1990 Books

Disintegration in Frames is theoretically insightful, but never too dense to be inaccessible to general readership. The book is a great resource for anyone interested in the role of cinema in the formation of Yugoslav ethno-nationalisms (and cinema as a reflection of these ethno-nationalisms). The book is full of fun insights, such as the discussion of phallic connotations of the Yugoslav ritual of carrying "the baton of youth," and the reference to such pan-Yugoslav rituals in the work of New Primitivs in late 1980s and early 1990s: "sucking of the pole". The chapter on Yugoslav "black wave" is extremely insightful for anyone interested in the works of such masters as Dusan Makavejev, Zelimir Zilnik and Karpo Godina. Levi's critique of Emir Kusturica's work sets high standards for future scholarship on this director's work. Highly recommended.

This is the best synopsis of the Kosovo War and Operation "Allied Force" in particular that you can find, and despite the small number of pages it contains a wealth of information regarding the facts that led to the war, the military operations and, especially the reasons behind the NATO's decision to fight only by air. Great emphasis is given to the role (and mishaps) of Task Force Hawk deployed to Albania and why this contingent was troubled from the beginning. The authors state that Operation "Allied Force" succeeded beyond hope, edging on catastrophe, because it was waged without a strong ground element in place and without real intention to escalate with a ground invasion. They reveal also that NATO was planning for an invasion of Serbia itself through Romania and Hungary and that General Clark had asked for six full US divisions! The book also covers the post-war developments, like the KFOR synthesis, its mission and the problems it faced from the start. This is a very good book, but the reader who wants to go a little deeper on the subject should accompany this with B. Lambeth's excellent "NATO's Air War for Kosovo" also published by RAND.

Callon's book provides the sort of insight one would expect from one of the leading experts in Japanese society and finance. Despite its substance it reads with ease of a Harlequin romance.

Have been trying to find this item for several years-------this is the basic need of every astrologer.

In his fascinating Hamlyn Lectures series book, "Does the United Kingdom Still Have a Constitution?," Professor Anthony King examines the changes that have been made in Britain's "unwritten constitution" over the last 20 years. The book is analysis, not advocacy, and what it describes is a remarkable transformation in the way Britain governs itself. That transformation is significant, though perhaps not quite as unique as King suggests.

In his book, King specifies that a constitution is the "most important rules" that regulate relations between the various parts of a government and between the parts of the government and the people. In this connection, King makes clear that this includes both written statutes and unwritten customs.

King then goes on to define two archetypes of constitution, the "power sharing" and the "power hoarding." The former, largely exemplified by the constitution of the Netherlands, distributes power widely amongst various political institutions, seeks to create a framework for the development of a consensus among contending groups, and establishes a system in which accountability is obscure and elections do not necessarily determine who will govern. The alternative "power hoarding" constitution, exemplified by the British system, concentrates power in a single governing body, pits contending factions against one another in a confrontational framework, makes a sharp distinction between governors and governed, and creates an electoral system where the government is strictly accountable to the governed and in which the outcome of elections is crucial to determining who shall govern.

King concludes that a breakdown in party loyalty, the rise of the European Union, the granting of independence to the Bank of England, devolution to Scotland, Wales and Ulster, the development of a multiplicity of electoral systems other than the traditional "first-past-the-post" system, House of Lords reform, the incorporation of the Human Rights Act into British law and the rise of judicial review as a tool of British judges have all combined to break apart the old British Constitution. King argues that it has been replaced by a "power fractionated" system, wherein the government remains essentially centralized, but power is more diffuse. King notes that, in effect, the British system has been changed without any conscious "fixed principles of reference" to guide it.

It is hard to fault King's analysis or its sweep. King gives due consideration to almost every aspect of Britain's constitutional change, and he does so in language that is, for the most part, scientifically and determinedly neutral. Only occasionally does a hint of King's own preferences come into play. For example, he notes that, with the reduction in the number of hereditary peers in the House of Lords, it has become a more "rational" body. That the upper chamber worked well for 500 years suggests that it is arguable that it is perhaps more rational than the mishmash of a priori plans that have been proposed - so far unsuccessfully - to alter it. As Edmund Burke noted, "rational" can be as much about what works well in a given historical context as what seems abstractly logical. That said, King, by and large, takes the tone of scientist, not advocate.

If there are any faults in the book, it is King's failure to address the question of the monarchy. King is too quick to dismiss it as a figurehead institution whose powers are merely symbolic and ceremonial. For the most part, that is true, but given King's emphasis on the informal components in any constitutional order, this dismissal of a constitutional office is odd. The monarchy both is sustained by, and helps to sustain, a culture of deference that, although certainly frayed, is still an integral part of the British political, and therefore constitutional, structure. (How else could British politicians get away with transferring wholesale lots of British sovereignty to the EU while generating only the faintest peep from the British public at large? Nothing comparable could happen in America where such deference to elected leaders is nonexistent.) In addition, the monarchy, as scholars have noted, has helped to make change seem less radical and therefore more acceptable.

Moreover, the monarch continues to have the ear of the prime minister in his or her weekly meetings - to what political effect is unknown - and at the end of the day, the monarchy is the ultimate constitutional backstop and greaser of skids. In the event of a hung parliament, for example, it would be almost entirely in the hands of the monarch to determine who is asked to form a government. Also, more significantly on a day-to-day basis, the prime minister can often use the "Queen's Prerogative" to initiate certain actions without recourse to parliamentary approval. These are not insubstantial points, and King can be gently taken to task for not taking the institutional, political and cultural significance of the monarchy more seriously.

Another criticism is King's failure to note the wider global milieu in which Britain's constitutional changes are taking place. While he compares the British system to the Dutch, King fails to make explicit that what is happening in Britain is the importation of continental and American constitutional presumptions into the British constitutional framework. Historically, the British pointed with pride to the fact that their system was the result of long historical compromise and adaptation. An overarching philosophy was deemed unnecessary. In fact, what is happening now is that, gradually, the British have begun to import into their thinking certain American and European assumptions about a constitution as a rationalized structure for protecting certain political freedoms and civil rights. Far from being something unique to Britain's political life, what is happening is that Britain's constitutional identity is merging more and more with the world around it.

Nevertheless, such criticisms are trivial compared to what Professor King has produced. This book is a highly readable and fascinating look at what a great country has done with its venerable institutions, and whether Professor King intended it or not, it is a timely warning to those who value Britain's distinctive contributions to history and the world.

Photos of wonderful Pugs - especially for the months of MAY and DECEMBER - but then, their my pugs - so I'm very proud!

This is a great book for anyone looking to purchase doll house furniture from the 1950s-1980s. The chapters are by Doll Furniture Maker.

Many photographs are in color, and include approximate dates they were made/sold. The book includes an index with price guides (but remember the prices are from 1997).

Also has a nice chapter on the tin kitchen playsets.

The only flaw in the book is that it does not deal in the plastic furniture (that came with the tin lithographed doll houses) -- I had to use Tomart's Guide to learn about those.

Ah, the 1978 World Cup had it all for Scotland. The raving lunacy of mgr Ally MacLeod actually thinking Scotland could win it all. The Willie Johnston failed drug test and the flops vs. Peru and Iran all topped by a historic 3-2 win over '78 Finalists Holland.

It's all here--the tears and the joy but mostly the tears. Great inside stuff on what went on behind the scenes and how the vaunted "best midfield" in the world failed miserably on the big stage.

Done Deal? The Politics of the 1997 Budget Agreement explores the 1997 budget agreement in an effort to understand how a Democratic president and a Republican-controlled Congress can reach an agreement to balance the budget in spite of divided government and partisanship. Palazolo not only provides the reader with a detailed account of the months of debate and compromise that led up to the 1997 agreement, but he places this account in theoretical terms. Palazzolo refutes scholars who argue that the deficit problem cannot be solved because of "inevitable gridlock" due to partisanship and interest group pressures. Using a "realist expectations model," Palazzolo identifies the constraints to policy reform and the ability of key budget actors to adapt to these constraints as well as respond to the changing political and economic environment to produce significant policy reform. Palazolo shows that with a political environment ripe for cooperation, a soaring economy, and key budget actors willing to compromise, a bipartisan deficit reduction agreement can occur in an era of divided government. This book is a must read for any student of politics, particularly those interested in budgeting or divided government.

About a third of this book is an overview of the Ceausescu regime, and it's basically what we've heard elsewhere. Most of this book is the 1989 revolution that overthrew the Ceausescu's, and the still controversial "miner's revolts" in the ensuing months, especially in June 1990.

The authors have done an excellent job interviewing all key players, high and low. Their access is remarkable: Iliescu, the first post-Ceausescu Romanian leader, as well as leaders of the revolution, the National Salvation Front, the opposing party leaders (Peasant's Party, Ecology Party, etc.), and miner's leaders (such as Miron Cozma -- who went on to serve 18 months in prison well after this book was published).

The authors have also interviewed all sorts of common folk: miners, students, demonstrators who were at the revolution in Bucharest and Timisoara, including Father Tokes.

There are even interviews from sideline players, which add much color to events. They interviewed professors of Marxism in the Communist Party Academy who, watching the revolution on TV, realized they'd soon be out of work. And a chapter on Ceausescu's massive public works project, the controversial Boulevard Of The Victory of Socialism, the authors interviewed people whose houses had been torn down, many of whom now live in the new apartments lining the Boulevard. The authors asked them how they like living on the Boulevard. (As has been reported elsewhere, many Romanians are proud of the Boulevard and House Of The Republic, despite the social and architectural costs, which they admit was not necessarily worth it.)

Although much of the pre-revolution info is reported elsewhere, this book offers new material there as well. For instance, this book includes contemporary (from 1990) photos of the three Ceausescu children -- Zoia, Valentin, and the controversial Nicu. The authors also interviewed all three children -- Nicu from his prison. Since Nicu died in 1996, there will be no new interviews forthcoming.

The authors traveled to the Jiu Valley to interview miner leader Miron Cozma, as well as opposition leaders. They even visited the mines.

A down side: in relating the events of the revolution, the authors drop many names of government officials, saying who was where, when, and what they say happened. But we're often told little of these people's backgrounds, career histories, politics, or why they were important. For instance, the book leaves unclear why so many people rallied to Iliescu so early. There are so many people discussed, perhaps the authors didn't want to add 100 or so extra pages with brief bios on everyone. But this lack of context makes it hard to judge or understand events.

This is not a history book, but a work of journalism. (The authors cite the old phrase: Journalism is history's first draft). But there's so much original research in this book, it should remain in print, and in hardback. Historians would find this a useful book. However, I don't think this 1991 British paperback has ever been released in the US, or anywhere in hardback.

Being a work of journalism, the prose is easy to read. It's exciting and informative (as opposed to many academic texts, which are turgid). Both authors are seasoned journalists. Galloway has written for The Guardian, Sunday Times, Evening Standard, Glasgow Herald, the Scotsman -- and he's an MP (member of Parliament). Labour Party, I'd assume. Bob Wyle is also a journalist and teacher; the book describes him as "formerly a prominent Marxist."

Although the authors are both men of the Left, they are not sympathetic to communism (and ironically, they seem to favor the Times' coverage of events to that of The Independent). The book gets all sides, but also admits to having an opinion. Regarding the post-revolution controversies, the authors are sympathetic to Iliescu and the miners. They do not believe accusations that the Iliescu regime was likely a front for Communists and Securitate members; and while they agree that the miners used excessive force, they are also sympathetic to the miners' plight, and agree with those who claim the June demonstrators (crushed by the miners) appeared on the verge of overthrowing Romania's first democratically elected government.

Much has happened since this book was published (the downfall of Iliescu and the imprisonment of Cozma), and events continue to unfold. It's interesting to read where the authors' speculations have proven correct and false. For instance, in 1991 they speculated that Eastern Europe may "return to the policies of the 1930s. Then the region was plagued with xenophobia, nationalism, territorial disputes, ethnic rivalries and Bonapartist dictators". This was true for Yugoslavia. But they were wrong when they suggested that "it is not fanciful to see [Romania] re-emerge as the most powerful and influential in southern Europe in the next decade."

This work of journalism is indeed a first draft of history, and there's much original info here for any historian, amateur or professional, who wishes a snapshot of Romanian politics and society from December 1989-June 1990.