I couldn't agree more with the last two reader reviews, and would like to add a bit more. This work has two fatal flaws that undermine all of his analysis. It consistenly confuses correlation and causality, and deliberatly ignores portions of counter-arguments inconvenient to Bennett's conclusion.

Even using government funded studies, developed no doubt by Bennett's ideological kin, his defense of marijuana prohibition relies on an abusurd logical extension. First he shows that cocaine is a cause of violence. This is already a tenuous position in and of itself since he does nothing to disprove that cocaine prohibition is not responsible for more violence than the drug's pharmacological properties. The he relies on the long-defunct gateway theory to show that a lax approach to marijuana will generate thousands more violent cocaine addicts. Thus, marijuana must be thoroughly repressed. Yeah, obviously... no other way around that one.

He states with indignation that more 15-18 year olds see marijuana as relatively harmless than any time in the preceeding decade and a half. Well, unfortunately even a moral fiat from the good Dr. Bennett cannot change the fact that the perception of pot as relatively harmless is, for the most part, accurate; no matter how uncomfortable it may make him.

What about the claims that supply side drug interdiction is fatally flawed as a long term strategy? No worries, according to Body Count, since it worked in the very short run in 1992, it must be effective.

The 60% drop in casual drug use between 1980 and 1992 a smashing success, akin to saving 60% of the rainforest or preventing 60% of unwanted pregnancies? You bet, of course Bennett fails to mention that the same period saw an unprecedented rise in drug market violence, an INCREASING number of 'hard core' drug abusers, destruction of civil liberties, a mushrooming prison population, the shredding of urban America's remaining social fabric, the demonization of blacks and junkies as drug war enemies, skyrocketing quantities of preventable and drug related AIDS cases, a burgeoning culture of intolerance, and the list goes on.

To top it all off, in this book Bennett has the gall to criticize the media for not depicting the drug war as a success, when he, himself was frequently the one on national tv using fear-mongering rhetoric to drive the perception of a failing drug war.

Filled with useful information, this book blows away some of the standard liberal myths about crime - such as that "prison doesn't work" and "guns cause crime". But they also prove their even-handedness by dealing to a few standard conservative myths too However, I'd have to add that I disagree with some of the (lesser) conclusions drawn by the authors in the final chapter, particularly regarding "moral poverty" and the war on drugs. All the same, they did succeed in making me re-evaluate my position on drugs considerably. The book was worth buying for all the data in it alone, particularly the appendix with criminal histories of 40 "low-level" offenders - most illuminating! All the rest is a bonus, and it is largely clearly and cogently argued. It does have to be said that the religious viewpoint of the authors does tend to show at times, particularly in the final chapter, which will tend to put some people off (myself included!). Don't let this blind you to the many valid points they have to make, however.

So if it's not the handicaps we've imposed on cops and prosecutors, and it's not institutionalized racism, and it's not material want, then what is the fundamental cause of predatory street crime.

Moral poverty.

...[M]oral poverty is the poverty of being without loving, capable, responsible adults who teach you right from wrong; the poverty of being without parents and other authorities who habituate you to feel joy at others' joy, pain at others' pain, satisfaction when you do right, remorse when you do wrong; the poverty of growing up in the virtual absence of people who teach morality by their own everyday example and who insist that you follow suit. ...

The twin character scars left by moral poverty--lack of impulse control and lack of empathy--reinforce each other and make it far more likely that the individual will succumb to either the temptations of crime, or the blandishments of drugs, or, as so often happens, both. -Body Count

One of the more comforting aspects of conservatism is that you can adopt one set of principles--most elements of which are hundreds (capitalism and republican democracy) or even thousands (10 Commandments, Golden Rule, Sermon on the Mount) of years old, and have stood the test of time--and then stick with it your whole adult life. At any given moment several of the positions you adhere to will certainly be out of favor, but just as surely the tide will eventually turn back in your favor. New ideas and fancy fads will come and go, leaving trend-sucking liberals with their heads spinning, but you can just stick to your guns and ignore them all, secure in the knowledge that folks will eventually return to their senses and come scurrying back to the timeless virtues. This is especially the case when it comes to Crime and Punishment. Few issues, other than the equally intractable Taxation and Education, have been so susceptible over the years to "innovative" thinking and "radical" solutions as the problem of Crime. But time and again we all end up returning to the conservative mantra : what's needed are a societal emphasis on loving families and traditional morality, vigorous law enforcement, and harsh punishments.

This book then is an unsurprising call for a return to these first principles, in particular a clarion call for an effort to combat moral poverty, and, equally unsurprisingly, its policy prescriptions are currently back in vogue. Between the candidacy of Joe Lieberman and the victory of George W. Bush, religious belief is once again a central part of our national debate, morality is a hot topic, and a broad consensus has formed around the idea that faith-based institutions, with their manifest moral component, are better at delivering social services than government bureaucracies. Coauthor John DiIulio has, in fact, been named to be the coordinator of President Bush's Faith Based Initiative. And, what with now former President Clinton mired in a new scandal (which will inevitably come to be known as Pardongate) Bill Bennett is popping up all over the networks and editorial pages, getting to say, "I told you so" and preach the importance of morality in public life.

Meanwhile, in New York City, Rudy Guliani has proven that crime can be reduced and civic manners restored by relentlessly prosecuting even minor infractions. Perhaps most importantly, reforms like building more prisons, Three Strikes and You're Out, mandatory sentencing, and incarcerating even low level drug offenders, have helped to bring about a tremendous reduction in crime rates. It would seem that, in a sense, this book has been made superfluous by the very success of the ideas it advocates.

But never fear, already we hear calls to relax drug laws (many of them fueled by the new movie Traffic) amidst hand-wringing over the burgeoning prison population. Perhaps the best aspect of this book is that the authors actually go beyond just drugs and demonstrate the close connection between alcohol and crime. One of the most effective arguments of those who support legalization of drugs is the comparison to alcohol. The authors head off this line of reasoning by indicting alcohol too. You've got to admire a conservatism so fierce and intellectually honest that it's basically willing to refight some of the battles of Prohibition.

Another phenomenon we've witnessed in recent years is one of those patented psychic disconnects on the part of liberals that we conservatives so treasure, folks on the Left have actually taken to arguing that the statistics showing a drop in crime can not be right because of the size of the current prison population. Their characteristically fuzzy logic maintains that if crime really were going down there would perforce be less people in prison. This confusion over cause and effect, obvious as it seems, and the accompanying appeals to middle class white guilt will inevitably lead to an eventual relaxing of our guard and the pendulum will swing back towards leniency and permissiveness.

This book is somewhat dated now, because of its reliance on statistics and because too much of what it has to say has been adopted as public policy, but put it on a shelf for a few years and you'll be able to take it down during the next explosion in crime. Think of public policy making as a huge game of "Whack the Mole" conservatives always remain poised with the same hammer (a consistent set of ideas) and periodically have to bang away with the hammer when experimentation with liberal ideas manages to unleash a plague of vermin. Lift this book and you wield the hammer.

GRADE : B-

This collection is a travesty indeed. Great poems no doubt, but abysmally read. Furthermore they should have put all the introductions together separate and apart from the poems. It's nice to hear intros the first time around. But who wants to hear the intros everytime you listen to the poems? Sometimes I want to hear just a stream of poetry without any interuptions and this format makes that impossible. It's incredible that such a great concept could be so terribly executed.

I could not get this back to the store for a refund quickly enough. While the poem selection is great and the poem introductions are narrated well, the choice to use "modern poets" as the readers made this compilation utterly unlistenable. The only one that I found acceptable was Anthony Hect--the others were notably bad. In particular, I found Jorie Graham's "readings" to be abysmal. She reads each poem as if it were simply a string of unconnected words, giving equal stress to each, with halting pauses between them, never breaking out of a drowsy monotone. Other readers were not much better.

There are three major flaws in the readings:

1) The readers are no better than the average untrained person, and often much worse. (You've just got to hear them for yourself to appreciate how bad they are.)

2) Successive poems by the same poet are read by different "readers." It's jarring to hear 3 or 4 poems from Poet X, each in a wildly different voice.

3) No regard is given to matching the sex of the poet and reader. In general, it is really annoying to hear your favorite poet read by the wrong sex. In particular, making this mistake on "gender specific" poems (like having a woman read Poe's "Annabel Lee") is unforgivable.

Why is this all so upsetting? Because it is practically impossible to find poetry collections on CD, making this a serious waste of limited resources. If you are looking for a good collection on CD, buy "81 Famous Poems CD" by Audio Partners (ISBN 0-945353-82-0). It's a good collection on two CDs and is read by professionals: Alexander Scourby, Bramwell Fletcher, and Nancy Wickwire. In the meantime, we can only hope that the producers of this collection will eventually come to their senses and re-record the poems with the services of trained professionals.

If you are prepping for the GRE in literature or are trying to gain a basic understanding of literary periods and poets, this audio-collection is a must. It features a brief introduction about each poet's life. It also includes a brief introduction about the theme of each poem. The fact that you have to listen to these introductions before listening to the poem inculcate the poem and aids retention. If literature has turned into a cumbersome and overwhelming task, this collection will not only provide you with a sense of direction but will also make literature far more pleasurable.

If you happen to have a copy of the out of print book LIGHT ON C.S. LEWIS, you have basically all the comments that Lawlor has to give about his memories of the man. As for the commentary Lawlor gives on Lewis's books, I found it uneven. Unlike the lucid Lewis, Lawlor's sentences are often murky and their meanings difficult to understand. His commentaries on Lewis's books didn't really enlighten anything. I have been an avid reader of Lewis for a long time, and this is the first time I bought a book about Lewis in which I returned to the bookstore for a refund when I was finished.

Walter Scaife may be an important figure in the emergence of the American historical profession, but the republication of this book is no favor to anyone seeking an introduction to the history of Florence. Scaife wrote his study over a century ago; since then, we have learned an enormous amount about the city of Florence during the Renaissance era, none of which is reflected here. More troublingly, the excerpts I have seen reflect a firmly Protestant view of the world, full of implicit criticisms of the "superstitious" life of the Florentines. Such an approach does profound injustice to the richness and complexity of late medieval European Christianity, and reinforces all-too-common American stereotypes of the "heroic" northern European reformers who saved the world from the papal anti-Christ. Even if Scaife doesn't make such statements explicitly, they color his view.

Students and others who encounter this book might not realize just how misleading and incomplete its picture of Florence is. The book IS of interest for those interested in American Protestant intellectual life in the nineteenth century. Anyone interested in learning about Florence, however, should turn to the work of more recent authors such as Gene Brucker, Alison Brown, Dale Kent, and many others.

I can not believe the things people do in this world.How dare the author of this book write about a little girl and what happen to her.I am that little girl's big sister (Jodee) and have alot more than 1000 words to say about this.I feel that it is no one's business on what happen to Nichole. This was a hell of a year for the family and to take it and just write a book about it does not let her family put it to rest.I don't think that the author O'neil, had any right to write this book. All he is doing is making money off of my sister and her brutal murder. The people who did this act is and was sick in the head.This book just goes to show the world had sick even book writer's can be.

I give this book a Black Hole rating and here's why. Even a single star emits light; with this work, O'Neil De Noux bends time, space and reality as we know it such that the reader is left groping in the dark praying for a quick end. Specific Intent is an attempt to tell the tragic but true story of a young girl's murder and the subsequent arrest and prosecution of a couple from Louisiana. Newspapers and television, in and around New Orleans, covered this story extensively during the Summer and Fall of 1985 and it is infamous in that area. Unfortunately, the book does nothing to examine the many conflicting reports that swirled around the suspects at the time but instead weaves a tangled web of lurid details and bizarre theories such that the reader is left ensnared and depleated. De Noux makes much of his inside sources and police connections. He attempts to shore up his rickety construction but, by the end of the book, one is painfully aware that the author is but a shill for the broken system which he celebrates.

Clearly these authors have never been in a classroom in the last ten years! Activieis are outdated; current research on constructivism lacking.