Harrison Livingstone is one of the assassination investigators who only write books to stabilize his cash flow. His new work High Treason 2, does not stay on the track and is a dead end. I will not recommend this book to anyone...Instead buy HIS FORMER co-author Robert Groden's book THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT. ...

Harrison Edward Livingston is certainly right in saying that a conspiracy killed John F. Kennedy. There is too much evidence that proves something strange and suspicious was going on in Dallas on November 22, 1963 and in Washington. His book, "High Treason 2," a follow-up to the bestseller "High Treason" which Livingston wrote in collaboration with renowned JFK assassination expert Robert Groden, is both an informative, eye-opening investigative work and a slippery search for facts and answers. The areas dealing with the medical evidence are meticulous and very important with it's testimonies and detailed accounts of Kennedy's wounds and the evidence that the shot that killed him came from the front. There is a good deal of evidence that Martin Luthor King Jr.'s assassination was also plotted and Livingston provides some interesting insights into the FBI's harrassment of King at the hands of J.Edgar Hoover. He also makes you wonder about the facts behind the assassination of Robert Kennedy and the attempt on George Wallace. However, Livingston's fault is that he writes with a saintly-look at Kennedy and gets too paranoid at times. I can buy that King, Kennedy and Wallace were victims of shady doings, but to also say the attempts on Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan were results of conspiracies is a little too out there. Also the notion that even the Zapruder film is fake evidence makes for too much paranoia. But what shows Livingston to be more of a radical than just an investigator is his attack on Oliver Stone and "JFK," claiming the movie is damaging to researchers when in fact, it aided in the release of more documents and many researchers, including Robert Groden (who even consulted on Stone's film) have called it a brilliant collage of assassination research material gathered by those trying to prove a conspiracy. Livingston also goes on to attack Jim Garrison, who in my opinion, is a social hero for speaking out and even pushed for the Zapruder film to be shown in colleges so young people would start asking questions. It is easier in this paranoia-driven age, when events like Watergate, Iran Contra and others have made our trust in the government dissimate, for Livingston to speak his ideas and conclusions. Garrison was one of the first to speak out publicly in a time when government conspiracy was still seen as an impossibility by a lot of ordinairy Americans and the government had an easier time shutting people up. He also denounces L.Flether Prouty and his claims eventhough Prouty worked in the intelligence community and military industrial complex for many years, Livingston hasn't. While he is an investigator, Prouty actually lived it. That said, "High Treason 2" in the end is well-written, with some good information and it sure works better than Gerald Posner's "Case Closed," a fascist piece of lies. Livingston has uncovered a lot of valuable things, but once in a while, he tries to put too much icing on the cake, or case.

This 1992 book is very readable and contains many interesting essays that may educate you. Chapter 1 tells how HEL remembers the 1950s. The election of JFK made a difference due to the people; the times they were a-changing. Pages 43-4 tells of the "bureaucratic phenomenon" but doesn't ask if any clique or secret society is responsible. Chapter 2 tells of JFK's medical history. He quotes the curious comments of Dr. Humes on the adrenal glands (pp. 55-6). There would be no reason for covering up any Addison's disease. HEL suggests the use of cortisone by JFK affected his personality: euphoria, strength, endurance, warmth, and libido (p.59).

Chapter 3 tells certain findings are conclusive: the back of the head is missing (p.71). If the photographs and X-rays don't show this, they are forgeries. Or from another body. HEL derides the theory that "the Mob killed Kennedy" on the grounds that they couldn't do a cover-up. But their controllers could! Chapter 5 discusses the events at Bethesda. The face in some of the autopsy photographs does not look like JFK, but of a younger man (p.135). Chapter 6 discusses the conflicts of the autopsy. This is one of the most important chapters in the book!

Chapter 14 tells of the discussion for a 1991 documentary. "The large hole in the back of the head was an exit wound" (p.287). These witnesses insisted there was not entry wound in the back of the head (p.293). Chapter 16 quotes the House Committee report that the authenticity of the photographs was never established (p. 314-6). Chapter 19 discusses some other major political killings following the assassination of JFK. HEL notes that if George Wallace ran for President he would have taken enough votes from Nixon so McGovern would have won (p.403). Friends of this lone gunman soon died or disappeared (p.407). More potential witnesses were bumped off when the House Assassination Committee started in 1977 (p.414). Page 418 summarizes the bottom line of American political history.

Chapter 20 summarizes the changes in America since the Nixon and Reagan reigns (p.422); it doesn't cover the 1990s. Page 458 claims the Schoolbook Depository rifle was not fired that day (from negative evidence)! Chapter 24 discusses JFK's "intent to withdraw from Vietnam", while the military sought to send in combat troops. That happened with the new President. Vietnam is important since it borders the oil-rich South China Sea; and Big Oil is the most powerful special interest in the country.

Chapter 25 tells of Jim Garrison's investigation. "A secret investigation ... pointed in the direction of Hoffa, Marcello, some Texas oilmen, and a few involved with the CIA in the New Orleans and Dallas area" (p.511). But Garrison couldn't get a conviction of anyone. David Ferrie, and others, soon died (p.513). Pages 518-9 discuss the justice system: "too often a case can be rigged". Jim Garrison was the first official to question the Warren Report in the 1960s. Oliver Stones's "JFK" was based on Garrison's book; he make a popular film about a Presidential assassination - a Hollywood first! It did renew a wider interest in the books on this case.

Chapter 28 gives HEL's ideas of "What Really Happened", and summarizes this case. Watergate and Nixon's removal were caused by Nixon's use of political murders. Page 571 imagines an "ice bullet" that would disappear; isn't it more likely that a plastic bullet would not show up on X-rays? Pages 573-7 gives HEL's ideas on how the real government works: politicians are like actors on a stage, spouting the lines written by the invisible government. He says "our elections are rigged from the
start". And that a vast amount of money was made by those who sold short on the morning of 11/22/1963 due to advance information. The Warren Commission and the Administration were from the high-level banking and financial interests that control our nation.

Perhaps I'm just getting tired of reading the same information, repeated by different people. The temptation with three points of view of the rapture is to be complacent (there's no need to worry, we'll be safe), or scared (because we don't have the facts). But then, what if I'm wrong in my choice of one of three? What if all three of those viewpoints are wrong?

The point I'm trying to make is there cannot be 'three' viewpoints on the rapture. Sometimes I wonder if authors raise more questions to mask the fact that they cannot answer the question directly. But somewhere in the Bible there is only 'one' answer to this question.

It is interesting to read Three Views on the Rapture but I'm convinced that none of three views is biblical. I am a Postmil and I believe that the Bible gives enough evidence that the Great Tribulation already happened during the period 67-70 A.D. during which period the Lord unleashed His vengeance on apostate Israel. John himself, in writing Revelation, specifically mentioned that the Tribulation was SOON to take place and the TIME IS NEAR. Moreover, the message of Revelation was specifically addressed to the SEVEN CHURCHES WHICH ARE IN ASIA. These 7 churches existed during the 1st century and suffered greatly in the hands of Apostate Israel. Finally, John mentioned about the great temple which was in Jerusalem that was to be handed over to the Gentiles to be destroyed. History shows that this actually happened. No rapture took place during this tribulation period because it was the will of God for the true Church to endure the sufferings as He himself suffered in the hands of the Jews. Nowhere in the history of Christianity has the Church suffered so horribly than during this period prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

The format, three predominant views of premillenialism set side by side intrigued me. I was a little bit disappointed because all three scholars are from the same school, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. I was also slightly disappointed because the book is quite dated, going back to the an early 80's prophecy conference. A lot of prophetic viewpoints have changed since then, which affect interpretations and schools of thought in eschatology.

But, overall I was duly impressed. Feinerg, Archer and Moo are fine conservative scholars, and each make an impressive case for their stance as to the timing of the premillenial rapture. In my opinion, Archer stands out among them, and does an excellent job of setting forth the mid-tribulational rapture.

Not a great eschatology work, but an adequate synopsis of widely held views. I agree with the other reviewers that it is not for the novice, but for someone already familiar with premillenialism and end-times prophecy. It's a read and pass-on, no permanent place on my shelf kind of book.

There are other sources of information about Lou Harrison, such as "The Music of Lou Harrsion" by Heidi Von Gunden and "The Lou Harrison Reader". There are much better biographies of much better and more significant twentieth-century composers, such as "Gyorgy Ligeti" by Richard Toop. There are much better biographies of colorful American figures associated with twentieth-century music, such as "Woody Guthrie: A Life" by Joe Klein. In short, I don't think we ought to put up with this piece of clumsy mannered hackwork. (By the way, the chapter on Lou Harrison's sexuality is ridiculous and unnecessary: Take him at his word.)

The authors explain in the introduction that but for commercial constraints they could have made a much larger book, in fact a book of each chapter. This is precisely the wrong way to think about any kind of creative work. Creation is SELECTION. Anyone can gather facts and factoids (or as Lou Harrison might say, facticles) and make a great pile of them. It is quite another thing to forge them into a clear, compelling narrative line, and this other thing is just what the authors fail to accomplish. It's safe to assume, I think, that a Lou Harrison autobiography would be much, much, much better than this.

Miller and Lieberman's biography of Lou Harrison has become the definitive work on this California composer. Rather than simply writing a chronology of his life, the book provides a brief biography and then tackles different aspects of his work in a series of brief chapters. These include tuning systems, calligraphy, instrument building, political activism, dance, gay rights, and many more.

The result is an eclectic and somewhat experimental book, fitting for the composer. Occasionally some of the chapters fall short of being comprehensive, particularly the one dealing with Harrison's sexuality. But in general this book is a refreshing read, with much new information and analysis.

A CD with several unreleased recordings and demonstrations is included.

"Going Local" is a chore to read, as the excitement is over on the second page. That's right, the second page. A book of this length normally takes two sittings to read completely, this book took eight days. The only other work of fiction that was this bad was "Earth In The Balance" by Al (the bore) Gore.

The author painstakingly decribes in nerve-racking detail, every step the characters make, with no apparant reason other than to fill space.

The "plot" centers around a new resort-development under construction in Blue Deer Montana. Along the way, the reader learns everything and more, about land grants and mining claims in that part of the country. The author once again goes into the smallest of minutia descibing the grants and claims process. It's not only maddening, but also a waste of time in reading. This book could have been cut to 200 pages and nothing would have been lost, it may have even made the book more enjoyable.

My neighbor gave this book to me, and page 165 was folded over. I asked her if she had finished reading it, and her reply was no. I now know why.

The one bright spot is that I won't waste any money or time on this author's other books.

I enjoyed this book throughly. It was a riveting, spell binding book. I bought it while on vacation, coincidentally in Hamilton, Montana, and read it the whole time. Thanks to Jaime Harrison for a wonderful book and I can't wait to order to rest.

Sometimes you are looking for a light mystery for an easy beach read and I found this perfect for that job. I already knew I liked the leading man, Sheriff Jules Clement, from the earlier novel "Edge of the Crazies". He was even better in this one.

Comparisons to the TV show Northern Exposure (with a little Twin Peaks thrown in) are fitting. Not a Pulitzer Prize winner, but worth reading. I look forward to reading the next two novels in the series.

If any author didn't need an academic introduction, Bukowski was it. Bukowski's works are carefree, honest and simple snatches of everyday life. This book tries to dissect and categorize the Bukster and this is the book's biggest fault. Bukowski was into immediate sensations and reactions. This book is a dry-as-dust and 'reflective' leftist tirade that has nothing of the spontaneity, guts and life affirming vision that Bukowski is all about. If you enjoy dry parchment and cliched leftist ramblings, then this book is for you.

Those of us who enjoy and appreciate Buk usually do so with a grain of salt. This book turns him into some sort of class representative which he most assuredly was not. Buk was a bum, plain and simple. He wrote well and simply, but he was still a bum. Anything else is the work of an overstimulated and grasping academic sensibility that has no place in the Buk universe. I would recommend Buk's biography by Sounes as an antidote to this sleep-inducing drivel.

Harrison's collection of essays attempt to bend Bukowski and his work over to a leftist perspective. Looking a little closely at Bukowski, his writings (poetry, prose, stories) tend to shift in an apolitical pattern. There is no leftist consistency with his work, though I'll give three stars for Harrison's effort and my own leftist sympathies.

-- Brad Evans --

The logic is clear. The examples are numerous. The only such work of its kind to my knowledge. There is plenty of academic jargon, but the ideas are recognizable. Only the complete Bukowski nut will not find something new worth considering. Readers will find the sheer volume of quotes useful, but some literary background helps, there is a chapter on 'Metonymy'. Probably too specialized for those unfamiliar with the author's work, unless they happen to be preoccupied with the American Labor Movement.

He certainly is the "quiet beatle". Giuliano couldn't even find enough on George to fill a cassette. Instead we get an endlessly long press conference featuring John & Paul. George might have been there. Then another endless prattle from his discredited Yogi. This is not a tribute to anyone. It's a travesty. Giuliano is a parasite & should quit feeding off of dead Beatles who cannot defend themselves from his ilk.

Dear Geoffrey,

I would like to contact you by e-mail, but it sems to be impossible to find your address. So maybe this will get your attention.

This is the best audio have heard in a long time. I mean the only thing better than this is actually talking to George himself.

I just want to thank you for making me, a very hardcore Beatles fan, you make me appreciate what I grew up with. I mean, what our children is listening to now they won't remember when they are our age. Thank you again.

Ever an engima, George Harrison was the heart and soul of the Beatles and Geoffrey Giuliano, in his usual frank, forthcoming and insightful way given us the George harrison we always felt was there but we could never quite grab hold of. The script and naration are first rate as is the rare montage of interviews with and about the legendary, mystical musician. A must for any even casually interested sixties pop music fan! A brilliant work!

Time was when you could ask three questions of science/nature writing: Is it important? Does it matter? Would anything change if the reverse conclusions were reached? The answer had better be "yes" to at least one question. Of course, the answers to those questions when asked about A Rum Affair are "No," "No," and "No.'
One thing was determined, however, and that was that a book can be written about anything---the spare change in your pocket, the color of dirt, whatever. It seems curiously reversed that I paid money to read this book when someone should have paid me a hefty sum to read it. Just awful.

I am really quite puzzled as to just why the author wrote this book. By his own admission Sabbagh isn't a scientist, and by his writing it is apparent that he doesn't understand Botany, Botanists or Biogeography. In spite of this he has chosen to write about all three. The story is a rather sad little affair which could be interpreted in a number of ways. In one a botanist is suspected of fraud by members of the scientific establishment, the case is investigated, the suspect records are quietly dropped from publication, and everyone eventually retires and dies. It is clear that Sabbagh, for reasons that escape me, would rather that there had been a public trial, with any guilty parties being tarred, feathered & ridden on a rail. Since this DIDN'T happen when anyone involved was alive, Sabbagh sets out to do it to the dead. Starting by gaining access to a manuscript whose author had specifically requested should remain sealed (there are some weird aspects of class struggle throughout this book by the way, Sabbagh boasts that since he is "a Kingsman" -a graduate of King's College Cambridge- the widow of his hero is confident that the ms will be "in safe hands" -false hope as it turns out.) Sabbagh sets out to develop a case against his villain, John Harrison. This "case" is based in part on excerpts from the sealed manuscript by the book's hero, John Raven, in part on wild speculation, and in large part on every bit of gossip, hearsay and innuendo that Sabbagh seems to have dug up. It is clear from the outset that there were people -especially particularly well-connected people in the British scientific aristocracy- who didn't like John Harrison. It also seems likely that Harrison wasn't particularly likable in general. Whether this dislike could have engendered the sort of plot that Sabbagh suggests seems somewhat far-fetched, and is based here on second and third hand gossip & sometimes ludicrous "reading between the lines" of selected letters. While there is clearly the POSSIBILITY of fraud in the behaviour of "villain" Harrison, what also emerges is that both the "hero" John Raven and the author are what I was raised to call "cads". By Sabbagh's own account Raven gets access to Harrison's study sites on false pretexts, in spite of repeated sensible warnings that the study area is remote & inhospitable Raven shows up without food or camping supplies -and manages to burn down his tent! (Sabbagh has previously suggested that Harrison is being obnoxious by telling Raven to bring supplies, but he automatically forgives his hero when he fails to follow either courtesy or caution). Raven then spends less than three days on an island where the Villain has been working for many field seasons, decides that some specimens of rare plants have been literally "planted" and then leaves to write a report which goes nowhere. Another interpretation of the whole affair is that Harrison was hounded by people who didn't like him, investigated by a talented amateur (Raven may have been a cad, but he was certainly talented) who failed to turn up much serious evidence of fraud (Raven mis-identifies a key species of plant in the course of his investigation). Faced with at best a verdict of "not proven" the establishment does the sensible thing and drops the whole matter. There it would (and should) have remained except for the energies of Mr. Sabbagh. We read this sort of book for the same reason we slow down at car-wrecks or scan the front pages of the tabloids. This is a sick entertainment that ennobles nobody.

The merest possibility that a geographic botanist would actually falsify a discovery and violate the sanctity of the British scientific aristocracy is not only enough excitement for one book, but plenty for a sensational story. However, you might have to be an unabashed fan of all things Anglo like myself; also perhaps a talented amateur horticulturist who thrills to the details of the growing conditions necessary for the disputed "discoveries" of J. Heslop Harrison (the names of the characters alone make this a fun read). Sabbagh navigates the touchy territory of real peoples' reputations with great subtlety and renders a fascinating picture of the British universities, their scientists and personalities. Of course there is no silly confrontation scene! All the drama is handled with typical British restraint, which makes the book and this true story all the more enthralling for the right type of reader.

I have read and enjoyed Mr Harrison's SF for nigh on thirty years. "Deathworld" took me through adolescence. The "Stainless Steel Rat" through youth, and the increasingly Carry-On style of the "Bill, the Galactic Hero" series even further.

But I just cannot stomach this triumvirate: it seems like an old man venting his spleen against the injustices done to his ancestors. I can only presume that Mr Harrison has an Irish background that still calls for vengeance against the English oppressors. It's rather like he wrote an SF novel in which the Croats exterminate the Serbs in a wierdo WW 2 alternative history. You're sitting there thinking: Was this really necessary?

I love alternative history, but PUH-lease make it credible and without the sound of axes furiously grinding in the background. The writing is wooden, but what irks me is the scenario and the politics. As an Aussie, I consider myself neither Anglo-, not Amero, -phobic or -philliac.

Previous reviewers have mentioned the technological problems with his scenario, and Mr Harrison's general presumption that all Americans are combinations of Rambo and Thomas Edison, whereas all Brits are like the guys from "Dumb and Dumber". I am surprised that no one has mentioned Mr Harrison's idiotic presumptions that:

* Forty years (I'm no American scholar.. correct me if I'm wrong) of the deepest tensions and social schisms in the USA concerning slavery suddenly vaporise instantly when a few Brits get off course;

* An American invasion of Ireland suddenly reconciles 800 years of Protestant-Catholic discord and hatred;

* Americans bring democracy to the UK. In the late 1860s, American senators were no more elected than the House of Lords, and the aristocracy Mr Harrison professes to despise: senators where chosen by state legislatures.

All this is about Mr Harrison's scenario. You may well think all three potboilers a grand read. I just think that Mr Harrison is an imperialist in denial.

I have read and enjoyed Mr Harrison's SF for nigh on thirty years. "Deathworld" took me through adolescence. The "Stainless Steel Rat" through youth, and the increasingly Carry-On style of the "Bill, the Galactic Hero" series even further.

But I just cannot stomach this triumvirate. The writing is wooden, but what irks me is the scenario and the politics. Please feel free to stop reading now if you are simply looking for a read.

As an Aussie, I consider myself neither Anglo-, not Amero, -phobic or -philliac.

Previous reviewers have mentioned the technological problems, and Mr Harrison's general presumption that all Americans are combinations of Rambo and Thomas Edison, whereas all Brits are like the guys from "Dumb and Dumber".

I am surprised that no one has mentioned Mr Harrison's presumptions that:

* Forty years (I'm no American scholar.. correct me if I'm wrong) of the deepest tensions and social schisms in the USA concerning slavery suddenly vaporise instantly when a few Brits get off course;

* An American invasion of Ireland suddenly reconciles 800 years of Protestant-Catholic discord and hatred;

* Americans bring democracy to the UK. In the late 1860s, American senators were no more elected than the House of Lords and the aristocracy Mr Harrison professes to despise: senators where chosen by state legislatures.

Admittedly Harry Harrison has written far more compelling science fiction, but here he succeeds in this admirable conclusion to his "Stars and Stripes" trilogy. Harrison tells a gripping yarn about a blitzkrieg war waged against Queen Victoria's Britain on the streets of London and Liverpool by a United States armed with the world's most advanced weapons from the factories of Swedish-American inventor John Ericsson (in real life, the designer of the USS Monitor). The first half of the book is a compelling cloak and daggar saga featuring General William Tecumseh Sherman as he probes Great Britain's military defenses with the aid of an unusual ally, an Anglophillic Russian nobleman and naval officer. The second half is somewhat less so, but there are memorable battle scenes featuring Generals Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant. This is unquestionably a fascinating terse future history which Harry Harrison has wrought and one I strongly recommend to those interested in the American Civil War as well as science fiction.

Harrison fans should steer clear of this nonesense. Two paragraphs about Brown Dog and endless dreck about Jack Nicholson. Stick to his stories; they're much more interesting and well written than this star-schtooping melange of junk.

It was quite an accomplishment to make it through all of Harrison's puffery to get to the end. I don't think it was worth it. There are some really good sections including one on road trips as a way to break out of the duldrums and of course getting out into the woods - I loved his idea of finding "thickets" in which to escape and get back to normal. I can relate.

I'm a huge Harrison fan and love Sundog, Farmer, and Legends of the Fall the best. I just don't get much enjoyment out of is name dropping and arrogant attitude. He mentions his wife and family rarely and there's just a couple references about his writing and approach. I get the feeling he wrote this pretty fast and a couple chapters seem like stand-alone essays that were thrown in. This book could have used some good editing/pruning.

That said, Harrison is still tied for my favorite author and his books are prominent on my bookshelf.

It's one of the most uniquely American career paths in literature. Boy grows up in the hinterland, discovers that he has received the divine ray of talent, follows his dreams and scrabbles for decades, then finally hits the big time in Hollywood.

The difference is that Harrison never lost touch with the land, much preferring to repair to his favorite hunting and fishing spots, and drink with the locals back home in Michigan, rather than toil away in the studios. Oh, he did lose his church unbringing, and G. K. Chesterton would surely call Harrison's idea of a private religion mere weakmindedness, but Harrison has undoubtedly consumed an adult portion of life, and he's here to tell us all about it.

As a biographical account of his life and career, this is much too misty. The reader must swim open seas of random impressions, interesting anecdotes, and barstool wisdom to get from one fact to the next. And they are not especially sequential, either. I guess that job will have to wait for a professional biographer.

But taken for what it is, this book is enjoyable. There's too much name-dropping in the Hollywood phase, though he is sincerely grateful to Jack Nicholson for his help breaking into pictures. But really--eating sandwiches with Art Garfunkel while betting on which skiers on a slope are going to wipe out? And there are dozens such little passing mentions. Maybe I'm just jealous...

His love of the land, of the countryside, of his hunting dogs, and his unsparing accounts of his own shortcomings and addictions and mistakes make this book one to respect. It may be a mishmash, it may not be the whole or unadulterated truth, but it is visibly a labor of love.

I would give this book zero stars if it were an option. A friend of my wife's gave her this book and I picked it up and read it, being curious and concerned about the book's title. After reading it halfway, I tossed it in the trash.

The first reviewer was NOT reading a different book as the second reviewer suggests; accurate page #s and quotes are cited. As an intelligent, educated man I would never expect or ever want the woman in my life to behave so subserviently as Mr. Forrest wants his woman to behave. I have more respect and love for the female sex than Mr. Forrest will ever have.

Mr. Forrest incites the ultimate insult to women in stating that 'men stray because of "MISTAKES MADE BY THE WOMAN."' Women, are you going to follow advice from someone who has this attitude?

This book is bad advice from beginning to end. Mr. Forrest, seek yourself a complacent, servile nymphomaniac and stop ruining things for the rest of us men.

I found the advise and suggestions in the book to be very helpful. The other reviewers are making much to do about nothing, as the vast majority of this book provides real world solutions and suggestions for many relationships.
I found that the book offered greater insight into "actually controlling my man" than any other book out there.
It isn't worth 5 stars but it is worth 4

The first reviewer must have been reading a different book. This book is superb! The author talks straight about the subjects that matter most and explains the reasons behind the advice.