I have a few books I’ve finished lately that I’d like to review, but I’m reading faster than I can review ‘em. It doesn’t help that I don’t feel like I’m very good at reviewing books to begin with.

So rather than full-force reviews, just a few quick blurbs. I’ll start by getting this one comment out of the way: they’re all good books I’d recommnd if you’re interested in the subject. There. I said it.

Our Endangered Values by Jimmy Carter. In book form, Jimmy Carter seems to be a different person than he is when I read his occasional op-ed columns in the paper. His arguments are thoughtful and well-reasoned, but he’s clearly upset about the corruption of Christianity by the right. Near the start of the book, he lays out five repugnant characteristics of fundamentalists, including their tendency to “view change, cooperation, negotiation, and other efforts to resolve differences as signs of weakness.” Throughout the book, Carter quotes Bible passages to demonstrate how Christian fundamentalists have used narrow, selective readings to purposively misinterpret the meaning and spirit of Christianity — and how these purposeful misinterpretations have carried over into poor public policy. If you think you know Jimmy Carter because of what other people say about him, or because of his op-ed columns, you probably don’t really know Jimmy Carter.

Don’t Think of an Elephant! by George Lakoff. This book is a good introduction for anyone who struggles with the subject of political debates — namely, trying to hold a respectful argument with a conservative who doesn’t want a respectful argument. Lakoff introduces the notion of the strict father view of the world versus the nurturant parent view of the world. Among the strict father’s more repugnant assumptions of the world, it’s a viewpoint that links morality with prosperity — that somehow, only good people become rich. Meanwhile, the two most important values of the nurturant parent are empathy and responsibility — from those values, others follow, like freedom, opportunity, fairness, open communication, community-building, and trust. The chapters that follow apply these notions to real situations.

How Cities Work by Alex Marshall. I relearned here some of what I learned in planning classes — the most important lesson of which is that the single most important influence on land use decisions is public infrastructure investment. Zoning ordinances pale in comparison to the influence of laying down roads, water and sewer lines, etc. As one of my professors liked to say to our classes, you could zone a farm field in Iowa as high density commercial, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. Marshall subscribes to the school of thought (as I do, as well) that transportation is the most visible and active investment in shaping a place. There are many, many lessons in Marshall’s book worth regurgitating because they happen to be good lessons. My one criticism of the book is that Marshall seems to go a little far in his critique of New Urbanism, though his warning is one worth hearing: that (at least in the instances he cites) New Urbanism tends to be the same old suburban subdivisions “masquerading as something else.” This book is not one that should be ignored in the planning literature — it is rooted in a common sense level of thinking, a trait among many that is unfortunately not very common at all.

Apart from the books listed above, I also recently read James Howard Kunstler’s The Geography of Nowhere, which recommend with a grain of salt, especially if you’re looking to be entertained for an evening. I think Kunstler’s favorite word is “cartoonish,” which he uses a lot to describe suburbia. It’s not that Kunstler is wrong — it’s just that he enjoys crossing over lines a little too much. Attention seekers like Kunstler don’t necessarily give a good name for advocates of good land-use policy. It seems that Kunstler’s real expertise is in the history of architecture, especially as it applies to suburbia. He does a great job of connecting Modernism with old puritan values, and showing how screwed up Modernist thinking tends to be. Kunstler is also a huge fan of New Urbanism, and it’s probably more for the aesthetic value of New Urbanism than its practicality.

My personal critique of New Urbanism is that New Urban developments tend to be whole developments (like the subdivisions that Marshall criticizes). Several months ago, I had a conversation with a local New Urban developer who referred to Jane Jacobs’ Death and Life of Great American Cities as “the greatest book ever.” He proceeded to tell me that Jacobs’ point of developing one lot at a time was not as important as her other points in the book. But from a practical standpoint, Jacobs valued the diversity of the city above all other aspects — building large developments at a time tends to ensure homogeneity, not diversity.

In any case, these are the books I’ve read lately. I have 95 left on my list to go, though I’m quite sure as time goes on, I won’t actually read all 95 of those books. Next on my list: Talking Right: How conservatives turned liberalism into a tax-raising, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freakshow. From what I’ve heard about it, the book will be kind of like Don’t Think of an Elephant, but better. We’ll see.