Quick Book Reviews

[smartarse]

Hey Folks,

I know that most of you are busy preparing for (or in the midst of) exams, so you're probably not reading much non-uni stuff.

Thats fine, but one thing that i think is really important to developing your anlaysis and case-building skills is reading books (duh... but seriously reading newspapers and magazines is great for staying on top of current events, but books give you the detail, the histroy and the deeper analysis to make the most of the knowledge you gain through other means).

And since exams will be over fairly soon and you'll have some spare time i thought it might be good to start a thread where people can post very brief book reviews, drawing people's attention to texts that are useful for debaters.

naturally other people who have read the same text should feel free to add their support or otherwise to the reviews.

People should also post reviews of good journal articles too if they are something you think debaters would really benefit from reading.

So i'll get the ball rolling...

[smartarse]

Well about 10 minutes ago i finished reading George Monbiot's book The Age of Consent.

It was recommended to me by Roland (it is in fact his copy that i read) so i guess this endorcement comes from both of us.

I must say that i didn't love it, but it did have some really useful ideas and some great facts/case studies.

Basically the book is a manifesto for reforming the current structures of global goverance. Monbiot proposes a model for a World Parliament, a Fair Trade Organisation and an International Clearing Union.

His plans are well explained (although the Clearing Union is a bit complex and i can't pretend to have fully understood it. But i get the idea) and apart from the World Parliament they make sense.

If you're not the kind of person who reads books like this from cover to cover then i suggest you ditch the first 3 chapters (if you have more than 2nd year politics under your belt then you wont miss much), but chapters 4,5 and 6 are worth the effort.

I think his model for a World Parliament is laughable, not because it wont happen, although it wont. But because its the most hopelessly impotent model i've yet heard proposed. It does give you some hints as to the problems you need to overcome if you want to propose a world parliament though (and i've seen that topic given out).

The Clearing Union was fascinating (in a nerdy economics way) and i must confess that i'd never come across a proposal like this before. Its probably too complex and too radical to run in a debate (unless you can think of a way of explaining it simply... good luck) but it certainly gets you thinking about the problems of a capitalist world economy (and that is useful in debates)

finally the Fair Trade Organisation. This is (to most experienced debaters) not very different to the standard 'reform the WTO to make it fair' lines that people run (and that are fun to run). This is probably the most immediately useful chapter and i can see how it could easily be converted directly into a model for a BP debate.

So thats it. i'd give it a 3 and half stars (out of 5). solid, well written if you're not an ecomonics student and easy to read. Monbiot is methodical (sometimes fanatically) which is good if these concepts are new, but as the first chapters show, sometimes he's arguing for things (like democracy being better than other systems of governance) that 99% of us already accept.

[smartarse]

I probably wouldn't recommend this book as 'pre-worlds' reading, even though its a very interesting book. Its just a little too dense and a little too narrow in focus to be worth the time it takes to plough through it.

But that said, "Imperial Hubris", by Michael Scheuer (former head of the CIA's "bin Laden" team) is quite a thorough look at how fucked the US military/intelligence is at the moment in terms of its prosecution of the 'war on terror'. Scheuer is no left-wing critic either, in fact he's haaaaaaard-right, which when you combine it with the polling data on the views of average Americans really does go to show that just about everybody thinks the US is fucking it up in Iraq.

This book is worthwhile if you want to brush up on military issues, or if you want to build a quite detailed understanding of the problems of pacifying Iraq (he doesn't deal much with reconstruction per se, he's principally interested in killing the insurgents). If you want to see an educated, qualified man make the case for American unilaterialism - here it is. Its astonishing sometimes how blunt Scheuer is about what America needs to do to win in Iraq and in the war on terror more broadly.

He says its time for American's to get used to idea that there are no easy, bloodless victories (an implicit attack on the tactics of RMA i've previously explained (www.monashdebaters.com/matter_files/us_military.html) and that allies (esp europeans) often just slow things down and overburdern a military operation with too many scrupples (like not butchering civilians to get to the bad guys)...

there is a certain ruthless logic to his argument, and his attack on the debilitating 'careerism' of senior intelligence officers (people saying things that will endear them to government officials and win them promotions, even if its not true) squares with the comments made in innumerable other texts from a variety of sources.

i think the book itself is a 3.5 stars. but in terms of a recommendation, i'd give it 3 stars generally, but 4 stars if you're looking for books to help you prep for debates about Iraq, Afghanistan and future American interventions.

[smartarse]

I recently attended the gigantic book sale at Jeff's shed, with MAD's most eligable bachelors, Sashi and Ravi, and for the princely sum of $5 i picked North Korea: Another Country by Bruce Cumings , 2004.

This is a truly odd, but interesting book. To put it most simply, its a book that defends North Korea.

The author is a historian, from Chicago Uni and has a long record of scolarship on Korea, who also has something of a fascination for the North.

I wouldn't advise readers of this book to use its arguments to run 'pro-NK' cases, but the book (in conjuction with other sources) will help you get a more 3-dimensional view of a country which is usually described in very simplistic terms.

Whether you choose to believe everything in it is up to you, but Chapter 2 certainly gives a new perspective to the 1994 and more recent nuclear negotiations - very interesting indeed.

If you want a more neutral (and easy to read) study of North Korea, get Michael O'Hanlon and Mike Mochizuki's Crisis on the Korean Peninsula. Which spells out the military capabilities of NK and SK/US, and presents a detailed proposal for an agreement between the two sides.

Mostly its just interesting to read a book which doesnt just write Kim Jung Il off as a total lunatic (it actually argues that he's been quite predictable and reasonably rational - from the position that NK is in) and it provides info that will certainly make arguing for negotiation and even trade with NK sound much more pluasible. I wouldn't run that as a 'pro-NK' case, i'd just run it as a standard "engagement enhances peace" line. Which is pretty hard to do in the case of NK, but after reading this book i'm itching for a debate about sanctions Vs negotiation with NK...

3.5 stars (interesting matter-gems in there and its truly unique...) and if you can't find a copy of it, i'll happily lend it out.

Edit: some intersting stories about NK in the press (i might start a new thread... but for now this will do)

www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/03/opinion/edkorea.php

www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw051229_1_n.shtml

[Old Man Sashi]

I too have been doing some reading during my time off, and the book that caught my eye was Can Japan Compete?[/i] by Michael E Porter, Hirotaka Takeuchi and Mariko Sakakibara.

The book is basically an analysis of Japan's economic performance, both within the Asian region but also compared to other global heavyweights. The essential fact that comes out of the book is that Japan is not the economic powerhouse it has always been perceived to be, and that a large amount of it's success stems from the fact that competitive industries hide the uncompetitive industries, and that the goverment may be too controlling and preventing the country from breaking its self imposed boundaries.

The book is a great study in how government protection of industry works, and the negative side effects that arise out of such policies. The most interesting thing about the Japanese goverment's policies for its ailing industries (in my view) was the concept of setting up cartels. A basic example of this was a recession cartel they set up, which was to help uncompetitive industries stay alive. The only problem out of this model is that those industries, whilst staying afloat, have remained uncompetitive.

Whilst its an in depth look at Japanese economics, its worth the read for the principles that come out of it - it covers in depth most economics arguments, and puts them forward in a way that is pretty basic and easy to understand.

I'd give the book 3.5 stars out of 5. Well worth the read.

[smartarse]

Gee Sashi, an interesting book like that sounds expensive... How much did it cost you to buy?

[Old Man Sashi]

5 bucks from the back of a van

[smartarse]

Well this thread didn't exactly take off as i had hoped, but Sashi got into the spirit of it (props to you my knee-grow friend) and since i'm an eternal optimist about skills/knowledge transfer in debating, i'll post another review in the hopes that at least 1 or 2 of you are getting some value out of this.

So my latest book is something i read both out of interest and for my thesis, its called The Next Attack, by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon (who wrote The Age of Sacred Terror, which if you ever do a subject on terrorism, is a seminal text on 'new terrorism').

This is a very new book, it only came out in late 2005 so it has a lot of fairly up-to-date analysis of global terrorism and the 'war on terror' - which is the subject matter in a nutshell.

If you're really super-duper interested in terrorism and non-conventional security then you'll probably enjoy the whole thing, but for the average time-poor debater, i'd recommend chapters 2, 3 & 7.

2 & 3 have some great analysis of the strategic impact of the Iraq war on global terrorism. Analysis that you will not only find very useful in debates about terrorism and Iraq, but unless you're a moron, you'll probably find it quite disturbing too.

Chapter 7 again has some very debater-friendly analysis of how the Muslim community could become further radicalised as the result of ill-concieved counter-terrorism policies. Basically the authors argue that from the point of view of counter terrorism the Islamic community can be understood as forming 2 concentric circles, one very small and the other very large. the first is the existing 'hardcore' - those already radicalised and involved in terrorism in one way or another. the second, larger group are those who are suscepible to radicalisation under the 'right' circumstances. The implication of course is that there is also a 3rd circle, wider again, representing those Muslims who for all intents and purposes can never be 'turned'.

the point they are making, and its a cricially important one to a lot of debates about terrorism, is that sure things are bad now, but if we fuck up things could get a lot worse. Even bigoted idiots like the Prime Minister are fond of saying that "only a tiny proportion of Muslims are interested in terrorism" and its true. But what happens if because of the policies we employ to attempt to defeat that tiny minority, we draw in a sizable chunk of that wider circle of 'vulnerable' Muslims? Well then we'd be mega-fucked to put it bluntly.

Although its not mentioned in the book, as you read it keep in mind that the US State Department puts out a yearly report called The Patterns of Global Terrorism, and in mid-2005 the latest report was not released, for the first time ever. Thanks to leaks in the State Department we now know the ban on publication was because the report showed that the number of terrorist attacks worldwide has increased 600% (2001-2004 - basically since the war on terror begun). The point i'm making is that we might be already seeing evidence the wrong policies have been in place for quite some time now, and when you read the analysis in chapters 2 and 3 you'll start to become very concerned about whats going on at the moment.

Its a very interesting book, very contemporary and relavent to a lot of debates at the moment, but its also obsessed with the Iraq war - the lead up, the insurgency and the prospects for the future. Some of that is relevant, the rest is just unnecessary detail. So i encouarage you to check out the 3 chapters i mentioned because i think they are really useful.

[Julian]

600% increase in terror attacks since the WoT? Have you got a link to that? While I'm just about all out of terrorism subjects in the dying throws of the Arts component of my degree, I'd love to have a source on that other than "this crazy old guy on the forum on the website I run reckoned that..."

Hmm, I suspect I should be expecting a geek comment now.

[smartarse]

Hazzah!!! Someone does read my posts!

I never should have doubted you Julian! (so i'm going to let the "crazy old man" crack slide)

Yes i have a link for you, there is an excellent blog which brings together a number of terrorism experts (including Abuza, who is someone i have read extensively and find to be one of the better analysts - his most recent book on Southeast Asian Terrorism is a VERY detailed study of JI and AQ) and that site has a extensive archive of stories about this issue.

counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2005/04/goodby_patterns.html

I warn you though, this is a very interesting site for security nerds like us, you could be on it a while...

[S no time to log in]

seeing as this is becoming the 'security' thread, i thought i would post some analysis of the Bush administration's latest foreign policy statement for those who havent read it already.

www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/19/news/edoped.php

[smartarse]

I can't help it if i read a lot of security related materials - i'm doing a masters in strategic studies after all!

Maybe if Staggy took the time to review something he was reading (how long can it take to discuss a comic book?) then there would be more variety on this thread!

But that link is interesting and amusing!

[Chancellor of the Exchequer]

So that Tim doesn't loose heart entirely and throw himself of a cliff or something, I'm going to join in this thread and suggest a book that's worth at least a cursory glance.

It's called Free Market Environmentalism by Terry Lee Anderson, and it's an interesting approach to environmental issues. For those familiar with Tim's deep ecology - sustainable development - technological ecology spectrum (though I'm not sure spectrum is the right word), free market environmentalism sits somewhere to the right of technological ecology.

The book itself is only really useful for the first chapter or two, which is where the authors advance the basic thesis about well-established property rights and their enforcement being the solution to envirnmental problems. The rest of the book just looks at a whole bunch of environmental problems, and argues that applying free market principles would solve them all.

The book (or at least the first couple of chapters) also advances some ideas about the tension between environmental preservation and economic progress, especially in developing communities, which is an important issue in several debates.

Like I said, read the first chapter or two, because they genuinely are interesting to read, if a tad right-wing.

[smartarse]

Just so that Staggy doesn't think this has become a 'security thread', i'll post a review of a book i read today which i think is doing the rounds of debaters at the moment - Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture by Ariel Levy.

This book received a lot of media hype, and its certainly seems at times to be written in such a way to make it as 'talk show' friendly as possible. Not that seeking publicity for your book is bad, but it makes you wonder how seriously you should the author.

But as they say, you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, even if that cover is an intentionally attention-seeking bright pink, because this book has some worthwhile things to say - and more importantly in this context, it has things to say that are debate-friendly.

Its an easy book to read, written in a light, journalistic style, so reading it all is hardly a major investment in time/effort, but i found two chapters to be the most thought provoking. In chapter 3 Levy makes the point that a lot of the way in which women (esp younger women) view and categorise their sexuality is in a fairly binary way - they are either "girly-girl", "princess" types or alternatively they reject that image and are "more like men" - with being "like a man" meaning that they have a casual, relaxed attitude to sex and sexuality (they aren't uptight about their bodies or obsessed with their appearance, which apparantly a 'normal' woman is).

Levy compares that sort of dichotomous thinking about gender to the old race-theory mentalities and stereotypes about colour saying: But Americans gave up the idea - or tried to, or pretended to - that there are certain characteristics and qualities that are essentially black and essentially white a long time ago. At the very least we can say that it would be considered wildly offensive and thoroughly idiotic to articulate ideas like that now. Yet somehow we don't think twice about wanting to be "like a man" or unlike a "girly-girl". As if those ideas even mean anything. Like which man? Iggy Pop? Nathan Lane? Jesse Jackson? Jesse Helms? It is a staggering unsophisitcated way to think about being a human being, but smart people do it all the time.

The second argument that i'm still mulling over in my head is about pornography - a subject which in all seriousness i have discussed and debated with everyone from Roland, Kim Little, Cathy Rossouw, Jake and every girlfirend i've ever had (and i have an alarming tendancy to date strident feminists - although thankfully i don't favour any particular 'type' of feminist) and its an issue i've never entirely reconciled in my brain. I've seen porn and strip clubs in different parts of the world, and at best i can say i found it mildly arousing, and at worst i would say i found it repulsive (let Logan take you to a Thai strip club and you'll see what i mean). But Levy has a view on pornography which i found fascinating and its something i'll be kicking around for a while. She says: The idea that sex can be reduced to fixed components as it is in pornography - blow job, doggie style, money shot, girl-on-girl - is adolescent: first base, second base, all the way It is ironic that we think of all this as adult entertainment. i don't see why we should regard porn as a way to enjoy "sexuality in all its its explicitness" any more than we consider looking at a chart of the food pyramid to be a feast.

Now if you didn't find either of those ideas to be interesting or worthy of some further consideration, then this book probably isn't for you. On the other hand its filled with great conversation starters about the Playboy empire, the role of "bois" in the San-Fran radical lesbian scene and lots of discussion of strippers, pornograpy and astonishing tales of the "Girls Gone Wild" phenomenon. So you could read it for the laughs and for the bizzare stories, but alongside all that there are some intestering and challenging ideas, posed in an easily accessible way.

[Old Man Sashi]

that counterterrorism blog makes for some fascinating reading..