Disappointing
	This book has a lot of names.  I'll give it that.  But, there are some relatively common names that are missing.  And so many invented names.  My favorite of the invented names are Schmoopie and Poogie.  As if these names will show up on a birth certificate!!
The definitions/origins of the names are poorly researched and confusing.
For the name "Cowboy" the book tells you it means "country"  for the name "Country" it tells you it means "western".
Not that either of those is a standard name, but, for "words as names" aren't you going to pick it because it has meaning to you?
Also, the lists are totally false, something the author (if you can call her that) made up while sitting around drinking with her buddies.  And some of the names on these lists aren't even found later in the book.  (ex. Lynus on the "Party animals" list)
I wish I had held out for a trip to the bookstore instead of just picking up the first book I saw at Walmart.   I figured with so many names I would find one I liked, but I am just so distracted by all the junk that I will never find a good name here.


Decent/lofty ideas... but lacking...
	The trouble starts early. There is an apologetic preamble which states that the author(s) would not dedicate precious space to titles that are well known and well documented beyond the gaming community. This is an enormous assumption about the general public's knowledge - both of video games and more-so it's history of design. Many people that have heard of these games or seen their children watch the TV-spinoffs, most likely would not be able to identify what the games actually look(ed) like or anything about their play dynamics in a gaming environment.

Even though Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Donkey Kong, Defender, Asteroids, Missile Command, Frogger, etc. are mentioned briefly there are no images of reference for these classic games for us to (a) review and recognize, and (b) learn from. If this is supposed to be a sort of retrospective of the graphic art of game design (this is not about studies of techniques for rendering) then why not show some of these all-time classics as well as the 'new-time' classics? The latter are better represented throughout the book but some of the choices are omissions are questionable. The brief smattering of 'classics' that are shown tend to be more human-looking figurative than 'iconic' which seems lacking to me in breadth and style of representation.

Beyond this much of the work - but not all - feels and looks rather 'same-y' to me. Lots of brooding dark scene-scapes and characters clearly inspired by countless horror/goth/fantasy masters such as Boris Vallejo or much of the work seen in Heavy Metal. When there is mention of games that are actually considered modern art on display at world-famous museums, such as "Rez," -- we are not shown any images of it because space was taken up by two nearly identical renderings of Lara Croft(!) in the same spread. One has to ask oneself: what was the author/picture editor thinking?

The fact of the matter is that for all the long-winded talk in the intro there is little to graphically show us where the industry came from verses where we are now. And from what I can tell, there is absolutely no mention of the explosion of games and utterly unique designs being done in FLASH. Arguably one of the largest and least expensive/complicated environments for making a unique game. Furthermore, all the games covered and talked about (that I can tell) are from very large corporations and as such tend to be slanted and biased in a number of regards.

My biggest problem with this book was the editing - particularly with regard to choices of art. Far too many examples if things that look the same versus examples of unique design concepts and forms as well as proper representations for an historical analysis. Very nice printing, some nice layouts, and some interesting topics are raised with relation to character conception versus form, versus environment - but I would not recommend this for critical graphic design analysis or critical anything


300 Pages of Misandry
	If you are a man, you will not like this collection of feminist essays.  This book is worse than bad.  It is an abomination


Holy Moly
	This is the book Dan Brown's bestseller "The Da Vinci Code" is based on. Indeed, Michael Baigent et.al. have even sued Brown in court, charging him with plagiarizing their book. The ideas behind "The Da Vinci Code" have been exposed as completely bogus by many real historians. Obviously, this exposure affects "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" as well.

This book is methodologically flawed. It claims that Jesus survived the crucifixion and sired children with Mary Magdalene. But if this happened, there should be ancient documents telling us about it. There are essentialy only three ancient views of Jesus: the Christian, the Judeo-Christian and the Gnostic. None of them includes the notion that Jesus married and had children with Mary Magdalene. It simply isn't serious to reject the ancient documents in favor of modern texts of questionable value, as Michael Baigent does. Of course, a conspiracy theorist might claim that the ancient documentation is lacking due to a massive cover-up. But such an argument, compelling as it may sound, is worthless to the historian, who must work with the real evidence, meager as it may be. A claim that can neither be proven or disproven is of little help. Besides, how many sects or cults have managed to keep their esoteric secrets? Very few indeed. There is always a defector or infiltrator somewhere. The idea that the biggest secret of all times was revealed by a confused French right-wing extremist only 40 years ago is very hard to take seriously. Indeed, the fact that not even heretical groups like the Gnostiscs claimed that Jesus had sired children, is good evidence against the claim. The Gnostics, after all, made all kinds of peculiar statements. But not this one. Why?

Why are books like "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and "The Da Vinci Code" so popular? Perhaps they say what many people want to hear. That in itself is somewhat damning, I think. For how many people want to hear the truth?


Sucks
	Eve Dallas is a cop in the future, chasing drug dealers, killer and being a badge heavy bitch in general. Her foster mother shows up and tries to get money out of Eve's rich husband and ends up dead.I hated this book, the characters are all unlikeable and the story drags


Big Book of Minimal value
	Much repetition and too little of artists neither western nor white...or male for that matter. Though the sections are a lovely idea the same art is used in each. A not terribly risky venture, this


Beauty Bites Off Too Much
	Buy a Girls Gotta Do What a Girls Gotta Do instead.  Snortland's book is more of a feminist's political treastise on how males and females are raised and nurtured versus a pragmatic approach on skills to identify potential threats and strategies to deal with them.  She does hype Impact training which sounds like a beneficial program. I bought it for my daughter, but read it first. Actually, I tried to read it; halfway through the book I  decided to toss it.


Margaret Mitchell is rolling over in her grave
	Although I really do like Ripley's writing and her stories, this one was shameful what she did to the memory of GWTW. I have to blame this on the editors. Scarlett was not the colorful character as in GWTW in this so called sequel. Publishers and editors should know there is no sequel worthy of the original great classic


Sociology, more of the same
	This is a revolutionary book. It introduces the stage metaphor into sociology; all of social interaction is a performance on a stage. It's questionable how novel this metaphor is, but this is certianly its first explicit statement. The language used to present the ideas of the author is, like most sociological writing, unecessarily complicated. There are some problems with clarity and structure; the book just doesnt have a holistic feel for me. No sociological background is presupposed, there is extensive quoting from other sociological sources, many footnotes, and various other ways to enter sociological literature throught the book. So if you are interested in reading sociology, this is probably a good place to start (again, the language is unecessicarily thick and this may be it's bane as an introduction).

However, the book is misguided. The idea of viewing social interaction as a performance on a stage is unecessary. The authors motives for saying this will make my position clearer.

(The following is a charicature of the author's argument). There is certianly a large amount of social behavior which is directed towards other people (the audience) in order for the audience to build an impression of the actor. Well, if it can happen here we can draw a parallel with other situations, infact all situations and therfore all of social interaction is like a performance on a stage, "All the world is not, of course, a stage, but the crucial ways in which it isnt are hard to specify" (p 72). The performances can either be with individuals, or groups of people, and they can be performing conciously or unconciously. (end of charicature)

There are other arguments, obviously, and the statement "we can draw a parallel with other situations" is most of the content of the book, which i dont like to gloss over with a sentence. But the real question here is, is the view worthwhile? My answer: No. Social interaction is a complex phenomena that cant possibly be summed up with a signle metaphor. Yes, some social interaction is like a performance, where indivudals are intentionally making impressions on one another. Yes, some social behavior can arise from unconcious beliefs. However, most social interaction is exactly the way we see it, conciously controlled, meaningful, purposeful interaction with individuals; it is not some kind of performance with the purpose of creating a "reality".

I hope my view of the book is clear so that the biases on the final part of my review can be sorted out: the book is a waste of time. Where the author is right, the statement is little more than common sense. Where the author goes outside of common sense, he's wrong, sometimes plainly so. This book is part of the tradition in sociology of thinking that society pulls the wool over each individuals eyes, that reality is a social construct with no purpose other than social control (here the wool is the performance, and the control has to do with impressions ... but this quickly degenerates into an obscure mess of assertions). There is no real empirical support given for most of the claims. Where "evidence" is given, the evididence is so heavily intepreted that it fails to correspond to facts in the world but rather to facts about the views of the reporter. Where there is no correspondence to the world there is no truth. Various sources of sociology are cited, but this is more like intellectual bullying. Saying that some author, which also didnt have any empirical support for his claims, agrees with you is just to bully your reader into acepting your claims. The claims in the book have no practical application in the world, but only serve to intepret situations differently, and in personal opinion, less correctly. Nothing said here will lead to better predictions about social behavior or a better understanding of psychology. In short, this isnt a scientific study at all.

My final qualm with the book deserves its own paragraph, the use of language. The best example is the definitions given at the end of the introduction "A performance may be defined as all of the activity of a given participant on a given occasion which serves to influence in any way any of the other participants" (15). This is a curios definition. Me breathing while i work is a performance, it changes the percentages of O2 and CO2 in the atmosphere near my co-workers. Me staring into space is a performance, other people see me stare into space and are therefore influenced. Infact, me simply existing is a performance, since my existance causes a gravitational effect on the other participants, as well as influencing them to create beliefs about me existing. Its as if Goffman created a definition for performance which included all possible actions taken by any person, and then wrote a book about how all possible actions taken by any person fall under the category of performance. He didnt. He used a word that we associate with controlled behavior (performance) and defined it in a way no one is used to. Then he used alot of word play to show that behavior has no substance, its all for the purpose of maintaining social reality. I hope this very limited example shows the terrible use of language that is endemic to Goffman and sociology more generally.

So an ode to sociology is in order ... actually no it isnt. Why wont this subject go away? This book is an integral part of sociology, and it espouses the methods and style of sociological researchers and writers by being an archetypical work within the tradition. The methods are questionable; the style is obscure. Like it or hate it, sociology is a part of modern thought. Read the book to be an educated person and keep in mind its intellectual failings


Extremely Boring and Devoid of Stories or Examples
	I'm surprised that someone so seemingly intelligent does not know that stories and specific examples are what make a book interesting. This book was totally devoid of them, but instead used vague generalizations from beginning to end. I read the whole book and was waiting for it to get good. It never did. Don't waste your time or your money. Any positive review must have been written by the author's friends. I would rather eat cardboard that read this book again.


Hassan's Review - Get another Translation
	I do not think the man who "translated" the Koran here is a true Muslim. One cannot shuffle and reorder the Suras to suit one's own taste. This man does not have the right to mess up our Holy Book in this way. Plue the style of writing is not nearly as engaging as the Ali version. I have not been in a Mosque yet that had this version of the Koran on its shelves. You can go into any Mosque in this country and pick up a copy of the Ali Tranlation for free. Why waste your money on this Infidel sham version?


False advertizing.
	I would love to read a neutral book on Barry Bonds, I hate cheerleader type books about players but I also hate one-sided ones as well. The only good things he really has to say about Bonds are about his baseball brain and his relationship with the famous Marge (whom he then sarcastically remarks that Bonds was only her second favorite player).

The book covers a wide variety of topics, some are puzzeling. While most of the book bashes Barry Bonds is also bashes his ex-wife for being an exotic dancer. I was pretty upset to read that, I was a fan of Pearlman but I thought he had more class then that.

This book came out right after (or because of) Game of Shadows. This book here actually praises Game of Shadows while bashing Bonds for illegal activities when 3 weeks after the book came out the writers of Book of Shadows are being subpeoned for illegally optaining information, guess that backfired Pearlman. In fact Game of Shadows may be taken off the shelves soon as well.

The book uses many annoymous sources (there is a reference sheet in the back, most of those articles all include quotes from many unidentified sources), so its really hard to take alot of the harsh quotes that Bonds says seriously because it is heresay.

The book pretty much discredits itself at the end when Pearlman proclaims that sports writers do not actually try or want to dig up dirt on people, they like to find good stories. That quote alone will have any Bonds hater rolling thier eyes at the sheer stupidity of it. Sports writing has became essectially a tabliod now. Even Skip Bayless publically admitted that most writers do that.

So once again, the biggest problem is that it fails to stay on neutral ground. This would be like writing a book about Babe Ruth and only mentioning that he beat up umpires, ran into the stands to attack people, slept with hookers, drank all the time, was mean to Lou Gherig, etc.

While that may be true it would also only tell one part of the story and would be a waste, just like this


No Substance to 'Substance'
	I was disappointed with this purchase. If you read the book jacket, you have gotten about all of the information out of it that's coming.


Surprised by animal cruelty and mishaps throughout book!
	Wow, I was expecting a fun, light read, and in the first chapter already had to skim over a couple of paragraphs relating to "mishaps" that happen to animals in Zippy's life. Well, I thought, next chapter will be better. NOT. The next chapter included a graphic scene of chickens being slaughtered by shovels! Every chapter so far has had something very disturbing about animals in it! If you are sensitive to these things, I would not recommend the book. I'm not sure I'm going to finish it at this rate. Granted, I AM super-sensitive to any animal suffering, but this is really overload. I'm halfway through and so far this is the list: The aforementioned chicken slaughter, a neighbor stealing her cat and starving it in the basement, another neighbor looking to poison her cat, dog-sitting for friends and losing the dog and not worrying about it that much and finding him dead days later, her father going out with a shotgun to kill the dogs who massacred Zippy's pet chicken, joking about a neighbor enjoying "puppy stew", keeping her two dogs penned up, torturing a raccoon by holding in front of 30 braying hounds.... I mean, does that seem like a lot to you??? For a light-hearted "tender" memoir???? Jeez louise! I can't sleep at night from this book


Not impressed...
	I picked this book up after reading both Books in the Bartimeus Trilogy and was excited to see what else Jonathan Stroud could conjure up. This book was a let down. I just couldn't get into the plot. I even found the story somewhat disturbing and eerie, especially for young children to read. There are very evil characters in this book who would be much better suited for an adult sci-fi novel, rather than a book marketed for children and young teens. The characters were unlikeable, and the plot just never seemed to grab my attention. I was very dissapointed that this is from the same author who wrote the amazing Bartimeus trilogy books! Well, I figured I would add my two cents in and let people know I just didn't like this book


Love the restaurant, the cookbook.... not so much
	I have to preface this by saying that I absolutely love eating at the candle. So delicious.
before we moved from NYC, I thought we HAVE to get this book. We've tried several of the recipies, following them to the letter, and have been really dissapointed everytime - with the exception of the  hummus.  I think that they must be leaving out some key ingredients in a lot of these recipies, because all of the ones we have attempted have been either completely flavorless, or tasted like salt. Don't even bother with the soups unless you are a gourmet cook and can figure out how to punch them up somehow after following these directions, because they all end up runny and bland. so sad


Minimally helpful text
	Don't be excited about this book's small size and light weight, the text needs more examples to support you while doing homework.  Breif chapter explantions caused me to nearly fail my class.  Was NOT a gret book, in fact many students complained to the Dean regarding this book.  Good luck


Christiane L. Aubry "wants to know more" Pennsylvania
	All over the place.
Confusing. Poorly organized.
I was unable to read this book and would love to return it.
Bad very bad.


A waste of perfectly good paper.
	I had expected an insightful analysis of the motivations behind modern terrorism. Instead I got a diatribe against western liberalism. Lee Harris is the poster child for the modern John Birchers, people who believe our way is not only the best way, its the only way. In an increasingly global economic and political system, his view of the world can be said to be outmoded, at best quaint, at worst pathological for if we are truely to address the problems facing humanity over the next 100 years, we will need tolerance and inclusivness.


Where's the beef?
	I enjoy this work, lots of fresh observations and connections.... but having read it in the light of recent trends in the e-biz world, it sounds thin and delusional...a lot like Tom Peters after way too much espresso. There ARE consequences from CONTINUALLY embracing change...and, in my experience ALL of them are BAD. I wonder on what real-world  EXPERIENCE Mr. Kelly bases his thinking. My advice, embrace chaos and change, but do it VERY CAREFULLY...because it will definitely have consequences.  Truth  amp; Beauty!  -Bv


Patterson readers beware of this dog
	The only explanation is that James Paterson churned this dog out to make a buck. I've read a number of James Patterson books and while I'm not a hard core fan, I've enjoyed most of them. I know this will outrage some Patterson readers but I'm not much of a fan of Alex Cross who frankly I find boring as hell.

As mediocre as Patterson often is as an author, readers should beware, London Bridges is especially bad. The novel reads like an abridgement, moving at a frantic pace without ever generating any suspense. The premise is ridiculous - super criminals with silly names join forces to blackmail world leaders (sounds like the plot for an Austin Powers movie - without any of the humour).

Patterson is not remotely qualified to enter the international terrorist thriller market. An author who churns out 3 or 4 novels a year doesn't have time to do the kind of research that is needed to produce a plausible terrorist thriller.

The twists at the end - "he's the wolf - no, he's the wolf - no, she's the wolf - no...." by the end, I just didn't care.

James Patterson has written some decent crime novels but his fans should beware. Quantity, not quality seems to be Patterson's priority these days. London Bridges is a mess from beginning to end.


Self Reliance: Can we really Rely on Waldo!
	Not his best book,I Thought Waldo Lost in New York is more authoritive. I mean who honestly belives that someone who is always lost can be trusted to help other people become self reliant, when he can't even rely on himself


A Different Definition of a Classic
	Mark Twain once said that (and I paraphrase)the definition of a classic is something that everyone wants to have read and no one wants to read. That is my experience with this book. For some reason, A Tale of Two Cities never made it onto any of my high school reading lists, and I figured it was one of those books I should have under my belt. So I picked it up. What a slog! A book that might have been fascinating due to its French Revolution subject matter was a mass of rambling descriptions and melodrama. We were supposed to shed tears for Sidney Carton, a character who you barely get to know, and root for Lucie Manette...the highly unrealistic paragon of unspoiled goodness. The only thing I liked about this book was how Madame Defarge knitted a list of people on which she planned to take revenge. An admittedly cool concept. Maybe this book speaks to another era, maybe it's past its prime, maybe I don't have the required literary sensibilities, or maybe I couldn't relate, but A Tale of Two Cities bored me to tears.


Chased by the Light: A 90-Day Journey: 2001
	While it is true that Brandenburg is a tremendous photographer and the majority of photos are simply breathtaking.  I returned my copy because the datebook also contained disturbing photos of dead wildlife.  I'm very tender when it comes to wildlife, and while I know that death is a natural part of the life cycle, I am disturbed by dead wildlife and would never chose a book or datebook containing such pictures.  For anyone who is animal sensitive and dislikes any death photos, then this IS NOT the book for them.  Otherwise, I would recommend it


Confusing Snore-fest
	I saw this book at a friend's shortly after seeing the movie.  I asked her if I could borrow it.  She said I wouldn't want to.  She'd been trying to read it for awhile, and didn't like it.  I decided to try anyway.  Unfortunately, my friend was right.  This is a definite case of a movie being much better than a book.  I really liked the movie.  However, the book is too long and boring.  There are so many tangents in it that have nothing to do with the central story.  I can't believe I even finished it.  Rent the movie-don't waste your time on the book


Great concepts that go nowhere.
	I zipped through the first 100 pages of this book unable to put it down.  Unfortuneately the author seems to run out of gas after that.  The main character just goes on a big, boring sight seeing tour.  It reminded me of that show on the Travel Channel where that girl visits hotel after hotel fawning over the interior design. There is not a hint of conflict until the final pages and then it's very short-lived and quickly followed by one of the worst non endings I've ever read.  The book just stops.  Not a hint of resolution or even a cliff hanger pointing to a sequel.

It's a shame because Grimsley had some great concepts to work with.  In my experience novels that mix technology with magic usually fail at both, but Grimsley had a workable foundation he could have developed into something unique if he had focused on the SF concepts instead of minutiae.

Once in a while the characters stop admiring the drapes long enough to notice the GIANT FREAKIN' PORTAL BETWEEN TWO WORLDS--but enough about that.
Gee, what a lovely sofa..


What Crash?
	This book contains some useful historical information and some insights into the mass psychology of booms, bubbles, and busts.

Prechter should have left it at that.  Instead, he offers up predictions.  Big mistake.  This guy bases his forecasts on Fibonacci numbers and so-called Elliott "wave counts."   He labels all market patterns so that they fit the preordained Elliott Wave 5-up, 3-down pattern.  If you see more or fewer waves than he does in any given market move, you just don't understand that there can only be 5 waves to the top of a bull market.  He's imposing his theory on the market, but surprisingly enough, the market doesn't care.  It does whatever it wants, in however many waves it wants, and Bob has been very frustrated at the market's aberrant behavior lately.  He got lucky early in his career, but it seems he's been fairly consistently getting the market wrong since missing the '87 crash.

Any superstitution can "seem" to work if you only look at its happenstance apparent accuracies and disregard its abundant failures.  Keep looking for certain numbers of waves and Fibonacci ratios and you'll find what you're looking for.  Pick any set of numbers or patterns or wave counts, and you'll find those too.  The market doesn't care about any of those things, though.  It's nothing more than an aggregation of billlions of individual choices, which are influenced by an infinite number of factors none of us can ever understand fully.  University studies of various investing methods have found that Elliott Wave, like most, is no better than random stock selection.

If Prechter had chosen the random method, he and his followers would at least have a good chance of keeping pace with the market.  Unfortunately, he has been getting everything from the Dow, to oil (he thought it was going to $10), to gold (he didn't think it could break $400), to deflation (the "deflation" scare ended shortly after this book came out) WRONG in the past couple of years.  He apparently STILL believes that the Dow will go to 400 (not 4,000 but FOUR HUNDRED) because his charts tell him it should (they've been telling him that since about 1990, actually).  Prechter doesn't understand demographics or economics or markets or the monetary system, all of which render "Dow 400" among the goofiest of forecasting absurdities -- unless you believe a giant asteroid will hit and wipe out two thirds of the population (I don't think Prechter is counting on that).

Our debt-heavy economy may have a significant crisis soon, perhaps by the end of the decade.  It will most likely be spurred on by inflation and rising interest rates.  But it's not happening now and it's not happening in the way this author has been prematurely forecasting for over a decade.

This book came out near the bottom of the 2000-2002 stock bear market, just in time for a reader to short stocks as they began a new bull market.  How typical.  While promoting the book, Prechter said it was "definite" that stocks would "crash"
in 2003.  He said that 2003 would be "the best year yet" for bears (short sellers).  Late into 2003, when it was clear that the market had proven him wrong, Prechter declared on a radio show that by the end of 2004, the Dow would "certainly" fall below 5,000.  Wrong again!  Since his Fibonacci turn dates and Elliott wave counts fail to portend the future, maybe next he'll tell us he's found the secret code to the stock market from the text count of Nostradamus' writings.

Bob Prechter couldn't call the market if it was listed in the Yellow Pages.  This guy couldn't time the market if you gave him a stopwatch.  He's throwing out guesses and misleading people by describing them as "definite" and "certain."  He's either a liar or a true believer in his own irrational superstitions.  In either case, he's not credible.

Here's all you really need to know: Buy dividend stocks.  Buy short-term bonds.  Buy gold.  Hang on to them.  Do that and you'll do better than you will trying to follow the prognostications of market gurus.  Plus, you'll have a lot more time to devote to family, fun, and productive activities


One of Koontz's Worst
	This is truly a disappointing book.  It starts incredibly slowly and I found it very hard to become interested in the plot.  Another disappointment is Koontz's recycling of elements from other novels: (1) plucky, highly intelligent disabled girl (the young female protagonist in "The Hideaway" had almost identical deformities and personality), (2) devoted, super-powered canine companions, (3) bad guys driving around in ultra pimped-out RVs, and (4) evil bioethicists.

The Leilani character is patently ridiculous.  She conveniently has a genius IQ, but that does not make the absurdly adult manner in which she speaks any more believable.  I found it so disconcerting as to detract from the plot.  Koontz clearly has trouble writing for children, and this book is no exception.  Almost all the children featured in his books are either autistic/MR or genius wunderkinds; the latter, however, does not justify his habit of making smart children talk like genius adults.  Dean heaps the hardships on poor Leilani, with all the subtlety of an episode of Walker, Texas Ranger.  In case you miss the anvils, you are supposed to really, really like her and fear for her safety.

I don't know how or where Dean Koontz learned about bioethics, but he has a terribly misguided view of the field, taking an extreme sect of it to represent the main viewpoint of the field.  Further, he states multiple times that these eugenic bioethics principles are being taught to medical students at major universities (who will have to pay for their involvement with evil bioethics) -- as a medical student, I can assure you that this is patently untrue.  That Koontz could be so off-base on a topic that directly relates to the central motive is disconcerting and makes an already weak book even harder to swallow.

The final issue is Koontz's near-deification of dogs, particularly Golden Retrievers, which is a common motif in his more recent works.  It is ridiculous and unintentionally funny to an almost painful degree.  His obsession with dogs and their mystical powers borders on the psychotic (and I like dogs).  This novel probably features the most egregious example of Koontz's tendency to create overly sappy, sugary-sweet endings.

Dean Koontz has written many books better than this one.  Spend your money on one of his stronger efforts


The Careless Characterization of Helping Professionals
	McKnight's concerns about communities' dependency on professional assistance are legitimate, but disturbingly overstated in this book.

In the end I felt McKnight's trashing of the already well-trodden government provision of social services may not be altogether helpful to distressed communities.  He sidesteps concerns of capital mobility and exploitation and the pernicious effects wrought by years of discrimination.  Any debate over when and where and how social programs can be effective is cast aside as well, since in McKnight's picture, social programs and the professional service providers are, in fact, the vilains and culprits for most of what ails society.

One of the damaging fallacies that seems to be perpetuated in this book is that service professionals are not able to be both professional and caring - the two are deemed mutually incompatible.  Mcknights views resonate with employers' caring rhetoric - conveniently invoked every time a healthcare worker tries to claim she does care about patients but is still entitled to a living wage or, perhaps, health insurance.

What is further implied is that communities will readily and ably take up the reign of providing for themselves and their members when denied more institutionalized professional services.  It seems implied that communities had no problems before the social programs to solve them came into being.  In this, I think I see McKnight is invokeing an idealized notion of an society at an earlier time; maybe his argument would have seemed more reasoble in a time when families were less geographically mobile and may have constituted an economic unit, when the elderly lived shorter lives and were less numerous themselves with more children to care for them, and the local economic activities were more functionally interdependent.

But McKnight's model for today's cure doesn't seem to fit today's conditions.  On the other hand, McKnights solutions may be the only ones available in a society where budget cuts and elimination of social services seem the prevailing trend.


Somebody Stop Me........
	........from reading Danielle Steel.  Here's the book:  three bachelors meet three women.  They all break up, they all end up happily ever after.  BORING, not one single exciting thing about this book.  I was happy when my lunch break ended so I could go back to work and stop reading.

Yes - we keep reading her because we feel obligated and hope for a better book someday, but I think I'm at the end of my rope with Danielle Steel.  My librarian told me last night they aren't even going to carry any new books of hers.  THAT'S sad


doesn't have it all
	While this book contains a ton of data, don't get it if you want calorie counts on anything homemade.  If you look up french toast, for example, it only gives information on name brand items.  Much of the information in the book is available on the packaging of the products.  I suppose that if you wanted to check it before shopping, or use it before eating out, it would be helpful.  But if you want to find out the caloric content of any homemade items, you are out of luck with this book


The Wrong Hostage
	While entertaining, I found several times that the story slowed down and got a little preachy about the politics of drug money. While probably true it distracted from the story by being repeated and heavy handed. I also found the timeline hard to believe. Maybe because I have lived in the area and understand the distances (and traffic) travelled in short periods of time. I am a big Elizabeth Lowell fan  (as well as Ann Maxwell) but this was not one of her better books


Eat Great, Lose Weight (Miniature Edition)
	I was very disappointed in this book even though it was a miniature.  Some of the pages were blank, having not even been printed.  I figure the book was a total loss of money spent


Voodoo Physics
	Gary Zukav states in his introduction "I had never studied physics. In fact I didn't like science and I had no mathematical aptitude.

On Opra (TV) he admitted that he does not have a TV which may explain his lack of contemporary physics let alone any depth.

I noticed that some reviewers refer to the "New Physics" is that like "New Age" or voodoo physics?

90% of the matter must be missing from this book. Or else how can he take physics out of context and make such fantastic leaps to religions parallels that he knows little of. He even twists the religion around to serve some unknown purpose.

Many people say they did not understand physics until this book; Surprises, you still do not. You now know what Zukav wished physics was. Take anti-mater for instants that does not mean the opposite of mater. And the relationship between particles has no correlation with the relationship of dogs and cats.

At least get it straight before mixing it up. Try reading some of these:
"The Ascent of Man by Jacob Bronowski". The book available everywhere the DVD's available from the UK.

"The Upanishads" by Eknath Easwaran (Editor), Michael N. Nagler (Photographer)

Or just about any mainstream material on physics and religion.

Then if you still want to mix worlds into one read someone saner:
"The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism" by Fritjof Capra.

Also on the fringe but not as radical as Zukav is a series called "What the Bleep." (both in books and on video)


A Light weight novel with little plot or character development
	I was disappointed with this novel which is set in my hometown of Chicago.  I had hoped that the author would have taken advantage of this setting, but it really seemed as if he had just read one of our gay newspapers and pulled out a few names to function as place names.  The plot is trite as are most of the characters.  Characters change their "stripes" at the drop of a hat.  The book has a certain fairy tale, and they lived happily ever after quality that I found really disconcerting.  I would have been more "satisfied" if Dean (the main character) had turned out to be an ax murderer!  Just kidding of course or am I?  If you can pick this book up used for a couple of bucks, okay but don't you pay a penny more


Little by Little !
	I ordered this book and read most of it in the hope that I would learn something about Familiars . In the interval between ordering and receiving my sixth sense made me begin to have doubts about Ms Little . Had she flown about the battlements of an old castle in the form of an Owl? Had she entertained A Hyrax or a Feral Cat as a house guest ? Had she ever had a pet Bat living behind a picture in the living room ? Was she acquainted with the properties of Henbane and twylight sleep and did she number Hecate among her close friends? The kindest thing , I thought was to suggest that Ms Little Knew as much about Familiars as I know about Conveyancing or Futures Trading , and let it go at that


NAMBLA Members Line up For Blocks to Get This!
	Now that Hannity has gone on the record as a pedofilia apologist and defender of child molestation.

"Thank God for Hannity!"
-Lee Krock, founder of NAMBL


BECOMING A MASTER MANAGER:  A BOOK REVIEW
	BECOMING A MASTER MANAGER, the textbook currently used in my Introduction to Management class, does not effectively convey the important fundamentals of business management.  The book is structured around eight 'roles' of an effective manager, and each role is further broken down into a number of competencies that are functions of that particular role.  While I appreciate the effort to organize a relatively broad subject, I do not feel that the book is necessarily easy to follow.  The reading is constantly being interrupted by assessments and applications for each competency, and while meant well, they are usually skipped over in an attempted to finish the reading and they seem to me to be a large waste of paper.  Furthermore, BECOMING A MASTER MANAGER stresses models and theories of management that I find useless without the necessary fundamentals of management, which are not adequately presented in the textbook.  Some of the models and theories have merit and should be discussed more in depth, but in a more advanced level of business management.  And while BECOMING A MASTER MANAGER is the official textbook for my management class, I have relied heavily on a different textbook for my information, and only the eve of a test do I bother to look over BECOMING A MASTER MANAGER, I do not recommend this textbook for an introductory class at all


Not the best
	I'm not a fan of mysteries to begin with.  However, my public library has a limited selection of audio books, so I take what I can get.  I am a voracious reader, and I listen to audios to get more "reading" in, as you can listen and do other things.  I much prefer the Lillian Jackson Braun "cat" books, at least there is some humor, and I like the "mystery" part of these books better than Deaver's.  Sorry to all the Deaver fan's out there...I HAVE enjoyed a few of his books, but I get tired of the "same ole-same ole"


Yawn. More stereotypical female masochists.
	I bought this book because it was listed with Ellen Miller's Like Being Killed, a brilliant and complex book about a woman's love affair with heroin, her best friend Susie, and her best friend's duplicitous HIV positive boyfriend. The protagonist herself was brilliant and complex. So naturally, I expected the same thing out of Swimming Sweet Arrow. Man, was I disappointed. This was yet another trashy tale about a pathetic woman's masochistic sex life, pathetic obsession with brutal men, and pathetic quest for attention. Her entire life is a meta-existence: rather than desiring, she desires to be desired. Rather than enjoying, she enjoys being enjoyed. The male characters and the female characters are written by someone who has never met a male or female who didn't exhibit the most common stereotypes; in her world, all men are sensation-craving brutes, and all women are attention-craving doormats. The men want drugs, fun, and sex, and the women whine and cry and enjoy nothing--not the drugs, not the sex, just being a victim due to the attention it provides. This book made me really miserable to be perceived as part of this gender.


a plus
	I have read all twelve of these books and hoping there will be more. The language is pretty graphic but they are so funny you can usually ignore those words. These books can cause you embaesment, since I read where ever I have to sit and wait and you burst out laughing people do stare and wonder if you are losing it. Please we would all like to see more of these


Interesting But Not Helpful
	On the plus side, this book is fairly easy to understand and contains sufficient pictures of the exercises.  I was very excited at first, but unfortunately none of the exercises, massages, meditations, etc I tried seemed to help any of my health problems, even after a month.  The book contains inspiring stories of people who have quickly recovered from serious illness or injury, yet leaves me crying in disappointment.  I will probably keep trying a few of the exercises and methods for awhile, but I don't hold any hope of them suddenly starting to work at this point


NOT the book you know and love!
	This is a nice enough board book, but be advised that it is NOT the full version of Dr. Seuss' book!  They've left out several (charming!) pages of text and illustrations for the Board Book...  What a disappointment to loyal fans, and how unfair to the newest generation of fans-to-be


Disappointing
	This book was suggested reading as if  quot; THE GREAT SECRET to PERSONAL FREEDOM quot; was going to be revealed. It spoke of a self-centered mindset that seemed to suggest that I was to live my life how I wanted and not consider how my actions would affect others around me. A very simplistic and selfish point of view


A Lame Blog in Hardback
	I read a good short story by Franzen in The New Yorker a couple years ago, but this book is lame, lame, lame.  The essays contain little to no humor or insight- they are just lengthy, boring opinions on various subjects.  Imagine if you can a duller, less-relavant Andy Rooney.  If I wanted to read some loser's uninspired musings, I would get on the internet and start reading weblogs.  I hereby declare this book Unreadable


This book lacks
	Sorry for the sarcastic title. I've read most of this book. I'm still reading the last chapter which is actually the most hopeful chapter.
I'll start with what I liked. Harris lays out some good suggestions on handling the pyhsical aspects of a dating relationship (or courtship if you get caught up in semantics)
However, Harris offers nothing else except a rudimentary courtship model that involves physical boundaries and guarding against things moving too quickly.
I think this is good wisdom, but the book completely lacks in many other apects of pursuing a relationship. He talks very little about communication skills. Also you won't find much on personality traits or compatibility.
When I began a relationship with my girlfriend I read this book. I don't regret reading it, but it lacks in a lot of areas. Part of this is due to the fact that I don't know what credentials Joshua Harris has to make his claims. He is not a Phd, or a relationship or family counselor. He had two substantial romantic relationships in his life. One with the girl who inspired him to write his first book, and the other with his current wife. When it comes to relationships, I would hardly call Joshua Harris and authority on the subject. He has no more experience or wisdom that the average person who would pick his book up off the shelf.
I support the crux of what Harris talks about. I respect the fact that him and his wife Shannon waited to their wedding day for their first kiss. The book is chivalrous and romantic. It is a hopeful book.
But it paints only a partial picture of how to persue a relationship. If you are into reading relationship books, just be sure this isn't your only resource.


Fully developed characters are in danger of extinction...
	This is my 3rd McDermid novel, I previously read 'Mermaids Singing' and 'Wire in the Blood.' McDermid writes good prose but in this 3rd novel I see dangerous repetitions in character types which, if repeated in the next Tony Hill/Carol Jordan book will make that one my last purchase. Generally McDermid paints female police officers as brighter, more diligent and more intuitive than their male counterparts, as well as more often homosexual. The men, with the exception of leading man Tony Hill, are mostly all egotistical, back-stabbing, power-hungry morons of the lowest order, while Hill is rendered impotent -- a redundant bit of emasculation since all the other males are castrated of their moral fiber. The slow mating dance between Hill and Jordan gets a lot of buildup and little payoff. And in this book, the serial killer and the surrounding hunt for him are as limply portrayed as Dr. Hill. The emotional connection between Hill and the killers in the two previous books is missing here, making the entire killer plot read like an afterthought. And the real villain -- not the serial killer but a drug-pushing / illegal-immigrant smuggler loses character focus as the reader is given reason to sympathize with him as well as with the killer. The climactic scenes involving the capture of one villain and the death of another are without any sense of thrill or danger. I was extremely disappointed with this book


souls of black folk
	was worthless...was not the correct match for my class book requirement.  Never used it...if someone wants it you can have it for free


Disappointing - still searching for answers
	I was looking for a book with practical advice on how to handle real-life situations.  I felt most of the book talked about how to parent, i.e. cosleeping, wearing baby, etc, but did not give advice on how to handle a specific situation.  What do i do when my child runs away from me toward the street and then hits and bites me when I pick him up?  I don't want to spank, but a 24-month old just doesn't take to "a talk" or timeout like Dr. Sears says he should.  The Sears Birth Book was amazing, I recommend it to anyone, but this book did not help me answer my questions


Breathtakingly bad
	I'm usually a sucker for just about any kooky theories backed up by barely-there evidence. Even trying very hard to be generous (hey, I'm a Christian and I think it would be fabulous if the stuff in this book were true), I think I could poke a hole in every page. And that's after perhaps 12 months of formal Mandarin study and a similar amount of Cantonese.

Don't buy it. It's embarrassing to Christians that this sort of thing gets passed around as scholarship. If they'd wrapped it up with a plot around it, it'd make a great work of fiction


A Formal Analytical Review
	"OF PARADISE AND POWER" - BY ROBERT KAGAN

"Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus" - apart from simply raising a few eyebrows, this line by Robert Kagan author of "Of Paradise And Power", has not only caught the attention of many but managed to stir up a wave of discussions among the politicians and elites concerned with cross-Atlantic relations. Kagan's thought provoking book became extremely popular and received international acclaim for its analysis of the deteriorating US-Europe relationship, not to mention its catchy and striking phrases systematically introduced throughout the slender yet captivating book. Kagan introduces multiple chapters in his book, in order to deconstruct the key underlying issues which he claims are causes of the ever widening divide between US and Europe. In the chapter "The Power Gap", Kagan starts from World War I to understand the aversiveness Europe displays towards military and wars. He argues that while both the World Wars weakened Europe tremendously; they helped the US emerge as a super power. He further elaborates on the might of the US in the chapter that follows - "Psychologies of Power and Weakness". Kagan explains how lack of power can not only affect psychologies and ideologies, but change perspectives as well. He claims Europe's paucity of military power compels it to not only tolerate threats but ignore them all together and at the same time try and counterbalance the US force by constructing a world which is governed by economic and soft non-violent methods. This chapter culminates into "Hyperpussiance", a chapter in which Kagan discusses intricate details of Kosovo and Bosnia, highlighting Europe's failure and America's effectiveness in handling the situation. He finally presents his central argument in the chapters "The Post Modern Paradise" and "The World America Made" where Kagan states, "Europe's evolution into its present state occurred under the mantle of the U.S. security guarantee and could not have occurred without it." Casting doubts on Europe's intentions, Kagan centers his argument on the growing self-centered policies of Europe and questions the validity of cohesive terms such as `west' in his chapter "Is It Still `The West'"?
Finally, it seems Kagan provides a solution to this insolvable problem of the US-
Europe divide in his concluding chapter, "Adjusting to Hegemony", by simply stating one line - "the task for both Europeans and Americans is to readjust to the new reality of American hegemony". This extremely small book, as compared to the issue it addresses needs further analysis and some close examining. There are many issues to be addressed in Kagan's brief analysis and one might not be completely satisfied with certain claims, reasonings or the manner in which such a grave and sensitive topic is handled. While there is a tone of underlying bias (in contrast to the general opinion of a well-balanced view that the author holds), Kagan manages to miss out some crucial facts and figures, not to mention present stark paradoxes, and the essay lacks sufficient citings.

    To start with, let me point out the contradictions in Kagan's arguments, the presence of which highly undermines his claims, leaving the reader in a dilemma unconvinced of either argument. Kagan claims, "Europe's relative weakness has understandably produced a powerful European interest in building a world where military strength and hard power matter less than economic and soft power...rules of behavior" (pg.37). He goes on to say, - "Since Europeans lack the capacity to undertake unilateral military actions, either individually or collectively as `Europe,' it is natural that they should oppose allowing others to do that they cannot do themselves."(pg.38) in contrast to "...Europe today has the wealth and technological capability to make itself more of a world power in military terms if Europe wanted to become that kind of world power" (pg.53-54). Kagan contradicts his own views, stating many times that Europe is militarily weak, nor does it have the capacity to build up its forces yet at the same time, puts forth an argument of Europe's capabilities of increasing its defense spending and military might to match the US.
    In the chapter, Psychologies of Power and Weakness, Kagan's one claim contradicts another which is made in the next chapter as the reasoning for both his claims seem to be absolutely tangential. He first explains Europe's greater tolerance for threats is due to its weakness and the fearful past, which it has suffered from. He then metaphorically explains it by giving the example of a man with a knife and the same one with a rifle having different interpretations of the word `threat' when confronting a bear (pg.31). But again Kagan himself feels Europe can become a military power as and when it wishes to, when he says "They could easily spend twice as much as they are currently spending on defense if they believed it necessary to do so" (pg.54). So this forces me to ask a question, would one be mauled by a bear if one could produce a rifle to prevent this misfortune? So isn't it quite possible that Europeans feel safe, not because they "...enjoy the `free ride' they have gotten under the American security umbrella over the past six decades" (pg.54), but rather because there was and is no real threat at all?

    With the use of phrases such as "The Axis of Evil" and "Rouge States" (pg.30), which Kagan uses to describe Iraq and Iran, not to mention his references to `Weapons of Mass Destruction' (which he uses as a pretext to the war in Iraq), which still seem to be elusive for some reason, he seems to perplex me by blatantly ignoring his own creation. While Kagan maintains that Iraq was a threat and the US perceived it as one while Europe did not, he might want to explain as to why, in 1997, he (Kagan was the Director of the Project for the New American Century) signed a document which justifies American occupation of the Middle-East, irrespective of threats from Iraq or Iran.
"The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein...
From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve; retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."(pg.17 - Rebuilding America's Defenses - *1)
This forces me to conclude that either the author has resorted to `cherry picking' of evidence or he suffers from selective amnesia.
    Some of his reasoning, analysis and analogies seem to be too naive. When explaining military action, one cannot justify it by saying, "When you have a hammer, all problems start to look like nails". The author speaks about the nation's (US's) willingness to go to war simply because it has the ability and the capacity to do so. Without discussing a need or providing concrete reasons for the use of aggression, the author seems to be content in justifying use of force, simply because one has it. One important aspect Kagan leaves out in his analysis are the political and economical aspects of the ongoing US-Europe feud. While I have discussed some economical aspects later in the review, one must note that Kagan does not mention the Kyoto Protocol (apart from Clinton's negotiation of it (pg.45)). The US withdrawal from the Protocol had created serious problems and divisions between the two giants (www.climnet.org - *2). While there were many other issues that further fanned the growing fire, disagreements over the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty for example, which Kagan conveniently sweeps under the carpet, needed to be addressed if one is discussing transatlantic relations (www.bbcnews.com - *3, 4)

    For a book which covers issues from the pre World War II decade (occasionally going back to ancient philosophy) to the present issues, 72 citations, from which many are simply extended explanations (for examples, see supra notes- 19, 20, 22), seem to be alarmingly low, especially with the absence of some important ones and not to mention, certain citations which wrongly allude to historical facts. Kagan mentions, "As `some' Europeans put it, the real division of labor consisted of the United States making the dinner and the Europeans doing the dishes" (pg.23), yet he does not refer to any source for this cynical statement. He says, "The vast majority of Europeans always believed that the threat (if any) posed by Saddam was more tolerable than the risk of removing him" along with other alleging statements like, "The rehabilitation and reintegration of Saddam Hussein's Iraq is precisely what they(Europe) sought" (pg.44) , and again gives no source for the origin of these beliefs. Strangely, he supports one of his claims by stating in his supra note.20, pg.30, "for that matter, this is also the view commonly found in American textbooks". One might not generally expect to see such puerile purporting evidence in a scholarly analysis of transatlantic relations. Kagan at times jumps back to Athenian times and has injected strong philosophies in his essay. He mentions a number of times how Americans see the world from a Hobbesian perspective while Europeans are followers of Kantinian policies. Kagan seems to have overlooked the fact, that though Hobbes had described the state of nature as that of "all against all", the only reason Hobbes justifies a sovereignty is to ensure peace on earth. Kagan conveniently cites Hobbes (Hobbes theory itself was flawed as later philosophers termed it as `Hobbes Dilemma') to justify American aggression, but no where in Hobbes' theory is aggression justified by the sovereign (Leviathan - Ch.17).

    There are some conclusions Kagan draws which seem to be beliefs of an American idealist living in a world where politics is as pure as religion. He concludes that while the US was providing "free security" to Europe after the Cold War, "...America's great power and willingness to assume responsibility for protecting other nations..." (pg.34) has given Europe the opportunity to build up economically. Kagan further asserts his point when he says, "Given America's willingness to spend so much money protecting them, Europeans would rather spend their own money on social welfare programs, long vacations and shorter workweeks" (pg.54). These are inaccurate presentations of facts, which are more of subjective, bias ideologies. I would like to put forth two points in order to accentuate the conspicuous fallacy of these two statements. First, America's interest in Europe was not to provide it with security whether before or after the Cold War. One must not confuse the fact that measures taken to restrict the Soviet advance was purely for selfish motives, rather than for the benefit of nations which were under the watchful eye of the communist empire (Kagan himself acknowledges the fact when he says, "With the check of the Soviet power removed, the United States was free to intervene practically whenever and wherever it chose..."(pg26)). Second, when Kagan acknowledges that Europe which has a "$9 trillion " economy is in a comfortable position to support its welfare programs along with increased military spending; attributing the fact that Europe spends more on welfare, as he calls them "free-riders", results in a faulty analysis.

When I had mentioned earlier that Kagan chose to omit and ignore certain facts, the example of the Balkans, which the author has cited many times in his book would seem most relevant. Kosovo is one of the primary issues he discusses to bring forth US benevolence and European incapacity. "American involvement in Kosovo or Bosnia was not based on calculations of a narrow American `national interest'...While Americans had a compelling moral interest in stopping genocide and ethnic cleansing,... the US had no `national interest' at stake in the Balkans"(pg.50), this is how Kagan sees it. Indeed stopping genocide was a concern, but was it the only concern? While Milosevic had very much agreed to station NATO troops in Kosovo to stop the conflicts, none seem to have been interested in his offer; they rather wanted complete access and control to all of Yugoslavia. The Rambouillet Accord, to which the Contact Group added an Appendix B on the last day of the conference held at Paris, one must note was the primary reason for rejecting NATO troops, as it demanded Yugoslavia to surrender its autonomy and sovereignty. Yet, he does not mention of Milosevic agreeing to station NATO troops in Kosovo (http://wsws.org *5).
    Some thing missing from Kagan's entire book are the words "Latin America" and "Africa". As seen above, Kagan believes America was spending its money protecting Europe and Europe alone from all the threats around the world, before and after the Cold War. But what baffles me to quite an extent is that not once does Kagan mention about any American intervention in Latin America (official or not), Africa or the Far East for that matter. Those who are well aware of the world around them, will be aware of America's support for dictators and other corrupt regimes throughout Latin America and the far East, Indonesia for example, which were for self serving purposes alone or is it that the author is implying that the Latin American and African countries were a threat to Europe, hence the interventions and no mention of them? (A complete timeline by Steven Kangas can be found on multiple sites *6, 7, 8)

    There is one severe `defect', as I put it, which undermines the entire argument of this book. Kagan's tunneled vision approach, which refers to the word `power' only in terms of military strength and capabilities, ultimately results in a false dichotomy, which is the stumbling stone for his thesis. Kagan believes the world and in particular, Europe, is left with two options, that either they follow the US or be a tacit audience. The reason he reaches this conclusion as I previously put it, is due to his convergent view. "Rather than viewing the US as a Gulliver tied down by Lilliputian threads", says Kagan, "American leaders should realize that they are hardly constrained at all, that Europe is not really capable of constraining the US". He reinforces this claim throughout his book (see pg- 33, 37-40, 59, 62, etc). The author's abysmal ignorance about hard-hitting, highly valid and relevant facts has rendered severe blows to the validity of his claims. Kagan has committed serious errors here, by ignoring Europe's strength, not military but political and economical indeed. With a population of 456,953,258 (the CIA Fact Book *9) and still growing, the EU, leave aside Europe, cannot be simply overlooked or brushed aside as a dead competitor or a bygone culture. Europe is economically strong enough to trouble the US as and when it wants to, the recent problems over the genetically altered meat, banana dispute, steel industry debacle, Airbus-Boeing clash and many more, have all proved that Europe's economic strength is much of a concern for the US.  While I must point out a rank deletion, I believe this is `the' single factor which is capable for arguing against all of Kagan's thesis and arguments, and that is the American Economy. Not once has he mentioned the deteriorating state of American economy (2001), even though problems did exist when he wrote this book. He seems to be blissfully ignorant and persists that America can sustain its exorbitant defense spending, "...the US can sustain its current military spending levels and its current global dominance far into the future". Strangely, the growing inflation rate, rising unemployment, stagflation, trends the economy was showing of heading towards a recession, were I believe dismissed as myths by the author (for statistics see - www.bbcnews.com; http://wsws.org *10, 11). Also, Kagan's final solution suggest that, "The obvious answer is that Europe should.... and build up its military, even if only marginally", leaves me with a conundrum. Is Kagan implicating that Europe has no military at all or is it that he wants to begin a new arms race, this time Cold War II? Kagan must understand he is writing this book for international publics and not simply those, whose ideologies are in tandem with his. Hence, I doubt most would disagree that the world should get into an arms race here, as we all know, there is no stopping to this evil if it once starts.

While I have already discussed the effects of trade and economics (which Kagan ignores) on the US-Europe relation, there is something I must point out before I end this review. Kagan, rather conveniently digresses of the topic, which is transatlantic relationships, to justifying US hegemony in a neo-conservative fashion. While most Americans themselves would probably not agree with Kagan's ideology (as the public opinion and faith plummets - see polls from various news sources *12), leave aside Europeans or rest of the world, Kagan writes almost 15 pages to justify it. This was a rather disappointing conclusion to his book, where he thinks the only solution to the ever widening divide is "Adjusting to Hegemony". When Kagan says how many (statistics seem to abandon him) Americans believe that by advancing their interest, they advance the interest of humanity, he sounds exuberantly jingoistic and to drive the point home, he quotes Benjamin Franklin as saying - "America's cause is the cause of all mankind" and again I must bring to the author's notice, the recipient of these remarks is an international audience, which is diverse, has its own culture and heritage, religious beliefs and ideologies and has no reason to believe why their culture or beliefs are inferior to any other.  An author of his stature must realize that it is transatlantic relationships and not a primary grade bully that is being discussed. While he seems to take pride in saying that America has a "go it alone" attitude (pg.39, 99), it does not abide by the UN Security Council (pg.40, 99), takes action unilaterally irrespective of international laws (pg.45, 61, 99), is justified in adopting `double standards' (pg.62, 99), he fails to fathom the gravity of the current day (or rather the day when he wrote this book) situation and the growing unpopularity of American foreign policy around the world. While he sees Europe as an obstacle in the path of America's imperialistic goals, a neutral observer would be more than justified in pointing out that may be it is the US that hinders progress and efforts of the EU to establish a world which respects international laws, human rights, collective public opinion and most of all - peace. He fails to give an impartial, if not a complete solution to rid the world of this wedge as he weakly concludes his essay by saying, "...a little common understanding can still go a long way". While many have nothing but words of praise, as a one line summary by Francis Fukuyama calls it - "Brilliant" (a co-architect and signatory of the Rebuilding America's Defense Project) and according to Dr. Henry Kissinger, [against whom innumerable charges of human right violations have been levied, who ironically, Kagan terms as a "quintessential realist". See - http://en.wikipedia.org(for cases) *13; http://www.thenation.com(for list of crimes) *14] the book is a "seminal treatise" which would "shape the (US-Europe relation) discussion for years to come"; I do not particularly endorse it it. As I have already put forth immense supportive data to show why the book lacks a concrete argument, sane reasoning or supportive evidence, though its lucid prose, easy comprehension and its articulate linking makes it a good read, it barely digs deep into the problem or the solution, apart from scratching the surface, `the military surface'. Indeed the book did create waves in the political arena, which was probably due to its impeccable timing, but I cast serious doubts on the claims that it would be "discussed for years to come".

*1   - http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
*2   - http://www.climnet.org/news/march2001.html
*3   - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1383385.stm
*4   - http://212.58.226.30/1/hi/business/2052405.stm
*5   - http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/apr1999/yugo-a14.shtml
*6   - http://www.atrocities.net/
*7   - home.att.net/~Resurgence/CIAtimeline.html
*8   - www.serendipity.li/cia/cia_time.htm
*9   - http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ee.html
*10 - http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/dec2000/us-d30.shtml
*11 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1263211.stm
*12 - http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php
*13 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger
*14 - http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3 pid=17


Fast and Loose
	I suppose every author in this genre comes to the table with an agenda.  That being said, in this book, Mr. DiLorenzo seems to play fast and loose with the facts (or at least with his conclusions).

The flyleaf of this book promises "extensive research and meticulous documentation" but at least one other reviewer has already pointed out some problems with this author's historical research.  That should raise a red flag to anyone reading this book.

Consider this:  The author claims Lincoln was more interested in building an American "empire" by centralizing Federal power than ending slavery.  This implies Lincoln was premeditated in what he would do as President.  I challenge anyone who believes that to read Lincoln's actual words and, more importantly, examine his actions.

This we know:  Abraham Lincoln was a complicated man and, as a thoughtful person, his views on slavery changed during his many years in public life.  He came to believe that slavery would not die out on its own.

I do recommend purchasing and reading this book since it is so different from the mythical view we have of Lincoln today.  However, when it comes to some of the "facts" and conclusions expounded in this book be very careful what you believe


Haunted
	Yuk!!! Worst Book I've ever read - I read alot and with alot of variety. This book stinks (too farfetched, retched, disgusting and plain weird).


Great stories, good humor, bad narration voice
	The book is brilliant, no question about it. His stories are great, his humor dry and culturally insightful. The problem is that, like all audio books, the voice of the narrator can make or break the experience. And in this case, unfortunately, the voice of the author fails the material.

Sorry, Bill, but your voice is just too droning and monotonous for an audio book. It's hard to get past the first few discs as his voice tends to lull you to sleep. I wouldn't recommend this audio book for listening while driving or in traffic (as I did, and almost got into an accident).

If you want this book, get the paperback


Well intentioned advice for men; women not included.
	Dr. Gray must be a wonderful lover.  As a woman I read his hints and suggestions for a man's love making technique and marvel at his insight.  I truly could not have imagined a man so aware of what a woman really wants in the bedroom.   However there are no corresponding ideas for a woman geared to improviing her skills as a lover.  By maintaining a position of gallant "ladies first" mentality he, in truth, is demeaning the power of women's sexuality.

There is much to be gained by men reading this book.  Attitudes can improve, skill levels can rise and even the articulation of loving feelings can be created and/or grow with the help of this book's suggestions. Women are unfortunately reduced to being receipients of, not participants in, in bedroom activity


It's a CRIME that this book is still for sale.
	The publishers should be sued. Maybe we should get a class-action together.

Imagine taking an instruction manual for the very first Apple computer and putting a new title on it "How to use your new home computer" and selling it in bookstores today. This book is doing EXACTLY that!

Also, it is highly doubtful that the tactic ever worked in the first place. The author's website vanished years ago. In a thinly traded NYSE stock if you try to repeatedly front the specialist with 2000 share orders he will simply move the price 50 cents against you immediately following your next purchase. Game over.

[...


Ego Visible
	I had high hopes when I picked up this book because Styron is a terrific writer and I was interested in the subject. By the time I was done I nearly threw it across the room. Admittedly, Depression makes for a tough topic, but that's not good enough.

There's more to Depression than staring at an empty page, unable to muster the courage to write one single word. The dark places of the soul also have their fires, their drama, even if they are played out in secret.

I will grant that the writing is spare and elegant, as you would expect. But I would have traded all the insider literati name-dropping for one paragraph that gave me a visceral sense of how he felt, something that put me there with him. I have read instruction manuals for appliances with more passion and conviction.

Styron is candid about his descent into alcoholism, but the self-destruction inherent in alcoholism does not imply the elimination of ego, frequently it heralds the triumph of ego. In Darkness Visible, Styron maintains egomaniacal control of his subject through aloof detachment, showcasing a carefully polished veneer, never inviting the reader in.


Gimmie A Break!
	Not that I don't like Shakespeare's works, but his tragedies are terrible, especially this one. I can't understand the language real well, so I have to grab one with the contemporary language so that it'll be easier to understand. I just can't understand this love tragedy at all! Here are some things that confuse me:

*How did this feud really begin?
*Why can't this story end in happily ever after?
*Why does Lady Capulet have to be so stuck up on everybody?
*Why couldn't Shakespeare have written in a language we could all understand?
*Why does everybody have to jump to conclusions?

I simply can't understand why people love this play so much. It's ridiculous! If you want a true love story, try reading "A Midsummer Night's Dream". This one absolutely SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!


More than a disappointment!
	I wanted to cry when I put this book down because I miss the Danielle Steele that wrote 'Thurston House', 'Family Circle' and others.  For years now I have felt that she is simply putting out books because she is contractually obligated to by her publishers.  I really feel like her heart just isn't in it anymore.  She has become very idiosyncratic and predictable.  Every book has her main character 'being honest.' I keep reading because I am a loyal Danielle Steele fan and I write this in hopes she'll read it and either decide she is writing because she loves it (like she once did) or decide to retire and let us love her through her earlier works.  This book was just awful.


Self-laudatory nonsense, and insulting to anyone with half a brain.
	I received this book as a gift.  I was skeptical upon reading the praise for the book on the back cover from such political wonks as Bob Novak and Sean Hannity.  Haven't any well respected catholic theologians or scholars approved of this book?  No.  And with good reason.  It's not a history book, it's a poorly researched piece of garbage designed to bilk "the faithful" out of their hard-earned dollars.

I did read several chapters of the book to be fair.  When Crocker describes the Papal forces during the Albigensian crusade as "soldiers of God, overcoming all the odds to destroy the wicked oppression challenging the authority of the church."  I wanted to puke.  And how about the Inquisition, where Church authorities sanctioned physical torture against "heretics?"  Well, Crocker concedes that torturing someone might stray a little bit from Christ's original message of tolerance... but hey, they threatened the authority of the righteous Catholic church, so they got what they deserved.  Uh, yeah, amen brother.

These considerations aside, the book isn't even well researched, which immediately destroys its credibility with me.  For example from the Albigensian crusade, Crocker states that the armies of the heretics numbered over 100,000, yet with only a few thousand men, the Pope was able to defeat them, as they were filled with the "glory of god" or something like that.  Curiously, in his footnotes he cites nothing to back this claim up.  Maybe because it isn't true.  And any cites to books that have been critical of church policy, like, say, endorsing Mussolini, are derided as "unresearched," "politically motivated" and "shameful"

Ironically, that's exactly what "Triumph" is to me


More branded product masking as substance
	Yet another offering from the Kinkade art product assembly line. Pass on this -- Read real books and buy real art instead


Highly Literate Sophomorism
	This is a well written but ultimately sophomoric disquisition on the concept that if you don't have faith in the supernatural, you have no reason for hope.

According to this book, the rational world is such an unpleasant place that, if you are not religious as Schaeffer defines religious, "[t]he only way of escape lies in a nonrational fantasy world of experience, drugs, absurdity, pornography, an elusive "final experience," madness... ."

Piffle!

Throughout history, a great many people found life to be good without resorting to either madness or Schaeffer's brand of religion. And indeed, religion and rationality need not be foes, as frequently demonstrated by scientists and science writers, such as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould. Reduces our choices to "religion or madness" is just silly.

Schaeffer in this book champions not religion or spirituality, but authoritarianism with a clerical face. His fans won't like that characterization, but my job as a reviewer is to tell you what's in the book; if you seek comfort in authoritarian religion, this book's skillful wordcraft makes it is a good place to start


Is there a lower rating available?
	As a Certified Information Systems Security Professional, I can definitively state that this book does not cover everything that needs to be covered or in any depth whatsoever. I got this book based on the glowing reviews I found here, and I'm at a loss as to why these reviews would have recommended it.

The most aggrevating part about this book is the subtitle "An Integrated Approach to Security in the Organization." The book not only lacks effective security integration techniques, it doesn't seem to address the entire organization where it tries its half-hearted integration.


Waste of time
	Sorry, but I found this book a total waste of time. I never did like the main character - I found HER boring! I laughed out loud when I read another reviewer say that "this person escaped her life to be a secretary?" - good point! It was just so unbelievable a woman would leave her children without any thought really - and to continue this "new" life without really taking time to search her soul. Instead she befriends even more boring people than herself.As far as the ending of the book goes - I couldn't have cared less what happened to her anyway! After reading it (book on tape) I felt I had totally wasted my time. What a disappointment


From Christianity...To 'Churchianity'
	The author comes off as a whining, unhappy camper about having to grow up in what he considers a 'stifling' church environment; further apalled by the Church Founder's belief, in that it (the Worlwide Church Of God) was God's True Church through the ages, right on up to the present 'end time'. Feazell spends a good amount of time giving his negative opinions on Herbert W. Armstrong,the Church's actual teachings, and a general trashing and somewhat of a misreprentation of the general denomination as a whole, labeling it a 'cult'...and further damning its Pastor General as a "heretic", despite the Church's humanitarian works, publishing, Colleges and international outreach for world peace over the past seven decades under the leadership of H.W. Armstrong. Since Armstrong's death in 1986, Feazell and his cohort Joseph Tkach Jr. seem to be having a field day jumping up and down on his remains, and writing books on how great it feels to be loosed from having to keep the apostolic Holy Days, sabbaths, ten commandments (which, in his estimation are now the 'ten suggestions') and general lifestyle of this 7th Day Church Of God denomination. Mr. Feazell apparently does not speak for all the Church membership, as over 100,000 members left and formed various smaller independent Church Of God conferences throughout the United States...and continuing the legacy and apostolic, traditional Christian system of worship restored by Herbert W. Armstrong in 1927.
Recommended reading: "Autobiography of Herbert W. Armstrong"; "Mystery Of The Ages"; "The Incredible Human Potential"


Its complete crap
	This is yet another book where anyone who passed a high school bio class will know is crap. [...] he seems to have found a devoted crew of morons who believe that he really can cure all.   If you ever go to one of their conventions, you'll know that its AMWAY for stupid soccer moms with allergic kids.


Too long, boring, badly written, not exciting, etc...
	John Katzenbach is an accomplished author and I had previously read and enjoyed another of his novels (The Analyst), so I was surprised at how bad The Shadow Man was.  The premise of the plot is that four very old Jewish people, survivors of the Holecaust, believe they have seen the "Shadow Man".  The Shadow Man was a Jew who joined forces with the Nazis to find Jews that were hiding to avoid certain doom in concentration camps.  These four old people feared the Shadow Man more than anything.  When one of them is killed, a retired police detective named Simon Winter looks into who the Shadow Man is.  Meanwhile, the Miami police are also investigating the death of the elderly Jewish woman and have young gangster as a suspect.

Eventually, Winter and the police and the District Attourney join to hunt the Shadow Man, a man of pure evil.  As the book villian, it was hard to fear a villian who was a killer 50 years ago but was now in his 70s.  Also, this book barely touches on WWII, yet purports at times to be a novel about WWII.  I've read a lot of great WWII novels, and this book would have been great if it had been set in the 60s.  But setting it present day with senior citizens and the main characters wasn't too exciting.  It wasn't exciting primarily because I wondered where had the Shadow Man been all these years?  Why was he starting to kill now?  The Shadow Man had no motivation to kill.

Finally, I realized I didn't like this book when I was skipping paragraphs at a time during the last 20 pages.  The entire book was like this with each character prone to long rambling inner thoughts that really added nothing to the story.  If you take away the WWII angle, this novel is bad.  The WWII angle adds some excitement, but there are probably thousands of books out there that relate the horror of WWII better than this one does.

The review from Publishers Weekly printed above summarizes my thoughts and deserves to be repeated..."Katzenbach (Just Cause) has some good Holocaust and WWII vignettes and pretty good cop-talk here, but the book is burdened by flat characterization, a slow pace, an odd, unsatisfying ending and a serious need for editing.


Is it ethical to sell this book
	This book was written in 2000 from events occuring in 1998!!!  Totally out of date! Useless!! Wondering why it is still for sale.  The author, contacted by email responded but did not address the questions asked, simply giving excuses and mentioning that he wrote another book much better than this one...  Outrageaous!  Spread the word and if you own the book, get your money back


Incredibily unpleasant read
	I have been a huge fan of the Anna Pigeon mysteries.  The hard truth about Hard Truth is skip it.  It is a very unpleasant experience.

The graphic representation of child abuse and cruelty in this book still makes me ill.

What I've loved about the Anna Pigeon series is that I felt like I got a good sense of the national park where the story took place with an appreciation for the natural beauty of the area.  I doubt Anna spent more than a night in Rocky Mountain National Park.  Not only does she completely miss the unique character of the park but the park has no necessary link to the story.  The whole thing could have taken place in urban Chicago.

I have been picking up Nevada Barr books as fast as I could find them.  This book, however, was truely repulsive.  I'll be much more cautious about investing a part of my life in her next book


Dr. Narby's Wild Ride
	Jeremy Narby's The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge, started out decently enough with Narby reminiscing about his days doing field work in the Amazon Basin and from there he goes over some interesting ideas regarding DNA and Serpent Myths but then all goes down hill as he suddenly becomes a follower of Intelligent Design and makes an all out attack on Darwinian Evolution and Science itself.

A number of Narby's ideas regarding DNA and Shamanism are intriguing enough but he has apparently decided that all Shamanism is based on Molecular Biology, while he freely admits that he is being very reductionist on this point, I still see many problems with his view that Shamanism is based on Molecular Biology at heart. His argument mostly surrounds the symbol of the Serpent/Dragon which is present in many different mythologies often with connections to water and associations with twins. He decides that this is in actually a representation of DNA as viewed by Shamans and believes that all serpents in mythology and shamanic visions are actually DNA. Since DNA emits photons and this has been shown to possibly play a part in cell communication (along with the traditional chemical communication) Narby believes that in shamanic trances the shaman becomes able to see the light emitted by DNA (which often show up as snakes) and the shaman communicates with the individual bits of DNA (which is conscious) and the entire linked network of DNA based life. As justification for this argument he points out that some groups hold that spirits are beings of pure light, to him this is almost literally correct as the spirits are actually DNA and communicate through light as "spirits".

From there he goes on to say that all ladders, staircases, and ropes in shamanic quests are representations of DNA and when the shaman uses them he is travelling along DNA and similarly when the shaman goes to the underworld he is sinking down to the world of Molecular Biology (although since one can apparently work with and see DNA in the middle world one must ask why one would need to shrink down). While these views might make for some interesting theological discussion about some shamanic practices, Narby seems to have ignored the psychological aspects of visions and quests and any elements other than snakes or other things that just happen to be long and thin. Given Narby's view of spirits as DNA one must ask what spiritual helpers/allies are? Is someone's spiritual guides DNA in some bacteria on my hand? Will I kill Yahweh by washing my hands with anti-bacterial soap (hey maybe that's why Jesus decided that washing one's hands was bad!)?

A lot of his proof is like the proof of Erich von D�niken except that where D�niken saw aliens and spacecraft, Narby sees DNA and Molecules. Take for example this D�niken-esque proof from the book:

"The second was a rock painting of the Rainbow Snake. I looked at it more closely and saw two things: All around the serpent there were sorts of chromosomes, in their upside-down "U" shape, and underneath it there was a kind of ladder!" (p. 79)

By Chapter 10, entitled Biology's Blind Spot, Narby has decided that Evolution is Wrong and all of Science must be toppled. This bit seems to have come out of nowhere like someone spliced a Pro-Intelligent Design rant into a book where it didn't belong and as with all Pro-ID and Creationist literature we get the same old faulty attacks again and again. Attacks such as Evolution being based on a Circular argument because the most fit species survive to spread their genes and therefore are more fit. Yes, that is the definition of fitness, and sometimes the basis of things start as tautologies such as the Theory of Gravity but like Gravity Natural Selection and evolution is justified and testable by looking at it's predictive power. Population genetics and mathematics shows clearly that natural selection is very predictive and has so far not been falsified. Similarly, we can also look at the fossil record in geological strata for evidence of evolutionary change over time.

After that attack Narby then attacks the Central Dogma (Which is how transcription of DNA to proteins works) by misinterpreting what Francis Crick meant. Crick never meant the word Dogma in Central Dogma to be taken in the sense it is used in religion instead he meant it as a joke name for a grand hypothesis that he had at the time little actual experimental evidence for. Narby misinterprets Crick's joke to argue that evolution is apparently Faith based, since this argument has no basis in reality it falls flat immediately.

He then argues that ants and other animals are fully conscious because they do amazing things that seem to require forethought and they tap into DNA like shamans to do things. Higher animals are smart and may have consciousness but ants are pretty dumb. One is reminded of Edward Selous and others' ideas about thought-transference to explain how flocks of birds move and how ants and termites build hives, as it turns out birds flocking behaviour operates on simple instinctual rules (clustering, maintaining speed, and appropriate distance) and so are Ant Nesting behaviours. One proof of this is to put food just out of the reach of ants, and some dirt underneath, while they understand how to move earth and tunnel they will never purposely move earth to build ramps, bridges, or tunnels to reach a goal. The birds who flew in flocks and the ancestors of ants who had developed nesting behaviour managed to survive better and so these behaviours somehow became instincts and persisted.

Now Narby makes the extremely tired argument that life is too complicated to be determined by chance alone, and he is correct on this matter. Too bad there is more than chance guiding evolution, we also have Natural Selection guiding the process, to quote Richard Dawkins: "Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators." The combinations which work survive and prosper and are kept in the population. Narby argues "How can a small telephone directory of information emerge from random processes?" (P. 142) to answer this I wish to quote a bit of Michael Shermer's 25 Creationists' Arguments and 25 Evolutionists' Answers which nicely illustrates how natural selection can produce Shakespeare's Hamlet quickly from random letters:

"Natural selection is not "random" nor does it operate by "chance." Natural selection preserves the gains and eradicates the mistakes. The eye evolved from a single, light-sensitive cell into the complex eye of today through hundreds if not thousands of intermediate steps, many of which still exist in nature. In order for the monkey to type the first 13 letters of Hamlet's soliloquy by chance, it would take 26 to the power of 13 number of trials for success. This is 16 times as great as the total number of seconds that have elapsed in the lifetime of the solar system. But if each correct letter is preserved and each incorrect letter eradicated, the process operates much faster. How much faster? Richard Hardison constructed a computer program in which letters were "selected" for or against, and it took an average of only 335.2 trials to produce the sequence of letters TOBEORNOTTOBE. This takes the computer less than 90 seconds. The entire play can be done in about 4.5 days!"

Narby also tries to argue that gaps in the fossil record such as in whale evolution and other places where there are few or no intermediate forms indicate that evolution has not occurred. This however just means that in this instance there are gaps in the fossil record because the fossils have not been found yet. Narby also points to the seemingly rapid appearance of species in the fossil record as an argument against evolution. Apparently Narby has never heard of Punctuated Equilibrium.

Narby stunningly also tries to argue that because large portions of DNA is identical over many different species that this somehow indicates design, unfortunately for Narby a lot of these identical sequences of DNA code for the basic processes of life. A human who couldn't cope with oxygen or a fox which could not metabolize energy would not last long in this world. The fact that these sequences are identical is actually a point for evolution because the same processes have been preserved and we even see similar basic skeletal structures in animals even when it is not efficient or useful such as digits in the fins of dolphins or the appendix in humans.

Finally, we come back full circle to his argument about Natural Selection being a form of circular logic and he ties to paint Evolution as unfalsifiable (No, we can test it's predictions in such fields as Genetics and Palaeontology) and being denounce by an increasing number of scientists (not at all true).

All in all while Narby has some interesting nuggets of information and ideas in The Cosmic Serpent he ultimately seems to squander these ideas by jumping around in random directions and to strange conclusions based on very little evidence


Too Out of Touch Herself
	She wastes the first chapters, and my time, going to extremes with kooky consultants that only someone who doesn't deserve to be hired would use.  It adds to the drama and despair I suppose, but it comes off as contrived, and as an attempt to pander to her extremist/pessimist reading coterie.
I don't think Babs could have possibly put more words in quotations.  Her OCD with quotated words and terms is a distraction that ultimately drove me nuts. I can't believe she's an accomplished writer.
Her writing style can best be described as unsmooth and read-stoppage inducing.
Oh well, her intentions were good


Read the first  2 chapters...
	...and dump it...great advice given in a previous review.

I think the "shame" about this book is that it glosses over some very interesting ideas with (in my opinion) some wholly unsupported and mostly un-related crap.

Talbot is to the theory of the Holographic Universe what Mark Furman was to the guilt of OJ Simpson.  Whatever truth there is to it will be hidden by his presentation of "false evidence"


Utterly Silly-GWTW's Legacy is Safe.
	The author has her narrator("Cinnamon") spend most of her time comparing herself to the fascinating Scarlett,in a game of wish-fulfillment one-upmanship. Even though she's calling the shots,as it's her book, Scarlett still comes out miles ahead. Perhaps it was only that way for a certain strata of society,but there WAS once a beautiful world of chivalry and gallantry and bravery and even some idealism-even if misplaced-just as there has been throughout the ages in other societies,such as "Ivanhoe" presents.The story may have been one-sided,but it's the side MM chose to tell,and there's kernel of truth in the "myth" of the Old South,as in all myths.

 Margaret Mitchell has nothing to fear from this silly so-called "parody",which is really a subconscious-or not so subconscious,in fact-effort to knock from her pedestal,that epitome of heroines-Katie Scarlett O'Hara and the wonderful Melanie Wilkes.As if Rhett would ever give any other woman a serious thought-he was obsessed with Scarlett.That's why he turned to women like Belle Watling.And to imagine Mammy killing the male babies,when she had been devoted to Ellen O'Hara from Ellen's childhood.Thank goodness this book isn't a pimple on the fanny of the classic GWTW,because what it is a a travesty-and not even a well-written or engaging one at that.GWTW will still be read and loved for all time,like the classic it is,when this book is selling for a quarter at garage sales.I didn't even pay that,thank goodness-the woman gave it to me,and I read it and burned it with the rest of the trash.I'd give it a negative star if there was such a rating.Ludicrous and laughable-try again,Ms Randall,and try to get over the jealousy of Scarlett and Co. Again,Margaret Mitchell need not fear,LOL


Genetics:  From Genes to Genomes
	I found this book extremely verbose and unorganized.  It would serve as a great reference book for a lab researcher or grad student.  But it's way too technical and dense for an introductory genetics class.  The authors do a poor job presenting the material in a comprehensible way to an undergraduate genetics student.  Not recommended


Not enough substance
	The author makes a good case for index mutual funds but there are
too many digressions about the author's extracurricular activities.
Do you really want a pumpkin pie recipe in a book about mutual funds