Heart Wrenching, March 15, 2002

... The story told here is an honest one about brothers in arms who went where their country sent them and did what they were asked to do. The message is not dissimilar to that seen in many WWII movies but severely lacking in movies about this conflict which seem to find more "truth" in such movies as "Platoon". While that, too, is a great film, it must be remembered that the acts portrayed in it were the exception, rather than the rule.

"We Were Soldiers" examines the first battles of the Ia Drang Valley in 1965. Col. Hal Moore (Mel Gibson) and a force of some 400 men defend a vulnerable position from attack by as many as 4,000 North Vietnamese entrenched in the surrounding mountains. The tactics, the motivations, the emotions and, ultimately, the terrible cost are examined through the eyes of Moore, his top Sergeant (played flawlessly by Sam Elliot), Moore's wife (Madeleine Stowe), an intrepid chopper pilot (Greg Kinnear) and a photojournalist (Barry Pepper).

The battle scenes are realistic - though not quite as harrowing as "Black Hawk Down" - and the characters are more clearly drawn than in that film.

Overall, this is an excellent look at true heroism and moral conviction in the face of adversity and almost overwhelming odds.

A mixed bag ... but that's to be expected, March 15, 2002

Russ Kick has collected a wide range of authors on a varied selection of topics who are willing to question the "official story" - from media, textbooks, governments and religions - and (at least from their perspective) set the record straight. He includes such authors as Noam Chomsky, Sydney Shanberg and Patrick Moore on such topics as media bias, drug policy, religion, social issues and scientific heresy. The one serious drawback (admitted by Kick at the outset) is an overabundance of views from the left side of the political spectrum.

Of particular interest is the proposed methodology of examining the media presented by Chomsky (though I draw a different conclusion) and Howard Zinn's admonition that you must always consider the point of view of the author of any account before accepting it at face value. [Ironically, it is ESSENTIAL that you apply the same standard to Zinn's work. And his failure to apply that standard to de las Casas' text (the Dominicans had every reason to make the Spanish look as bad as possible) borders on irresponsible.] Everyone (!) has an agenda (including the authors represented here and, yeah, even me) and you are less likely to be deceived if you remember that.

Solid pieces that are well defended (often with extensive source material), such as "Toad Licking Blues", "The Bible Code", and "Sometimes Lying Means Only Telling a Small Part of the Truth" share space with "magical thinking" (buttressed by more "magical thinking") such as "Will the Real Human Being Please Stand Up?".

Articles that really do force you to reasses what you've heard such as "Environmentalism for the Twenty-First Century", "Reassessing OKC" and "NutraFear and NutraLoathing in Augusta, Georgia" share space with vitriolic attack pieces such as "AA Lies" and "The Truth About Jesus".

And interesting and informative articles such as "Poppycock", "Humans Have Already Been Cloned" and "What I Didn't Know About the Communist Conspiracy" can be found alongside those that are merely provocative ("The Female Hard-on") or present a great deal of info that doesn't support the stated premise ("The Unconscious Roots of the Drug War").

Some positions will make you laugh; some will make you shake your head in disbelief; but some will truly make you think - which is what ultimately makes this at least a worthwhile read.

If you are predisposed to buy the "corporate media" argument, then you might well give this work a fourth star.

Ten Things You Can't Say ..., March 15, 2002

Elder's book is written in the style you might expect from a talk show host (I have never heard his program): conversational in a uni-directional sort of way with an occassional tendency to be strident and repetitive. Overall, however, it is a very approachable read with a point by point approach to each of his premises that is straightforward and understandable.

As with other books of this type, your opinion of the presentation will depend greatly upon your ideological perspective. Elder's libertarian view is consistent and reasonaby well presented. But if your views tend to align with the far left and you treasure the sacred cows Elder attacks, you will not be receptive his arguments.

Some of Elder's detractors say more about his work (unintentionally) than they probably would like. The notion that governmental intervention has, with a few minor exceptions, made this a better world is, in my opinion, laughable. And many of Elder's points are strongly supported by the available data. These include his positions on gun control (Elder frequently cites Lott's definitive work), the "health care crisis", the "glass ceiling", the prosecution of the "drug war", and even media bias.

Elder's arguments on some issues (racism and political parties), while based in large part on anecdotal evidence are still well presented and ask questions that need to be asked.

One common complaint about Elder is that "he benefited from affirmative action but now wants to prevent others from using it", but he doesn't actually SAY that he benefited from affirmative action (at least in the book) and isn't the knee-jerk assumption that he DID one of the problems with it in the first place?

One of the finest novels - period., March 13, 2002

The characters are memorable, multi-layered and possessed of plausible motivations. The settings are diverse and well-articulated as is the futuristic technology. And the techno-speak doesn't get in the way of the story.

Additional gems await those with a varied knowledge base such as the fact that the doctor, Yueh, is named for the Chinese god of epidemics.

Don't be disuaded from reading this marvelous book by the movie or mini-series. The first is unintelligible if you haven't already read the book and both succumb to symbolism at the end that is not in the book.

Dune is one of the (very) few books worth reading more than once.

You'll get what you expect, March 12, 2002

That said, no review of this book would be complete without commenting on some of the vicious attacks on it in Science, Nature and Scientific American. A look at the responses to the book says more about it (and the agendas of the critics) than the attacks themselves.

The chief critics of Lomborg's work are:

Stephen Schneider, an "environmental scientist" described by the Dartmouth Review as "arguably the father of the climate change scare (and once a scaremonger for global cooling)" who once said, "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest."

John Bongaarts of the Population Council (!) who has argued that "[t]he historically unprecedented population expansion in the poorest parts of the world continues largely unabated" when - as Lomborg points out - the birth rate per woman has dropped from 6.2 to 2.8 over the last 50 years.

John Holdren, a defense expert (!) from Harvard who once advocated "a condition in which no nation 's military forces were strong enough to threaten the existence of other states" as if such a move could be contemplated unilaterally.

Tom Lovejoy, former director of the World Wildlife Fund, possibly the largest environmental lobbying organization on the planet.

These are NOT objective scientists, but those whose ox Lomborg has gored.

The one valid point that the critics have raised is that Lomborg's work is not exhaustive. There are environmental issues that are not addressed (such as the degradation of coral reefs) and information is available beyond that provided by Lomborg on the subjects he does address. But then, what did they expect?

The text of The Skeptical Environmentalist spans 352 pages and covers population concerns, air and water pollution, food and hunger, resource availability, pesticides, biodiversity and global warming. An exhaustive analysis of these topics could easily fill a thousand such volumes, but he touches on all the points of significance succinctly and accurately.

This is not an anti-environmental polemic. Lomborg NEVER argues that environmental protection is unnecessary or that all (or nearly all) of the problems have been solved. He even accepts that global warming is a fact (it is, in fact, a viable theory despite some contradictory evidence).

Your expectations of this book will determine how much you get from it. If you expect to be enlightened, you will be, and if you expect to be angered ... read something else.