fundamental theology course in the seminary. The difference here is that Wilkes has a popular writing style that makes the theology accessible to many people. The main point Wilkes makes is that many Catholics,who want to be loyal to their church, but also find some practices and teachings troubling, are trying to find some ways to be "good enough," even though they may not understand or are able to be "perfect" in their practice. The idea of being "good enough" is that sometimes many people have to settle for something that seems less than the ideal of what one should be as a Catholic.

Wilkes treats the fundamental topic in Catholic theology, scriptures, church, sacraments, marriage, priesthood, the papacy, etc. by attempting to find ground somewhere between the extreme positions of absolute loyalty and an attitude of skepticism. He finds much in the Catholic tradition that speaks well of being Catholic. He refers to the moral teachings of the church as the most comprehensive and systemitized than any other religion. He also demonstrates that throughout the church's history there have been different emphases and nuances in how and what the church has taught.

Wilkes' book is positive and honest. He includes quotations from lay people and clergy throughout using opinions that spread the gamut of Catholic thought. He summarizes very clearly some complicated history. He presents some failures of the church along side great successes, showing how the institution of the church can be guided by the Holy Spirit as well as be mislead by the popular culture of the time.

I believe this book to be balanced in its approach. It can be applied easily to RCIA programs as well as other adult education in the church.

As a history teacher and life long Catholic by choice, I approached this book with trepidation. Too many books by Americans rebel against the Church and use the "Cafeteria" method. Wilkes is a devout Catholic by choice. He knows the history of the church and more than just the history, the reasons why. It is a guide for to any thoughtful Catholic wondering about dealing with our modern world, its problems and keeping their faith. I believe it could easily be used as the basis for an adult study class in most parishes in America. Pat Gibson St. Martin de Porres Parish Dripping Springs, Texas

I have to agree 100% with the previous reviewer. I found this authors intent to be deceitful.. the weakest arguments from the opposing viewpoints are stated and then refuted. It is common sense that if you want your argument to be taken seriously you should always attack your opponents strongest points. On this the author fails. The author has also failed to show where objective morals come from?? Do we have an authenticated record in Gods own writing? Failing this, all documents are men's words, and men being fallible means there are no objective morals.

It poses as a conversation between several parties with varying viewpoints about "morality" in order to come to a better understanding of morality. The various viewpoints are represented by a Christian, a moral relativist, an evolutionist, a secular humanist, and an atheist. However, the Christian author's intent is merely to show the other points of view as foolish and sets up one straw man argument after another in an attempt to bolster his arguments. The author hopes to show us how only objective moral principles can help us wade through the really tough moral issues of our time. He assumes we all share these objective morals; indeed, he assumes they are universal in all cultures, a fatal flaw in his argument that could be skewered by anyone who's taken a college level sociology class.

He refuses to give his "opposing viewpoint" characters the intelligence to ask the demanding questions needed to really explore this topic; because he doesn't really care to explore it, he just wants to impose his view on others. His attempt to justify his "my moral view is right because I got it directly from god and you didn't" attitude falls completely flat on anyone not already buried in theistic dogma. If you want to read what humanists really think, read Free Inquiry; if you want to know what atheists really think, go to the American Atheists website; if you want to know what an evolutionist thinks, read Dawkins. This book isn't worth the time.

This work is philosophically naive and a bit immature in presentation. It is presented in the attractive package of fiction, somewhat like a Platonic dialogue without the art or wit. As a resource, even the sources Chamberlain cites are not very thorough, and his choices of what to refer to seem odd and haphazard at times. A student who wants to understand the issues would do better to look elsewhere. Most problematic is the fact that Chamberlain has a shockingly shallow grasp of human character, and an even weaker understanding of the positions he aims to refute.

The main problem with the book is its naivety. An author should not use fiction as a device if he does not understand people or how to write them. The characters in Chamberlain's story are childish and naive and almost never talk or act like adults. His presentation of their viewpoints is also shallow and sometimes insulting. A "graduate student in philosophy" goes through the whole book as if she had never heard of any of the ethical theories or ideas being discussed, a rather absurd notion, and so far from reality that it fails to suspend disbelief. People storm out of the audience in the middle of a debate because they "can't handle it," something that never happens in real life and looks ridiculous in fiction. In essence, since Chamberlain is pitting his Christ-like figure against such ignorant children, he cannot fail to win. But not being a fair fight, the result is not useful to the reader, who would like to understand the other characters and their views better than Chamberlain allows.

Besides this, the two central philosophical flaws in the book are first, Chamberlain dismisses subjectivism far too readily (see p. 176--a responsible study of ethics requires a serious look at the full arguments on the subjectivist side, not just Chamberlain-style characatures), and second, he rests on an argument that was destroyed by the Euthyphro dilemma defined by Plato over 2300 years ago (see pp. 182-7): what is good is good because it is in God's nature--but why then is it to be called good? Because it is God's nature, or because we can see that God's nature conforms to an external concept of goodness? This tautology gets us nowhere. Chamberlain never explains why what is in any god's nature should be called "good." What if it were in God's nature to call for the summary murder of family members who become Hindus? (and he does, cf. Deuteronomy 13:9) Would that make it good? In other words, Chamberlain never answers the question that the book aims to answer, for he only addresses the divine-command aspect of the Euthyphro dilemma, totally failing to see that the same dilemma applies to divine-nature explanations.