Books, Bluster, and Bounty examines a cross-section of Carnegie library applications to determine how local support was mustered for cultural institutions in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century West. This comparative study considers the entire region between the Rockies and the Cascades/Sierras, including all of Idaho, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona; western Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado; eastern Oregon and Washington; and small parts of California and New Mexico. The author's purpose is to address not only the how of the process but also the variable why. Although virtually all citizens and communities in the West who sought Carnegie libraries expected tangible benefits for themselves that were only tangentially related to books, what they specifically wanted varied in correlation with the diverse nature of western communities. By looking at the detailed records of the Carnegie library campaigns, the author is able to provide an alternative lens through which to perceive and map the social-cultural makeup and town building of western communities at the turn of the century.

Defeating terrorism was one of Donald Trump's key campaign promises. But there is no easy way to make sense of Donald Trump's war on terror. Is it all bluster, aimed at mobilising his base, or does it represent a genuine shift from previous administrations? Since Trump took office, American counterterrorism has become more militaristic and less interested in causes and consequences. Relationships with foreign partners have deteriorated and right-wing extremists feel powerful and emboldened. The most significant change of paradigm-the conflation of terrorism, immigration, and Islam-has not just resulted in costly failures, such as the "Muslim ban," but also undermined the trust of immigrant communities and multiculturalism in the US. In Bluster, Peter Neumann assesses Trump's approach to countering terrorism, and argues that his war on terror looks strong and powerful in the short term, but will cause damage over time. The president has not just failed to provide a strategic framework for defeating terrorism; his entire approach has made the world less safe and undermined America's greatest 'soft power' asset-the very idea of America.