Economic-union Books

Babson's book looks at labor movement history in Detroit as a microcosm of American history as a whole. The field is one not usually covered by historians, and the nearness in time of the events allow for the use of living sources, both of which contribute to make the telling different and authentic. I liked the way that Babson connected events in Detroit with the big picture, as with the sidebar on the Debs campaign for President. The feeling that he conveys of those outdoor Socialist rallies is like that of a tent revival, a fervor generally absent from the politics on the left today. Detroit's leadership in American industrialism for most of the century now ending give the story of Labor's rise national importance, but natives will probably enjoy the book more, given it's intimate portrait of familiar places and faces from our recent past.

This book has it all: intrigue, politics, terrorism, romance, wealth with a Hamptons backdrop. He did alot of research for this book and it is a real page turner. I'm looking forward to his next one...

At this point in time, I'm about 3/4 of the way through this book, and told my wife that I already know how it ends... I will continue to read it hoping for some sort of redemption... aside from the brief sexual encounter between the new chief of police and his new hire... Which I agree with all those who've pointed it out... Small town cop + new female officer = NOT GONNA HOOK UP! If this guy is so smart, he would have avoided that like the plague. The author tends to use the "hero's" full name WAY too often... Justin Westwood this and Justin Westwood that... By the end of the first two chapters, the reader should pretty much be on a first name basis with the main character.

The author of this book seems to imply that there may be a big government conspiracy behind terrorist bombings and the special powers they are being given to deal with terrorist suspects both at home and in Guantanamo Bay. Justin Westwood, a police officer from a small town near the Hamptons in Long Island, New York investigates a plane crash of a small plane. From a few "suspect" things about the death of the pilot involved, Justin goes off on an investigation that causes people who know too much to be killed and top government officials to go after Justin.

I found the whole story implausible and what was really insulting is that anyone who know something seems to be wiped out without a thought by government agents but Justin being the hero is treated totally different. Another thing that bothered me is how easy Justin gets involved with a female cop who he has just hired. Being a real small town with a tiny police force a romantic involvement could really jeopardize a working relationship. Justin supposedly being so smart should know better.

Justin seems to be like Jim Garrison from JFK in pulling together all these "facts' that nobody else can get to piece together the whole organization of the conspiracy. This book did not leave me in the end with any desire to get any more of the other Justin Westwood books. This was a bad attempt by the author to put his "Michael Moore" type theories into a book. He should have just written a political commentary instead.

In a tirade against the current administration veiled as a novel, "Russell Andrews" has written his worst book yet. Justin Westwood is back and investigating some apparent terrorist acts that take place close to his small town. As he investigates the acts, one of which involves the death of the town police chief, the body count rises, as does the intrigue. On a literary level, the book is average. On a propaganda level, the book is obviously a pacifists dream.

I agree with some of the other reviews regarding this novel--it's mediocre and the ending was ridiculous. Very transparent. Maybe I'm just not a hard-core conspiracy buff, but I just couldn't suspend my disbelief enough to buy into the story.

Having worked as a business journalist but dipped my toe into labor history, I find Fitch's book to be thoroughly comprehensive but never dull! From its socialist beginnings to its past and present corrupted state, Fitch clearly demonstrates how the nature of labor representation has been supplanted by an insatiable greed on the part of labor bosses and their backers (the mob and others). Colorful anecdotes are amusing but distressing. Unfortunately, the intensity with which these unions have been permeated does not bode well for any democratic realignment. Yet, Fitch does pause at the end after breathlessly recounting years of history in under 300 pages to provide some simple guiding points to improve union representation, showing yet another side of his compassion for oppressed union/nonunion workers.

I understand that there has been great opposition to this book because of the swashbuckling nature of his criticisms. Unfortunately, it appears there is much to be critical and angry about organized labor in the U.S.. I have no way of knowing if Fitch's takes on each movement is completely accurate. However, the substance of the stories must be there considering the immense bibliography and footnotes which buttress his contentions. In many ways, his anecdotes reinforce the common wisdom but you wish they were somehow secret and not publicly known. The infighting among labor advocates for the complete accuracy of this book should be disproved.

In some ways, the sad history of labor unions appears parallel to corporations and some other institutions that were meant to democratic in nature. As Fitch points out, despite all our strides to be the "home of the free...", we need to look to Europe and other countries for guidance in this area.

We believe that this gripping book will intrigue anyone who is interested in American politics, the labor movement, or social and economic reform. Robert Fitch catalogs trade unions' alleged crimes of corruption, while showing how their organizational structure makes corruption all but inevitable. If you think the U.S. labor movement had only noble origins, it is instructive to reflect on the thugs Fitch says loom so large in its early history. And, if you believe that union corruption belongs to the past, it is salutary to discover how profound and pervasive it is in today's unions, at least, according to this reporter. Fitch strongly explains why he feels union corruption is not just a labor issue, but is a disease that harms society-at-large in many ways, amply explored herein.

Based upon the title of the book and Fitch's opening chapter, one expects a coherent attempt to show that corruption is endemic to the entire labor movement and has resulted in its destruction. Instead, this book reads like a collection of short articles about some of the worst abuses in labor, without developing a coherent theory until the final chapter, which is short and without factual support.
Fitch begins his work by tracing corrupt practices in the beginning of the 20th century, particularly in New York and Chicago. He then provides a number of anecdotes about how the mob or corrupt leadership has controlled or destroyed various locals in the Teamsters, UNITE-HERE (garment workers), LIUNA (laborers) and AFSCME-in New York City. However, Fitch's sensational examples fail to tie in to anything close to a theory. Moreover, Fitch doesn't balance his work by demonstrating what is working or showing how his argument stands against his grudging admission that the overwhelming majority of International Unions and Locals are free from corruption (he admits as much when he discusses the Teamsters). Moreover, Fitch offers nothing new with respect to solutions, except that his suggestion that the closed shop should be abolished and all members should pay dues voluntarily, in the matter of the French system-collection of stamps. He fails to explain why this form of volunteerism hasn't taken hold among members in open shop states who are happy to receive the benefits of collective bargaining without paying for them. Ultimately, while Fitch's sensational stories are easy to read and it is easy for those with no union experience to extrapolate these experiences to an entire movement, the end result is misleading, shrill and anti-union.

Though Fitch does not offer any solutions, his expose is well chronicled. The documentation and stories are entertaining as well as informative, and his analysis does not omit the real flaw of unions then and now: the failure to be incorruptible. It doesn't matter if the corruptions is based on financial gain or status gain. Who are the people in the upper ranks of the unions? Aren't they usually the darlings of the administration? I belonged to my professional union for a few years late in my career. Observing corruption and favoritism in the very beginning of my employment, I did not join. Then, years leter I joined, only to leave again in total disgust. The union did absolutely nothing for the workers. Whatever conflicts arose between workers and employer, it seemed that the union always bowed down to the employer. And did they help establish better working conditions? Better pay? Better benefits? I have serious doubts, since change and improvement had already been planned as not to lose workers to other industries.

The book can make you think, and it could potentially serve as a tool to get more workers OUT of unions.

New York City-based labor reporter Robert Fitch`s new book, ``Solidarity For Sale, how corruption destroyed the labor movement and undermined America`s progress`` is a great expose of American union corruption. Unfortunately, Fitch`s ideas for curing the cancer of labor racketeering leave a lot to be desired.

Fitch, a longtime investigative reporter, does a truly awesome job of exposing the high crimes and petty misdemeanors of America`s union bosses, past and present.

His dogged research ferreted out all the ugly details - from the 1935 Service Employees International Union convention attended by ``Pretty Boy`` Floyd, ``Machine Gun`` Kelly and Al Capone underboss Frank Nitti to AFSCME District Council 37`s use of union funds to pay for hot sheets motels and prostitutes for lonely union bosses.

Beyond exposing graft, Fitch also lays bare the patronage politics at the base of most of America`s union movement. And, he presents the true face of ``union reformers`` like SEIU President Andy Stern, former Teamsters head Ron Carey and the Teamsters for a Democratic Union caucus.

In particular, ``Solidarity For Sale`` exposes the true agenda of ``progressive`` unions like UNITE HERE and the SEIU - corporate ``unions`` administered General Motors-style by American Management Association-trained executives who never pushed a broom or mopped a floor.

In other words, Bob Fitch exposes the problem, in gut-churning detail... that alone makes this book a must-read.

The problem is, Fitch doesn't really offer viable solutions to those problems. This is not due to any ill-will on Fitch`s part (he is a truly honorable, sincere and principled man, who sacrificed a potentially lucrative career as a union official to expose union corruption in the media). Instead, the problem is basically ideological - Fitch`s politics appear to be a cross between 18th century Jeffersonian democracy and 21th century anti authoritarian anarchism - and his political solutions to the problems of American unions reflect the limitations imposed by those ideologies.

The book`s main weaknesses come from this political perspective. One glaring limitation is the almost complete absence of any discussion of White supremacism and sexism in the unions.

Fitch does talk, at length, about the Teamsters Union`s incitement of a race riot in 1905 Chicago during the Montgomery Ward strike, that led to the death of 21 Black people. However, the more subtle day-to-day racism goes largely undiscussed by this work

This is odd, considering that many US labor organizations openly practiced Jim Crow segregation well into the 1960`s

Fitch laments about the political backwardsness of American unions as compared to their European counterparts - but leaves out the most logical explination... how do you fight for equality while simultaneously practicing White supremacism??

Discussion of union sexism is similarly neglected - even in Fitch`s very comprehensive and well researched section on the garment industry unions.

This is NOT to say that Bob Fitch is in any way racist or sexist, just that those issues do not really fit that well into his political agenda.

Fitch speaks, at length, of Thomas Jefferson`s dream of an America of independent small business owners, living a life autonomous from the state - but leaves out the real world Thomas Jefferson, a slave owning pedophile who lived in a Virginia populated by slaves and indentured servants. Jefferson`s ``yeoman farmer democracy`` never existed in the real world - not in his day, or ours - basically, he believed in democracy for White male businessmen only, and Fitch ignores that fact.

Fitch speaks nostalgically of the socialism of Gene Debs and Jack London, while not mentioning the reality of the Gene Debs who led segregated Whites only railroad workers unions and the Jack London who wrote openly anti-Black newspaper articles. The so called ``socialism`` of Debs and London was for White men only - and Fitch ignores that fact as well.

The true flaw of ``Solidarity For Sale`` is a lack of a sense of history. Fitch compares local unions to medieval fiefdoms and their leaders to Egyptian Pharoahs and Somali warlords - rather than presenting those organizations and union bosses for what they really are - the product of contemporary capitalist production.

In all capitalist countries, there is a class struggle. This grows out of the natural conflict between workers and bosses that emerges every day, due to the fact that the goods and services produced by workers are expropriated by business owners, and the workers are paid less than the value of what they produced. This process is called ``exploitation of labor`` and it is the reality of how capitalism works - every worker is exploited, from the sweatshop laborer who gets $ 1/hr to the airline pilot who makes $ 100,000 a year.

Trade unions grow naturally out of that struggle between workers and bosses. However, the function of unions is to MEDIATE that class conflict, by making slight improvements in the conditions of workers.

Basically, what unions do is to try and reform the capitalist system, rather than attempting to overthrow it and replace it with rule by the working class.

This tends to lead to unions being dominated by the most priviliged workers, the section of the class who have the strongest ties to the bosses and are most loyal to the system.

This also leads to unions subordinating themselves to the bosses who`s workers they represent, and also leads to them compromising the needs of the majority of the workers for the bosses and the priviliged workers.

That general pattern applies to every capitalist country in the world.

In America, there is the added wrinkle of this country`s long racist history, which infected the American labor movement from day one. The most priviliged workers, who ran the unions, tended to be White, as were their bosses, so they were united in their White supremacism.

Also, in many major American cities, small businessmen used the services of gangsters to limit competition and divide up the market among themselves. Since the unions, and the priviliged workers who led them, had strong ties to those bosses, it was inevatible that they would develop ties to those very same gangsters.

Unfortunately, this analysis is absent in Fitch`s work.

Fitch also looks to the government for the salvation of the American worker. He seems to view the government as some kind of neutral entity that exists above classes and is some kind of neutral agent.

In reality, the Federal, State and local governments all serve the interests of the dominant business interests - they always have, and, as long as we live in a capitalist society, they always will.

Fitch advocates a ``historic compromise`` between workers and bosses - where the businesspeople would recognize some kind of ``workers councils`` and in return, the present unions would give up dues checkoff and maintenance of membership.

Under this consumer choice system, workers would be able what union to pay dues to, or to not pay dues at all - much the way that people can choose what phone company or cell phone provider to use, or how Medicaid recipients in New York get to choose what HMO their coverage will be provided through.

Fitch also envisions municipal hiring halls for casual labor industries like construction, which would be run with civil service-style rules.

Incidentally, Fitch`s ahistoricism weakens his analysis here too.

You'd never know it from ``Solidarity For Sale, which presents the construction industry as if it was still overwhelmingly union as it was a generation ago, but corrupt union hiring halls are irrelevant for the nation`s 6.7 million non union construction workers. Some of them have steady jobs with non union contractors - most of them rely on employment agencies like Labor Ready or sidewalk shapeups in Home Depot parking lots and on suburban streetcorners.

Even for the barely half a million construction workers remaining in the unions, the best jobs never get anywhere near the union out of work lists - those jobs are reserved for ``company men``, steady employees of contractors, who`s only contact with the union is when they pay their dues by mail 4 times a year.

That was always true of union hiring systems, a fact that Fitch ignores in his discussion of the construction unions, since it would weaken his arguments on the origin of despotism within unions.

Fitch claims that unions became dictatorships when unions gained a monopoly over employment, and workers had to curry favor with union bosses to get jobs. The problem with that argument is that, with few exceptions, construction unions NEVER had that monopoly over employment - the best jobs were always under the exclusive control of the contractors - the union hiring halls only got the scraps.

In today's deunionized construction industry, that reality is even more dramatic.

Beyond the limitations of Fitch`s proposals for the construction industry, his general labor reform ideas have a really serious problem.

Fitch envisions the government stepping in and making these changes, but he doesn`t explain how or why the capitalists would let their government agree to ANY of these reforms...

Fitch envisions an America reinvented like Sweden or France. But, he ignores the fact that the capitalists of Europe made their concessions to the working class basically at the point of a gun.

During the glory years of European reformism, there was World War I, the Russian revolution (and attempted revolutions in Germany and Hungary) and World War II.

For a good chunk of the 20th century, the rulers of Europe were confronted by armed angry workers, most of whom were socialists or communists who envisioned a working class ruled society. The social concessions they made were attempts to save capitalism from revolutionary overthrow - a few social programs here and union rights there were a
small price to pay to preserve the private exploitation of labor.

American bosses never had to deal with any of that...and therefore they never had to make the kind of concessions the European businesspeople did.

For this country, WW I and WW II were times of profit, prosperity and high wages, rather than the death, rape and starvation the Europeans had to deal with. It was easy for the bosses here to buy off the upper layer of the working class, rather than make concessions to all the workers - especially since American workers were divided by race, and most White workers would casually betray the struggles of their Black and Latino counterparts.

Fast forward to today, and we see another reality.

The bosses of Europe are trying to take back all the concessions they gave in the 20th century. They no longer have to worry about revolution - and, like American bosses, they now have a White workforce that is heavily infected with racism, and willing to turn on their Black and Muslim brothers and sisters in a heartbeat.

The workers of Europe are fighting a rearguard struggle to preserve those social gains, but, in the absence of a real threat of revolution and with the rise of European racism, the bosses of Europe will, more likely than not, eventually succeed in ``Americanizing`` their labor relations system.

In a world like that, does Bob Fitch`s reform program, however well-intentioned, have a snowball`s chance in hell???

There is hope, though.

The class struggle will continue, no matter how many times it is betrayed by the unions (that's just how capitalism works). Eventually, workers will set up a new type of workers organization, dedicated to overthrowing capitalism, rather than reforming it.

That's not going to happen tomorrow, or next Tuesday, but, this writer hopes, it will happen someday. It's just a question of workers learning from the mistakes of our predecessors, and building a movement dedicated to overthrowing this system for the benefit of the majority of workers, instead of just trying to make it more bearable for a narrow priviliged few

Meanwhile, it is very useful to expose the crimes and betrayals of worker organizations that try to reform capitalist exploitation. ``Solidarity For Sale``, whatever it`s political weaknesses, does succeed in doing that, and I would urge folks to buy this book.

If you expect anything even approaching an objective and truthful retelling or analysis of the Phelps Dodge strike, you'll be sadly disappointed. Kingsolver picks a series of unsubstantiated and self-interested stories of the strikers and completely ignores the horrible violence committed by the unions.

...

I could hardly believe what I read. It's is amazing how this "novel" is treated as a serious work, but it is merely a story, loosely based on the events. Worst of all, it is based completely on angry spiteful stories. She makes these people out to be heroes, but she ignores those that brought their children to the picket line with their hands taped to hold up their middle finger, those brandishing pistols to kill the scabs (all of this caught on network news). She ignores the violence of the strikers driving through the cities randomly shooting into homes, including shooting a young child at home asleep in bed. If these are heroes, I am a little worried.
I was there, before, during and after. My family worked there, before, during and after. She quotes Fina Roman complaining of being tear-gassed, yet ignores why. The strikers were armed and storming the plant with threats to kill. Ask why my father and brother were forced to sleep in the mine because it was unsafe to leave the plant. Ask me about having a baseball bat taken to my vehicle and cups of urine thrown at me while driving through the gate in a non-union position.
I grew up with the union. My father had always been union. Seeing this event is why I have never again been supportive of the unions. At a time when copper was priced incredibly low, Phelps Dodge made a compromise to keep the mine open and keep jobs. These "heroes" bit the hand that fed them. Look around at all of the ghost towns where industry used to be. Those are in places that aren't right to work states.
After the strike, the lowest salaries were in the $10/hour range, back in the early 80s. This was after the Phelps Dodge "drastic" pay cuts. Medical insurance included a $10 and $15 co-pay, but otherwise fully funded. The salaries and benefits from there over 20 years ago would be welcome in many places today. The reason why the company was able to hire people to fill the striking worker's jobs is because everyone from outside of this mentality could see how good the jobs and salaries were compared to the alternative. That's not to say the company was all virtuous and without fault. In this case, though, the company shares little righteous blame.
So, if you want to read this book, see it for what it is. It is not an accurate retelling in any way. The author makes no effort to identify even a common ground, but uses spiteful, vindictive stories to try to satisfy an anti-"Corporate America" image.

Barbara Kingsolver was a young reporter in Arizona when she was assigned to write a story about this strike. Little did she know then that the strike would last for eighteen months, and that this book would be a natural outgrowth of her interest. The book is filled with facts and figures as well as the stories of people who bravely "held the line" each day, picketing against the "scab" workers that were brought in by the Phelps Dodge Copper Corporation. It's also the story of a town, where the only work was in the mine. And it's also about the generations of Mexican American citizens of that town who had to fight prejudice as well as the everyday dangers inherent in mining.

Most of all though, it is the story of the women and how this strike broadened their understanding of the world beyond their families, and let them develop new strengths. For it was mostly the women who stood on that picket line - the wives, sisters and mothers of the men who would have been arrested. Families were threatened with eviction. There was even a catastrophic flood during this time, which brought its own kind of devastation. And some of the women were arrested too. But despite intimidation, tear gas and harassment, the community stood firm.

I was particularly interested in the stories of the handful of women who actually worked in the mine. One of them had 11 children but needed the work to be able to help her husband support the family. Eight dollars an hour doesn't seem like much, but it was considered a good wage compared with $3.00 an hour for being a secretary. Several of them described the actual work, including the heavy lifting all day long and sometimes working as many as 28 days in a row. Their male co-workers verbally harassed them. And there was no special restroom for women. Eventually though, they won respect.

But when the corporation wanted to cut wages and eliminate even a cost-of-living increase, the strike started. It went on and on. Ms. Kingsolver goes into all the details. It was fascinating. It was if I was just picked up from my New York City apartment and plunked down on the picket line of a little town that had less people than one apartment building on my block.

The eventual result wasn't very good for anybody though. Not in the usual sense. But by the time the author gives her own spin on the situation, including her feminist politics, I was left with a positive feeling, as was her intention. I learned things from this book. I learned about a copper mine in Arizona, the actual jobs and the people who worked there. I learned about the large and imperfect system of unions in this country. And, most of all, I learned about the strength and courage of a few special women.

Barbara Kingsolver is one of the, if not the, greatest writers ever produced by America, maybe, the world. With care and compassion, she writes a thorough account of the mine strike of 1983 in Southern Arizona. During the height of the Cold War, while Reagan was calling the Soviet Union and Communism, the "evil empire," things which Americans thought went on "only over there" were happening in Southern Arizona. Hard-working people who did no more than stand up for there rights, were denied their right to assemble, to speak, to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Judges, Governor Bruce Babbitt, Department of Public Safety, the National Guard, and the local authorities, all in the pocket and payroll of Phelps Dodge Copper Corporation who was trying to break up the Unions, so they could re-institute racist, sexist, classist, policies.

They all failed. The Morenci Mine Women's Auxiliary led the way to community solidarity against all odds. More than any strike victory, they gained, life, confidence, and a purpose in life. Read this book, it's told in the form of interviews and narrative. You'll get to know and have affection for Anna O'Leary, Flossie Navarro, Berta Chavez, and many other women of Clifton, Arizona. You'll root for them, be inspired by them, and, be moved by them. What a wake up call! Working people of the world, UNITE!

In "Holding the Line", author Barbara Kingsolver ("The Poisonwood Bible", "Animal Dreams") offers us an account of the strike at the 1983 Morenci Copper Mine in Arizona. Kingsolver was working as a reporter at the time and spent quite a bit of time with the women involved in the strike. She gives the reader a different perspective on the strike; and on strikes in general. "Holding the Line" focuses on the women involved in the strike and how the strike affected them, and also just how much influence they held during the strike. Kingsolver admits her bias early on in the preface, so the reader knows from the start that the author personally sides with the strikers against the company, Phelps Dodge.

After spending decades slowing winning better pay, better working conditions and opportunities for women and minorities, the union works are the Morenci Copper Mine are dealt a new blow and a new challenge: At the end of their current contract, Phelps Dodge claims that they are losing money and the new contract the offer is with reduced wages and the elimination of a Cost of Living Expense for its workers. The way the workers have traditionally won concessions and what should be considered "human rights" (here I show my bias) is through a strike. The union workers walked off the job at the end of their contract and thus began an 18 month standoff between the workers and the giant Phelps Dodge, which almost immediately began bringing in scab labor to try to break the strike and break the union.

In a culture where women have traditionally been at home, "barefoot in the kitchen", the women in Morenci and the other nearby mining towns began to get involved. At first it was just to assist their husbands, but as the strike continued and the police and the National Guard are called in and start abusing their power, the women become a true force. They became the glue that held the strike together, and in the process found a sense of empowerment that they never would have discovered otherwise. Kingsolver showed how this strike helped to better shape the community and brought the women together. She also shows, through the eyes and stories of these women, exactly what Phelps Dodge and the "authorities" were doing, and it wasn't good.

"Holding the Line" is a powerful book with a stunning story. Barbara Kingsolver took what I thought was going to be a dry subject and brought it to life. The reader is able to get a sense of the outrage and frustration and triumphs of these women as Phelps Dodge tries to grind their lives into the dust and break the back of the union. But, the women became the backbone of the local union, and they were unbreakable. To say that this book is a story of true triumph in the face of a corporate giant would be to mischaracterize it, however, because that isn't what this story is and it isn't what the end result happened to be. But, it is a story that I had never heard and one that deserved to be told.

-Joe Sherry

The one-star, long-winded review offered below by Greg Peisert almost entirely misses the point of this rich and rewarding book. Peisert's comment cites low unemployment in the United States, but ignores the atrocious condition of overseas work for American corporations and the proliferation of unlivable-wage jobs here at home. Both of these trends are well-documented in "Corporate Predators". You may also notice that Peisert's refutation of the book is based upon cases in which one corporation succumbs to another; he forgets the subject matter of the book is the treatment of workers by corporations, not the treatment of corporations by one another. As the book documents, the treatment of many workers by their employers has become simply shameful, and much of this trend is due to the rise of de facto corporate government here and world-wide. A book well worth reading, and one that's long overdue.

For the past twenty years, after a decade and a half of populist resurgence against corporate abuses by consumer, environmental, women's rights and civil rights forces, big business has been on a rampage to control our society. Whether these business supremacies are called corporatization, commercialism, monopolies or the corporate state, the overall concentration of power and wealth in ever fewer multinational corporate centers is a matter of record.

In arena after arena -- government, workplace, marketplace, media, environment, education, science, technology-- the dominant players are large corporations. What countervailing forces that our society used to depend upon for some balance are not in retreat against the aggressive expansion of corporate influence far beyond its traditional mercantile boundaries?

The enlarged power that corporations deploy to further increase their revenues and socialize their costs comes from many sources -- old and new. Roughly eighty percent of the money contributed to federal candidates come from business interests. The mobility to export capital has given transnational companies major leverage against local, state and federal officials, not to mention against organized and unorganized labor. The swell of corporate welfare handouts has reached new depths. The contrived complexity of many financial and other services serves to confuse, deplete and daunt consumers who lose significant portions of their income in a manipulative marketplace. Alliances, joint ventures and other complex collaborations between should-be competitors have made a mockery of what is left of antitrust enforcement.

The opportunities to control or defeat governmental attempts for corporate accountability that flow from transcending national jurisdictions into globalized strategies to escape taxation and pit countries and their workers against one another appear to be endless. The autocratic systems of governance called GATT and NAFTA reflect to the smallest detail ways that giant corporations wish to control the world. These firms are on a collision course against democratic processes, and the merging of states and businesses, to the latter's advantage, weakens relentlessly both the restraints of the law and the willingness of legislators to do anything about it.

Taken together, the world is witnessing its subjugation to the large corporate model of economic development, the large corporate model of technology and the large corporate model of culture itself. These accelerating trendlines invite accelerating comprehension and response. History demonstrates that commercialism knows few boundaries that are not externally imposed. All the major religions have warned their adherents against the excesses of commercial value systems, albeit with different languages, images and metaphors.

Specific descriptions of corporate misbehavior do nourish proper generalizations that in turn lead to more just movements and practices. Here, columnists Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman provide a distinct service in Corporate Predators. It is not just the versatility of their writings -- covering bribery, pollution, corporate crime, fraud and abuse, failure of law enforcement, union-busting, the mayhem inflicted by product defects and toxics, the deep gap between the rich and the rest of America, corporate front groups, the media censorship and self-censorship, the profiteering, the pillaging overseas and more-- but it is also the impact on the reader that comes from aggregating evidence. Our country does not collect statistics on corporate crime e way it does on street crime. For it to do so would begin to highlight a little-attended agenda for law enforcement and other corporate reforms. Neither Congress nor the White House and its Justice Department have made any moves over the years to assemble from around the country the abuses of corporations in quantifiable format so as to drive policy.

So, description -- accurate, representational description -- must now suffice. As the editor of the Corporate Crime Reporter (Mokhiber)and the editor of the Multinational Monitor (Weissman), the authors know well the difference between anecdotes that are illustrative and that are idiosyncratic. This volume of their weekly columns carries the evidence that illustrates patterns of continuing corporate derelictions, not lonely deviations from a more congenial norm.

The authors' experience over the years with the impact of disclosures has led them to the conclusion that the facts must be linked to civic engagement and democratic activity for change. If disclosure produced its own dynamic imperatives for change, the recurrent exposure of corporate abuses in such mainstream publications as the Wall Street Journal, Business Week and some national television programs like Sixty Minutes would have caused these changes. Such, unfortunately has not been the case. The linkages between knowledge and action have not been sufficient. But readers of Common Courage Press published books tend towards citizen activism. They want to know because they want to do. Some may even agree with the ancient Chinese saying that "To know and not to do is not to know."

So, go forward readers who wish to be leaders in the advancement of justice -- what Daniel Webster once called "the great work of men on Earth"-- and savor the writings that will motivate more and more women and men to band together in organizations that build a more just democracy.

Ralph Nader, 1999

The text, after the three page intro by Nader, consists of 202 pages with some cartoons as well as section title pages included, followed by a ten page index that includes subjects and publications as well as names.

Mokhiber is the editor of the "Corporate Crime Reporter" and Weissman is the editor of the "Multinational Monitor." The text of the book consists of 60 articles taken from these two periodicals divided into eight sections as follows:

1. Corporate Crime and Violence

2. The Corporate Attack on Democracy

3. The Global Hunt for Mega-Profits

4. Corporation Nation

5. The Big Boys Unite: Merger Mania in the 1990's

6. Commercialism Run Amok

7. Of Sweatshops and Union Busting

8. Do I Have to Arrest You? Corporations and the Law

As a collection of news columns, the book consists of anecdotes with conclusions that tend toward hyperbole, but for the most part are accurate, if a bit emotionalized. Since each article was written for the intended audience of subscribers to the two periodicals (the date is indicated at the beginning of each), they read like they are preaching to the converted. No neoliberal will be convinced of such a statement as:

"Most corporate criminologists agree that corporate crime and violence inflicts far more damage on society than all street crime combined. That includes killings and deaths."

The authors provide no non-anecdotal evidence for what might seem an astounding statement, but I have read widely enough to know that it is essentially true, depending on how you define "corporate crime." This assertion is repeated twice elsewhere, indicating little or no editing before assembly here. A few of the articles are followed by a one or two paragraph update bearing on events that happened between original publication and the date this book went to press. There are no footnotes, and scant reference to any sources for their information. I suppose if you have access to Nexus or something similar, you could do a date-limited search (based on when the article was written) to find out more.

It would have been nice if Mokhiber and Weissman had provided an over-arching introductory essay of, say, 20 pages, giving an overview of the problems involving the ever-increasing expansion of corporate behemoths, drawing a relationship between relative power and systemic greed-driven flaunting of the law, and putting into historical context the privatization of profits and socialization of costs. It was lazy and irresponsible of them not to do this, and that is why it gets only three stars.

The book is a quick and fascinating read, but I recommend you check it out from your local library. That's what I did!

While the gentleman bellow makes some good points about a balance that should be maintained in this type of work, I think that some level of extreme is needed in a counter attack against the un-emotional, profit driven pseudo-science that staunch capitalists spout as if pure Capitalism and the so-called "free market" were the only option this world has. If the previous reviewer were realy concerned about balance and fairness, then he would recognize that some level of emotion is needed to help the people of the world achieve some level of economic and social equality. The rapidly growing gap between rich and poor is an obvious result of the type of socialism for the wealthy and capitalism for the poor that exists in this country, and this book does a good job of exemplifying the extreme consequences of this situation. Besides, Capitalism is just a eco-philosophical theory espoused as science.

Mokhiber and Weissman provide plenty of potential fuel for the fire with their insightful discussions on corporate chartering, democracy for sale, and Constitutional abuses. Unlike many, they name names and reference credible sources. Unless the dangers of corporate dominance are addressed, we can expect books such as Corporate Predators to become very popular during the next economic downturn. Read it now and not only avoid the rush, avoid the dangers they point to so well.

OK, this book ain't that bad -- I could have given it a 2 or even a 3 star. The reason I don't is because it has been so boldly promoted, and so greatly influential, that most people forget that it is based on some wrong social science.

Though we could stand here and talk about the merits and demerits of The Choice For Europe (or, more generally, of Liberal Inter-Governmentalism) for ages, I just want to make two points:

1) Social science does not work by presenting different theories and the hyopotheses they lead to, and then trying to see which one works better on a populat6ion of ... three or four cases. The point is double:

- You should not compare theories, but hypotheses derived from one and the same theory. Otherwise, you just cannot know whether you are testing the assumptions of the theories or their hypotheses. Since Moravscik compares theories, his method is wrong.

- You should not pretend to be doing social science by making inferences on the basis of a handful (here, less) of cases. Social cases can be done on the basis of one case alone (on this, see Ragin 1994 and references therein). And, of course, it can be done on the basis of dozens of cases (for this, see Lewis-Beck 1995 or Ragin 1994). But it cannot be done on the basis of monkeying dozens of cases with just 3 or 4 cases... Since Moravcsik does that, again, he is wrong.

2. The one point where this book might have been strong is the empirical data. The author makes a lot of fuss about his sources and his qualitative/interpretive techniques. Fine, but why does he say that the 1957 Treaty contained provisions on merger control? More generally, why does he make so many factual mistakes? And why does he almost ignore the Paris negotiations of 1950-51?

Three important "wrongs" in a book that aims so hard at proving others wrong are three easy wrongs too many... So, read this as a relatively fine version of the story of European integration. But do not read it thinking it is social science.

In this deeply researched book, Andrew Moravcsik studies five key moves toward wider and deeper European integration: the Treaties of Rome, consolidating the Common Market, monetary integration, the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty. He argues that the member governments chose ever closer union in order to promote their countries' economic interests. He aims to prove that economic interests, not political ideas, drive EU integration. He focuses on how the governments of Germany, France and Britain made their decisions.

Moravcsik argues that the British government's policy in the 1950s of opposition to joining the Common Market "was the rational one for a government that traded little with the Continent, had high tariffs in place, and feared competition with German producers." So there was economic logic to staying out. It is less clear that there was good reason for the subsequent reversal of policy: trading with a bloc does not oblige us to join it!

He shows that De Gaulle vetoed Britain's application not out of chauvinism, but because we opposed generous financing for French farmers through the Common Agricultural Policy. In 1969, Pompidou lifted the veto, but only in exchange for the British government's huge concession of agreeing to a permanent financing arrangement for the CAP. This made it CAP reform impossible.

Similarly, member governments have pursued integration through creating the Single Market and EMU. Moravcsik shows how Europe's multinational companies and the national employers' organisations backed integration. The European Commission admitted, "The single market programme has done more for business than it has for workers", a judgment true also of Economic and Monetary Union. Economic interests may well have determined the drive to a single state, but paradoxically the closer the cooperation between EU members has become, the worse their economies have performed.

Capitalist states and multinational companies have taken the EU road to lost sovereignty and economic integration, but the peoples of Europe are increasingly choosing otherwise, as the Irish people showed in the 7 June referendum on the Nice Treaty. In particular, here in Britain the option of leaving the EU looks more and more inviting.

Andrew Moravcsik boldly makes the case for the centrality of the three largest member states in the construction of Europe. In this volume, Moravcsik articulates his "liberal intergovernmentalist" (LI) framework of analysis and utilizes primary sources to strengthen his response to Paul Pierson's "historical institutionalist" (HI) account of European integration. As Moravcsik explains, in making the choice for Europe

"...it was the deliberate triumphs of European integration, not its unintended side-effects, that appear to have increased support for further integration. This is the key point of divergence between HI theory and the tri-partite "liberal intergovernmentalist" interpretation advanced here. For most governments, inducing economic modernization-even with unpleasant side-effects-was the major purpose of European integration." (p. 491)

One of the strongest contributions of Moravcsik's volume is to revisit the classic neo-functionalist-intergovernmentalist debate and to place it in a new theoretical context. To Moravcsik's credit, this tome offers a detailed, thorough and remarkably organized assessment of competing explanations in the European integration literature. Students and scholars of integration will grapple with the issues raised as a result of this work for years to come.

Moravcsik's volume challenges the "myths" of European integration and calls into question the relevance of actions taken by supranational entrepreneurs. National versus supranational debates notwithstanding, Monnet's (and later Delor's) talent was to seize a moment in history when Europe was at the brink of continuity or change. Monnet's use of crisis as opportunity sought to alter fundamentally the way in which France and Germany interacted within the European system. Is this not the essence of the Schuman Plan in 1950, namely, to use the opportunity to modernize France economically as part of an equation to make future wars with its neighbor across the Rhine impossible?

Although convergence was already apparent among European economies, did the initial political decision to pool the critical resources in the making of war, to integrate in the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), require individuals like Schuman, Monnet, Adenauer and Hallstein to work against the fact that European states mistrusted each other and were therefore disinclined to integrate? It is most unfortunate that volume length does not permit Moravcsik to cover this initial case. In the light of the ECSC experience, was the agreement to create the Common Market in 1958 intrinsically about making European countries richer? The archival research of Raymond Poidevin and Andreas Wilkens sheds light on the experience of the ECSC. Their writings may help us evaluate the extent to which the initial experiments in integration, including the aborted European Political Community (EPC) and European Defense Community (EDC), influenced the interests of the Six during the Treaty of Rome negotiations. References to Poidevin's work are scarce among the 1116 footnotes in The Choice for Europe. There are some citations of Wilken's writings, but not those that critically evaluate the impact of Monnet's role during the period 1950-57.

In Moravcsik's analysis, economic interests, asymmetrical interdependence and more credible commitments, respectively, drive states to negotiate, cooperate and integrate in Europe. Moravcsik candidly (and correctly) acknowledges that his primacy of economics explanation is less helpful to our understanding of German motivations to cooperate in Europe. In the French case, does Moravcsik's revisionist account successfully convince us that de Gaulle emphasized national economic interests over geopolitical priorities or an ideology of grandeur? By asserting that ideas motivate only when no strong interest is involved, does Moravcsik's account draw an unnecessary dividing line between the General's socio-economic and geo-political goals? It may be argued that the General's priorities were inextricably intertwined as President to assure the country's place as the first among states in Europe. My own volume on the Maastricht process demonstrates the relevance of two-level analysis. Other writings about Britain's role in the Maastricht negotiations likewise stress the importance of simultaneous domestic-international interactions in intergovernmental conference diplomacy. Given that Moravcsik's own prior writings strikingly illustrate the contributions of Putnam's model, it is puzzling why he does not emphasize two-level games in The Choice for Europe. Moreover, the potential for interactions among the three analytical stages Moravcsik defines in his book, namely, preference formation, interstate bargaining and implementation, also warrants more attention in future editions.

The phenomenal number of sources cited in Moravcsik's tome is a compelling reason to include a bibliography, including the names, places and dates of all interviews conducted. This would help the reader locate cited materials more efficiently. Moreover, it would underline Moravcsik's attention to primary sources which brings us to a methodological point. Moravcsik does not cite magazine or newspaper articles and relies a good deal on confidential interviews. It may be argued that journalistic writings are helpful when "hard" primary sources, namely, internal government documents, are systematically cross checked with these accounts. Accurate journalistic reporting, when referenced consistently, can also confirm or deny explanations given in confidential interviews. These techniques allow for a greater degree of transparency in source materials.

The preceding points are evidence that, given the numerous questions this volume raises, Moravcsik has admirably achieved his most important objective: to renew the intellectual-practitioners' debate about the fundamental causes of European integration. The Choice for Europe is recommended to a wide audience as an unprecedented work that incorporates elements of comparative politics, international relations and political economy in a historical narrative that challenges us to think critically about the reasons why states choose to cooperate.

I found this book one of the best I have read on European integration history. It is a good example of revisionist history at its best. Compared to other books i have studied on the same subject this one makes a number of novel points and gives a completely different emphasis on driving factors & driving actors of the process of EU integration, putting the role of the Member States at centre stage all the way, and their economic interests as primary driving elements. To me, as an economist, this sounded convincing and certainly puts a novel slant on the traditional 'high politics' integration story. At the same time, I also found it a somewhat depressing account of the ineffectiveness of the Commission at crucial times of decision making. The book certainly puts into question some cherished notions about the role and functioning of the Commission, and since I am proud to work there it was not easy to take this in.

I found the first chapter hard going and somewhat obtruse, although i can appreciate the methodological points he makes, which are all to often ingnored. Once one is through that, though, the real story begins and a fascinating account it is, especially since it certainly does not follow the analysis i have read previously on this subject.

An excellent reference work, and certain to stimulate many a (heated) debate.

For once, here is a general text purporting to analyse the history of European integration that actually lives up to its billing. It is quite rightly considered a tour de force. Indeed, Andrew Moravcsik's "The choice for Europe" has already established itself as one of the most important publications to date on this subject. While it is obvious that the continued evolution of the European Union has been one of the most `extraordinary political achievements' to have taken place during the 20th century, the reasons why this community of states was created in the first place and the ways in which it has since developed have not always been so convincingly explained or succinctly outlined, that is until now. What Robert Keohane describes on the fly-cover as the `most compelling and significant analysis yet of the European Community' is just that.

Moravcsik is not a historian, but in this text he tries to integrate political science theory into a historical study of European unity; this is in order to discover why there has been such a high-level of cooperation between Western European states during the last half-century. His book fills an important gap in our knowledge by tracing the somewhat erratic developments that have led to a greater degree of economic and political union gradually being instituted throughout this region and by placing these in a theoretical perspective.

In this most accessible work, he persuasively argues that economic interdependence has been the prime motivator in successive governments making these rational choices. One of the weak (and strong) points however regarding Moravcsik's investigation is that it only focuses on the big European powers - Germany, Great Britain and France, as well as the European Commission - and does not really delve into small-power politics. Questions such as how these smaller nations tried to operate within, or negotiate entry into, the EEC as they became more aware and realistic about their world positions, how they operated in relation to the big powers, et cetera, must wait until their specific histories have been chronicled before they can be answered. At least historians now have a tool to do so.

In taking the case studies that he does, Moravcsik examines them in the context of what he sees as the five decisive agreements that have driven European integration all the way from Messina to Maastricht: via the Treaties of Rome in 1957, the EC Merger Treaty and other consolidatory and expansionary agreements enacted during the 1960s, the various examples of European monetary integration during the 1970s and early 1980s, and the Single European Act of 1986, all the way to Economic and Monetary Union in 1991. In so doing, he develops his thesis on integration history to fit the facts rather than the other way round, while providing a critique of existing theories and presenting us with one of the best existing analyses on this topic. This volume by Moravcsik is clearly a strong basis for future historiographical debate.

Great book if you want to explore the feebleness of marxist analysis. Authors spend two of seven chapters trying to work out a definition of profit. Well, you will not get an analysis of profitability if you do not have a useful definition of profit. Besides, in 20th century America (when this book was written) there was no problem with the definition of profit, so what was their problem? Their problem, of course, is they are marxists, and a mighty big problem that turns out to be.
If you want an economic analysis of Southern slavery, you will do better with "Time On The Cross", which is one of the earliest exercises in investigating ante-bellum slavery with modern economic tools.

In 'Debating Slavery', Mark M. Smith has made quite an achievement: he took two topics which I personally find fascinating - American Negro Slavery and Historiography - and managed to produce a sordid essay, that is almost entirely unenlightening and literally painful to read.

Smith's book exposes the opinions of scholars of slavery on several key questions about the 'peculiar institution': Was slavery profitable? Were slave owners Capitalists? And to what extent did the owners control the life and culture of slaves?

Smith's answer to all these questions seems to be a variation on 'to an extent'. Slaveholders were part Capitalist and part not Capitalists, and what is Capitalism anyway? The Slaves had their own culture but where very influenced by the masters, etc. I don't mind ambiguity and nuance in analysis, but Smith comes off not as complex but as indecisive.

It doesn't help that Smith's narrative is little more then a list of scholars's opinions, along with citations and reference. There are some attempts to flash out the argument (often using graphs and charts), but those are halfhearted. Smith seems to think that reference is a substitute for an argument.

In what is essentially an extended bibliographical essay, one would expect a useful list of works sited. Unfortunately, even that is not properly done. After a short list of 'general books', Smith goes on to put a separate bibliography for each chapter, without repeating titles. As a result, if you are trying to locate a reference to a book in chapter five, for instance, you may have to look through the bibliographies of all the preceding chapters, as the work you're looking for may be mentioned in any of them.

All in all, Debating Slavery is a mercilessly bad book. The only good thing I can say about it is that it is short; but that just means it's overpriced :-)

For the first time, when a professor assigned his book, I was happy to read it. Smith's doe brown eyes didn't hurt, either.

A welcome addition to Cambridge's distinguished series, Dr. Smith provides a superb summation of the often tortured gymnastics that historians perform to fit slavery in America, and the antebellum American South in general, into Marxist theory. The tireless (unquestioning) quest of historians of the US South to squeeze the antebellum period into a "premodern/modern" interpretation has been diffused. An excellent historiographical work and a must read for any student of the period. Highly recommended!

In his second book on slavery in two years, Professor Mark Smith of the Unievrsity of South Carolina has established himself as one of this generation's more astute historians. Eschewing traditional "either-or" schools of historical interpretation, he provides a rational, yet passionate, examination of the institution of slavery. While older historians have gotten themselves all wrapped up in economic theories with all sorts of litmus tests, Smith takes a more reasoned approach. Was the South pre-modern? (In some ways, it was). Was the South modern? (In some ways, it was). This is not acadmeic equivocationg, for Smith makes a strong argument that the South was BOTH. His concluding paragraph says it all: "Instead of arguing for the modernity or premodernity of the Old South, we can begin to see how the region, while it retained slavery as the basis for its political identity and social and economic relations, was none the less modernizing its economic system even as it eschewed the democratic tendencies of nineteenth-century liberalism." Brilliantly argued in highly readable prose, this is a must-read for anyone who truly wants to understand the Old South.

As a journalist beginning a study of the EU, I was sorely disappointed in the presentation and writing of this book.

Although it's billed as being "accessible" and written in "plain English," it's not. It reads as if it were written for academic insiders. Sentences are long, convoluted and unclear. Try out this paragraph, for example:

"One should not underestimate the role that the governments retain in the Union's affairs, with their power of decision in the Council that represents the member states and their monopoly of the ultima ratio of armed force. But other approaches, including those known as neo-functionalism and federalism, give more weight than the intergovernmentalists to the European institutions."

Such language hits the reader as early as page 6.

The text also bogs down in details that seem unnecessary for an introductory understanding of the subject. Such lack of focus is distracting.

I ended up grasping the basic ideas that this book was trying to teach -- but only after abandoning it for better-written material.

Pinder does a good job at taking a complex subject and distilling it to its essential elements. It won't surprise readers of this publisher that the author's perspective is almost entirely British. The author is also very favorably disposed toward the EU and does not provide "equal time" for the other side. That is his prerogative, of course, but it does not detract from the book.

It is a good book. If you are looking for an introduction without getting into long theoretical discussions. The merit of this book is its simplicity. It tells the story of the European Union without leaving any of the main topics out. It reads easily. Has a few very useful charts and photographs. Its up to date, year 2001; I could not find another book that would bring the reader up to the launching of the Euro! The only reason it does not get five stars is that it is only a short introductory study and as a consequence it lacks depths, otherwise its a great book!

Pinder launches into this short commentary with the in-depth historical foundation of the EU's formation. This is well brought up to date with the reasons for, and the outcome of, the different recent European Treaties. This is a must for anyone - who, like me, has/had a limited understanding of an important topic. A good concise introduction.

At one time in the seemingly distant pass the name Roy Medvedev was associated very closely with the left-wing elements of the opposition movements into the former Soviet Union at the time of Khrushchev's leadership. One would hardly know from reading this biography that the two were, at least formally, political opponents. Mr. Medvedev has produce a biography that beyond acting as a moving travelogue of Mr. Khrushchev's and activities as leader of the former Soviet Union is little more than a soft-core sell of an old Stalinist henchman. It may be due to the fact that it was published when the Soviet Union was in the early process of going to hell in a hand basket and so the Khrushchev period appeared to be a Golden Age of Stalinism-without Stalin. Nevertheless if one is looking for a more profound analysis of the immediate post-Stalin period one will have to look elsewhere.

Mr. Medvedev cannot be faulted for the general factual presentation. He dutifully, if superficially, goes through Mr. Khrushchev's rise to the top layer of the Stalin entourage, the struggle for power after Stalin's death in 1953, the monumental revelations of the crimes of Stalin at 20th and later the 22nd Russian Communist Party Congresses, the various domestic crises particularly the continuing problems in agriculture that years later would contribute to the downfall of the Soviet Union, the international disputes within the world Communist movement and the at times very heated struggle with the West during various episodes of the Cold War and his eventual downfall from power in 1964.

The reviewer grew up in American at the time of the rise and fall of the Khrushchev regime and it was interesting to be reminded of those events, their importance in the history of that period and a refreshing of my reaction to the events at the time. For those who have forgotten or do not know of the key events such as the various ill-fated attempts at nuclear disarmament, the crisis in Berlin resulting in the construction of the Berlin Wall and the Cuban Missile Crisis this book provide a competent review of those events.

The stumbling block to any further credit to Mr. Medvedev's book is his rather fawning over Mr. Khrushchev's achievements in the post-Stalin period. Yes, Mr. Khrushchev performed an important, if not fully adequate service, to the international communist movement by his revelation of Stalin's crimes. But any leftist critic of Stalinism has the right to ask- Mr. Khrushchev what were you doing at the time of all these acknowledged crimes as a henchman of Stalin? It is not enough to argue that there was little one could do. The history and fate of the Left Opposition in the Russian Communist Party and of other oppositionists in the wastes of Russian Siberia and elsewhere testify to other routes for those who considered themselves Bolsheviks. No it will not do.

Mr. Khrushchev, Mr. Medvedev and I shared one thing in common. At one time we all stood for the defense of the Soviet Union against attack by world imperialism and internal counterrevolution. Beyond that we part ways. I note that all through this paean to the intrepid Mr. Khrushchev there is very little sense that in the Khrushchev era, despite some obvious thawing of the internal political environment, there is no sense that workers and farmers councils could have been more appropriate form of government that just playing musical chairs with the top levels of the Soviet bureaucracy. The gap between that Leninist understanding of the road to socialism and Mr. Khrushchev' s top-down operation certainly did its part to weaken the Soviet Union and cause its ultimate collapse. And the world is a much more dangerous place because of that hard fact.