“He utterly transformed a disgracetulnbureau into a modern investigativenagencv in which personnel were selectednon merit alone, held to the mostnexacting standards of behavior, ruthlesslynpunished at the first sign ofnimproper or partisan behavior, andnsupported with a remarkable svstemnof files, fingerprmt records, and scientificnlaboratories.”nHoover’s administrative system “wasnbrilliantly successful in eliminating thenobvious abuses of power and in cultivatingnfavorable public opinion thatnwas readily convertible into strong Congressionalnsupport. That system had asnits object preventing or minimizingnmisconduct, scandal, and internal bickeringnand attracting and holding agentnpersonnel who were competent andnpresentable.” By contrast, the DEAnhas been hampered by its lack of autonomy:n”The essential maintenance problemnof the DEA. after the drug epidemicsnof the 1960s had made its task bothnimportant and controversial, was toncope with a set of bureaucratic rivalsn(Customs), under circumstances thatnmade it virtually impossible for thenagency to show that it was successfullyncombating the problem of drugs. Unlikenthe FBI. it could not relv on generalizednpublic support: instead, itnwas required to produce measures ofnits verv own performance, but thesenmeasures, by their verv nature,nseemed to show that the agency wasndevoting its efforts to relatively lowlevel,npresumably unimportant drugndealers and that it was not alwaysnseizing more drugs than its governmentalncompetitors.”nUnfortunately, since Hoover’s deathnthe autonomy of the FBI has been reducednas its immunity to criticism hasndisappeared:n”The unchallenged prestige of thenFBI, the basis for its extraordinarynautonomy, collapsed utterlv. and congressmennwho had once attendednhearings at which Hoover testified innorder to congratulate him and bask innhis reflected glory now eagerly soughtnforums in which they could join innattacking his record and the behaviornof his successors.”nUnder the Freedom of Information Actnand the Privacy Act, the public hasngained substantial access to FBI filesnand the availability of informants hasnlessened as their risk of disclosure hasnincreased.ni. he author emphasizes that thenseparation of powers between the executivenand legislative branches means thatnno agency can assume that because itnhas statutory authority to perform anmission, it will have the necessary po­nCommendablesnColwin’s NonconformismnLaurie Coiwin: Happy All the Time;nKnopf; New York.nThis is the greatest little manifestonof nonconformism since time immemorial.nIt’s an open sedition against thenLibcult’s literature. Normal people arenin it who are both reasonable and happy,nand who form warm, engaging fictionalncharacters to boot. They challenge everyntenet of the High Times-Rolling Stonen-Vogue-Time civilization, soundingnmore amusing than convincing, butnwe want to read about them and haventhem around—which is impossible butnwhich we would love. The updatednWodehousian daftness once again triumphsnover freakishness and, perhaps,nopens new vistas of entertainmentnwhich should invade the pop scene tonsave us. It is as if P. G. ‘Wodehouse wasnresurrected in Manhattan of the laten’70s to challenge the morbid idiocy ofnliberationism and permissiveness withnhis invincible sense of edifying eccentricitynthat enriches instead of neuroticizingnman, woman, society. Here is anworld in which women set the code andntenor of love, and well-balanced, goodnmen with a sense of humor and achieve­nnnlitical support to carry it out. With thencollapse of the FBI’s prestige, its situationnis comparable to the DEA whichnhas alwavs had to struggle with bureaucraticnrivals and Congressional critics.nThe author offers no instant cure fornthe problems of managing law enforcementnagencies in a political environment.nHe is “suspicious.” for example,nof the proposal that the FBI and thenDEA merge. Nevertheless, what thisnbook does is to provide a clinical analysisnof how these agencies actually operate.nIt should be read by those whonwould weaken the FBI and DEA asnwell as by those who would strengthennthem. Dnment accept it as life’s big reward.nThere’s nothing new in it. Ms. Colwinnonly rediscovers the oldest truth—thatnman’s greatest pleasure is begging womennfor their emotions and commitmentsn— a truth cruelly smothered by thenmodish feminist din in arts, letters andncanards. When iVIs. Colwin attempts tonspoof some more general social andnbehavioral mores, her stylistic acumennloses assurance; dealing with individual,neven if cosmeticized, shades of a nottoo-complexnexistence, she brings joynto the reader. The only drama of Ms.nColwin’s novelette is that people meet,nand we look forward to these encountersnwith a suspense usually reserved fornseduction and murder.nShe also manages to wisely supervisenthe texture of the most common humannfeelings, and even provides some insightsninto the everlasting commonnessnof the traps of human nature—no meannfeat for an entertaining novelist. Ms.nColwin succeeds in making shallow sentimentalityna desirable option, and shendoes it with the help of wit and ironynand incisive vignettes about her charactersntelling more and better than sourntreatises—a great gift to this troubledn^m^^/mmHi^ZinChronicles of Culturen