Congratulations, Dan! To fully enjoy the period of not thinking about it, I suggest blogging only on topics unrelated to your book for the interval. Become a leading Tasmanian botany blog or something.

We'll all still read. Honest.

Dan, I second Jarrett above. You need something totally unrelated to poli-sci, yet germane to your blog. Something that can be summed up in just two words. Something like:

SELMA. HAYEK.

Perfesser,

I've skimmed through the book - which I like a lot, but will have to leave aside while I finish Democracy in America - and I notice that you're casting aspersions on my beloved homeland's environmental record. This paper on the Environmental Kuznets Curve in Ireland might interest you:

http://www.ssisi.ie/journals/00-01/clinch.pdf

Gra,

Peter

Y'mean, like, book stuff? That is so totally WAY kool - y'no? When's the movie?

(sorry. its the daughters. congrats dan)

grat's, Dan! Looking forward to setting aside some time to take a gander at it.

Nice work, Dan!

Jesus tap-dancing Christ. Nice. 305 pages await some reading.

Congrats on your book completion and your tyke daughter again. Finishing a big work is something not easy to do.

However ... I tend to disagree with the framework you've chosen is not exactly accurate. I agree that NGO's view corporations are corrupting the state regulatory system. I also agree that the great powers have great power in setting the global agenda through regulatory and political demands.

However I do not agree that they are mutually exclusive much less that the latter is the correct view.

The real issue is that the political leaders of the great powers accept as the authentic representative of societies interests as being advanced by the multilateral corporations. The corporations do not own the governments. However they do define what the governments consider the best means of advancing social welfare.

Therefore it is not an issue of corporate corrupted regulation as is so often presented, but that the political and economic policies of the great powers coincide with those of the multilaterals because it is these giant corporations that the political and economic leadership define as advancing the betterment of all.

This is the argument, that yes individuals will suffer, but by advancing regulation favorable to the capital market action of the multilateral corporations will in the long run benefit everybody. This is why the leaders of the great powers always show sympathy with those who protest, and then pass legislation favorable on the whole to the capital markets.

The collusion is not one of personal financial transaction but between fundamental paradigms. As long as world leaders believe that the capital markets can do no wrong, they will always come down on the side of the capital markets.

Congrats on what looks to be an excellent piece fo work. I'm working my way through it whenever I have a spare moment. Thus far, it seems good (but why are you hatin' on Mr. Friedman?)

Again, great job.

Thanks for giving us an opportunity to see the book. I've finished seventy or so pages and find it very insightful. One request, however; is there any chance you could make a single-spaced version available? I know double-spacing is the rule for proofreading and referee submissions, but it's quite difficult to read.

Thanks for a great read - I look forward to seeing the final version.

Congratulations, Dan. I look forward to reading your work.

Just started reading. Very cool topic; you're like the Robert Dahl of the entire world!

Wow, that is really wonderful, congrats! I'm glad you didn't say anything in this post about how your blogging may have interfered with the writing. If anything, do you think it helped in any way? Oh well, I realize it's really hard to tell, but at least no obvious adverse effects?;-)

I really liked your article titled "Outsourcing Bogeyman" in the "ash and trash" tabloid Foreign Affairs.

Does your publisher not have a problem with you posting a draft for free on the web?

Congrats! I think your blogging prolly helped in keeping you writing, and energized.

I'll be looking at it your book -- since you supported Kerry, you don't have to accept any blame for any bad consequence of Bush's policies. (Did you plan on this absolution?)

Um, in your VERY first post, you wrote:
"way to much to be pithy", wrong first to - too.

And you did it in this post, too:
"To close to the writing".

I know, spell checkers don't catch to too two errors, but they always bother me. (Especially when I read that I've done it! all too often.)

Call me dull, but what what does "Ash and Trash" mean.