The City of Joy follows the lives of the impoverished inhabitants of one of the most neglected sections in Calcutta. You really begin to feel like you know the characters, be they Indian, or Western idealists who come to help them. The priest, the nurse, and the doctor who do so are saints, much like Mother Teresa herself. One word of warning: It is not at all like the movie. In fact, it is much better. Another triumph for Lapierre. Those who liked this should also look at "Freedom at Midnight."

This book is a collection of essays from academic journals written by the top professors in the field of International Relations. As such it will be of little interest to the general reader. But to the student of IR it is one of the best compilations available. Included are Mearsheimers classic 'Back to the Future' and 'The False Promise of International Institutions'. One of the more interesting sections in the book concerns the latter piece and vigorous resonses to it. Also included in the book are Stephen Van Evera's theory of First Mover Advantages, and Dale Copeland's application of dynamic realism to trade relations. Truly a volume of gems, it should be bought by any serious student of International Politics.

This is a book intended for those who have little or no background in the subject. It is a great place to start. An easy read and fasciniating as well, yet it does not patronize the reader. Those with more knowledge should probably stay away from it, as they will learn very few new things. But for everyone else it come highly recommended

For those seeking to understand Israeli history there is no better place to turn. While numerous books deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict, few deal with the internal development of Israel. This book explains the processes that led to the rise of Zionism, the building of the pre-state infrastructure, and the growth of the Israeli republic. But foreign affairs are not in the least overlooked, and occupy a great deal of space. In this latest version, Sachar has corrected some of his earlier errors, and deals with the Arabs and Palestinians in a more even-handed manner. While not the easiest book to read, or most concise, it is still the best book available for those seeking to understand Israel, inside and out.

This is a well-written introduction to human sexual evolution. Those not familiar with the subject will no doubt learn a great deal, while those who do know it can brush up on their knowledge while learning a few new things as well. It should not be read by true experts, as there is little new for them. But for the rest of us its easy to read and a blast! Kudos once again to Diamond.

This trilogy of interviews are Chomsky's attempt to reach out to a broad audience. It contains the well-known anarchists views on US foreign policy and elite control of society. As an anarchist, Chomsky's enemy is not any one form of government or economic system. Rather, his enemy is the government itself. States are viewed by him as violent institutions that subjugate freedoms for the state's needs. What Chomsky does not understand is that the state is in itself a response to anarchy: People need to form a centralized authority in order to ensure their own survival in an unsure, hostile world. The lack of a central authority is what causes war in the international system. The presence of such an authority is what makes states less violent than they would be otherwise. None of this in mentioned by Chomsky. It would blow apart his theory.

There are several problems with this book that would not be apparant to readers without a background in the subject. The very first chapter, in which Chomsky discusses the historiography of the Cold War, contains false statements and ommissions. Chomsky states that there are two major theories of the Cold War, one is the Orthodox school which views the Soviets as the aggressor, and the Revisionist school which sees the US as the instigator. According to Chomsky, the Orthodox school is an ideological construct and therefore suspect, since they want to blame the Soviets for everything. Historians should be objective, Chomsky says, and the Orthodox historians are biased, unlike the Revisionists who are unemotional and detached. When we look at this, it becomes clear that the US is the aggressor and the Soviets simply defending themselves. This is very problematic, however. The fact is that there aren't two schools in the issue, but three, the third which Chomsky never even mentions. The third school of thought is the Realist Revionist, or Post-Revisionist school, which in fact suits the criteria that Chomsky lays out better than his own theory. The Realist Revisionists argue that the Cold War was an inevitable result of a bipolar system in which the security interests of the United States and the Soviet Union came into conflict over the future of Europe and East Asia. It then continued as the two sides vied for influence in the Third World. Neither side is really "blamed," since they were both trying to protect themselves. This theory thus suits Chomskys criteria that we not used ideology to blame one side. It is also balanced, cold, and unemotional. As for the Orthodox school, Chomsky badly misrepresents them. As an example of the Orthodox school he cites the John Birch Society and other such fringe groups. Nowhere does he even mention the founding father of the Orthodox school, George C. Kennan, whose writings on the Soviet Union were anything but ideologically biased or extreme. Kennan claimed that insecurity and fear on invasion were more important in Soviet calculus than Communism. Repeated invasions led to an aggressive policy in which the Soviets sought to aggrandize all the neighboring territories they could. The only course for the US was to counter the Soviets wherever possible. None of this is even mentioned. These ommissions are inexcusable. There are similar such problems throughout the book. In the preface, Chomsky lays out his theory of state behavior, in which he states it is the economic interest of the elites that drives US policy. External variables, such as security, and military and political contraints are excluded. This is known as a reductionist theory, and since it doesnt take into account all levels of analysis, it is deeply flawed. Finally, there is the chapter on the Drug Scare of 1989. According to Chomsky the hysterical reation in the nation to Drugs that year was a deliberate plan set up by the Bush administration to distract the populace from real issues. Other explanations are not considered, and of course, little concrete proof is offered. This hypothesis, like many of Chomksy's is non-fallsifiable, meaning it cannot be disproved, and thus can't really be tested. In sum, this book is littered with methodological, historiographical, and theoretical flaws.

Zelikow and Rice were both members of the NSC staff during the Bush administration. As such they were privy to a good deal of primary evidence. The bulk of the book is a narrative, and it does get bogged down in detail. But it is the best possible source of primary historical evidence yet available on this all-important event. The authors also include a good amount of analysis rather than just summary of events, particularly in the introduction and conclusion.