Although not in large print, be aware this novel was included in Rogues' Reform by Harlequin in 2000. Rogues' Reform contains three Stephanie Laurens stories (including An Unwilling Conquest) set during the English Regency. The stories feature the romances of the three Lester siblings, a sister and two brothers. The set is excellent and I would highly recommend them. They are much tamer, however, than Laurens more recent novels dealing with the Cynster family. Note: the hero in A Comfortable Wife, Lord Phillip Ruthven is introduced in Rogues' Reform.

Harlequin books has reprinted this, It is available thru reader services for a short time only.

Why is it that people are so dependent on their cars? Why have all other forms of transportation been neglected? Does this dependency on cars lead to anything damaging and if so, how can that be changed? Alvord attends to these issues in her book and she suggests that the dependency should just be abandoned.

Katie Alvord begins her book with by explaining what divorcing your car means. She compares the relationship people have with cars to marriages and divorcing a car is much like divorcing a spouse. Then, she describes how this marriage or dependency between people and cars was formed, starting from when the car was introduced into society and finishing with the conditions of the present. In the next section of the book, Alvord discusses reasons why we should divorce our cars. That is, why we should consider trying to live a car-lite or even car-free life. In the final section of her book, she goes into detail on how living a car-lite or car-free life is possible. She addresses how individuals, communities, and societies can accomplish the goal of becoming car-free.

The main argument that Alvord makes is that anyone and everyone can go car-free or at least car-lite and they should in order to improve the condition of this world. This can be done by using other modes of transportation such as walking, biking, buses, trains, or car-share programs. She suggests that people gradually move in to a car-free lifestyle by first trying a car-lite lifestyle. This consists of using the car less or as little as possible, maybe for long trips only. Alvord even states that going car-free may not be possible for some so a car-lite lifestyle is the best idea in those situations which might include people living in rural areas. Alvord backs up her car-free argument by providing multiple reasons as to why people should use cars less. They cause overcrowded streets, health problems, indirect and direct pollution, and they are very expensive.

Divorce Your Car is a very good and convincing book. It not only makes and case for abandoning cars but it explains how this can be done. Alvord addresses each issue of her car-free idea in depth. She gives the reader history, evidence, and the how to. Another very impressive aspect of the book is that it is not preachy or condescending. It simply tells you the facts and what your options are. In approaching the argument this way, I think more people will be open to the idea of attempting a car-free or car-lite lifestyle.

Katie Alvord, the author of Divorce your Car states that the intention of the this book is to demonstrate both the pressing need to drive less and the many opportunities we have to do so. The book is set up into three parts. The first part attempts to explore some of the factors that explain how we as a society have become so dependent on automobiles. The second part gives reasons why the separation from the vehicle is so important. The third part closes the book illustrating some of the possible alternatives to being so car dependent.
The first part the author described how factors such as government policy, industry practices, and mass media have turned the automobile from a "how-to" technology into a "have-to" technology. A quote from the book to sum up the trend automobiles have taken is from the British Prime Minister Herbert Asquith in 1907 when he referred to automobiles as, "a luxury which is apt to degenerate into a nuisance."
I totally agree here with how she explained how that exact thing happened. When automobiles were first introduced they were seen as the invention for freedom. They led to huge advancements in labor force and manufacturing. The huge surge in automobile interest was not encouraged just by the usefulness of it alone. At the time cars were marketed as the great escape, a tool to gain freedom. They weren't however the only form of transportation. There were non-internal combustion engines providing transportation. These forms were soon eradicated by the automobile industry. The government did also use city planning to create freeways and a car in every garage and gas burning busses replaced systems of streets and the electric railcars. These structural changes now made it easier to move around, but only if you have a car.
The second part was very predictable. It does hit on several levels though. It goes over the negative environmental aspects from all the cars driving at once. The smog and global warming issues were her main topics. Alvord then brings up several other aspects such as the oil industry and their tendency for spills, and the cost of gas to the individual driver. This choice of topics is very persuasive. Its focuses on the manufacture, the facilitating industry, drivers in general, and then drivers individually. This leaves nothing out. It hits the driver on all levels.
The third part generally goes over the positive side of divorcing your car. In a generally overweight society obsessed with dieting starting off by giving the positives of exercising more. Then the author gives an optimistic answer to several problems stating that if you can't stop using the car for good you can do it in steps.
Overall I think that the book was well written and interesting. It describes the problem from beginning to possible solution. As being without a car for the last couple of months I can see some of the benefits but I am not sold on the idea of going without for good. Unless society in general changes its just easier to own a car. The one issue not brought up was time. Driving saves time period. Traffic jams do take up time but the busses will have to go through the same jams. I have so little free time between school, work and homework that the 20 minutes or so driving saves just going back and forth to the grocery, outweighs the negative aspects for right now.

In the book, Divorce Your Car!, Katie Alvord talks about how our increased auto-dependence has led many of us to give up alternate modes of transportation. She stresses that a car is like a marriage; once you have one, you feel obligated to use it. Not only are cars useful and convenient (as in we can go almost anywhere within a shorter amount of time), they also provide psychological benefits. Cars are status symbols, and in many ways, they outwardly reflect our wealth and personalities. However, this does not mean that cars should consume our lives. In fact, a car being referred to as a marriage is not necessarily a good thing. In the US, 50% of marriages end in divorce. Marriages can go wrong for several reasons, and this is why Katie Alvord compares a car to marriage.
Driving a car can obviously be very beneficial, but at the same time, it can also be very destructive. The worst part is that cars kill thousands of people each year, many of them children. Secondly, the environment is becoming more polluted, leading to global warming. But besides the physical effects, driving can be emotionally draining as well. As more and more people use cars, traffic and congestion is becoming a huge problem. Driving can be a very frustrating experience, mainly during rush hour and when there are road constructions. If people spend too much time cooped up in a car, their frustration and anger may come out while they are driving. Therefore, these negative effects along with others, are what made Katie Alvord decide to divorce her car.
It is clear throughout the book that Katie Alvord is in favor of divorcing a car. She constantly argues that the negative effects of driving outweigh the positive effects. Divorce Your Car! is thus a guide to help people find alternate ways to get places. These alternate modes of transportation such as walking, biking, and using trains and buses, will then effectively reduce our auto-dependence. It is evident that the author put a lot of time and effort into writing this book. I really enjoyed Divorce Your Car! because I also feel that people unnecessarily use their cars at times. I have to admit that I drive to save time, even if the place I'm going to is only a 10-minute walk. But there are many reasons why I have to drive, one being that places are so far away from each other. I am willing though to change my ways and get some exercise in the process. Katie Alvord does a great job in convincing readers that "divorcing a car can be fun, healthy, money-saving, and helpful to the planet" (Alvord, back cover). I find this book to be incredibly useful and I'm sure that others will feel the same.

It is a wonderful idea to make available recordings of great speeches. I hope we have more of this in the future.
In the case of older speeches, the selection is very good, considering the restraints of time, and the readers are uniformly excellent.
As for the modern speeches, it is a marvel of technology that we can hear these speeches as delivered. It is incredible that we can hear the voice of William Jennings Bryan. I can listen to Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" a thousand times and never tire of it! How I wish I could listen to the voice of Patrick Henry! But this selection is too heavily weighted to the modern, and many of those do not deserve billing as the GREATEST speeches of ALL TIME. Also, some of the modern speeches which are included are abridged, e.g. Reagan is cut off in the middle of a sentence, while lengthy and undeserving speeches are played out in their entirety.
Also, with only a few exceptions, the selection is almost entirely American. It is hard to understand why Jimmy Carter's lengthy speech on energy policy is included, while Pericles' funeral oration is not; or why only a small portion of a single Winston Churchill speech is included; why while Bill Clinton's complete 1993 pulpit address, in excess of 20 minutes, is included.
It would be helpful if the complete list of speeches were available to online buyers, as it would be to shoppers in a brick and mortar store.

I have listened to this collection twice now, both times with pleasure. Hearing the acutal voices of Amelia Earhart, Rev. Martin Luther King, Winston Churchill and Neil Armstrong made a deeper connection than simply reading their words. The collection showcases different subjects and many times contrasts opposing viewpoints of the ideas. This volume is a fantastic introduction to the moving ideals and sometimes sad truths that have influenced Western Civilization.

If anything technology has been good for society . Before the dawn of technology we had no electricity, no computers and awfull healthcare. Typical hippie philosophy to attack thge western world and technology. If you are a hippie, commonist or other technology hating tree hugger, then you will love this book. If you have a sane mind and civilized disposition, then you will realize that this book is filled with garbage. Not Recommended.

As a true Luddite, I refuse to recognize the technology of printing and book-making. How many trees have to die before we stop printing books? Books, and this is a book make no mistake about that, have helped us to lose our cultural identities by subverting the art of storytelling.

For those puzzled by the motivations of anti-globalization protestors, this book provides insight into the beliefs that drive these movements. As is usual in discussions from within this movement, the participants in the conferences summarized by this book present an entire laundry list of things that they oppose. These contain the expected capitalism and nuclear power but also include, perhaps surprisingly for those outside of this movement other things including television, computers etc.

This extensive list of unacceptable technologies and systems confuses people who try to understand the mass protests which thereby seem unfocused an pointless. However reading this book shows that they all stem from a common root. This is a movement that is opposed to individuality. It has been created by people who find their identity in community. They see technology as Jacques Ellul saw 'technic' as creating the 'one best way' which destroys local communities and leaves the individual without a system of belief with which to structure his/her life. The long of things thy oppose from the WTO to globalization to television are all things which they see as antithetical to the community-derived beliefs which they see as the basis for any fulfilled life.

The book's subtitle is "A New Vision for the 21st Century.' The vision that these people have is not new. Indeed it is entirely conventional. They find meaning in their lives by the ability toi live within a comforting structure. In this they are very similar the 'family values' movement. Indeed the opposition that both of these movements have to television are based on the same root of damage to community. Both movements look to the community to define values. They prefer the legitimacy of traditional and shared beliefs to what they see as reckless and dangerous innovations that they fear will leave people rootless. This is most evident in the chapter 11 which discusses the role of woman and the effect of technology on that role. There is real discomfort in the description of the discussions about thuis topic with the difficulty in making feminism compatible with a belief in a strongly structured community. The participants use the jargon of feminism but as the editor points out the largest number of them support strongly defined gender roles. This is obviously incompatible with the goals of feminism which is a powerful political force and a strongly legitimizing set of beliefs for modern activists.

To see the lengths to which members of this movement can go to render these incompatible belief systems compatible, I recommend the book 'Gender' by Ivan Illich. 'Gender' is not a deep book by any means nor does it provide any significant set of facts or analysis. Rather it is interesting in the lengths that Illich goes to try to show that culturally-defined gender roles are not what they seem when the come from traditional communities. Illich tries to declare that whit is black if it comes from traditional communities and fails in a very spectacular way.

The book is a summary of the contributions to conference discussions. With this, it cannot be the lear development of any one set of ideas. It does give an overview of the points of view of many of the thinkers in the movement. However it is more of a book for sampling than fro deep study. It is a collection of extemporaneous remarks and the drifting focus of a conversation. The book 'Liquid Modernity' by Zygmund Baumann is a much better description of the ideas that technology is depriving people of structure that gives meaning. An interesting counter- by Paul Levinson argument to can be found in the book 'Soft Edge' which argues that community and technology are co-evolutionary and that any technology that is dehumanizing cannot succeed. It will hinder the community that created it and will thus be eliminated by selection.

This book is interesting as a sampler to discover the concerns of the people, in this movement. In this, it is well worth reading. However it is not a book of scholarship or even of clearly expressed ides. It is more of a collective rant - a cry of anger and despair at forces these people see as challenging their defining beliefs. For clear analysis and insight one has to go elsewhere. Ellul, Postman and others can provide an analysis based on the ideas presented here in a much more lucid coherent and cogent way.

This book is worth reading for anyone who wishes to understand the motivations of the anti- globalization protests. However it is as unfocussed and full of anger as that movement is. It is worth reading not for its ostensible content but as a witness to the attitudes and belief that drive that content.