This is a good reference guide to Cordwainer Smith's various books. Do not expect too much, though. Mostly, what you get is one-sentence definitions of many of the people, places and things in Smith's books, and, in some cases, a brief explanation of where the name comes from. A publication guide to Smith's stories is also included.

While there's an introduction, the book's greatest lack is essays and discussions concerning the works and their author (Paul Linebarger, as Smith was his nom de plume). Comparisons of Smith's stories and the myths he took some of them from would be helpful.

Good, but there's work to do in future editions.

Instead of Luc Tuymans, Anton Chekhov, Vratislav Effenberger, Milton Hatoum, Andrie Platonov, Victor Pelevin, Rebecca Solnit, I found in this issue of Grand Street (no 64) contributions of David Mamet, Suzan Lori Parks, José Saramago, Tony Smith, Tennesse Williams and Pablo Neruda

Windrow's children's book The Greek Hoplite is a fairly good book, not groundbreaking, but it would make a good gift to the kid who is starting to show an interest in ancient history. The text covers most of the bases of the origin and lifestyle of the typical Greek citizen-soldier in a very simple and easy to read style of writing. The illustrations are bright and colorful, which makes it fun to read. The only point I wish Windrow would have emphasized more is how independent the Greek city-states were. Other than that, it's a very good book that's almost up to par with what Nick Sekunda has to offer for the younger crowd.

This book has proved invaluable as both a comfort and as alert to things which can go wrong. It is desirable that it should be revised every five years. I recommend it as a facinating read for all, whether ill or well, and it really is an essential family book.

Interesting marxian critique of the lean production system. Discusses globalization, skill, just-in-time production. Smith argues that "lean production" is a worthwhile analytical category. He further argues that the claims made for lean production by the "new capitalist utopians" are unfounded, and that lean production modifies capital's antagonisms rather than resolves them.

Rather poor idea of what socialism might be, but you can't expect everything.

This writer is not interested in properly informing or discussing issues. He says in the book that cancer patients - especially those who have been through the mainsdtream mill - should avoid complementary/alternative treatments simply because they (these alternative treatments) will get in the way of them getting used to the idea of dying. Of all the books I read as someone seeking help for my wife who had cancer, this was and remains one of the most disgusting. Let me declare my interests. I am the author of FIGHTING CANCER - A SURVIVAL GUIDE. In the course of researching my book, this book took the prize for being the least informative.

A good sound, quickie cancer education for the less well informed (and most people are less well informed about cancer than they think). Tells you what a cancer is and how it works, runs down the commonest types, briefly explains staging and treatment, gives some interesting statistics, diplomatically touches upon alternative and psychological curing. The publication date will tell you that the treatment part and some of the recommended medical centers are probably out of date. Will appeal to: people just coming to grips with a diagnosis.

More often than not, argues Tony Smith in his new book, Foreign Attachments: The Power of Ethnic Groups in the Making of American Foreign Policy, it is special interest groups guided by narrow ethnic, racial, or religious interests. In a chapter devoted to confronting the ideas of multiculturalists, Smith warns of the dangers of a growing number of people within the United States whose identification with our national entity is somewhat tenuous - a phenomenon being fueled by mass immigration.

Smith argues forthrightly, if somewhat naively, that U.S. foreign policy (and presumably domestic ones as well) should be made based on "national interest." He concedes that defining the national interest can be a tricky proposition. Smith ultimately declares that in speaking for the U.S. in world affairs, the dominant voice should be "those who think of themselves first and foremost as Americans."

The phenomenon that Smith describes with regard to foreign policy is essentially no different from the role of special interests in virtually every area of public policy. While no one would disagree with the concept that the interests of those who are most firmly committed to the common national enterprise should guide U.S. foreign policy, no one is surprised in the least that it rarely works that way.

The nature of special interest politics is that a minority, with a direct economic, political, or emotional stake in the outcome almost always prevails over the majority. In the area of immigration policy, for instance, the benefit to the immigrants themselves, their ethnic group elders, or the businesses that want to hire them, is greater than the harm that might be experienced by the rest of society. Each individual winner in the immigration game has more to gain than each individual loser in the society at large has to lose. Similarly, the logging company that wants to cut pristine national forests senses a more immediate benefit than the public's sense of loss at the destruction of a wilderness most have never visited. Hence, old growth forests are being razed an alarming rate.

This same principle is true with regard to the undue influence many ethnic groups wield with regard to U.S. foreign policy, Smith eventually concludes. "The stakes for [a particular ethnic groups'] kinfolk abroad may seem so commandingly important, and the price to the United States so marginal, that they may perceive no conflict between foreign commitments and national ones."

Smith is no more able to offer viable solutions to the grip of special interests in the area of foreign policy, than those who have grappled with special interest influence in other areas of public policy. He does, however, do an excellent job in deconstructing many of the liberal arguments for immigration-generated multiculturalism, and the politics of ethnic grievance. There is nothing especially new about his insights, but he clearly and succinctly exposes the tactics and the arguments of those who methodically place group rights ahead of national interests. "[M]ulticulturalists seem to bite the hand of the very nation that gives them their democratic due," charges Smith, "refusing necessarily to value their national as highly as their ethnic identity or to recognize obligations of national citizenship with priority over their ethnic attachments."

Smith breaks the multicultural assault on American national identity into three categories: the hyphenated Americans, post-national citizenship, and diasporas. Each asks for special considerations that undermine the United States both in world affairs and domestically.

Hyphenated Americans are determined to maintain two (sometimes more) identities from which they feel entitled to pick and chose at their convenience. When it is to their advantage to exert their American identity that is the persona they put forward. Quoting Michael Walzer, one of the leading voices of multiculturalism, the hyphenated American "is someone who in principle, lives his spiritual life as he chooses, on either side of the hyphen." In other words, being an American is a matter of convenience, a condition that Smith correctly observes to be destructive.

The second phenomenon is that of "post-national" citizenship. In the post-national world, "concern is not so much the traditional one of extending [immigrants] rights in their adoptive country...as it is to celebrate their unadulterated right to benefit from multiple loyalties." A leading proponent of "post-nationalism" Yasemin N. Soysal argues that "national citizenship is losing ground to a more universal model of membership, anchored in deterritorialized notions of persons' rights." In the view of this school of thought, people automatically acquire the full rights of participation in whatever society they choose to live, even if they are not citizens.

One of the glaring omissions of Smith's assessment of "post-nationalism" is that he completely passes over the very powerful business pressure to erase national borders and identities. Particularly with the ascension of George W. Bush to the presidency, these interests are likely to acquire even greater strength. While the multiculturalists push for right of individuals and ethnic groups to seek the benefits of American national identity, while shirking the responsibilities that go along with it, there is an equally powerful push to imbue economic interests with the same privileges.

The third force undermining the independence of U.S. foreign policy are those who consider themselves to be living in a diaspora. Chief among this category today are Cuban "exiles." Whether they will ever go back to Cuba even after the demise of Castro is irrelevant. In their minds their "homeland" is Cuba and their "host" country is the United States. The notion that people who cannot overcome the mental barrier of calling the United States their homeland, should have such enormous influence over our foreign policies, is seen by Smith as another danger of an immigration policy that does not demand the "Americanization" of newcomers.

Smith provides no real satisfying answers for those who want to restore a national interest component to U.S. immigration policy. What he does provide is an excellent analysis of the political left's case for open borders and tactics for countering their arguments for immigration-generated multiculturalism.

Although the copyright of the book is 2000, the contents are from an older work as mentioned on the copyright page. I would estimate the information in the book is at least 10-years old! As an example, the auther refers to the PSA as "fairly new" when it was approved by the FDA in 1986. The latest treatments for BPH (example: use of microwaves to shrink the prostate) are not even mentioned.

I bought the book because of the year-2000 copyright and got old, incomplete stuff!

Although this book has information which is not state of the art, the pictures and basic data are very good, and are helpful in describing medical problems to patients. I recommend it.
Jennifer C. Logan, M.D.