This book is quite literally an "introduction," in the sense of discussing the environment and the deficiencies of neoclassical economics as if the reader had not a clue that multinational corporations (and the powerful governments that aid them) are destroying the capacity of the biosphere to support life, including human life. The text is simple and easy to understand since the writing is at the level of that of the World Book Encyclopedia, with some of the same excessive optimism and a general failure to examine the effects of the law of compound interest and other increasing exponential functions in any mathematically useful way. The bibliography at the back of the book goes on for several pages, but cites dozens and dozens of titles by the same five people who group-authored this book. The citations in the text are usually to entire books, and not to specific passages (except in the case of periodical ariticles), making specific assertions difficult to verify. Obviously intended as a freshman or sophomore college text, it is overpriced and underuseful.

Far more helpful than this vacuous tome is the Worldwatch Institute series "State of the World," issued every year on selected topics edited by Lester R. Brown, with a variety of individually written well-footnoted articles, each on a specific aspect of development and its effects on the environment and people all over the earth. These volumes will remain useful for years to come, and you can get three of the latest books in the series for less than the cost of "An Introduction to Ecological Economics," which you won't want to keep after reading anyway.

Ecological economics is concerned with extending and integrating the study and management of "nature's household" (ecology) and "humankind's household" (economics). Resistance to this new perspective may come from academia as well as industry and governments. On page 10: "Today's market price to polluters for using atmospheric sink capacity for carbon dioxide disposal is zero, although the real opportunity cost may turn out to be astronomical. Economists are almost unanimous in persisting in externalizing the costs of CO2 emissions, even though by 1993 more than 180 nations had signed a treaty to internalize such costs." It would be difficult to praise this book too highly.

If you're sitting in an airport or on the beach and need a distraction, go ahead and buy this book. But it really is a waste of time. The characters are flat, the plot is far less than thrilling and even the word craft is less than expected from this author (hey - does the President's 11-year-old daughter have to repeatedly 'flounce' out of the room?) Much like Tom Clancy has opted to put his name on second-rate books that he didn't write, Edge Of Honor seems to be a book that was quickly slapped together, relying on character development originated in previous novels.

This is a waste of time & money.

The latest book is fast paced but disappointing. A number of the more fleshed out and interesting characters from earlier books are killed. The second most interesting and decisive military leader of prior tomes has become almost cardboard and comical in his stupidity. Maddy, the president, has lost her edge. Herman's earlier books were more realistic, this one leaves you not caring if the left wing/right wing romance blossoms further, the kids survive boarding school, or the presidency is further shamed by idiot advisors. On the bright side -Maddy's feminism is perfect - parroting the claptrap that comes right out of Hollywood movies and network TV. The military, a subject Herman knows well, is well represented in prior books, but is too phoney at times. Regarding the White House machinations - bring back the guillotine. Herman does keep you wondering what stereotype will next pop up and meet a well-deserved end. In spite of the negatives, this book is difficult to put down and isn't a total stinker. You just wish the REAListic people hadn't been killed off. And there are enough patently and smarmy loose ends by the last chapter, you can almost hear the screams of the publisher "sequel coming".

This is one of the best political thrillers I've read in a long time. I just wish Maddy Turner could really run for President! Herman does a great job weaving the plot together. My only wish would be for a stronger finish.

I found this one hard going. This is your basic find a lot of oil, oops it's in Cuba, better knock off Castro plot. While character motivation was believable, the characters themselves seemed shapeless. I just could not see a female CEO acting in such a ruthless manner while at same time caring for her employees. AFter a while I just closed my eyes and had a good snooze.

Lt.Col. Mike Stuart is a desk-jockey tediously toiling in his office until he notices an unusual pattern of oil tanker movements flickering across his monitor.

An ordinary man in his ordinary life, Mike Stuart does what he's told & informs his superiors of his findings. Nothing comes of it until, seemingly randomly, he becomes accident-prone. It's only when his ex-wife & her lover are killed while driving his car that it dawns on him he just might have been the target.

I felt the author really understood the subject & found myself not only enjoying, but wanting to participate in the flying scenes. I like the imperfections of his characters & the growth he allowed his characters to have as the story progressed.

When I finished the The Trojan Sea I shut the cover with a thump & said: "Yeah! A good read!" Will I hunt up a Richard Herman in the future? Absolutely! Good reads with a good pace & a good story are far & few between. This one leaves your satisfaction quotient on high, when all is read & done!

Lt.Mike Stuart is a very real,and great character. He is faced with a tough boss, and a seemingly inexplicable puzzle which threatens first his career, and later his life. He triumphs by showing his true courage and strength of spirit. His love interest is a very real person, and is not the usual 'perfect woman'. Oil politics, Cuban politics, and Washington politics add up to a really good read.

I may be the one guy out there that does not like his books. What makes me mad is that I have heard so much good press I was excited about this book. The story sounded like it would be full of interesting stories and the duel plot was new, but it really did not rise to the occasion. I found the writing wooden and he just does not hold my attention. It takes a lot of time (or it seams that way) to get through this book. I do not know what slowed me down more; the disjointed writing or the two plots that seamed to just be thrown together. I did not believe the characters; they just were not well developed. I only made it about half way into the book. This book seams rushed, almost like the author did not want to take the time to really develop either the story or the characters. Because of the light development it does not hold your attention.

This book had a good theme, but Herman did not play on this...this book was slow and full of more inside lingo than the last ones. i was very disappointed!

Not his best,but don't pass it. Plenty of action & story line!

This book is a complete waste. The central thesis is a
joke. The South spilled a lot of blood trying to save their
new nation and to say they lacked nationalism is bad. There was
problems with State's Rights issues among the various Governors
of the States (esp. Georgia, N. Carolina) but among the soldiers
it wasn't that bad.

The author's continued comparison of the South's
military tactic's to those of German and French General's
who served under Napolean is just annoying since the books
written by these Generals were either not yet published in
English or published at all and I doubt that many confederates
spent much time reading them the works in French or German.

This book is just another reason why many people think
history is boring. If you want a good read, pick up a Civil
War book by James McPherson, Shelby Foote, Douglas Southall
Freeman, or Bruce Catton.

The thesis of this book is that the South lost the War because of insufficient nationalism. To call this argument preposterous is to be kind. Out of a white population of nine million the South lost a quarter of a million dead and many times that number in wounded. The South kept fighting until every Southern city was controlled by the Union. A small agrarian nation, the South fought a large, industrialized nascent world power. Unbelievably the South came close to winning this unequal contest. To contend that the South failed because of lack of will is ahistoric and a contemptible insult to the brave rebels who fell under the stars and bars. A better judge of Southern will during that war was General Grant who, while attacking the Southern cause, admitted that never had men fought harder for a cause than the Southerners.

Every time I look at this book I cringe. These "scholars" simply ignore the battles themselves. The battles deteriorated southern will, not the other way around!! This book is horrible and I am cringing as I write.